Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 for October 11, 2001

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[Issue]
[Pages 19233-19620]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

107

VOLUME 147--PART 14

October 11, 2001
October 11, 2001

[[Page 19233]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, October 11, 2001

The House met at 10 a.m.
The Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon, Bishop of Washington, pro
tempore, Washington, D.C., offered the following prayer:
Most gracious God, Creator and Ruler of the Universe, the one to whom
there are many paths and to whom we call many days, we give You thanks
this day for the men and women who serve our Nation in the House of
Representatives.
We pray that as they make decisions for our welfare and enact laws
for our country, You will guide them to perceive what is right and
grant them both the courage to pursue it and the will to accomplish it.
In this time of great national tragedy, profound sadness, and indeed
a fear among our people, touch us with Your compassion even as we
contend against evil. Help us to know with certainty that love is
stronger than hate, and as we make no peace with oppression, give us a
devotion to justice and freedom here and throughout the world.
We pray also this day for George, our President, and for all our
allies that they may be led to wise decisions and right actions for the
welfare and peace of the world. Be especially with all who serve in the
armed forces, defend them by day and night, strengthen them in their
trials, and give them solace and courage as they offer their lives for
freedom.
And we pray for our enemies. Lead them and us from prejudice to
truth; and deliver them and us from hatred, cruelty and revenge.
Finally, I ask Your blessing on each and every one gathered here
today. Comfort and keep them and make them ever mindful that You, O
God, require us to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with
our God. In Your most holy name we pray. Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) come forward
and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. GREEN of Texas led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

THE RIGHT REVEREND JANE HOLMES DIXON

(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the House is pleased to welcome the Right
Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon who delivered the prayer this morning.
Bishop Dixon was named Bishop of Washington pro tempore, and will be
the ecclesiastic authority during the search and transition for the
eighth bishop of Washington. She has been suffragan bishop of the
Episcopal Diocese of Washington. She is a native of Winona,
Mississippi, and only the second woman to hold the Office of Bishop in
the Episcopal Church.
All were moved after hearing Bishop Dixon at the service at
Washington National Cathedral a few days after the September 11 attack
on our country. This wife, this mother, this grandmother, presides over
the diocese of the District of Columbia and four Maryland counties. She
became a priest in 1982 and has served in churches in Maryland and
Virginia. She got her doctorate of divinity in 1993 from the Virginia
Theological Seminary.
Bishop Dixon not only serves her church, she serves her community,
she serves on the theology and urban affairs committees of the House of
Bishops, she is president of the Board of the Interfaith Alliance. She
is a member of a board of the Fair Housing Council of Greater
Washington and a member of the Women's Forum of Washington, D.C. Bishop
Dixon has been selected by the Washingtonian Magazine as one of the 100
most influential women in the Washington, D.C. area. Bishop Jane Holmes
Dixon, churchwoman, citizen.

____________________

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2217, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

Mr. REGULA submitted the following conference report and statement on
the bill (H.R. 2217) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2002, and for other purposes:

Conference Report (H. Rept. 107-234)

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2217) ``making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes'', having met,
after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and
do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said
amendment, insert:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

management of lands and resources

For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement,
development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification,
acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and
performance of other functions, including maintenance of
facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands
and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management, including the general administration of the
Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of

[[Page 19234]]

public lands pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C.
3150(a)), $775,632,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $1,000,000 is for high priority projects which shall
be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, defined in
section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
such Act; of which $4,000,000 shall be available for
assessment of the mineral potential of public lands in Alaska
pursuant to section 1010 of Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C.
3150); and of which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be derived
from the special receipt account established by the Land and
Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-
6a(i)); and of which $3,000,000 shall be available in fiscal
year 2002 subject to a match by at least an equal amount by
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, to such Foundation
for cost-shared projects supporting conservation of Bureau
lands and such funds shall be advanced to the Foundation as a
lump sum grant without regard to when expenses are incurred;
in addition, $32,298,000 for Mining Law Administration
program operations, including the cost of administering the
mining claim fee program; to remain available until expended,
to be reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau and credited
to this appropriation from annual mining claim fees so as to
result in a final appropriation estimated at not more than
$775,632,000, and $2,000,000, to remain available until
expended, from communication site rental fees established by
the Bureau for the cost of administering communication site
activities: Provided, That appropriations herein made shall
not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted,
wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its
contractors: Provided further, That of the amount provided,
$28,000,000 is for the conservation activities defined in
section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
such Act: Provided further, That fiscal year 2001 balances in
the Federal Infrastructure Improvement account for the Bureau
of Land Management shall be transferred to and merged with
this appropriation, and shall remain available until
expended.

wildland fire management

For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression
operations, fire science and research, emergency
rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, and rural fire
assistance by the Department of the Interior, $624,421,000,
to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed
$19,774,000 shall be for the renovation or construction of
fire facilities: Provided, That such funds are also available
for repayment of advances to other appropriation accounts
from which funds were previously transferred for such
purposes: Provided further, That unobligated balances of
amounts previously appropriated to the ``Fire Protection''
and ``Emergency Department of the Interior Firefighting
Fund'' may be transferred and merged with this appropriation:
Provided further, That persons hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C.
1469 may be furnished subsistence and lodging without cost
from funds available from this appropriation: Provided
further, That notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received
by a bureau or office of the Department of the Interior for
fire protection rendered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq.,
protection of United States property, may be credited to the
appropriation from which funds were expended to provide that
protection, and are available without fiscal year limitation:
Provided further, That using the amounts designated under
this title of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior may
enter into procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative
agreements, for hazardous fuels reduction activities, and for
training and monitoring associated with such hazardous fuels
reduction activities, on Federal land, or on adjacent non-
Federal land for activities that benefit resources on Federal
land: Provided further, That the costs of implementing any
cooperative agreement between the Federal government and any
non-Federal entity may be shared, as mutually agreed on by
the affected parties: Provided further, That in entering into
such grants or cooperative agreements, the Secretary may
consider the enhancement of local and small business
employment opportunities for rural communities, and that in
entering into procurement contracts under this section on a
best value basis, the Secretary may take into account the
ability of an entity to enhance local and small business
employment opportunities in rural communities, and that the
Secretary may award procurement contracts, grants, or
cooperative agreements under this section to entities that
include local non-profit entities, Youth Conservation Corps
or related partnerships, or small or disadvantaged
businesses: Provided further, That funds appropriated under
this head may be used to reimburse the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service
for the costs of carrying out their responsibilities under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
to consult and conference, as required by section 7 of such
Act in connection with wildland fire management activities.
For an additional amount to cover necessary expenses for
burned areas rehabilitation and fire suppression by the
Department of the Interior, $54,000,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $34,000,000 is for wildfire
suppression and $20,000,000 is for burned areas
rehabilitation: Provided, That the Congress designates the
entire amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That
$54,000,000 shall be available only to the extent an official
budget request, that includes designation of the $54,000,000
as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress.

central hazardous materials fund

For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior
and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial
action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste
substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.),
$9,978,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums recovered from or
paid by a party in advance of or as reimbursement for
remedial action or response activities conducted by the
Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f) of such Act,
shall be credited to this account to be available until
expended without further appropriation: Provided further,
That such sums recovered from or paid by any party are not
limited to monetary payments and may include stocks, bonds or
other personal or real property, which may be retained,
liquidated, or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary and
which shall be credited to this account.

construction

For construction of buildings, recreation facilities,
roads, trails, and appurtenant facilities, $13,076,000, to
remain available until expended.

payments in lieu of taxes

For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20,
1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $210,000,000, of
which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for
administrative expenses and of which $50,000,000 is for the
conservation activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided,
That no payment shall be made to otherwise eligible units of
local government if the computed amount of the payment is
less than $100.

land acquisition

For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and
318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative
expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests
therein, $49,920,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to
be for the conservation activities defined in section
250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such
Act.

oregon and california grant lands

For expenses necessary for management, protection, and
development of resources and for construction, operation, and
maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other
improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad
grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and
California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent
rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein
including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such
grant lands; $105,165,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all
receipts during the current fiscal year from the revested
Oregon and California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a
charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and
shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in
accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of
title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).

forest ecosystems health and recovery fund

(revolving fund, special account)

In addition to the purposes authorized in Public Law 102-
381, funds made available in the Forest Ecosystem Health and
Recovery Fund can be used for the purpose of planning,
preparing, and monitoring salvage timber sales and forest
ecosystem health and recovery activities such as release from
competing vegetation and density control treatments. The
Federal share of receipts (defined as the portion of salvage
timber receipts not paid to the counties under 43 U.S.C.
1181f and 43 U.S.C. 1181-1 et seq., and Public Law 103-66)
derived from treatments funded by this account shall be
deposited into the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund.

range improvements

For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands
and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands
pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any
other Act, sums equal to 50 percent of all moneys received
during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the
Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the amount
designated for range improvements from grazing fees and
mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands
transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to
law, but not less than $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be
available for administrative expenses.

service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

For administrative expenses and other costs related to
processing application documents and other authorizations for
use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of
providing copies of official public land documents, for
monitoring construction, operation, and termination of
facilities in conjunction with use

[[Page 19235]]

authorizations, and for rehabilitation of damaged property,
such amounts as may be collected under Public Law 94-579, as
amended, and Public Law 93-153, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any provision to the
contrary of section 305(a) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C.
1735(a)), any moneys that have been or will be received
pursuant to that section, whether as a result of forfeiture,
compromise, or settlement, if not appropriate for refund
pursuant to section 305(c) of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)),
shall be available and may be expended under the authority of
this Act by the Secretary to improve, protect, or
rehabilitate any public lands administered through the Bureau
of Land Management which have been damaged by the action of a
resource developer, purchaser, permittee, or any unauthorized
person, without regard to whether all moneys collected from
each such action are used on the exact lands damaged which
led to the action: Provided further, That any such moneys
that are in excess of amounts needed to repair damage to the
exact land for which funds were collected may be used to
repair other damaged public lands.

miscellaneous trust funds

In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under
existing laws, there is hereby appropriated such amounts as
may be contributed under section 307 of the Act of October
21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and such amounts as may be
advanced for administrative costs, surveys, appraisals, and
costs of making conveyances of omitted lands under section
211(b) of that Act, to remain available until expended.

administrative provisions

Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be
available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of
temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of
necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the
United States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the
discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence
concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau;
miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement
activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be
accounted for solely on her certificate, not to exceed
$10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the
Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing and partnership
arrangements authorized by law, procure printing services
from cooperators in connection with jointly produced
publications for which the cooperators share the cost of
printing either in cash or in services, and the Bureau
determines the cooperator is capable of meeting accepted
quality standards: Provided further, That section 28f(a) of
title 30, United States Code, is amended:
(1) In section 28f(a), by striking the first sentence and
inserting, ``The holder of each unpatented mining claim,
mill, or tunnel site, located pursuant to the mining laws of
the United States, whether located before, on or after the
enactment of this Act, shall pay to the Secretary of the
Interior, on or before September 1 of each year for years
2002 through 2003, a claim maintenance fee of $100 per claim
or site''; and
(2) In section 28g, by striking ``and before September 30,
2001'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``and before September
30, 2003''.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

resource management

For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, for scientific and economic studies,
conservation, management, investigations, protection, and
utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales,
seals, and sea lions, maintenance of the herd of long-horned
cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, general
administration, and for the performance of other authorized
functions related to such resources by direct expenditure,
contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable
agreements with public and private entities, $850,597,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2003, except as
otherwise provided herein, of which $29,000,000 is for
conservation activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided,
That fiscal year 2001 balances in the Federal Infrastructure
Improvement account for the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service shall be transferred to and merged with this
appropriation, and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That not less than $2,000,000 shall be
provided to local governments in southern California for
planning associated with the Natural Communities Conservation
Planning (NCCP) program and shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That $2,000,000 is for high
priority projects which shall be carried out by the Youth
Conservation Corps, defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided further, That
not to exceed $9,000,000 shall be used for implementing
subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended, for species that are
indigenous to the United States (except for processing
petitions, developing and issuing proposed and final
regulations, and taking any other steps to implement actions
described in subsection (c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or
(c)(2)(B)(ii)), of which not to exceed $6,000,000 shall be
used for any activity regarding the designation of critical
habitat, pursuant to subsection (a)(3), excluding litigation
support, for species already listed pursuant to subsection
(a)(1) as of the date of enactment this Act: Provided
further, That of the amount available for law enforcement, up
to $400,000 to remain available until expended, may at the
discretion of the Secretary, be used for payment for
information, rewards, or evidence concerning violations of
laws administered by the Service, and miscellaneous and
emergency expenses of enforcement activity, authorized or
approved by the Secretary and to be accounted for solely on
her certificate: Provided further, That of the amount
provided for environmental contaminants, up to $1,000,000 may
remain available until expended for contaminant sample
analyses.

construction

For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal of
buildings and other facilities required in the conservation,
management, investigation, protection, and utilization of
fishery and wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands
and interests therein; $55,543,000, to remain available until
expended.

land acquisition

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in
accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, $99,135,000, to be derived
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain
available until expended, and to be for the conservation
activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended,
for the purposes of such Act: Provided, That none of the
funds appropriated for specific land acquisition projects can
be used to pay for any administrative overhead, planning or
other management costs except that, in fiscal year 2002 only,
not to exceed $2,500,000 may be used consistent with the
Service's cost allocation methodology: Provided further, That
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is authorized to
purchase the common stock of Yauhannah Properties, Inc. for
the purposes of inclusion of real property owned by that
corporation into the Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge.

landowner incentive program

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
private conservation efforts to be carried out on private
lands, $40,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to
be for conservation spending category activities pursuant to
section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
discretionary spending limits: Provided, That the amount
provided herein is for a Landowner Incentive Program
established by the Secretary that provides matching,
competitively awarded grants to States, the District of
Columbia, Tribes, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin
Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, to
establish, or supplement existing, landowner incentive
programs that provide technical and financial assistance,
including habitat protection and restoration, to private
landowners for the protection and management of habitat to
benefit federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or
other at-risk species on private lands.

stewardship grants

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
private conservation efforts to be carried out on private
lands, $10,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to
be for conservation spending category activities pursuant to
section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
discretionary spending limits: Provided, That the amount
provided herein is for the Secretary to establish a Private
Stewardship Grants Program to provide grants and other
assistance to individuals and groups engaged in private
conservation efforts that benefit federally listed, proposed,
or candidate species, or other at-risk species.

cooperative endangered species conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out section 6 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as
amended, $96,235,000, to be derived from the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund, to remain available
until expended, and to be for the conservation activities
defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the
purposes of such Act.

national wildlife refuge fund

For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17,
1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $14,414,000.

north american wetlands conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233,
as amended, $43,500,000, to remain available until expended
and to be for the conservation activities defined in section
250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such
Act: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, amounts in excess of funds provided in fiscal year 2001
shall be used only for projects in the United States.

neotropical migratory bird conservation

For financial assistance for projects to promote the
conservation of neotropical migratory

[[Page 19236]]

birds in accordance with the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act, Public Law 106-247 (16 U.S.C. 6101-6109),
$3,000,000, to remain available until expended.

multinational species conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201- 4203, 4211-4213, 4221-4225,
4241-4245, and 1538), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of
1997 (Public Law 105-96; 16 U.S.C. 4261-4266), the Rhinoceros
and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301-5306), and
the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6301),
$4,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds made available under this Act, Public Law 106-291,
and Public Law 106-554 and hereafter in annual appropriations
Acts for rhinoceros, tiger, Asian elephant, and great ape
conservation programs are exempt from any sanctions imposed
against any country under section 102 of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2799aa-1).

state wildlife grants

(including rescission of funds)

For wildlife conservation grants to States and to the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States
Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa,
and federally recognized Indian tribes under the provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development and
implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and
their habitat, including species that are not hunted or
fished, $85,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to
be for the conservation activities defined in section
250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such
Act: Provided, That of the amount provided herein, $5,000,000
is for a competitive grant program for Indian tribes not
subject to the remaining provisions of this appropriation:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall, after deducting
said $5,000,000 and administrative expenses, apportion the
amount provided herein in the following manner: (A) to the
District of Columbia and to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
each a sum equal to not more than one-half of 1 percent
thereof: and (B) to Guam, American Samoa, the United States
Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, each a sum equal to not more than one-fourth of 1
percent thereof: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
apportion the remaining amount in the following manner: (A)
one-third of which is based on the ratio to which the land
area of such State bears to the total land area of all such
States; and (B) two-thirds of which is based on the ratio to
which the population of such State bears to the total
population of all such States: Provided further, That the
amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be adjusted
equitably so that no State shall be apportioned a sum which
is less than 1 percent of the amount available for
apportionment under this paragraph for any fiscal year or
more than 5 percent of such amount: Provided further, That
the Federal share of planning grants shall not exceed 75
percent of the total costs of such projects and the Federal
share of implementation grants shall not exceed 50 percent of
the total costs of such projects: Provided further, That the
non-Federal share of such projects may not be derived from
Federal grant programs: Provided further, That no State,
territory, or other jurisdiction shall receive a grant unless
it has developed, or committed to develop by October 1, 2005,
a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan, consistent with
criteria established by the Secretary of the Interior, that
considers the broad range of the State, territory, or other
jurisdiction's wildlife and associated habitats, with
appropriate priority placed on those species with the
greatest conservation need and taking into consideration the
relative level of funding available for the conservation of
those species: Provided further, That any amount apportioned
in 2002 to any State, territory, or other jurisdiction that
remains unobligated as of September 30, 2003, shall be
reapportioned, together with funds appropriated in 2004, in
the manner provided herein.
Of the amounts appropriated in title VIII of Public Law
106-291, $25,000,000 for State Wildlife Grants are rescinded.

administrative provisions

Appropriations and funds available to the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of
not to exceed 74 passenger motor vehicles, of which 69 are
for replacement only (including 32 for police-type use);
repair of damage to public roads within and adjacent to
reservation areas caused by operations of the Service;
options for the purchase of land at not to exceed $1 for each
option; facilities incident to such public recreational uses
on conservation areas as are consistent with their primary
purpose; and the maintenance and improvement of aquaria,
buildings, and other facilities under the jurisdiction of the
Service and to which the United States has title, and which
are used pursuant to law in connection with management and
investigation of fish and wildlife resources: Provided, That
notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the Service may, under
cooperative cost sharing and partnership arrangements
authorized by law, procure printing services from cooperators
in connection with jointly produced publications for which
the cooperators share at least one-half the cost of printing
either in cash or services and the Service determines the
cooperator is capable of meeting accepted quality standards:
Provided further, That the Service may accept donated
aircraft as replacements for existing aircraft: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior may not spend any of the funds
appropriated in this Act for the purchase of lands or
interests in lands to be used in the establishment of any new
unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System unless the
purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in Senate Report 105-56.

National Park Service

operation of the national park system

For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and
maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the
National Park Service (including special road maintenance
service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and
for the general administration of the National Park Service,
$1,476,977,000, of which $10,869,000 for research, planning
and interagency coordination in support of land acquisition
for Everglades restoration shall remain available until
expended; and of which $72,640,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2003, is for maintenance repair or
rehabilitation projects for constructed assets, operation of
the National Park Service automated facility management
software system, and comprehensive facility condition
assessments; and of which $2,000,000 is for the Youth
Conservation Corps, defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, for the purposes of such Act, for high priority
projects: Provided, That the only funds in this account which
may be made available to support United States Park Police
are those funds approved for emergency law and order
incidents pursuant to established National Park Service
procedures, those funds needed to maintain and repair United
States Park Police administrative facilities, and those funds
necessary to reimburse the United States Park Police account
for the unbudgeted overtime and travel costs associated with
special events for an amount not to exceed $10,000 per event
subject to the review and concurrence of the Washington
headquarters office: Provided further, That none of the funds
in this or any other Act may be used to fund a new Associate
Director position for Partnerships.

United States Park Police

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs of the
United States Park Police, $65,260,000.

CONTRIBUTION FOR ANNUITY BENEFITS

For reimbursement (not heretofore made), pursuant to
provisions of Public Law 85-157, to the District of Columbia
on a monthly basis for benefit payments by the District of
Columbia to United States Park Police annuitants under the
provisions of the Policeman and Fireman's Retirement and
Disability Act (Act), to the extent those payments exceed
contributions made by active Park Police members covered
under the Act, such amounts as hereafter may be necessary:
Provided, That hereafter the appropriations made to the
National Park Service shall not be available for this
purpose.

national recreation and preservation

For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs,
natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership
programs, environmental compliance and review, international
park affairs, statutory or contractual aid for other
activities, and grant administration, not otherwise provided
for, $66,159,000, of which $500,000 are for grants pursuant
to the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act
of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 469l, as amended).

urban park and recreation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2501 et seq.), $30,000,000, to remain available until
expended and to be for the conservation activities defined in
section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
such Act.

historic preservation fund

For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and the
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-333), $74,500,000, to be derived from the Historic
Preservation Fund, to remain available until September 30,
2003, and to be for the conservation activities defined in
section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the
purposes of such Act: Provided, That, of the amount provided
herein, $2,500,000, to remain available until expended, is
for a grant for the perpetual care and maintenance of
National Trust Historic Sites, as authorized under 16 U.S.C.
470a(e)(2), to be made available in full upon signing of a
grant agreement: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, these funds shall be available for
investment with the proceeds to be used for the same purpose
as set out herein: Provided further, That of the total amount
provided, $30,000,000 shall be for Save America's Treasures
for priority preservation projects, including preservation of
intellectual and cultural artifacts, preservation of historic
structures and sites, and buildings to house cultural and
historic resources and to provide educational opportunities:
Provided further, That any individual Save America's
Treasures grant shall be matched by non-Federal funds:
Provided further, That individual projects shall only be
eligible for one grant, and all projects to be funded shall
be approved by the House and Senate

[[Page 19237]]

Committees on Appropriations prior to the commitment of grant
funds: Provided further, That Save America's Treasures funds
allocated for Federal projects shall be available by transfer
to appropriate accounts of individual agencies, after
approval of such projects by the Secretary of the Interior:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided for Save
America's Treasures may be used for administrative expenses,
and staffing for the program shall be available from the
existing staffing levels in the National Park Service.

Construction

For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of
physical facilities, including the modifications authorized
by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and
Expansion Act of 1989, $376,044,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $66,851,000 is for conservation
activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended,
for the purposes of such Act: Provided, That of the amount
provided for Cuyahoga National Park, $200,000 may be used for
the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad platform and station in
Canton, Ohio.

land and water conservation fund

(rescission)

The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2002 by 16
U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.

land acquisition and state assistance

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in
accordance with the statutory authority applicable to the
National Park Service, $274,117,000, to be derived from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until
expended, and to be for the conservation activities defined
in section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such
Act, of which $144,000,000 is for the State assistance
program including $4,000,000 to administer the State
assistance program, and of which $11,000,000 shall be for
grants, not covering more than 50 percent of the total cost
of any acquisition to be made with such funds, to States and
local communities for purposes of acquiring lands or
interests in lands to preserve and protect Civil War
battlefield sites identified in the July 1993 Report on the
Nation's Civil War Battlefields prepared by the Civil War
Sites Advisory Commission: Provided, That lands or interests
in land acquired with Civil War battlefield grants shall be
subject to the requirements of paragraph 6(f)(3) of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
8(f)(3)): Provided further, That of the amounts provided
under this heading, $15,000,000 may be for Federal grants to
the State of Florida for the acquisition of lands or waters,
or interests therein, within the Everglades watershed
(consisting of lands and waters within the boundaries of the
South Florida Water Management District, Florida Bay and the
Florida Keys, including the areas known as the Frog Pond, the
Rocky Glades and the Eight and One-Half Square Mile Area)
under terms and conditions deemed necessary by the Secretary
to improve and restore the hydrological function of the
Everglades watershed; and $16,000,000 may be for project
modifications authorized by section 104 of the Everglades
National Park Protection and Expansion Act: Provided further,
That funds provided under this heading for assistance to the
State of Florida to acquire lands within the Everglades
watershed are contingent upon new matching non-Federal funds
by the State and shall be subject to an agreement that the
lands to be acquired will be managed in perpetuity for the
restoration of the Everglades: Provided further, That none of
the funds provided for the State Assistance program may be
used to establish a contingency fund.

administrative provisions

Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be
available for the purchase of not to exceed 315 passenger
motor vehicles, of which 256 shall be for replacement only,
including not to exceed 237 for police-type use, 11 buses,
and 8 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to
process any grant or contract documents which do not include
the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be
used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the
southern end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been
submitted to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior
to the expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day
in which either House of Congress is not in session because
of adjournment of more than 3 calendar days to a day certain)
from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and
comprehensive report on the development of the southern end
of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied
upon in support of the proposed project.
None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National
Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the
United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
The National Park Service may distribute to operating units
based on the safety record of each unit the costs of programs
designed to improve workplace and employee safety, and to
encourage employees receiving workers' compensation benefits
pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to
return to appropriate positions for which they are medically
able.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the National
Park Service may convey a leasehold or freehold interest in
Cuyahoga NP to allow for the development of utilities and
parking needed to support the historic Everett Church in the
village of Everett, Ohio.

United States Geological Survey

surveys, investigations, and research

For expenses necessary for the United States Geological
Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research
covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the
mineral and water resources of the United States, its
territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by
43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their
mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to
power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30
U.S.C. 641); and publish and disseminate data relative to the
foregoing activities; and to conduct inquiries into the
economic conditions affecting mining and materials processing
industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and
related purposes as authorized by law and to publish and
disseminate data; $914,002,000, of which $64,318,000 shall be
available only for cooperation with States or municipalities
for water resources investigations; and of which $16,400,000
shall remain available until expended for conducting
inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and
materials processing industries; and of which $8,000,000
shall remain available until expended for satellite
operations; and of which $26,374,000 shall be available until
September 30, 2003 for the operation and maintenance of
facilities and deferred maintenance; and of which
$166,389,000 shall be available until September 30, 2003 for
the biological research activity and the operation of the
Cooperative Research Units: Provided, That none of these
funds provided for the biological research activity shall be
used to conduct new surveys on private property, unless
specifically authorized in writing by the property owner:
Provided further, That of the amount provided herein,
$25,000,000 is for the conservation activities defined in
section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
such Act: Provided further, That no part of this
appropriation shall be used to pay more than one-half the
cost of topographic mapping or water resources data
collection and investigations carried on in cooperation with
States and municipalities.

administrative provisions

The amount appropriated for the United States Geological
Survey shall be available for the purchase of not to exceed
53 passenger motor vehicles, of which 48 are for replacement
only; reimbursement to the General Services Administration
for security guard services; contracting for the furnishing
of topographic maps and for the making of geophysical or
other specialized surveys when it is administratively
determined that such procedures are in the public interest;
construction and maintenance of necessary buildings and
appurtenant facilities; acquisition of lands for gauging
stations and observation wells; expenses of the United States
National Committee on Geology; and payment of compensation
and expenses of persons on the rolls of the Survey duly
appointed to represent the United States in the negotiation
and administration of interstate compacts: Provided, That
activities funded by appropriations herein made may be
accomplished through the use of contracts, grants, or
cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C. 6302 et seq.

Minerals Management Service

royalty and offshore minerals management

For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and
environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and
collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing
laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other
minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts;
and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including
the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles
for replacement only, $150,667,000, of which $83,344,000,
shall be available for royalty management activities; and an
amount not to exceed $102,730,000, to be credited to this
appropriation and to remain available until expended, from
additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates in
effect on August 5, 1993, from rate increases to fee
collections for Outer Continental Shelf administrative
activities performed by the Minerals Management Service over
and above the rates in effect on September 30, 1993, and from
additional fees for Outer Continental Shelf administrative
activities established after September 30, 1993: Provided,
That to the extent $102,730,000 in additions to receipts are
not realized from the sources of receipts stated above, the
amount needed to reach $102,730,000 shall be credited to this
appropriation from receipts resulting from rental rates for
Outer Continental Shelf leases in effect before August 5,
1993: Provided further, That $3,000,000 for computer
acquisitions shall remain available until September 30, 2003:
Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act
shall be available for the payment of interest in accordance
with 30 U.S.C. 1721(b) and (d): Provided further, That not to
exceed $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses
related to promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup
activities: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, $15,000 under this heading shall be
available for refunds of overpayments in connection with
certain Indian leases in which the Director of the

[[Page 19238]]

Minerals Management Service (MMS) concurred with the claimed
refund due, to pay amounts owed to Indian allottees or
tribes, or to correct prior unrecoverable erroneous payments:
Provided further, That MMS may under the royalty-in-kind
pilot program use a portion of the revenues from royalty-in-
kind sales, without regard to fiscal year limitation, to pay
for transportation to wholesale market centers or upstream
pooling points, and to process or otherwise dispose of
royalty production taken in kind: Provided further, That MMS
shall analyze and document the expected return in advance of
any royalty-in-kind sales to assure to the maximum extent
practicable that royalty income under the pilot program is
equal to or greater than royalty income recognized under a
comparable royalty-in-value program.

oil spill research

For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016,
title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII,
section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,105,000,
which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund, to remain available until expended.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

regulation and technology

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public
Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to
exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only;
$102,800,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior,
pursuant to regulations, may use directly or through grants
to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 2002 for civil
penalties assessed under section 518 of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to
reclaim lands adversely affected by coal mining practices
after August 3, 1977, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That appropriations for the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may provide for
the travel and per diem expenses of State and tribal
personnel attending Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement sponsored training.

abandoned mine reclamation fund

For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87,
as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10
passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $203,455,000,
to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund and to remain available until expended; of which up to
$10,000,000, to be derived from the Federal Expenses Share of
the Fund, shall be for supplemental grants to States for the
reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage
from coal mines, and for associated activities, through the
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative: Provided, That grants
to minimum program States will be $1,500,000 per State in
fiscal year 2002: Provided further, That of the funds herein
provided up to $18,000,000 may be used for the emergency
program authorized by section 410 of Public Law 95-87, as
amended, of which no more than 25 percent shall be used for
emergency reclamation projects in any one State and funds for
federally administered emergency reclamation projects under
this proviso shall not exceed $11,000,000: Provided further,
That prior year unobligated funds appropriated for the
emergency reclamation program shall not be subject to the 25
percent limitation per State and may be used without fiscal
year limitation for emergency projects: Provided further,
That pursuant to Public Law 97-365, the Department of the
Interior is authorized to use up to 20 percent from the
recovery of the delinquent debt owed to the United States
Government to pay for contracts to collect these debts:
Provided further, That funds made available under title IV of
Public Law 95-87 may be used for any required non-Federal
share of the cost of projects funded by the Federal
Government for the purpose of environmental restoration
related to treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage from
abandoned mines: Provided further, That such projects must be
consistent with the purposes and priorities of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act: Provided further, That,
in addition to the amount granted to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania under sections 402 (g)(1) and 402(g)(5) of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (Act), an
additional $500,000 will be specifically used for the purpose
of conducting a demonstration project in accordance with
section 401(c)(6) of the Act to determine the efficacy of
improving water quality by removing metals from eligible
waters polluted by acid mine drainage: Provided further, That
the State of Maryland may set aside the greater of $1,000,000
or 10 percent of the total of the grants made available to
the State under title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.),
if the amount set aside is deposited in an acid mine drainage
abatement and treatment fund established under a State law,
pursuant to which law the amount (together with all interest
earned on the amount) is expended by the State to undertake
acid mine drainage abatement and treatment projects, except
that before any amounts greater than 10 percent of its title
IV grants are deposited in an acid mine drainage abatement
and treatment fund, the State of Maryland must first complete
all Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act priority one
projects.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

operation of indian programs

For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian
programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of
November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450 et seq.), as amended, the Education Amendments of 1978
(25 U.S.C. 2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amended,
$1,799,809,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003
except as otherwise provided herein, of which not to exceed
$89,864,000 shall be for welfare assistance payments and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not
limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as
amended, not to exceed $130,209,000 shall be available for
payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract
support costs associated with ongoing contracts, grants,
compacts, or annual funding agreements entered into with the
Bureau prior to or during fiscal year 2002, as authorized by
such Act, except that tribes and tribal organizations may use
their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of
ongoing contracts, grants, or compacts, or annual funding
agreements and for unmet welfare assistance costs; and up to
$3,000,000 shall be for the Indian Self-Determination Fund
which shall be available for the transitional cost of initial
or expanded tribal contracts, grants, compacts or cooperative
agreements with the Bureau under such Act; and of which not
to exceed $436,427,000 for school operations costs of Bureau-
funded schools and other education programs shall become
available on July 1, 2002, and shall remain available until
September 30, 2003; and of which not to exceed $58,540,000
shall remain available until expended for housing
improvement, road maintenance, attorney fees, litigation
support, the Indian Self-Determination Fund, land records
improvement, and the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination
Act of 1975, as amended, and 25 U.S.C. 2008, not to exceed
$43,065,000 within and only from such amounts made available
for school operations shall be available to tribes and tribal
organizations for administrative cost grants associated with
the operation of Bureau-funded schools: Provided further,
That any forestry funds allocated to a tribe which remain
unobligated as of September 30, 2003, may be transferred
during fiscal year 2004 to an Indian forest land assistance
account established for the benefit of such tribe within the
tribe's trust fund account: Provided further, That any such
unobligated balances not so transferred shall expire on
September 30, 2004.

construction

For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of
irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other
facilities, including architectural and engineering services
by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands;
and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of
the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law
87-483, $357,132,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the
construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be
transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further,
That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority available
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway
Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program management
costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any funds
provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C.
13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2002, in implementing
new construction or facilities improvement and repair project
grants in excess of $100,000 that are provided to tribally
controlled grant schools under Public Law 100-297, as
amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the
Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for
Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the
regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such grants
shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the
Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a
schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided
further, That in considering applications, the Secretary
shall consider whether the Indian tribe or tribal
organization would be deficient in assuring that the
construction projects conform to applicable building
standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and
safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with
respect to organizational and financial management
capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary
declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the
requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f): Provided
further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any
grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes
provision in 25 U.S.C. 2508(e): Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$450,000 in collections from settlements between the United
States and contractors concerning the Dunseith Day School are
to be made available for school construction in fiscal year
2002 and thereafter.

indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to
indians

For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals
and for necessary administrative expenses, $60,949,000, to
remain available until expended; of which $24,870,000 shall
be available for implementation of enacted Indian land and
water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 101-618 and
102-575, and for implementation of other enacted water rights
settlements; of which $7,950,000 shall be available for
future water supplies facilities under Public

[[Page 19239]]

Law 106-163; of which $21,875,000 shall be available pursuant
to Public Laws 99-264, 100-580, 106-263, 106-425, 106-554,
and 106-568; and of which $6,254,000 shall be available for
the consent decree entered by the U.S. District Court,
Western District of Michigan in United States v. Michigan,
Case No. 2:73 CV 26.

indian guaranteed loan program account

For the cost of guaranteed loans, $4,500,000, as authorized
by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended: Provided,
That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans,
shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are
available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of
which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $75,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
guaranteed loan programs, $486,000.

administrative provisions

The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of
Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative
agreements, compacts and grants, either directly or in
cooperation with States and other organizations.
Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the
revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and
insurance fund, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
account) shall be available for expenses of exhibits, and
purchase of not to exceed 229 passenger motor vehicles, of
which not to exceed 187 shall be for replacement only.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office
operations, pooled overhead general administration (except
facilities operations and maintenance), or provided to
implement the recommendations of the National Academy of
Public Administration's August 1999 report shall be available
for tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative
agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the
provisions of the Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribal
Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
In the event any tribe returns appropriations made
available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
distribution to other tribes, this action shall not diminish
the Federal Government's trust responsibility to that tribe,
or the government-to-government relationship between the
United States and that tribe, or that tribe's ability to
access future appropriations.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
available to the Bureau, other than the amounts provided
herein for assistance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452
et seq., shall be available to support the operation of any
elementary or secondary school in the State of Alaska.
Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for
schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the
schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996.
No funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support
expanded grades for any school or dormitory beyond the grade
structure in place or approved by the Secretary of the
Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as of
October 1, 1995. Funds made available under this Act may not
be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded
school (as that term is defined in section 1146 of the
Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2026)), except that a
charter school that is in existence on the date of the
enactment of this Act and that has operated at a Bureau-
funded school before September 1, 1999, may continue to
operate during that period, but only if the charter school
pays to the Bureau a pro rata share of funds to reimburse the
Bureau for the use of the real and personal property
(including buses and vans), the funds of the charter school
are kept separate and apart from Bureau funds, and the Bureau
does not assume any obligation for charter school programs of
the State in which the school is located if the charter
school loses such funding. Employees of Bureau-funded schools
sharing a campus with a charter school and performing
functions related to the charter school's operation and
employees of a charter school shall not be treated as Federal
employees for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United
States Code (commonly known as the ``Federal Tort Claims
Act'').

Departmental Offices

Insular Affairs

assistance to territories

For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior,
$78,950,000, of which: (1) $74,422,000 shall be available
until expended for technical assistance, including
maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular
management controls, coral reef initiative activities, and
brown tree snake control and research; grants to the
judiciary in American Samoa for compensation and expenses, as
authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 1661(c)); grants to the
Government of American Samoa, in addition to current local
revenues, for construction and support of governmental
functions; grants to the Government of the Virgin Islands as
authorized by law; grants to the Government of Guam, as
authorized by law; and grants to the Government of the
Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by law (Public Law 94-
241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $4,528,000 shall be available for
salaries and expenses of the Office of Insular Affairs:
Provided, That all financial transactions of the territorial
and local governments herein provided for, including such
transactions of all agencies or instrumentalities established
or used by such governments, may be audited by the General
Accounting Office, at its discretion, in accordance with
chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code: Provided further,
That Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding shall be
provided according to those terms of the Agreement of the
Special Representatives on Future United States Financial
Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands approved by
Public Law 104-134: Provided further, That of the funds
provided herein for American Samoa government operations, the
Secretary is directed to use up to $20,000 to increase
compensation of the American Samoa High Court Justices:
Provided further, That of the amounts provided for technical
assistance, not to exceed $2,000,000 shall be made available
for transfer to the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Financing
Account of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the
purpose of covering the cost of forgiving the repayment
obligation of the Government of the Virgin Islands on
Community Disaster Loan 841, as required by section 504 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended (2 U.S.C.
661c): Provided further, That of the amounts provided for
technical assistance, sufficient funding shall be made
available for a grant to the Close Up Foundation: Provided
further, That the funds for the program of operations and
maintenance improvement are appropriated to institutionalize
routine operations and maintenance improvement of capital
infrastructure (with territorial participation and cost
sharing to be determined by the Secretary based on the
grantees commitment to timely maintenance of its capital
assets): Provided further, That any appropriation for
disaster assistance under this heading in this Act or
previous appropriations Acts may be used as non-Federal
matching funds for the purpose of hazard mitigation grants
provided pursuant to section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5170c).

compact of free association

For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the
Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223,
232, and 233 of the Compact of Free Association, and for
economic assistance and necessary expenses for the Republic
of Palau as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and
233 of the Compact of Free Association, $23,245,000, to
remain available until expended, as authorized by Public Law
99-239 and Public Law 99-658.

Departmental Management

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for management of the Department of
the Interior, $67,741,000, of which not to exceed $8,500 may
be for official reception and representation expenses, and of
which up to $1,000,000 shall be available for workers
compensation payments and unemployment compensation payments
associated with the orderly closure of the United States
Bureau of Mines.

Office of the Solicitor

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor,
$45,000,000.

Office of Inspector General

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$34,302,000, of which $3,812,000 shall be for procurement by
contract of independent auditing services to audit the
consolidated Department of the Interior annual financial
statement and the annual financial statement of the
Department of the Interior bureaus and offices funded in this
Act.

Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

federal trust programs

For operation of trust programs for Indians by direct
expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and
grants, $99,224,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That funds for trust management improvements may be
transferred, as needed, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
``Operation of Indian Programs'' account and to the
Departmental Management ``Salaries and Expenses'' account:
Provided further, That funds made available to Tribes and
Tribal organizations through contracts or grants obligated
during fiscal year 2002, as authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall
remain available until expended by the contractor or grantee:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the statute of limitations shall not commence to run on
any claim, including any claim in litigation pending on the
date of the enactment of this Act, concerning losses to or
mismanagement of trust funds, until the affected tribe or
individual Indian has been furnished with an accounting of
such funds from which the beneficiary can determine whether
there has been a loss: Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary shall not be
required to provide a quarterly statement of performance for
any Indian trust account that has not had activity for at
least 18 months and has a balance of $1.00 or less: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall issue an annual account
statement and maintain a record of any such accounts and
shall permit the balance in each such account to be withdrawn
upon the express written request of the account holder.

Indian Land Consolidation

For consolidation of fractional interests in Indian lands
and expenses associated with redetermining and redistributing
escheated interests in allotted lands, and for necessary
expenses to carry out the Indian Land Consolidation Act of

[[Page 19240]]

1983, as amended, by direct expenditure or cooperative
agreement, $10,980,000, to remain available until expended
and which may be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and Departmental Management.

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration

natural resource damage assessment fund

To conduct natural resource damage assessment activities by
the Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601
et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public
Law 101-380) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Public Law 101-
337, as amended (16 U.S.C. 19jj et seq.), $5,497,000, to
remain available until expended.

administrative provisions

There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available
resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of
which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by
donation, purchase or through available excess surplus
property: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with
proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset the
purchase price for the replacement aircraft: Provided
further, That no programs funded with appropriated funds in
the ``Departmental Management'', ``Office of the Solicitor'',
and ``Office of Inspector General'' may be augmented through
the Working Capital Fund or the Consolidated Working Fund.

