[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 761-778]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. 
        Murray):
  S. 193. A bill to authorize funding for Advanced Scientific Research 
Computing Programs at the Department of Energy for fiscal years 2002 
through 2006, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
authorizing the Secretary of Energy to provide for the Office of 
Science to develop a robust scientific computing infrastructure to 
solve a number of grand challenges in scientific computing. This bi-
partisan bill, which is referred to as the ``Department of Energy 
Advanced Scientific Computing Act'' is co-sponsored by Senators Craig, 
Schumer, and Murray. Before discussing this program in detail, let me 
briefly frame the proposed effort. First, I will outline the tremendous 
advances made in the last decade for scientific computing. Second, I 
will give a few examples of the ``grand challenges'' in scientific 
computing. Third, I will discuss how the proposed program at the Office 
of Science will give our nation's scientists the tools to meet these 
grand challenges. I will conclude by demonstrating how this program 
integrates with defense related computing programs at the DOE and 
across the interagency.
  Experts agree that scientific computing R&D is at a critical 
juncture. If the breakthroughs proceed as predicted, the information 
age could affect our everyday lives far beyond what we nonexperts 
currently grasp. It is terribly important that we, as a nation, ensure 
that the U.S. maintains a leadership role in scientific computing R&D. 
If we fall behind in this rapidly changing field, our nation could lose 
its ability to control the national security, economic and social 
consequences from these new information technologies.
  What are the possible breakthroughs in scientific computing that 
merit such strong programmatic attention? Within the next five years we 
expect that advanced scientific computing machines will achieve peak 
performance speeds of 100 teraflops or 100 trillion arithmetic 
operations per second; that is 100 times faster than today's most 
advanced civilian computers. To put things in perspective, the fastest 
Pentium III available today can perform about 2 gigaflops (2 billion 
operations per second), so a 100 teraflops machine is about 50,000 
times faster than today's fastest Pentium III. We call this new wave of 
computing ``terascale computing''. This new level of computing will 
allow scientists and engineers to explore problems at a level of 
accuracy and detail that was unimaginable ten years ago. I will discuss 
the scientific and engineering opportunities in more detail later. 
First, let me discuss some of the challenges in terascale computing.
  The major advance that led to terascale computing is the use of 
highly parallel computer architectures. Parallel computers send out 
mathematical instructions to thousands of processors at once rather 
than waiting for each instruction to be sequentially completed on a 
single processor. The problem we face in moving to terascale computers 
is writing the computer software that utilizes their full performance 
capabilities. When we say ``peak'' speeds we mean the ability to use 
the full capability of the computer. This happens very rarely in 
parallel computers. For example, in 1990 on state-of-the-art Cray 
supercomputers with about eight processors, we could obtain, on the 
average, about 40-50 percent of the computer's ``peak'' speed. Today, 
with massively parallel machines using thousands of processors, we 
often obtain only 5-10 percent of the machine's ``peak'' speed. The 
issue is how to tailor our traditional scientific codes to run 
efficiently on these terascale parallel computers. This is the foremost 
challenge that must be overcome to realize the full potential of 
terascale computing.
  Another problem we face as we move to terascale computing is the 
amount of data we generate. Consider the following. Your PC, if it is 
one of the latest models, has a hard drive that will hold about 10 
gigabytes of data. If we successfully begin to implement terascale 
computing, we will be generating ``petabytes'' of data for each 
calculation. A petabyte of data is one million gigabytes or the 
equivalent of 100,000 hard drives like the one on your PC. A teraflop 
machine user will make many runs on these machines. But raw data isn't 
knowledge. To turn data into knowledge, we must be able to analyze it--
to determine what it is telling us about the phenomena that we are 
studying. None of the data management methods that we have today can 
handle petabytes data sets. This is the second challenge that must be 
overcome.
  And, many more challenges exist.
  To make effective use of today's and the future's computing 
capability we need to establish a scientific program that is radically 
different from what researchers are used to today. Future scientific 
computing initiatives must be broad multi-disciplinary efforts. 
Tomorrow's scientific computing effort will employ not only the 
physicist who wishes to probe the minute details of solid matter in 
order to say, built a better magnet, it will include a computer 
scientist to help ensure that the physicist's software makes efficient 
use of the terascale computer. Terascale computing will also require 
mathematicians to develop specialized routines to adapt the solution of 
the physicist's mathematical equations to these parallel architectures. 
Finally, terascale computers will require specialists in data 
networking and visualization who understand how to manage and analyze 
the massive amounts of data.
  I note these problems to highlight the complexities of tomorrow's 
scientific computing environment from the common information 
technologies that we employ today. However, because computing 
technology moves at such a rapid rate, elements of the issues that I 
have described will surely impact us in the near future. Given the 
impact information technologies have had only in ten years, it is 
important that we, as a nation, lead the initiative in these 
breakthroughs so that we can positively control the impact that the 
these revolutionary technologies will have on our economy and the 
social fabric of our Nation.
  What are the important problems that we expect terascale computing to 
address? We call these problems ``Grand Challenges''. Terascle 
computing will enable climate researchers

[[Page 762]]

to predict with greater certainty how our planet's climate will change 
in the future, allowing us to develop the best possible strategies and 
policy for addressing climate change. Terascale computing will help 
chemists understand the chemical processes involved in combustion, 
which will translate into more efficient, less polluting engines. 
Terascale computing will allow material scientists to design 
nanomaterials atom by atom, which will lead to stronger, yet lighter 
and hence more energy efficient materials. Terascale computing will 
assist nanoscience researchers by simulating atom manipulation before 
undertaking complex and expensive experiments. Nanotechnology will lead 
to whole new generations of computer chips, information systems, and 
stronger, yet lighter materials. Finally, terascale computing will 
enable biologists to understand the structure of the proteins encoded 
in the human genome, which will lead to better medicines and health for 
our citizens. These fundamental grand challenge problems are now 
addressable with the recent advances in scientific computing. Due to 
the impact the grand challenge problems will have on our lives, we as a 
nation, must take the lead in their investigation.
  What are the elements of the proposed effort? The program I propose 
will build on the Department of Energy's decades of leadership in high 
performance computing and networks to ensure that terascale computing 
and petabyte data visualization becomes a positive force for the U.S. 
The proposed program has four parts. The first part is the 
establishment of core teams of researchers who specialize in the grand 
challenge problem itself. An example of a core team is one made up of 
geologists and geochemists allied with computer scientists and applied 
mathematicians to write large software programs associated with oil 
exploration or the diffusion of waste in the subsurface. The scientific 
simulation software created by these core teams will be the ``engines'' 
that drive the scientific discovery process. The second element of the 
program enhances the research efforts in computer science and 
computational mathematics that underlie this software development 
effort. These specialists will ensure that the core teams effectively 
use massively parallel computers--not at the current 5-10 percent but 
at 50 percent of the computer's peak running speed. These specialists 
will also develop the software to manage and visualize the petabytes of 
data that the core teams, as well as the next generation of 
experimental facilities, generate. Third, this program will fund 
specialists to develop the networking and electronic collaboration 
software that will allow researchers all across the U.S.--in national 
laboratories, universities, and industry to routinely use petabyte data 
sets. This new networking capability will translate quickly to the 
private sector in the areas of medicine, business transactions, and 
education over the internet. Fourth, this program will fund the unique 
computer hardware required for scientific investigations of the ``Grand 
Challenges'' on a continuing basis. Many of the grand challenge 
problems will benefit from specialized computers. This program will 
fund such specialized computers. For instance, IBM will build in the 
year 2004 or 2005 a unique 1000 teraflops (1000 trillion operations per 
second) computer called ``Blue Gene''. Blue Gene will be 500,000 times 
faster than your desk PC. This machine will be used by DNA researchers 
to predict the structure of proteins and in doing so allow drugs and 
medicines to be optimized before they are commercially produced. We 
propose to place these one-of-a-kind computers at national user 
facilities and make them available to U.S. researchers in national and 
government laboratories, universities, and industry.
  In summary, we are proposing a program that will substantially 
advance our understanding of complex scientific phenomena that affect 
our daily lives. At the present we cannot fully understand these 
phenomena; it is critical that we master it in our national interest so 
to benefit our nation and its people.
  Overall, this program will integrate into other DOE advanced 
computing efforts and into our national strategy for advanced 
scientific computing. In FY01, the DOE National Nuclear Security 
Agency, NNSA, funded the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative or 
ASCI at $477 million dollars. ASCI's mission--to develop the capability 
to simulate the safety and surety of the nuclear weapons in our 
stockpile--is critical to the security of our nation. The ASCI program 
is a focused and classified program with one primary user--the nuclear 
weapons community. Its problems revolve around materials and plasmas 
undergoing rapid changes from a nuclear explosion. The Advanced 
Scientific Computing Program I am proposing is unclassified and covers 
many other areas of science critical to the long term well being of the 
nation. This program will involve interaction between researchers at 
the nation's national and federal laboratories, universities, and 
industry. That is not to say that there will be no integration between 
these two worthy and important efforts. Both efforts involve terascale 
computers, so clearly we expect that many of the central tools common 
to both in terms of hardware design and underlying software for 
networks and visualization will be shared. Both programs will benefit 
by the two diverse communities working towards the common goal of 
terascale computing. And, the NNSA will be able to infuse fresh ideas 
from the universities and industry on parallel architectures and data 
visualization into their efforts in ensuring the surety of our nation's 
nuclear weapons stockpile.
  Within the U.S. Government, this effort will fall under the purview 
of the National Coordinating Office for Computing, Information and 
Communications, ``NCO/CIC''. This Office is charged with coordinating 
government-sponsored information technology research programs across 
all of the government agencies. The NCO/CIC provides a forum for DOE to 
coordinate its scientific computing program with information technology 
programs in NSF, DOD, NASA, NIH, NOAA, and other government agencies 
interested in high-performance computing. Although the DOE program is 
focused on its energy, environmental, and scientific missions, many 
benefits will be derived by coordinating its activities with related 
computing activities in other agencies. Finally, I note that in our 
national implementation plan for ``Information for the Twenty First 
Century'', the NSF and the DOE were given the leadership for ``Advanced 
Scientific Computing for Science, Engineering and the Nation''. The 
program I have outlined supports that role.
  In summary, I have outlined a scientific computing program that will 
advance our ability to understand complex but important physical, 
chemical, and biological phenomena. Advancing our understanding of 
global climate change will lead to a better understanding on the 
relationship between our energy consumption and the climate on our 
planet. Mastering materials and chemical processes at an atomic level 
will enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness in many areas such as 
energy efficient materials manufacturing and develop new computer chip 
technologies. Understanding the flow of contaminants in the groundwater 
will help develop better strategies for cleaning up DOE's sites and 
help commercial oil and gas extraction. Predicting the structure of 
proteins will lead to more effective drugs with minimal side effects. 
Beyond solution of the ``Grand Challenges'' are the advancements that 
will be made in advanced computing and networking technologies which 
will benefit users in areas as diverse as medicine and business. These 
problems are of national significance to the health of our citizens and 
our future economy in the 21st century.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 194. A bill to authorize funding for successful reentry of 
criminal offenders into local communities; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the 
``Offender

[[Page 763]]

Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2001,'' a bill I first introduced 
last July. The bill is also a part of S. 16, the Democrat's omnibus 
crime legislation.
  Too often we have short-term solutions for long-term problems. All 
too often we think about today, but not tomorrow. It's time that we 
start looking forward. It's time that we face the dire situation of 
prisoners re-entering our communities with insufficient monitoring, 
little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient 
housing and deficient basic life skills.
  According to the Department of Justice, 1.25 million offenders are 
now living in prisons and another 600,000 offenders are incarcerated in 
local jails. A record number of those inmates--approximately 585,400 
will return to communities this year. Historically, two-thirds of 
returning prisoners have been rearrested for new crimes within three 
years.
  The safety threat posed by this volume of prisoner returns has been 
exacerbated by the fact that states and communities can't possibly 
properly supervise all their returning offenders, parole systems have 
been abolished in thirteen states and policy shifts toward more 
determinate sentencing have reduced the courts' authority to impose 
supervisory conditions on offenders returning to their communities.
  State systems have also reduced the numbers of transitional support 
programs aimed at facilitating the return to productive community life 
styles. Recent studies indicate that many returning prisoners receive 
no help in finding employment upon release and most offenders have low 
literacy and other basic educational skills that can impede successful 
reentry.
  At least 55 percent of offenders are fathers of minor children, and 
therefore face a number of issues related to child support and other 
family responsibilities during incarceration and after release. 
Substance abuse and mental health problems also add to concerns over 
community safety. Approximately 70 percent of state prisoners and 57 
percent of federal prisoners have a history of drug use or abuse. 
Research by the Department of Justice indicates that between 60 and 75 
percent of inmates with heroin or cocaine problems return to drugs 
within three months when untreated. An estimated 187,000 state and 
federal prison inmates have self-reported mental health problems. 
Mentally ill inmates are more likely than other offenders to have 
committed a violent offense and be violent recidivists. Few states 
connect mental health treatment in prisons with treatment in the return 
community. Finally, offenders with contagious diseases such as HIV/AIDS 
and tuberculosis are released with no viable plan to continue their 
medical treatment so they present a significant danger to public 
health. And while the federal prison population and reentry system 
differs from the state prison population and reentry systems, there are 
nonetheless significant reentry challenges at the federal level.
  We need to start thinking about what to do with these people. We need 
to start thinking in terms of helping these people make a transition to 
the community so that they don't go back to a life of crime and can be 
productive members of our society. We need to start thinking about the 
long-term impact of what we do after we send people to jail.
  My legislation creates demonstration reentry programs for federal, 
state and local prisoners. The programs are designed to assist high-
risk, high-need offenders who have served their prison sentences, but 
who pose the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they 
lack the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, 
and the substance abuse treatment and other mental and medical health 
services they need to successfully reintegrate into society.
  Innovative strategies and emerging technologies present new 
opportunities to improve reentry systems. This legislation creates 
federal and state demonstration projects that utilize these strategies 
and technologies. The projects share many core components, including a 
more seamless reentry system, reentry officials who are more directly 
involved with the offender and who can swiftly impose intermediate 
sanctions if the offender does not follow the designated reentry plan, 
and the combination of enhanced service delivery and enhanced 
monitoring. The different projects are targeted at different prisoner 
populations and each has some unique features. The promise of the 
legislation is to establish the demonstration projects and then to 
rigorously evaluate them to determine which measures and strategies 
most successfully reintegrate prisoners into the community as well as 
which measures and strategies can be promoted nationally to address the 
growing national problem of released prisoners.
  There are currently 17 unfunded state pilot projects, including one 
in Delaware, which are being supported with technical assistance by the 
Department of Justice. My legislation will fund these pilot projects 
and will encourage states, territories, and Indian tribes to partner 
with units of local government and other non-profit organizations to 
establish adult offender reentry demonstration projects. The grants may 
be expended for implementing graduated sanctions and incentives, 
monitoring released prisoners, and providing, as appropriate, drug and 
alcohol abuse testing and treatment, mental and medical health 
services, victim impact educational classes, employment training, 
conflict resolution skills training, and other social services. My 
legislation also encourages state agencies, municipalities, public 
agencies, nonprofit organizations and tribes to make agreements with 
courts to establish ``reentry courts'' to monitor returning offenders, 
establish graduated sanctions and incentives, test and treat returning 
offenders for drug and alcohol abuse, and provide reentering offenders 
with mental and medical health services, victim impact educational 
classes, employment training, conflict resolution skills training, and 
other social services.
  This legislation also re-authorizes the drug court program created by 
Congress in the 1994 Crime Law as a cost-effective, innovative way to 
deal with non-violent offenders in need of drug treatment. This is the 
same language as the ``Drug Court Re-authorization and Improvement 
Act'' that I introduced with Senator Specter last Congress.
  Rather than just churning people through the revolving door of the 
criminal justice system, drug courts help these folks to get their acts 
together so they won't be back. When they graduate from drug court 
programs they are clean and sober and more prepared to participate in 
society. In order to graduate, they are required to finish high school 
or obtain a GED, hold down a job, and keep up with financial 
obligations including drug court fees and child support payments. They 
are also required to have a sponsor who will keep them on track.
  This program works. And that is not just my opinion. Columbia 
University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) 
found that these courts are effective at taking offenders with little 
previous treatment history and keeping them in treatment; that they 
provide closer supervision than other community programs to which the 
offenders could be assigned; that they reduce crime; and that they are 
cost-effective.
  According to the Department of Justice, drug courts save at least 
$5,000 per offender each year in prison costs alone. That says nothing 
of the cost savings associated with future crime prevention. Just as 
important, scarce prison beds are freed up for violent criminals.
  I have saved what may be the most important statistic for last. Two-
thirds of drug court participants are parents of young children. After 
getting sober through the coerced treatment mandated by the court, many 
of these individuals are able to be real parents again. More than 500 
drug-free babies have been born to female drug court participants, a 
sizable victory for society and the budget alike.
  This bill re-authorizes programs to provide for drug treatment in 
state and federal prisons. According to CASA, 80 percent of the men and 
women behind