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be
available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or
office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the
emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft,
buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment
damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other
unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made
available under this authority until funds specifically made
available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies
shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds
used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by
Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a
supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible.
Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or
transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in
addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of
the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency
prevention of wildland fires on or threatening lands under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for the
emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its
jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or
actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other
unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to
actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage
assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the
prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential
grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in
section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for
emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public
Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds
available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit
assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy
State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the
Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in
this title for wildland fire operations shall be available
for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding
fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies
for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in
connection with their use for wildland fire operations, such
reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently
available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further,
That for wildland fire operations, no funds shall be made
available under this authority until the Secretary determines
that funds appropriated for ``wildland fire operations''
shall be exhausted within 30 days: Provided further, That all
funds used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by
Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a
supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible: Provided further, That such
replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata
basis, accounts from which emergency funds were transferred.
Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be
available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and
similar facilities, wherever consolidation of activities will
contribute to efficiency or economy, and said appropriations
shall be reimbursed for services rendered to any other
activity in the same manner as authorized by sections 1535
and 1536 of title 31, United States Code: Provided, That
reimbursements for costs and supplies, materials, equipment,
and for services rendered may be credited to the
appropriation current at the time such reimbursements are
received.
Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the
Interior in this title shall be available for services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the
Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment
of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library
membership in societies or associations which issue
publications to members only or at a price to members lower
than to subscribers who are not members.
Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the
Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for
uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5
U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
Sec. 106. Annual appropriations made in this title shall be
available for obligation in connection with contracts issued
for services or rentals for periods not in excess of 12
months beginning at any time during the fiscal year.
Sec. 107. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore
preleasing, leasing and related activities placed under
restriction in the President's moratorium statement of June
12, 1998, in the areas of northern, central, and southern
California; the North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and
the eastern Gulf of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude
and east of 86 degrees west longitude.
Sec. 108. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore
oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing, and related
activities, on lands within the North Aleutian Basin planning
area.
Sec. 109. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior to conduct offshore oil and
natural gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area for any lands located
outside Sale 181, as identified in the final Outer
Continental Shelf 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 1997-
2002.
Sec. 110. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and natural
gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the Mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas.
Sec. 111. Advance payments made under this title to Indian
tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia pursuant
to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) may be invested by the
Indian tribe, tribal organization, or consortium before such
funds are expended for the purposes of the grant, compact, or
annual funding agreement so long as such funds are--
(1) invested by the Indian tribe, tribal organization, or
consortium only in obligations of the United States, or in
obligations or securities that are guaranteed or insured by
the United States, or mutual (or other) funds registered with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and which only invest
in obligations of the United States or securities that are
guaranteed or insured by the United States; or
(2) deposited only into accounts that are insured by an
agency or instrumentality of the United States, or are fully
collateralized to ensure protection of the funds, even in the
event of a bank failure.
Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the
National Park Service shall not develop or implement a
reduced entrance fee program to accommodate non-local travel
through a unit. The Secretary may provide for and regulate
local non-recreational passage through units of the National
Park System, allowing each unit to develop guidelines and
permits for such activity appropriate to that unit.
Sec. 113. Appropriations made in this Act under the
headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians and any available unobligated
balances from prior appropriations Acts made under the same
headings, shall be available for expenditure or transfer for
Indian trust management activities pursuant to the Trust
Management Improvement Project High Level Implementation
Plan.
Sec. 114. A grazing permit or lease that expires (or is
transferred) during fiscal year 2002 shall be renewed under
section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1752) or if applicable, section
510 of the California Desert Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
410aaa-50). The terms and conditions contained in the
expiring permit or lease shall continue in effect under the
new permit or lease until such time as the Secretary of the
Interior completes processing of such permit or lease in
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, at which
time such permit or lease may be canceled, suspended or
modified, in whole or in part, to meet the requirements of
such applicable laws and regulations. Nothing in this section
shall be deemed to alter the Secretary's statutory authority:
Provided, That any Federal lands included within the boundary
of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, as designated by
the Secretary of the Interior on April 5, 1990, (Lake
Roosevelt Cooperative Management Agreement) that were
utilized as of March 31, 1997, for grazing purposes pursuant
to a permit issued by the National Park Service, the person
or persons so utilizing such lands as of March 31, 1997,
shall be entitled to renew said permit under such terms and
conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, for the lifetime
of the permittee or 20 years, whichever is less.

[[Page 19241]]

Sec. 115. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
the purpose of reducing the backlog of Indian probate cases
in the Department of the Interior, the hearing requirements
of chapter 10 of title 25, United States Code, are deemed
satisfied by a proceeding conducted by an Indian probate
judge, appointed by the Secretary without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing the
appointments in the competitive service, for such period of
time as the Secretary determines necessary: Provided, That
the basic pay of an Indian probate judge so appointed may be
fixed by the Secretary without regard to the provisions of
chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,
United States Code, governing the classification and pay of
General Schedule employees, except that no such Indian
probate judge may be paid at a level which exceeds the
maximum rate payable for the highest grade of the General
Schedule, including locality pay.
Sec. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any
Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base
funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring
funds to address identified, unmet needs, dual enrollment,
overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution
methodologies. No tribe shall receive a reduction in Tribal
Priority Allocation funds of more than 10 percent in fiscal
year 2002. Under circumstances of dual enrollment,
overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution
methodologies, the 10 percent limitation does not apply.
Sec. 117. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
establish a new National Wildlife Refuge in the Kankakee
River basin that is inconsistent with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers' efforts to control flooding and siltation
in that area. Written certification of consistency shall be
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations prior to refuge establishment.
Sec. 118. Funds appropriated for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs for postsecondary schools for fiscal year 2002 shall
be allocated among the schools proportionate to the unmet
need of the schools as determined by the Postsecondary
Funding Formula adopted by the Office of Indian Education
Programs.
Sec. 119. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall take such
action as may be necessary to ensure that the lands
comprising the Huron Cemetery in Kansas City, Kansas (as
described in section 123 of Public Law 106-291) are used only
in accordance with this section.
(b) The lands of the Huron Cemetery shall be used only: (1)
for religious and cultural uses that are compatible with the
use of the lands as a cemetery; and (2) as a burial ground.
Sec. 120. No funds appropriated for the Department of the
Interior by this Act or any other Act shall be used to study
or implement any plan to drain Lake Powell or to reduce the
water level of the lake below the range of water levels
required for the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam.
Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
conveying the Twin Cities Research Center under the authority
provided by Public Law 104-134, as amended by Public Law 104-
208, the Secretary may accept and retain land and other forms
of reimbursement: Provided, That the Secretary may retain and
use any such reimbursement until expended and without further
appropriation: (1) for the benefit of the National Wildlife
Refuge System within the State of Minnesota; and (2) for all
activities authorized by Public Law 100-696; 16 U.S.C. 460zz.
Sec. 122. Section 412(b) of the National Parks Omnibus
Management Act of 1998, as amended (16 U.S.C. 5961) is
amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''.
Sec. 123. Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the
National Park Service may authorize, through cooperative
agreement, the Golden Gate National Parks Association to
provide fee-based education, interpretive and visitor service
functions within the Crissy Field and Fort Point areas of the
Presidio.
Sec. 124. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302(b), sums received
by the Bureau of Land Management for the sale of seeds or
seedlings including those collected in fiscal year 2001, may
be credited to the appropriation from which funds were
expended to acquire or grow the seeds or seedlings and are
available without fiscal year limitation.
Sec. 125. Tribal School Construction Demonstration Program.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Construction.--The term ``construction'', with respect
to a tribally controlled school, includes the construction or
renovation of that school.
(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given that term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Tribally controlled school.--The term ``tribally
controlled school'' has the meaning given that term in
section 5212 of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988
(25 U.S.C. 2511).
(5) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of the Interior.
(6) Demonstration program.--The term ``demonstration
program'' means the Tribal School Construction Demonstration
Program.
(b) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a
demonstration program to provide grants to Indian tribes for
the construction of tribally controlled schools.
(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, in carrying out the demonstration program
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall award a grant to
each Indian tribe that submits an application that is
approved by the Secretary under paragraph (2). The Secretary
shall ensure that an eligible Indian tribe currently on the
Department's priority list for construction of replacement
educational facilities receives the highest priority for a
grant under this section.
(2) Grant applications.--An application for a grant under
the section shall--
(A) include a proposal for the construction of a tribally
controlled school of the Indian tribe that submits the
application; and
(B) be in such form as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
(3) Grant agreement.--As a condition to receiving a grant
under this section, the Indian tribe shall enter into an
agreement with the Secretary that specifies--
(A) the costs of construction under the grant;
(B) that the Indian tribe shall be required to contribute
towards the cost of the construction a tribal share equal to
50 percent of the costs; and
(C) any other term or condition that the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
(4) Eligibility.--Grants awarded under the demonstration
program shall only be for construction of replacement
tribally controlled schools.
(c) Effect of Grant.--A grant received under this section
shall be in addition to any other funds received by an Indian
tribe under any other provision of law. The receipt of a
grant under this section shall not affect the eligibility of
an Indian tribe receiving funding, or the amount of funding
received by the Indian tribe, under the Tribally Controlled
Schools Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) or the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450 et seq.).
Sec. 126. White River Oil Shale Mine, Utah. (a) Sale.--The
Administrator of General Services (referred to in this
section as the ``Administrator'') shall sell all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the
improvements and equipment described in subsection (b) that
are situated on the land described in subsection (c)
(referred to in this section as the ``Mine'').
(b) Description of Improvements and Equipment.--The
improvements and equipment referred to in subsection (a) are
the following improvements and equipment associated with the
Mine:
(1) Mine Service Building.
(2) Sewage Treatment Building.
(3) Electrical Switchgear Building.
(4) Water Treatment Building/Plant.
(5) Ventilation/Fan Building.
(6) Water Storage Tanks.
(7) Mine Hoist Cage and Headframe.
(8) Miscellaneous Mine-related equipment.
(c) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) is the land located in Uintah County, Utah,
known as the ``White River Oil Shale Mine'' and described as
follows:
(1) T. 10 S., R. 24 E., Salt Lake Meridian, sections 12
through 14, 19 through 30, 33, and 34.
(2) T. 10 S., R. 25 E., Salt Lake Meridian, sections 18 and
19.
(d) Use of Proceeds.--The proceeds of the sale under
subsection (a)--
(1) shall be deposited in a special account in the Treasury
of the United States; and
(2) shall be available until expended, without further Act
of appropriation--
(A) first, to reimburse the Administrator for the direct
costs of the sale; and
(B) second, to reimburse the Bureau of Land Management Utah
State Office for the costs of closing and rehabilitating the
Mine.
(e) Mine Closure and Rehabilitation.--The closing and
rehabilitation of the Mine (including closing of the mine
shafts, site grading, and surface revegetation) shall be
conducted in accordance with--
(1) the regulatory requirements of the State of Utah, the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration; and
(2) other applicable law.
Sec. 127. The Secretary of the Interior may use or contract
for the use of helicopters or motor vehicles on the Sheldon
and Hart National Wildlife Refuges for the purpose of
capturing and transporting horses and burros. The provisions
of subsection (a) of the Act of September 8, 1959 (73 Stat.
470; 18 U.S.C. 47(a)) shall not be applicable to such use.
Such use shall be in accordance with humane procedures
prescribed by the Secretary.
Sec. 128. The Lytton Rancheria of California shall not
conduct Class III gaming as defined in Public Law 100-497 on
land taken into trust for the tribe pursuant to Public Law
106-568 except in compliance with all required compact
provisions of section 2710(d) of Public Law 100-497 or any
relevant Class III gaming procedures.
Sec. 129. Moore's Landing at the Cape Romain National
Wildlife Refuge in South Carolina is hereby named for George
Garris and shall hereafter be referred to in any law,
document, or records of the United States as ``Garris
Landing''.
Sec. 130. From within funds available to the National Park
Service, such sums as may be necessary shall be used for
expenses necessary to complete and issue, no later than
January 1, 2004, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
identify and analyze the possible effects of the 1996
increases in the number of vessel entries issued for Glacier
Bay National Park and Preserve: Provided, That such EIS, upon
its completion, shall be used by the Secretary to set the

[[Page 19242]]

maximum level of vessel entries: Provided further, That until
the Secretary sets the level of vessel entries based on the
new EIS, the number of vessel entries into the Park shall be
the same as that in effect during the 2000 calendar year and
the National Park Service approval of modified Alternative 5
and promulgation of the final rule issued on May 30, 1996,
relating to vessel entries, including the number of such
entries, for Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve are
hereby approved and shall be in effect notwithstanding any
other provision of law until the Secretary sets the maximum
level of vessel entries consistent with this section:
Provided further, That nothing in this section shall preclude
the Secretary from suspending or revoking any vessel entry if
the Secretary determines that it is necessary to protect Park
resources.
Sec. 131. No funds contained in this Act shall be used to
approve the transfer of lands on South Fox Island, Michigan
until Congress has authorized such transfer.
Sec. 132. Funds provided in this Act for Federal land
acquisition by the National Park Service for Brandywine
Battlefield, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area,
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District,
and Ice Age National Scenic Trail may be used for a grant to
a State, a local government, or any other governmental land
management entity for the acquisition of lands without regard
to any restriction on the use of Federal land acquisition
funds provided through the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 as amended.
Sec. 133. Section 902(b)(5) of Public Law 106-568 is hereby
amended by inserting a comma after ``N\1/2\''.
Sec. 134. Clarification of the Secretary of the Interior's
Authority Under Sections 2701-2721 of Title 25, United States
Code. The authority to determine whether a specific area of
land is a ``reservation'' for purposes of sections 2701-2721
of title 25, United States Code, was delegated to the
Secretary of the Interior on October 17, 1988: Provided, That
nothing in this section shall be construed to permit gaming
under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on the lands described
in section 123 of Public Law 106-291 or any lands contiguous
to such lands that have not been taken into trust by the
Secretary of the Interior.
Sec. 135. Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant
Trails National Conservation Area. (a) Areas Included.--The
Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National
Conservation Area Act of 2000 is amended in sections 4(b) (16
U.S.C. 460ppp-2(b)) and 8(a) (16 U.S.C. 460ppp-6(a)) by
striking ``July 19, 2000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``October 3, 2001''.
(b) Road Maintenance.--Section 5 of the Black Rock Desert-
High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area
Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460ppp-3) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(h) Road Maintenance.--Within the conservation area the
Secretary may permit the use of gravel pits for the
maintenance of roads within the conservation area under the
Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) to the extent
consistent with this Act and subject to such regulations,
policies, and practices as the Secretary considers
necessary.''.
(c) Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing.--Section 8 of the Black
Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National
Conservation Area Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460ppp-6) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this Act diminishes the
jurisdiction of the State of Nevada with respect to fish and
wildlife management, including regulation of hunting and
fishing on public land in the areas designated as wilderness
under subsection (a).
``(2) Applicable law.--Any action in the areas designated
as wilderness under subsection (a) shall be consistent with
the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).''.
(d) Wildland Fire Protection.--Section 8 of the Black Rock
Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation
Area Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460ppp-6) (as amended by
subsection (c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Wildland Fire Protection.--Nothing in this Act or the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) precludes a Federal,
State, or local agency from conducting wildland fire
management operations (including prescribed burns) within the
areas designated as wilderness under subsection (a), subject
to any conditions that the Secretary considers
appropriate.''.
(e) Wilderness Study Release.--Section 8 of the Black Rock
Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation
Area Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460ppp-6) (as amended by
subsection (d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Wilderness Study Release.--Congress--
``(1) finds that the parcels of land in the wilderness
study areas referred to in subsection (a) that are not
designated as wilderness by subsection (a) have been
adequately studied for wilderness designation under section
603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1782); and
``(2) declares that those parcels are no longer subject to
the requirement of subsection (c) of that section pertaining
to the management of wilderness study areas in a manner that
does not impair the suitability of such areas for
preservation as wilderness.''.

TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Forest and Rangeland Research

For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as
authorized by law, $241,304,000, to remain available until
expended.

state and private forestry

For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing
technical and financial assistance to States, territories,
possessions, and others, and for forest health management,
cooperative forestry, and education and land conservation
activities and conducting an international program as
authorized, $291,221,000, to remain available until expended,
as authorized by law, of which $65,000,000 is for the Forest
Legacy Program, and $36,000,000 is for the Urban and
Community Forestry Program, defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided,
That none of the funds provided under this heading for the
acquisition of lands or interests in lands shall be available
until the Forest Service notifies the House Committee on
Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Appropriations, in
writing, of specific acquisition of lands or interests in
lands to be undertaken with such funds: Provided further,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds
provided under this heading, $4,500,000 shall be made
available to Kake Tribal Corporation as an advanced direct
lump sum payment to implement the Kake Tribal Corporation
Land Transfer Act (Public Law 106-283).

National Forest System

For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and
utilization of the National Forest System, $1,331,439,000, to
remain available until expended, which shall include 50
percent of all moneys received during prior fiscal years as
fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That unobligated balances
available at the start of fiscal year 2002 shall be displayed
by budget line item in the fiscal year 2003 budget
justification: Provided further, That the Secretary may
authorize the expenditure or transfer of such sums as
necessary to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management for removal, preparation, and adoption of excess
wild horses and burros from National Forest System lands:
Provided further, That of the funds provided under this
heading for Forest Products, $5,000,000 shall be allocated to
the Alaska Region, in addition to its normal allocation for
the purposes of preparing additional timber for sale, to
establish a 3-year timber supply and such funds may be
transferred to other appropriations accounts as necessary to
maximize accomplishment.

wildland fire management

For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression
activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency
fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands
under fire protection agreement, hazardous fuel reduction on
or adjacent to such lands, and for emergency rehabilitation
of burned-over National Forest System lands and water,
$1,214,349,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such funds including unobligated balances under this
head, are available for repayment of advances from other
appropriations accounts previously transferred for such
purposes: Provided further, That not less than 50 percent of
any unobligated balances remaining (exclusive of amounts for
hazardous fuels reduction) at the end of fiscal year 2001
shall be transferred, as repayment for past advances that
have not been repaid, to the fund established pursuant to
section 3 of Public Law 71-319 (16 U.S.C. 576 et seq.):
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, $8,000,000 of funds appropriated under this
appropriation shall be used for Fire Science Research in
support of the Joint Fire Science Program: Provided further,
That all authorities for the use of funds, including the use
of contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, available
to execute the Forest and Rangeland Research appropriation,
are also available in the utilization of these funds for Fire
Science Research: Provided further, That funds provided shall
be available for emergency rehabilitation and restoration,
hazard reduction activities in the urban-wildland interface,
support to Federal emergency response, and wildfire
suppression activities of the Forest Service; Provided
further, That of the funds provided, $209,010,000 is for
hazardous fuel treatment, $3,668,000 is for rehabilitation
and restoration, $10,376,000 is for capital improvement and
maintenance of fire facilities, $22,265,000 is for research
activities and to make competitive research grants pursuant
to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1641 et seq.), $50,383,000 is for state
fire assistance, $8,262,000 is for volunteer fire assistance,
$11,974,000 is for forest health activities on state,
private, and Federal lands, and $12,472,000 is for economic
action programs: Provided further, That amounts in this
paragraph may be transferred to the ``State and Private
Forestry'', ``National Forest System'', ``Forest and
Rangeland Research'', and ``Capital Improvement and
Maintenance'' accounts to fund state fire assistance,
volunteer fire assistance, and forest health management,
vegetation and watershed management, heritage site
rehabilitation, wildlife and fish habitat management, trails
and facilities maintenance

[[Page 19243]]

and restoration: Provided further, That transfers of any
amounts in excess of those authorized in this paragraph,
shall require approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations in compliance with reprogramming procedures
contained in House Report No. 105-163: Provided further, That
the costs of implementing any cooperative agreement between
the Federal government and any non-Federal entity may be
shared, as mutually agreed on by the affected parties:
Provided further, That in entering into such grants or
cooperative agreements, the Secretary may consider the
enhancement of local and small business employment
opportunities for rural communities, and that in entering
into procurement contracts under this section on a best value
basis, the Secretary may take into account the ability of an
entity to enhance local and small business employment
opportunities in rural communities, and that the Secretary
may award procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative
agreements under this section to entities that include local
non-profit entities, Youth Conservation Corps or related
partnerships with State, local or non-profit youth groups, or
small or disadvantaged businesses: Provided further, That in
addition to funds provided for State Fire Assistance
programs, and subject to all authorities available to the
Forest Service under the State and Private Forestry
Appropriation, up to $15,000,000 may be used on adjacent non-
Federal lands for the purpose of protecting communities when
hazard reduction activities are planned on national forest
lands that have the potential to place such communities at
risk: Provided further, That included in funding for
hazardous fuel reduction is $5,000,000 for implementing the
Community Forest Restoration Act, Public Law 106-393, title
VI, and any portion of such funds shall be available for use
on non-Federal lands in accordance with authorities available
to the Forest Service under the State and Private Forestry
Appropriation: Provided further, That:
(1) In expending the funds provided with respect to this
Act for hazardous fuels reduction, the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture may conduct fuel
reduction treatments on Federal lands using all contracting
and hiring authorities available to the Secretaries
applicable to hazardous fuel reduction activities under the
wildland fire management accounts. Notwithstanding Federal
government procurement and contracting laws, the Secretaries
may conduct fuel reduction treatments on Federal lands using
grants and cooperative agreements. Notwithstanding Federal
government procurement and contracting laws, in order to
provide employment and training opportunities to people in
rural communities, the Secretaries may award contracts,
including contracts for monitoring activities, to--
(A) local private, nonprofit, or cooperative entities;
(B) Youth Conservation Corps crews or related partnerships,
with State, local and non-profit youth groups;
(C) small or micro-businesses; or
(D) other entities that will hire or train a significant
percentage of local people to complete such contracts. The
authorities described above relating to contracts, grants,
and cooperative agreements are available until all funds
provided in this title for hazardous fuels reduction
activities in the urban wildland interface are obligated.
(2)(A) The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer or
reimburse funds to the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service of the Department of the Interior, or the National
Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce, for
the costs of carrying out their responsibilities under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to
consult and conference as required by section 7 of such Act
in connection with wildland fire management activities in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
(B) Only those funds appropriated for fiscal years 2001 and
2002 to Forest Service (USDA) for wildland fire management
are available to the Secretary of Agriculture for such
transfer or reimbursement.
(C) The amount of the transfer or reimbursement shall be as
mutually agreed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Commerce, as
applicable, or their designees. The amount shall in no case
exceed the actual costs of consultation and conferencing in
connection with wildland fire management activities affecting
National Forest System lands.
For an additional amount to cover necessary expenses for
emergency rehabilitation, wildfire suppression and other fire
operations of the Forest Service, $346,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $200,000,000 is for
repayment of prior year advances from other appropriations
and accounts within the Wildland Fire appropriation
previously transferred for fire suppression, $66,000,000 is
for wildfire suppression operations, $59,000,000 is for land
rehabilitation and restoration, $5,000,000 is for research
activities and to make competitive research grants pursuant
to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1641 et seq.), $10,000,000 is for
capital improvement and maintenance of fire facilities,
$6,000,000 is for state fire assistance: Provided, That the
Congress designates the entire amount as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended:
Provided further, That $346,000,000 shall be available only
to the extent that an official budget request, that includes
designation of the $346,000,000 as an emergency requirement
as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the
President to the Congress.
For an additional amount, to liquidate obligations
previously incurred, $274,147,000.

capital improvement and maintenance

For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, $546,188,000, to remain available until
expended for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and
acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and for
construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of
forest roads and trails by the Forest Service as authorized
by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205, of which,
$61,000,000 is for conservation activities defined in section
250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such
Act: Provided, That fiscal year 2001 balances in the Federal
Infrastructure Improvement account for the Forest Service
shall be transferred to and merged with this appropriation
and shall remain available until expended: Provided further,
That up to $15,000,000 of the funds provided herein for road
maintenance shall be available for the decommissioning of
roads, including unauthorized roads not part of the
transportation system, which are no longer needed: Provided
further, That no funds shall be expended to decommission any
system road until notice and an opportunity for public
comment has been provided on each decommissioning project:
Provided further, That the Forest Service shall transfer
$300,000, appropriated in Public Law 106-291 within the
Capital Improvement and Maintenance appropriation, to the
State and Private Forestry appropriation, and shall provide
these funds in an advance direct lump sum payment to Purdue
University for planning and construction of a hardwood tree
improvement and generation facility: Provided further, That
from funds provided to the Forest Service in Public Law 106-
291, $500,000 is hereby transferred from the Capital
Improvement and Maintenance appropriation to the State and
Private Forestry appropriation.

land acquisition

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), including administrative expenses,
and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein,
in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the
Forest Service, $149,742,000 to be derived from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended,
and to be for the conservation activities defined in section
250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such
Act.

acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of
the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the
Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San
Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests,
California, as authorized by law, $1,069,000, to be derived
from forest receipts.

acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from
funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments,
public school districts, or other public school authorities
pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16
U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended.

range betterment fund

For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection,
and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the
prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on
lands in National Forests in the 16 Western States, pursuant
to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as amended, to
remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 6
percent shall be available for administrative expenses
associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation,
protection, and improvements.

gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $92,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund
established pursuant to the above Act.

Management of National Forest Lands for Subsistence Uses

For necessary expenses of the Forest Service to manage
federal lands in Alaska for subsistence uses under title VIII
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(Public Law 96-487), $5,488,000, to remain available until
expended.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, FOREST SERVICE

Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal
year shall be available for: (1) purchase of not to exceed
132 passenger motor vehicles of which eight will be used
primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 130 shall
be for replacement; acquisition of 25 passenger motor
vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles;
operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to
exceed seven for replacement only, and acquisition of
sufficient aircraft from excess sources to maintain the
operable fleet at 195 aircraft for use in Forest Service
wildland fire programs and other Forest Service programs;
notwithstanding other provisions of law, existing aircraft
being replaced may be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in
value used to offset the purchase price

[[Page 19244]]

for the replacement aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7
U.S.C. 2225, and not to exceed $100,000 for employment under
5 U.S.C. 3109; (3) purchase, erection, and alteration of
buildings and other public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4)
acquisition of land, waters, and interests therein; (5) for
expenses pursuant to the Volunteers in the National Forest
Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6) the
cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and (7)
for debt collection contracts in accordance with 31 U.S.C.
3718(c).
None of the funds made available under this Act shall be
obligated or expended to abolish any region, to move or close
any regional office for National Forest System administration
of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture without the
consent of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management
appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters
under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe
burning conditions if and only if all previously appropriated
emergency contingent funds under the heading ``Wildland Fire
Management'' have been released by the President and
apportioned.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for assistance to or through the Agency for International
Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in
connection with forest and rangeland research, technical
information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall
be available to support forestry and related natural resource
activities outside the United States and its territories and
possessions, including technical assistance, education and
training, and cooperation with United States and
international organizations.
None of the funds made available to the Forest Service
under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the
provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless
the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in House Report No. 105-
163.
None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be
reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
procedures contained in House Report No. 105-163.
No funds available to the Forest Service shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of
Agriculture that exceed the total amount transferred during
fiscal year 2000 for such purposes without the advance
approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to
conduct a program of not less than $2,000,000 for high
priority projects within the scope of the approved budget
which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps,
defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the
purposes of such Act.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $2,500 is
available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official
reception and representation expenses.
Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to
$2,250,000 may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial
assistance to the National Forest Foundation, without regard
to when the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative
expenses or projects on or benefitting National Forest System
lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That
of the Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no
more than $400,000 shall be available for administrative
expenses: Provided further, That section 403(a) of the
National Forest Foundation Act (16 U.S.C. 583j-1(a)) is
amended by inserting after the first sentence the following
new sentence: ``At the discretion of the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Secretary may increase the number of
Directors to not more than twenty.'': Provided further, That
the Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of
Federal financial assistance, private contributions to match
on at least one-for-one basis funds made available by the
Forest Service: Provided further, That the Foundation may
transfer Federal funds to a non-Federal recipient for a
project at the same rate that the recipient has obtained the
non-Federal matching funds: Provided further, That hereafter,
the National Forest Foundation may hold Federal funds made
available but not immediately disbursed and may use any
interest or other investment income earned (before, on, or
after the date of the enactment of this Act) on Federal funds
to carry out the purposes of Public Law 101-593: Provided
further, That such investments may be made only in interest-
bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations
guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United
States.
Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244,
$2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall
be available for matching funds to the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3701-3709,
and may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial
assistance, without regard to when expenses are incurred, for
projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or
related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That the
Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of Federal
financial assistance, private contributions to match on at
least one-for-one basis funds advanced by the Forest Service:
Provided further, That the Foundation may transfer Federal
funds to a non-Federal recipient for a project at the same
rate that the recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching
funds.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for interactions with and providing technical assistance to
rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of
the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the
``National Forest System'' and ``Capital Improvement and
Maintenance'' accounts and planned to be allocated to
activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods'' program for
projects on National Forest land in the State of Washington
may be granted directly to the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned projects.
Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by the Forest
Service for planning and administering projects. Project
selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by the
Forest Service with such consultation with the State of
Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2),
and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into
grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements as appropriate
with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, as well as with
public and other private agencies, organizations,
institutions, and individuals, to provide for the
development, administration, maintenance, or restoration of
land, facilities, or Forest Service programs, at the Grey
Towers National Historic Landmark: Provided, That, subject to
such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may
prescribe, any such public or private agency, organization,
institution, or individual may solicit, accept, and
administer private gifts of money and real or personal
property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the
activities and services at the Grey Towers National Historic
Landmark: Provided further, That such gifts may be accepted
notwithstanding the fact that a donor conducts business with
the Department of Agriculture in any capacity.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be
available, as determined by the Secretary, for payments to
Del Norte County, California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and
14 of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act (Public
Law 101-612).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service not
to exceed $500,000 may be used to reimburse the Office of the
General Counsel (OGC), Department of Agriculture, for travel
and related expenses incurred as a result of OGC assistance
or participation requested by the Forest Service at meetings,
training sessions, management reviews, land purchase
negotiations and similar non-litigation related matters.
Future budget justifications for both the Forest Service and
the Department of Agriculture should clearly display the sums
previously transferred and the requested funding transfers.
The Forest Service shall fund indirect expenses, that is
expenses not directly related to specific programs or to the
accomplishment of specific work on-the-ground, from any funds
available to the Forest Service: Provided, That the Forest
Service shall implement and adhere to the definitions of
indirect expenditures established pursuant to Public Law 105-
277 on a nationwide basis without flexibility for
modification by any organizational level except the
Washington Office, and when changed by the Washington Office,
such changes in definition shall be reported in budget
requests submitted by the Forest Service: Provided further,
That the Forest Service shall provide in all future budget
justifications, planned indirect expenditures in accordance
with the definitions, summarized and displayed to the
Regional, Station, Area, and detached unit office level. The
justification shall display the estimated source and amount
of indirect expenditures, by expanded budget line item, of
funds in the agency's annual budget justification. The
display shall include appropriated funds and the Knutson-
Vandenberg, Brush Disposal, Cooperative Work-Other, and
Salvage Sale funds. Changes between estimated and actual
indirect expenditures shall be reported in subsequent budget
justifications: Provided, That during fiscal year 2002 the
Secretary shall limit total annual indirect obligations from
the Brush Disposal, Knutson-Vandenberg, Reforestation,
Salvage Sale, and Roads and Trails funds to 20 percent of the
total obligations from each fund. Obligations in excess of 20
percent which would otherwise be charged to the above funds
may be charged to appropriated funds available to the Forest
Service subject to notification of the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be used for necessary expenses in the event of law
enforcement emergencies as necessary to protect natural
resources and public or employee safety: Provided, That such
amounts shall not exceed $750,000.
The Secretary of Agriculture may authorize the sale of
excess buildings, facilities, and other properties owned by
the Forest Service and located on the Green Mountain National
Forest, the revenues of which shall be retained by the

[[Page 19245]]

Forest Service and available to the Secretary without further
appropriation and until expended for maintenance and
rehabilitation activities on the Green Mountain National
Forest.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Clean Coal Technology

(deferral)

Of the funds made available under this heading for
obligation in prior years, $40,000,000 shall not be available
until October 1, 2002: Provided, That funds made available in
previous appropriations Acts shall be available for any
ongoing project regardless of the separate request for
proposal under which the project was selected.

Fossil Energy Research and Development

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy
research and development activities, under the authority of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91),
including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible
and equitable interests in any real property or any facility
or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for
conducting inquiries, technological investigations and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social
and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603),
$616,490,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$11,000,000 is to begin a 7-year project for construction,
renovation, furnishing, and demolition or removal of
buildings at National Energy Technology Laboratory facilities
in Morgantown, West Virginia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
and for acquisition of lands, and interests therein, in
proximity to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, and
of which $33,700,000 shall be derived by transfer from funds
appropriated in prior years under the heading ``Clean Coal
Technology'', and of which $150,000,000 and such sums as may
be appropriated in fiscal year 2003 are to be made available,
after coordination with the private sector, for a request for
proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative providing for
competitively-awarded demonstrations of commercial scale
technologies to reduce the barriers to continued and expanded
coal use: Provided, That the request for proposals shall be
issued no later than 120 days following enactment of this
Act, proposals shall be submitted no later than 150 days
after the issuance of the request for proposals, and the
Department of Energy shall make project selections no later
than 160 days after the receipt of proposals: Provided
further, That no project may be selected for which sufficient
funding is not available to provide for the total project:
Provided further, That funds shall be expended in accordance
with the provisions governing the use of funds contained
under the heading ``Clean Coal Technology'' in prior
appropriations: Provided further, That the Department may
include provisions for repayment of Government contributions
to individual projects in an amount up to the Government
contribution to the project on terms and conditions that are
acceptable to the Department including repayments from sale
and licensing of technologies from both domestic and foreign
transactions: Provided further, That such repayments shall be
retained by the Department for future coal-related research,
development and demonstration projects: Provided further,
That any technology selected under this program shall be
considered a Clean Coal Technology, and any project selected
under this program shall be considered a Clean Coal
Technology Project, for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7651n,
and Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations: Provided further, That funds excess to
the needs of the Power Plant Improvement Initiative
procurement provided for under this heading in Public Law
106-291 shall be made available for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative provided for under this heading in this Act:
Provided further, That no part of the sum herein made
available shall be used for the field testing of nuclear
explosives in the recovery of oil and gas: Provided further,
That up to 4 percent of program direction funds available to
the National Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to
support Department of Energy activities not included in this
account.

Alternative Fuels Production

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances under this heading, $2,000,000
are rescinded.

naval petroleum and oil shale reserves

For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and oil
shale reserve activities, $17,371,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior
years shall be available for all naval petroleum and oil
shale reserve activities.

Elk Hills School Lands Fund

For necessary expenses in fulfilling installment payments
under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the United
States and the State of California on October 11, 1996, as
authorized by section 3415 of Public Law 104-106,
$36,000,000, to become available on October 1, 2002 for
payment to the State of California for the State Teachers'
Retirement Fund from the Elk Hills School Lands Fund.

Energy Conservation

For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation
activities, $912,805,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That $275,000,000 shall be for use in energy
conservation grant programs as defined in section 3008(3) of
Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509, such
sums shall be allocated to the eligible programs as follows:
$230,000,000 for weatherization assistance grants and
$45,000,000 for State energy conservation grants: Provided
further, That 50 percent of the funds provided for the Energy
Efficiency Science Initiative for fiscal year 2002 and
thereafter shall be made available to the Fossil Energy
Research and Development account.

economic regulation

For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $1,996,000, to remain
available until expended.

strategic petroleum reserve

For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
facility development and operations and program management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $179,009,000,
to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed
$8,000,000 shall be available for maintenance of a Northeast
Home Heating Oil Reserve.

energy information administration

For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $78,499,000, to remain
available until expended.

administrative provisions, department of energy

Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year
shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles;
hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase,
repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the
General Services Administration for security guard services.
From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may
be made to other agencies of the Government for the
performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
None of the funds made available to the Department of
Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance
authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless
specific provision is made for such programs in an
appropriations Act.
The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings,
equipment, and other contributions from public and private
sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other
agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That
revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of
the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of
products in connection with projects of the Department
appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary
of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for
plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing
contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder
of revenues after the making of such payments shall be
covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided
further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof
entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority
shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar
days (not including any day in which either House of Congress
is not in session because of adjournment of more than 3
calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of
the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project,
including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support
of the proposed project.
No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the
Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process
procurement documents for programs or projects for which
appropriations have not been made.
In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the
Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and
private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds
account, and prosecute projects using such fees and
contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or
private agencies or concerns.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Indian Health Service

indian health services

For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of
the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian
Health Service, $2,389,614,000, together with payments
received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b)
for services furnished by the Indian Health Service:
Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal
organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any
other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the
grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available
to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That $15,000,000 shall remain
available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health
Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $445,776,000 for
contract medical care shall remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2003: Provided further, That of the funds
provided, up to $22,000,000 shall be used to carry out the
loan repayment program under section 108 of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided
in this Act may be used for 1-year contracts and grants which
are to be performed in 2 fiscal years, so long as the total
obligation is recorded in the

[[Page 19246]]

year for which the funds are appropriated: Provided further,
That the amounts collected by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services under the authority of title IV of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act shall remain available until
expended for the purpose of achieving compliance with the
applicable conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and
XIX of the Social Security Act (exclusive of planning,
design, or construction of new facilities): Provided further,
That funding contained herein, and in any earlier
appropriations Acts for scholarship programs under the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2003: Provided
further, That amounts received by tribes and tribal
organizations under title IV of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act shall be reported and accounted for and
available to the receiving tribes and tribal organizations
until expended: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, of the amounts provided herein, not
to exceed $268,234,000 shall be for payments to tribes and
tribal organizations for contract or grant support costs
associated with contracts, grants, self-governance compacts
or annual funding agreements between the Indian Health
Service and a tribe or tribal organization pursuant to the
Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, prior to
or during fiscal year 2002, of which not to exceed
$20,000,000 may be used for contract support costs associated
with new or expanded self-determination contracts, grants,
self-governance compacts or annual funding agreements:
Provided further, That funds available for the Indian Health
Care Improvement Fund may be used, as needed, to carry out
activities typically funded under the Indian Health
Facilities account.

Indian Health Facilities

For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and
equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities,
including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans,
specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase
and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers;
and for provision of domestic and community sanitation
facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act
of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and
titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with
respect to environmental health and facilities support
activities of the Indian Health Service, $369,487,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for the planning, design, construction or
renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian
tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to
construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities:
Provided further, That from the funds appropriated herein,
$5,000,000 shall be designated by the Indian Health Service
as a contribution to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
(YKHC) to continue a priority project for the acquisition of
land, planning, design and construction of 79 staff quarters
in the Bethel service area, pursuant to the negotiated
project agreement between the YKHC and the Indian Health
Service: Provided further, That this project shall not be
subject to the construction provisions of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act and shall be
removed from the Indian Health Service priority list upon
completion: Provided further, That the Federal Government
shall not be liable for any property damages or other
construction claims that may arise from YKHC undertaking this
project: Provided further, That the land shall be owned or
leased by the YKHC and title to quarters shall remain vested
with the YKHC: Provided further, That $5,000,000 shall remain
available until expended for the purpose of funding up to two
joint venture health care facility projects authorized under
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, as amended: Provided
further, That priority, by rank order, shall be given to
tribes with outpatient projects on the existing Indian Health
Services priority list that have Service-approved planning
documents, and can demonstrate by March 1, 2002, the
financial capability necessary to provide an appropriate
facility: Provided further, That joint venture funds
unallocated after March 1, 2002, shall be made available for
joint venture projects on a competitive basis giving priority
to tribes that currently have no existing Federally-owned
health care facility, have planning documents meeting Indian
Health Service requirements prepared for approval by the
Service and can demonstrate the financial capability needed
to provide an appropriate facility: Provided further, That
the Indian Health Service shall request additional staffing,
operation and maintenance funds for these facilities in
future budget requests: Provided further, That not to exceed
$500,000 shall be used by the Indian Health Service to
purchase TRANSAM equipment from the Department of Defense for
distribution to the Indian Health Service and tribal
facilities: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000
shall be used by the Indian Health Service to obtain
ambulances for the Indian Health Service and tribal
facilities in conjunction with an existing interagency
agreement between the Indian Health Service and the General
Services Administration: Provided further, That not to exceed
$500,000 shall be placed in a Demolition Fund, available
until expended, to be used by the Indian Health Service for
demolition of Federal buildings: Provided further, That
notwithstanding the provisions of title III, section 306, of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Public Law 94-437, as
amended), construction contracts authorized under title I of
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of
1975, as amended, may be used rather than grants to fund
small ambulatory facility construction projects: Provided
further, That if a contract is used, the IHS is authorized to
improve municipal, private, or tribal lands, and that at no
time, during construction or after completion of the project
will the Federal Government have any rights or title to any
real or personal property acquired as a part of the contract:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law or regulation, for purposes of acquiring sites for a new
clinic and staff quarters in St. Paul Island, Alaska, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services may accept land
donated by the Tanadgusix Corporation.

administrative provisions, indian health service

Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service
shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent
to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under
5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft;
purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints;
purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and
renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms
or allowances therefore as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are
concerned with the functions or activities for which the
appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved
conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or
activities.
In accordance with the provisions of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, non-Indian patients may be extended health
care at all tribally administered or Indian Health Service
facilities, subject to charges, and the proceeds along with
funds recovered under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act
(42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) shall be credited to the account of the
facility providing the service and shall be available without
fiscal year limitation. Notwithstanding any other law or
regulation, funds transferred from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service shall be
administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian Sanitation
Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended.
Funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service in this
Act, except those used for administrative and program
direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations
directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
previously or herein made available to a tribe or tribal
organization through a contract, grant, or agreement
authorized by title I or title III of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
determination contract under title I, or a self-governance
agreement under title III of such Act and thereafter shall
remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without
fiscal year limitation.
None of the funds made available to the Indian Health
Service in this Act shall be used to implement the final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by
the Department of Health and Human Services, relating to the
eligibility for the health care services of the Indian Health
Service until the Indian Health Service has submitted a
budget request reflecting the increased costs associated with
the proposed final rule, and such request has been included
in an appropriations Act and enacted into law.
Funds made available in this Act are to be apportioned to
the Indian Health Service as appropriated in this Act, and
accounted for in the appropriation structure set forth in
this Act.
With respect to functions transferred by the Indian Health
Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the Indian Health
Service is authorized to provide goods and services to those
entities, on a reimbursable basis, including payment in
advance with subsequent adjustment. The reimbursements
received therefrom, along with the funds received from those
entities pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act, may
be credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account
which provided the funding. Such amounts shall remain
available until expended.
Reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or
services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain
total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead
associated with the provision of goods, services, or
technical assistance.
The appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service
may not be altered without advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.

OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531,
$15,148,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act
are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups
including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands
residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and
all others

[[Page 19247]]

certified as eligible and not included in the preceding
categories: Provided further, That none of the funds
contained in this or any other Act may be used by the Office
of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any single
Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985, was
physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi
Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such
household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be
provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided
further, That the Office shall relocate any certified
eligible relocatees who have selected and received an
approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a
replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the
land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development

payment to the institute

For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title
XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A),
$4,490,000.

Smithsonian Institution

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as
authorized by law, including research in the fields of art,
science, and history; development, preservation, and
documentation of the National Collections; presentation of
public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation,
dissemination, and exchange of information and publications;
conduct of education, training, and museum assistance
programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for
terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings,
facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to five
replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for employees, $399,253,000, of which
not to exceed $37,508,000 for the instrumentation program,
collections acquisition, exhibition reinstallation, the
National Museum of the American Indian, and the repatriation
of skeletal remains program shall remain available until
expended, and including such funds as may be necessary to
support American overseas research centers and a total of
$125,000 for the Council of American Overseas Research
Centers: Provided, That funds appropriated herein are
available for advance payments to independent contractors
performing research services or participating in official
Smithsonian presentations: Provided further, That the
Smithsonian Institution may expend Federal appropriations
designated in this Act for lease or rent payments for long
term and swing space, as rent payable to the Smithsonian
Institution, and such rent payments may be deposited into the
general trust funds of the Institution to the extent that
federally supported activities are housed in the 900 H
Street, N.W. building in the District of Columbia: Provided
further, That this use of Federal appropriations shall not be
construed as debt service, a Federal guarantee of, a transfer
of risk to, or an obligation of, the Federal Government:
Provided further, That no appropriated funds may be used to
service debt which is incurred to finance the costs of
acquiring the 900 H Street building or of planning,
designing, and constructing improvements to such building.

repair, restoration and alteration of facilities

For necessary expenses of maintenance, repair, restoration,
and alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the
Smithsonian Institution, by contract or otherwise, as
authorized by section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63
Stat. 623), including not to exceed $10,000 for services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $67,900,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $10,000,000 is provided for
maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and alteration of
facilities at the National Zoological Park: Provided, That
contracts awarded for environmental systems, protection
systems, and repair or restoration of facilities of the
Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated with selected
contractors and awarded on the basis of contractor
qualifications as well as price.

construction

For necessary expenses for construction, $30,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

administrative provisions, smithsonian institution

None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to
make any changes to the existing Smithsonian science programs
including closure of facilities, relocation of staff or
redirection of functions and programs without approval by the
Board of Regents of recommendations received from the Science
Commission.
None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to
initiate the design for any proposed expansion of current
space or new facility without consultation with the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees.
None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used for
the Holt House located at the National Zoological Park in
Washington, D.C., unless identified as repairs to minimize
water damage, monitor structure movement, or provide interim
structural support.
None of the funds available to the Smithsonian may be
reprogrammed without the advance written approval of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance
with the procedures contained in House Report No. 105-163.

National Gallery of Art

salaries and expenses

For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of
Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and
administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by
the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the
public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9,
Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the
treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum,
and art associations or societies whose publications or
services are available to members only, or to members at a
price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances
therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for
protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance,
alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches,
and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and
repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by
contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms,
or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms
and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $68,967,000,
of which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition
program shall remain available until expended.

repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and
renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or
occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or
otherwise, as authorized, $14,220,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for
environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior
repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of
Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded
on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

operations and maintenance

For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and
security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, $15,000,000.

construction

For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration
of the existing features of the building and site of the John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $19,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of
the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356)
including hire of passenger vehicles and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $7,796,000.

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

National Endowment for the Arts

grants and administration

For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$98,234,000, shall be available to the National Endowment for
the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the
arts through assistance to organizations and individuals
pursuant to sections 5(c) and 5(g) of the Act, for program
support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
previously appropriated to the National Endowment for the
Arts ``Matching Grants'' account may be transferred to and
merged with this account.

National Endowment for the Humanities

grants and administration

For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$108,382,000, shall be available to the National Endowment
for the Humanities for support of activities in the
humanities, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for
administering the functions of the Act, to remain available
until expended.

matching grants

To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $16,122,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $12,122,000 shall be available to the
National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of
section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal
to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of
money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by
grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections
11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding
fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been
appropriated.

Institute of Museum and Library Services

Office of Museum Services

grants and administration

For carrying out subtitle C of the Museum and Library
Services Act of 1996, as amended, $26,899,000, to remain
available until expended.

Challenge America Arts Fund

challenge america grants

For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 89-209,
as amended, $17,000,000, for support for arts education and
public outreach activities to be administered by the National
Endowment for the Arts, to remain available until expended.

[[Page 19248]]

administrative provisions

None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any
grant or contract documents which do not include the text of
18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may
be used for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may
be used as necessary for official reception and
representation expenses.

Commission of Fine Arts

salaries and expenses

For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a
Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $1,224,000:
Provided, That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to
cover the full costs of its publications, and such fees shall
be credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to
remain available until expended without further
appropriation.

national capital arts and cultural affairs

For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190
(20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $7,000,000.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $3,400,000:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for
compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher
positions.

National Capital Planning Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $7,253,000:
Provided, That all appointed members of the Commission will
be compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of pay for positions at level IV of the
Executive Schedule for each day such member is engaged in the
actual performance of duties.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Holocaust Memorial Museum

For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as
authorized by Public Law 106-292 (36 U.S.C. 2301-2310),
$36,028,000, of which $1,900,000 for the museum's repair and
rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 for the museum's
exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.

Presidio Trust

Presidio Trust fund

For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $23,125,000
shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available
until expended.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or
distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote
public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on
which congressional action is not complete.
Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 304. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal
servants to any officer or employee of such department or
agency except as otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 305. No assessments may be levied against any program,
budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act
unless advance notice of such assessments and the basis
therefor are presented to the Committees on Appropriations
and are approved by such committees.
Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified
as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located
on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands
in a manner different than such sales were conducted in
fiscal year 2001.
Sec. 307. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to
enter into or implement a concession contract which permits
or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the
Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
Sec. 308. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used: (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New
Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of
such bridge, when such pedestrian use is consistent with
generally accepted safety standards.
Sec. 309. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act
shall be obligated or expended to accept or process
applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim
located under the general mining laws.
(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not
apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for
the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with
the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all
requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode
claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and
section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill
site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by
the applicant by that date.
(c) Report.--On September 30, 2002, the Secretary of the
Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the
Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section
314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
(d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent
applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the
request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior
shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party
contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to
conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill
sites contained in a patent application as set forth in
subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the
sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party
contractor in accordance with the standard procedures
employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of
third-party contractors.
Sec. 310. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by
Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, 105-
277, 106-113, and 106-291 for payments to tribes and tribal
organizations for contract support costs associated with
self-determination or self-governance contracts, grants,
compacts, or annual funding agreements with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service as funded by such
Acts, are the total amounts available for fiscal years 1994
through 2001 for such purposes, except that, for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, tribes and tribal organizations may use
their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of
ongoing contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual
funding agreements.
Sec. 311. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
fiscal year 2002 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior are authorized to limit competition for watershed
restoration project contracts as part of the ``Jobs in the
Woods'' Program established in Region 10 of the Forest
Service to individuals and entities in historically timber-
dependent areas in the States of Washington, Oregon, northern
California and Alaska that have been affected by reduced
timber harvesting on Federal lands. The Secretaries shall
consider the benefits to the local economy in evaluating bids
and designing procurements which create economic
opportunities for local contractors.
Sec. 312. (a) Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.--
Subsection (f) of section 315 of the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as
contained in section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat.
1321-200; 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note), is amended--
(1) by striking ``commence on October 1, 1995, and end on
September 30, 2002'' and inserting ``end on September 30,
2004''; and
(2) by striking ``September 30, 2005'' and inserting
``September 30, 2007''.
(b) Expansion of Program.--Subsection (b) of such section
is amended by striking ``no fewer than 10, but as many as
100,''.
(c) Revenue Sharing.--Subsection (d)(1) of such section is
amended by inserting ``the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C.
500 note),'' before ``and any other provision''.
(d) Discounted Fees.--Subsection (b)(2) of such section is
amended by inserting after ``testing'' the following: ``,
including the provision of discounted or free admission or
use as the Secretary considers appropriate''.
(e) Capital Projects.--Subsection (c)(2) of such section is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) None of the funds collected under this section may be
used to plan, design, or construct a visitor center or any
other permanent structure without prior approval of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate if the
estimated total cost of the structure exceeds $500,000.''.
Sec. 313. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act for any fiscal year may be used to designate, or to
post any sign designating, any portion of Canaveral National
Seashore in Brevard County, Florida, as a clothing-optional
area or as an area in which public nudity is permitted, if
such designation would be contrary to county ordinance.
Sec. 314. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment
for the Arts--
(1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an
individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a
literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or
American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
(2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure
that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made
to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be
used to make a grant to any other organization or individual
to conduct activity independent of the direct grant
recipient. Nothing in this subsection

[[Page 19249]]

shall prohibit payments made in exchange for goods and
services.
(3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group,
unless the application is specific to the contents of the
season, including identified programs and/or projects.
Sec. 315. The National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to
solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the
United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other
property or services and to use such in furtherance of the
functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such
gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National
Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the
Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative
of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the
proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit
of the appropriate endowment for the purposes specified in
each case.
Sec. 316. (a) In providing services or awarding financial
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this
Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts
shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or
awarding financial assistance for projects, productions,
workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
(b) In this section:
(1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population
of individuals, including urban minorities, who have
historically been outside the purview of arts and humanities
programs due to factors such as a high incidence of income
below the poverty line or to geographic isolation.
(2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised
annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a
family of the size involved.
(c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance
under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act
of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson
of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that
priority is given to providing services or awarding financial
assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs
that will encourage public knowledge, education,
understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
(d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out
section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and
Humanities Act of 1965--
(1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for
projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of
national impact or availability or are able to tour several
States;
(2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15
percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State,
excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
(3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually
and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each
grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
(4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to
improve and support community-based music performance and
education.
Sec. 317. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be expended or obligated to complete and issue the
5-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act.
Sec. 318. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
support Government-wide administrative functions unless such
functions are justified in the budget process and funding is
approved by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 319. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds in this Act may be used for GSA
Telecommunication Centers.
Sec. 320. None of the funds in this Act may be used for
planning, design or construction of improvements to
Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House without the
advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 321. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 2001 in the
roads and trails fund provided for in the 14th paragraph
under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of March 4,
1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by the
Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in
which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or
to carry out and administer projects to improve forest health
conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in
the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally
high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing
risks to human safety and public health and property and
enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest
productivity, and biological integrity. The projects may be
completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds shall not be
expended under this section to replace funds which would
otherwise appropriately be expended from the timber salvage
sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be construed to
exempt any project from any environmental law.
Sec. 322. Other than in emergency situations, none of the
funds in this Act may be used to operate telephone answering
machines during core business hours unless such answering
machines include an option that enables callers to reach
promptly an individual on-duty with the agency being
contacted.
Sec. 323. No timber sale in Region 10 shall be advertised
if the indicated rate is deficit when appraised under the
transaction evidence appraisal system using domestic Alaska
values for western red cedar: Provided, That sales which are
deficit when appraised under the transaction evidence
appraisal system using domestic Alaska values for western red
cedar may be advertised upon receipt of a written request by
a prospective, informed bidder, who has the opportunity to
review the Forest Service's cruise and harvest cost estimate
for that timber. Program accomplishments shall be based on
volume sold. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal year 2002, the
annual average portion of the decadal allowable sale quantity
called for in the current Tongass Land Management Plan in
sales which are not deficit when appraised under the
transaction evidence appraisal system using domestic Alaska
values for western red cedar, all of the western red cedar
timber from those sales which is surplus to the needs of
domestic processors in Alaska, shall be made available to
domestic processors in the contiguous 48 United States at
prevailing domestic prices. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal
year 2002, less than the annual average portion of the
decadal allowable sale quantity called for in the current
Tongass Land Management Plan in sales which are not deficit
when appraised under the transaction evidence appraisal
system using domestic Alaska values for western red cedar,
the volume of western red cedar timber available to domestic
processors at prevailing domestic prices in the contiguous 48
United States shall be that volume: (i) which is surplus to
the needs of domestic processors in Alaska; and (ii) is that
percent of the surplus western red cedar volume determined by
calculating the ratio of the total timber volume which has
been sold on the Tongass to the annual average portion of the
decadal allowable sale quantity called for in the current
Tongass Land Management Plan. The percentage shall be
calculated by Region 10 on a rolling basis as each sale is
sold (for purposes of this amendment, a ``rolling basis''
shall mean that the determination of how much western red
cedar is eligible for sale to various markets shall be made
at the time each sale is awarded). Western red cedar shall be
deemed ``surplus to the needs of domestic processors in
Alaska'' when the timber sale holder has presented to the
Forest Service documentation of the inability to sell western
red cedar logs from a given sale to domestic Alaska
processors at price equal to or greater than the log selling
value stated in the contract. All additional western red
cedar volume not sold to Alaska or contiguous 48 United
States domestic processors may be exported to foreign markets
at the election of the timber sale holder. All Alaska yellow
cedar may be sold at prevailing export prices at the election
of the timber sale holder.
Sec. 324. The Forest Service, in consultation with the
Department of Labor, shall review Forest Service campground
concessions policy to determine if modifications can be made
to Forest Service contracts for campgrounds so that such
concessions fall within the regulatory exemption of 29 CFR
4.122(b). The Forest Service shall offer in fiscal year 2002
such concession prospectuses under the regulatory exemption,
except that, any prospectus that does not meet the
requirements of the regulatory exemption shall be offered as
a service contract in accordance with the requirements of 41
U.S.C. 351-358.
Sec. 325. A project undertaken by the Forest Service under
the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program as authorized by
section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, as amended,
shall not result in--
(1) displacement of the holder of an authorization to
provide commercial recreation services on Federal lands.
Prior to initiating any project, the Secretary shall consult
with potentially affected holders to determine what impacts
the project may have on the holders. Any modifications to the
authorization shall be made within the terms and conditions
of the authorization and authorities of the impacted agency.
(2) the return of a commercial recreation service to the
Secretary for operation when such services have been provided
in the past by a private sector provider, except when--
(A) the private sector provider fails to bid on such
opportunities;
(B) the private sector provider terminates its relationship
with the agency; or
(C) the agency revokes the permit for non-compliance with
the terms and conditions of the authorization.
In such cases, the agency may use the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program to provide for operations until a
subsequent operator can be found through the offering of a
new prospectus.
Sec. 326. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to limit competition for fire and
fuel treatment and watershed restoration contracts in the
Giant Sequoia National Monument and the Sequoia National
Forest. Preference for employment shall be given to
dislocated and displaced workers in Tulare, Kern and Fresno
Counties, California, for work associated with the
establishment of the Giant Sequoia National Monument.
Sec. 327. Revision of Forest Plans. Prior to October 1,
2002, the Secretary of Agriculture shall not be considered to
be in violation of subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C.
1604(f)(5)(A)) solely because more than 15 years have passed
without revision of the plan for a unit of the National
Forest System. Nothing in this section exempts the Secretary
from any other requirement of the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) or
any other law:

[[Page 19250]]

Provided, That if the Secretary is not acting expeditiously
and in good faith, within the funding available, to revise a
plan for a unit of the National Forest System, this section
shall be void with respect to such plan and a court of proper
jurisdiction may order completion of the plan on an
accelerated basis.
Sec. 328. Until September 30, 2003, the authority of the
Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a cooperative
agreement under the first section of Public Law 94-148 (16
U.S.C. 565a-1) for a purpose described in such section
includes the authority to use that legal instrument when the
principal purpose of the resulting relationship is to the
mutually significant benefit of the Forest Service and the
other party or parties to the agreement, including nonprofit
entities.
Sec. 329. (a) Pilot Program Authorizing Conveyance of
Excess Forest Service Structures.--The Secretary of
Agriculture may convey, by sale or exchange, any or all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
excess buildings and other structures located on National
Forest System lands and under the jurisdiction of the Forest
Service. The conveyance may include the land on which the
building or other structure is located and such other land
immediately adjacent to the building or structure as the
Secretary considers necessary.
(b) Limitation.--Conveyances on not more than 10 sites may
be made under the authority of this section, and the
Secretary of Agriculture shall obtain the concurrence of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate in advance
of each conveyance.
(c) Use of Proceeds.--The proceeds derived from the sale of
a building or other structure under this section shall be
retained by the Secretary of Agriculture and shall be
available to the Secretary, without further appropriation
until expended, for maintenance and rehabilitation activities
within the Forest Service Region in which the building or
structure is located.
(d) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided by this
section expires on September 30, 2005.
Sec. 330. Section 323(a) of the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as included in
Public Law 105-277, Div. A, section 101(e) is amended by
inserting ``and fiscal years 2002 through 2005,'' before ``to
the extent funds are otherwise available''.
Sec. 331. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to
conduct preleasing, leasing and related activities under
either the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)
within the boundaries of a National Monument established
pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.)
as such boundary existed on January 20, 2001, except where
such activities are allowed under the Presidential
proclamation establishing such monument.
Sec. 332. Section 347(a) of the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as included in
Public Law 105-277, is amended by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2004''. The authority to enter into stewardship
and end result contracts provided to the Forest Service in
accordance with section 347 of title III of section 101(e) of
division A of Public Law 105-277 is hereby expanded to
authorize the Forest Service to enter into an additional 28
contracts subject to the same terms and conditions as
provided in that section: Provided, That of the additional
contracts authorized by this section at least 9 shall be
allocated to Region 1 and at least 3 to Region 6.
Sec. 333. Any regulations or policies promulgated or
adopted by the Departments of Agriculture or the Interior
regarding recovery of costs for processing authorizations to
occupy and use Federal lands under their control shall adhere
to and incorporate the following principle arising from
Office of Management and Budget Circular, A-25; no charge
should be made for a service when the identification of the
specific beneficiary is obscure, and the service can be
considered primarily as benefiting broadly the general
public.
Sec. 334. The Chief of the Forest Service shall issue a
special use permit for the Sioux Charlie Cabin within the
boundary of the Custer National Forest, Montana, to Montana
State University-Billings, for a term of 20 years for
educational purposes compatible with the cabin's location.
The permit shall be administered under normal national forest
system authorities and regulations, with an additional review
after 10 years to ensure the facility is being used for
educational purposes.
Sec. 335. Section 551(c) of the Land Between the Lakes
Protection Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 460lll-61(c)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2004''.
Sec. 336. Modification to Steel Loan Guarantee Program. (a)
In General.--Section 101 of the Emergency Steel Loan
Guarantee Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-51; 15 U.S.C. 1841
note) is amended as follows:
(1) Terms and conditions.--Subsection (h) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2005'' and inserting
``2015''; and
(B) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) Guarantee level.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), any loan guarantee provided under this section shall
not exceed 85 percent of the amount of principal of the loan.
``(B) Increased level one.--A loan guarantee may be
provided under this section in excess of 85 percent, but not
more than 90 percent, of the amount of principal of the loan,
if--
``(i) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such
percentage and outstanding under this section at any one time
does not exceed $100,000,000; and
``(ii) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such
percentage under this section with respect to a single
qualified steel company does not exceed $50,000,000.
``(C) Increased level two.--A loan guarantee may be
provided under this section in excess of 85 percent, but not
more than 95 percent, of the amount of principal of the loan,
if--
``(i) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such
percentage and outstanding under this section at any one time
does not exceed $100,000,000; and
``(ii) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such
percentage under this section with respect to a single
qualified steel company does not exceed $50,000,000.''.
(2) Termination of guarantee authority.--Subsection (k) is
amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2003''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply only with respect to any guarantee issued on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002''.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Joe Skeen,
Ralph Regula,
Jim Kolbe,
Charles H. Taylor,
George R. Nethercutt, Jr.,
Zach Wamp,
Jack Kingston,
John E. Peterson,
Bill Young,
Norman D. Dicks,
John P. Murtha,
James P. Moran,
Maurice Hinchey,
Martin Olav Sabo,
David Obey,
Managers on the Part of the House.

Robert Byrd,
Patrick Leahy,
Ernest F. Hollings,
Harry Reid,
Byron L. Dorgan,
Dianne Feinstein,
Patty Murray,
Daniel K. Inouye,
Conrad Burns,
Ted Stevens,
Thad Cochran,
Pete V. Domenici,
Robert F. Bennett,
Judd Gregg,
Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2217), making
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and
for other purposes, submit the following joint statement to
the House and the Senate in explanation of the effect of the
action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the
accompanying conference report.
The conference agreement on H.R. 2217 incorporates some of
the provisions of both the House and the Senate versions of
the bill. Report language and allocations set forth in either
House Report 107-103 or Senate Report 107-36 that are not
changed by the conference are approved by the committee of
conference. The statement of the managers, while repeating
some report language for emphasis, does not negate the
language referenced above unless expressly provided herein.

Reprogramming Guidelines

The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
reprogramming guidelines were last published in the House and
Senate reports accompanying the FY 1998 Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act (H. Rep. 105-163, S. Rep. 105-
56). While the managers have agreed to only one minor change
to these guidelines for the National Park Service (addressed
under the land acquisition and State assistance account),
recent dealings with several agencies suggest that the
following clarifications are needed to prevent any future
misunderstandings regarding the applicability of
reprogramming procedures in certain situations.
Though a reprogramming is in part defined in the guidelines
as a reallocation of funds from one budget activity (or other
applicable level of detail) to another, the guidelines also
state that any significant departure from the program
described in the agency's budget justification shall be
considered a reprogramming. This latter portion of the
definition encompasses the reallocation of funds within a
budget activity, if such reallocation represents a
``significant departure'' from the description provided in
the relevant budget justification. In this regard, the
managers would view as a ``significant departure'' any
reallocation of funds within a budget activity for programs
or contracts involving out-year mortgages that are not
discussed in detail in the budget justification.

[[Page 19251]]

Multi-year and no-year funds do not lose their program
identities when carried over to subsequent years and a
reprogramming is required if such carry-over funds are to be
used for purposes other than those originally directed.

Conservation Spending Category

The conservation spending category created in title VIII of
the fiscal year 2001 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, provided that up to $1,320,000,000 could
be appropriated for conservation related activities, in
addition to ongoing activities funded in this bill. The
conference agreement fully funds the conservation spending
category at $1,320,000,000. The distribution of funds as
agreed to by the managers is shown in the table below.

SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION SPENDING CATEGORY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory/appropriation account Budget request House Senate Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal, State and Other LWCF Programs:
BLM Federal Land Acquisition................ 47,686 47,686 45,686 49,920
FWS Federal Land Acquisition................ 104,401 104,401 108,401 99,135
NPS Federal Land Acquisition................ 107,036 107,036 123,036 130,117
FS Federal Land Acquisition................. 130,877 130,877 128,877 149,742
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal Land Acquisition........ 390,000 390,000 406,000 428,914
===============================================================
Stateside Grants (Recreation and Wildlife).. 450,000 0 0 ..............
NPS Stateside Grants (and 0 154,000 164,000 144,000
Administration)........................
State Wildlife Grants................... 0 100,000 100,000 85,000
Competitive Grants for Indian Tribes 0 5,000 0 \1\ 0
FWS Incentive Grant Programs................ 60,000 60,000 60,000 50,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, State and Other Grant Programs.. 510,000 319,000 324,000 279,000
===============================================================
Total LWCF................................ 900,000 709,000 730,000 707,914
===============================================================
State and Other Conservation Programs:
FWS Coop. Endangered Species Conserv. Fund.. 54,694 107,000 91,000 96,235
FWS North American Wetlands Conserv. Fund... 14,912 45,000 42,000 43,500
FWS Neotropical Migratory Birds............. 0 5,000 0 \2\ 0
USGS State Planning Partnerships............ 0 25,000 25,000 25,000
FS, Forest Legacy........................... 30,079 60,000 65,000 65,000
FS, Stewardship Incentives Program.......... 0 8,000 0 \3\ 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................. 99,685 250,000 223,000 229,735
===============================================================
Urban and Historic Preservation Programs:
NPS Historic Preservation Fund.............. 67,055 77,000 74,000 74,500
NPS Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery 0 30,000 20,000 30,000
Grants.....................................
FS Urban and Community Forestry............. 31,804 36,000 36,000 36,000
BLM Youth Conservation Corps................ 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
FWS Youth Conservation Corps................ 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
NPS Youth Conservation Corps................ 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
FS Youth Conservation Corps................. 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................. 105,859 150,000 137,000 147,500
===============================================================
National Wildlife Refuge Fund--FWS.............. 0 5,000 0 \4\ 0
Payments in Lieu of Taxes--BLM.................. 0 50,000 50,000 50,000
Federal Infrastructure Improvement Programs:
BLM--Management of Lands & Resources........ 25,000 28,000 28,000 28,000
FWS--Resource Management.................... 25,000 28,000 31,000 29,000
NSP--Construction........................... 50,000 50,000 60,000 66,851
FS--Capital Improvement and Maintenance..... 50,497 50,000 61,000 61,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................. 150,497 156,000 180,000 184,851
===============================================================
FS Total........................................ 245,257 286,877 292,877 313,742
DOI Total....................................... 1,010,784 1,033,123 1,027,123 1,006,258
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Conservation Spending Category..... 1,256,041 1,320,000 1,320,000 1,320,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $5,000,000 for Tribal grants included in State Wildlife grants category.
\2\ $3,000,000 in FWS, but not charged to the conservation spending category (CSC).
\3\ $3,000,000 in FS, but no charged to CSC.
\4\ $3,000,000 above budget request in FWS, but not charged to CSC.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

management of lands and resources

The conference agreement provides $775,632,000 for
management of lands and resources instead of $768,711,000 as
proposed by the House and $775,962,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Within this amount, $29,000,000 is from the
conservation spending category.
Increases above the House for land resources include
$501,000 for noxious weeds for the Montana State University
weed program, $500,000 for Idaho weed control, and $400,000
for the Headwaters Forest reserve and a decrease of
$1,000,000 for the natural resource challenge program.
Increases above the House for recreation management include
$1,000,000 for Missouri River undaunted stewardship.
Increases above the House for energy and minerals include
$45,000 for management reforms, $2,000,000 for the National
Petroleum Reserve/Alaska, and $1,775,000 for Alaska minerals
for the continued development of an interagency geological
database that was initiated in fiscal year 2001.
The managers have provided $6,000,000 to address the
Bureau's increased operational workload for oil and gas
permitting and related activities, with an emphasis on
expediting permit applications for coalbed methane
development. The managers direct the Bureau to focus all
possible efforts towards completion of environmental reviews
that are necessary to proceed with further leasing.
The managers did not agree with the $700,000 earmark
included in the Senate version of the bill to address the oil
and gas permit backlog in the State of Utah. However, the
managers did provide a significant increase for oil and gas
permitting activities, a portion of which should be used to
address the Utah backlog.
Increases above the House for realty and ownership
management include $350,000 for the Montana cadastral
project, $300,000 for the Utah geographic reference project,
and $1,500,000 for Alaska conveyance to establish a public
lands database.
The managers note that the increase provided for the
Montana cadastral project fully funds the Federal share of
this effort, however, the Bureau is encouraged to continue
working with the State of Montana to finalize the project and
facilitate data sharing.
Decreases below the House for resource protection and
maintenance include $200,000 for desert rangers, for a total
increase of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002.
There is an increase above the House level for
transportation and facilities maintenance of $250,000 for the
Iditarod National Historic Trail.
There is a decrease of $500,000 below the House level for
workforce organizational support, which reflects a transfer
to the Inspector General for Bureau audits.
The managers agree to the following:
1. The managers note that both the House and Senate
included the Bureau's request of $3,000,000 to identify and
evaluate oil and gas resources and reserves on public lands.
In light of recent attacks on the United States that have
underscored the potential for disruptions to America's energy
supply, the

[[Page 19252]]

managers believe this project should be considered a top
priority for the Department. Additionally, the managers
direct the Bureau to provide the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations biannual reports on the progress of this
effort and a final report detailing the findings of this
review.
2. The managers wish to clarify the language dealing with
the allocation of funds from the conservation spending
category. Funding included in the management of lands and
resources appropriation for the conservation spending
category can be used for infrastructure improvements on all
public lands including Oregon and California grant lands.
3. The managers are aware of the significant success the
military services have had in utilizing pulse technology in
their vehicles and other equipment to reduce costs and
increase environmental benefits through the extension of the
service life of batteries. The managers urge the Department
as a whole, and specifically the Bureau of Land Management,
the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to examine the opportunity for cost savings and
associated environmental benefits of using pulse technology
for battery management programs. The managers believe that
this technology, if adopted by the Department, will directly
benefit the Bureaus.
4. The managers urge the Department and the Bureau to place
the highest possible priority on completion of the Imperial
Sand Dunes Recreation Management Plan.
5. The managers have not provided $300,000 for the
Southwest Strategy as proposed by the Senate.
Bill Language:
1. Language is included under the Bureau's administrative
provisions reauthorizing the hard rock mining holding fee for
2 years.
2. The managers have earmarked $700,000 for the Rio Puerco
watershed project, which is $300,000 above the budget
request. The increase above the request shall be used for
projects and initiatives developed by the Rio Puerco
Management Committee (section 401 of Public Law 104-333).
3. The managers have earmarked $4,000,000 for the
assessment of mineral potential in Alaska as proposed by the
Senate instead of $2,225,000 as proposed by the House.
4. The conference agreement includes a technical correction
to the conservation spending category statutory language as
proposed by the Senate.

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

The conference agreement provides $678,421,000 for wildland
fire management instead of $700,806,000 as proposed by the
House and $659,421,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The managers have provided $280,807,000 for preparedness,
$161,424,000 for fire suppression of which $34,000,000 is a
contingent emergency appropriation, and $236,190,000 for
other operations of which $20,000,000 is a contingent
emergency appropriation for the rehabilitation and
restoration program. The bureau may allocate up to an
additional $2,838,000 for the Ecological Restoration
Institute, Arizona for fuels reduction work including work at
Mt. Trumbull.
The managers have not earmarked funds in bill language for
hazardous fuels reduction work in the wildland-urban
interface as proposed by the Senate. Instead, the managers
direct the Department of the Interior to allocate the funding
level proposed in the Administration's budget request of
$111,255,000 on projects in the wildland-urban interface. If
for any reason the Department is unable to attain the
proposed levels, it shall promptly notify the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations explaining why the
Department was unable to expend such sums. The managers
continue to believe that an emphasis on fuels reduction work
in the wildland-urban interface is critical to protecting the
safety of rural communities.
Within the funds provided for other operations, $1,000,000
is for the National Center for Landscape Fire Analysis at
Montana State University including funding for the purchase
of a hyperspectral digital camera.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-emergency Emergency Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparedness.................................................... $280,807,000 .............. $280,807,000
Suppression..................................................... 127,424,000 $34,000,000 161,424,000
Other Operations:
Hazardous Fuels............................................. 186,190,000 .............. 186,190,000
Rehabilitation.............................................. 20,000,000 20,000,000 40,000,000
Rural Fire Assistance....................................... 10,000,000 .............. 10,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Other Operations Subtotal................................. 216,190,000 20,000,000 236,190,000
Total Fire Funding.............................................. 624,421,000 54,000,000 678,421,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The managers believe that the full, integrated national
fire plan effort needs to be sustained in future years in
order to reduce the risks of catastrophic fire in many areas
of the Nation. The managers note that the Administration,
working along with governors and local communities, have
submitted a framework for a ten-year national fire plan.
However, after reviewing the plan, the managers are concerned
that the plan does not lay out clear funding requirements for
various aspects of this important endeavor. Therefore, the
managers direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior to provide to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by March 15, 2002, an updated fire plan that
includes detailed schedules of activities and funding
requirements. The managers understand that funding
requirements for wildfire activities include considerable
year-to-year uncertainty depending on weather and fire
circumstances and therefore the managers view the funding
requirements for the national fire plan as being an iterative
process, which requires annual updates. The managers direct
the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to continue
to work together to formulate complementary budget requests
that reflect the same principles and a similar budget
organization and submit a cross-cutting budget request to the
Committees, which covers all federal wildfire
responsibilities. In addition, the managers expect the
agencies to seek the advice of governors, and local and
tribal government representatives in setting priorities for
fuels treatments, burned area rehabilitation, and public
outreach and education.
The managers remain concerned about the variation in
methods by which the Departments calculate wildfire fighting
readiness and how the Departments plan their distribution of
firefighting resources to attain efficiency. The managers
direct the two Departments to develop and implement a
coordinated and common system for calculating readiness which
includes provisions for working with the shared fire fighting
resources of the States and other cooperators and considers
values of various resources on both Federal and other lands.
The managers are also concerned about the fire suppression
costs during major incidents and therefore the Forest Service
and the Department of the Interior are directed to contract
for a thorough, independent review of wildfire suppression
costs and strategies. The Departments should equally share
the cost of the review and a preliminary report should be
issued by May 31, 2002 and the final report should be
delivered to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by September 30, 2002.

CENTRAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FUND

The conference agreement provides $9,978,000 for the
central hazardous materials fund as proposed by the House and
Senate.

CONSTRUCTION

The conference agreement provides $13,076,000 for
construction instead of $11,076,000 as proposed by the House
and $12,976,000 as proposed by the Senate. Funds should be
distributed as follows:

Program/Area Amount
Pompey's Pillar visitor center, MT...........................$2,900,000
California Trail Interpretive Center, NV......................2,000,000
Fort Benton Visitor Center, MT................................2,500,000
Rock Springs admin. Building, WY..............................2,500,000
Caliente warehouse building, NV.................................200,000
Hult Pond Dam repair, OR........................................582,000
Wildwood/Fisherman's Bend Sewer systems, OR...................1,214,000
NHOTIC water treatment system, OR...............................103,000
North Sand Hills road & sanitation, CO..........................212,000
Blackwell Island recreation site, ID............................765,000
Lone Pine visitor center, CA....................................100,000
________________

Total....................................................13,076,000

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

The conference agreement provides $210,000,000 for payments
in lieu of taxes instead of $200,000,000 as proposed by the
House and $220,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. Within this
amount, $50,000,000 is from the conservation spending
category.

LAND ACQUISITION

The conference agreement provides $49,920,000 for land
acquisition instead of $47,686,000 as proposed by the House
and $45,686,000 as proposed by the Senate. Funds should be
distributed as follows:

Area (State) Amount
Beaver Creek NWSR/White Mountains National Recreation Area (AK)$300,000
Catellus (CA).................................................3,100,000
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (WY)...................320,000
Cosumnes River Preserve (CA)....................................650,000
Douglas Point (MD)............................................2,000,000
El Dorado (rare plants) (CA)..................................3,000,000
El Malpais National Conservation Area (NM)......................700,000
Garnet Ghost Town (MT)..........................................650,000
Grande Ronde National Wild and Scenic River (OR/WA).............500,000
Gunnison Basin ACEC (CO)......................................2,500,000
King Range National Conservation Area (CA)....................1,900,000
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (ID)..................1,000,000
Lower Salmon River ACEC (ID)..................................2,000,000
Organ Mtns. (NM)..............................................2,000,000
Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa HCP (CA)...............................2,000,000
Rio Grande National Wild and Scenic River (NM)................4,500,000
San Pedro Ecosystem (Gap/Borderlands--easements) (AZ).........2,000,000

[[Page 19253]]

Sandy River (OR)..............................................3,000,000
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mtns. National Monument (CA).......1,000,000
Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (ID).....2,400,000
Soda Springs Hills (ID).........................................900,000
St. George (Johnson tract) (UT).................................500,000
Upper Arkansas River Basin (CO)...............................1,500,000
Upper Crab Creek/Rock Creek (WA)..............................1,000,000
Upper Snake/South Fork Snake River (ID).......................2,500,000
West Eugene Wetlands (OR).....................................1,500,000
________________

Subtotal.................................................43,420,000
Emergency/hardship/inholding..................................1,000,000
Land Exchange Equalization Payments.............................500,000
Acquisition Management........................................5,000,000
________________

Total....................................................49,920,000

Of the $650,000 included for the Garnet Ghost Town,
$400,000 shall be used for the Blackfoot Challenge.
Of the $5,000,000 provided for acquisition management,
$1,000,000 shall be used for land exchanges in eastern
Washington State including, but not limited to, the Moses
Coulee, Rock Creek, and Upper Crab Creek projects.

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

The conference agreement provides $105,165,000 for Oregon
and California grant lands as proposed by the House instead
of $106,061,000 as proposed by the Senate.

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS

The conference agreement provides an indefinite
appropriation for range improvements of not less than
$10,000,000 as proposed by the House and Senate.

SERVICE CHARGES, DEPOSITS, AND FORFEITURES

The conference agreement provides an indefinite
appropriation for service charges, deposits, and forfeitures,
which is estimated to be $8,000,000 as proposed by the House
and Senate.

MISCELLANEOUS TRUST FUNDS

The conference agreement provides an indefinite
appropriation of $11,000,000 for miscellaneous trust funds as
proposed by the House and Senate.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Resource Management

The conference agreement provides $850,597,000 for resource
management instead of $839,852,000 as proposed by the House
and $845,814,000 as proposed by the Senate. The numerical
changes described below are to the House recommended level.
In endangered species programs there are increases of
$400,000 in candidate conservation for the Idaho sage grouse
management plan, $524,000 for the listing program, and
$250,000 in consultation for the Central Valley and Southern
California habitat conservation plan. There is also a
decrease of $1,500,000 for the consultation program backlog.
Changes in the endangered species recovery program include
increases of $800,000 for eider recovery at the Alaska
Sealife Center, $200,000 for wolf monitoring in Idaho,
$500,000 for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse in Colorado,
$700,000 for Upper Colorado River endangered fish recovery,
$600,000 for Lahonton cutthroat trout in Nevada, and
$1,100,000 for Atlantic salmon of which $1,000,000 is for
grants through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and
$100,000 is for Service activities. There is also a decrease
of $1,000,000 for the recovery program backlog.
Changes to habitat conservation programs include increases
in partners for fish and wildlife of $750,000 for the Hawaii
ESA community conservation plan, $1,250,000 for Reno
biodiversity research and conservation in Nevada, $400,000
for the Montana Water Center wild fish habitat initiative,
and $100,000 for landowner assistance at the Fairfield Marsh
Waterfowl Production Area in Wisconsin. For project planning,
there is an increase of $250,000 for Middle Rio Grande/Bosque
research and a decrease of $500,000 for the CALFED program.
In coastal programs, there are increases of $1,000,000 for
the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association king salmon program in
Alaska and $200,000 for the Regional Aquaculture Association
king salmon program in Alaska. There is also an increase of
$9,000 for the environmental contaminants program. Cormorant
work at the National Aquaculture Center in Arkansas and
alternative habitat and food sources for Idaho terns are
addressed in the migratory bird program.
In refuge operations and maintenance, there are decreases
of $700,000 for refuge maintenance and $1,000,000 for the
natural resource challenge program. There are no refuge-
specific earmarks. Ohio River Islands NWR, WV equipment
replacement and Canaan Valley NWR, WV maintenance are
addressed in the construction account.
In migratory bird management, there are increases of
$575,000 to reduce seabird bycatch in Alaska, $1,000,000 for
the Canada geese depredation program, $200,000 for the
National Aquaculture Center in Arkansas to address cormorant
depredation problems, and $250,000 to address alternative
habitat and food sources for terns in Idaho. There is also a
decrease of $68,000 for joint venture programs, which
reflects the elimination of the ``general program
activities'' category. The funding level for each joint
venture is identical to that shown in the House report.
There are no refuge-specific earmarks for law enforcement.
Canaan Valley NWR, WV law enforcement maintenance needs are
addressed in the construction account.
Changes to fisheries programs include an increase of
$1,500,000 in hatchery operations and maintenance for
Leadville NFH, CO trout (alternative 2), and increases in
fish and wildlife management of $100,000 for Great Lakes fish
and wildlife restoration, $850,000 for wildlife enhancement
in Starkville, Mississippi, $100,000 for Yukon River
escapement monitoring in Alaska, $200,000 for Yukon River
management studies in Alaska, $160,000 for Yukon River public
education on the salmon treaty in Alaska, $1,000,000 for
Yukon River treaty implementation, $1,270,000 for marine
mammal protection in Alaska, $250,000 for whirling disease
research in Montana, and $100,000 for salmon and trout
recovery work on the Columbia and Snake Rivers by the
University of Idaho. Sewer replacement for the White Sulphur
Springs NFH, WV is addressed in the construction account.
Atlantic salmon recovery is addressed in the Endangered
Species Act recovery program.
In general administration, there is an increase of $750,000
for travel and decreases of $1,000,000 for the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation and $825,000 for audits (which are
funded under the Office of Inspector General salaries and
expenses account). Grants for Atlantic salmon (Gulf of Maine)
through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation are
addressed in the Endangered Species Act recovery program.
The managers agree to the following:
1. A total of $29,000,000 for infrastructure improvement is
charged against the conservation spending category.
2. $850,000 is allocated to the Service for the Pima
County, Arizona, regional multi-species habitat conservation
planning effort that will result in Endangered Species Act
Section 10 permits and is developed in cooperation with the
following entities: the municipalities in Pima County (to
include at least the City of Tucson, Town of Marana, and Town
of Oro Valley) through a Cooperative Agreement by and among
the County and participating municipalities based on the
Service's Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook HCP MOU, and
with the State of Arizona, Pima County interest groups, and
Pima County citizens.
3. The $200,000 increase for wolf monitoring activities in
Idaho is to be managed by the Service's Snake River Basin
Office in Boise, Idaho.
4. The Service is strongly encouraged to work with the
Idaho Office of Species Conservation and Bruneau Hot Springs
Snail Conservation Committee in support of the Bruneau Hot
Springs snail program, including conservation easement
financing and water conservation practices, using appropriate
grant programs administered by the Service.
5. The Service should place a high priority on the staffing
and planning needs at the Hanford Reach National Monument, WA
and on the unmet need for invasive plant control at the
Loxahatchee NWR, FL.
6. The additional funds in hatchery operations and
maintenance for the Leadville NFH, CO are provided with the
expectation that the Department will ensure that the Bureau
of Reclamation provides its share of funds for the project,
consistent with the Bureau's mitigation responsibility.
7. Work by the Service to mitigate the adverse effects of
water resource development projects conducted by other
Federal agencies should be performed on a cost reimbursable
basis and the Service should receive full and fair
compensation for such work.
8. Funding for the wildlife enhancement program in
Starkville, Mississippi is provided to assist in the
establishment of an educational program to assist private
landowners. There is no commitment to future funding.
9. Of the $2,246,000 provided for the continuation of
activities begun in fiscal year 1997 to combat whirling
disease and related fish health issues, $700,000 is for the
National Partnership on the Management of Wild and Native
Cold Water Fisheries, $250,000 is for the purpose of
resistant trout research to be coordinated through the
Whirling Disease Foundation, and $1,296,000 is to continue
the National Wild Fish Health Survey, to expand whirling
disease investigations, and to recruit and train health
professionals.
10. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently
conducting a major review of different approaches to
preserving the Meadowlands wetlands area in northern New
Jersey. The managers understand that the Service has no plan
to establish a new National Wildlife Refuge System unit in
this area but believes that the Service can be a helpful
partner in this review by adding its unique expertise on the
elements of the

[[Page 19254]]

study that pertain to conservation of wildlife, particularly
migratory birds. The managers have deleted without prejudice
the earmark in the Senate bill for a separate U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Meadowlands study. Instead, the managers
direct the Service to provide in-depth advice and
consultation to the Corps to ensure that the study reflects
the most appropriate recommendations for the support of
wildlife in any future Meadowlands plans. The managers
believe this will involve a substantial commitment of Fish
and Wildlife Service resources to the Corps' effort,
approximately equal to the $140,000 specified in the Senate
bill.
11. The Service is encouraged to work with Marion County,
Oregon and other stakeholders to address the long-term
preservation of critical wetlands and wildlife habitat in the
Lake Labish Basin.
The managers have agreed to a technical change to the
conservation spending category bill language as proposed by
the Senate, and a technical change as proposed by the House
on merging prior year funds for infrastructure improvement
under the conservation spending category.
The House proposed bill language designating specific
amounts for the endangered species listing program and for
critical habitat designations has been modified to adopt the
Senate funding level for the listing program and to specify
that the critical habitat designation limitation is exclusive
of funds needed for litigation support.
Senate proposed earmarks for a study of the Hackensack
Meadowlands in New Jersey, for Atlantic salmon grants in
Maine, and for University of Idaho research on salmon and
trout recovery are not retained in statutory language. Each
of these items is addressed above.