[[Page 764]]

bars in the United States today are there because of alcohol or drugs. 
They were either drunk or high when they committed their crime, broke 
an alcohol or drug law, stole to support their habit, or have a history 
of drug or alcohol abuse. The need for drug and alcohol treatment in 
our nations prisons and jails is clear.
  Providing treatment to criminal offenders is not ``soft.'' It is a 
smart crime prevention policy. If we do not treat addicted offenders 
before they are released, they will be turned back onto our streets 
with the same addiction problem that got them in trouble in the first 
place and they will re-offend. Inmates who are addicted to drugs and 
alcohol are more likely to be incarcerated repeatedly than those 
without a substance abuse problem. This is not my opinion, it is fact. 
According to CASA, 81 percent of inmates with five or more prior 
convictions have been habitual drug users compared to 41 percent of 
first-time offenders. Re-authorizing prison-based treatment programs is 
a good investment and is an important crime prevention initiative.
  This legislation is just a first step--but a necessary one. Someday, 
we will look back and wonder why we didn't think of this sooner. For 
now, we need to implement these pilot projects, help people make it in 
their communities and make our streets safer at the same time. I am 
certain that in the end we will revel in the results.
  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. 194

       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 ``Offender Reentry and 
     Community Safety Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) There are now nearly 1,900,000 individuals in our 
     country's prisons and jails, including over 140,000 
     individuals under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of 
     Prisons.
       (2) Enforcement of offender violations of conditions of 
     releases has sharply increased the number of offenders who 
     return to prison--while revocations comprised 17 percent of 
     State prison admissions in 1980, they rose to 36 percent in 
     1998.
       (3) Although prisoners generally are serving longer 
     sentences than they did a decade ago, most eventually reenter 
     communities; for example, in 1999, approximately 538,000 
     State prisoners and over 50,000 Federal prisoners a record 
     number were returned to American communities. Approximately 
     100,000 State offenders return to communities and received no 
     supervision whatsoever.
       (4) Historically, two-thirds of returning State prisoners 
     have been rearrested for new crimes within 3 years, so these 
     individuals pose a significant public safety risk and a 
     continuing financial burden to society.
       (5) A key element to effective post-incarceration 
     supervision is an immediate, predetermined, and appropriate 
     response to violations of the conditions of supervision.
       (6) An estimated 187,000 State and Federal prison inmates 
     have been diagnosed with mental health problems; about 70 
     percent of State prisoners and 57 percent of Federal 
     prisoners have a history of drug use or abuse; and nearly 75 
     percent of released offenders with heroin or cocaine problems 
     return to using drugs within 3 months if untreated; however, 
     few States link prison mental health treatment programs with 
     those in the return community.
       (7) Between 1987 and 1997, the volume of juvenile 
     adjudicated cases resulting in court-ordered residential 
     placements rose 56 percent. In 1997 alone, there were a total 
     of 163,200 juvenile court-ordered residential placements. The 
     steady increase of youth exiting residential placement has 
     strained the juvenile justice aftercare system, however, 
     without adequate supervision and services, youth are likely 
     to relapse, recidivate, and return to confinement at the 
     public's expense.
       (8) Emerging technologies and multidisciplinary community-
     based strategies present new opportunities to alleviate the 
     public safety risk posed by released prisoners while helping 
     offenders to reenter their communities successfully.

      SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) establish demonstration projects in several Federal 
     judicial districts, the District of Columbia, and in the 
     Federal Bureau of Prisons, using new strategies and emerging 
     technologies that alleviate the public safety risk posed by 
     released prisoners by promoting their successful 
     reintegration into the community;
       (2) establish court-based programs to monitor the return of 
     offenders into communities, using court sanctions to promote 
     positive behavior;
       (3) establish offender reentry demonstration projects in 
     the states using government and community partnerships to 
     coordinate cost efficient strategies that ensure public 
     safety and enhance the successful reentry into communities of 
     offenders who have completed their prison sentences;
       (4) establish intensive aftercare demonstration projects 
     that address public safety and ensure the special reentry 
     needs of juvenile offenders by coordinating the resources of 
     juvenile correctional agencies, juvenile courts, juvenile 
     parole agencies, law enforcement agencies, social service 
     providers, and local Workforce Investment Boards; and
       (5) rigorously evaluate these reentry programs to determine 
     their effectiveness in reducing recidivism and promoting 
     successful offender reintegration.

            TITLE I--FEDERAL REENTRY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

     SEC. 101. FEDERAL REENTRY CENTER DEMONSTRATION.

       (a) Authority and Establishment of Demonstration Project.--
     From funds made available to carry out this Act, the Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts, shall 
     establish the Federal Reentry Center Demonstration project. 
     The project shall involve appropriate prisoners from the 
     Federal prison population and shall utilize community 
     corrections facilities, home confinement, and a coordinated 
     response by Federal agencies to assist participating 
     prisoners, under close monitoring and more seamless 
     supervision, in preparing for and adjusting to reentry into 
     the community.
       (b) Project Elements.--The project authorized by subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) a Reentry Review Team for each prisoner, consisting of 
     representatives from the Bureau of Prisons, the United States 
     Probation System, and the relevant community corrections 
     facility, who shall initially meet with the prisoner to 
     develop a reentry plan tailored to the needs of the prisoner 
     and incorporating victim impact information, and will 
     thereafter meet regularly to monitor the prisoner's progress 
     toward reentry and coordinate access to appropriate reentry 
     measures and resources;
       (2) regular drug testing, as appropriate;
       (3) a system of graduated levels of supervision within the 
     community corrections facility to promote community safety, 
     provide incentives for prisoners to complete the reentry 
     plan, including victim restitution, and provide a reasonable 
     method for imposing immediate sanctions for a prisoner's 
     minor or technical violation of the conditions of 
     participation in the project;
       (4) substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and 
     medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and 
     educational training, life skills instruction, conflict 
     resolution skills training, batterer intervention programs, 
     assistance obtaining suitable affordable housing, and other 
     programming to promote effective reintegration into the 
     community as needed;
       (5) to the extent practicable, the recruitment and 
     utilization of local citizen volunteers, including volunteers 
     from the faith-based and business communities, to serve as 
     advisers and mentors to prisoners being released into the 
     community;
       (6) a description of the methodology and outcome measures 
     that will be used to evaluate the program; and
       (7) notification to victims on the status and nature of 
     offenders' reentry plan.
       (c) Probation Officers.--From funds made available to carry 
     out this Act, the Director of the Administrative Office of 
     the United States Courts shall assign one or more probation 
     officers from each participating judicial district to the 
     Reentry Demonstration project. Such officers shall be 
     assigned to and stationed at the community corrections 
     facility and shall serve on the Reentry Review Teams.
       (d) Project Duration.--The Reentry Center Demonstration 
     project shall begin not later than 6 months following the 
     availability of funds to carry out this section, and shall 
     last 3 years. The Attorney General may extend the project for 
     a period of up to 6 months to enable participant prisoners to 
     complete their involvement in the project.
       (e) Selection of Districts.--The Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Judicial Conference of the United 
     States, shall select an appropriate number of Federal 
     judicial districts in which to carry out the Reentry Center 
     Demonstration project.
       (f) Coordination of Projects.--The Attorney General, may, 
     if appropriate, include in the Reentry Center Demonstration 
     project offenders who participated in the Enhanced In-Prison 
     Vocational Assessment and Training Demonstration project 
     established by section 105.

     SEC. 102. FEDERAL HIGH-RISK OFFENDER REENTRY DEMONSTRATION.

       (a) Authority and Establishment of Demonstration Project.--
     From funds made available to carry out this Act, the Director 
     of the Administrative Office of the United

[[Page 765]]

     States Courts, in consultation with the Attorney General, 
     shall establish the Federal High-Risk Offender Reentry 
     Demonstration project. The project shall involve Federal 
     offenders under supervised release who have previously 
     violated the terms of their release following a term of 
     imprisonment and shall utilize, as appropriate and indicated, 
     community corrections facilities, home confinement, 
     appropriate monitoring technologies, and treatment and 
     programming to promote more effective reentry into the 
     community.
       (b) Project Elements.--The project authorized by subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) participation by Federal prisoners who have previously 
     violated the terms of their release following a term of 
     imprisonment;
       (2) use of community corrections facilities and home 
     confinement that, together with the technology referenced in 
     paragraph (5), will be part of a system of graduated levels 
     of supervision;
       (3) substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and 
     medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and 
     educational training, life skills instruction, conflict 
     resolution skills training, batterer intervention programs, 
     and other programming to promote effective reintegration into 
     the community as appropriate;
       (4) involvement of a victim advocate and the family of the 
     prisoner, if it is safe for the victim(s), especially in 
     domestic violence cases, to be involved;
       (5) the use of monitoring technologies, as appropriate and 
     indicated, to monitor and supervise participating offenders 
     in the community;
       (6) a description of the methodology and outcome measures 
     that will be used to evaluate the program; and
       (7) notification to victims on the status and nature of a 
     prisoner's reentry plan.
       (c) Mandatory Condition of Supervised Release.--In each of 
     the judicial districts in which the demonstration project is 
     in effect, appropriate offenders who are found to have 
     violated a previously imposed term of supervised release and 
     who will be subject to some additional term of supervised 
     release, shall be designated to participate in the 
     demonstration project. With respect to these offenders, the 
     court shall impose additional mandatory conditions of 
     supervised release that each offender shall, as directed by 
     the probation officer, reside at a community corrections 
     facility or participate in a program of home confinement, or 
     both, and submit to appropriate monitoring, and otherwise 
     participate in the project.
       (d) Project Duration.--The Federal High-Risk Offender 
     Reentry Demonstration shall begin not later than 6 months 
     following the availability of funds to carry out this 
     section, and shall last 3 years. The Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts may extend 
     the project for a period of up to 6 months to enable 
     participating prisoners to complete their involvement in the 
     project.
       (e) Selection of Districts.--The Judicial Conference of the 
     United States, in consultation with the Attorney General, 
     shall select an appropriate number of Federal judicial 
     districts in which to carry out the Federal High-Risk 
     Offender Reentry Demonstration project.

     SEC. 103. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INTENSIVE SUPERVISION, 
                   TRACKING, AND REENTRY TRAINING (DC ISTART) 
                   DEMONSTRATION.

       (a) Authority and Establishment of Demonstration Project.--
     From funds made available to carry out this Act, the Trustee 
     of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency of the 
     District of Columbia, as authorized by the National Capital 
     Revitalization and Self Government Improvement Act of 1997 
     (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) shall establish the 
     District of Columbia Intensive Supervision, Tracking and 
     Reentry Training Demonstration (DC iSTART) project. The 
     project shall involve high risk District of Columbia parolees 
     who would otherwise be released into the community without a 
     period of confinement in a community corrections facility and 
     shall utilize intensive supervision, monitoring, and 
     programming to promote such parolees' successful reentry into 
     the community.
       (b) Project Elements.--The project authorized by subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) participation by appropriate high risk parolees;
       (2) use of community corrections facilities and home 
     confinement;
       (3) a Reentry Review Team that includes a victim witness 
     professional for each parolee which shall meet with the 
     parolee--by video conference or other means as appropriate--
     before the parolee's release from the custody of the Federal 
     Bureau of Prisons to develop a reentry plan that incorporates 
     victim impact information and is tailored to the needs of the 
     parolee and which will thereafter meet regularly to monitor 
     the parolee's progress toward reentry and coordinate access 
     to appropriate reentry measures and resources;
       (4) regular drug testing, as appropriate;
       (5) a system of graduated levels of supervision within the 
     community corrections facility to promote community safety, 
     encourage victim restitution, provide incentives for 
     prisoners to complete the reentry plan, and provide a 
     reasonable method for immediately sanctioning a prisoner's 
     minor or technical violation of the conditions of 
     participation in the project;
       (6) substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and 
     medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and 
     educational training, life skills instruction, conflict 
     resolution skills training, batterer intervention programs, 
     assistance obtaining suitable affordable housing, and other 
     programming to promote effective reintegration into the 
     community as needed and indicated;
       (7) the use of monitoring technologies, as appropriate;
       (8) to the extent practicable, the recruitment and 
     utilization of local citizen volunteers, including volunteers 
     from the faith-based communities, to serve as advisers and 
     mentors to prisoners being released into the community; and
       (9) notification to victims on the status and nature of a 
     prisoner's reentry plan.
       (c) Mandatory Condition of Parole.--For those offenders 
     eligible to participate in the demonstration project, the 
     United States Parole Commission shall impose additional 
     mandatory conditions of parole such that the offender when on 
     parole shall, as directed by the community supervision 
     officer, reside at a community corrections facility or 
     participate in a program of home confinement, or both, submit 
     to electronic and other remote monitoring, and otherwise 
     participate in the project.
       (d) Program Duration.--The District of Columbia Intensive 
     Supervision, Tracking and Reentry Training Demonstration 
     shall begin not later than 6 months following the 
     availability of funds to carry out this section, and shall 
     last 3 years. The Trustee of the Court Services and Offender 
     Supervision Agency of the District of Columbia may extend the 
     project for a period of up to 6 months to enable 
     participating prisoners to complete their involvement in the 
     project.