CONSTRUCTION

The conference agreement provides $55,543,000 for
construction instead of $48,849,000 as proposed by the House
and $55,526,000 as proposed by the Senate. Funds are to be
distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anahuac NWR, TX................ Bridge Rehabilitation/ 330,000
Replacement-Phase II
(c).
Bear River NWR, UT............. Dikes and related 500,000
facilities.
Bear River NWR, UT............. Maintenance facility... 500,000
Big Branch NWR, LA............. Facilities renovation.. 400,000
Big Muddy NWR, MO.............. Headquarters design (p) 250,000
Blackwater NWR, MD............. Renovation of existing 899,000
facility.
Bozeman Fish Technology Center, Construction of 2,556,000
MT. Laboratory/
Administration
Building.
Bridge Safety Inspections...... ....................... 545,000
Canaan Valley NWR, WV.......... Maintenance............ 875,000
Chincoteague NWR, VA........... Herbert H. Bateman 3,400,000
Education & Admin.
Center-Phase III (c).
Condor Facilities, CA & ID..... Recovery facility 1,750,000
construction and
renovation.
Creston NFH, MT................ Jessup Mill Dam-Phase 1,900,000
III (c).
Crystal River NWR, FL.......... Office renovation (p/d) 125,000
Dam Safety Program and ....................... 650,000
Inspections.
Eufala NWR, AL................. Environmental learning 100,000
center (p).
Hagerman NWR, TX............... Bridge Rehabilitation- 1,800,000
Phase II (c).
Humboldt Bay NWR, CA........... Seismic Safety 190,000
Rehabilitation-Phase I
(p/d).
Iron River NFH, WI............. Replace Domes at 740,000
Schacte Creek with
Building.
John Hay NWR, NH............... Barn rehabilitation.... 150,000
John Heinz NWR, PA............. Complete/equipment 600,000
furnish admin. Wing.
Jordan River NFH, MI........... Replace Great Lakes 200,000
Fish Stocking Vessel.
Kealia Pond NWR, HI............ Mitigation (c)......... 750,000
Klamath Basin Complex, OR...... Water Supply and 1,700,000
Management-Phase III.
Kodiak NWR, AK................. Visitor Center (p)..... 500,000
Leavenworth NFH, WA............ Seismic Safety 170,000
Rehabilitation-Phase I
(p/d).
Mammoth Springs NFH, AR........ Water supply & 60,000
management-Phase II.
Mattamuskeet NWR, NC........... Lodge renovation....... 3,500,000
Midway Atoll NWR............... Hangar roof replacement 650,000
Montezuma NWR, NY.............. Crusoe Conservation 400,000
Center (c).
National Black-Footed Ferret New Endangered Species 2,260,000
Conservation Center, CO. Facility-Phase III (c).
Necedah NWR, WI................ Rynearson #1 Dam-Phase 2,725,000
II (c).
Northwest Power Planning Area.. Fish screens, etc...... 4,000,000
Ohio River Islands NWR, WV..... Equipment replacement.. 50,000
Quinault NFH, WA............... Replace Quarters....... 290,000
Red Rock Lakes NWR, MT......... Seismic Safety 135,000
Rehabilitation-Phase I
(p/d).
San Pablo Bay NWR, CA.......... Renovate Office-Phase 2,500,000
II (c).
Silvio O. Conte NWR, VT........ Education center 750,000
(completes
construction).
Six NFHs in New England........ Water Treatment 2,630,000
Improvements-Phase III
(c).
Ted Stevens Anchorage Int'l Hangar-Phase I (p/d)... 536,000
Airport, AK.
Waccamaw NWR, SC............... Visitor and Education 400,000
Center (p).
White Sulphur Springs NFH, WV.. Sewer replacement and 185,000
maintenance needs.
Wolf Creek NFH, KY............. Visitor and Education 400,000
Center (p/d).
---------------
Subtotal: Line Item ....................... 43,051,000
Construction.
===============
Nationwide Engineering
Services:
Demolition Fund............ ....................... 1,000,000
Environmental Compliance... ....................... 1,856,000
Seismic Safety Program..... ....................... 180,000
Waste Prevention and ....................... 150,000
Recycling.
---------------
Other Engineering Services. ....................... 9,306,000
===============
Total.................... ....................... 55,543,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The managers are concerned that the Service's construction
program is not based on a sound strategic plan that clearly
identifies priorities for the construction of headquarters,
maintenance, visitor, and education facilities. For the past
few years, construction budget requests have been inadequate
and limited, almost exclusively, to health and safety-related
projects. As a result, construction priorities outside that
narrow scope have been set by the Congress. Management
personnel within the Service have taken advantage of
Congressional earmarks by attempting to convert a large
number of Congressionally earmarked projects, including basic
repair projects, into proposals for large, expensive visitor
and education centers. The managers believe that the Service
needs to take control of the priority setting process for
construction and to set fair and reasonable priorities for
construction outside the health and safety arena. Further,
funding for the highest priority refuge and hatchery
headquarters, visitor/education center construction projects,
and visitor contact stations should be justified and
requested in annual budget submissions.
The managers expect the Service to focus on providing on-
the-ground refuge experiences for visitors and modest
visitor/education centers and visitor contact stations. The
Service should develop standardized designs for education and
visitor centers and for visitor contact stations. The
managers suggest that the maximum cost for any visitor center
should not exceed $3 million unless there are extreme,
extenuating circumstances, such as the high cost of materials
transport and construction in Alaska. The managers expect the
Service to treat the maximum amount as a true ceiling and not
as the amount that every visitor center will receive. Also,
visitor contact stations should have a much lower maximum
funding level.
The managers expect the Service to pursue cost sharing,
including in-kind services and contributions, in establishing
priorities for construction. Further, the size of visitor
centers and headquarters buildings should be related to
current visitation and currently established ``minimum
staffing levels'' and not based on comprehensive conservation
plan or other projections. The guidelines and specifications
developed by the Service should address size and function,
sustainability, energy efficiency, people flow, and operating
costs. The managers also expect the Service to develop
unified outreach materials for visitor facilities.
The Service should report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations no later than February 1, 2002,
on its priority setting and evaluation process for
construction projects. Supervisory and management

[[Page 19255]]

personnel within the Service should be held accountable for
implementing Service construction priorities and should be
clearly directed to refrain from operating as ``free agents''
in support of specific construction proposals outside that
process.
Finally, the managers caution the Service that its refuge-
specific comprehensive conservation plans are raising
unrealistic expectations, both within and outside the
Service, with respect to construction, land acquisition, and
operations and maintenance funding availability. The managers
expect the Service to place a clear and realistic statement
in the front of each comprehensive conservation plan stating
that such plans detail program planning levels that are
substantially above current budget allocations and, as such,
are for Service strategic planning and program prioritization
purposes only. Such plans do not constitute a commitment for
refuge boundary expansions, staffing increases, or funding
for future refuge-specific land acquisitions, construction
projects or operational and maintenance increases.
The managers agree to the following:
1. The funds provided for the Northwest Power Planning Area
are for construction of fish screens, fish passage devices,
and related features, pursuant to Public Law 106-502.
2. No funds are provided for an administrative center and
visitor facility at Pelican Island NWR, FL. The Service
should identify a site for, and justify the cost of, such a
facility in future budget requests.
3. The Crusoe Conservation Center at the Montezuma NWR, NY
is being funded largely with State and local funding from the
State of New York, the local school district, Ducks
Unlimited, and the Audubon Society. The managers encourage
the Service to pursue such cost sharing for construction
projects on other refuges.

4. The Service should pursue potential cost-sharing
arrangements for construction of the Waccamaw NWR, SC visitor
and education center.
5. No funds are included for planning and design of a
research facility at the Sevilleta NWR, NM. The Service
should consider such a facility in the context of its
construction priorities for fiscal year 2003.
6. Further funding for barn rehabilitation at John Hay NWR,
NH, if needed, should be provided from other sources such as
historic preservation groups.

LAND ACQUISITION

The conference agreement provides $99,135,000 for land
acquisition instead of $104,401,000 as proposed by the House
and $108,401,000 as proposed by the Senate. Funds should be
distributed as follows:

Area (State) Amount
Back Bay NWR (VA)............................................$3,900,000
Big Muddy NFWR (MO)...........................................2,000,000
Bon Secour NWR (AL)...........................................1,000,000
Cahaba NWR (AL)...............................................2,500,000
Canaan Valley NWR (WV)........................................7,800,000
Cape May NWR (NJ).............................................1,100,000
Cat Island NWR (LA)...........................................4,000,000
Charles M. Russell NWR (MT)...................................1,000,000
Clarks River NWR (KY).........................................1,500,000
Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA (ND/SD)..........................2,500,000
Edwin B. Forsythe NWR (NJ)....................................2,500,000
Fairfield Marsh Waterfowl Production Area (WI)................1,000,000
Florida Panther NWR (FL)........................................500,000
Great Bay NWR (NH)............................................1,200,000
Great Meadows NWR (MA)........................................1,000,000
Great Salt Pond NWR (RI)........................................500,000
Great Swamp NWR (NJ)..........................................1,000,000
Iron River Fish Hatchery (Glacial Springs) (WI).................285,000
J.N. Ding Darling NWR Complex (FL)............................3,000,000
James Campbell NWR (HI).......................................2,000,000
Kenai NWR (Point Possession) (AK).............................3,300,000
Laguna Atascosa NWR (TX)......................................5,000,000
Louisiana Black Bear Complex--Black Bayou NWR (LA)..............500,000
Neal Smith NWR (IA)...........................................1,000,000
Nisqually NWR Complex (WA)....................................1,000,000
Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR (MN/IA)..........................550,000
Pelican Island NWR (Completes Lear and Michael tracts) (FL)...5,000,000
Petit Manan NWR (ME)............................................750,000
Rachel Carson NWR (ME)........................................1,000,000
Rappahannock River Valley NWR (VA)............................2,000,000
Red River NWR (LA)............................................1,000,000
Red Rocks Lakes NWR (MT)........................................500,000
Reelfoot NWR Complex (TN).....................................1,000,000
Rhode Island NWR Complex (RI).................................1,000,000
San Diego NWR (CA)............................................5,000,000
Silvio O. Conte NFWR..........................................1,100,000
Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex (LA)............................500,000
Stewart B. McKinney NWR (CT)..................................2,000,000
Waccamaw NWR (SC).............................................2,000,000
Wallkill River NWR (NJ).......................................2,000,000
Western Montana Project (MT)..................................3,000,000
White Sulphur Springs NFH (WV)..................................150,000
Whittlesey Creek NWR (WI).......................................500,000
________________

Subtotal.................................................80,135,000
Emergency & Hardship..........................................1,500,000
Inholdings....................................................1,500,000
Exchanges.....................................................1,000,000
Acquisition Management.......................................15,000,000
________________

Total....................................................99,135,000

The funds included for the Great Salt Pond NWR, RI are
subject to authorization.
The managers direct the Service to make land acquisition
requests for individual refuge units, rather than the current
practice of making requests at the refuge complex level.
None of the funding provided for land acquisition shall be
used to acquire land for the placement of a visitor/
interpretive center, without specifically identifying this
purpose in the budget justification for both the land
acquisition and construction accounts.
The managers have included bill language authorizing the
purchase of common stock of Yauhannah Properties, Inc. The
managers understand that the Yauhannah Properties, Inc. sole
holding is property within the boundary of the Waccamaw
National Wildlife Refuge, and they are only making the
property available through the sale of common stock.
Therefore, the managers are aware that it may be necessary
for the Service to acquire this parcel by purchasing the
common stock. The managers note that this purchase presents a
number of complexities outside the Service's expertise,
including potential tax implications. The managers expect
that the Service should not assume any Federal, State, or
other jurisdiction tax liability by acquiring this property
through the purchase of common stock. The managers also
expect that the purchase of common stock should only occur if
the United States does not assume any material unanticipated
liabilities or assume any additional liability or expense
than it would otherwise assume if the underlying property
were acquired.
The managers continue to be concerned about the Service's
land acquisition budgeting and its land acquisition policy.
In response to continuing oversight by the Appropriations
Committees, the Service has developed a proposal to
streamline staffing and to reform its approach to land
acquisition budgeting and program implementation. The
managers expect the Service to implement its proposal to
reduce staffing from the current FTE level of 198 to 156 FTEs
by October 1, 2003. The Service should make much greater use
of contract resources for appraisals, cartography and
surveying associated with land acquisition. The practice of
refuge personnel and endangered species personnel charging
costs to land acquisition should be terminated unless there
are reimbursable agreements in place.
The managers have agreed to bill language to permit the
limited use of project funding for overhead cost allocation
consistent with the Service's cost allocation methodology
during fiscal year 2002 only. The maximum amount that can be
assessed against all land acquisition projects in fiscal year
2002 is $2,500,000 and the managers urge the Service to use
savings from staffing attrition and other streamlining
efforts to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the
amount assessed to a number well below the maximum allowable
level.
The managers expect the Service to identify clearly its
land acquisition planning requirements in the fiscal year
2003 and future budget requests and to justify fully those
requirements as a separate line item in the land acquisition
or resource management account. Likewise, any overhead cost
allocation should be minimized and justified fully as a
separate ``cost allocation methodology'' line item in the
land acquisition account.
The managers expect the Service to report semi-annually on
progress in implementing its land acquisition streamlining
proposal and to achieve the October 1, 2003 staffing goals
sooner than that date to the maximum extent practicable. The
first progress report is due no later than February 1, 2002.
Also, the managers strongly support the policy requiring
Director approval of any refuge boundary expansion and expect
the Service to justify any such approvals in the semi-annual
report.
Land acquisition reform should be incorporated as a
critical performance element in the Service's supervisory
performance standards at the highest levels in headquarters,
regional offices and the field. This performance element
should be taken very seriously within the Service and the
semi-annual reports to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations should address specifically management
performance on this element. The managers remind the Service
that land acquisition reform should not be limited to
implementing the Service's streamlining proposal. It should
also apply to the individual manager's responsibility to
adhere to the Service's land acquisition prioritization
process and not operate as a ``free agent'' in support of
specific land acquisition proposals outside that process.
Finally, the managers caution the Service that its refuge-
specific comprehensive conservation plans are raising
unrealistic expectations, both within and outside the
Service,

[[Page 19256]]

with respect to future land acquisition, construction, and
operations and maintenance funding availability. The managers
expect the Service to place a clear and realistic statement
in the front of each comprehensive conservation plan stating
that such plans detail program planning levels that are
substantially above current budget allocations and, as such,
are for Service strategic planning and program prioritization
purposes only. Such plans do not constitute a commitment for
refuge boundary expansions, staffing increases, or funding
for future refuge-specific land acquisitions, construction
projects or operational and maintenance increases.

LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM

The conference agreement provides $40,000,000 for the
landowner incentive program instead of $50,000,000 as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.

STEWARDSHIP GRANTS

The conference agreement provides $10,000,000 for
stewardship grants as proposed by both the House and the
Senate.

COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

The conference agreement provides $96,235,000 for the
cooperative endangered species conservation fund instead of
$107,000,000 as proposed by the House and $91,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Changes to the House level include a
decrease of $12,000,000 for habitat conservation plan land
acquisition and an increase of $1,235,000 for program
administration.

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUND

The conference agreement provides $14,414,000 for the
national wildlife refuge fund as proposed by the Senate
instead of $16,414,000 as proposed by the House. None of
these funds are charged against the conservation spending
category.

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND

The conference agreement provides $43,500,000 for the North
American wetlands conservation fund instead of $45,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $42,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Decreases to the House level include $1,440,000 for
wetlands conservation grants and $60,000 for program
administration.
The managers understand that the Caddo Lake Institute in
partnership with the Division of International Conservation
and the National Wetlands Research Center in Lafayette,
Louisiana are interested in pursuing a RAMSAR-based wetlands
science, site management and education program. The managers
strongly encourage the Service to work with these groups to
explore the possibility of funding such an activity through a
North American Wetlands Conservation Act grant or another
Service program.
The managers have agreed to bill language, as proposed by
the House, limiting increased grant funding above the fiscal
year 2001 level to projects in the United States. The Senate
had no similar provision.

NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION

The conference agreement provides $3,000,000 for the
neotropical migratory bird conservation program instead of
$5,000,000 as proposed by the House and no funding as
proposed by the Senate. None of these funds are charged
against the conservation spending category.
The managers expect the program to be administered by the
division of bird habitat conservation but the Service should
incorporate international program staff expertise into the
oversight and administration of the program.

MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

The conference agreement provides $4,000,000 for the
multinational species conservation fund as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.
The managers have agreed to bill language, as proposed by
the House, specifying the public law citations for the Asian
elephant and the rhino and tiger funds.

STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

The conference agreement provides $85,000,000 for State
wildlife grants in fiscal year 2002 instead of $100,000,000
as proposed by both the House and the Senate. Within this
amount, $5,000,000 is for a competitive grant program for
Indian tribes. The agreement also provides for the rescission
of $25,000,000 from the fiscal year 2001 appropriation rather
than a rescission of $49,890,000 as proposed by the Senate
and no rescission as proposed by the House.
The managers agree to the clarification of the ``full
array'' of wildlife requirement for planning contained in the
House report.
The managers have agreed to the distribution formula in
bill language proposed by the Senate rather than the formula
proposed by the House. The managers have also agreed to a
technical change to the conservation spending category bill
language proposed by the Senate.

TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

The conference agreement provides no funding under this
heading for tribal wildlife grants; however, $5,000,000 is
earmarked under the State wildlife grant program for this
purpose.

National Park Service

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

The conference agreement provides $1,476,977,000 for the
operation of the National park system instead of
$1,480,336,000 as proposed by the House and $1,473,128,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Of this amount, $2,000,000 for the
Youth Conservation Corps program is derived from the
conservation spending category.
The agreement provides $318,827,000 for resource
stewardship as proposed by the House instead of $317,996,000
as proposed by the Senate. The agreement provides
$297,543,000 for visitor services as proposed by the House
instead of $298,343,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The agreement provides $481,088,000 for maintenance instead
of $483,197,000 as proposed by the House and $478,701,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Changes to the House level include
increases totaling $600,000 for the New River Gorge National
River to hire local crews to improve visitor access and
facilities, remove structures posing hazards to visitors, and
provide technical support and maintenance for the parkway.
There is a reduction of $2,709,000 for the repair and
rehabilitation program. Within the total for repair and
rehabilitation the following projects should be funded:
$675,000 for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
including $375,000 to repair the historic log cabins and a
$300,000 general increase for maintenance needs, $400,000 for
the George Washington Memorial Parkway, $175,000 for the
Klondike Goldrush National Historic Park, and $400,000 for
the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.
The conference agreement provides $272,921,000 for park
support instead of $271,371,000 as proposed by the House and
$271,490,000 as proposed by the Senate. Changes to the House
level include increases of $200,000 for Wild and Scenic
Partnership Rivers, $2,000,000 for Lewis and Clark Challenge
Cost Share program grants and a decrease of $650,000 for
financial audits, which have been funded under the Inspector
General account. The entire $200,000 increase for Wild and
Scenic Partnerships Rivers should be allocated directly to
the eight partnership rivers through the Northeast Regional
Office. The funds should be equally divided among the areas.
The managers direct that no overhead costs may be charged to
this money including the hiring of new staff. Any technical
assistance should be provided by the existing rivers, trails
and conservation assistance regional staff.
The agreement provides $104,598,000 for external
administrative costs as proposed by the Senate instead of
$107,398,000 as proposed by the House. The change to the
House level is a reduction of $2,800,000 for bandwidth needs.
Following enactment of this Act, the National Park Service
should make the necessary adjustments to align the additional
operation funds for the purposes approved by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations with the proper budget
subactivities.
The managers remain supportive of the parks and programs of
the Service. Each year, efforts are made to provide
additional operational increases, over and above the request,
to keep pace with the growing demands on the system and the
Service. While some additional hiring may be necessary, the
managers strongly encourage the Service to consider carefully
the outyear implications of hiring decisions being made with
available funds. Inflationary adjustments, pay cost
requirements, and other dollars necessary to support
employees grow over time. At a time of budget uncertainty,
NPS managers should be cautious in committing to the hiring
of additional personnel that may not be sustainable over time
if budget increases are not forthcoming in future years.
The managers reinforce the direction in the House report
regarding the cost and size of visitor centers, heritage
centers and environmental education centers. Nearly five
years ago, the Service was cautioned to be more realistic
about the development of General Management Plans, which, in
many cases, have become unrealistic documents which tend to
include expensive, oversized buildings and other projects
that are not essential or central to the mission of the park.
In many instances, superintendents, working outside the
National Park Service's budget process, put forward proposals
for visitor centers that are oversized and do not take into
account the location, current visitation and staffing levels
of the specific unit. These projects often compete directly
against backlog maintenance projects and other construction
priority needs of the Service.
The managers direct the Director to take these repeated
concerns seriously and prepare a response by February 1,
2002, which proposes a new National policy regarding the
preparation of General Management Plans, addresses the issue
of oversized structures, establishes appropriate scope for
new proposed facilities, and establishes cost and planning
parameters to be followed by all parks.
The managers expect the Director and the Regional Directors
to be familiar with the scope of projects proposed, and to
withhold approval of plans and projects that are not

[[Page 19257]]

consistent with the policy to be articulated. This applies to
proposals that are being officially considered through the
budget process and proposals that are being considered
independently. The managers understand that lines of
authority flow from the Director through the Regional
Directors to the parks, and greater discipline must be
imposed in complying with established policy.
The managers also suggest that there should be a priority
process for proposing new visitor facilities, when needed,
and that the Service consider seriously the inclusion of this
type of facility in the budget process when it meets a
priority need of the Park System. The managers are concerned
that priority systems for line-item construction which rely
solely on backlog maintenance as a determining factor for
funding will exacerbate the trend towards bypassing the
established budget process for visitor services facilities.
The National Park Service and the Department of the Interior
are encouraged to agree on one common priority system that
reflects the breadth of the Service's mission, with a strong
emphasis on addressing backlog issues while responding to the
emerging challenges facing the Service.
The managers have agreed to the Senate bill language
providing two-year availability for maintenance, repair or
rehabilitation projects, an automated facility management
software system, and comprehensive facility condition
assessments.
The managers have retained language, proposed by the House,
which precludes the Service from establishing a new associate
director position for business practices and partnerships.
The managers agree that the Service needs to enhance its
capacities in these areas, particularly with regard to
strategic direction in the areas of concessions and fee
management. Rather than reorganizing and creating more
positions, at a time when the Administration is requiring
agencies to review their workforces and streamline their
organizations, the managers expect the Service to focus on
increasing the technical and financial expertise needed to
improve and protect the financial interests of parks on
behalf of the taxpayers. Not all of these skills need to be
hired on a permanent basis. Contracts and consultants should
be used as appropriate. In filling positions in the
concessions and fee areas, the managers expect the Service to
abandon the traditional position descriptions and job
screening criteria, and recruit for new employees who possess
the necessary financial and strategic backgrounds. The
managers have supported most of the business plans developed
to date, and recommend that the types of skills used in that
project be put to greater use within the National Park
Service.
The managers have agreed to modify the Senate language
regarding the Lewis and Clark Challenge Cost Share program to
limit single awards to no more than $250,000 instead of
$100,000 as proposed by the Senate. The managers also want to
make clear that the competitive funds may be used for
signature events, planning, visitor services and safety
information.
The managers are aware of work that has been done at
Glacier National Park to make several boat docks and trails
accessible to park visitors with disabilities. The managers
applaud these efforts, and urge the Service to allocate the
funds necessary to complete similar work at the heavily used
dock at Lake McDonald Lodge.
The managers commend the Service for beginning to include
the role of slavery in its interpretations at Civil War
Battlefields and Monuments along with other factors such as
State sovereignty rights, economics including trade and
tariffs, and broader cultural differences. The managers
encourage the Service to continue to diversify and expand its
interpretations so that all of these complex factors can be
better understood.
The managers are supportive of efforts by the Service to
expand diversity, not only in the workforce but also in the
types of parks that comprise the system and in the outreach
that is done to attract a broader spectrum of visitors to the
resources of the Service. The managers are supportive of the
cultural resources diversity initiative and encourage the
Service to build on the successes of this effort in support
of greater progress across all programs. The managers direct
the Service to have an interdisciplinary team representing
headquarters and the field prepare a comprehensive report on
its various diversity initiatives, especially as they affect
visitation and employment, and report back to the Committees
on these findings by March 31, 2002. The report should
incorporate those aspects of the Service's diversity action
plan, which are targeted at improving performance, as well as
the Director's plan for communicating internally and
externally to the Service on the importance of these issues.
The report should then be updated annually. The Service is
encouraged to pursue opportunities to extend its outreach
efforts in ways that do not require increased funding.
The managers are aware of efforts by the Department of the
Interior to work with State and local authorities to prepare
land use plans for the former Bureau of Mines property near
Fort Snelling, Minnesota. The managers have deferred
consideration of funding for this project pending conclusion
of these discussions and presentation to the Committee of a
land use plan which clarifies the total cost of the project,
the Federal share of such costs, and more precise details
regarding the role to be played by the Federal government.
The managers are hopeful that a formal proposal can be
considered prior to conference on the fiscal year 2003 bill.

United States Park Police

The conference agreement provides $65,260,000 for the
United States Park Police as proposed by the House, instead
of $66,106,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The managers have been concerned for several years about
fiscal management and accountability of the U.S. Park Police.
As a result, the Committees directed the National Academy of
Public Administration (NAPA) to conduct a review of the
USPP's goals, mission, financial management and
accountability as well as its staffing, equipment, and other
needs. The Academy completed its review in August and made
extensive recommendations on needed improvements.
The managers direct the Department, in cooperation with the
National Park Service and the United States Park Police, to
develop a detailed plan to implement the comprehensive
recommendations of NAPA described in the August 2001 report.
The Department should forward its implementation plan to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than
December 15, 2001.

National Recreation and Preservation

The conference agreement provides $66,159,000 for National
recreation and preservation instead of $51,804,000 as
proposed by the House and $66,287,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The agreement provides $549,000 for recreation
programs as proposed by the House instead of $555,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
The agreement provides $10,930,000 for natural programs as
proposed by the House instead of $11,595,000 as proposed by
the Senate. Within the amount provided for the Rivers and
Trails Conservation Assistance program, $250,000 is earmarked
for work establishing a 740-mile Northern Forest Canoe Trail
through the States of Vermont, New York, Maine, and New
Hampshire. The managers urge the program to give priority
consideration to the Eightmile River, the Washington-
Rochambeau National Historic Trail and Clark County, Nevada.
The managers are concerned with National Park Service
decisions to continue Rivers and Trails Conservation
Assistance earmarks as permanent increases to base funding.
If the National Park Service wishes to continue an earmark it
should be identified as a continuing project in the budget
justification.
The agreement provides $20,769,000 for cultural programs
instead of $20,019,000 as proposed by the House and
$20,451,000 as proposed by the Senate. Changes to the House
level include an increase of $250,000 for the Heritage
Education Model and $500,000 for the newly authorized
Underground Railroad grant program, of which $250,000 is for
a grant to the Underground Railroad Coalition of Delaware.
This program should be managed by the same grants staff as
the Underground Railroad technical assistance program. This
entire amount should be used for grants. The $250,000
earmarked in the House report to continue development of a
model Heritage Education Initiative is in cooperation with
Northwestern State University of Louisiana. Within available
funds, the managers direct that $300,000 be available for
Heritage Preservation, Inc.
The conference agreement provides $1,718,000 for
international park affairs as proposed by the House instead
of $1,732,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The agreement provides $397,000 for environmental
compliance and review as proposed by the House instead of
$401,000 as proposed by the Senate. Also provided is
$1,582,000 for grant administration as proposed by the House
instead of $1,605,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement provides $13,209,000 for heritage
partnership programs instead of $12,458,000 as proposed by
the House and $13,368,000 as proposed by the Senate. This
total includes $13,092,000 for individual heritage areas and
$117,000 for administrative support. Funds are to be
distributed as follows:

America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership....................$700,000
Augusta Canal National Heritage Area............................492,000
Automobile National Heritage Area...............................500,000
Cache La Poudre River Corridor...................................50,000
Cane River National Heritage Area...............................650,000
Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor..................700,000
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor........................210,000
Essex National Heritage Area..................................1,000,000
Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area......................900,000
Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor..........500,000
John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corrido800,000

[[Page 19258]]

Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area........................500,000
National Coal Heritage Area.....................................210,000
Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor................1,000,000
Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor750,000
Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area........................1,000,000
Schuykill National Heritage Area................................210,000
Shenandoah River Valley Battlefields National Historic District.500,000
South Carolina National Heritage Corridor.....................1,000,000
Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area...............................210,000
Wheeling National Heritage Area...............................1,000,000
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area............................210,000
________________

Project total............................................13,092,000
Administrative..................................................117,000
________________

Total....................................................13,209,000

The managers reiterate that previously appropriated
technical assistance money for heritage areas is to be used
to assist local governments and partner organizations
implement locally supported projects consistent with the
overall plans for these congressionally designated areas.
The conference agreement provides $17,005,000 for statutory
or contractual aid instead of $4,151,000 as proposed by the
House and $16,580,000 as proposed by the Senate. The funds
are to be distributed as follows:

Anchorage Museum.............................................$2,500,000
Barnanoff Museum/Erksin House...................................250,000
Bishop Museum's Falls of Clyde..................................300,000
Brown Foundation................................................101,000
Chesapeake Bay Gateways.......................................1,200,000
Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission.............................299,000
Denver Natural History and Science Museum.......................750,000
Ice Age National Scientific Reserve.............................806,000
Independence Mine.............................................1,500,000
Jamestown 2007..................................................200,000
Johnstown Area Heritage Association..............................49,000
Lake Roosevelt Forum.............................................50,000
Lamprey River...................................................500,000
Mandan On-a-Slant Village.......................................750,000
Martin Luther King, Jr. Center..................................528,000
Morris Thomson Cultural and Visitor Center......................750,000
National Constitution Center....................................500,000
Native Hawaiian Culture and Arts Program........................740,000
New Orleans Jazz Commission......................................66,000
Penn Center National Landmark.................................1,000,000
Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission..............766,000
Sewall-Belmont House............................................500,000
St. Charles Interpretive Center.................................500,000
Vancouver National Historic Reserve.............................400,000
Vulcan Monument...............................................2,000,000
________________

Total...................................................$17,005,000

The managers have included $750,000 for the Denver Natural
History and Science Museum, $500,000 for the St. Charles
Interpretive Center, and $750,000 for Mandan-on-a-Slant
Village. This completes the Federal commitment to these
projects.

URBAN PARK AND RECREATION FUND

The conference agreement provides $30,000,000 for the urban
park and recreation fund as proposed by the House instead of
$20,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. This program is funded
under the conservation spending initiative.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

The conference agreement provides $74,500,000 for the
historic preservation fund instead of $77,000,000 as proposed
by the House and $74,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
change to the House is a reduction of $2,500,000 for a grant
to the National Trust for Historic Preservation for its
historic sites program.
Included in the total is $30,000,000 to continue the Save
America's Treasures program. Save America's Treasures funds
are subject to a fifty percent cost share, and no single
project may receive more than one grant from this program. A
total of $15,000,000 is provided for competitive grants and
the remaining $15,000,000 is to be distributed as follows:

Project/State Amount
1901 Pan Am Building, NY.......................................$100,000
Academy of Music, Philadelphia Orchestra, PA....................200,000
Akron Civic Theatre, OH.........................................500,000
Alaska Moving Image Preservation Association, AK................500,000
Amer. Air Power Museum (hangar restoration & Tuskegee Airmen exhibits),
NY............................................................200,000
Arthurdale Historic Community (restoration), WV.................300,000
B&O Railroad/Vanadalia Corridor Restoration, WV.................200,000
Bailly Chapel House, IN.........................................200,000
Belknap Mill, NH................................................250,000
Biltmore School, NC.............................................300,000
Bishop Museum Moving Image Collection, HI........................50,000
Camp Ouachita, AR...............................................365,000
Charles Washington Hall, WV.....................................200,000
City Hall, Taunton, MA..........................................250,000
Documentation of the Immigrant Experience, MN...................250,000
Eagle Block rehabilitation, NH..................................250,000
Englert Theatre, Iowa City, IA..................................365,000
Florence Griswold Museum, Old Lyme, CT..........................100,000
Fort Mitchell, AL...............................................300,000
Fort Nisqually, WA..............................................250,000
Fort Pike, LA...................................................200,000
Franklin House, NY..............................................100,000
Frederick Douglass Junior and Senior High School, Huntington, WV270,000
George Ohr Museum and Cultural Center, MS.......................425,000
Harborview (Great Lakes Historical Society), OH.................100,000
Harrison Brothers Hardware, AL..................................100,000
Hegeler-Carus Mansion, IL.......................................200,000
Hill Stead Museum, CT...........................................115,000
Lewis and Clark College (artifact preservation), OR.............400,000
Lincoln Courthouse, WI..........................................280,000
Lincoln Historic Building, NM.................................1,000,000
Lion House at the Bronx Zoo, NY.................................200,000
Lloyd House, VA.................................................125,000
Mahaiwe Theater, MA.............................................250,000
Masonic Temple, PA..............................................200,000
McDowell House, KY..............................................150,000
Moss Mansion, MT.................................................70,000
Orpheum Theatre, KS.............................................200,000
Paducah-McCracken County River Heritage Museum, KY..............250,000
Paul Robeson House, PA..........................................200,000
Pawtucket Armory, RI............................................250,000
Peter Augustus Jay House, NY....................................100,000
Pickens County Courthouse, AL...................................100,000
Prairie Churches, ND............................................100,000
Quarry Pond Farm Barn, OH.......................................200,000
Quindaro Archaelogical Site Preservation, KS....................200,000
Robert Mills Courthouse, Camden, SC.............................330,000
Rose Hill Farm, VA..............................................100,000
Scarsdale National Historic Railroad Station, NY................100,000
Scranton Cultural Center, PA....................................250,000
Shreveport Oakland Cemetery, LA.................................365,000
Sotterly Plantation (Manor House), MD...........................220,000
Squire Earick House, KY.........................................150,000
State Theatre, NY...............................................150,000
Tinner Hill, VA.................................................125,000
U.S. Air Force Museum (restoration of XC-99 aircraft), OH.......200,000
University of Missouri (Audubon's ``Birds of America''), MO.....155,000
University of South Dakota Old Women's Gym/Original Armory, SD..365,000
University of Vermont Morgan Horse Farm, VT.....................365,000
USS Alabama, AL.................................................250,000
Vermont Historical Society, Spaulding Grade School, Barre, VT...365,000
West Virginia State Museum--Civil War Regimental Flag Collection,95,000
Wooster City Schools Administrative Building, OH................500,000
________________

Total....................................................15,000,000

CONSTRUCTION

The conference agreement provides $366,044,000 for
construction instead of $349,249,000 as proposed by the House
and $338,585,000 as proposed by the Senate. Of this total,
$66,851,000 is funded under the conservation spending
category. The funds are to be distributed as follows:

[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Planning Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Lincoln Library, IL.................. ........... 8,000
Apostle Islands NL, WI (utility systems)..... ........... 436
Arches NP, UT (visitor center planning)...... 680 ............
Assateague Island NS, MD (upgrade water ........... 550
treatment plant)............................
Assateague Island NS, MD (Coastal Barrier 500 ............
Island Education Center environmental
assessment).................................
Big Bend NP, TX (sewer planning)............. 400 ............
Big Cypress NPres, FL (rehabilitate trails).. ........... 3,000

[[Page 19259]]

Blue Ridge Parkway, NC (rehabilitate/replace ........... 3,796
guardrails).................................
Blue Ridge Parkway, Fisher Peak, VA.......... ........... 1,000
Boston NHP, MA (rehabilitate Bunker Hill ........... 3,751
monument)...................................
Brown v. Board of Education NHS, KS ........... 2,475
(rehabilitate Monroe School)................
Cane River Creole NHP, LA (Oakland Plantation ........... 1,983
stabilization and preservation).............
Cape Cod NS, MA (complete Salt Pond visitor ........... 710
center).....................................
Cape Cod NS, MA (Highlands Center water, ........... 775
fire, and septic systems)...................
Cape Hatteras NS, NC (complete lighthouse ........... 1,173
relocation project).........................
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP, MD (stabilize ........... 6,415
Monocacy Aqueduct)..........................
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP, DC (preserve ........... 1,838
Georgetown waterfront masonry walls)........
Colonial NHP, VA (preserve Poor Potter ........... 718
archaeological site)........................
Cumberland Island NS, GA (restore chimneys).. ........... 450
Cuyahoga Valley NP, OH (rehabilitation and ........... 3,000
restoration)................................
Dayton Aviation Heritage NHP, OH (Huffman & ........... 3,100
west exhibits)..............................
Delaware Water Gap NRA, PA (planning)........ 67 ............
Denali NP&P, AK (entrance visitor facilities) ........... 7,000
Downeast Heritage Center, ME (completion).... ........... 2,000
Everglades NP, FL (modified water delivery ........... 19,199
system).....................................
Everglades NP, FL (Flamingo wastewater ........... 4,192
system).....................................
Fort McHenry NM & HS, MD (repair historic ........... 1,480
seawall)....................................
Fort Washington Park, MD (repair masonry ........... 700
wall).......................................
Franklin D. Roosevelt NHS, NY (construct FDR ........... 5,630
Library visitor center).....................
Gateway NRA, NJ (Sandy Hook access).......... ........... 2,346
Gateway NRA, NY (complete Jacob Riis Park ........... 4,130
rehabilitation).............................
Gateway NRA, NY (Jacob Riis Park natatorium 200 ............
study)......................................
George Washington Memorial Parkway, MD ........... 2,400
(complete rehabilitation of Glen Echo
facilities).................................
George Washington Memorial Parkway, VA ........... 1,562
(rehab. Arlington House, outbuildings and
grounds)....................................
Gettysburg NMP, PA (restore Cyclorama)....... ........... 2,500
Glacier NP, MT (Many Glacier Hotel emergency ........... 4,500
stabilization)..............................
Glacier NP, MT (Lake McDonald wastewater ........... 1,500
treatment)..................................
Glacier NP, MT (reconstruct Apgar District ........... 5,485
and Headquarters water system)..............
Glacier Bay NP&P, AK (construct maintenance ........... 4,233
support facility)...........................
Glen Canyon NRA, UT (Wahweap sewage system).. ........... 5,138
Golden Gate NRA, CA (Immigration Museum 450 ............
studies)....................................
Golden Gate NRA, CA (Pier 2 seismic)......... ........... 13,000
Grand Canyon NP, AZ (rehabilitate South Rim ........... 987
comfort stations)...........................
Great Basin NP, NV (visitor learning center 500 ............
planning and design)........................
Great Smoky Mountains NP, TN (replace science ........... 4,703
facilities).................................
Harpers Ferry NHP, WV (restoration and ........... 1,890
rehabilitation of train station)............
Hispanic Cultural Center, NM (construction).. ........... 1,800
Hot Springs NP, AR (rehabilitation).......... ........... 2,000
Independence NHP, PA (replace walkways)...... ........... 966
Independence NHP, PA (utilities and exhibits ........... 6,583
at 2nd Bank)................................
Jamestown NHS, VA (DCP/EIS, storage for 795 ............
collections)................................
Jean Lafitte NHP&P, LA (rehabilitate Decatur ........... 500
House & Chalmette Battlefield)..............
John Adams Presidential Memorial, DC 1,000 ............
(planning)..................................
John Day Fossil Beds NM, OR (construct ........... 8,421
paleontological center and rehabilitate
headquarters)...............................
John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley NHC, ........... 1,000
RI & MA.....................................
Keweenaw NHP, MI (restore historic Union ........... 2,500
Building)...................................
Lava Beds NM, CA (replace visitor center).... ........... 4,131
Little Bighorn Battlefield National Indian ........... 2,300
Memorial, MT................................
Mesa Verde NP, CO (water systems)............ ........... 4,037
Mojave NPres, CA (Kelso exhibits)............ ........... 750
Morris Thomson Visitor and Native Cultural ........... 1,500
Center, AK..................................
Morristown NHP, NJ (rehabilitation).......... ........... 600
Mt. Rainier NP, WA (Guide House)............. 56 1,590
National Capital Parks-Central, DC (complete ........... 2,600
Jefferson Memorial rehabilitation)..........
National Capital Parks-Central, DC (upgrade ........... 1,562
Ford's Theater and Petersen's House)........
National Capital Parks-Central, DC (capitol ........... 950
concert canopy).............................
National Center for the American Revolution, 350 ............
PA (development concept planning)...........
National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, ........... 3,000
OH..........................................
New River Gorge NR, WV (upgrade water system) ........... 556
Niagara River & Gorge, NY (special resource 300 ............
study)......................................
Olympic NP, WA (Elwha River restoration)..... ........... 25,847
Palace of the Governors, NM (complete federal ........... 5,000
contribution to annex)......................
Petrified Forest NP, AZ (replace water line). ........... 5,929
Point Reyes NS, CA (lighthouse access, ........... 1,285
utilities)..................................
Puukohola Heiau NHS, HI (relocate maintenance ........... 837
facilities).................................
Redwood NP, CA (remove failing roads)........ ........... 2,552
Saint Croix Island IHS, ME (provide basic ........... 713
facilities).................................
Saint Croix NSR, WI (visitor center planning) 360 ............
San Francisco Maritime NHP, CA (rehabilitate ........... 4,639
C.A. Thayer)................................
Sequoia NP, CA (complete restoration of Giant ........... 1,480
Forest).....................................
Shiloh NMP Corinth Civil War Interpretive ........... 3,062
Center, MS (complete construction)..........
Southwestern Pennsylvania IHR, PA ........... 3,000
(rehabilitation)............................
Statue of Liberty NM, (Ellis Island, NJ 600 ............
seawall repair planning)....................
Stones River NB, TN (rehabilitation)......... ........... 2,900
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Reserve, FL ........... 500
(visitor access, signs and exhibits)........
Tumacacori NHP, AZ (relocate maintenance and ........... 944
administrative facilities)..................
Tuskegee Airmen NHS, AL (Moton Field 1,000 ............
rehabilitation and restoration).............
Ulysses S. Grant NHS, (restore historic ........... 5,200
structures).................................
Vancouver NHR, WA (Barracks repairs)......... ........... 1,500
Vicksburg NMP, MS (Mint Spring stabilization) ........... 920
White House, DC (structural and utility ........... 6,500
rehabilitation).............................
Wilson's Creek NB, MO (rehabilitation)....... ........... 250
Wrangell St. Elias NP&P, AK (exhibits)....... ........... 700
Yellowstone NP, WY (replace Norris water and ........... 2,008
wastewater treatment facilities)............
Yellowstone NP, WY (replace deficient ........... 7,224
collections storage & build collections
management facility)........................
--------------------------
Subtotal............................... 7,258 268,081
==========================
Grand Subtotal, planning and ........... 275,339
construction..........................
=============
Emergency and Unscheduled Projects........... ........... 3,500
Housing Replacement.......................... ........... 12,500
Dam Safety................................... ........... 2,700
Equipment Replacement........................ ........... 17,960
Construction Planning, Pre-design and ........... 25,400
Supplementary Services......................
Construction Program Management and ........... 17,405
Operations..................................
General Management Planning.................. ........... 11,240
-------------
Subtotal............................... ........... 90,705
=============
Total, NPS Construction...................... ........... 366,044
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The managers have not included the $4,972,000 for utilities
and campground replacement at Acadia National Park because
the funds cannot be obligated until 2003. However, the
managers are strongly supportive of this project and intend
to provide these funds in fiscal year 2003. The managers have
included $680,000 to initiate planning for a visitor center
at Arches National Park in Utah. The Service is directed to
complete this project for $6,800,000 including all design,
construction and exhibits. The funds provided for a memorial
commemorating President John Adams are for planning and
design, in cooperation with non-Federal partners.
The managers have included $500,000 in planning to complete
an environmental assessment for proposed visitor education
centers at Assateague Island National Seashore. The managers
are aware of proposals for two separate facilities that would
be constructed in close proximity to one another at this
location. The park has advocated for a new 7,000 square foot
Barrier Island Education Center; and the State of Maryland,
in partnership with the park, has proposed an 11,000 square
foot Coastal Ecology Learning Center. The managers are
concerned about the potential duplication of efforts in these
proposed facilities, as well as both the construction and
operational costs. The preliminary cost estimate for the
proposed park facility alone is $9,500,000. The managers
strongly encourage the park and its partners to develop a
comprehensive program that addresses and prioritizes the
proposed program requirements and reduces the overall scope
and cost of the consolidated project. Combining these two
efforts into one facility will save both Federal and State
resources. The managers expect the Service to report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to the
obligation of any funds for construction of this project.
This is not a commitment to fund this project in the future.
Although the conference agreement contains no specific
funding for the Stiltsville project in Biscayne National
Park, as soon as the Service assumes direct responsibility
for the structures the managers expect the Service to
allocate such repair and rehabilitation funds as are
necessary to maintain properly the structures in a manner
consistent with the management policy that is adopted.
The managers have included $775,000 for the Highlands
Center in the Cape Cod National Seashore to accomplish core
utility system replacement at the closed North Truro Air
Force Station. The potable water and fire suppression systems
will be repaired and the septic facilities will be replaced
to prepare for the conversion of the station into the
Highlands Center. The Center is a cooperative effort between
the National Park Service and other public and private groups
and will serve as the focal point for environmental sciences,
traditional Cape Cod culture, and the arts for the public on
Cape Cod. The total Federal investment for infrastructure
improvements will be $2,500,000; the balance will be raised
through private sources.
The managers have agreed to provide $1,000,000 towards the
construction of a music center at Fisher Peak in the Blue
Ridge Parkway. The managers direct that the $500,000 in
unobligated balances from the Fisher Peak amphitheater
funding, appropriated by the Committees in fiscal year 1998,
be reprogrammed to this project. These funds complete the
National Park Service commitment to this project.
Both the House and Senate bills included $6,000,000 for
stabilization of the Many Glacier Hotel at Glacier National
Park. The managers have agreed to reallocate $1,500,000 of
these funds to complete the wastewater treatment system at
Lake McDonald, the cost of which is higher than original
estimates due to design modifications required to comply with
State and Federal treatment requirements. The remaining
$4,500,000 provided for Many Glacier stabilization are
sufficient to complete the most urgently needed repairs. The
managers note that this reallocation of funds will have no
impact on the expected ability of the Hotel to open for the
2002 season, and will in no way enhance the concessionaire's
possessory interest in the Hotel. The managers encourage the
Service to continue working with interested parties to
resolve the question of possessory interest, and to address
other issues that require resolution in order to ensure the
restoration and continued operation of the Hotel.
The managers have included $2,000,000 for the Downeast
Heritage Center in Maine. This completes the Federal
commitment to this project. The managers have provided
$700,000 for restoration work at Fort Washington Park in
Maryland. The managers direct that

[[Page 19260]]

the balance of the funds to complete this project be provided
from unobligated 2001 funds available to the park.
Included in the conference report is $4,130,000 to complete
the Jacob Riis Park bathhouse facilities at Gateway NRA in
New York. The conference report includes $200,000 for a
feasibility study at Gateway NRA that should: (1) evaluate
the demand for a year-round swimming pool at Jacob Riis Park;
(2) determine the costs of constructing and operating such a
facility; (3) identify viable funding options for the project
(including concessions, third party contributions,
partnerships, leasing opportunities etc.); and (4) assess the
economic impact of alternative development sites at Riis
Park. The managers remind the Service that funding for the
feasibility study is not a commitment for future
construction.
The managers have included $795,000 in planning for
improvements associated with the upcoming 400th anniversary
of the settlement at Jamestown, VA. These funds are to be
used to complete the development concept plan and
environmental impact statement initiated with funding
provided in fiscal year 2001, and to conduct planning for the
proposed collections storage building for the NPS collection
and the associated access road. None of the funds are to be
used to initiate planning associated with demolition or
rehabilitation of the existing visitor center nor with
planning for any other new facilities, which might be
envisioned for Jamestown. The Service should report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by April 1,
2002 on the private fundraising effort.
The managers have included $500,000 for the planning and
design of a visitor learning center at Great Basin National
Park, NV. The total Federal share for the center is not to
exceed $4,200,000, including the planning and design funds.
The conference report includes $1,500,000 for the
construction of the Morris Thomson Visitor and Native
Cultural Center in Alaska. It is the intent of the managers
that the National Park Service commitment to this project
will not exceed $10,000,000 including planning, construction,
furnishings and exhibits.
The managers have included $600,000 to complete planning at
Morristown NHP in New Jersey. A total of $3,200,000 will be
required in fiscal year 2003 to complete the Federal share of
this project.
Also included is $350,000 to develop a concept plan for the
National Center for the American Revolution. This funding is
not a guarantee of a future Federal commitment, and it is the
intent of the managers that the Center be mostly funded
through private sources.
The $300,000 included for a Niagara River and Gorge special
resource study is subject to authorization. The managers have
included $5,000,000 for the Palace of the Governors. This
completes the Federal commitment to this project. The
conference agreement provides $3,062,000 to complete the
Shiloh NMP visitor facility.
The conference agreement provides $1,000,000 for planning
the rehabilitation of Moton Field at the Tuskegee Airmen
National Historic Site. Before making these funds available
for obligation, the managers direct the Service to consult
with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in
order to define better the overall scope, cost and timing of
the project.
The managers note that the $1,500,000 appropriation for
preservation of the barracks at the Vancouver National
Historic Reserve exceeds the currently authorized amount.
Further appropriations for this project will not be
considered unless the authorization is increased.
The managers have included $250,000 to complete the
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. This completes federal
funding for this project.
The managers direct the National Park Service to contract
with the National Academy of Public Administration to conduct
a review of how effectively the Service has implemented the
recommendations of the Academy's 1998 report on reforms to
the Service's construction program, including the Denver
Service Center operations.
The managers have consolidated the pre-design,
supplementary services, and planning activities into one
activity. The managers understand that the National Park
Service will still track spending in each of these categories
separately to ensure that the NAPA guidelines are followed.
This consolidation will not affect the planning requirements
of projects that will be worked on, but rather, contribute to
the appropriate accounting of funds in support of projects
appropriated or scheduled in the five year construction plan,
while allowing sufficient flexibility to direct funds to the
appropriate planning category.
The managers urge the NPS to include sufficient funds in
the fiscal year 2003 budget request for necessary repairs and
improvement of facilities at the Wright Brothers National
Memorial in North Carolina in preparation for the First
Flight Centennial Celebration.
Within the amount provided for Cuyahoga National Park, the
managers have provided $200,000 for a platform and station at
the south terminus of the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad.
Twenty-four miles of the railroad run through the national
park and addition of the platform and station will enhance
the experience of park visitors.

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

(RESCISSION)

The conference agreement rescinds the contract authority
provided for fiscal year 2002 by 16 U.S.C. 460l-10a as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

The conference agreement provides $274,117,000 for land
acquisition and State assistance instead of $261,036,000 as
proposed by the House and $287,036,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Funds should be distributed as follows:

Area (State) Amount
Adams National Historic Park (MA).............................2,000,000
Blue Ridge Parkway (NC/VA)....................................1,000,000
Brandywine Battlefield (PA)...................................1,500,000
Civil War Battlefields.......................................11,000,000
Cumberland Gap NHP (Fern Lake) (KY/VA)..........................500,000
Cumberland Gap NHP (KY/VA)......................................100,000
Cuyahoga Valley NP (OH).......................................1,000,000
Dayton Aviation Heritage NHP (OH)...............................750,000
Delaware Water Gap NRA (PA/NJ)..................................700,000
Denali NP & P (AK)............................................1,200,000
Ebey's Landing NHR (WA).......................................1,000,000
Everglades--Grant to the State of Florida....................15,000,000
Everglades--Modified Water Delivery Project..................16,000,000
Fort Smith NHS (AR/OK)..........................................850,000
Fort Sumter NM (SC)...........................................1,750,000
Fort Union Trading Post NHS (ND)................................100,000
Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial NMP2,000,000
Golden Gate NRA (Mori Point) (CA).............................2,500,000
Grand Teton NP (Resor Ranch) (WY).............................3,500,000
Great Sand Dunes NM&P (CO)....................................2,000,000
Greenbelt Park (Jaeger Tract) (MD)............................1,000,000
Guilford Courthouse NMP (NC)....................................800,000
Gulf Islands NS (Cat Island) (MS).............................9,000,000
Hawaii Volcanoes NP (HI)......................................6,000,000
Ice Age NST (WI)..............................................3,000,000
Indiana Dunes NL (IN).........................................2,000,000
Keweenaw NHP (MI)...............................................800,000
Lowell NHP (MA).................................................857,000
Mississippi NRRA (Riverview) (MN)...............................850,000
Moccasin Bend (Rock-Tenn and Serodino tracts) (TN)............1,000,000
Morristown NHS (NJ).............................................750,000
New River Gorge NR (WV).......................................6,800,000
Nez Perce NHP (Canoe Camp and Weippe Prairie) (ID)............1,500,000
Olympic NP (WA)...............................................1,210,000
Puuhonua O Honaunau NHP (HI)....................................500,000
Saguaro NP (AZ)...............................................4,000,000
Sand Creek Massacre NHS (CO)....................................800,000
Santa Monica Mtns. NRA (Upper Ramirez Canyon) (CA)............1,000,000
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields NHD (VA).......................1,200,000
Sleeping Bear Dunes NL (MI)...................................1,100,000
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (FL)................1,000,000
Vicksburg NMP (Pemberton HQ) (MS)...............................500,000
________________

Subtotal................................................110,117,000
Emergency & Hardship..........................................4,000,000
Inholdings & Exchanges........................................4,000,000
Acquisition Management.......................................12,000,000
Stateside Grants............................................140,000,000
Administrative Assistance to States...........................4,000,000
________________

Total...................................................274,117,000

The managers agree to the following revision to the
reprogramming guidelines for the National Park Service only.
Lands shall not be acquired for more than the approved
appraised value (as addressed in section 301(3) of Public Law
91-646) except for condemnations and declarations of taking
and tracts with an appraised value of $500,000 or less,
unless such acquisitions are submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations for approval in compliance with established
procedures.
The managers have not provided funding for Fuez
conservation easements at the Grand Teton NP, as proposed by
the Senate. Instead, the managers have provided funding for
the Fuez conservation easements in the Forest Service land
acquisition account under the Bridger-Teton NF.
The managers have provided $1,200,000 for the acquisition
of the Weiler property at Denali NP. The National Park
Service is directed to use the Bureau of Land Management as
the appraiser of the property. The appraisal shall take into
consideration the

[[Page 19261]]

value of surface and subsurface rights, mineral rights, and
any other development rights attendant with the property in
accordance with applicable appraisal standards.
The funds included for Cumberland Gap NHP (Fern Lake),
Moccasion Bend NHS, Puuhonua o Honaunau NHP and Vicksburg NMP
are subject to authorization.
The conference agreement provides $1,000,000 for the Ebey's
Landing National Historical Reserve. The managers direct that
this sum, together with any unexpended funds from the fiscal
year 2001 appropriation for Ebey's Landing, shall first be
used to complete the purchase of the Pratt Estate properties.
If any funds remain after the Pratt Estate properties have
been acquired by the National Park Service, they may be used
for acquisition of such other properties as the Service finds
desirable.
The funds included for Greenbelt Park are subject to a non-
Federal match.
The managers direct that $400,000 of the unobligated
$2,400,000 currently available at the Petroglyph NM be used
to conduct a boundary survey of that monument. The managers
understand that this may ultimately mean that additional
funds are required to complete acquisitions at Petroglyph NM.

administrative provisions

The managers have agreed to language contained in the House
bill, which allows the Service to convey a leasehold or
freehold interest in Cuyahoga NP, OH to allow for the
development of utilities and parking needed by Everett Church
within the national park.

United States Geological Survey

surveys, investigations, and research

The conference agreement provides $914,002,000 for surveys,
investigations, and research instead of $900,489,000 as
proposed by the House and $892,474,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Within this amount, $25,000,000 is from the
conservation spending category.
Changes to the House for the national mapping programs
include increases of $3,000,000 for Landsat 5 operations,
$300,000 for the civil applications program, and $300,000 for
urban dynamics, and a decrease of $996,000 for internet
access.
Changes to the House for geology programs include increases
of $1,000,000 for volcanic hazard equipment in Shemya,
Alaska, $1,500,000 for the minerals at risk program, $500,000
for coastal erosion in North Carolina, $500,000 for land
subsidence in Louisiana, $299,000 for Lake Mead studies,
$450,000 for geologic mapping for Lake Mojave, and $474,000
for Yukon Flats geology surveys, and a decrease of $100,000
for the advanced seismic network.
Changes to the House for water resources include increases
of $200,000 for a Berkley Pit study in Montana, $299,000 for
the Lake Champlain toxic study, $499,000 for Hawaiian water
monitoring, $5,000 for the Southern Maryland aquifer study,
and $195,000 for the Noyes Slough study in Alaska, and
decreases of $596,000 for the National Water Quality
Assessment program, and $296,000 for water information and
delivery.
The managers concur with the House direction to contract
with the National Academy of Sciences to examine water
resources research funded by all Federal agencies and by
significant non-Federal organizations. Based on information
that the managers have received, it appears that water
resources research is not well coordinated. The managers
therefore direct that the Academy primarily consider the
level and allocation of resources that are currently deployed
in water research programs, both Federal and non-Federal, and
provide recommendations for a national research program that
maximizes the efficiency and effectiveness of existing
programs. While the primary focus of this study deals with
the existing research agenda, the managers would like an
answer to the question of whether the Nation is making an
adequate level of investment in water resources research.
Increases above the House for biological research include
$400,000 for the Leetown science center, $300,000 for the
Columbia environmental research center for pallid sturgeon
studies, $250,000 for Chesapeake Bay terrapin research,
$500,000 for a NBII Hawaii node, $180,000 for a Yukon River
chum salmon study, $500,000 for biological information
management and delivery, $50,000 for an Atlantic Salmon
restoration study at the Tunison laboratory, and $748,000 for
the continuation of the Mark Twain National Forest mining
study to be accomplished in cooperation with the water
resources division and the Forest Service.
Changes to the House for facilities include increases of
$2,000,000 for phase one of the Leetown research center
expansion, and $2,250,000 for the Center for Coastal Geology
in Florida, and decreases of $300,000 for Leetown research
center design and $898,000 for uncontrollable costs.
The funding provided for the construction of the Center for
Coastal Geology in St. Petersburg, Florida is for a
cooperative effort between the Survey and the St. Petersburg
Downtown Partnership. The Partnership is providing a two-to-
one match for the costs of constructing this science
facility.

Minerals Management Service

royalty and offshore minerals management

The conference agreement provides $150,667,000 for royalty
and offshore minerals management instead of $149,867,000 as
proposed by the House and $151,933,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
Changes to the House for royalty and offshore minerals
management include increases of $800,000 for the Center for
Marine Resources, and $800,000 for the Marine Mineral
Technology Center in Alaska, and a decrease of $800,000 as a
transfer to the Inspector General for Bureau audits.
The managers have again provided $1,400,000 to the Offshore
Technology Research Center to perform research for MMS
through the cooperative agreement dated June 18, 1999.
The managers have agreed to the Senate proposed language
for the royalty-in-kind program instead of the House
language. The House language requiring that revenues be equal
to or greater than royalty-in-value as determined by the
regulations of March 15, 2000 has been dropped.

oil spill research

The conference agreement provides $6,105,000 for oil spill
research as proposed by the House instead of $6,118,000 as
proposed by the Senate.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

regulation and technology

The conference agreement provides $102,800,000 for
regulation and technology instead of $102,900,000 as proposed
by the House and $102,144,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Funding for the activities should follow the House
recommendation except that the conference agreement reduces
executive direction funding by $100,000 as proposed by the
Senate; this transfers funds for external audits to the
Inspector General's office. The Senate proposal to include
$98,000 for fixed costs is not included. An additional
$275,000 is estimated to be available for use from
performance bond forfeitures.

abandoned mine reclamation fund

The conference agreement provides $203,455,000 for the
abandoned mine reclamation fund instead of $203,554,000 as
proposed by the House and $203,171,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Funding for the activities should follow the House
recommendation except that the conference agreement reduces
executive direction funding by $99,000 as proposed by the
Senate; this transfers funds for external audits to the
Inspector General's office. The Senate proposal to include
$57,000 for fixed costs is not included. The managers have
also included the House proposed bill language for minimum
program States and the Senate proposed bill language
continuing language carried in previous years dealing with
certain aspects of the State of Maryland program.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

operation of indian programs

The conference agreement provides $1,799,809,000 for the
operation of Indian programs instead of $1,790,781,000 as
proposed by the House and $1,804,322,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
There is a decrease below the House for tribal priority
allocations of $1,675,000 for self-governance compacts.
Changes to the House level for other recurring programs
include increases of $2,000,000 for tribally controlled
community colleges, $500,000 for Washington shellfish, and
$150,000 for the Nez Perce rare species program, and a
decrease of $45,000 for tribal management and development
programs. None of the funds for Washington shellfish can be
used to support access onto private lands by tribal fishers
for their harvest purposes.
Increases above the House for non-recurring programs
include $1,700,000 for the distance learning program in
Montana, $500,000 for the Cheiron Foundation physician
training program for rural and underserved education and
outreach, $500,000 for a rural Alaska fire program, $350,000
for oil and gas permitting for the Uintah and Ouray agency,
$400,000 for the tribal guiding program in Alaska, $326,000
for Cheyenne River Sioux prairie management, and $146,000 for
Alaska legal services.
The managers believe that the aim of the Cheiron Foundation
to utilize distance learning technology to train physicians'
assistants and nurses to serve Native American communities is
extremely promising. The managers expect the Foundation to
focus the funding provided from this account on the aspects
of the project that will bring the most benefit to Native
American students and tribal communities, while pursuing
other sources of funding to enhance the overall project.
There is an increase above the House for central office
operations of $1,000 for general administration/policy.
Increases above the House for special programs and pooled
overhead include $250,000 for enhancements to the Pomo Indian
exhibits at the Grace Hudson Museum in Ukiah, California,
$250,000 for the Alaska market access program, $509,000 for
the United Tribes Technical College, $250,000 for the United
Sioux Tribe Development Corporation, $100,000 for the Ponca
Tribe development plan, $1,200,000 for the Crownpoint
Institute,

[[Page 19262]]

$1,000,000 for the Yuut Elitnauviate, and $1,000,000 for an
Alaska native aviation training program. The Bureau is
directed to report to the Committees regularly regarding the
expenditure of the funds provided for the native aviation
training program and development of the program, including
the partners involved, the number of pilots to be trained,
out-year financing alternatives and other pertinent
information.
The managers are concerned that the Bureau has shown little
progress in addressing the land issues of the Canoncito Band
of Navajos. The managers direct the Bureau to accelerate its
efforts to open, at least, a part time office at Canoncito,
New Mexico.

construction

The conference agreement provides $357,132,000 for
construction as proposed by the House instead of $360,132,000
as proposed by the Senate. The managers have not provided
$3,000,000 for the tribal school construction demonstration
program as proposed by the Senate. The managers support the
goal of this demonstration program and have been approached
by a number of tribes regarding additional funding following
the demonstration's success in removing schools from the BIA
priority list. While budgetary constraints have forced the
managers to adopt the House proposal, the managers recommend
that the Bureau of Indian Affairs continue the demonstration
project as part of the President's fiscal year 2003 budget
request.

indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to
indians

The conference agreement provides $60,949,000 for Indian
land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments
to Indians as proposed by the House and the Senate.

indian guaranteed loan program account

The conference agreement provides $4,986,000 for the Indian
guaranteed loan program as proposed by the House and the
Senate.

Departmental Offices

insular affairs

assistance to territories

The conference agreement provides $78,950,000 for
assistance to territories instead of $72,289,000 as proposed
by the House and $76,450,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
managers have agreed to Compact impact assistance funding
increases above the levels proposed by the House of
$4,000,000 for Hawaii and $1,000,000 each for Guam and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The managers
acknowledge the May 30, 2001, letter and report by the
Secretary of the Interior concerning compact impact and
therefore the Administration is encouraged to see that
negotiations on the continuation of the Compacts are
concluded in a timely fashion and to provide for future
compact impact payments out of the available mandatory
compact payments. The managers agree that the Secretary
should ensure that representatives of Hawaii are consulted
during the upcoming Compact renegotiations process so the
impact to Hawaii of mitigating citizens from the freely
associated states is appropriately considered. The conference
agreement also includes the $200,000 for a utility
privatization study in the U.S. Virgin Islands as proposed by
the House, and the full funding level and bill language
proposed by the Senate for the U.S. Virgin Islands FEMA loan
repayment. The conference agreement retains the House
proposed bill language concerning compensation for American
Samoa High Court Justices and the House proposed report
language concerning potential withholding of American Samoa
operations funding.

compact of free association

The conference agreement provides $23,245,000 for the
Compact of Free Association as proposed by both the House and
the Senate.

Departmental Management

salaries and expenses

The conference agreement provides $67,741,000 for salaries
and expenses for departmental management, instead of
$55,177,000 as proposed by the House and $67,541,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Funds should be distributed as
follows:

Departmental direction......................................$12,964,000
Management and coordination..................................24,905,000
Hearings and appeals..........................................8,559,000
Central services.............................................20,425,000
Bureau of Mines workers compensation/unemployment...............888,000
________________

Total....................................................67,741,000

The managers concur with the concerns expressed in the
Senate report regarding the capability, capacity, accuracy
and security of departmental information systems. The
managers are particularly concerned about information
security weaknesses that have been identified by both the
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office, and
believe the Department should take immediate steps to address
these weaknesses. The most efficient and effective means of
improving information security will likely be through
department-wide solutions, but individual program managers
should also work in conjunction with the Department's Chief
Information Officer to develop short and long term plans to
address vulnerabilities that have been identified. Program
managers must also be held accountable for ensuring that
computer security is adequately implemented within their
areas of responsibility. Methods to establish this
accountability should include performance reviews,
administrative sanctions for non-compliance, or adjustments
in program funding if necessary.
The managers direct the Department of the Interior to study
the viability of establishing an Enterprise Management Center
to facilitate the Department's objective for budget and
performance integration using financial information
technology within the bureaus. As part of the review, the
Department should consider which bureaus might benefit from
being part of an initial pilot project. The managers expect
this report to be forwarded to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2002.
The managers note that they have received numerous budget
requests and reprogramming requests from the Federal land
management agencies to purchase updated wireless
communication infrastructure. In light of the Federal
Communication Commission's ongoing review of spectrum
allocations for wireless technologies, and the Government
Accounting Office's current compilation of information for
reports to Congress on this subject, the managers are
concerned that substantial investments in wireless
technologies may become obsolete due to imminent policy
decisions regarding spectrum reallocation. The managers urge
the agencies, whenever possible, to purchase equipment that
can be reprogrammed to meet future spectrum allocations, and
to purchase equipment that does not interfere with current
emergency radio and GPS based systems.

Office of the Solicitor

salaries and expenses

The conference agreement provides $45,000,000 for salaries
and expenses of the Office of the Solicitor as proposed by
the House instead of $44,074,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Funds should be distributed as follows:

Legal services..............................................$37,276,000
General administration........................................7,724,000
________________

Total....................................................45,000,000

Office of Inspector General

salaries and expenses

The conference agreement provides $34,302,000 as proposed
by the Senate instead of $30,490,000 as proposed by the
House. Funds should be distributed as follows:

Audit.......................................................$18,680,000
Investigations................................................6,763,000
Policy & Management...........................................7,402,000
Program Integrity.............................................1,457,000
________________

Total....................................................34,302,000

Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

FEDERAL TRUST PROGRAMS

The conference agreement provides $99,224,000 for Federal
trust programs as proposed by the House and Senate.
The managers wish to clarify the language included in the
House report with respect to funding for an historical
accounting. The managers note that both the House and Senate
have provided the funds requested by the Administration for
an historical accounting. However, the managers remain very
concerned about the costs associated with such an accounting.
Therefore, these funds may not be allocated prior to the
report requested by the Committees detailing the methods and
costs associated with an historical accounting.
The managers reiterate the position that they will not
appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars for an historical
accounting that provides funds for a protracted
reconciliation process whose outcome is unlikely to be
successful. If the Department, working with the plaintiffs
and the Court, cannot find a cost effective method for an
historical accounting, the Congress may have to consider a
legislative remedy to resolve this and other litigation
related issues.

INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION

The conference agreement provides $10,980,000 for Indian
land consolidation programs as proposed by the House and the
Senate.

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FUND

The conference agreement provides $5,497,000 for the
natural resource damage assessment fund as proposed by the
House instead of $5,872,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
managers agree that, to the extent a national data management
system is needed, funding for such a system should be
addressed within the context of the fiscal year 2003 budget.

General Provisions, Department of the Interior

The conference agreement includes sections 101, 103 through
106, and 108 through 111, which were identical in both the
House and the Senate bills.
The conference agreement includes sections 113, 115, 116,
118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125,

[[Page 19263]]

and 126, which contained identical text in both the House and
Senate bills, but the section numbers were different in the
Senate bill.
Section 102 retains the text of section 102 as proposed by
the Senate. Section 102 as proposed by the House had
identical language as the Senate except for a grammatical
difference of not spelling out ``thirty days''.
Section 107 retains the text of Senate section 107, which
prohibits the Department of the Interior from using funds to
conduct offshore preleasing, leasing and related activities
in those areas under the June 12, 1998, moratorium. House
section 107 had identical language except for omitting the
term ``preleasing''.
Section 112 retains the language of House section 112 that
prohibits the National Park Service from developing a reduced
entrance fee program to accommodate non-local travel through
a unit of the Park system. The Senate had no similar
provision.
Section 114 modifies language proposed by the House and by
the Senate (in section 113 of the Senate bill) dealing with
grazing on BLM lands. The modification extends traditional
grazing use on Federal lands managed by the National Park
Service at Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area in eastern
Washington.
Section 117 retains the language of House section 117
continuing a provision carried in previous years placing a
limitation on establishment of a Kankakee NWR in Indiana and
Illinois that is inconsistent with the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers' efforts to control flooding and siltation. The
Senate had no similar provision. The managers understand that
this issue will be resolved shortly and this provision will
not be carried in future years.
Section 119 retains the text of House section 119, which
provides for the protection of lands at Huron Cemetery, KS.
Section 117 as proposed by the Senate has identical text,
with the exception of a difference in the use of punctuation.
Section 120 retains the text of section 120 as proposed by
the House which continues a provision carried last year
prohibiting the study or implementation of a plan to drain
Lake Powell, or to reduce the water below that required to
operate Glen Canyon Dam. The Senate had no similar provision.
Section 127 retains the text of section 124 as proposed by
the Senate, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
use helicopters or motor vehicles to capture and transport
horses and burros at the Sheldon and Hart NWRs. The House had
no similar provision.
Section 128 modifies the text of section 126 as proposed by
the Senate clarifying that the lands taken into trust for the
Lytton Rancheria of California are still subject to all of
the provisions of Public Law 100-497 and, in particular with
respect to Class III gaming, the compact provisions of
section 2710(d) or any relevant Class III gaming procedures.
The managers further recognize that nothing in section 819 of
Public Law 106-568 should be construed as permitting off
reservation gaming by Indian tribes except in compliance with
all relevant provisions of Public Law 100-497.
Section 129 retains the text of section 127 as proposed by
the Senate, which renames Moore's Landing at the Cape Romain
NWR in South Carolina as ``Garris Landing.'' The House had no
similar provision.
Section 130 makes technical modifications to language
proposed by the Senate in section 130 regarding cruise ship
entries at Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.
Section 131 retains the text of Senate section 131, which
prevents the use of funds for the transfer of land on South
Fox Island, Michigan without Congressional approval. The
House had no similar provision. This section allows the
Department of the Interior to continue working on processes
pursuant to NEPA, including preparation of an EIS on the
proposed land exchange, analysis of the State's proposal and
a range of alternatives, and consideration of public input.
Absent a showing that the agencies have not complied with
NEPA, the managers, at this time, do not intend to include
this or similar restrictions next year. This language affects
current regulatory and legal processes, which are sufficient
to protect the environment and the public's interests, by
unnecessarily preventing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Park Service from releasing a record of
decision on the proposed land exchange until Congress passes
a law authorizing the exchange.
Section 132 includes language, agreed to in previous years,
authorizing the transfer of Federal land acquisition funds
for Brandywine Battlefield, Mississippi National River and
Recreational Area, Shenandoah Valley National Historic
District, and Ice Age National Scenic Trail.
Section 133 makes a technical change to Public Law 106-568
regarding land transfer boundaries.
Section 134 clarifies that the Secretary of the Interior
has the authority to determine whether Indian lands
constitute a reservation. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to permit gaming on the lands described in section
123 of Public Law 106-291.
Section 135 makes a technical correction to the Black Rock
Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation
Area Act, Public Law 106-554.
The conference agreement does not include language proposed
by the Senate in section 125 permitting the transfer of funds
between State grant programs managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Park Service.
The conference agreement does not include the text of
Senate section 128, which prevents the use of funds for
mineral leasing and related activities in national monuments.
This issue is addressed in Title III where the House language
addressing this issue is retained.
The conference agreement does not include language proposed
by the Senate in section 129 that would have expanded the
special resource study area for Loess Hills in Iowa, or in
section 132 dealing with the Pechanga Band of Indians, or in
section 133 regarding Coastal Impact Assistance.

TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

The conference agreement provides $241,304,000 for forest
and rangeland research instead of $236,979,000 as proposed by
the House and $242,822,000 as proposed by the Senate. Changes
from the House bill include $475,000 for the Forest Products
Lab lumber salvage research, WI, $500,000 for the Center for
Bottomlands research, MS, $175,000 for applied research in
the hardwood region of Pennsylvania and nearby areas, and
$4,000,000 for Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA). The
conference agreement does not include the House proposed
increase of $1,250,000 above the request for FIA and the
managers agree that the Forest Service should not follow the
House report instructions concerning the FIA program under
this heading or under the national forest system heading. The
conference agreement does not include the Senate proposal to
add funds for fixed costs but it does include the Senate
proposed general reduction below the House of $175,000. The
conference agreement includes the House proposed increases
for Bent Creek, NC, urban forestry research at Syracuse, NY,
and Davis, CA, and Coweeta watershed research, NC. The
conference agreement provides that the Northeastern States
Research Cooperative, as authorized in Public Law 105-185,
receive $2,000,000, $600,000 above the request. Of this
amount, $1,000,000 should go to ecosystem research at the
Hubbard Brook Project of the Forest Service Northeastern
research station, NH, and $1,000,000 should go to the Vermont
George Aiken School of Natural Resources for collaborative
research with Forest Service scientists and other cooperators
on economic development, forest management, and forest
product research. The managers direct the Forest Service to
maintain the research related presence at the former
Intermountain Research Station at, or above, the current
level, including the position of Assistant Station Director.

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

The conference agreement provides $291,221,000 for State
and private forestry instead of $277,771,000 as proposed by
the House and $287,331,000 as proposed by the Senate. These
funds include $101,000,000 within the conservation spending
category for forest legacy, and urban and community forestry
as proposed by the Senate instead of $104,000,000 as proposed
by the House.
The conference agreement provides $43,304,000 for Federal
lands forest health management as proposed by the House,
$25,000,000 for cooperative lands forest health management as
proposed by the Senate, $25,310,000 for State fire assistance
as proposed by the House, and $5,053,000 for volunteer fire
assistance as proposed by both the House and the Senate. The
conference agreement also includes additional funds for State
fire and volunteer fire assistance as part of the national
fire plan funding within the wildland fire management
account.
The conference agreement includes $33,171,000 for forest
stewardship instead of $32,941,000 as proposed by the House
and $33,268,000 as proposed by the Senate. The only change
from the House proposal for forest stewardship is the
addition of $230,000 for the Chesapeake Bay program as
proposed by the Senate. The conference agreement also
includes $3,000,000 for the stewardship incentives program
instead of $8,000,000 as proposed by the House. This
allocation is not derived from the conservation spending
category as proposed by the House. The managers direct the
Forest Service to target the stewardship incentives program
funds for non-Federal forestlands impacted by, or at
immediate risk from, major forest pests such as gypsy moth
and the southern pine beetle. The managers intend the
stewardship incentives program to be administered by the
Forest Service with cost-share payments to landowners to be
provided by the State foresters or an equivalent State
official.
The conference agreement includes $65,000,000 for the
forest legacy program as proposed by the Senate instead of
$60,000,000 as proposed by the House. This allocation is
derived from the conservation spending category. The
conference agreement provides specific funding levels for
high priority projects and also provides $22,135,000 for the

[[Page 19264]]

Forest Service to allocate to other projects and to cover the
costs of Forest Service technical assistance, program
administration, and State needs assessments and planning. The
conference agreement has modified bill language proposed by
the House and the Senate concerning approval of the Forest
Service project selection. The conference agreement now
requires the Forest Service to notify the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations in advance of undertaking
specific forest legacy projects. The managers note the recent
revision to the Puerto Rico forest legacy program standards
and accordingly direct the Forest Service not to follow the
House direction concerning this program in Puerto Rico. The
conference agreement includes the following distribution of
funds for the forest legacy program:

Project/State Conference
Adirondack Lakes, NY.........................................$2,000,000
Anderson-Tully, TN............................................3,500,000
Bar-J tract, phase III, UT......................................780,000
Castle Rock, UT...............................................1,000,000
Catawba-Wateree Forest, SC....................................2,950,000
Chateaugay, VT..................................................500,000
Coastal Forest ecosystem restoration, SC........................650,000
Connecticut Lakes, NH.........................................3,600,000
Howe Creek Ranch, CA............................................500,000
Kimball Pond, NH................................................700,000
McCandless Ranch, HI..........................................1,000,000
Melvin Valley, NH...............................................500,000
Mt. Washington, Hi-Rock Camp, MA................................500,000
Nanejoy, MD.....................................................450,000
NJ Highlands, Newark watershed, NJ............................5,000,000
North Chickamauga, TN...........................................500,000
NY City watershed, NY...........................................500,000
Range Creek Headwaters, UT......................................500,000
Thompson-Fisher phase II, MT..................................7,000,000
TN River Gorge, Cummings Cove, TN.............................1,000,000
TN small projects, TN...........................................135,000
Tomahawk Northwoods phase II, WI..............................4,000,000
Treetops, CT..................................................1,000,000
Tumbledown/Mt. Blue, ME.........................................600,000
West Branch phase II, ME......................................4,000,000
________________

Project subtotal.........................................42,865,000
Unallocated projects & administration........................22,135,000
________________

Total Forest Legacy......................................65,000,000

The conference agreement includes $36,000,000 for the urban
and community forestry program as proposed by both the House
and the Senate. This allocation is derived from the
conservation spending category. The managers agree to the
House proposal for this activity plus $50,000 for the West
Virginia partnership coordinator, $350,000 for the Chicago,
IL wilderness program, and $200,000 for the Cook County
forest preserve, IL. The managers agree to the Senate
proposed $600,000 general decrease. The managers are aware of
Treepeople's proposed Center for Community Forestry in Los
Angeles, CA, and its value as a national resource. The
managers encourage the Forest Service to consider supporting
this important urban forestry program. The managers encourage
the Forest Service to participate in developing living
memorials using trees that will recognize the tragic losses
that occurred on September 11, 2001 in New York City, the
Pentagon area, and southwest Pennsylvania.
The conference agreement includes the following
distribution of funds for the economic action programs:

Program or project Conference
Economic Recovery program:
Economic recovery base program.............................$3,685,000
Overhill regional economic development, TN....................200,000
Graham & Swain Counties, NC....................................75,000
________________

Total economic recovery...................................3,960,000
================

Rural development program:
Rural development base program..............................2,400,000
NE & Midwest allocation.....................................2,500,000
N Rockies Heritage Center, MT.................................350,000
Four Corners Sustainable Forestry...........................1,000,000
Hawaii forestry initiative....................................200,000
NY City watershed rural development...........................300,000
NY City watershed enhancement.................................500,000
Kiski Basin economic development, PA..........................200,000
________________

Total rural development...................................7,450,000
================

Forest products conservation & recycling program..............1,300,000
Small diameter initiative.....................................2,000,000
Wood in transportation program................................1,920,000
================

Programs total...........................................16,630,000
================

Special projects:
Wood Education & Resource Center, WV........................2,700,000
Lake Tahoe erosion control grants, CA NV....................3,500,000
Cradle of forestry conservation education, NC.................250,000
KY mine waste reforestation.................................1,000,000
Envir. Sci. & Public Policy Research Inst., ID................250,000
Kake Land Exchange, AK......................................4,500,000
Ketchikan Public Utilities, right-of-way clear, AK..........2,500,000
Kilns in SE and SC Alaska...................................2,000,000
Navaho County, AZ biomass energy..............................350,000
Tillamook State Forest Interpretive Center, OR................500,000
South Lake Tahoe MTBE study...................................500,000
Cordova visitor center, AK....................................300,000
Allegheny NF area tourism, PA.................................200,000
State of Alaska expedited envir. studies......................500,000
________________

Total special projects...................................18,850,000
================

Total Economic Action Programs...........................35,680,000

The conference agreement includes the bill language
proposed by the Senate concerning a direct lump sum payment
to the Kake Tribal Corporation, AK, but the funding total is
$4,500,000. The managers understand that this is the final
year of funding for kilns in Alaska. The Forest Service shall
follow Senate instructions concerning the distribution of
funds for the Ketchikan public utilities right-of-way
clearing project. The managers have provided $500,000 for the
Tahoe Regional Planning Authority and the South Lake Tahoe
public utility to conduct the study of MTBE contamination
authorized in the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. The managers
stress that subsequent funding to remedy this MTBE problem is
not authorized by that Act and must come from sources other
than Interior and related agencies appropriations acts, such
as within the Environmental Protection Agency funding. The
Cradle of Forestry conservation education funds include
$100,000 for activities at the Cradle of Forestry in America
in the Pisgah National Forest and $150,000 for the Education
and Research Consortium of North Carolina to continue its
cooperative environmental education activities with the
Cradle of Forestry in the Pisgah National Forest.
The conference agreement includes $9,425,000 for Pacific
Northwest Assistance instead of $9,200,000 as proposed by the
House and $9,625,000 as proposed by the Senate. This funding
includes House-proposed allocations plus an additional
$225,000 for the base program. The conference agreement
includes $5,015,000 for forest resource information and
analysis as proposed by the Senate; the Forest Service should
follow Senate directions concerning this program. The
conference agreement also includes $5,263,000 for the
international forestry program.

national forest system

The conference agreement provides $1,331,439,000 for the
National forest system instead of $1,320,445,000 as proposed
by the House and $1,324,491,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Funds should be distributed as follows:

Land management planning....................................$70,358,000
Inventory and monitoring....................................173,266,000
Recreation, heritage & wilderness...........................245,500,000
Wildlife & fish habitat management..........................131,847,000
Grazing management...........................................34,775,000
Forest products.............................................266,340,000
Vegetation & watershed management...........................190,113,000
Minerals and geology management..............................48,956,000
Landownership management.....................................88,434,000
Law enforcement operations...................................79,000,000
Valles Caldera National Preserve, NM..........................2,800,000
________________

Total.................................................1,331,439,000

The following discussion describes funding changes from the
House passed bill. The inventory and monitoring activity does
not include the funding for the Lake Tahoe basin watershed
assessment. The wildlife and fish habitat management activity
does not include any funds, as proposed by the Senate, for
the State of Alaska to conduct monitoring on the Tongass
National Forest. The recreation, heritage and wilderness
activity has a general program increase of $3,500,000 and it
does not include a special allocation for the fee demo
program revolving account, although this could be pursued at
agency discretion. Funds for national scenic trails
operations and Pacific Crest Trail maintenance are not
included in the recreation activity but have been transferred
to the capital improvement and maintenance appropriation

[[Page 19265]]

account. Wildlife and fish habitat management includes
$200,000 for work on the Batten Kill River, VT as proposed by
the Senate and a general program reduction of $400,000. The
grazing management activity is funded at the Senate proposed
level. Changes from the House in the vegetation and watershed
management activity include, for the Lake Tahoe basin,
increases of $150,000 for watershed improvement activities,
$400,000 for adaptive management, and $450,000 for the
management of urban lots. The managers allow the Forest
Service, upon notification of the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations, to reprogram national forest system funds
within the Lake Tahoe basin.
The conference agreement also includes $200,000 for Dakota
Prairie grasslands weed control. The Forest Service should
maintain the noxious weed program at the Okanogan National
Forest, WA, at $300,000 as in fiscal year 2001. The managers
revise the House direction concerning the full time lands
team working on the Pacific Crest Trail to direct the full
time team to continue its functions but allow work on other
high priority land projects as well as the Pacific Crest
Trail. Funding for the law enforcement activity includes a
general increase of $2,000,000. The managers have not agreed
to the Senate proposal to provide $200,000 for the Southwest
strategy. The managers direct the report required by both the
House and the Senate concerning the budget formulation and
execution system be due March 15, 2002.
The managers direct the Forest Service, in their completion
of the Chugach National Forest and land resource management
plan, to analyze the impact that restrictions proposed within
the plan regarding mechanical fuel treatments and forest
access will have on the level of prescribed burning and the
implementation of the national fire plan on the Chugach
National Forest. The managers direct that this analysis be
completed before the release of the Chugach forest plan and
that it shall be included in the plan.
The managers understand that the budget request for land
management planning included $2,500,000 for the Chippewa and
Superior National Forests, MN, to continue work on forest
plans. The managers expect such funds shall be used to
continue work in an expeditious manner.
Funding for the newly established Valles Caldera National
Preserve, NM, is increased by $1,789,000 above the House
level; much of this increase is for one-time infrastructure
improvements to facilitate public access to this unique part
of the national forest system. The managers expect the Valles
Caldera directors to use these funds efficiently; they should
begin the revenue generating activities authorized for this
area and submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations a plan and schedule, including cost estimates,
for its management that is consistent with National funding
priorities. The conference agreement does not include the
general reduction to the national forest system account
adopted in House floor action.
The managers have revised House report language concerning
the management of urban lots in the Lake Tahoe basin. The
managers note that the Forest Service faces significant
challenges in order to manage and care for urban properties.
The intensive effort required for management of these
properties must be evaluated in light of the need for the
agency to manage the large portions of the basin under its
jurisdiction. The managers request that the Forest Service
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
no later than October 1, 2003 on the adaptive management
practices that are suitable for urban lots acquired under the
Santini-Burton program in the Lake Tahoe basin, and make
recommendations as to those practices that are most effective
in meeting the goals of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (P.L.
106-506). The managers expect that this analysis will
consider the role and function of urban lots relative to
water quality and watershed protection, biological diversity,
recreation, public access, and forest vegetation management
for wildfire control. The managers expect the Forest Service
and partners in the basin to evaluate alternatives to
continued urban lot purchases and to develop alternative
methods of managing Federal urban lots, and to implement
monitoring and research regarding the function that the lots
play in supporting ecological integrity in the basin.