     SEC. 104. FEDERAL INTENSIVE SUPERVISION, TRACKING, AND 
                   REENTRY TRAINING (FED ISTART) DEMONSTRATION.

       (a) Authority and Establishment of Demonstration Project.--
     From funds made available to carry out this section, the 
     Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
     Courts shall establish the Federal Intensive Supervision, 
     Tracking and Reentry Training Demonstration (FED iSTART) 
     project. The project shall involve appropriate high risk 
     Federal offenders who are being released into the community 
     without a period of confinement in a community corrections 
     facility.
       (b) Project Elements.--The project authorized by subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) participation by appropriate high risk Federal 
     offenders;
       (2) significantly smaller caseloads for probation officers 
     participating in the demonstration project;
       (3) substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and 
     medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and 
     educational training, life skills instruction, conflict 
     resolution skills training, batterer intervention programs, 
     assistance obtaining suitable affordable housing, and other 
     programming to promote effective reintegration into the 
     community as needed; and
       (4) notification to victims on the status and nature of a 
     prisoner's reentry plan.
       (c) Program Duration.--The Federal Intensive Supervision, 
     Tracking and Reentry Training Demonstration shall begin not 
     later than 6 months following the availability of funds to 
     carry out this section, and shall last 3 years. The Director 
     of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts may 
     extend the project for a period of up to 6 months to enable 
     participating prisoners to complete their involvement in the 
     project.
       (d) Selection of Districts.--The Judicial Conference of the 
     United States, in consultation with the Attorney General, 
     shall select an appropriate number of Federal judicial 
     districts in which to carry out the Federal Intensive 
     Supervision, Tracking and Reentry Training Demonstration 
     project.

     SEC. 105. FEDERAL ENHANCED IN-PRISON VOCATIONAL ASSESSMENT 
                   AND TRAINING AND DEMONSTRATION.

       (a) Authority and Establishment of Demonstration Project.--
     From funds made available to carry out this section, the 
     Attorney General shall establish the Federal Enhanced In-
     Prison Vocational Assessment and Training Demonstration 
     project in selected institutions. The project shall provide 
     in-prison assessments of prisoners' vocational needs and 
     aptitudes, enhanced work skills development, enhanced release 
     readiness programming, and other components as appropriate to 
     prepare Federal prisoners for release and reentry into the 
     community.
       (b) Program Duration.--The Enhanced In-Prison Vocational 
     Assessment and Training Demonstration shall begin not later 
     than 6 months following the availability of funds to carry 
     out this section, and shall last 3 years. The Attorney 
     General may extend the project for a period of up to 6 months 
     to enable participating prisoners to complete their 
     involvement in the project.

     SEC. 106. RESEARCH AND REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Attorney General.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report to 
     Congress on the progress of the demonstration projects 
     authorized by sections 101 and 105. Not later than 1 year 
     after the end of the demonstration projects authorized by 
     sections 101 and

[[Page 766]]

     105, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons shall 
     report to Congress on the effectiveness of the reentry 
     projects authorized by sections 101 and 105 on post-release 
     outcomes and recidivism. The report shall address post-
     release outcomes and recidivism for a period of 3 years 
     following release from custody. The reports submitted 
     pursuant to this section shall be submitted to the Committees 
     on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       (b) Administrative Office of the United States Courts.--Not 
     later than 2 years after the enactment of this Act, Director 
     of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 
     shall report to Congress on the progress of the demonstration 
     projects authorized by sections 102 and 104. Not later than 
     180 days after the end of the demonstration projects 
     authorized by sections 102 and 104, the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall 
     report to Congress on the effectiveness of the reentry 
     projects authorized by sections 102 and 104 of this Act on 
     post-release outcomes and recidivism. The report should 
     address post-release outcomes and recidivism for a period of 
     3 years following release from custody. The reports submitted 
     pursuant to this section shall be submitted to the Committees 
     on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       (c) DC ISTART.--Not later than 2 years after the enactment 
     of this Act, the Executive Director of the corporation or 
     institute authorized by section 11281(2) of the National 
     Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 
     1997 (Pub. Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) shall report to 
     Congress on the progress of the demonstration project 
     authorized by section 6 of this Act. Not later than 1 year 
     after the end of the demonstration project authorized by 
     section 103, the Executive Director of the corporation or 
     institute authorized by section 11281(2) of the National 
     Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 
     1997 (Pub. Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) shall report to 
     Congress on the effectiveness of the reentry project 
     authorized by section 103 on post-release outcomes and 
     recidivism. The report shall address post-release outcomes 
     and recidivism for a period of 3 years following release from 
     custody. The reports submitted pursuant to this section shall 
     be submitted to the Committees on the Judiciary in the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate. In the event that the 
     corporation or institute authorized by section 11281(2) of 
     the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
     Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) is 
     not in operation 1 year after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Director of National Institute of Justice shall prepare and 
     submit the reports required by this section and may do so 
     from funds made available to the Court Services and Offender 
     Supervision Agency of the District of Columbia, as authorized 
     by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
     Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) to 
     carry out this Act.

     SEC. 107. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title--
       (1) the term ``appropriate prisoner'' means a person who is 
     considered by prison authorities--
       (A) to pose a medium to high risk of committing a criminal 
     act upon reentering the community, and
       (B) to lack the skills and family support network that 
     facilitate successful reintegration into the community; and
       (2) the term ``appropriate high risk parolees'' means 
     parolees considered by prison authorities--
       (A) to pose a medium to high risk of committing a criminal 
     act upon reentering the community; and
       (B) to lack the skills and family support network that 
     facilitate successful reintegration into the community.

     SEC. 108. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       To carry out this Act, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated, to remain available until expended, the 
     following amounts:
       (1) To the Federal Bureau of Prisons--
       (A) $1,375,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       (B) $1,110,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       (C) $1,130,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (D) $1,155,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (E) $1,230,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (2) To the Federal Judiciary--
       (A) $3,380,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       (B) $3,540,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       (C) $3,720,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (D) $3,910,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (E) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (3) To the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 
     of the District of Columbia, as authorized by the National 
     Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 
     1997 (Pub. Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712)--
       (A) $4,860,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       (B) $4,510,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       (C) $4,620,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (D) $4,740,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (E) $4,860,000 for fiscal year 2006.

                 TITLE II--STATE REENTRY GRANT PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. AMENDMENTS TO THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE 
                   STREETS ACT OF 1968.

       (a) In General.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended 
     by inserting at the end the following:
       ``PART CC--OFFENDER REENTRY AND COMMUNITY SAFETY

     ``SEC. 2951. ADULT OFFENDER STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY 
                   PARTNERSHIPS.

       ``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall make 
     grants of up to $1,000,000 to States, Territories, and Indian 
     tribes, in partnership with units of local government and 
     nonprofit organizations, for the purpose of establishing 
     adult offender reentry demonstration projects. Funds may be 
     expended by the projects for the following purposes:
       ``(1) oversight/monitoring of released offenders;
       ``(2) providing returning offenders with drug and alcohol 
     testing and treatment and mental health assessment and 
     services;
       ``(3) convening community impact panels, victim impact 
     panels or victim impact educational classes;
       ``(4) providing and coordinating the delivery of other 
     community services to offenders such as housing assistance, 
     education, employment training, conflict resolution skills 
     training, batterer intervention programs, and other social 
     services as appropriate; and
       ``(5) establishing and implementing graduated sanctions and 
     incentives.
       ``(b) Submission of Application.--In addition to any other 
     requirements that may be specified by the Attorney General, 
     an application for a grant under this subpart shall--
       ``(1) describe a long-term strategy and detailed 
     implementation plan, including how the jurisdiction plans to 
     pay for the program after the Federal funding ends;
       ``(2) identify the governmental and community agencies that 
     will be coordinated by this project;
       ``(3) certify that there has been appropriate consultation 
     with all affected agencies and there will be appropriate 
     coordination with all affected agencies in the implementation 
     of the program, including existing community corrections and 
     parole; and
       ``(4) describe the methodology and outcome measures that 
     will be used in evaluating the program.
       ``(c) Applicants.--The applicants as designated under 
     2601(a)--
       ``(1) shall prepare the application as required under 
     subsection 2601(b); and
       ``(2) shall administer grant funds in accordance with the 
     guidelines, regulations, and procedures promulgated by the 
     Attorney General, as necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this part.
       ``(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant 
     received under this title may not exceed 25 percent of the 
     costs of the project funded under this title unless the 
     Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements 
     of this section.
       ``(e) Reports.--Each entity that receives a grant under 
     this part shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year 
     in which funds from a grant received under this part is 
     expended, a report at such time and in such manner as the 
     Attorney General may reasonably require that contains:
       ``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the 
     grant and an assessment of whether such activities are 
     meeting the needs identified in the application funded under 
     this part; and
       ``(2) such other information as the Attorney General may 
     require.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section $40,000,000 in fiscal years 2002 
     and 2003; and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006.
       ``(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry 
     out this section in any fiscal year--
       ``(A) not more than 2 percent or less than 1 percent may be 
     used by the Attorney General for salaries and administrative 
     expenses; and
       ``(B) not more than 3 percent or less than 2 percent may be 
     used for technical assistance and training.

     ``SEC. 2952. STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY COURTS.

       ``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall make 
     grants of up to $500,000 to State and local courts or state 
     agencies, municipalities, public agencies, nonprofit 
     organizations, and tribes that have agreements with courts to 
     take the lead in establishing a reentry court. Funds may be 
     expended by the projects for the following purposes:
       ``(1) monitoring offenders returning to the community;
       ``(2) providing returning offenders with drug and alcohol 
     testing and treatment and mental and medical health 
     assessment and services;
       ``(3) convening community impact panels, victim impact 
     panels, or victim impact educational classes;
       ``(4) providing and coordinating the delivery of other 
     community services to offenders, such as housing assistance, 
     education, employment training, conflict resolution skills 
     training, batterer intervention programs, and other social 
     services as appropriate; and
       ``(5) establishing and implementing graduated sanctions and 
     incentives.
       ``(b) Submission of Application.--In addition to any other 
     requirements that may be specified by the Attorney General, 
     an application for a grant under this subpart shall--
       ``(1) describe a long-term strategy and detailed 
     implementation plan, including how

[[Page 767]]

     the jurisdiction plans to pay for the program after the 
     Federal funding ends;
       ``(2) identify the governmental and community agencies that 
     will be coordinated by this project;
       ``(3) certify that there has been appropriate consultation 
     with all affected agencies, including existing community 
     corrections and parole, and there will be appropriate 
     coordination with all affected agencies in the implementation 
     of the program;
       ``(4) describe the methodology and outcome measures that 
     will be used in evaluation of the program.
       ``(c) Applicants.--The applicants as designated under 
     2602(a)--
       ``(1) shall prepare the application as required under 
     subsection 2602(b); and
       ``(2) shall administer grant funds in accordance with the 
     guidelines, regulations, and procedures promulgated by the 
     Attorney General, as necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this part.
       ``(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant 
     received under this title may not exceed 25 percent of the 
     costs of the project funded under this title unless the 
     Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements 
     of this section.
       ``(e) Reports.--Each entity that receives a grant under 
     this part shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year 
     in which funds from a grant received under this part is 
     expended, a report at such time and in such manner as the 
     Attorney General may reasonably require that contains:
       ``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the 
     grant and an assessment of whether such activities are 
     meeting the needs identified in the application funded under 
     this part; and
       ``(2) such other information as the Attorney General may 
     require.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section $10,000,000 in fiscal years 2002 
     and 2003, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006.
       ``(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry 
     out this section in any fiscal year--
       ``(A) not more than 2 percent or less than 1 percent may be 
     used by the Attorney General for salaries and administrative 
     expenses; and
       ``(B) not more than 3 percent or less than 2 percent may be 
     used for technical assistance and training.

     ``SEC. 2953. JUVENILE OFFENDER STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall make 
     grants of up to $250,000 to States, in partnership with local 
     units of governments or nonprofit organizations, for the 
     purpose of establishing juvenile offender reentry programs. 
     Funds may be expended by the projects for the following 
     purposes:
       ``(1) providing returning juvenile offenders with drug and 
     alcohol testing and treatment and mental and medical health 
     assessment and services;
       ``(2) convening victim impact panels, restorative justice 
     panels, or victim impact educational classes for juvenile 
     offenders;
       ``(3) oversight/monitoring of released juvenile offenders; 
     and
       ``(4) providing for the planning of reentry services when 
     the youth is initially incarcerated and coordinating the 
     delivery of community-based services, such as education, 
     conflict resolution skills training, batterer intervention 
     programs, employment training and placement, efforts to 
     identify suitable living arrangements, family involvement and 
     support, and other services.
       ``(b) Submission of Application.--In addition to any other 
     requirements that may be specified by the Attorney General, 
     an application for a grant under this subpart shall--
       ``(1) describe a long-term strategy and detailed 
     implementation plan, including how the jurisdiction plans to 
     pay for the program after the Federal funding ends;
       ``(2) identify the governmental and community agencies that 
     will be coordinated by this project;
       ``(3) certify that there has been appropriate consultation 
     with all affected agencies and there will be appropriate 
     coordination with all affected agencies, including existing 
     community corrections and parole, in the implementation of 
     the program;
       ``(4) describe the methodology and outcome measures that 
     will be used in evaluating the program.
       ``(c) Applicants.--The applicants as designated under 
     2603(a)--
       ``(1) shall prepare the application as required under 
     subsection 2603(b); and
       ``(2) shall administer grant funds in accordance with the 
     guidelines, regulations, and procedures promulgated by the 
     Attorney General, as necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this part.
       ``(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant 
     received under this title may not exceed 25 percent of the 
     costs of the project funded under this title unless the 
     Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements 
     of this section.
       ``(e) Reports.--Each entity that receives a grant under 
     this part shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year 
     in which funds from a grant received under this part is 
     expended, a report at such time and in such manner as the 
     Attorney General may reasonably require that contains:
       ``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the 
     grant and an assessment of whether such activities are 
     meeting the needs identified in the application funded under 
     this part; and
       ``(2) such other information as the Attorney General may 
     require.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section $5,000,000 in fiscal years 2002 and 
     2003, and such sums as are necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 2004, 2005, and 2006.
       ``(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry 
     out this section in any fiscal year--
       ``(A) not more than 2 percent or less than 1 percent may be 
     used by the Attorney General for salaries and administrative 
     expenses; and
       ``(B) not more than 3 percent or less than 2 percent may be 
     used for technical assistance and training.

     ``SEC. 2954. STATE REENTRY PROGRAM RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                   EVALUATION.

       ``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall make 
     grants to conduct research on a range of issues pertinent to 
     reentry programs, the development and testing of new reentry 
     components and approaches, selected evaluation of projects 
     authorized in the preceding sections, and dissemination of 
     information to the field.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $5,000,000 in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and such sums as 
     are necessary to carry out this section in fiscal years 2004, 
     2005, and 2006.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3711 et seq.), as amended, is amended by striking the 
     matter relating to part Z and inserting the following:

          ``Part CC--Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act

``Sec. 2951. Adult Offender State and Local Reentry Partnerships.
``Sec. 2952. State and Local Reentry Courts.
``Sec. 2953. Juvenile Offender State and Local Reentry Programs.
``Sec. 2954. State Reentry Program Research and Evaluation.''.

TITLE III--SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT IN FEDERAL PRISONS REAUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 301. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT IN FEDERAL PRISONS 
                   REAUTHORIZATION.

       Section 3621(e)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) $31,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(F) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.

  TITLE IV--RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR STATE PRISONERS 
                            REAUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 401. REAUTHORIZATION.

       Paragraph (17) of section 1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3793(a)(17)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(17) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     part S $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal years 2003 through 2007.''.

     SEC. 402. USE OF RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT GRANTS 
                   TO PROVIDE FOR SERVICES DURING AND AFTER 
                   INCARCERATION.

       Section 1901 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ff) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Additional Use of Funds.--States that demonstrate 
     that they have existing in-prison drug treatment programs 
     that are in compliance with Federal requirements may use 
     funds awarded under this part for treatment and sanctions 
     both during incarceration and after release.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 195. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 to 
establish programs to recruit, retain, and retrain teachers, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today I am introducing the A Million 
Quality Teachers Act.
  Thomas Jefferson once observed that of all the bills in the federal 
code, ``by far the most important is that for the diffusion of 
knowledge among the people. ``No surer foundation,'' he said, ``can be 
devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness.'' President Bush 
has reminded us of the importance of education as well. In his 
Inauguration Speech, he urged all of us to work together to rebuild our 
nation's education system: ``Together we will reclaim America's 
schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives.''

[[Page 768]]

  As President Bush himself noted in that same speech, ``While many of 
our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the justice, of 
our own country. The ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing 
schools, and hidden prejudice, and the circumstances of their birth.'' 
Our current foundation of elementary and secondary education is grossly 
inadequate to enable American children of all income levels and 
backgrounds to best realize the ``American dream'' and the economic 
freedoms that the ``American dream'' encapsulates.
  Most companies dismiss the value of a high school diploma. Twelfth 
grade students in the United States rank near the very bottom on 
international comparisons in math and science. The Third International 
Math and Science Study, the most comprehensive and rigorous comparison 
of quantitative skills across nations, reveals that the longer our 
students stay in the elementary and public school system, the worse 
they perform on standardized tests.
  High school graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed as college 
graduates (3.9% vs. 1.9%). Moreover, the value of a college degree over 
a high school degree is rising. In 1970, a college graduate made 136% 
more than a high school graduate. Today it is 176%. Even more ominous 
are labor participation rates for high school graduates in an 
information economy. While labor force participation for adults is at 
an all time high in the American economy, this boom has masked a 10% 
decline in participation rates for high school graduates since 1970 
from 96.3% to 86.4%.
  Our children cannot afford to be illiterate in mathematics and 
science. The rapidly changing technology revolution demands skills and 
proficiency in mathematics, science, and technology. IT, perhaps the 
fastest growing sector of our economy, relies on more than basic high 
school literacy in mathematics and science.
  We have all heard about the impending teacher shortage. The 
Department of Education estimates that we will need over 2.2 million 
new teachers in the next decade to meet enrollment increases and to 
offset the large number of baby boomer teachers who will soon be 
retiring. Additionally, although America has many high-quality teachers 
already, we do not have enough, and with the impending retirement of 
the baby boomer generation of teachers, we will need even more.
  Many want to continue to devote significant resources to reducing 
class size, and the concept to hire more teachers isn't a bad idea. 
Studies have shown that smaller class size may improve learning under 
certain circumstances. But class size is only a small piece in the 
bigger puzzle to improve America's education system, not the catapult 
that will launch us into education prosperity.
  Unfortunately, there are too many teachers in America today who lack 
proper preparation in the subjects that they teach. My own state of 
Tennessee actually does a good job of ensuring that teachers have at 
least a major or minor in the subject that they teach--well enough to 
receive a grade of A in that category on the recent Thomas Fordham 
Foundation report on teacher quality in the states. Even in Tennessee, 
however, 64.5% of teachers teaching physical science do not even have a 
minor in the subject. Among history teachers, nearly 50% did not major 
or minor in history. Many other states do worse.
  Additionally, there is consensus that we are not attracting enough of 
the best and the brightest to teaching, and not retaining enough of the 
best of those that we attract. According to Harvard economist Richard 
Murnane, ``College graduates with high test scores are less likely to 
become teachers, licensed teachers with high test scores are less 
likely to take jobs, employed teachers with high test scores are less 
likely to stay, and former teachers with high test scores are less 
likely to return.''
  A Million Quality Teachers seeks to change that by recruiting, and 
helping states recruit into the teaching profession top-quality 
students who have majored in academic subjects. We want teachers 
teaching math who have majored in and who love math. We want teachers 
teaching science who have majored in and who love science. This bill 
helps draw those students into teaching for a few years at the very 
least, and studies have shown that new teachers are most effective in 
the first couple of years of teaching. This bill would attract new 
students, and different kinds of students, into teaching by offering 
significant loan repayment.
  While teachers are one of our nation's most critical professions, it 
is often very difficult to attract highly skilled and marketable 
college students and graduates because of a profound lack of 
competitive salaries and the burden of student loans. In addition to 
the loan forgiveness and alternative certification stipends, the 
legislation will allow states to use up to $1.3 billion originally 
designated in a lump sum to hire more teachers to instead allow the 
states to use that money more creatively in programs to attract the 
kind of quality teachers they need but cannot afford. Using innovative 
tools already tested by many states, such as signing bonuses, loan 
forgiveness, payment of certification costs, and income tax credits, 
states will be able to once again make teaching an attractive and 
competitive career for our brightest college graduates. Additionally, 
the legislation does not limit states to these tools, but allows them 
to receive grants to continue testing other innovative and new programs 
for the same purposes.
  There are two parts to the bill. Part I is a competitive grant 
program for States to enable them to run their own innovative quality 
teacher recruitment, retention and retraining programs. Part II is a 
loan forgiveness and alternative certification scholarship program to 
entice individuals with strong academic backgrounds into teaching.
  The State grant program will help States focus on recruitment, 
retention and retraining in the way that best serves the individual 
State. Some states may decide to offer a teacher signing bonus program 
like the widely publicized and very successful program in 
Massachusetts. Other states may choose to institute teacher testing and 
merit pay, or to award performance bonuses to outstanding teachers. The 
program is very flexible, yet the State must be accountable for 
improving the quality of teachers in that State.
  States who participate must submit a plan for how they intend to use 
funds under the program and how they expect teacher quality to increase 
as a result, including the expected increase in the number of teachers 
who majored in the academic subject in which they teach, and the number 
of teachers who received alternative certification, if the funds are 
used for recruitment activities. If the funds are used for retention or 
retraining, the State must focus on how the program will decrease 
teacher attrition and increase the effectiveness of existing teachers.
  States must also report at the end of the three-year grant on how the 
program increased teacher quality and increased the number of teachers 
with academic majors in the subjects in which they teach and the number 
of teachers that received alternative certification and/or how the 
program decreased teacher attrition and increased the effectiveness of 
existing teachers.
  The loan forgiveness provision is different than loan forgiveness 
already in current law in that it targets a different population: 
students in college or graduate school today who are excelling in an 
academic subject. The purpose is to attract students into teaching who 
might not otherwise choose to pursue a teaching career and who are 
majoring in an academic subject.
  Any eligible student may take advantage of the loan forgiveness and 
deferral. An eligible student has majored in a core academic subject 
with at least a 3.0 GPA and has not been a full-time teacher 
previously. Loan payments are deferred for as long as the student is 
obtaining alternative certification or teaching in a public school.
  The premise of the bill is that teaching is, or will soon be, like 
other professions where there is at least some

[[Page 769]]

degree of transience. In fact, recent studies show that most new 
teachers leave within four years. But these studies also show that new 
teachers are most effective in the first few years of teaching. This 
bill would attract new students, and different kinds of students, into 
teaching by offering significant loan repayment.
  Alternative certification stipends will provide a seamless transition 
for a student from school into teaching. The bill provides stipends to 
students who have received their academic degrees from a college or 
university in order to obtain certification through alternative means. 
Students who have received assistance under the loan forgiveness 
section get first priority, but any student who has received a 
bachelors or advanced degree in a core academic subject with a GPA of 
at least 3.0 and who has never taught full-time in a public school is 
eligible. Students would receive the lesser of $5,000 or the costs of 
the alternative certification program, in exchange for agreeing to 
teach in a public school for 2 years.



  The job of every new generation is to meet civilization's new 
problems, improve its new opportunities, and explore its ever-expanding 
horizons, creating dreams not just for themselves, but for all who come 
after. Our job--the job of the current generation--is to help them do 
just that. Learning is the future. Education is the key. We must embark 
upon a national effort to bring it up to a standard demanded by the 
challenge, and improving teacher quality is the first step. I hope that 
my colleagues will concur.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 196. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a refundable personal credit for energy conservation expenditures, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Energy 
Conservation Tax Credit Act. As the electricity crisis in California 
continues, the entire nation needs to conserve electricity and improve 
energy efficiency. No solution to the energy problem is complete 
without addressing the need to improve the demand side of the equation.
  The Energy Conservation Tax Credit Act would encourage efforts at 
energy conservation through a refundable tax credit, grants to schools 
to retrofit buildings, and increased information to consumers on their 
use of electricity.
  The legislation would provide individuals with a refundable tax 
credit for the cost of energy conservation measures, such as ceiling 
insulation, weather stripping, water heater insulation blankets, low-
flow showerheads, thermal doors and windows, clock thermostats, and 
external shading devices. The provisions eligible for the tax credit 
are passed on what was included in the California tax code from 1981 to 
1986. The bill also includes a provision allowing this list to be 
expanded for other devices that the Secretary of Energy determines to 
be effective in conserving energy.
  The bill would also provide grants to school districts to retrofit 
public school buildings to increase energy efficiency and conservation. 
Many school buildings are old and do not use energy efficiently. 
According to the California Energy Commission, making energy efficient 
improvements can reduce a school's annual utility bills by 20 percent. 
Unfortunately, particularly in low-income districts, other priorities--
such as textbooks and teachers--often push the need to retrofit down on 
the priority list. My bill establishes a grand program to help local 
schools make these improvements.
  Finally, for consumer information, the bill would require utility 
companies to provide information on electricity bills regarding the 
amount of electricity used during peak and nonpeak hours and how much 
the consumer is paying during each period.
  This is not the complete answer to the energy situation in 
California. But, it is important, and would be helpful in reducing the 
nation's need for electricity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 197. A bill to provide for the disclosure of the collection of 
information through computer software, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, how would you feel if someone was 
eavesdropping on your private phone conversations without your 
knowledge? Well, if it happened to me, I would be very disturbed. And I 
think that most Americans would be very disturbed to know that 
something similar may be happening every time they use their computers.
  The shocking fact is that many software programs contain something 
called spyware. Spyware is computer code that surreptitiously uses our 
Internet connection to transmit information about things like our 
purchasing patterns and our health and financial status. This 
information is collected without our knowledge or explicit permission 
and the spyware programs run undetected while you surf the Internet.
  Spyware has been found in Quicken software, which is manufactured by 
Intuit, Inc. So let me use this as an example. Imagine you purchase 
Quicken software or download it from the Internet. You install it on 
your computer to help you with your finances. However, unbeknownst to 
you, Quicken does more than install financial planning tools on your 
computer. It also installs a little piece of spyware. The spyware lies 
dormant until one day when you get on the Internet.
  As you start surfing the Internet, the spyware sends back information 
to Intuit about what you buy and what you are interested in. And all of 
this happens without your knowledge. You could be on Amazon.com or 
researching health issues and at the very same time Intuit spyware is 
using your Internet connection, transmitting some of your most private 
data to someone you never heard of.
  In the months since it was reported that Quicken contained spyware, 
the folks at Intuit may have decided to remove the spyware from 
Quicken. However, Quicken is not the only software program that may 
contain spyware. One computer expert recently found spyware programs in 
popular childrens' software that is designed to help them learn, such 
as Mattel Interactive's Reader Rabbit and Arthur's Thinking Games. And, 
according to another expert's assessment, spyware is present in four 
hundred software programs, including commonly used software such as 
RealNetworks RealDownload, Netscape/AOL Smart Download, and NetZip 
Download Demon. Spyware in these software programs can transmit 
information about every file you download from the Internet.
  Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Spyware Control and 
Privacy Protection Act. I first introduced this legislation during the 
106th Congress. At that time, Congress was debating how to best address 
the Internet privacy issue. Unfortunately, Congress failed to enact 
meaningful Internet privacy legislation before the close of the 
Congress. I am hopeful that the story will end differently during the 
107th Congress. I hope we will pass comprehensive legislation that 
enables Americans to regain control over their personal information, 
and that helps protect their privacy and the privacy of their families. 
I believe my spyware bill is essential to ensuring that these computer 
privacy protections are complete, and I will work to make sure it is 
incorporated into any Internet privacy legislation that moves in the 
Senate.
  My proposal is common-sense and simple. It incorporates all four fair 
information practices of notice, choice, access and security practices 
that I believe are essential to effective computer privacy legislation.
  First, the Act requires that any software that contains spyware must 
provide consumers with clear and conspicuous notice--at the time the 
software is installed--that the software contains spyware. The notice 
must also describe the information that the spyware will collect and 
indicate to whom it will be transmitted.
  Another critical provision of my bill requires that software users 
must first