wildland fire management

The conference agreement provides $1,560,349,000 for
wildland fire management instead of $1,402,305,000 as
proposed by the House and $1,280,594,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The managers note that this funding total includes
$346,000,000 in contingent emergency appropriations instead
of $165,000,000 as proposed by the Senate and no emergency
funding proposed by the House, and that $200,000,000 is to
pay back emergency wildfire expenditures of fiscal year 2001.
This emergency funding should be used to repay sums
previously advanced for fiscal year 2001 wildfire emergencies
as well as to fund various components of the national fire
plan as discussed below.
The managers believe that the full, integrated national
fire plan effort needs to be sustained in future years in
order to reduce the risks of catastrophic fire in many areas
of the Nation. The managers note that the Administration,
working along with governors and local communities, have
submitted a framework for a ten-year national fire plan.
However, after reviewing the plan, the managers are concerned
that the plan does not lay-out clear funding requirements for
various aspects of this important endeavor. Therefore, the
managers direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior to provide to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by March 15, 2002, an updated fire plan that
includes detailed schedules of activities and funding
requirements. The managers understand that funding
requirements for wildfire activities include considerable
year-to-year uncertainty depending on weather and fire
circumstances and therefore the managers view the funding
requirements for the national fire plan as being an iterative
process, which requires annual updates. The managers direct
the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to continue
to work together to formulate complementary budget requests
that reflect the same principles and a similar budget
organization and submit a cross-cutting budget request to the
Committees, which covers all federal wildfire
responsibilities. The managers expect the Forest Service to
emphasize the use of cooperative agreements and grants to a
wide-range of interests to help meet the national fire plan
goals and objectives on all lands, including information
compilation and analysis, public education, and applied
research. In addition, the managers expect the agencies to
seek the advice of governors, and local and tribal government
representatives in setting priorities for fuels treatments,
burned area rehabilitation, and public outreach and
education.
Wildfire preparedness
The conference agreement includes $622,618,000 for
preparedness as proposed by the Senate instead of
$616,618,000 as proposed by the House. The $6,000,000 in fire
technology development included within the Senate proposal
for preparedness has been transferred to the other fire
operations activity and base funding for preparedness has
been increased accordingly. The managers reiterate the House
direction concerning the need for completed fire plans for
all forest service units and the managers direct that a
schedule for this implementation be included in the next
budget request. The managers also remain concerned about the
variation in methods by which the departments calculate
wildfire fighting readiness and how the departments plan
their distribution of firefighting resources to attain
efficiency. The managers direct the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior to develop and implement a
coordinated and common system for calculating readiness which
includes provisions for working with the shared fire fighting
resources of the States and other cooperators and considers
values of various resources on both Federal and other lands.
Wildfire suppression operations
The conference agreement includes $521,321,000 for wildfire
suppression activities instead of $321,321,000 proposed by
both the House and Senate. This includes $255,321,000 for
non-emergency wildfire suppression activities instead of
$321,321,000 proposed by the House and $221,321,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The agreement also includes
$266,000,000 in emergency wildfire suppression funding
instead of no emergency funding proposed by the House and
$100,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The managers direct
the Forest Service to use $200,000,000 in emergency
contingency funding to repay funds advanced for emergency
wildfire suppression activities in fiscal year 2001 from
other activities, trust funds, and other appropriation
accounts.
The managers are very concerned about fire fighter safety
issues in light of the tragic Thirty Mile fire in northern
Washington. The managers direct the Forest Service to
continue development and testing of a new fire shelter for
the protection and safety of fire fighters. The testing shall
include products being advanced by private industry. The
Forest Service should submit a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the results of these tests by
September 30, 2002.
The managers are concerned about fire suppression costs
during major incidents and therefore the Forest Service and
the Department of the Interior are directed to contract for a
thorough, independent review of wildfire suppression costs
and strategies. The Departments should equally share the cost
of the review and a preliminary report should be issued by
May 31, 2002, and the final report be delivered to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by September 30,
2002.
The managers note that even after enactment of this bill
the KV reforestation trust fund will lack $320,000,000, which
has not been repaid but which was advanced for emergency
wildfires during previous years. The Administration should
strive to repay these funds.
Other wildfire operations
The conference agreement includes $416,410,000 for other
fire operation activities instead of $464,366,000 as proposed
by the House and $336,655,000 as proposed by the Senate. Of
this allocation, $80,000,000 is designated as emergency funds
instead of $65,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
allocation of this funding is as follows:

[[Page 19266]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-emergency Emergency Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Fuels................................................. $209,010,000 .............. $209,010,000
Fire Facilities................................................. 10,376,000 $10,000,000 20,376,000
Rehabilitation.................................................. 3,668,000 59,000,000 62,668,000
Research & Development.......................................... 22,265,000 5,000,000 27,265,000
Joint Fire Science.............................................. 8,000,000 .............. 8,000,000
Forest Health Management........................................ 11,974,000 .............. 11,974,000
Economic Action................................................. 12,472,000 .............. 12,472,000
State fire assistance........................................... 50,383,000 6,000,000 56,383,000
Volunteer fire assistance....................................... 8,262,000 .............. 8,262,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total other wildfire operations........................... 336,410,000 80,000,000 416,410,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The conference agreement includes $209,010,000 for
hazardous fuels treatments as proposed by the Senate instead
of $227,010,000 as proposed by the House. The managers expect
the Forest Service to ensure that fuels treatments are
accomplished quickly and in an environmentally sound manner.
In conducting treatments, local contract personnel are to be
used wherever practical and efficient. The managers expect
the agency to show planned and actual funding and
accomplishments for fuels management activities in future
budget requests to the Congress. The managers understand that
actual amounts may differ from planned levels. The managers
expect the agencies to work closely with States and local
communities in implementing this program in an effective and
efficient manner.
The managers have not included bill language proposed by
the Senate, which required that the Forest Service spend no
less than $125,000,000 on hazardous fuels reduction projects
in the wildland-urban interface. Instead, the managers expect
that the Forest Service will expend this amount, as stated in
the budget request, on projects in the wildland-urban
interface. If the agency does not attain such levels, it
shall promptly notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and provide a report explaining why the Forest
Service was unable to expend such sums. The managers continue
to believe that an emphasis on fuels reduction work in the
wildland-urban interface is critical to protecting the safety
of rural communities.
The managers have included bill language proposed by the
Senate providing that up to $15,000,000 in available funds
may be used on adjacent, non-Federal lands to reduce
hazardous fuels. The managers have not included bill language
proposed by the Senate concerning resource management and
access issues on the Chugach National Forest, AK. Instead,
the managers have included direction under the national
forest system heading regarding the upcoming Chugach National
Forest plan. The conference agreement includes the Senate
proposal to provide $5,000,000 for authorized Community
Forest Restoration Act activities. The managers have not
provided Forest Service funds for the Ecological Research
Institute and its activities at Mt. Trumbull. This issue is
addressed under the Bureau of Land Management. The conference
agreement also includes hazardous fuels funding of
$16,000,000 for the Quincy Library group activities, CA and
$2,000,000 for the Lake Tahoe Basin as indicated by the
House, which is $500,000 above the request.
The managers direct the Forest Service to provide technical
assistance to the Tule River Tribal Reservation with its
ground fuels mitigation program, the acquisition of
appropriate fire suppression equipment, and the training of a
tribal hot-shot crew.
The conference agreement includes $20,376,000 for wildfire
management facilities as proposed by the Senate instead of
$38,000,000 as proposed by the House. Of these funds,
$10,000,000 are available as emergency funds.
The conference agreement includes $62,668,000 for
rehabilitation and restoration activities, including
$59,000,000 as emergency funds, instead of $81,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $3,913,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The managers have provided this funding to continue
work on the many areas impacted by the year 2000 fires as
well as more recent events. The managers direct the
departments to continue to implement the long-term program to
manage and supply native plant materials for use in various
Federal land management restoration and rehabilitation needs
directed for fiscal year 2001.
The conference agreement includes $27,265,000 for research
and development activities as proposed by the House;
$5,000,000 of these funds are designated for emergency needs.
The research and development allocation consolidates funds,
which were requested within both the preparedness and fire
operations activities. It is vital that activities related to
wildfire management and natural resource management have a
firm scientific basis. To this end, the managers have also
included $8,000,000 for the joint fire science program as
proposed by the House instead of $4,000,000 as proposed by
the Senate. The joint fire program is matched with similar
funding within the Department of the Interior and this
program should continue the direction it has taken in fiscal
year 2001. The managers have designated $1,000,000 within the
available, non-emergency research and development funds for
cooperative research and technology development for the
University of Montana National Center for Landscape Fire
Analysis. This replaces designations for this project in the
House and Senate recommended bills.
The managers note that devastating windstorms have caused
great damage on the Superior and Chippewa National Forests,
MN. The budget request for wildland fire management included
$8,000,000 to continue efforts to reduce the fuels
accumulation, continue reforestation, and rehabilitate the
wilderness and non-wilderness areas of these forests. The
managers expect the scheduled work to be completed
expeditiously with these funds.
The managers have included $56,383,000 for State fire
assistance instead of $50,383,000 as proposed by both the
House and the Senate. Of this total, $6,000,000 is designated
as emergency funds and this total includes $5,000,000 for
hazardous fuels work in Anchorage, AK instead of $6,000,000
as proposed by the Senate, and $1,000,000 to continue
hazardous fuels work in the Kenai Borough, AK, as proposed by
the Senate. The Forest Service should follow Senate direction
concerning the distribution of these funds. State fire
assistance includes support for the FIREWISE program and the
use of cost share incentives. The conference agreement
includes $12,472,000 for economic action activities
associated with the national fire plan as proposed by both
the House and the Senate. The managers note that the State
and private forestry appropriation includes funds for the
small diameter initiative so the House instructions
concerning this project need not be followed.

capital improvement and maintenance

The conference agreement provides $546,188,000 for capital
improvement and maintenance instead of $535,513,000 as
proposed by the House and $541,286,000 as proposed by the
Senate. This funding includes $61,000,000 as recommended by
the Senate for priority deferred maintenance and
infrastructure improvement within the conservation spending
category. The conference agreement provides for the following
distribution of funds:

Activity or project Conference
Facilities:
Maintenance...............................................$93,926,000
Capital improvement........................................70,678,000
Congressional priorities:
Allegheny NF campgrounds, PA................................900,000
Allegheny NF Marienville RS, PA.............................975,000
Big Bear center, CA.......................................1,000,000
Cherokee NF recreation projects, TN.......................1,000,000
Cradle of Forestry volunteer facilities, NC...............1,165,000
Franklin County Lake, MS..................................1,400,000
Francis Marion NF, SC.......................................100,000
Gladie Creek center, KY.....................................718,000
Grey Towers NHS, PA.........................................500,000
Hardwood Tree Improvement & Regeneration Center at Purdue, I500,000
Inst. of Pacific Islands Forestry, HI.....................2,000,000
Lake Tahoe, restrooms & Tallic rehab........................115,000
Midewin Nat. Tallgrass Prairie horticulture building, IL....450,000
Mitchell Mill, Ozark NF AR..................................350,000
Monongahela NF sanitation, WV...............................440,000
Mt. Tabor work center, VT...................................650,000
Nantahala NF recreation projects, NC........................850,000
Rapid City research lab, SD...............................2,558,000
Timberline Lodge ADA rehab, OR............................1,240,000
Tuckerman Ravine, NH........................................330,000
Waldo Lake rehab, OR........................................500,000
Wayne NF SO, OH...........................................1,000,000
Wayne NF facilities improvements, OH......................1,000,000
Winding Stair Mtn. NRA, OK................................1,102,000
________________

Total Congressional priorities...........................20,843,000
================

Total Facilities........................................185,447,000
Roads:
Maintenance...............................................159,291,000
Capital improvement........................................67,600,000
Congressional priorities:
Franklin County Lake, MS....................................600,000
Lake Tahoe, Eagle Falls rehab...............................455,000
Lake Tahoe roads............................................800,000
Monongahela NF, WV..........................................920,000
________________

Total Congressional priorities............................2,775,000
================

Total Roads.............................................229,666,000
Trails:
Maintenance................................................40,434,000
Capital improvement........................................26,955,000
Congressional priorities:
Continental Divide Trail..................................1,000,000
FL National Scenic Trail....................................500,000

[[Page 19267]]

Pinhoti Trail, GA...........................................186,000
National Scenic trails maintenance add-on...................800,000
Pacific Crest Trail maintenance.............................200,000
________________

Total Congressional priorities............................2,686,000
================

Total Trails.............................................70,075,000
================

TOTAL Capital Improvement and Maintenance...............485,188,000
Infrastructure improvement, conservation category........61,000,000
________________

TOTAL with conservation category........................546,188,000

The conference agreement includes bill language proposed by
the Senate concerning a fiscal year 2001 appropriation for
improvements at the Hardwood Tree Improvement and
Regeneration Center at Purdue University, IN, and language
transferring a fiscal year 2001 appropriation for certain
recreational facilities near the Allegheny National Forest,
PA.
The managers concur with the Senate in providing $2,558,000
for the design, planning, and acquisition of property to
support the efficient collocation of the Mystic Ranger
District and the Rapid City Research Laboratory in South
Dakota. The managers have also included $500,000 for the
Hardwood Tree Improvement and Regeneration Center (HTIRC) at
Purdue University, IN. The managers emphasize that
construction of other facilities on the Black Hills National
Forest and further Federal funding for the Hardwood Tree
Improvement and Regeneration Center, IN, be proposed in the
agency budget justification using the normal process for
ranking and prioritizing facility needs. The Forest Service
should submit reports detailing all future funding needs for
these two projects no later than April 15, 2002. The
conference agreement does not provide $2,000,000 for the
Pike's Peak Highway as proposed by the Senate due to ongoing
litigation directly related to the project.
The managers encourage the Forest Service to establish a
suitable memorial for the four brave firefighters who lost
their lives July 10, 2001, at the Thirtymile fire near
Winthrop, WA.

land acquisition

The conference agreement provides $149,742,000 for land
acquisition instead of $130,877,000 as proposed by the House
and $128,877,000 as proposed by the Senate. Funds should be
distributed as follows:

Area (State) Amount
Allegheny NF (Allegheny Wild & Scenic Rivers) (PA).............$220,000
Arapaho NF (Beaver Brook) (CO)................................6,600,000
Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF (Watershed, RY Timber) (MT)...........7,000,000
Bonneville Shoreline Trail (UT)...............................1,000,000
Bridger-Teton NF (Feuz conservation easements) (WY)...........3,500,000
Chattahoochee NF (Mt. Yonah and Jacks River) (GA).............1,200,000
Chattooga W&SR/Watershed (NC/GA)..............................3,600,000
Cheq-Nicolet NF (Wisconsin Wild Waterways) (WI)...............2,500,000
Chippewa and Superior NF (MN Wilderness) (MN).................1,400,000
Cibola NF (La Madera) (NM)....................................3,000,000
Coconino NF (Hancock Ranch) (AZ)..............................4,000,000
Columbia River Gorge NSA (OR/WA)..............................6,000,000
Dakota Prairie Grasslands (Griffin Ranch) (ND)................1,450,000
Daniel Boone NF (Red River Gorge) (KY)........................2,037,000
Florida National Scenic Trail (FL)............................4,000,000
Francis Marion NF (SC)........................................7,000,000
Gallatin NF (Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem) (MT)..............3,500,000
Green Mtn. NF (including Prickly Hill, Blueberry Lake, and Gomez
tracts) (VT)................................................1,250,000
Hoosier NF (Unique Areas) (IN)................................1,500,000
I-90 Corridor/Plum Creek (WA).................................4,000,000
Idaho Wilderness/W&S Rivers--Sulphur Creek Ranch (ID/MT)......2,200,000
Lake Tahoe Basin MU (High Meadows) (CA).......................4,000,000
Lake Tahoe NF (Urban lots) (CA)...............................2,600,000
Lewis and Clark Historic Trail (ID/MT)........................1,500,000
Los Padres NF (Big Sur Ecosystem) (CA)........................7,660,000
Mark Twain NF (Ozark Mtn. Streams & Rivers) (MO)..............1,500,000
Midewin NTGP (IL)...............................................500,000
Ouchita NF (Lake Winona) (AR).................................1,500,000
Pacific Crest Trail (CA/WA/OR)................................2,000,000
Pacific Northwest Streams (Drift Creek and Davidson) (OR).....4,250,000
Payette NF (Thunder Mtn.).....................................1,000,000
Pisgah NF (Lake James) (NC)...................................2,500,000
San Bernardino NF (CA)........................................1,500,000
Santa Fe NF (Santa Fe Watershed) (NM).........................1,750,000
Sawtooth NF (easements--Sawtooth NRA) (ID)....................5,000,000
St. Francis NF (Stumpy Point, Anderson Tulley) (AR)...........1,500,000
Sumter NF (Broad River Corridor) (SC).........................1,500,000
Swan Valley Conservation Project (MT).........................7,000,000
Tahoe NF (North Fork Am. River) (CA)..........................1,700,000
Tongass NF, Admiralty NM (Favorite Bay, Mental Health Lands) (5,225,000
Uncompahgre NF (Red Mountain) (CO)............................4,600,000
Wayne NF (OH).................................................1,000,000
White Mtn. NF (Jericho Lake) (NH).............................2,000,000
White Mtn. NF (NH)............................................1,500,000
Wild and Scenic Rivers PNW (Skagit River) (WA)................2,000,000
________________

Subtotal................................................132,242,000
Wilderness Protection.........................................1,000,000
Critical Inholdings, Opportunities............................2,000,000
Cash Equalization.............................................1,500,000
Acquisition Management.......................................13,000,000
________________

Total...................................................149,742,000

The managers direct the Forest Service to continue its
ongoing work to implement an acquisition program for the
Pacific Crest Trail as rapidly as possible, utilizing
assistance from the National Park Service, if desirable.
Acquisition efforts should focus on properties where access
and public service needs are the greatest. A progress report
should be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations no later than March 1, 2002.

ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS SPECIAL ACTS

The conference agreement provides $1,069,000 for the
acquisition of lands for national forests special acts as
recommended by both the House and the Senate.

ACQUISITION OF LANDS TO COMPLETE LAND EXCHANGES

The conference agreement provides an indefinite
appropriation estimated to be $234,000 for the acquisition of
lands to complete land exchanges as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.

RANGE BETTERMENT FUND

The conference agreement provides an indefinite
appropriation estimated to be $3,290,000 for the range
betterment fund as proposed by both the House and the Senate.

GIFTS, DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS FOR FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

The conference agreement provides $92,000 for gifts,
donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.

MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL FOREST LANDS FOR SUBSISTENCE USES

The conference agreement provides $5,488,000 for management
of national forest system lands for subsistence uses in
Alaska as proposed by both the House and the Senate.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, FOREST SERVICE

The managers have modified bill language proposed by the
Senate concerning the use of funds for land exchanges and
have included language recommended by the Senate allowing the
Forest Service to transfer any funds available to the Forest
Service to the wildland fire management account during
wildfire emergencies. The conference agreement also includes
the House language prohibiting transfers to the USDA working
capital funds in excess of the fiscal year 2000 level without
advance approval from the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. The managers have included the Senate
proposed funding level for the administrative funds of the
National Forest Foundation and the managers have included
language expanding the National Forest Foundation board of
directors. The conference agreement includes the House
proposed bill language concerning the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation. The managers have not included the House
proposed bill language concerning the use and reimbursement
of detailees who are used for more than 30 days. Instead, the
managers direct the Secretary to provide written notification
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of any
employee to be detailed or assigned from an agency or office
funded by this Act to any other agency or office of the
Department for more than 60 days if the receiving office is
not going to reimburse the donor office for

[[Page 19268]]

detailee time in excess of 60 days. Such notification should
include the name of the employee to be detailed, the location
of the detail, the estimated length of the detail, and a
justification for the work to be performed during the detail.
The managers have agreed to revise instructions proposed by
the House regarding the management of trust funds. In place
of items numbered two and three in the House report, the
managers agree to the following: (1) the Forest Service is
directed to submit a detailed display in all future budget
justifications of the anticipated program of work for these
funds; (2) the plan shall provide sufficient detail to
explain and justify the program of work and expected
accomplishments in each region; and (3) the plan shall
contain a full explanation of how planned improvement
activities contribute to an integrated approach to forest
management in conjunction with activities planned to be
accomplished with discretionary funds.

Department of Energy

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(DEFERRAL)

The conference agreement provides for the deferral of
$40,000,000 in previously appropriated funds for the clean
coal technology program. These funds will become available on
October 1, 2002, to complete the remaining projects in this
program.

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The conference agreement provides $616,490,000 for fossil
energy research and development instead of $579,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $604,090,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Of the amount provided, $33,700,000 is derived by
transfer from previous clean coal technology appropriations
as proposed by the Senate. The numerical changes described
below are to the House recommended level.
There is a decrease of $33,700,000 for the clean coal power
initiative, which reflects the transfer of previously
appropriated funds in that amount from the clean coal
technology account. This transfer should not interfere with
the timely completion of the remaining, unfinished clean coal
technology projects. The funding provided for the clean coal
power initiative in fiscal year 2002 is $150,000,000.
In the innovations for existing plants activity, there is
an increase of $1,000,000 for materials research as part of
the vision 21 program. This increase originally was proposed
by the Senate under the advanced research account. Guidance
on its use is provided below.
In advanced systems, increases include $3,000,000 for ITM
oxygen research as part of the integrated gasification
combined cycle program, $3,000,000 for vision 21 advanced
combustion systems as part of the pressurized fluidized bed
program, and $3,000,000 for syngas applications in the
advanced turbine systems program. There is also a decrease of
$3,000,000 in general program activities in the turbine
program.
In distributed generation, increases include $2,000,000 for
electro-chemical engineering in the advanced research
program, $2,000,000 for systems development in the molten
carbonate fuel cells program, and $6,000,000 for the solid-
state energy conversion alliance in the innovative concepts
program.
In transportation fuels and chemicals, there is an increase
of $2,000,000 for the La Porte facility in Texas. The
managers expect the Department to continue existing projects
in the ultra clean fuels program. There is also an increase
of $1,000,000 in the ultra clean fuels program for a clean
diesel fuel program at the University of Alaska.
In solid fuels and feedstocks, there is an increase of
$3,000,000 for advanced separation technology.
In advanced fuels research, there are increases of $500,000
for C-1 chemistry and $1,700,000 in advanced concepts for
advanced products from coal, and a decrease of $1,000,000 for
advanced separation technology (which is addressed above
under solid fuels and feedstocks).
In advanced research, there is an increase of $2,000,000 in
the technology crosscut program for the Computational Center
of Excellence at the National Energy Technology Laboratory.
For natural gas technologies, there is an increase of
$950,000 in exploration and production for coalbed methane
water filtration research and increases in infrastructure
programs of $1,000,000 for infrastructure technology and
$1,000,000 for storage technology. There is also an increase
of $2,000,000 in emerging processing technology for the coal
mine methane program.
For oil technology, there is an increase of $3,000,000 in
exploration and production for arctic research by the Office
of Arctic Energy in Alaska and a decrease of $1,000,000 for
the Oil Prime program in advanced research. There is also a
decrease of $1,000,000 in the reservoir life extension
program for reservoir field demonstrations.
In cooperative research and development, there is an
increase of $2,240,000 for existing programs. Arctic
technology research is addressed in the oil technology
program above.
In general plant projects, there is a decrease of $900,000
in general plant projects for the National Energy Technology
Laboratory and an increase of $11,000,000 for the first year
of a 7-year program to upgrade the infrastructure at the
National Energy Technology Laboratory. This upgrade is
discussed in more detail below.
Finally, there is a decrease of $6,000,000, which reflects
the one-time use of unobligated prior year funds that are
available from a coal project that has been substantially
reworked, with resultant cost savings. This amount should be
restored to the base program in fiscal year 2003.
The managers are very supportive of the clean coal power
initiative and expect the Department to ensure that the
program is based on competitively awarded government-industry
partnerships that demonstrate technologies that can
strengthen electricity reliability for the Nation in an
environmentally clean manner. The managers agree that
industry will be required to provide at least 50 percent of
each project's cost and that all projects must use U.S.
coals, which must constitute at least 75 percent of the fuel.
Further, all co-production projects must provide at least
half of their output in the form of electricity.
The managers expect the Department to ensure that the
solicitation for proposals is open to technologies that will:
(1) reduce emissions of criteria pollutants (including
mercury) from both existing and new plants, including
management of plant byproducts; (2) improve the generation
efficiencies of existing and new plants through such
technologies as coal gasification; and/or (3) cost-
effectively manage carbon emissions.
The managers agree to the following:
1. The $1,000,000 in the innovations for existing plants
program for vision 21/materials is to accelerate the
development of advanced alloys and materials for high
efficiency, ultra-supercritical steam plants, allowing ultra-
supercritical steam conditions to be used in a variety of
fuel flexible, highly efficient, zero emission plants.
2. Available funding balances from contract closeouts may
be used without reprogramming to minimize disruptions to
ongoing research and development projects. Follow-on research
areas consistent with plans and schedules developed in
cooperation with industry partners, include ultra-
supercritical materials, computational and fuels focus areas
at the National Energy Technology Laboratory, gas-to-liquids,
advanced research on coal-based fuels, solid-state energy
conversion alliance (planar solid oxide fuel cells), vision
21/oxygen-based combustion, Wilsonville testing, power plant
sensors and controls, carbon dioxide capture and geologic
sequestration testing, and oil and gas offshore technology.
3. There is no earmark in the syngas ceramic membrane
funding for any specific program. The available funds should
be used to continue all existing projects as equitably as
possible.
4. The distribution of the increase above the budget
request for effective environmental protection programs in
the oil technology activity should be consistent with the
House recommendation.
5. The funding for risk assessment programs under the oil
technology activity assumes that the risk based data
management system will continue to be funded at the fiscal
year 2001 level.
6. Within the funds provided in oil technology for the
Office of Arctic Energy $1,000,000 is to support oxygen
transport ceramic membrane research.
7. The Department should review the fuel flexibility for
industrial boilers program developed by Pennsylvania State
University and consider incorporating follow-on work in this
area into the fiscal year 2003 budget priorities.
8. The $2,000,000 increase above the budget request for
distributed generation/vision 21 hybrids, included in both
the House and Senate recommendations, is for the tubular
solid oxide fuel cell program.
9. The increase above the budget request for the solid-
state energy conversion alliance under distributed
generation/innovative concepts is to be added to the base
funding for planar solid oxide fuel cell programs and is to
be used to continue existing projects, consistent with
program plans developed in cooperation with industry
partners. The managers understand that base funding for this
program will need to be increased substantially in fiscal
year 2003 to keep this program on schedule to meet critical
program goals.
10. Of the funds provided for turbine systems, $3,000,000
is for the industry/university consortium.
11. The Department should develop a five-year plan
reorienting the turbine program to support vision 21 and
focusing on the development of a technology base to increase
fuel flexibility (including coal) and efficiency as well as
reliability, availability, and maintainability, with low
emissions and low life cycle costs. The plan should be
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations no later than January 15, 2002.
12. In the carbon sequestration program, the Department
should continue and expand International Utility Efficiency
Partnerships as part of the U.S. Initiative on Joint
Implementation.
The conference agreement modifies bill language proposed by
the Senate earmarking

[[Page 19269]]

$11,000,000 for planning and design of an infrastructure
upgrade at the National Energy Technology Laboratory. The
modification provides land acquisition authority, which the
managers understand will be used on a limited basis. This
funding represents the first year of a 7-year improvement
plan for the Laboratory and the managers expect the
Department to keep this amount in the base budget for each of
the next 6 years.
The conference agreement includes bill language proposed by
the Senate deriving $33,700,000 by transfer from the clean
coal technology program to offset new budget authority in
fiscal year 2002. The managers note that this is a one-time
transfer and this amount will need to be restored to the
Fossil Energy Research and Development base budget in fiscal
year 2003.
The conference agreement also modifies language to extend
the proposal submission period for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative from 90 days to 150 days and to permit the
combining of fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 funds for
contract awards made in fiscal year 2003.

alternative fuels production

(rescission)

The conference agreement provides for the rescission of
$2,000,000 in unobligated balances from the alternative fuels
production account as proposed by the Senate instead of no
rescission as proposed by the House.

naval petroleum and oil shale reserves

The conference agreement provides $17,371,000 for the naval
petroleum and oil shale reserves as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.

elk hills school lands fund

The conference agreement provides $36,000,000 to become
available on October 1, 2002, for the Elk Hills school lands
fund as proposed by the Senate instead of $36,000,000 to be
derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the clean
coal technology account as proposed by the House.

energy conservation

The conference agreement provides $912,805,000 for energy
conservation instead of $940,805,000 as proposed by the House
and $870,805,000 as proposed by the Senate. The numerical
changes described below are to the House recommended level.
In building technology assistance, there are decreases of
$19,000,000 for the weatherization assistance program and
$17,000,000 for State energy conservation grants. There is
also an increase of $1,000,000 for the energy star program.
In industries of the future/crosscutting, there is an
increase of $2,000,000 for the innovations and inventions
program.
In transportation programs, there is a general increase of
$2,000,000 in technology deployment for the clean cities
program.
In policy and management, there is an increase of
$3,000,000 for the regional support offices.
The managers agree to the following:
1. The increase in funding for the regional support offices
is to restore base funding for these important entities. The
Department should do a better job of using these offices to
manage programs and projects and should not short-fund these
offices in future budget requests while protecting funding
for headquarters offices in Washington, DC. Funding
comparisons (prior year, current year, budget year) and
activity descriptions for each regional support office should
be included in the annual budget request beginning in fiscal
year 2003. The managers encourage the Department to consider
shifting resources from headquarters to the regional support
offices.
2. Consistent with the policy of fuel neutrality, no funds
are earmarked in the Clean Cities program for increasing E-85
fueling capacity. The managers encourage the Department to
give careful consideration to proposals that would help
increase such capacity, consistent with the goals of the
Clean Cities program.
3. Within the funds provided, the managers understand that
the Northwest Alliance for Transportation Technologies will
be funded at a higher level than in fiscal year 2001.
4. Within the transportation sector hybrid program, the
Department should continue 3 contracts through completion of
phase I of the advanced power electronics program and should
down select to 2 contracts, as planned, prior to funding the
next phase of the program.
5. Within the increase provided above the budget request
for lightweight materials technology in transportation
programs, the Department should foster research aimed at
developing lightweight composites for heavy vehicles in
conjunction with MSE, Inc.'s High Performance Materials
Group.
6. The Department should report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, within twelve months of the
date of enactment of this Act, on the technical and economic
barriers to the use of fuel cells in transportation, portable
power, stationary, and distributed generation applications.
The report should include recommendations on program
adjustments based on an assessment of the technical,
economic, and infrastructure requirements needed for the
commercial use of fuel cells for stationary and
transportation applications by 2012. Within six months of the
date of enactment of this Act, the Department should also
provide an interim assessment that describes preliminary
findings about the need for public and private cooperative
programs to demonstrate the use of fuel cells in commercial
scale applications.
The conference agreement earmarks $275,000,000 for energy
conservation grant programs instead of $311,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $251,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Within the funds provided, $230,000,000 is further
earmarked for weatherization assistance grants instead of
$249,000,000 as proposed by the House and $213,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate, and $45,000,000 is earmarked for
State energy conservation grants instead of $62,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $38,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
No statutory language on cost sharing for weatherization
grants is included in the conference agreement but the
managers strongly urge the Department to pursue actively such
cost sharing from State and local governments and other
entities. Detailed cost-sharing information (and the amount
of Federal funds provided) should be included for each State
or eligible entity in the budget submission for fiscal year
2003 and in future submissions.
The conference agreement includes statutory language
requiring that one-half of the funding made available in
fiscal year 2002 and thereafter for the energy efficiency
science initiative be managed by the fossil energy research
and development program. The managers expect the Department
to issue a single solicitation for this program that covers
both energy conservation and fossil energy programs.

economic regulation

The conference agreement provides $1,996,000 for economic
regulation as proposed by both the House and the Senate.

strategic petroleum reserve

The conference agreement provides $179,009,000 for the
strategic petroleum reserve as proposed by the House instead
of $169,009,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement modifies statutory language
contained in both the House and Senate bills, specifying that
``not to exceed'' $8,000,000 is for the Northeast Heating Oil
Reserve. If the full $8,000,000 is not needed, the managers
encourage the Department to apply any excess funds to the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve vapor pressure project to remove
excess heat and gas from the oil in the reserve. Funds for
this critical project should be continued in the base for
each of the next 3 years (at least at the $12 million level
provided in fiscal year 2002) so that it can be completed no
later than fiscal year 2005.

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

The conference agreement provides $78,499,000 for the
energy information administration as proposed by the House
instead of $75,499,000 as proposed by the Senate.

Department of Health and Human Services

Indian Health Service

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

The conference agreement provides $2,389,614,000 for Indian
health services instead of $2,390,014,000 as proposed by the
House and $2,388,614,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
numerical changes described below are to the House
recommended level.
For hospital and health clinic programs there are decreases
of $500,000 for Joslin diabetes programs and $500,000 for
technology upgrades. For Indian health professions there are
increases of $50,000 for the InPsych program at the
University of North Dakota, $50,000 for the InPsych program
at the University of Montana, and $500,000 for the InMed
program at the University of North Dakota.
The managers agree to the following:
1. The additional contract health services funding provided
for fiscal year 2002 should be distributed following a
methodology developed in consultation with the tribes. The
managers have received expressions of concern from many
different tribes on this issue and ask that the Service base
the funding distribution on a methodology that considers the
needs of all eligible tribes at the same time as addressing
disparities in funding.
2. The Service should continue to follow last year's
direction on the level of need funded methodology and the
distribution of the Indian health care improvement fund.
The conference agreement provides the House proposed
statutory earmarks for contract health services and contract
support costs. As in past years, there is no specific earmark
for any individual tribe for contract support costs.
The managers have not agreed to statutory language proposed
by the House dealing with certain limitations on contract
support costs. The managers believe the disparities between
BIA and IHS in the funding of contract support costs should
be resolved. While there has been some discussion of this
issue by the two agencies over the past few years, no
resolution to these differences has resulted. The managers
urge the Office of Management and Budget to serve as a
coordinator for further discussion of the issue with the two
agencies, with the goal of resolving existing discrepancies.
The Office of Management and Budget should address this issue
as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget request.

[[Page 19270]]

INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

The conference agreement provides $369,487,000 for Indian
health facilities instead of $369,795,000 as proposed by the
House and $362,854,000 as proposed by the Senate. The changes
to the House level are all in the hospital and clinic
construction category. The managers agree to the following
distribution of facilities construction funds (excluding
sanitation facilities):

Project Conference agreement
Fort Defiance, AZ (hospital and staff quarters).............$27,827,000
Pinon, AZ (clinic infrastructure).............................2,600,000
Winnebago, NE (hospital).....................................15,000,000
Red Mesa, AZ (clinic infrastructure)..........................5,000,000
Pawnee, OK (clinic infrastructure)............................5,000,000
Sisseton, SD (clinic infrastructure)..........................2,333,000
St. Paul and Metlakatla, AK (clinics infrastructure)..........5,500,000
Bethel, AK quarters...........................................5,000,000
Zuni, NM quarters.............................................2,000,000
Dental units..................................................1,000,000
Small ambulatory care facilities.............................10,000,000
Joint ventures................................................5,000,000
________________

Total...................................................$86,260,000

The managers agree to the following:
1. The funds provided for the Portland Area AMEX program
should remain in the base in fiscal year 2003 for addressing
the nationwide need for maintenance funds, and the Service
should request an increase to the base maintenance funding in
fiscal year 2003 to enable the Service to keep pace with the
expanding facilities infrastructure for Federal and tribal
facilities, including Alaska village-built clinics.
2. Given the tremendous unmet need for new and replacement
hospitals and clinics in Indian country, the managers urge
that, beginning in fiscal year 2003, the Department and the
Office of Management and Budget establish a recurring base
budget for hospital and clinic facilities construction rather
than building from a zero-based budget each year. The
managers suggest that the base amount for fiscal year 2003
should be at least $90,000,000 (the fiscal year 2002 level
plus inflation) and projects should be identified based on
the established priority list (including hospitals, clinics,
staff quarters, dental units, small ambulatory care
facilities, and joint ventures) to total the base funding
level.
3. The Service should use balances available from completed
construction projects to fund the additional site work and
infrastructure needs of the Pinon, AZ clinic and, to the
extent available, to fund additional site work and
infrastructure at the Red Mesa, AZ clinic.
4. The Service should continue funding for a new drinking
water system for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
reservation in Idaho to the extent such project is ranked
within the established sanitation facility priority ranking
system.
5. Rather than issuing a new solicitation for the small
ambulatory grant program in fiscal year 2002, the Service
should fund high priority, unfunded projects from the ranked
order list generated from the fiscal year 2001 application
process.
6. The Service should establish a reasonably low maximum
funding threshold for the small ambulatory grant program so
that several projects can be funded under that program each
fiscal year. The maximum amount should not be construed as
the amount available for each project, and the managers
expect that most projects will be funded well below the
maximum funding threshold.
7. The Service should ensure, in evaluating joint venture
proposals, that any needed staff quarters are included in
tribal construction proposals and that the cost of staff
quarters construction and all related costs are funded by the
tribe. Once constructed, staff quarters should be self-
supporting from revenues generated from rental fees. The
Service should not be responsible for any construction or
subsequent operating costs for staff quarters that are
associated with a joint venture.
The conference agreement includes statutory language that
modifies the Senate proposed language on the Bethel, AK
hospital staff quarters construction project. The
modification permits the use of funds for staff quarters
construction for sub-regional clinics in the Bethel area. The
managers expect that this authority will be used on a limited
basis only to the extent that such sub-regional staff
quarters fit within the agreed upon overall cost for the
Bethel staff quarters project and that there is no impact on
the effort now underway to provide an adequate number of
staff quarters at the Bethel hospital.
The conference agreement also includes statutory language
permitting the Service to accept donated land for the St.
Paul, AK clinic.

Other Related Agencies

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The conference agreement provides $15,148,000 for salaries
and expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation as proposed by the House and the Senate.

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development

PAYMENT TO THE INSTITUTE

The conference agreement provides $4,490,000 for payment to
the institute as proposed by the House and the Senate.

Smithsonian Institution

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The conference agreement provides $399,253,000 for salaries
and expenses at the Smithsonian Institution instead of
$396,200,000 as proposed by the House and $401,192,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Changes to the House proposed funding
levels for fiscal year 2002 are described below.
An increase of $1,497,000 is provided for the Smithsonian
Center for Materials Research and Education. Within this
amount, program funding for the Center is restored to the
fiscal year 2001 enacted level and an additional $128,000 is
included to meet anticipated annual pay costs. The managers
expect that no decision will be made on an earlier proposal
by Smithsonian management to eliminate this Center, as well
as the Conservation Research Center, until the Science
Commission has conducted a full evaluation of all science
programs at the Institution and reported their findings to
the Committees.
An increase of $26,000 is provided to the National Zoo for
the hiring of a curator and preliminary operations and
maintenance of the permanent Farm Exhibit, which is scheduled
to open to the public in the spring of 2003.
An increase of $200,000 is provided for the Smithsonian
Institution Libraries. This amount was proposed for reduction
in the fiscal year 2002 budget estimate, but has been
included by the managers in order to maintain the library at
the Museum Support Center that supports the Center for
Materials Research and Education.
An amount of $7,200,000 is provided within the
Administration line item to continue the Institution's
technology initiative. The Senate included $6,000,000 for
this work. The House included $7,645,000 for this effort, but
within the line item for Institution-wide Programs. The
managers expect that the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations will be provided with quarterly reports that
detail the Institution's progress with this initiative.
An increase of $58,000 is included to maintain existing
health clinics as proposed by the Senate.
An increase of $1,743,000 is included for the Office of
Protection Services. The budget estimate called for a
reduction of the guard force in this amount. In light of
recent events, the managers agree that it would not be
appropriate to implement this proposal.
A decrease of $7,645,000 has been taken to the Institution-
wide Programs line item. This amount was proposed by the
House to fund costs associated with the technology
initiative. As stated above, the managers recommend an amount
of $7,200,000, the budget estimate, for this activity and
have provided the funds within the Administration line item,
which includes the Office of Technology.
A general reduction of $26,000 to the House proposed level
has been taken to the Administration line item.
The conference report designates an amount of $37,508,000
to remain available until expended for the following
activities: the instrumentation program, collections
acquisition, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum
of the American Indian and the repatriation of skeletal
remains program. The House proposal included no such
designation for these activities. The Senate proposal
provided $43,713,000 to remain available until expended for
the activities listed above, as well as security funding and
institution-wide programs.
The conference report includes bill language proposed by
both the House and Senate instructing the Smithsonian to
adhere to the reprogramming procedures described in House
Report 105-163. In addition, the managers direct the
Smithsonian to submit a quarterly report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations that displays all
redirections of Federal funds, both above and below the
reprogramming threshold, for each quarter. By implementing
this reporting process, the Committees expect to gain a
better and more timely understanding of the Institution's
spending priorities throughout the fiscal year. Each of the
Bureaus within the Department of the Interior currently
submits a similar report.

REPAIR, RESTORATION AND ALTERATION OF FACILITIES

The conference agreement provides $67,900,000 for repair,
restoration and alteration of facilities as proposed by the
House and the Senate.
The managers direct the Smithsonian to assess its facility
maintenance program as a result of the National Academy of
Public Administration's recommendations. The Institution
should identify the current program, describe the desired
state, and provide an implementation plan with resource and
organizational requirements needed to achieve the necessary
maintenance level. The plan

[[Page 19271]]

should be reliability based with preventive, predictive,
proactive and reactive components utilizing a computer-based
maintenance management system. This plan should be submitted
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later
than December 15, 2001.

CONSTRUCTION

The conference agreement provides $30,000,000 for
construction of the National Museum of the American Indian as
proposed by the House, instead of $25,000,000 as proposed by
the Senate.

National Gallery of Art

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The conference agreement provides $68,967,000 for salaries
and expenses of the National Gallery of Art as proposed by
both the House and the Senate.

REPAIR, RESTORATION AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS

The conference agreement provides $14,220,000 for repair,
restoration and renovation of buildings as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

The conference agreement provides $15,000,000 for
operations and maintenance of the Kennedy Center as proposed
by the House and the Senate.

CONSTRUCTION

The conference agreement provides $19,000,000 for
construction as proposed by the House and the Senate.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The conference agreement provides $7,796,000 for salaries
and expenses of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars as proposed by the House and the Senate. Funds
should be distributed as follows:

Fellowship program...........................................$1,218,000
Scholar support.................................................615,000
Public service................................................2,164,000
General administration........................................1,656,000
Smithsonian fee.................................................208,000
Conference planning...........................................1,770,000
Space...........................................................165,000
________________

Total.....................................................7,796,000

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

National Endowment for the Arts

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

The conference agreement includes $98,234,000 for grants
and administration of the National Endowment for the Arts as
proposed by both the House and the Senate. The Challenge
America Arts Fund, a separate appropriation administered by
the NEA, is funded at $17,000,000, as indicated later in the
statement of the managers.

National Endowment for the Humanities

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

The conference agreement provides $108,382,000 for grants
and administration of the National Endowment for the
Humanities instead of $107,882,000 as proposed by the House
and $109,882,000 as proposed by the Senate. Increases above
the House funding level include $361,000 for Federal/State
partnerships, $217,000 for preservation and access, $155,000
for public programs, $145,000 for research programs, and
$150,000 for education programs. In agreement with the budget
estimate and the Senate proposal, the administration activity
is funded at $18,450,000, a reduction of $528,000 from the
House level. In addition to funds provided in this account,
further appropriations for the NEH are included in the
matching grants category below.