[[Page 770]]

give their affirmative consent before the spyware is enabled and 
allowed to start obtaining and sharing users' personal information with 
third parties. In other words, software users must ``opt-in'' to the 
collection and transmission of their information. My bill gives 
software users a choice whether they will allow the spyware to collect 
and share their information.
  The Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act allows for some 
common-sense exceptions to the notice and opt-in requirements. Under my 
proposal, software users would not have to receive notice and give 
their permission to enable the spyware if the software user's 
information is gathered in order to provide technical support for use 
of the software. In addition, users' information may be collected if it 
is necessary to determine if they are licensed users of the software. 
And finally, the legislation would not apply to situations where 
employers are using spyware to monitor Internet usage by their 
employees. I believe that this last issue is a serious one and deserves 
to be addressed in separate legislation.
  Another important aspect of the Spyware Control and Privacy 
Protection Act is that it would incorporate the fair information 
practice known as ``access.'' What this means is that an individual 
software user would have the ability to find out what information has 
been collected about them, and would be given a reasonable chance to 
correct any errors.
  And finally, the fourth fair information practice guaranteed by my 
bill is ``security.'' Anyone that uses spyware to collect information 
about software users must establish procedures to keep that information 
confidential and safe from hackers.
  Mr. President, spyware is a modern day Trojan horse. You install 
software on your computer thinking it's designed to help you, and it 
turns out that something else is hidden inside that may be quite 
harmful.
  I have been closely following the privacy debate for some time now. 
And I am struck by how often I discover new ways in which our privacy 
is being eroded. Spyware is among the more startling examples of how 
this erosion is occurring.
  Most people would agree that modern technology has been 
extraordinarily beneficial. It has enabled us to obtain information 
more quickly and easily than ever before. And companies have 
streamlined their processes for providing goods and services.
  But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They 
have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and 
financial records, and buying habits. In turn, our ability to keep our 
personal information private is being eroded.
  Even sophisticated computer software users are unlikely to be aware 
that information is being collected about their Internet surfing habits 
and is likely being fed into a growing personal profile maintained at a 
data warehouse. They don't know that companies can and do extract the 
information from the warehouse to create a so-called cyber-profile of 
what they are likely to buy, what the status of their health may be, 
what their family is like, and what their financial situation may be.
  I believe that in the absence of government regulation, it is 
difficult, if not impossible for people to control the use of their own 
personal information. Consumers are not properly informed, and 
businesses are under no legal obligation to protect consumers' privacy.
  I believe that the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act is a 
reasonable way to help Americans regain some of their privacy. My 
legislation does not prevent software providers from using their 
software to collect a consumer's online information. However, it gives 
back some control to the consumer by allowing him or her to decide 
whether their information may be gathered.
  My bill protects consumer privacy, while enabling software companies 
and marketing firms to continue obtaining consumers' information if the 
consumer so chooses. Confidence in these companies will be enhanced if 
they are able to assure their customers that they will not collect 
their personal information without their permission.
  Privacy protections should not stop with computer software. I am 
proud to have cosponsored the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, a much-
needed measure offered by Senator Hollings. This legislation would 
prevent Internet service providers, individual web sites, network 
advertisers, and other third parties from gathering information about 
our online surfing habits without our permission. I intend to be an 
original cosponsor of the bill when it is re-introduced.
  And during the last Congress, I introduced the Telephone Call Privacy 
Act in order to prevent phone companies from disclosing consumers' 
private phone records without their permission. I will be re-
introducing this bill soon.
  Increasingly, technology is impacting our lives and the lives of our 
families. I believe that while it is important to encourage 
technological growth, we must also balance new developments with our 
fundamental right to privacy. Otherwise, we may wake up one day and 
realize that our privacy has been so thoroughly eroded that it is 
impossible to recover.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Spyware Control and Privacy 
Protection Act and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 197

       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 ``Spyware Control and Privacy 
     Protection Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION BY COMPUTER SOFTWARE.

       (a) Notice and Choice Required.--
       (1) In general.--Any computer software made available to 
     the public, whether by sale or without charge, that includes 
     a capability to collect information about the user of such 
     computer software, the hardware on which such computer 
     software is used, or the manner in which such computer 
     software is used, and to disclose to such information to any 
     person other than the user of such computer software, shall 
     include--
       (A) a clear and conspicuous written notice, on the first 
     electronic page of the instructions for the installation of 
     such computer software, that such computer software includes 
     such capability;
       (B) a description of the information subject to collection 
     and the name and address of each person to whom such computer 
     software will transmit or otherwise communicate such 
     information; and
       (C) a clear and conspicuous written electronic notice, in a 
     manner reasonably calculated to provide the user of such 
     computer software with easily understood instructions on how 
     to disable such capability without affecting the performance 
     or operation of such computer software for the purposes for 
     which such computer software was intended.
       (2) Enablement of capability.--A capability of computer 
     software described in paragraph (1) may not be enabled unless 
     the user of such computer software provides affirmative 
     consent, in advance, to the enablement of the capability.
       (3) Exception.--The requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     shall not apply to any capability of computer software that 
     is reasonably needed to--
       (A) determine whether or not the user is a licensed or 
     authorized user of such computer software;
       (B) provide, upon request of the user, technical support of 
     the use of such computer software by the user; or
       (C) enable an employer to monitor computer usage by its 
     employees while such employees are within the scope of 
     employment as authorized by applicable Federal, State, or 
     local law.
       (4) Use of information collected through excepted 
     capability.--Any information collected through a capability 
     described in paragraph (1) for a purpose referred to in 
     paragraph (3) may be utilized only for the purpose for which 
     such information is collected under paragraph (3).
       (5) Access to information collected through excepted 
     capability.--Any person collecting information about a user 
     of computer software through a capability described in 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) upon request of the user, provide reasonable access by 
     user to information so collected;
       (B) provide a reasonable opportunity for the user to 
     correct, delete, or supplement such information; and
       (C) make the correction or supplementary information a part 
     of the information about the user for purposes of any future 
     use of such information under this subsection.
       (6) Security of information collected through excepted 
     capability.--Any person collecting information through a 
     capability

[[Page 771]]

     described in paragraph (1) shall establish and maintain 
     reasonable procedures necessary to protect the security, 
     confidentiality, and integrity of such information.
       (b) Preinstallation.--In the case of computer software 
     described in subsection (a)(1) that is installed on a 
     computer by someone other than the user of such computer 
     software, whether through preinstallation by the provider of 
     such computer or computer software, by installation by 
     someone before delivery of such computer to the user, or 
     otherwise, the notice and instructions under that subsection 
     shall be provided in electronic form to the user before the 
     first use of such computer software by the user.
       (c) Violations.--A violation of subsection (a) or (b) shall 
     be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice 
     proscribed by section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
       (d) Disclosure to Law Enforcement or Under Court Order.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, a computer software provider that collects 
     information about users of the computer software may disclose 
     information about a user of the computer software--
       (A) to a law enforcement agency in response to a warrant 
     issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an 
     equivalent State warrant, or a court order issued in 
     accordance with paragraph (3); or
       (B) in response to a court order in a civil proceeding 
     granted upon a showing of compelling need for the information 
     that cannot be accommodated by any other means if--
       (i) the user to whom the information relates is given 
     reasonable notice by the person seeking the information of 
     the court proceeding at which the order is requested; and
       (ii) the user is afforded a reasonable opportunity to 
     appear and contest the issuance of the requested order or to 
     narrow its scope.
       (2) Safeguards against further disclosure.--A court that 
     issues an order described in paragraph (1) shall impose 
     appropriate safeguards on the use of the information to 
     protect against its unauthorized disclosure.
       (3) Court orders.--A court order authorizing disclosure 
     under paragraph (1)(A) may issue only with prior notice to 
     the user and only if the law enforcement agency shows that 
     there is probable cause to believe that the user has engaged, 
     is engaging, or is about to engage in criminal activity and 
     that the records or other information sought are material to 
     the investigation of such activity. In the case of a State 
     government authority, such a court order shall not issue if 
     prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order 
     pursuant to this paragraph, on a motion made promptly by the 
     computer software provider may quash or modify such order if 
     the information or records requested are unreasonably 
     voluminous in nature or if compliance with such order 
     otherwise would cause an unreasonable burden on the provider.
       (e) Private Right of Action.--
       (1) Actions authorized.--A person may, if otherwise 
     permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in 
     an appropriate Federal court, if such laws or rules prohibit 
     such actions, either or both of the actions as follows:
       (A) An action based on a violation of subsection (a) or (b) 
     to enjoin such violation.
       (B) An action to recover actual monetary loss for a 
     violation of subsection (a) or (b) in an amount equal to the 
     greater of--
       (i) the amount of such actual monetary loss; or
       (ii) $2,500 for such violation, not to exceed a total 
     amount of $500,000.
       (2) Additional remedy.--If the court in an action under 
     paragraph (1) finds that the defendant willfully, knowingly, 
     or repeatedly violated subsection (a) or (b), the court may, 
     in its discretion, increase the amount of the award under 
     paragraph (1)(B) to an amount not greater than three times 
     the amount available under paragraph (1)(B)(ii).
       (3) Litigation costs and attorney fees.--In any action 
     under paragraph (1), the court may, in its discretion, 
     require an undertaking for the payment of the costs of such 
     action and assess reasonable costs, including reasonable 
     attorney fees, against the defendant.
       (4) Venue.--In addition to any contractual provision 
     otherwise, venue for an action under paragraph (1) shall lie 
     where the computer software concerned was installed or used 
     or where the person alleged to have committed the violation 
     concerned is found.
       (5) Protection of trade secrets.--At the request of any 
     party to an action under paragraph (1), or any other 
     participant in such action, the court may, in its discretion, 
     issue a protective order and conduct proceedings in such 
     action so as to protect the secrecy and security of the 
     computer, computer network, computer data, computer program, 
     and computer software involved in order to--
       (A) prevent possible recurrence of the same or a similar 
     act by another person; or
       (B) protect any trade secrets of such party or participant.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Collect.--The term ``collect'' means the gathering of 
     information about a computer or a user of computer software 
     by any means, whether direct or indirect and whether active 
     or passive.
       (2) Computer.--The term ``computer'' means a programmable 
     electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data.
       (3) Computer software.--(A) Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), the term ``computer software'' means any 
     program designed to cause a computer to perform a desired 
     function or functions.
       (B) The term does not include a text file, or cookie, 
     placed on a person's computer system by an Internet service 
     provider, interactive computer service, or commercial 
     Internet website to return information to the Internet 
     service provider, interactive computer service, commercial 
     Internet website, or third party if the person subsequently 
     uses the Internet service provider or interactive computer 
     service, or accesses the commercial Internet website.
       (4) Information.--The term ``information'' means 
     information that personally identifies a user of computer 
     software, including the following:
       (A) A first and last name, whether given at birth or 
     adoption, assumed, or legally changed.
       (B) A home or other physical address including street name 
     and name of a city or town.
       (C) An electronic mail address.
       (D) A telephone number.
       (E) A social security number.
       (F) A credit card number, any access code associated with 
     the credit card, or both.
       (G) A birth date, birth certificate number, or place of 
     birth.
       (H) Any other unique information identifying an individual 
     that a computer software provider, Internet service provider, 
     interactive computer service, or operator of a commercial 
     Internet website collects and combines with information 
     described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of this paragraph.
       (5) Person.--The term ``person'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 3(32) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 153(32)).
       (6) User.--The term ``user'' means an individual who 
     acquires, through purchase or otherwise, computer software 
     for purposes other than resale.
       (g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns, 
        Mr. Conrad, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Smith 
        of Oregon):
  S. 198. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish 
a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed 
management entities to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on 
public and private land; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Daschle to 
introduce the Harmful Non-native Weed Control Act of 2000--to provide 
assistance to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate 
harmful, non-native weeds on public and private land. I am pleased that 
Senators Baucus, Burns, Conrad, Crapo, Dorgan, Johnson, and Gordon 
Smith are joining us as original cosponsors.
  I have stood before Congress for the past three years pushing 
legislation and speaking on the issue of noxious weeds. I know some 
members tire of hearing me bring up this issue, but I have seen the 
destruction caused when non-native weeds are not treated and are left 
to over take native species.
  Non-native weeds threaten fully two-thirds of all endangered species 
and are now considered by some experts to be the second most important 
threat to bio-diversity. In some areas, spotted knapweed grows so thick 
that big game like deer will move out of the area to find edible 
plants. Noxious weeds also increase soil erosion, and prevent 
recreationists from accessing land that is infested with poisonous 
plants.
  Because of these problems, during the 106th Congress I introduced and 
worked to pass the Plant Protection Act. As you may recall, that bill 
primarily dealt with Animal Plant Health Inspection Service's authority 
to block or regulate the importation or movement of a noxious weed and 
plant pest, and it also provides authority for inspection and 
enforcement of the regulations. Basically the bill focused on stopping 
the weeds at the border.
  Stopping the spread of noxious weeds requires a two pronged effort. 
First, we must prevent new non-native weed species from becoming 
established in the United States, which was the focus of the Plant 
Protection Act. Second, we must stop or slow the spread of the non-
native weeds we already have,

[[Page 772]]

which is the focus of the Harmful Non-native Weed Control Act.
  I have been working with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, 
Public Lands Council, and the Nature Conservancy to develop the Harmful 
Non-native Weed Control Act. This legislation will provide a mechanism 
to get funding to the local level where weeds can be fought in a 
collaborative way. Working together is what the entire initiative is 
about.
  Specifically, this bill establishes, in the Office of Secretary of 
the Interior, a program to provide assistance through States to 
eligible weed management entities. The Secretary of the Interior 
appoints an Advisory Committee of ten individuals to make 
recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual allocation to 
funds. The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, will 
allocate funds to States to provide funding to eligible weed management 
entities to carry out projects approved by States to control or 
eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private lands. Funds 
will be allocated based on several factors, including but not limited 
to: the seriousness of the problem in the State; the extent to which 
the federal funds will be used to leverage non-federal funds to address 
the problem; and the extent to which the State has already made 
progress in addressing the problems.
  The bill directs that the States use 25 percent of their allocation 
to make base payments and 75 percent for financial awards to eligible 
weed management entities for carrying out projects relating to the 
control or eradication of harmful, non-native weeds on public or 
private lands. To be eligible to obtain a base payment, a weed 
management entity must be established by local stakeholders for weed 
management or public education purposes, provide the State a 
description of its purpose and proposed projects, and fulfill any other 
requirements set by the State. Weed management entities are also 
eligible for financial awards--funds awarded by the State on a 
competitive basis to carry out projects which can not be funded within 
the base payment. Projects will be evaluated, giving equal 
consideration to economic and natural values, and selected for funding 
based on factors such as the seriousness of the problem, the likelihood 
that the project will address the problem, and how comprehensive the 
project's approach is to the harmful, non-native weed problem within 
the state. A 50 percent non-federal match is required to receive the 
funds.
  The Department of Agriculture in Idaho (ISDA) has developed a 
Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds through a collaborative 
effort involving private landowners, state and federal land managers, 
state and local governmental entities, and other interested parties. 
Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) are the centerpiece of the 
strategic plan. CWMAs cross jurisdictional boundaries to bring together 
all landowners, land managers, and interested parties to identify and 
prioritize noxious weed strategies within the CWMA in a collaborative 
manner. The primary responsibilities of the ISDA are to provide 
coordination, administrative support, facilitation, and project cost-
share funding for this collaborative effort. Idaho already has a record 
of working in a collaborative way on this issue--my legislation will 
build on the progress we have had, and establish the same formula for 
success in other states.
  As I have said before, non-native weeds are a serious problem on both 
public and private lands across the nation. They are particularly 
troublesome in the West where much of our land is entrusted to the 
management of the federal government. Like a ``slow burning wildfire,'' 
noxious weeds take land out of production, force native species off the 
land, and interrupt the commerce and activities of all those who rely 
on the land for their livelihoods--including farmers, ranchers, 
recreationists, and others.
  I believe we must focus our efforts to rid our lands of these non-
native weeds. Noxious weeds are not only a problem for farmers and 
ranchers, but a hazard to our environment, economy, and communities in 
Idaho, the West, and for the country as a whole. We must reclaim the 
rangeland for natural species. Noxious weeds do not recognize property 
boundaries, so if we want to win this war on weeds, we must be fighting 
at the federal, state, local, and individual levels. The Harmful Non-
native Weed Control Act is an important step to ensure we are diligent 
in stopping the spread of these weeds. I am confident that if we work 
together at all levels of government and throughout our communities, we 
can protect our land, livelihood, and environment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 198

       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 ``Harmful Nonnative Weed 
     Control Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) public and private land in the United States faces 
     unprecedented and severe stress from harmful, nonnative 
     weeds;
       (2) the economic and resource value of the land is being 
     destroyed as harmful nonnative weeds overtake native 
     vegetation, making the land unusable for forage and for 
     diverse plant and animal communities;
       (3) damage caused by harmful nonnative weeds has been 
     estimated to run in the hundreds of millions of dollars 
     annually;
       (4) successfully fighting this scourge will require 
     coordinated action by all affected stakeholders, including 
     Federal, State, and local governments, private landowners, 
     and nongovernmental organizations;
       (5) the fight must begin at the local level, since it is at 
     the local level that persons feel the loss caused by harmful 
     nonnative weeds and will therefore have the greatest 
     motivation to take effective action; and
       (6) to date, effective action has been hampered by 
     inadequate funding at all levels of government and by 
     inadequate coordination.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to provide assistance to eligible weed management 
     entities in carrying out projects to control or eradicate 
     harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land;
       (2) to coordinate the projects with existing weed 
     management areas and districts;
       (3) in locations in which no weed management entity, area, 
     or district exists, to stimulate the formation of additional 
     local or regional cooperative weed management entities, such 
     as entities for weed management areas or districts, that 
     organize locally affected stakeholders to control or 
     eradicate weeds;
       (4) to leverage additional funds from a variety of public 
     and private sources to control or eradicate weeds through 
     local stakeholders; and
       (5) to promote healthy, diverse, and desirable plant 
     communities by abating through a variety of measures the 
     threat posed by harmful, nonnative weeds.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee'' 
     means the advisory committee established under section 5.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall establish in the Office of the 
     Secretary a program to provide financial assistance through 
     States to eligible weed management entities to control or 
     eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private 
     land.

     SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish in the 
     Department of the Interior an advisory committee to make 
     recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual 
     allocation of funds to States under section 6 and other 
     issues related to funding under this Act.
       (b) Composition.--The Advisory Committee shall be composed 
     of not more than 10 individuals appointed by the Secretary 
     who--
       (1) have knowledge and experience in harmful, nonnative 
     weed management; and
       (2) represent the range of economic, conservation, 
     geographic, and social interests affected by harmful, 
     nonnative weeds.
       (c) Term.--The term of a member of the Advisory Committee 
     shall be 4 years.
       (d) Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--A member of the Advisory Committee shall 
     receive no compensation for the service of the member on the 
     Advisory Committee.
       (2) Travel expenses.--A member of the Advisory Committee 
     shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu 
     of subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee

[[Page 773]]

     of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, 
     United States Code, while away from the home or regular place 
     of business of the member in the performance of the duties of 
     the Advisory Committee.
       (e) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Advisory 
     Committee.

     SEC. 6. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--In consultation with the Advisory 
     Committee, the Secretary shall allocate funds made available 
     for each fiscal year under section 8 to States to provide 
     funding in accordance with section 7 to eligible weed 
     management entities to carry out projects approved by States 
     to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public 
     and private land.
       (b) Amount.--The Secretary shall determine the amount of 
     funds allocated to a State for a fiscal year under this 
     section on the basis of--
       (1) the seriousness of the harmful, nonnative weed problem 
     or potential problem in the State, or a portion of the State;
       (2) the extent to which the Federal funds will be used to 
     leverage non-Federal funds to address the harmful, nonnative 
     weed problems in the State;
       (3) the extent to which the State has made progress in 
     addressing harmful, nonnative weed problems in the State;
       (4) the extent to which weed management entities in a State 
     are eligible for base payments under section 7; and
       (5) other factors recommended by the Advisory Committee and 
     approved by the Secretary.

     SEC. 7. USE OF FUNDS ALLOCATED TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--A State that receives an allocation of 
     funds under section 6 for a fiscal year shall use--
       (1) not more than 25 percent of the allocation to make a 
     base payment to each weed management entity in accordance 
     with subsection (b); and
       (2) not less than 75 percent of the allocation to make 
     financial awards to weed management entities in accordance 
     with subsection (c).
       (b) Base Payments.--
       (1) Use by weed management entities.--
       (A) In general.--Base payments under subsection (a)(1) 
     shall be used by weed management entities--
       (i) to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying out 
     projects described in subsection (d) that are selected by the 
     State in accordance with subsection (d); or
       (ii) for any other purpose relating to the activities of 
     the weed management entities, subject to guidelines 
     established by the State.
       (B) Federal share.--Under subparagraph (A), the Federal 
     share of the cost of carrying out a project described in 
     subsection (d) shall not exceed 50 percent.
       (2) Eligibility of weed management entities.--To be 
     eligible to obtain a base payment under paragraph (1) for a 
     fiscal year, a weed management entity in a State shall--
       (A) be established by local stakeholders--
       (i) to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on 
     public or private land; or
       (ii) to increase public knowledge and education concerning 
     the need to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on 
     public or private land;
       (B)(i) for the first fiscal year for which the entity 
     receives a base payment, provide to the State a description 
     of--
       (I) the purposes for which the entity was established; and
       (II) any projects carried out to accomplish those purposes; 
     and
       (ii) for any subsequent fiscal year for which the entity 
     receives a base payment, provide to the State--
       (I) a description of the activities carried out by the 
     entity in the previous fiscal year--

       (aa) to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on 
     public or private land; or
       (bb) to increase public knowledge and education concerning 
     the need to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on 
     public or private land; and

       (II) the results of each such activity; and
       (C) meet such additional eligibility requirements, and 
     conform to such process for determining eligibility, as the 
     State may establish.
       (c) Financial Awards.--
       (1) Use by weed management entities.--
       (A) In general.--Financial awards under subsection (a)(2) 
     shall be used by weed management entities to pay the Federal 
     share of the cost of carrying out projects described in 
     subsection (d) that are selected by the State in accordance 
     with subsection (d).
       (B) Federal share.--Under subparagraph (A), the Federal 
     share of the cost of carrying out a project described in 
     subsection (d) shall not exceed 50 percent.
       (2) Eligibility of weed management entities.--To be 
     eligible to obtain a financial award under paragraph (1) for 
     a fiscal year, a weed management entity in a State shall--
       (A) meet the requirements for eligibility for a base 
     payment under subsection (b)(2); and
       (B) submit to the State a description of the project for 
     which the financial award is sought.
       (d) Projects.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible weed management entity may use 
     a base payment or financial award received under this section 
     to carry out a project relating to the control or eradication 
     of harmful, nonnative weeds on public or private land, 
     including--
       (A) education, inventories and mapping, management, 
     monitoring, and similar activities, including the payment of 
     the cost of personnel and equipment; and
       (B) innovative projects, with results that are disseminated 
     to the public.
       (2) Selection of projects.--A State shall select projects 
     for funding under this section on a competitive basis, taking 
     into consideration (with equal consideration given to 
     economic and natural values)--
       (A) the seriousness of the harmful, nonnative weed problem 
     or potential problem addressed by the project;
       (B) the likelihood that the project will prevent or resolve 
     the problem, or increase knowledge about resolving similar 
     problems in the future;
       (C) the extent to which the payment will leverage non-
     Federal funds to address the harmful, nonnative weed problem 
     addressed by the project;
       (D) the extent to which the entity has made progress in 
     addressing harmful, nonnative weed problems;
       (E) the extent to which the project will provide a 
     comprehensive approach to the control or eradication of 
     harmful, nonnative weeds;
       (F) the extent to which the project will reduce the total 
     population of a harmful, nonnative weed within the State; and
       (G) other factors that the State determines to be relevant.
       (3) Scope of projects.--
       (A) In general.--A weed management entity shall determine 
     the geographic scope of the harmful, nonnative weed problem 
     to be addressed through a project using a base payment or 
     financial award received under this section.
       (B) Multiple states.--A weed management entity may use the 
     base payment or financial award to carry out a project to 
     address the harmful, nonnative weed problem of more than 1 
     State if the entity meets the requirements of applicable 
     State laws.
       (4) Land.--A weed management entity may use a base payment 
     or financial award received under this section to carry out a 
     project to control or eradicate weeds on any public or 
     private land with the approval of the owner or operator of 
     the land, other than land that is devoted to the cultivation 
     of row crops, fruits, or vegetables.
       (5) Prohibition on projects to control aquatic noxious 
     weeds or animal pests.--A base payment or financial award 
     under this section may not be used to carry out a project to 
     control or eradicate aquatic noxious weeds or animal pests.
       (e) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the 
     funds made available under section 8 for a fiscal year may be 
     used by the States or the Federal Government to pay the 
     administrative costs of the program established by this Act, 
     including the costs of complying with Federal environmental 
     laws.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Larry 
Craig and a number of my other colleagues the Harmful Non-native Weed 
Control Act of 2001. This legislation will provide critically needed 
resources to local agencies to reduce the spread of harmful weeds that 
are destroying the productivity of farmland and reducing ecological 
diversity.
  In the last few years, public and private lands in the west have seen 
a startling increase in the spread of harmful, non-native weeds. In 
south Dakota, these weeds choke out native species, destroy good 
grazing land, and cost farmers and ranchers thousands of dollars a year 
to control. On public lands in South Dakota and throughout the west, 
the spread of the weeds has outpaced the ability of land managers to 
control them, threatening species diversity and, at times, spreading on 
to private land.
  This problem has become so severe that, last year, the White House 
has created an Invasive Species Council to address it. Former Secretary 
Bruce Babbitt noted, ``The blending of the natural world into one great 
monoculture of the most aggressive species is, I think, a blow to the 
spirit and beauty of the natural world.''
  Despite these efforts, the scale of this problem is vast. Some 
estimate that it could cost well into the hundreds of millions of 
dollars to control effectively the spread of these weeds. This 
legislation will help to meet that need by putting funding directly 
into the hands of the local weed boards and managers who already are 
working to control this problem and whose lands are directly affected.