MATCHING GRANTS

The conference agreement provides $16,122,000 for matching
grants instead of $15,622,000 as proposed by the House and
the Senate. The agreement includes an increase of $500,000
for regional centers.

Institute of Museum and Library Services

OFFICE OF MUSEUM SERVICES

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

The conference agreement provides $26,899,000 for grants
and administration of the Office of Museum Services as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.

Challenge America Arts Fund

CHALLENGE AMERICA GRANTS

The conference agreement includes $17,000,000 for Challenge
America grants as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
This account is administered by the National Endowment for
the Arts according to all previously authorized requirements
and serves to provide additional funding for arts education
and outreach activities in rural and underserved areas.

Commission of Fine Arts

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The conference agreement provides $1,224,000 for salaries
and expenses of the Commission of Fine Arts instead of
$1,274,000 as proposed by the House and $1,174,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The conference agreement does not
include $100,000 for the management of a competitive grants
program as proposed in the budget estimate and proposed by
the House. The $50,000 increase above the Senate proposed
funding level is intended to meet the cost of technological
improvements, such as equipment and the development of a web
page, that will enable the Commission to have direct
communication with the public. Given the significant public
projects that come before the Commission, such as the World
War II Memorial, the managers believe it is in the public
interest to provide better access to the Commission's
activities and decisions.

National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs

The conference agreement provides $7,000,000 for National
Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The conference agreement provides $3,400,000 for salaries
and expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
as proposed by the House instead of $3,310,000 as proposed by
the Senate.

National Capital Planning Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The conference agreement provides $7,253,000 for salaries
and expenses of the National Capital Planning Commission as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

The conference agreement provides $36,028,000 for the
Holocaust Memorial Museum as proposed by the House and the
Senate.

Presidio Trust

PRESIDIO TRUST FUND

The conference agreement provides $23,125,000 for the
Presidio Trust Fund as proposed by the Senate instead of
$22,427,000 as proposed by the House.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

The conference agreement includes sections 301, and the
text of sections 314 through 317, and 320 through 322, which
were identical in both the House and the Senate bills,
although section numbers have been changed in some cases in
the conference agreement.
The conference agreement includes House sections 302
through 307, 309, 311, 318, 324, 325, and 330. Identical
language was proposed by the Senate in sections 303 through
308, 310, 312, 319, 325, 326, and 332.
Section 308 retains the text of section 309 as proposed by
the Senate concerning a pedestrian bridge between New Jersey
and Ellis Island. The House had similar language in section
308, but included text carried in last year's law.
Section 310 retains the text of section 311 as proposed by
the Senate, which limits payments for contract support costs
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
Service. The text of section 310 as proposed by the House is
identical except for the use of capitalization.
Section 312 modifies language in section 312 as proposed by
the House concerning an extension of the recreational fee
demonstration program. The managers have agreed to a two year
extension of this program through fiscal year 2004 rather
than the four year extension recommended by the House. The
managers have provided this extension to allow the
authorizing committees with jurisdiction to continue their
assessment of this program and to provide for a permanent
solution to this issue. The managers strongly encourage the
authorizing committees to address this matter forthwith so
short-term extensions via the appropriations process are no
longer germane. The managers have also modified the House
language by deleting subsection (e), which extended the
program to certain Forest Service special use permits. The
managers recommend that the authorizing committees examine
various options in this regard. The managers have retained
language proposed by the House and contained in Senate
recommended section 313 concerning the use of receipts from
this program to construct permanent structures when the total
cost of the facility exceeds $500,000. The managers note that
the recreational fee demonstration program has generated
substantial revenue, which has made a major impact on many
parks, forests, refuges and public land units. By the end of
fiscal year 2002, the program will have generated $937
million for the four participating agencies. The managers
continue to believe that a user fee program, which focuses
the fees directly to local, on-the-ground improvements, is an
essential tool to help fund major Federal recreational
assets. The managers expect the agencies implementing this
program to focus on public service, to work closely with
local communities and the recreational industry, and to use
the receipts to enhance visitor services and reduce the
backlog in deferred maintenance.
Section 317 retains the text of section 318 as proposed by
the Senate prohibiting the Forest Service from expending or
obligating appropriations in the Act to complete and issue
the 5-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act. The House had no similar provision.

[[Page 19272]]

Section 319 retains the text of section 319 as proposed by
the House prohibiting the use of funds in the Act for GSA
Telecommunication Centers. The Senate had no similar
provision.
Section 323 retains the text of section 323 as proposed by
the Senate. The language as proposed by the House in section
323 differed only in reference to fiscal years.
Section 326 retains the text of section 326 as proposed by
the House which gives preference to dislocated workers for
certain restoration contracts in the Giant Sequoia National
Monument and the Sequoia National Forest. Section 329 as
proposed by the Senate consisted of virtually identical text,
except for language extending the length of authorization.
Section 327 modifies the text of section 327 as proposed by
the House which provides that the Secretary of Agriculture
shall not be considered to be in violation of subparagraph
6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 solely because more than fifteen years
have passed without revision of the plan, including its
accompanying documents, for a unit of the National Forest
System. It is the managers' intent that the passage of more
than 15 years without revision of a plan for a unit of the
National Forest System shall not, in and of itself, cause a
violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (43
U.S.C. 4332). Instead, the standards at 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c)
and project-level NEPA requirements shall govern when a
supplemental or additional environmental impact statement is
required. It is the responsibility of the court to determine
whether the good faith requirement of this section has been
met and, if not, to order an accelerated schedule for plan
revision. The managers understand that all plans for units of
the National Forest System that will be revised during fiscal
year 2002 will be revised pursuant to current rules (36
C.F.R. Part 219 and Part 217). Given the intense interest in
the Administration's ongoing revision of forest planning
rules, the managers intend that this section will be in
effect for only one year. It is the managers' understanding
that the authorizing Committees must consider legislation
regarding this issue in the near future. The managers direct
the Forest Service to provide a detailed report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 31, 2002,
describing the status and activities regarding each National
forest unit land management plan. The report shall also
include a plan and schedule, along with funding needs, to
complete the forest plan revision process. The Senate had no
similar provision.
Section 328 retains the text of section 328 as proposed by
the House, which clarifies the requirement for mutually
significant benefits when the Forest Service conducts
cooperative agreements. The Senate had no similar provision.
Section 329 includes a minor technical modification of
section 329 as proposed by the House concerning the
conveyance of excess properties by the Forest Service. The
Senate had no similar provision.
Section 330 retains the text of section 331 as proposed by
the House which amends section 323 of the fiscal year 1999
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act by extending
for four years the cooperative agreements authority, thereby
allowing the Forest Service to enter into cooperative
agreements with willing Federal, tribal, State, and local
governments, private and non-profit entities and landowners
to implement watershed restoration agreements both on and
near National forest system lands. Section 331 as proposed by
the Senate was composed of similar language, but differed in
length of authorization.
Section 331 retains the text of section 333 as proposed by
the House that prohibits oil, natural gas and mining related
activities within current National Monument boundaries. The
Senate proposed similar language in section 128 under General
Provisions, Department of the Interior.
Section 332 modifies the text of section 327 as proposed by
the Senate expanding the number of stewardship end result
contracts available to the Forest Service. The modified
language extends the duration of the contracts by two years.
The House had no similar provision.
Section 333 retains the text of section 328 as proposed by
the Senate requiring that regulations and policies issued by
the Departments of the Interior or Agriculture regarding cost
recovery for processing authorizations adhere and incorporate
a specific principle arising from Office of Management and
Budget Circular, A-25. The House had no similar provision.
Section 334 modifies section 330 as proposed by the Senate
regarding a cabin within the boundary of the Custer National
Forest. After considering the special and unique
circumstances surrounding the use of this facility, the
managers agree to a provision that requires issuance of a
special use permit to Montana State University--Billings for
use of this cabin for a 20-year term, with a proviso for a
review of the cabin's use after 10 years. The managers expect
the agency to administer the permit in a manner that allows
the University to utilize the cabin's location for suitable
educational programs while recognizing the ecological and
cultural values associated with the cabin's location and
historical significance. The permit shall restrict use of the
cabin to educational and scientific activities overseen by
the University and necessary maintenance related to these
activities consistent with the cabin's location. The managers
expect the Forest Service to oversee the special use permit
under current standards to ensure the cabin's use is
consistent with this provision. The managers note that the
issuance of this special use permit to bolster educational
programs, while providing an opportunity to further enhance
resource management in the area, shall not be deemed to set
precedent for other structures within the national forest
system.
Section 336 retains the text of section 334 as proposed by
the Senate, which modifies the Steel Loan Guarantee program.
The House had no similar provision.
The conference agreement does not include language as
proposed by the Senate in section 302 concerning the leasing
of oil and natural gas on public lands within the Shawnee
National Forest, Illinois, or in section 324 prohibiting the
use of funds for the Kyoto Protocol, or in section 333 which
exempted residents within the boundaries of the White
Mountain National Forest from the recreation fee program. The
House had no similar provisions.
The conference agreement does not include language proposed
by the House in section 313 making a provision permanent that
exempts properties administered by the Presidio Trust from
certain taxes and assessments, since this provision was made
permanent in the fiscal year 2001 Interior Appropriations
Act, or in section 332 that prohibits funding for anyone
convicted of violating the ``Buy American Act,'' or in
section 334 that would have prohibited the use of funds to
execute a final lease agreement for oil and gas development
in the area of the Gulf of Mexico known as Lease Sale 181, or
in section 335 dealing with a limitation of funds for
revising hardrock mining regulation. The Senate had no
similar provisions.

[[Page 19273]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.058

[[Page 19274]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.059

[[Page 19275]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.060

[[Page 19276]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.061

[[Page 19277]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.062

[[Page 19278]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.063

[[Page 19279]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.064

[[Page 19280]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.065

[[Page 19281]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.066

[[Page 19282]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.067

[[Page 19283]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.068

[[Page 19284]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.069

[[Page 19285]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.070

[[Page 19286]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.071

[[Page 19287]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.072

[[Page 19288]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.073

[[Page 19289]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.074

[[Page 19290]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.075

[[Page 19291]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.076

[[Page 19292]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.077

[[Page 19293]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.078

[[Page 19294]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.079

[[Page 19295]]

CONFERENCE TOTAL--WITH COMPARISONS

The total new budget (obligational) authority for the
fiscal year 2002 recommended by the Committee of Conference,
with comparisons to the fiscal year 2001 amount, the 2002
budget estimates, and the House and Senate bills for 2002
follow:

[In thousands of dollars]

New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2001.......$18,892,320
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal year18,072,635
House bill, fiscal year 2002.................................18,863,855
Senate bill, fiscal year 2002................................18,644,035
Conference agreement, fiscal year 2002.......................19,078,220
Conference agreement compared with:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2001........+185,900
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal ye+1,005,585
House bill, fiscal year 2002.................................+214,365
Senate bill, fiscal year 2002................................+414,185

Joe Skeen,
Ralph Regula,
Jim Kolbe,
Charles H. Taylor,
George R. Nethercutt, Jr.,
Zach Wamp,
Jack Kingston,
John E. Peterson,
Bill Young,
Norman D. Dicks,
John P. Murtha,
James P. Moran,
Maurice Hinchey,
Martin Olav Sabo,
David Obey,
Managers on the Part of the House.

____________________

CONGRATULATING IRA LEESFIELD

(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has many outstanding
citizens. One such individual is Ira Leesfield, who will receive the
Anti-Defamation League's Jurisdiction Award. This award recognizes
individuals who have made an outstanding contribution to the legal
profession and the community at large while exemplifying the principles
upon which the Anti-Defamation League was founded.
Mr. Leesfield is one of the Nation's premier products liability and
consumer safety lawyers and currently serves as Florida's senior
governor on the board of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
The dedication he has shown to our country is evident throughout his
entire career. He has worked at the Department of Justice, has served
in the U.S. Army, and was appointed to important positions by both
former President Clinton and former Florida Governor Lawton Chiles.
Mr. Leesfield is actively involved in community service and has
strong commitments to the Miami Jewish Home for the Aged, Make-a-Wish
Foundation, the Boy Scouts of America, and the Florida and National
Committees to Prevent Child Abuse.
Please join me in congratulating Ira Leesfield for his contributions
and for the leadership he has shown to his local community and indeed
to our fine Nation.

____________________

MILITARY AT OUR BORDERS

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, Army at our airports, soldiers on our
trains, National Guard in our cities, military everywhere except our
borders. Our borders are still wide open. Unbelievable. Terrorists can
cross with ease and kill millions of Americans. Beam me up. Policemen
were not designed to fight a war, the military was.
I yield back the need for Congress to ensure the security and safety
of our borders to keep terrorists out; and we are not going to do it
with law enforcement. It is time to put the military at our borders.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Pursuant to clause 12 of rule
I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the
Chair.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 9 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

{time} 1319
____________________

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) at 1 o'clock and 19 minutes p.m.

____________________

MAKING IN ORDER AT ANY TIME CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3061, DEPARTMENTS OF
LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order at any time for the Speaker, as though pursuant to clause 2(b) of
rule XVIII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3061) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, and that
consideration of the bill proceed according to the following order:
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.
All points of order against the bill and against its consideration
are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis
of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose
in clause 8 of rule XVIII, and amendments so printed shall be
considered as read.
During consideration of the bill, points of order against amendments
for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are waived.
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, an amendment
had been prepared to be offered to be the Labor HHS appropriations
bill, an amendment that is very important, in fact, an amendment that
had been planned for quite a few months. This same amendment was going
to be offered to the education bill, but was withdrawn in the interest
of making sure that that education bill was passed this past spring.

[[Page 19296]]

An agreement was made that that amendment would be offered in the
Labor HHS appropriation. The rule had originally included the
protection of that amendment. However, as a sponsor of that amendment,
I have agreed to withdraw it. I am not withdrawing it because it is not
an important issue. I am not withdrawing it because of pressure by
anyone in particular. The amendment is actually being withdrawn in the
interest of the larger body and the passage of a bipartisan Labor HHS
appropriation bill.
The amendment is extremely important, and I need to make clear that
we will see the issue again. The issue is regarding something that
surprises and shocks a lot of people once they hear that it actually
happens in this country, and that is, that we know of at least 180
schools in the United States that hand out the morning-after pill to
minors. These same schools will not even give a child an aspirin for a
headache. Yet our law permits them to hand out the morning-after pill
to little girls.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, it was a difficult decision to withdraw this
amendment. Now my colleagues understand why. It is important for us as
Members of Congress to protect our children. Protecting our children,
in fact, is a large part of the things that are included in the Labor
HHS appropriation bill.
We are not certain of the safety of the morning-after pill,
especially its impact on very young women, those who would now receive
it in at least 180 of our schools. In fact, in Great Britain a 15-year-
old girl suffered a stroke after she had taken the pill at the age of
14.
The question, I think, that faces this body, and that will face this
body again, is are we willing to go to the extent that we need to to
protect our children? If a school cannot give a child an aspirin, why
does this Congress permit a school to give a little girl a morning-
after pill? That means, basically, that we are condoning, first of all,
that that little girl has admitted to having been sexually active,
likely at a very young age. Again, these are minors that are being
handed out the morning-after pill.
Concern has been raised with me ever since I became the sponsor of
this amendment in the spring by parents, by teachers, by church
leaders, by people I run into in the mall; and support for this
amendment has been expressed from all sectors. In fact, it has been
expressed by both pro-life and pro-choice people.
That is an important point to make, Mr. Speaker, because we should
not make this an abortion issue. This is an issue of little girls and
giving parents and schools the ability to take care of them, to protect
them, and to protect their health. Federal law currently permits the
use of these Federal funds to distribute the morning-after pill to
schoolchildren. Numerous courts have ruled that schools using Federal
funds for family planning services are forbidden to notify parents,
regardless of State parental consent notification laws.
Therefore, the amendment would prevent that by doing the following:
the amendment would have said that any school that distributes the
morning-after pill to these children would, therefore, not be able to
receive any Federal funding.
That is the only way, Mr. Speaker, that we will prevent these schools
from being social activists and encouraging, in a way, these young
ladies to be sexually active without any protection, and, in fact,
placing these children in danger of transmitting sexually transmitted
diseases and contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
Mr. Speaker, it is only sensible for us to consider this issue at
another time. I have had meetings this morning with leadership and have
been assured that I will be able to move this issue forward at another
time as a freestanding bill through the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. Hopefully, we will get the support of the members of that
committee. But until we do, Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to understand
that this Congress is continuing to allow the distribution of what is
and can be a very dangerous drug to these young ladies when that same
school cannot even give the girl an aspirin for a headache.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
H.R. 3061, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, and that I may
include tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.

____________________

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Pursuant to the order of the House of today and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 3061.

{time} 1326

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3061) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Combest in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the bill
is considered as having been read the first time.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the Members of the
Subcommittee and of the Full Committee for their help in getting this
bill to the floor. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for working with us on a bipartisan basis.
This is a far-reaching bill that touches the lives of every American,
and I think we have had a spirit of bipartisanship in both the
subcommittee and the full committee, with the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in their roles
as chairman and ranking minority members of the full committee.
I also want to thank the staff of both committees. They have worked
closely together to ensure that we have a good bill that does the
greatest amount of good for the American people. And I want to say a
special thanks to the associate staff of the members of our
subcommittee. They have been very helpful in letting us know and
letting the staff of our committee know what was important to their
members, so that we have tried to incorporate in this bill things that
are very positive in every way.
I have said early on that the Bible says there are two great
commandments, the first is to love your Lord and the second is to love
your neighbor. This committee is the ``love your neighbor committee,''
because there is not a life in America that is not touched by what we
do.
We could spend a lot of time, but we do not have a lot of time, so I
do want to highlight some of the important things in this bill that are
very essential, very important to the American people.
The fiscal year 2002 Labor, Health and Human Services appropriation
bill

[[Page 19297]]

totals $123.371 billion. And I might say here that Chairman Young and
Ranking Member Obey worked closely with OMB in arriving at the number
we needed to do this bill in the best possible fashion.
Also I want to say at the outset it is my understanding that the
Office of Management and Budget will have a letter to us supporting
what is in this bill, That is, the Administration.

{time} 1330

It is the result of 2 months of subcommittee hearings in which we
heard testimony from three Cabinet Secretaries, numerous agency heads,
as well as 180 public witnesses. The bill provide $14 billion for the
Department of Labor, which includes a $75 million increase for the very
popular Job Corp program, $53 million for discretionary programs at the
Department of Health and Human Services, including $393 million for
bioterrorism protections.
And I might mention at this point that we added $100 million over
what we had originally planned on as a result of the events just 30
days ago. So we have a very substantial sum to give the Centers for
Disease Control in Atlanta to respond to bioterrorism concerns.
We have an increase of $22.8 million for biomedical research
activities at the National Institutes of Health. And, finally, the bill
provides increases for the Department of Education, totaling $4.7
billion above the President's request, and I might say it is in
conformance with H.R. 1, which passed this House by a very sizable
majority.
Mr. Chairman, many in this Chamber as well as the general public have
been awaiting the movement of this bill over the past months. The
primary reason for its delay over the summer has been our interest in
seeing the Committee on Education and the Workforce complete their work
in authorizing comprehensive reform for our elementary and secondary
education program, the President's number one domestic priority.
Although the conference on this legislation is not yet complete, we
have taken the format of the House passed version of H.R. 1 in crafting
this bill. As many of you are aware, the bill received an increase in
its allocation to address the priorities of education reform $4.2
billion of the $4.7 billion increase in the original allocation is
devoted to three areas of education funding: Title I funding for the
disadvantaged, Special Education and Pell Grants. And I am pleased that
we could increase Pell Grants because this helps those students who do
not have the necessary resources to get an opportunity to get education
beyond high school.
Education programs for the disadvantaged based upon H.R. 1, the No
Child Left Behind Act, are funded at $10.5 billion. While this funding
level is a significant increase over last year, I want to highlight a
major difference in the program over previous years. Under this bill
and its underlying authorization, schools are now being held
accountable to children and their parents for achieving success in
reading and math. Gone are the days when Federal dollars flow to States
and local education and counties with no accountability. The
disadvantaged children of this country will no longer be permitted to
be pushed along from grade to grade with little hope for their futures.
As a former teacher and principal myself, I recognize the vital role
of a good teacher in ensuring the success of a student. I appreciate
the work of the authorizers in recognizing this as well in title II of
H.R. 1. We have provided $3.175 billion in this bill for teacher
quality programs. These programs include both training for teachers
just entering the field and continuing education for those already
teaching.
In addition, we have provided $50 million for the Transition to
Teaching/Troops to Teachers Program. I would especially highlight the
Troops to Teachers Program, to which our First Lady Laura Bush is
devoting a great deal of her time. This program will assist retiring
members of our military by facilitating the necessary steps for teacher
certification, enabling them to move into the field of teaching for
their second careers. They bring to this field a vast amount of
experience, both in working with people as well as experience and in
many locations around the world. Our dedicated service men and women
often have extensive knowledge and expertise in science and math, the
very subjects that so many of our children are struggling with in the
school experience.
Further, these military personnel have attained a level of maturity
and organization that would be of great benefit to our schools today. I
personally am very enthused about this program and its potential for
our Nation's leaders, and I am grateful to our First Lady for her
leadership in attempting to make it a success.
Next, we know how important the early years of learning are to
promoting reading readiness. To assist our Nation's youngest children
in obtaining these vital tools for reading, we are funding two new
programs in the President's budget request, Reading First State Grants
and Early Reading First. These programs are intended to enable children
to derive the necessary tools for success in reading, including
phonemic awareness, alphabetic knowledge and vocabulary. I know from my
own experience as an elementary principal that you have to read before
you can go into science, math and the other disciplines. Reading
becomes fundamental.
Consistent with H.R. 1, our bill eliminates 35 programs in the
Department of Education, consolidating and streamlining them and
granting maximum flexibility to States and local education agencies to
use funds to best meet the needs of their students. Again, we will put
the money where it helps children and not so much in administrative
costs.
Many Members have expressed their concerns about the level of Federal
funding for Special Education. The fiscal year 2002 bill provides $7.7
billion for grants to the States for Special Education. This level is
the highest ever for Special Education. As I mentioned earlier, the
House and Senate education committees have not yet completed their
conference on H.R. 1 and the issue of how special education is funded
in the future has been an issue for the conference.
The Senate version of the bill included a provision to take funding
for special ed out of discretionary spending and instead provide for it
through mandatory spending. I want to emphasize that the proposal is
the wrong way to approach this type of funding. We need to have
oversight to make sure these programs are reaching the students that we
want, and that the money is used wisely and carefully.
We are aware of numerous problems with the program, and only when the
funding remains on budget is it accountable to the people through
annual review of the Congress through the appropriations process.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the Secretary of Education for his
announcement this past week of a special commission to examine the
special education program and make recommendations for improving it. It
is through this process that we can improve the program and more
effectively fund the many needs of our Nation's children in need of
special education services.
Finally, we all recognize the importance of higher education in
meeting the needs of our 21st century global economy. Higher education
expenses continue to increase at a higher level than inflation,
presenting a major barrier for low-income students.
I am pleased to report that the bill includes an increase in funding
for the Pell Grant programs which would bring the maximum grant level
to $4,000, the highest in history.
The tragic events of September 11 have changed the lives of us all.
While we are now focusing on terrorism around the world, we must make
every effort to protect our citizens at home. Through several accounts
within the Department of Health and Human Services, we are working to
prepare our public health agencies to respond to bioterrorism threats.
We have provided a total of $393 million to address these needs.

[[Page 19298]]

Here at home the health and well-being of our citizens, not just in
the area of bioterrorism, but otherwise, must remain a priority for us
all.
The bill provides an increase of $22.8 million for biomedical
research activities at the National Institutes of Health. This increase
is the same programmatic increase requested by the President.
During the course of our public witness hearings over 7 full days, a
majority of our witnesses testified about diseases afflicting either
themselves or a loved one. They appeared before our subcommittee
seeking hope, hope for successful treatment and cures for these
diseases. Our members have been touched by this testimony, and we are
committed to providing funding so that the best and brightest
researchers in our Nation, and I might say the most dedicated, may work
to achieve the hope of so many of our citizens. Whether it is hope for
my young constituent in North Canton, Ohio, who suffers from juvenile
diabetes, or an older constituent in my district who in his middle
years has received the devastating diagnosis of Parkinson's disease,
funds for research are the hope we can provide.
The countless scientific breakthroughs and studies we have already
funded have given us a great deal of knowledge in how to prevent
disease and illness. It is incumbent upon us to share this knowledge to
improve the health of the Nation. Through the good work of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, we are getting the messages of
prevention out.
In total, the bill provides $4 billion directly to the Centers for
Disease Control. Its work includes efforts to prevent chronic diseases
such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke by promoting healthy
lifestyles.
Through the work of CDC's epidemic officers, we can bring important
assistance and assurances to communities when disease outbreaks occur,
as they did in my district this past spring. Students at a high school
in my district contracted meningitis, a severe illness with potentially
life-threatening consequences. The Centers for Disease Control,
together with the Department of Health, worked to bring the outbreak
under control and prevent its spread. The presence of CDC brought a
sense of security to the community.
Our Nation's community health centers, funded through the Health
Resources and Services Administration, represent an important health
care option for the underserved. A funding priority for the President,
we are providing $1.3 billion for these centers, which is an increase
of $150 million over last year's bill and $26 million over the
President's request. These take the place in many areas of emergency
rooms and provide a much better source of health care on an easy-to-
get-to basis.
This bill supports our country's comprehensive effort to aggressively
combat HIV/AIDS, an epidemic claiming 40,000 new victims each year. It
provides $112 million for the Ryan White AIDS programs, which enable
individuals to access needed medical care and support services. The
bill provides $844 million for programs at the CDC which fund research,
surveillance, as well as State and local efforts to prevent the spread
of this disease. It continues to support the groundbreaking research
funded by NIH that could lead to improved treatments and, hopefully, a
cure one day.
Through all these programs, this bill continues to support the
Minority AIDS Initiative, which seeks to address the disproportionate
impact of HIV/AIDS among racial and ethnic minorities.
We have included a total of $40 million for abstinence only education
programs. This amount is $10 million over the President's budget
request and $20 million over last year.
The training of pediatricians and pediatric specialists is an
important priority. I am pleased to report that the bill funds
Children's Graduate Medical Education at the full authorization level
of $285 million.
Following the President's lead, this bill commits substantial
resources to deal with our Nation's substance abuse program. It
provides over $2 billion, an increase of $121 million from the previous
fiscal year. Some of these funds will support the development of new
prevention and treatment models and improve the delivery of services to
the homeless population. Over $1.7 billion will be allocated for State
substance abuse block grants, which support alcohol and drug abuse
prevention, treatment and rehabilitation services.
The bill represents security in so many ways for so many people,
including funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program at
$2 billion, the highest level ever.
In addressing the President's Faith-Based Initiative, I am pleased to
report that we have funded two programs in the budget request: The Safe
and Stable Families Program at $70 million and the Compassion Capital
Fund at $30 million for a total of $100 million.
The bill funds the Head Start Program at $6.4 billion, allowing for a
continuation of the same level of services. It is a $276 million
increase, and we are urging through report language that Head Start put
more emphasis on education programs in their areas.
This bill supports a number of efforts to improve the health and
quality of life of older Americans. It provides a $10 million increase
for programs designed to enhance the training of health professionals
in geriatrics, so they can better understand and respond to the health
needs of our aging population, and a number of other things that are
important to seniors, foster grandparents and so on.
The Department of Labor will receive a total of $14 billion in this
bill to address growing needs in Workforce Investment Act job training
as a result of our slowing economy. We provide $105 million over fiscal
year 2001.

{time} 1345

One compelling public witness who appeared before our committee
addressed funding for Job Corps. This gentleman, now an employee of
Roto Rooter in Cincinnati, told us of how his training at a Job Corps
center and the job he now holds as a result has changed his life. He
now has hope for his future when before he had none. I think we forget
when we do these bills how they really touch the lives of people, and
he was such a classic example of how important this program was to his
future and what a great difference it has made.
Independent agencies. We gave the Social Security Administration
additional funds so that when people need help in understanding their
Social Security situation, there will be enough staff to take care of
them.
We worked with the Institute of Museum and Library Services, again an
important agency for the people of America. Libraries in communities
across this Nation are windows of opportunity for so many young and
elderly people alike.
The bill before you is a balanced, bipartisan bill. Through the
numerous programs I have just described and the many I have not had
time to mention, the bill provides security and hope for our citizens
in greatest need.
I say to my colleagues, I ask for your support of passage of this
bill. It is a good bill. It is a fair bill. It tries in a balanced way
to address the multiplicity of needs, and it does show that we are a
good neighbor, that this Nation cares about the quality of life for all
its citizens.

[[Page 19299]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.001

[[Page 19300]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.002

[[Page 19301]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.003

[[Page 19302]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.004

[[Page 19303]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.005

[[Page 19304]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.006

[[Page 19305]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.007

[[Page 19306]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.008

[[Page 19307]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.009

[[Page 19308]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.010

[[Page 19309]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.011

[[Page 19310]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.012

[[Page 19311]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.013

[[Page 19312]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.014

[[Page 19313]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.015

[[Page 19314]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.016

[[Page 19315]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.017

[[Page 19316]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.018

[[Page 19317]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.019

[[Page 19318]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.020

[[Page 19319]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.021

[[Page 19320]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.022

[[Page 19321]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.023

[[Page 19322]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.024

[[Page 19323]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.025

[[Page 19324]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.026

[[Page 19325]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.027

[[Page 19326]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.028

[[Page 19327]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.029

[[Page 19328]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.030

[[Page 19329]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.031

[[Page 19330]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.032

[[Page 19331]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.033

[[Page 19332]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.034

[[Page 19333]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.035

[[Page 19334]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.036

[[Page 19335]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.037

[[Page 19336]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.038

[[Page 19337]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.039

[[Page 19338]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.040

[[Page 19339]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.041

[[Page 19340]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.042

[[Page 19341]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.043

[[Page 19342]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.044

[[Page 19343]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.045

[[Page 19344]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.046

[[Page 19345]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.047

[[Page 19346]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.048

[[Page 19347]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.049

[[Page 19348]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.050

[[Page 19349]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.051

[[Page 19350]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.052

[[Page 19351]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.053

[[Page 19352]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.054

[[Page 19353]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.055

[[Page 19354]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.056

[[Page 19355]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC01.057

[[Page 19356]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 11 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, Jim Dyer, Craig Higgins, Carol Murphy, Meg Synder,
Susan Firth, Nicole Wheeler, Francine Mack-Salvador, Lori Rowley, David
Reich, Cheryl Smith, Linda Pagelson, Lin Liu, David Pomerantz, Scott
Lilly, Bob Bonner, Melody Clark, Christina Hamilton, Norm Suchar, Dayle
Lewis, Scott Boule, Kristin Holman, Charles Dujon, Matt Braunstein,
Chris Kukla and the associate staff on the majority side: What do all
of those names have in common? They are the people who really put
together this bill. Every Member of the House will have an opportunity
to vote on this bill, and I think we can do that proudly, because I
think it is a good bill. But the people who worked just as hard and, in
fact, probably harder and the people who worked out many of the
compromises that were needed to produce a bill which is truly a
bipartisan bill were the people whom I just named. I want to express my
appreciation to each and every one of them, because without them, we
would not be able to deliver what we are delivering to the American
people here today.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, this bill ought to be named the Family
Opportunity and Health Security Act of 2001, because this bill, more
than any other bill that we deal with, provides opportunity for average
working families to share in the goodness that this society provides.
And it also provides for the improvement of the health of every single
American and, in fact, probably every single person in the world who is
within the reach of any kind of civilized medicine. I think we ought to
be very proud of that.
This is the second bipartisan bill that we have had on labor, health
and education and social services in the last 7 years, and I hope that
it is going to be the first of a long series of bipartisan bills in the
future. This bill is the place that you go to measure congressional
commitment to equal opportunity in education, to worker protection,
worker fairness at the bargaining table. It is the place you go to see
what our society will do to help those who are unlucky enough to be
without health care or who have special problems in the health care
area and need special help. It is the place where virtually every
family goes to obtain advances in medical care. And it is the place
where many people in this society go who live life on the underside to
find some help and some relief from the pain and pressure of their
daily problems. And I would say it is also the place where we go if we
want to have some measure of the determination that is being applied,
the human ingenuity that is being applied, in order to unlock the
scientific mysteries of disease and its treatment and to protect public
health. And each and every Member of this House can be proud to vote
for this bill.
The bill is $12 billion over last year and I make an apology for
absolutely not one dollar. I wish it had been more, because the
families in this country who are serviced by this bill need more help
than this bill will provide. The bill is $7 billion above the
President, and I am pleased about that.
In the area of education, for the past 5 years this Congress has
produced an education bill which provides about a 13 percent increase
on average. The President's budget this year initially recommended that
that increase be cut to 5.8 percent. This bill provides a 17 percent
increase in funding for education. There is no more important long-term
investment that we can make than that one.
In the area of education, special education, Mr. Chairman, is the
third largest item in this bill. It is funded at $375 million above the
President's recommendation. We have $7.7 billion in the bill. In 2
years we will have increased the Federal share of the cost of providing
special education by 50 percent, and I hope we can increase it by 50
percent again in the next 2 years.
Title I is the main program that we use to try to provide extra
educational help to the children who need it most, disadvantaged
children who are at risk of dropping out and never making it, either in
school or in society. This bill provides $10.5 billion, $1.4 billion
over the President's request, $1.7 billion over last year. This is the
largest increase in that program in the history of the program.
Pell Grants. That is the main program by which we assist average
working-class families in this country to send their kids to college.
It is a real door-opener to higher education opportunity. We provide in
this bill a $4,000 maximum grant for those who qualify, $150 over the
President's request, $250 over last year. Every dollar is well spent
and will be well received by the American people.
The block grant for teacher training and class size reduction, $1
billion over last year and $575 million over the budget recommendation.
After-school centers, $154 million above the request. That program is
in demand more than almost any I know in this bill, because as
families' life-styles have changed, so have their needs to see to it
that their children at all times will be in healthy, wholesome places.
There is no more treacherous time for children from the age of 12 to 15
than the after-school hours. That is when most of the juvenile crime is
committed in this country and that is when we need the most supervision
of kids, and this program, I hope, will be an ever-expanding program to
help provide that supervision.
In the area of health care, we are $1.3 billion above the President,
$3.4 billion above last year. Community health centers, we are $26
million above the President. That has also been a high priority item
for the President himself. For Healthy Start, we are $102 million in
this bill, $12 million again above the budget request.
Centers for Disease Control, crucial in these times when we are
concerned about public health, when we see the anthrax concerns in
Florida, we are $265 million above last year, $430 million above the
President's request. For bioterrorism, we have a 28 percent increase
above last year and the President's budget and in a follow-on
appropriation bill we will have substantially more money than we have
in this bill for that same item.
Mental health, $68 million above the President. There ought to be
more. We have serious problems that are not being met in that area.
Human services. The Low-Income Heating Assistance Program that helps
keep low-income senior citizens warm in the wintertime so they do not
have to choose between heating and eating, $300 million above the
President's request. I wish it could be more. Head Start, $276 million
above last year.
In the area of the Labor Department, all of the personnel cuts in
OSHA and Mine Safety have been eliminated. And we have added what I
consider to be all too modest increases in other worker protection
accounts. The international labor program that helps defend our workers
and our country from the production of goods and services by slave
labor and child labor abroad, we have restored fully the cuts that were
recommended in the White House budget.
Title VI, foreign language studies. As I said in Committee, when the
Russians invaded Afghanistan a number of years ago, we did not have
enough language specialists to respond in the correct language. So our
information services responded in Farsi. That did not help anybody in
Afghanistan. They may have understood it in Iran, but they did not
understand it in Afghanistan. We missed the target a little bit. Since
then, what has happened in that area? Almost nothing. That is why we
have a 19 percent increase in this bill. As you know, we also had an
increase in another bill for the same item that passed this House last
week.
All in all, this bill is far from perfect. I think given the needs of
our society, we need more in education, in health care and in worker
protection, but this is a very good bill given the circumstances in
which we found ourselves in January. I very much appreciate the efforts
made by the majority to make this a bipartisan bill. I very much
appreciate the professionalism with which this bill has been approached
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished subcommittee
chairman, and also the distinguished gentleman from Florida

[[Page 19357]]

(Mr. Young). He and I have many, many political differences. We do not
have very many personal differences. We have disagreed many times but
we have dealt with each other, I think, in a straight-shooting way. And
I appreciate the fact that after some concern on this bill, we have
brought a bill to this floor today under the rules of the House which
treats everyone fairly and respectfully. And I think because of that,
we are going to see a very large vote for this bill on both sides of
the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee.
Again I want to emphasize how much help he and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in his role as ranking on the full committee have
provided to us to make this bill the success that I think it is.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this very good
appropriations bill for our educational systems, for our health
systems, for our labor programs and all of the associated programs
represented by this bill. I want to add my compliments to Chairman
Regula. For years, Chairman Regula chaired the Subcommittee on the
Interior and did an outstanding job. This is his first time to chair
this very important subcommittee, and he and Ranking Member Obey have
presented a bill that I think we can all be very, very proud of. The
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) have explained much of the detail of the bill and I am not going
to reiterate that.
I would like our Members to know that they might be a little
surprised to see the bipartisanship in this debate today, but it was
nearly 4 months ago that Chairman Regula, Ranking Member Obey and I sat
together and decided that we really ought to make this a good bill that
represents the needs of America rather than anyone's political agenda.
That is what we have done and that is what we present to you today.
This is the second largest appropriations bill of our 13 regular bills,
the first being national defense.

{time} 1400

Each one equally is important. National defense and the defense
appropriations provide what is needed to secure America; this bill
provides what is needed to secure the people of America in their
personal needs, their health needs, their educational needs. The
subcommittee has done a really great job in bringing this bill before
us.
I wanted to compliment the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
I listened attentively to her comments earlier today. She discussed an
important issue. But I really appreciate and thank her for the
statesmanlike way that she addressed not only the issue, but the way
she addressed the legislative process. I think she is to be
complimented for the way she has handled herself on this particular
issue.
It was important today to get this bill completed. It is the next to
the last of the regular appropriations bills. The next one and the last
one will be National Defense.
Then we change direction and go to the conference reports. We plan
today to have the first conference report of a regular bill, the
Interior bill, on the floor; and we will move quickly to conferencing
all of the other bills that have been passed by both the House and the
Senate. And hopefully our Members can look forward to early dismissal
on the part of appropriations bills.
We will also be required to do another continuing resolution for
approximately 1 week, which hopefully again we will do that this
afternoon as well.
With that, I would just like to again compliment the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula) for an outstanding job, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) for an outstanding job, and all the members of the
subcommittee and the staff on both sides of the political aisle for
producing a good bill for Americans, one we can all be proud of.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise initially, as I said in full committee,
I have had the opportunity to serve on this subcommittee now for 18
years. It has been led by some extraordinary Americans on both sides of
the aisle. I started my service under Mr. Natcher. Bill Natcher of
Kentucky was a legend in this institution. During the course of his
service, he cast more consecutive votes than any person in history, a
compliment to his sense of responsibility and his extraordinary self
discipline. Succeeding him was Mr. Smith, and then the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and then Mr. Porter. When the Republicans took
control in 1995, John Porter succeeded to the chairmanship, and he did
an extraordinary job in a bipartisan fashion.
This bill, however, was not always treated in a bipartisan fashion,
as we know, not, frankly, because of the appropriators or the chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, but because of the extrinsic forces
that came on to the committee with reference to caps on spending that
were totally unrealistic and therefore led to either the bill being
considered in a partisan fashion or, in fact, 1 year not being
considered at all on the floor of the House and ultimately being
considered in an omnibus appropriations bill.
But this year, this is a real bill; and it is a good bill. It is not
a perfect bill. In fact, of course, we never pass perfect bills. But
this bill is unique. It is in so many ways the people's bill, because
it affects literally millions and millions, not only of Americans, but
people around the world, who benefit from the research at NIH and who
benefit from other facets of this legislation. But clearly the American
people are advantaged by this bill.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is absolutely correct when he
says there are insufficient resources in this bill. When you sit in
markup on both sides of the aisle, liberals, conservatives, East, West,
North and South, Members say there needs to be more in this program or
that program. I am going to speak about a couple of them briefly.
But this basically is a good bill; and I will support it, as the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to support it.
I want to again say, as I do almost every time I stand, because I
think it is important for the American public to know the kind of
leadership we have on critically important committees, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) is the epitome of fairness, integrity and
bipartisanship. His view is on America's well-being, not on partisan
gain. Those of us who serve with him are advantaged by doing so. I
thank him for his leadership.
The good news for our subcommittee is that the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula) falls into the same category of a person focused on
America, on Americans, and the country's interests, not on partisan
interests. Therefore, this advantages this bill and our country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me mention a couple of issues, if I might,
that I am very concerned about. The National Immunization Program at
CDC receives a significant increase in this bill; and I thank the
chairman of the subcommittee for that, an increase of $47.5 million
over fiscal year 2001. But that is still only half the level that the
Institute of Medicine recommended in its report last year for State
operations and infrastructure and vaccine purchase.
As the recent report on anthrax in Florida has proven to us, the
threat of a biological attack on this Nation is a very real one. I just
got off the phone doing a tape for radio with reference to yesterday's
incident on a Metro train. As a result, we need to do all we can to
ensure that our public health system is able to respond in the event of
attack.
I will say more about this when we mark up in conference. I know that
there will be some emergency monies available for this objective as
well at CDC.