[[Page 774]]

  Specifically, this legislation authorizes new weed control funding 
and establishes an Advisory Board in the Department of Interior to 
identify the areas of greatest need for the distribution of those 
funds. States, in turn, will transfer up to 25 percent of it directly 
to local weed control boards in order to support ongoing activities and 
spur the creation of new control boards, where necessary. The remaining 
75 percent of funds will be made available to weed control boards on a 
competitive basis to fund weed control projects.
  Mr. President, I'd like to thank Senator Craig for his work on this 
issue, and to thank the National Cattleman's Beef Association and the 
Nature Conservancy, who have been instrumental to the development of 
this bill. Now that this legislation has been introduced, it is my hope 
that we can work with all interested stakeholders to enact it as soon 
as possible. I look forward to working with my colleagues during this 
process.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I join Senator Craig in sponsoring the 
Harmful Nonnative Weed Control Act of 2001. This bill will require the 
Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to provide assistance 
through States to eligible weed management entities to control or 
eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land. In a 
state like Montana, where we depend heavily on the bounty of the land 
to support the lifestyle we enjoy, weed control has a very important 
place in land management. Noxious weeds attack the natural balance of 
the range and the entire ecosystem, along with threatening the health 
and productivity of public and private lands.
  When I visit with Montana ranchers, farmers, recreationists, and 
others who live close to the land, they continually mention their 
concern over noxious weeds. These folks are worried about how the weeds 
are changing the face of the land, and I am too. When these weeds take 
hold and native plants are crowded out, wildlife habitat is 
compromised, livestock carrying capacity is reduced, and the condition 
of the land is jeopardized. Over the last few years we have been able 
to secure appropriations to increase research efforts with respect to 
weeds management. I think this is a step in the right direction, but we 
also need our land management agencies and to work with private land 
owners.
  One thing is clear: this is not just a public lands problem, nor is 
it only a private landowner problem. Without cooperation from both 
sides, any efforts from the other group are compromised. This bill 
presents a great opportunity for cooperation, and a chance for the 
federal government to demonstrate a commitment to stewardship of our 
public lands. Sadly, this is a commitment we have not seen enough of 
lately.
  Aside from the ongoing battle against nonnative weeds in the West, 
this year we have an added urgency to do something real about the 
problem. When fires swept over millions of acres of public and private 
land last summer, that land was made especially vulnerable to weed 
infestation. Aside from repairing the immediate damage to structures 
and making sure we are able to control erosion and protect clean water, 
we have an obligation to fight the weeds that will otherwise take over 
these lands. As hard as we have worked in the Senate to create fire 
programs that repair last year's damage and keep it from happening 
again, it would be a step in the wrong direction to leave weed 
prevention by the wayside. Preventing non-native species from taking 
hold right now will be a much better investment than trying to control 
the invasion later. We cannot afford to stand by and do nothing.
  In some ways, the disease of weed infestation resembles the challenge 
of wildfire. Both are economically and environmentally devastating, and 
do not distinguish between public and private land. A recent study 
presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science 
estimates that non-native species cause $123 billion in damage 
annually. This figure is more than twice the annual economic damage 
caused by all natural disasters in the United States.
  There are no silver bullets here, and we won't be able to fix things 
overnight, but with hard work and a commitment to this cause, I know we 
can make a difference. It is time the federal government step up to its 
obligations to Americans, and take decisive action to fight nonnative 
weeds. This is a serious problem, and I am proud to be working with my 
colleagues in the Senate to fix it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 199. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Transportation to oversee the competitive activities 
of air carriers following a concentration in the airline industry, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today because I am deeply concerned 
with the sudden increase in airline merger proposals. Many have 
predicted that if the proposed merger of United Airlines and US Airways 
is allowed to go forward, it will be followed by mergers of other major 
airlines, and we will soon have an industry dominated by mega-carriers.
  American Airlines recently bought Reno Air, and now is proposing a 
merger of American Airlines and Trans World Airlines. If this trend 
continues, we could end up with only three airlines in America. That 
could drive prices sky high and cut the number of available flights, 
which will be terrible for consumers.
  I know first hand that mergers can hurt consumers. In my own state, 
the Reno-Tahoe International Airport lost flights when American 
Airlines bought Reno Air. Flights were reduced significantly and now it 
is harder for people to fly in and out of the Reno and Lake Tahoe 
areas.
  The purpose of deregulation was to encourage competition. Evidence 
seems to support a reduction in competition. It seems to be having an 
opposite effect. I am very concerned with the recent airline merger 
proposals and the merger frenzy that may follow. We must maintain as 
much competition as possible in the airline industry.
  This legislation will protect consumers against monopolistic abuses. 
I emphasize that this type of legislation is not my preferred 
approach--I would greatly prefer to continue to have consumers 
protected by adequate competition in a free market.
  I emphasize that the bill is not a ``deregulation'' bill. Airlines 
will remain free to set prices and provide service without prior 
government approval. However, the bill will give DOT authority to 
intervene if the airlines take unfair advantage of the absence of 
sufficient competition.
  We are at a critical juncture for the future of a competitive airline 
industry. The inescapable lesson of 22 years of deregulation is that 
mergers and a reduction in competition often lead to higher fares for 
the American traveling public. We cannot stand idly by and allow the 
benefits of deregulation to be derailed by a wave of mergers.
  Mr. President, my bill will take effect as a result of consolidation 
or mergers that occur between two or more of the top seven airline 
carriers, or if three or fewer of those air carriers control more than 
70% of domestic revenue passenger miles. Highlights of my Airline 
Competition Preservation bill are as follows:
  Monopolistic Fares--The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
require reduction in fares that are unreasonably high. The factors to 
be considered include:
  Whether the fare in question is higher than fares charged in similar 
markets; whether the fare has been increased in excess of cost 
increases; and whether there is a reasonable relationship between fares 
charged leisure travelers and those charged business travelers.
  If a fare is found to be unreasonably high, the Secretary may order 
that it be reduced, that the reduced fare be offered for a specified 
number of seats and that rebates be offered.
  Preventing Unfair Practices Against Low Fare New Entrants: If a 
dominant incumbent carrier responds to low fare

[[Page 775]]

service by a new entrant by matching the low fare, and offering two or 
more times the low fare seats as the new entrant, the dominant carrier 
must continue to offer the low fare for two years.
  Increasing Competition At Hubs: If a dominant carrier at a hub 
airport is taking advantage of its monopoly power by offering fares 5% 
or more above industry average fares, in more than 20% of hub markets, 
DOT may take steps to facilitate added competition at the hub.
  Mr. President, no one wants the federal government to micro manage 
private industry. But our airways are not just a private industry--they 
are a public trust. People need to be able to fly across our vast 
nation--to do business, to see family members, and to enjoy their 
lives. If these mergers proceed without the competitive protections I 
am proposing, then the ultimate irony of deregulation will be that we 
will have traded government concern for the public interest, for 
private monopoly control in the interests of the industry.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Airline Competition 
Preservation 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. 199

       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 ``Airline Competition 
     Preservation Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. OVERSIGHT OF AIR CARRIER PRICING.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 415 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 41512. Oversight of air carrier pricing

       ``(a) Effective Date.--
       ``(1) In general.--This section shall take effect 
     immediately upon a determination by the Secretary of 
     Transportation that 3 or fewer air carriers account for 70 
     percent or more of the scheduled revenue passenger miles in 
     interstate air transportation as a result of--
       ``(A) the consolidation or merger of the properties (or a 
     substantial portion of the properties) of 2 or more of the 7 
     air carriers that account for the highest number of scheduled 
     revenue passenger miles in interstate air transportation into 
     a single entity that owns or operates the properties 
     previously in separate ownership; or
       ``(B) the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or contract to 
     operate) of the properties (or a substantial portion of the 
     properties) of 1 or more of the 7 air carriers described in 
     subparagraph (A) by another of such carriers.
       ``(2) Use of data.--For the purpose of determining the 
     number of scheduled revenue passenger miles under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall use data from the latest year for 
     which complete data is available.
       ``(3) Determination of air carrier concentration.--In 
     making a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall attribute to an air carrier those scheduled revenue 
     passenger miles in interstate air transportation of the air 
     carrier that is consolidated, merged, or acquired that are 
     associated with routes adopted by the remaining carrier.
       ``(b) Fares of Air Carriers.--
       ``(1) In general.--On the initiative of the Secretary or on 
     a complaint filed with the Secretary, the Secretary may 
     undertake an investigation to determine whether an air 
     carrier is charging a fare or an average fare for interstate 
     air transportation on a route that is unreasonably high.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In determining whether a fare or an 
     average fare of an air carrier for interstate air 
     transportation on a route is unreasonably high, the Secretary 
     shall consider, among other factors, whether--
       ``(A) the fare or average fare is higher than the fare or 
     average fare charged by the carrier on other routes in 
     interstate air transportation of comparable distances;
       ``(B) the fare or average fare has increased by a 
     significant amount in excess of any increase in the cost to 
     operate flights on the route; and
       ``(C) the range of fares specified on the route or the 
     carrier's entire fare system offers a reasonable balance and 
     a fair allocation of costs between passengers who are 
     primarily price sensitive and passengers who are primarily 
     time sensitive.
       ``(3) Actions in response to unreasonable fares.--If the 
     Secretary determines that an air carrier is charging a fare 
     or an average fare for interstate air transportation on a 
     route that is unreasonably high, the Secretary, after 
     providing the carrier an opportunity for a hearing, may order 
     the carrier--
       ``(A) to reduce the fare;
       ``(B) to offer the reduced fare for a specific number of 
     seats on the route; and
       ``(C) to offer rebates to individuals who have been charged 
     the fare.
       ``(4) Period of effectiveness of order.--An order issued by 
     the Secretary under this subsection shall remain in effect 
     for a period to be determined by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Actions of Dominant Air Carriers in Response to New 
     Entrants.--If, with respect to a route in interstate air 
     transportation to or from a hub airport, a dominant air 
     carrier at the airport--
       ``(1) institutes or changes its fares for air 
     transportation on the route in a manner that results in fares 
     that are lower than or comparable to the fares offered by a 
     new entrant air carrier for such air transportation; and
       ``(2) increases the passenger capacity at which such fares 
     are offered on the route to a level which is--
       ``(A) 2 or more times the capacity previously offered by 
     the carrier at such fares on the route; and
       ``(B) 2 or more times the total capacity offered by the new 
     entrant air carrier on the route, the dominant air carrier, 
     in the 2-year period beginning on the date that such fares 
     and additional capacity are instituted, shall continue to 
     offer such fares with respect to not less than 80 percent of 
     the highest number of seats per week for which the dominant 
     air carrier has offered the fares.
       ``(d) Ensuring Competition at Hub Airports.--
       ``(1) In general.--On the initiative of the Secretary or on 
     a complaint filed with the Secretary, the Secretary may 
     undertake an investigation to determine whether a dominant 
     air carrier at a hub airport is charging higher than average 
     fares at the airport.
       ``(2) Higher than average fares.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary may determine that a dominant air carrier 
     is charging higher than average fares at a hub airport if the 
     carrier is charging, with respect to 20 percent or more of 
     its routes in interstate air transportation that begin or end 
     at the airport, an average fare that is at least 5 percent 
     higher than the average fare being charged by all air 
     carriers on routes in interstate air transportation of 
     comparable distances and density, after adjustments for costs 
     that are carrier or airport specific, such as passenger 
     facility charges or employee compensation.
       ``(3) Actions in response to unfair competition.--If the 
     Secretary determines under paragraph (1) that a dominant air 
     carrier is charging higher than average fares at a hub 
     airport, the Secretary, after providing the carrier an 
     opportunity for a hearing, may order the carrier to take 
     actions to increase opportunities for competition at the hub 
     airport, including--
       ``(A) requiring the carrier to make gates, slots, and other 
     airport facilities available to other air carriers on 
     reasonable and competitive terms;
       ``(B) requiring adjustments in the commissions paid by the 
     carrier to travel agents;
       ``(C) requiring adjustments in the carrier's frequent flyer 
     program; and
       ``(D) requiring adjustments in the carrier's corporate 
     discount arrangements and comparable corporate arrangements.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Dominant air carrier.--The term `dominant air 
     carrier', with respect to a hub airport, means an air carrier 
     that accounts for more than 50 percent of the total annual 
     boardings at the airport in the preceding 2-year period or a 
     shorter period specified in paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Hub airport.--The term `hub airport' means an airport 
     that each year has at least .25 percent of the total annual 
     boardings in the United States.
       ``(3) Interstate air transportation.--The term `interstate 
     air transportation' includes intrastate air transportation.
       ``(4) New entrant air carrier.--The term `new entrant air 
     carrier', with respect to a hub airport, means an air carrier 
     that accounts for less than 5 percent of the total annual 
     boardings at the airport in the preceding 2-year period or in 
     a shorter period specified by the Secretary if the carrier 
     has operated at the airport less than 2 years.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``41512. Oversight of air carrier pricing.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 200. A bill to establish a national policy of basic consumer fair 
treatment for airline passengers, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this past holiday season saw a record number 
of Americans travel by air. Unfortunately, it also saw increases in 
some common problems associated with air travel--delayed and cancelled 
flights, customer confusion, and occurrences of ``air rage.''
  The number of delayed, cancelled and diverted flights has been 
increasing steadily over the past few years, reaching record highs last 
year. Last week, the Department of Transportation released a management 
report indicating

[[Page 776]]

that, from 1995 to 1999, the number of flight delays rose 58 percent 
and cancelled flights grew by 68 percent. In just one year, 1999, 
passenger complaints grew by 16 percent. During the first nine months 
of 2000, one of every four flights was cancelled, delayed or diverted, 
affecting more than 119 million passengers. The average delay was 50 
minutes.
  Disturbingly, the report also indicated an increase in the number of 
near-misses and runway safety errors that could have led to collisions 
between aircraft both in the air and on the ground.
  And amid these problems, the number of choices available to customers 
keeps decreasing. Within the past few months, National Airlines 
terminated much of its service, United Airlines announced a merger with 
USAir, and American Airlines announced its acquisition of TWA. If 
approved, these mergers would allow only three airlines to dominate the 
commercial airline industry.
  More than a year ago, the airlines announced voluntary pledges to 
improve their customer service and reduce delays, and asked for time to 
carry out their promises. But it's obvious that those voluntary 
promises have not worked. In addition to the increase in delays and 
customer complaints, a preliminary report by the Inspector General 
released last summer revealed a number of unfair and deceptive 
practices by the industry, including providing false or inaccurate 
information to passengers about the reasons for delays.
  Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, recently confirmed by the 
Senate, warned a few days ago that flight delays this coming summer 
will likely be as bad or worse than they have been the past two years.
  It's time for Congress to take action.
  Last year, I introduced S. 2891, the Air Travelers' Fair Treatment 
Act of 2000, which was aimed at addressing some of the most pressing 
problems associated with air travel. Today, I am re-introducing a 
modified version of that bill, which is titled the ``Air Travelers' 
Fair Treatment Act of 2001.''
  The new bill includes six main provisions:
  (1) Flight delays: Air carriers would be required to provide 
travelers with accurate and timely explanations of the reasons for a 
flight cancellation, delay or diversion from a ticketed itinerary. The 
failure to do so would be classified as an unfair practice that would 
subject the airline to civil penalties.
  (2) Right to exit aircraft: Where a plan has remained at the gate for 
more than 1 hour past its scheduled departure time and the captain has 
not been informed that the aircraft can be cleared for departure within 
15 minutes, passengers would have the right to exit the plane into the 
terminal to make alternative travel plans, or simply to stretch their 
legs, get something to eat, etc. I believe this provision will help 
prevent ``air rage'' incidents when passengers are forced to sit in 
parked planes for long periods of time.
  (3) Right to in-flight medical care: Currently, each airline has its 
own policy regarding what kind of medical and first-aid equipment and 
training is provided on their flights, so that the available equipment 
and medical training varies widely between carriers. This bill would 
direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue uniform minimum 
regulations for all carriers regarding the type of medical equipment 
each flight must carry and the kind of medical training each flight 
crew should receive.
  (4) Access to State laws: The Federal Courts have split on whether 
the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 pre-empts state consumer 
protection and personal injury laws as applied to airlines. The Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that passengers may sue airlines in 
state court for violations of state fraud and consumer protection laws; 
in contrast, the Fourth Circuit has held that airlines are immune from 
state law. The bill would clarify that the 1978 Act does not preempt 
state tort and consumer protection laws, allowing passengers full 
access to their consumer rights in whatever state they are in.
  (5) Termination of ticket agents: Travel agencies provide a valuable 
service to customers looking for the best prices. Yet airlines have 
enormous leverage over what kind of information they can and cannot 
provide to customers, because they can withdraw their accounts without 
notice from any travel agency for any reason--even if the only reason 
is that the travel agency is giving the customer the best rates. The 
bill requires carriers to provide written 90-day advance statement of 
reasons before canceling a travel agency's account with the airline, 
and to give them 60 days to correct the identified deficiencies.
  (6) Safety records: Right now, many airlines are reluctant to release 
information to the public relating to their safety records, including 
their accident record and certification compliance records. But I 
believe that passengers should have the right to know whether the 
airline they are flying has complied with government safety standards, 
whether it has been fined or penalized for safety violations, and how 
many accidents or safety violations the airlines has been involved in. 
This bill will include a new provision requiring the Secretary of 
Transportation to develop regulations under which the safety, 
inspection, certification compliance and accident records of the 
airlines will be made available to any customer upon request.
  Mr. President, air travel has become a staple of modern society. All 
of us in this body rely on it frequently to return to our home states. 
But by almost every measure, the quality and reliability of air travel 
continues to decline. I think it's past time that Congress stepped in 
and forced the airlines to do what they have been unwilling to do so 
far on their own--to clean up their act. I ask my colleagues to join 
me.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Air Travelers Fair 
Treatment 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. 200

       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 ``Air Travelers Fair Treatment 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FAIR TREATMENT OF AIRLINE PASSENGERS.

       Section 41712 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Specific Practices.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     the term `unfair or deceptive practice' includes each of the 
     following:
       ``(1) Flight delays.--The failure of an air carrier or 
     foreign air carrier to provide a passenger of the carrier 
     with an accurate explanation of the reasons for a flight 
     delay, cancellation, or diversion from a ticketed itinerary.
       ``(2) Termination of ticket agents.--In the case of a 
     termination, cancellation, nonrenewal, or substantial change 
     in the competitive circumstances of the appointment of a 
     ticket agent by an air carrier or foreign air carrier, the 
     failure of the air carrier or foreign air carrier--
       ``(A) to provide the ticket agent with written notice, and 
     a full statement of reasons for the action, on or before the 
     90th day preceding the action; and
       ``(B) to provide the ticket agent with at least 60 days to 
     correct any deficiency claimed in the written notice,

     except in cases of insolvency, an assignment for the benefit 
     of creditors, bankruptcy, or nonpayment of sums due under the 
     appointment.''.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS.

       Section 41713(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``related to a price, route, or service 
     of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under 
     this subpart'' and inserting ``that directly prescribes a 
     price, route, or level of service for air transportation 
     provided by an air carrier under this subpart''.

     SEC. 4. EMERGENCY MEDICAL ASSISTANCE; RIGHT OF EGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 41722. Airline passenger rights

       ``(a) Right to In-Flight Emergency Medical Care.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     prescribe regulations to establish minimum standards for 
     resuscitation, emergency medical, and first-aid equipment and 
     supplies to be carried on board an aircraft operated by an 
     air carrier in air

[[Page 777]]

     transportation that is capable of carrying at least 30 
     passengers.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In prescribing regulations under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) the weight and size of the equipment described in 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(B) the need for special training of air carrier 
     personnel to operate the equipment safely and effectively;
       ``(C) the space limitations of each type of aircraft;
       ``(D) the effect of the regulations on aircraft operations;
       ``(E) the practical experience of airlines in carrying and 
     operating similar equipment; and
       ``(F) other relevant factors.
       ``(3) Consultation.--Before prescribing regulations under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with the Surgeon 
     General of the Public Health Service.
       ``(b) Right To Exit Aircraft.--No air carrier or foreign 
     air carrier operating an aircraft in air transportation shall 
     prevent or hinder (including by failing to assist) any 
     passenger from exiting the aircraft (under the same 
     circumstances as any member of the flight crew is permitted 
     to exit the aircraft) if--
       ``(1) the aircraft is parked at an airport terminal gate 
     with access to ramp or other facilities through which 
     passengers are customarily boarded and deplaned;
       ``(2) the aircraft has remained at the gate more than 1 
     hour past its scheduled departure time; and
       ``(3) the captain of the aircraft has not been informed by 
     air traffic control authorities that the aircraft can be 
     cleared for departure within 15 minutes.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 417 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``41722. Airline passenger rights.''.

     SEC. 5. CONSUMER ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

       (a) Requirement for Program.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 447 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 44727. Air traveler safety program

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Written information.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     (in this section referred to as the `Secretary') shall 
     require in regulations, for a period determined by the 
     Secretary, that each air carrier that provides interstate air 
     transportation or foreign air transportation to provide 
     written information upon request, to passengers that purchase 
     passage for interstate or foreign air transportation 
     concerning the following:
       ``(A) Safety inspection reviews conducted by the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (in this 
     section referred to as the `Administrator') on the aircraft 
     of that air carrier.
       ``(B) The safety ranking of that air carrier, as determined 
     by the Administrator in accordance with applicable law.
       ``(C) The compliance of the members of the crew of the 
     aircraft with any applicable certification requirements under 
     this subtitle.
       ``(2) Guidelines.--The regulations issued by the Secretary 
     under this subsection shall provide guidelines for air 
     carriers relating to the provision of the information 
     referred to in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Request for information.--An air carrier shall be 
     required to provide to a passenger, on request, any 
     information concerning the safety of aircraft and the 
     competency of persons issued a certificate under this 
     subtitle for the operation of the aircraft that the 
     Secretary, to the extent allowable by law, determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(b) Submission of Performance Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each year, 
     the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress regarding the 
     safety of air carriers that provide interstate or foreign air 
     transportation. The report shall include with respect to the 
     year in which the report is filed--
       ``(A) the number of accidents and a description of such 
     accidents of air carriers attributable to each air carrier 
     that provides interstate or foreign air transportation; and
       ``(B) the names of makers of aircraft that have been 
     involved in an accident.
       ``(2) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall 
     make the annual report under paragraph (1) available to any 
     person or entity upon request.
       ``(A) travel agencies and consultants for distribution to 
     persons served by those agencies and consultants; and
       ``(B) any other person or entity upon request.
       ``(c) Victims' Rights Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The National Transportation Safety Board 
     shall establish and administer a program for victims and 
     survivors of aircraft accidents in air commerce. Under that 
     program, the National Transportation Safety Board shall 
     ensure that such victims and survivors of an accident 
     receive, to the extent allowable by law, immediate and 
     unrestricted access to information on the accident that is 
     made available from--
       ``(A) the air carrier involved in an accident in air 
     commerce;
       ``(B) the Federal Government; and
       ``(C) State governments and political subdivisions thereof.
       ``(2) Classified information.--Nothing in paragraph (1) may 
     be construed to authorize a release of information that is 
     specifically authorized under criteria established by an 
     Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national 
     defense or foreign policy.
       ``(d) Coordination of Victim Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The National Transportation Safety 
     Board, in cooperation with officials of appropriate Federal 
     agencies and the American Red Cross, shall establish a 
     program to ensure the coordination of the disclosure of 
     information under subsection (c) and assistance provided to 
     victims of an accident in air commerce.
       ``(2) Establishment of toll-free telephone line.--
       ``(A) In general.--The National Transportation Safety 
     Board, in cooperation with officials of the appropriate 
     Federal agencies and the American Red Cross, shall establish 
     a toll-free telephone line to facilitate the provision of 
     information under paragraph (3).
       ``(B) Action by the national transportation safety board.--
     The National Transportation Safety Board shall take such 
     action as may be necessary to ensure--
       ``(i) the publication of the telephone number of the 
     telephone line established under subparagraph (A) in 
     newspapers of general circulation; and
       ``(ii) the provision of such number on national television 
     news programs.
       ``(3) Information provided by telephone line.--The 
     telephone line established under paragraph (2) shall provide 
     the following information concerning an accident in air 
     commerce:
       ``(A) The identifier name and number of the aircraft 
     involved in the accident.
       ``(B) The names of known victims of the accident.
       ``(C) The status of the investigation of the accident.
       ``(D) A list of appropriate Federal agencies and contacts.
       ``(E) The facilities at which victims of the accident may 
     be identified.
       ``(e) Civil Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any air carrier that fails to provide 
     information in accordance with this section shall be liable 
     for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per 
     violation.
       ``(2) Travel agencies and other persons not covered.--
     Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a travel agency or other 
     person that does not provide interstate or foreign air 
     transportation.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this section.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 447 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``44727. Air traveler safety program.''.

       (b) Time for Regulations.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall issue the regulations required by subsection (a) of 
     section 44727 of title 49, United States Code (as added by 
     subsection (a)), not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Submittal of First Annual Report.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall submit the first annual report to 
     Congress under subsection (b) of such section 44727 not later 
     than December 31, 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER:
  S. 202. A bill to rename Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts 
as ``Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts''; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to rename 
the Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts as the ``Wolf Trap 
National Park for the Performing Arts''. Wolf Trap is the only unit of 
the National Park System dedicated to the performing arts. It provides 
an unrivaled setting for live performances in the rolling countryside 
of Virginia outside of Washington, D.C.
  To provide this unique experience, the National Park Service 
collaborates with the Wolf Trap Foundation in a public/private 
partnership to offer cultural, natural, and educational experiences to 
the community and to the nation. The National Park Service maintains 
the grounds and buildings of Wolf Trap Farm Park. The Wolf Trap 
Foundation, a ``501(c)(3)'' not-for-profit organization, creates and 
selects the programming, develops all education programs, handles 
ticket sales, marketing, publicity and public relations, and raises 
funds to support these programs. The Park Service has an annual budget 
of just over $3 million to maintain the facility while the Wolf Trap 
Foundation has an annual budget of $22 million, 60% of which is 
generated through ticket sales with the rest raised through private 
donations.

[[Page 778]]

  Wolf Trap offers a wide variety of educational programs including the 
nationally acclaimed Wolf Trap Institute for Early Learning Through the 
Arts for preschoolers, scholarships and performance opportunities for 
talented high school musicians, pre-performance preview lectures, the 
America's Promise mentoring program, the Mars Millennium project 
partnership with Buzz Aldrin Elementary School, the Folk Masters Study 
Units for teachers who want to incorporate the folk arts into their 
curriculum, a highly competitive internship program for college 
students, and master classes for people with all skill levels and 
interest. Wolf Trap has also gained world-wide recognition for its 
summer residency program for young opera singers, the Wolf Trap Opera 
Company.
  This legislation recognizes Wolf Trap's status as one of the crown 
jewels in the National Park System. Including Wolf Trap with the 
already designated National Parks is intended to raise awareness of the 
unique roll this facility plays in the nation's natural, cultural and 
educational life. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 
many achievements of Wolf Trap.
  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. 202

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

     SECTION 1. RENAMING.

       The Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the establishment 
     of the Wolf Trap Farm Park in Fairfax County, Virginia, and 
     for other purposes'', Public Law 89-671 (16 U.S.C. 284) is 
     amended in the first section and in section 11(2) by striking 
     ``Wolf Trap Farm Park'' and inserting ``Wolf Trap National 
     Park for the Performing Arts''. Any reference to such park in 
     any law, regulation, map, document, paper, or other record of 
     the United States shall be considered to be a reference to 
     the ``Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts''.

     SEC. 2. USE OF NAME.

       The Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the establishment 
     of the Wolf Trap Farm Park in Fairfax County, Virginia, and 
     for other purposes'', Public Law 89-671 (16 U.S.C. 284) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Sec. 14. Any reference to the park other than by the name 
     `Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts' shall be 
     prohibited.''.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.

       Any laws, rules, or regulations that are applicable solely 
     to units of the National Park System that are designated as a 
     ``National Park'' shall not apply to ``Wolf Trap National 
     Park for the Performing Arts'' nor to any other units 
     designated as a ``National Park for the Performing Arts''.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       Section 4(c)(3) of ``An Act to provide for the 
     establishment of the Wolf Trap Farm Park in Fairfax County, 
     Virginia, and for other purposes'', Public Law 89-671 (16 
     U.S.C. 284) is amended by striking ``Funds'' and inserting 
     ``funds''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER:
  S. 201. A bill to require that Federal agencies be accountable for 
violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Federal 
Employee Protection Act of 2001. This bill will significantly 
strengthen existing laws protecting federal employees from 
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace. It is an 
unfortunate fact that too many federal employees are subjected to such 
treatment with alarming regularity.
  My bill will result in a more productive work environment by ensuring 
agencies enforce the laws intended to protect federal employees from 
harassment, discrimination and retaliation for whistleblowing.
  The Federal Employee Protection Act contains three main provisions: 
No. 1, when agencies lose judgments or make settlements in harassment, 
discrimination and whistleblower cases, the responsible Federal agency 
would pay any financial penalty out of its own budget, rather than out 
of a general Federal judgment fund; No. 2, Federal agencies are 
required to notify their employees about any applicable discrimination, 
harassment and whistleblower protection laws; and No. 3, each Federal 
agency is required to send an annual report to Congress and the 
Attorney General listing: the number of cases in which an agency was 
alleged to have violated any of the discrimination, harassment or 
whistleblower statutes; the disposition of each of these cases; the 
total of all monetary awards charged against the agency from these 
cases; and the number of agency employees disciplined for 
discrimination or harassment or retaliation. Additionally, the Federal 
Employee Protection Act requires each Federal agency to submit a one-
time report to Congress and the Attorney General that includes the same 
information required for the annual reports going back for the last ten 
years. This report will provide a historical perspective to help 
evaluate current agency behavior.
  Under current law, agencies are not accountable financially when they 
lose harassment, discrimination and retaliation cases because any 
financial penalties are paid out of a government-wide fund and not the 
agency's budget. I firmly believe that because there is no financial 
consequence to their actions, Federal agencies are essentially able to 
escape responsibility when they fail to comply with the law and are 
unresponsive to their employees' concerns.
  Reports of Federal agencies being indifferent or hostile to 
complaints of sexual harassment and racial discrimination undermine the 
ability of the Federal Government to enforce civil rights laws and 
hamper efforts to recruit talented individuals for Federal employment. 
The Federal Government must set an example for the private sector by 
promoting a workplace that does not tolerate harassment or 
discrimination of any kind and that encourages employees to report 
illegal activity and mismanagement without fear of reprisal.
  I believe the Federal Employee Protection Act of 2001 will give 
Federal employees the protections they need to perform their jobs 
effectively and will give the taxpayers a government with more 
accountability. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.

                          ____________________