[[Page 19358]]

My understanding is the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, has
suggested as much as a half a billion dollars increase in CDC to
anticipate and deal with appropriate response in the event of a
biological or chemical threat to the health of a city, a region, or our
country.
Let me discuss one additional issue, Mr. Chairman, briefly; and that
is the Assistive Technology Act of 1989. I bring that up not because we
will add more money to this bill for that objective, but because I am
hoping in conference we can add some authorizing legislation. Obviously
it must be done with agreement of the authorizers, both in the House
and Senate. I understand that, and we are working with them.
But if we fail to do so, nine States are going to lose assistance to
make assistive technology available to those with disabilities so that
they can be more able to participate fully in our society, whether it
is jobs or in their home. I appreciate the chairman's concern about
this and that he is working with us; and I appreciate the assistance of
the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), with this
effort as well.
If we do not do something next year, nine States in 2002 will lose
dollars; and 14 States will lose dollars in 2003 if we do not take
action. I am hopeful we will do so, because this assistive technology
is extraordinarily important to those challenged with disabilities to
be fully incorporated into our society. That was the promise of the
Americans with Disabilities Act which President Bush signed on July 26,
1990; and it is an effort that we ought to make to ensure that that
promise is fully met.
Again, I thank the chairman of the full committee; and I thank the
chairman of the subcommittee and our ranking member for working so
diligently to make this bill within the resources available to us the
best it could possibly be.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), one of the pride and joys of Ohio, our chairman of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has done an
outstanding job of providing reforms that will make sure that no child
is left behind.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague from Ohio for
yielding and begin by congratulating the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), and others who have worked so diligently over the
last several months in putting together what truly is a bipartisan bill
that we have on the floor today. All of us who have been here for any
length of time know the difficulty this bill endures every year, and it
is a real tribute to the three of you and the others involved in
bringing this bill together.
Like the House-passed education reform bill that preceded it, the
bipartisan bill that we have on the floor today by our appropriations
colleagues represents a reasonable and necessary compromise between
Republicans and Democrats on education spending levels.
The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) deserve great credit for their work, which follows
H.R. 1 closely and paves the way for reforms that will improve public
education for millions of American children. Like H.R. 1, it calls for
more funding to implement long overdue education reforms. Like H.R. 1,
it targets funding toward key programs, such as title I, to reflect the
Federal Government's original mission in education, and that is helping
those students who need the help the most.
It increases title I from the current $8.6 billion per year to $10.5
billion, a down payment on our shared goal of closing the achievement
gap between disadvantaged students and their peers.
It triples funding for reading programs to $900 million to implement
the President's Reading First initiative and helps schools implement
programs based on scientific research.
It increases funding for teachers program by $1 billion a year to
implement and make sure that States and schools can put the best-
qualified teachers in each of our classrooms.
It increases bilingual education from $460 million a year to $700
million a year.
It increases funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
(Part B) by $1.4 billion over last year's number. We should all
recognize that the increases that we have given to IDEA over the last 6
years have more than doubled funding for students with disabilities;
and this increase that we have in this bill, I think, is a giant step
forward in meeting our long-term obligation.
The bill also increases Pell Grants by $1.7 billion over last year's
level and increases the maximum award granted to $4,000 per student. In
a time of a slow economy, this $4,000 in Pell Grants will help the
neediest of our high school graduates get the kind of education and
training they need.
These funding increases should be complemented by the enactment of
historic reforms that are at the core of the President's education
plan. The new accountability that we see in the President's package
will help us stem what has been going on in this town for a long time.
New increases without accountability will simply amount to business as
usual in Federal education policy, prolonging the status quo that
Republicans and Democrats have pledged to jointly bring to an end.
Thirty-five years of mediocrity have taught us that money alone will
not close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their
peers. The House-Senate Education conference will continue working to
ensure that these significant funding increases are targeted toward
children who need the most help, instead of toward new bureaucracy.
They must be used to strengthen existing programs, such as title I, so
that disadvantaged students are served, rather than to create new
unproven programs that really do not address the primary goal.
So I think we have a bill on the floor that mirrors H.R. 1. We expect
our conference to be completed in the next several weeks. That and the
completion of this bill, I think, will start us on a path where we can
make sure that no child in America is left behind.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking minority member on the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off by taking a moment
to personally thank the members of the Committee on Appropriations for
the inclusion of increased funding for Parkinson's disease research. We
are now on the verge of discovering a cure for Parkinson's. This strong
Federal commitment on both the Republican and Democratic side will
bring us closer to that end, and I appreciate all those Members helping
out.
I do come before the floor today also in the spirit of bipartisanship
that has been the rule of the day. In the wake of the cowardly and
horrific attacks on our Nation on September 11, partisan wrangling is
indeed frivolous.
To ensure that the business of this Nation moves on without delay, I
decided not to offer an amendment today that, though I think it is
crucial for the importance of the health of millions of Americans,
could potentially be controversial and slow down the legislative
process.
Had our Nation not been struck on that faithful day 1 month ago
today, I would have offered an amendment to expand stem cell research.
This amendment, which I would like to submit for the Record at this
time, takes a cautious measured approach to realizing the full
potential of promising research.
Mr. Chairman, I include the amendment I had proposed for the Record.

Amendment to H.R. 3061, as Reported Offered by Mr. Evans of Illinois

At the end of section 510, add the following:

(c) Human Embryonic Stem Cells.--
(1) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(A) The President's decision to allow human embryonic stem
cell research to go forward on stem cell lines derived on or
before August 9, 2001, provides a crucial first step in
conducting basic research on stem cells.
(B) Basic research on human embryonic stem cells is
essential to determine how

[[Page 19359]]

stem cells proliferate, specialize, and differentiate.
(C) Human embryonic stem cell research holds promise for
cures and improved treatments for a wide array of diseases
and injuries, including Alzheimer's disease, cardiovascular
disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and spinal cord
injuries.
(D) The National Academy of Sciences and leading biomedical
researchers agree that therapies for use by humans will not
result from stem cell lines derived from human embryos on or
before August 9, 2001, which have been grown with the use of
animal products that pose health risks to humans.
(E) The President's policy must be revised if the Nation is
to realize human applications of stem cell research.
(F) Given the promise of human embryonic stem cell
research, the Congress should act expeditiously to consider
Federal funding for this important research. If the Congress
fails to address this issue expeditiously, the National
Institutes of Health must be allowed to expand Federal
funding of human embryonic stem cell research beyond research
on stem cell lines derived on or before August 9, 2001.
(2) In general.--Not later than August 9, 2003, the
Director of the National Institutes of Health shall issue
guidelines to authorize funding for research using stem cells
that were derived from human embryos after August 9, 2001, if
the applicant provides assurances satisfactory to the
Director of the following:
(A) Date of derivation.--The research cannot be conducted
effectively using one or more stem cells that were derived
from a human embryo on or before August 9, 2001.
(B) Conditions of derivation.--Any human embryonic stem
cell to be used in the research may be derived from an embryo
only if that embryo has been donated from an in-vitro
fertilization clinic in compliance with the following:
(i) The human embryonic stem cell is not derived from the
embryo using Federal funds.
(ii) The embryo from which the stem cell is derived is
created for the purpose of fertility treatment and is in
excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking the
treatment.
(iii) Before being asked to consider donating the embryo
for research purposes, the embryo's progenitors determine
that the embryo is in excess of their clinical need for
fertility treatment.
(iv) Before being asked to consider donating the embryo for
research purposes, the embryo's progenitors are given the
option of donating the embryo to an infertile couple for
adoption.
(v) The embryo is donated with the informed, written
consent of the embryo's progenitors (including a statement
that the embryo is being donated for research purposes).
(vi) The decision of the embryo's progenitors to donate the
embryo is made free of any influence by any researcher or
investigator proposing to derive or use human embryonic stem
cells in research.
(vii) Any compensation paid for the human embryonic stem
cell does not exceed the reasonable costs of transportation,
processing, preservation, quality control, and storage of the
cell.
(3) Earlier stem cell lines.--This subsection does not
impose any restriction on funding for research using stem
cells that were derived from human embryos on or before
August 9, 2001.
(4) Application.--Paragraph 2(A) shall not apply after
August 8, 2005.
(5) Effective date.--The guidelines issued under paragraph
(2) shall take effect on August 9, 2003.

{time} 1415

I believe the majority of my colleagues will find this compromise a
prudent approach to this sensitive issue.
The amendment acknowledges the President's policy as a good starting
place and allows research to go forward only under this policy in the
near future. The science is in its infancy and the President's policy
may be ultimately sufficient to conduct the most basic stem cell
research that will be the foundation of science for the years to come.
But this policy will not suffice for the long term. Leading
researchers and the National Academy of Sciences agree that it will not
result in human therapies. This amendment would give Congress plenty of
time to thoughtfully consider the issue of federal funding for
embryonic stem cell research. However, if we fail to act in the next
two years, NIH would be directed to incrementally expend embryonic stem
cell research over a period of several years.
While I will not offer this compromise amendment today, I wanted to
take this opportunity to remind members how critical this issue is to
the millions of Americans who stand to benefit from this exciting new
research. I hope that I can count on my colleagues' support when we
revisit this issue next year.
I would also like to take a minute to personally thank the members of
the Appropriations Committee for the inclusion of increasing funding
for Parkinson's Disease research. We are on the verge of discovering a
cure for Parkinson's Disease. This strong federal commitment will bring
us closer to that end.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), a member of the subcommittee who is very
constructive in his work and offers many useful suggestions.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3061.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a real pleasure for me to serve on the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the
Committee on Appropriations, which has produced this good bill that
touches the lives of all Americans. The bill, which deserves our high
praise and strong support, is the bipartisan product of the altruistic
spirit and genuine compassion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula),
the chairman of the subcommittee. As the chairman has often said, this
clearly is the ``love thy neighbor'' bill.
It is fitting that we come together today, 1 month after the
dastardly attacks on our Nation, to provide America with the resources
that we need to defend against the threat of bioterrorism and to aid
working Americans who have lost their jobs.
I am also glad that we have been able to fulfill the President's
Reading First initiative. It is with education that we prepare for the
future, and education begins with reading.
I am particularly gratified that the bill provides a $1.4 billion
increase in special education. My 20 years on the public school board
in Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, has shown me how much more difficult
local spending decisions made by school boards were made by IDEA
mandates without adequate Federal funding. So I am glad that we
addressed that.
Yesterday, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that
America's life expectancy rose again last year. That report is a credit
to the effort of Congress to support biomedical research and to improve
treatments and cures for illnesses which afflict the American family.
With this bill, we continue that effort.
Although it is a very modest program, only $5.3 billion, the Rural
Community Assistance Program and the Office of Community Services Rural
Facilities is very vital. RCAP helps rural communities to apply for
assistance and to improve their infrastructure to sustain safe,
affordable water.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, while the terrorists on September 11 may
have succeeded in bringing down our World Trade Towers and temporarily
scarring the Pentagon, they only strengthened our resolve to get better
prepared for bioterrorism and better educate our children.
I want to commend in the strongest terms possible our chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their strong
leadership with this bipartisan bill. It is certainly a step forward in
better preparing our country educationally and better preparing our
country against terrorism.
On title I, a program to help educate our most vulnerable and needy
poor children, we have a 20 percent, $1.7 billion increase to attach
new reforms and testing to remediate and tutor these children. In Pell
grants, this is a first-time Pell grant hit up to $4,000 for students
going to college; and that is 57,000 more students who will be eligible
to go to college. We also have a program called Transition to Teaching,
working on our quality teaching in this country, which is the real key
to success for all children.
I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their help there.
Head Start programs have a $276 million increase, about a 4 percent
increase keeping up with inflation. It

[[Page 19360]]

will help early Head Start significantly more, with more children, for
0 to 3. I hope we will continue to do more for Head Start in
conference.
Finally, on bioterrorism, we have a $301 million increase for
stockpiling vaccines and for Federal, State, and local responses to
help better prepare our forces for a bioterrorist attack. I would
encourage this committee in the strongest terms that this is a first
step. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and I have
bipartisan legislation for a $1.4 billion increase to better prepare
this country on bioterrorism. I hope we will take those steps later on,
maybe in the supplemental bill.
Mr. Chairman, again, I applaud the leadership for this bill.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the Pell grant
increase in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill.
Started in 1972, the purpose of the Pell grant program is to
financially assist students from low-income families who would not be
able to attend college because of the financial burden it would place
on the student and his family. For example, my mom was a single parent
who raised three children on the modest salary of a secretary. We lived
in a one-bedroom home growing up. I personally would not have been able
to go to college if it was not for the Pell grant program. In fact, one
in five college students today benefit from Pell grants.
This year we will invest $10.5 billion in Pell grants, the largest
investment in our country's history. College students will now be able
to receive up to $4,000 a year, or $16,000 over a 4-year college
career. This will fully cover the cost of tuition, fees and books at
the University of Central Florida in Orlando. Now, all children, rich
or poor, will have the opportunity to go to college.
This investment will also help generate up to $85 billion a year in
additional tax revenues because students earning a bachelor's degree
make 75 percent more money on average than those with only a high
school diploma. I want to personally commend and thank the chairman of
the subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and the ranking
member of the subcommittee for their historic leadership in providing
this high-level Pell grant funding. They are truly friends to our
millions of college students who depend on this aid to go to college.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pell grants and ``yes''
on the Labor-HHS appropriation bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in allowing me to speak in support of this bill.
I join my colleagues in saluting the committee for the progress for
education and health, especially for the IDEA special education grants.
I understand why it was difficult to deal with issues of school
modernization; but I am hopeful that before this Congress adjourns that
we are able to assess that critical need.
But I would like to address my particular attention to the issue of
public broadcasting. The committee has found a way to provide $365
million in advanced funding for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. I think we have all been made aware, just in the course
of this last month in our quest for information and news in the wake of
September 11, what a critical role public broadcasting plays. A number
of the Members of this Chamber looked last week again at some of the
critical research videos that have been advanced that really provide
broad public understanding of the events in the Middle East.

But of critical importance to public broadcasting is the Federal
mandate that all TV stations expand from traditional analogue to modern
digital transmission by May 2003. This is a powerful new tool for
public broadcasting, but without Federal assistance for digital
conversion, many areas of the country could lose their public broadcast
signals. One-third of the 347 member stations in the system are
considered at risk.
I appreciate the language in this bill providing for an additional
$25 million for digitalization; however, this appropriation must be
specifically authorized in subsequent legislation. I urge my colleagues
to remain aware of this issue and authorize the appropriation in the
future. We cannot afford to lose the connection that public broadcast
provides between its groundbreaking educational, entertainment, and
cultural productions in our communities everywhere. The committee has
done its job, and I hope that Congress will follow through.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), also a member of the
subcommittee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
fiscal year 2002 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
appropriation bill. It is really a privilege for me to serve on this
committee; and I personally want to thank our chairman, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and our ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I know of their commitment to the issues that we
discuss in this committee; and I want to also thank the staff of the
committee, both majority and minority, who really have been a pleasure
to work with. Their cooperation has allowed us to consider what should
have been the least contentious bill in years, and I do hope that some
of the amendments that were in the planning will not be offered so that
we can all stand together in support of this really good bill that
serves people in this country, because I certainly do not want to be
here discussing some of these amendments. I would rather be working on
ways to provide for the defense of our citizens, of finding ways to
stimulate the economy.
This bill has provided for funding for so many programs that are
needed by the American people. The bill significantly increases funding
for the National Institutes of Health. We must continue to provide
robust funding for medical research so that we can find the cures for
disease.
The bill also provides a large increase for the 21st Century Learning
Centers After School Program. I remember when I first got on this
committee and we had $1 million in the program, and now we are up to $1
billion; and the lines are still long in every community of people who
want to provide funding for after-school programs, so I want to thank
again the chairman and the ranking member for their help in that area.
The program gives millions of children a place to go after school where
they can participate in meaningful activities.
I just want to mention one other thing. I do hope as this bill moves
through the process we can add some money for school modernization. It
has been an issue I have been working on for a very long time, and it
is so very important. I do hope we can invest in that critical area.
There are so many schools in terrible condition, and we should do
something to help local school districts fix this problem. This bill is
a very big step in the right direction.
Mr. Chairman, I support the bill; and I urge my colleagues to support
it as well.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join my good friend, the gentleman from
Illinois, (Mr. Evans) who spoke just briefly a few minutes ago in
addressing the important issue of stem cell research. The gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and I are deeply committed to pursuing ways
to reevaluate the August 9 cutoff date of the number of stem cell lines
that can be used for four simple reasons. First, research is needed.
Nearly one-half of the American

[[Page 19361]]

population could benefit from stem cell research.

{time} 1430

Two, in vitro fertilization. There are 400 in vitro fertilization
clinics throughout the country helping hundreds of thousands of couples
per year experience the joy of childbirth through in vitro
fertilization. This process necessarily creates more embryos that can
be used, so to relegate these potentially lifesaving cells to the trash
heap instead of NIH laboratories after the arbitrary deadline of August
9 is inconsistent and unfair to 135 million Americans.
Third, current stem cell supply. Since August 9 we have learned that
the 64 cell lines identified by NIH are not all robust and may not be
safe because many researchers have mixed human cells with mouse.
Finally, fourth, government oversight. Irrespective of the
President's guidelines, the private sector in the United States, as
well as the public and private sectors abroad, will continue to conduct
research on stem cells that fall outside the parameters established by
the Bush administration.
We cannot let America fall behind in this research, and cannot deny
our citizens the cures and treatments that may result from research
conducted on cells derived after August 9. We must provide strong
oversight to ensure that research is conducted by ethical means that do
not force us to wrestle with similar moral questions in the near
future.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the President for taking the first step, but I
respectfully implore my colleagues to take the next. I look forward to
working with Members in this endeavor.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the newly elected and soon-to-be whip of the
Democratic Party.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
me, and for his excellent service in bringing this bill to the floor.
I want to commend, certainly, our new chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and our big chairman, the chairman of
the full committee, for their extraordinary leadership. With all of
them working together, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) put us in position today to vote for a bill that is worthy of
our support.
One of the challenges, Mr. Chairman, that has been of particular
prominence in the minds of all Americans since September 11 has been
the threat of bioterrorism. On the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, where I serve as the ranking Democrat, we have studied
the threat posed by biological and chemical agents and our ability to
respond.
Great strides have been made in recent years, but we must strengthen
the ability of the public health infrastructure to detect and contain
an attack and treat its victims. This bill provides an increase of $60
million to improve surveillance and strengthen our medical response.
In addition, $20 million has been included for pilot projects to
explore the feasibility of developing a Nationwide Health Tracking
Network among all States to identify and track disease and related
environmental factors. The CDC will use this and increased funding for
its environmental health lab to rapidly assess human exposure to
environmental toxins.
I am pleased also that HIV care and treatment through Ryan White has
been increased by $112 million, and HIV prevention at the CDC has been
increased by $86 million.
For the fourth year in a row, we have provided dramatic increases in
biomedical research at the NIH. In addition to progress in the search
for better treatments and eventually a vaccine for AIDS, these
investments are yielding phenomenal progress in our understanding of
the human body and how we are affected by our environment.
Additional resources, thanks to our distinguished leadership, have
been provided for child care, breast and cervical cancer treatment,
drug treatment, bilingual education, worker safety, and many other
important areas.
This progress is promising, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the unmet health,
education, and labor needs that remain.
I urge my colleagues to support the labor, health and human services,
and education bill.
Mr. Chairman, I comment Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Obey for
their leadership on the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee. This is a
difficult time for our Nation, and this can be a difficult bill to pass
because it addresses important needs that we all feel passionate
about--health care, education, and a strong work force. The
Appropriations Committee has risen to this challenge and I am proud of
the bipartisan bill that has been produced.
One challenge has been particularly prominent in the minds of all
Americans since the September 11th attacks is the threat of
bioterrorism. On the Intelligence Committee, where I serve as the
Ranking Democrat, we have studied the threat posed by biological and
chemical agents and our Nation's ability to respond. Great strides have
been made in recent years, but we must strengthen the ability of our
public health infrastructure to detect and contain an attack, and treat
its victims. This bill provides an increase of $60 million to improve
surveillance and strengthen our medical response.
In addition, $20 million has been included for pilot projects to
explore the feasibility of developing a Nationwide Health Tracking
Network among all States to identify and track disease and related
environmental factors. The CDC will use this and increased funding for
its environmental health lab to rapidly assess human exposure to
environmental toxins, including biological and chemical agents.
I am also pleased that HIV/AIDS care and treatment through the Ryan
White Care Act has been increased by $112 million, and HIV prevention
at the CDC has been increased by $86 million.
As new infections remain steady and treatment advances reduce the
number of AIDS deaths, more people than ever are living with HIV/AIDS
and in need of treatment regimens that are costly, complicated, &
lifelong.
For the fourth year in a row, we have provided dramatic increases in
biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. In addition
to progress in the search for better treatments and, eventually, a
vaccine for AIDS, these investments are yielding phenomenal progress in
our understanding of the human body and how we are affected by our
environment.
Additional resources have also been provided for child care, breast
and cervical cancer screening, drug treatment, bilingual education,
worker safety, and many other important areas. This progress is
promising, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to address the unmet health, education, and labor
needs that remain. I urge my colleagues to support the Labor-Health and
Human Services-Education Appropriations bill.
These needs are especially critical for communities of color, where
the majority of new AIDS cases are occurring, and I am particularly
pleased that funding for the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative is increased
by $37 million. Greater access to voluntary counseling & testing,
stronger linkages between prevention & treatment, improved access to
AIDS drugs, and a reduction in new HIV infections worldwide are vital,
and will require significantly more resources than we currently
provide.
We must continue to increase these resources, and commit ourselves to
ensuring that the third decade of the AIDS epidemic is the last decade
of the AIDS epidemic. The increases that are provided in this bill are
an important step forward.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, 1 month after September 11,
Americans continue to contemplate the vulnerability of human life. So I
think it is very fitting that we pass a bill today which does so much
to preserve and prolong human life.
The bill increases funding for medical research, and keeps within
reach the goal of doubling funding for NIH within 5 years. It includes
report language that reinforces Congress' commitment to fully fund the
NIH Parkinson's disease research agenda for fiscal

[[Page 19362]]

year 2002. The bill reaffirms the President's commitment to stem cell
research. The plan is far too limited, but it is a small step forward.
I am pleased that it includes a substantial increase for education,
although the bill should have funded the school repair and renovation
program.
I applaud the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for forging this bill in a bipartisan spirit at a
very difficult time. They set an example for the appropriations process
this fall, and for American unity and resolve.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have just two things. I would like to read from the
Administration letter. It says: ``The Administration appreciates that
the House has retained the current language provision concerning
Federal funding for needle exchange programs and the Hyde language
regarding the Federal funding of abortions.''
So I want to make clear that this is the same language as has been in
the past.
I also want to point out that we do have now the statement of
administration policy. It has been coordinated by OMB with all the
agencies, and it is a good statement supporting the provisions of this
bill. So it truly is a bipartisan bill. It has the support of the
leadership on the other side of the aisle and it has the support of our
leadership and the support of the White House.
I would urge when we get to the final vote, that all the Members of
this body support it. It is truly, as Mr. Natcher used to say, a
people's bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my goal in Congress has been the
promotion of livable communities. A community that is safe, healthy and
economically secure must make the education of our children a priority.
The well-being of our families depends on the federal government
adequately funding health, education and worker protection programs.
Today's Labor-HHS Appropriations bill is a step in the right
direction. It triples the President's proposed rate of new educational
investment and significantly increases funding for health care and
worker protection programs.
The bill increases education funding by $7.0 billion over last year's
level, and $4.7 billion over the President's request. Over the last 5
years, the average annual rate of new educational investment has been
13%. The Bush budget proposed to cut this rate in half to only 5.5%,
but the bill passed today increases this to almost 17%--the highest in
a decade. Today's bill increases Title 1 funding, special education
funding and teacher training and class size reduction funding by over
$1 billion. These vital funds will help schools to hire up to 20,000
teachers to reduce class sizes and provide intensive, high quality and
sustained professional development to as many as 825,000 teachers.
I applaud the Appropriations committee for approving a bill that does
so much for health care in America. The bill increases health programs
in the Department of Health and Human Services by $3.4 billion, which
is a 10% increase above last year's level. We can all celebrate the
increase in funding for Head Start and bioterrorism preparedness.
The bill restores proposed enrollment cuts in Head Start with an
increase of $276 million over FY01 levels, preventing potential cuts of
as many as 2,500 children from current Head Start enrollment levels. We
must not neglect our children at this very important stage in their
development. Our communities will also feel the security of an
increased investment in the prevention of bioterrorism, a renewed
threat to our nation. It is important, now more than ever, that we are
prepared with the vaccines and drugs necessary to prevent exorbitant
injury and loss of life in the event of a bioterrorist attack.
I am particularly pleased that the bill will increased our commitment
to fighting HIV/AIDS, and helping the victims of this terrible disease.
The FY02 bill will increase Center for Disease Control AIDS prevention
and tracking funds by $53 million, and provide $112 million more than
the FY01 level for Ryan White grants.
I am also encouraged by several of the labor provisions included in
the bill. Funding for the Department of Labor is increased by 5%,
rather than cut by 3% as was proposed by the Administration, providing
growth in the major employment, training, and worker protection
programs. Some of those improvements include the bill's restoration of
the 180 employees that the White House budget proposed to cut from the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
The bill increases Jobs Corps funding $75 million over last year,
reversing the President's proposal to flat fund the program. It also
restores funding to FY01 levels for the International Labor
Organization, reversing the President's proposal to cut $76 million our
of this program that works to prevent child and slave labor.
I am pleased that the committee provides $365 million in advance
funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We all are aware
of the value of public broadcasting and that value is even more
apparent during our quest for information and news in the wake of the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Of critical importance to Public Broadcasters is the Federal mandate
that all public TV stations expand from traditional analog to modern
digital transmission by May 2003. I appreciate the language in this
bill providing an additional $25 million for digitalization. Without
federal assistance for digital conversion, one-third of the 347 member
stations the Public Broadcasting System are considered at risk of
possibly losing their public television signal once the transition
period ends and analog transmission is no longer possible.
These are all important programs for advancing quality of life goals,
and supporting all of our citizens. I urge support for this bill.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan
agreement represented by H.R. 3061. The Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education appropriations bill.
I particularly want to applaud Chairman Regula and Ranking Member
Obey on the yeoman's job they have done to bring this bill to the
floor.
This bill provides significant increases for education above the
President's request, and restores and increases funding in many
critical health programs above the original request as well. Among
these, I am especially pleased that Healthy Start will receive a 13%
increase.
Our Minority HIV/AIDS initiative was not funded at its requested
level of $540 million. The committee however did provide an increase of
$37.3 million above last years funding, an increase of about 11%. For
that increase, which is reflected across the board in all of the
Departmental agencies, which have responsibility for HIV and AIDS, we
are grateful. While it is short of what we determined would be needed,
it has the potential to reach many infected and affected people within
communities of color and other hard to reach populations, who have been
disproportionately and devastatingly impacted by this disease.
What we still have major concerns about is the language, which does
not go far enough to ensure that this program funding will go to build
capacity in the most severely impacted communities of color.
We would ask that the leadership and those in the conference
committee continue to work with us to ensure that the intent and the
integrity of the Minority HIV/AIDS initiative--an initiative that would
not only begin to bring the epidemic that exists in our communities
under control, but also begin to repair and rebuild a now fragmented
healthcare infrastructure. In the long run, this small amount of
funding, with the appropriate targeting can greatly impact the health
status not only of those special populations we seek to reach but the
entire nation.
We look forward to addressing the language issue, as it will
determine how effective this funding will be.
In the meantime, we again thank the Committee and the Subcommittee
for their assistance and support.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the H.R. 3061, making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education and a number of related agencies for the fiscal year
2002.
I want to commend Chairman Regula and Ranking Democrat Obey and the
Members of the Subcommittee on their fine, bipartisan work in crafting
this bill. While I do not agree with every provision of the bill--no
one does--I deeply appreciate the cooperation and restraint on both
sides of the aisle that have brought use to consideration of the bill
today.
This bill supports programs and services that are among the most
important to our constituents, both in ordinary times and in times of
crisis.
As we move forward from the dreadful attacks of September 11th, we
must continue to support our children's education, the health and well-
being of our people, and the ability of our workforce to thrive in the
economy of the 21st Century. At the same time, we must help those whose
lives have been disrupted in the aftermath of the attacks and
strengthen our long-neglected public health system to meet

[[Page 19363]]

future challenges, as the anthrax cases in Florida demonstrate.
The bill would provide $14 Billion for the Department of Labor,
including important increases in funding for the Job Corps, which has a
successful site in my district, and the Employment Standards
Administration (ESA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
which protect workers from exploitation and injury.
The Department of Health and Human Services would receive $53 billion
in discretionary appropriations, including important initiatives in
countering bioterrorism, increases for biomedical research, disease
control and prevention, and health services. The $150 million increase
in funding for community health centers is particularly welcome. Also
receiving increases are the child care block grant, Head Start, and
other important social services programs, although I wish we could have
done more for LIHEAP.
The Education Department would receive $49 Billion, 17% above last
year. The President and Members on both sides of the aisle recognize
the crucial importance of reforming and funding better schools for our
children. In many ways, our future depends on this. The increase in the
Pell Grant to $4,000 is also to be applauded.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. I might have put more money into
it and distributed the funds a bit differently, but I am pleased to
support it and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3061, the
Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations bill. This legislation would provide $395 billion for
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
related agencies. I am especially pleased that this legislation would
provide a 16 percent increase for education funding and 12 percent
increase for biomedical research conducted through the National
Institutes of Health (NIH).
With regard to education, I am pleased that this bill would
dramatically increase funding for education programs by providing $7
billion over FY 2001 levels and $4.7 billion above the President's
request. Over the last five years, the average annual rate of new
educational investment has been 13 percent. This legislation would
increase the education investment to 17 percent--the highest in a
decade. While the bill does not include separate funding for the class-
size reduction initiative, I am pleased that the program was redirected
into teacher quality state grants. Under this legislation, these state
grants will receive a $1 billion increase to help schools reduce class
size and provide professional development for teachers and other school
employees. Additionally, the committee's inclusion of $975 million for
the President's Reading First initiation will enable schools to bring
proven, research-based reading programs to students in the critical
early learning years. The $1 billion increase for 21st Century After
School Centers will provide students with a quality after school
program. And for students continuing on to higher education, the
increase in the Pell Grant maximum grant to $4,000 will enable low-
income students to meet today's ever-increasing educational costs.
Additionally, the bill wisely rejects proposed enrollment cuts to Head
Start, preventing possible cuts for as many as 2,500 children from this
critically important program.
I am also pleased that the committee included a 50 percent increase
in the federal share of special education costs. Over a two-year
period, the funds will raise the federal share toward special education
costs to 18 percent from 12 percent. In 1975, Congress passed Public
Law 94-142, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
which committed the federal government to fund up to 40 percent of the
educational costs for children with disabilities. However, the federal
government's contribution has never exceeded 15 percent, a shortfall
that has caused financial hardships and difficult curriculum choices in
local school districts. According to the Department of Education,
educating a child with a disability costs an average of $15,000 each
year. However, the federal government only provides schools with an
average of just $833. While I believe the funding increase in this
legislation represents a step in the right direction, I believe we must
abide by our commitment to fund 40 percent of IDEA costs, and I am
hopeful that we will consider greater funding increases in the next
fiscal year.
While the overall bill is a good one, there are many important
programs that were level-funded or eliminated under this legislation.
To that end, I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue
funding for these programs at adequate levels, or in the case of school
modernization, to work for its reinstatement. In total, though, this
bill makes important investments in education, and will provide
America's children with the resources they need to succeed and be
productive members of our society.
As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, I am
pleased that this legislation provides $22.9 billion for the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), an increase of 12 percent or $2.6 billion
more than last year's budget. This $22.9 billion NIH budget is our
fourth payment to double the NIH's budget over five years. I am
disappointed that this $22.9 billion does not provide the $3.4 billion
that we believe is necessary to maintain our goal of doubling the NIH's
budget over five years. Earlier this year, I organized a bipartisan
letter in support of this $3.4 billion increase for the NIH. I
understand that the Senate Labor, Health, and Human Services, and
Education Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations bill includes a $3.4 billion
increase for the NIH. It is my hope that the conference committee will
adopt this higher NIH budget.
I am a strong supporter of maximizing federal funding for biomedical
research through the NIH. I believe that investing in biomedical
research is fiscally responsible. Today, only one in three meritorious,
peer-reviewed grants which have been judged to be scientifically
significant will be funded by the NIH. This higher budget will help
save lives and provide new treatments for such diseases as cancer,
heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and AIDS. Much of this NIH-
directed research will be conducted at the teaching hospitals at the
Texas Medical Center. In 2000, the Texas Medical Center received $289
million in grants from the NIH. I will continue to work to ensure the
highest level of funding for the NIH.
I am also pleased that this bill provides $393 million for countering
bioterrorism, including $100 more above last year's budget. In light of
the recent terrorism acts, I believe we all believe that this investing
in our national public health system is necessary and prudent. This
budget provides $301 million for the Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund which would support programs at the Office of Emergency
Preparedness. As the representative for the Texas Medical Center, which
was recently affected by devastating flooding by Tropical Storm
Allison, I can attest to the need for such funding. During this natural
disaster, the Office of Emergency Preparedness was one of the first
federal agencies to provide relief to our area and I applaud their
efforts to immediately act to help during disasters. This $393 million
budget will also provide $93 million in bioterrorism research at the
NIH.
In addition, I support the $4.1 billion budget for the Centers for
Disease Control, a $214 million increase or 6 percent increase above
last year's budget. The CDC is critically important to monitoring our
public health and fighting disease. Of this $4.1 billion CDC budget,
$1.1 billion will be provided to address HIV/AIDS programs and to
combat tuberculosis. This CDC budget also provided $599 million to
provide immunizations to low-income children. Immunizations have been
shown to save lives and reduce health care costs. Investing in our
children is a goal which we all share.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and vote for this
important health, education and labor funding measure.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
for forward funding of the LIHEAP program. Due to the nature of winters
in Chicago and the east coast we can now implement safe guards for all
our citizens. As we approach the coming winter months, preparation by
forward funding can eliminate overwhelming burdens placed on low income
families. The city of Chicago alone, has seen tremendous fatality rates
due to excessively hot summers and extremely cold winters. The
Department of Justice estimates that home heating oil prices could be
30% higher this winter from the previous winter and that natural gas
prices could surge 40% higher. More than 150,000 of my constituents
lives at or below the poverty level and with these circumstances are
often faced with harsh and difficult decisions. Some of these citizens
are forced to choose between medicine and cool air in the summer and
between food and heath for their homes in the winter. According to the
Roundtable Report to the Public Utilities Committee of the House of
Representatives, the average winter bill for a typical family of four
is 5.9% of their annual income. A family of four living at 125% of
poverty pays between 20% to 37% of their annual income for winter
heating cost. The low income families cannot afford to pay these high
energy cost. Therefore, I am in strong support of Representative
Quinn's amendment for an advance in the LIHEAP funding. We already know
that many low income families will fall behind on their heating bills;
however, we can offer an alternative by the passage of this amendment.
I urge its consideration and passage.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, when my children were growing up and
before they had

[[Page 19364]]

an understanding of the family budget, they would ask for things that
we were sometimes unable to provide. They were usually extravagant
things we simply could not afford. We didn't blame them for asking--
they were just kids--they didn't know better.
What is our excuse? Is there a Member of the body who can't
understanding the fiscal implications of declining Federal revenues
combined with the cost of financing of a war?
How many of us I wonder will file down here and dutifully cast our
vote for this bloated, extravagant, piece of profligate spending and
then go home to tell our constituents that we are appalled by the fact
that the Social Security surplus has been blown.
There is more than one kind of threat to the Nation--one stems from
foreign terrorists and another from the fiscal irresponsibility of
budget busting appropriations like this.
The 12.6 percent increase in this bill is unconscionable. I am not
saying that the hundreds of programs funded in this bill are not all
individually wonderful. They will surely bring about a totally literate
society while concurrently wiping out poverty in America as one would
be led to believe by listening to the rhetoric supporting it. What I am
saying is that they are not as important as providing for the common
defense. This after all is the thing for which we have sole and
paramount responsibility--it is not our main responsibility to be the
Nation's school board or health care provider.
And Mr. Chairman, I know it is hard to hear what I am going to say.
It was hard to tell it to our kids but here it goes--we can't afford
this bill. If we can't defeat it I hope the President will act as the
adult here and veto the bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to add his strong
support for H.R. 3061, the Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. This Member would
like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the
Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education, and the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee
on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, for bringing this
important bill to the House Floor today.
In particular, this Member supports the additional $25,000,000
provided to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for digitalization.
Public broadcasting has been issued a mandate to be on the air with a
digital signal by 2003. By FY 2004 all stations will bear the
additional costs of dual carriage of analog and digital signals.
Nebraska ETV Network has worked closely with this Member and has
informed me and shown evidence that they anticipate using the digital
signal to offer multicating and interactive video that will enable the
network to address even more needs of children and adult learners. The
State of Nebraska has already committed significant resources to
convert the nine-station Nebraska ETV Network to digital technology.
The funding plan approved by Nebraska's legislature and governor to
ensure the Network's compliance with the Federal mandate assumed a
commitment from the Federal Government to help close the DTV funding
gap. If we are to ensure that our local communities continue to receive
the rich educational, cultural and informational programs and services
offered by local public television stations, we must help them.
On another issue, the Member would like to commend his colleagues for
their continued support of efforts to improve the delivery of health
services in rural areas. Specifically, H.R. 3061 provides $142 million
for the National Health Service Corps, which plays a critical role in
maintaining the health-care safety net by placing primary health-care
providers in our nation's most underserved rural and urban communities.
The measure also appropriates $1.319 billion for the Consolidated
Health Centers program--$150 million more than fiscal year 2001.
Community Health Centers (CHCs) provide primary and preventive care to
medically underserved and uninsured people, including 5.4 million rural
residents. Certainly, this Member commends this effort and encourages
the expansion community health center services to address the needs of
rural and underserved communities.
This Member is especially pleased that the appropriations bill
provides $35 million for the Medicare Rural Health Flexibility Program.
Nebraska has been on the forefront of converting rural hospitals to
critical access status. As of October 1, 2001, Nebraska has 53 Critical
Access Hospitals which is the most in the country.
Furthermore, H.R. 3061 appropriates $52 million to the Rural Health
Outreach and Network Development and Research Grant Program and $27.6
million to the Rural Telemedicine Grant program. These grants are
available to rural communities working to provide health care services
through new and creative strategies including telemedicine and trauma
care services.
Additionally, this Member would like to take this opportunity to
explain his ``nay'' vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Schaffer], a vote taken with some reluctance but very
careful consideration. Within this Member's home state of Nebraska, the
number of children enrolled in special education programs has risen by
3,700 students from 1995-1999, a nine percent increase. This Member has
always supported fulfilling the commitment made by Congress made in
1975, which this Member notes was prior to his service in U.S. House,
to fund IDEA at 40 percent.
Currently, the Federal Government is funding an average of 12.6
percent of the per pupil expenditure for children with disabilities.
The other 27.4 percent of our unfilled promise is a burden that state
and local governments are having to include in their budgets. This
Member has said for many years now that the one significant way that
Congress can help decrease property taxes for his Nebraska constituents
as well as to meet their other programmatic, construction or enhanced
teacher salary priorities, is to keep the congressional promise to
provide 40 percent of the costs of special education.
Of course, it would be ideal to have the full 40 percent funding of
IDEA in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations Act. However, the Schaffer amendment would have severely
cut appropriations for disadvantaged children through Title I,
vocational education and TRIO in order to offset the increase in IDEA
funding. The underlying bill (H.R. 3061) provides a $1.4 billion
increase for IDEA, which is $400 million above the President's request.
Furthermore, this Member notes that over the past two years, funding
for IDEA has been increased by $2.7 billion.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support
H.R. 3061.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of
H.R. 3061, the FY02 Labor, HHS and Education spending bill.
First, I want to thank Chairman Regula for his yeoman's work on this
legislation. Each year, the spending bill for the Departments of Labor,
HHS, and Education is among the most difficult to complete and this
year is no exception.
H.R. 3061 builds on investments in education which really began to
take off in FY96. At the time, K-12 funding totaled $11.2 billion.
Since then, K-12 funding has increased to $20 billion in FY01, and I am
pleased to say that this investment continues even today.
More important, H.R. 3061 reflects the bipartisan education
priorities that passed the House as part of the No Child Left Behind
Act, and it increases funding for programs, like IDEA and Title I,
which haven't always received sufficient funding in the past.
Since the enactment of IDEA, Congress has increased funding for State
grants under this act from $251.7 million in FY1997 to $6.34 billion in
FY2001, with the amount appropriated for State grants nearly tripling
in just the last six years.
Under the leadership of former Members Porter and Goodling, we have
increased funding by more than $4 billion--175% increase in the Federal
contribution.
This year we will add an additional $1.4 billion, increasing the
total to $7.7 billion. This is the highest level of Federal support
ever provided for children with disabilities, with the level of Federal
funding growing from 7 percent of the per pupil expenditure to 18
percent.
While this bill may not fully fund IDEA, I believe it takes a
significant and responsible step in the right direction. More
important, it gives the Education and the Workforce Committee the
flexibility it needs to successfully reauthorize the program next year.
H.R. 3061 also helps address the problem of overidentification of
special needs children in IDEA by fully funding the President's request
on the reading first and early reading first programs. This more than
triples our current investment in reading instruction.
We have seen tremendous increases in the number of students, and
African American students in particular, diagnosed with learning
disabilities and referred to special education. As former Chairman
Goodling used to say, we will never get to full funding until we
address this problem.
If we are able to identify and intervene with these children--as
proposed in reading first and early reading first--we take the first
step in reducing the number of students who cannot read, reduce special
education referrals, and pave the way to fully funding IDEA.
On Title I, AID to disadvantaged children, H.R. 3061 appropriates
$10.5 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion. This funding will support

[[Page 19365]]

the reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act, which will require
additional funds to turn around failing schools and ensure all students
are proficient in reading and math.
Also critical to the successful implementation of the No Child Left
Behind Act, the bill provides $400 million to help States develop and
implement the annual reading and math assessments for students in
grades 3-8. In so doing, H.R. 3061 puts a downpayment on our system of
accountability--the heart of our education reform package.
In conclusion, I want to again thank Chairman Regula and Chairman
Young for their excellent work on this legislation. They have managed
to produce a balanced bill that will help our country fundamentally
change the way we educate our children for the better.

K-12 FUNDING
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding
Fiscal year level
-------------------------------------------------------------------\1\--

DEMOCRAT MAJORITY
1990.......................................................... 8.5
1991.......................................................... 9.7
1992.......................................................... 10.7
1993.......................................................... 10.7
1994.......................................................... 11.0
1995.......................................................... 11.3
Note.--Average year increase 6 percent.
Total spending, $61.9 billion.
32.9 percent overall increase 1990-1995.

REPUBLICAN MAJORITY
1996.......................................................... 11.2
1997.......................................................... 12.5
1998.......................................................... 13.4
1999.......................................................... 15.7
2000.......................................................... 16.6
2001.......................................................... 19.7
Note.--Average year increase 12.1 percent.
Total spending $89.1 billion.
75.9 percent overall increase 1996-2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Goals 2000, School-to-Work, ESEA and VocEd.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered as read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 3061

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and
for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment to offer. I had planned to offer
a couple of amendments having to do with funding for IDEA, special
education.
But I have to say that within the constraints of the budget, the
distinguished subcommittee chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula), has done an extraordinary job in raising funding for this
critical program by $1.375 billion. I believe that is the greatest
increase that we have had from this body since I have been here.
It does not meet the objective of reaching 40 percent, or our
mandate, within a specified period of 5 or even 10 years, but it
recognizes, and certainly it is an extraordinarily commendable effort
on the part of this subcommittee, and expresses the intent of this
subcommittee chairman to meet this goal as quickly as possible.
We do have opportunities on the horizon. IDEA will be up for
reauthorization next year. It is my hope that we can combine the
process of reauthorization with an effort to set this Congress on a
path to meeting the 40 percent funding goal in a set period of time.
I thank the chairman for his hard work in this area.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to add to that that the minority
also is extremely supportive of this increase, and there truly is
bipartisan support for the program.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

training and employment services

For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act,
including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
the construction, alteration, and repair of buildings and
other facilities, and the purchase of real property for
training centers as authorized by the Workforce Investment
Act; the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional
Occupations Act; and the National Skill Standards Act of
1994; $3,485,147,000 plus reimbursements, of which
$2,110,707,000 is available for obligation for the period
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003; of which $1,353,065,000
is available for obligation for the period April 1, 2002,
through June 30, 2003; and of which $20,375,000 is available
for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005, for
necessary expenses of construction, rehabilitation, and
acquisition of Job Corps centers: Provided, That $3,500,000
shall be for carrying out the National Skills Standards Act
of 1994: Provided further, That no funds from any other
appropriation shall be used to provide meal services at or
for Job Corps centers.
For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act,
including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
the construction, alteration, and repair of buildings and
other facilities, and the purchase of real property for
training centers as authorized by the Workforce Investment
Act; $2,098,000,000 plus reimbursements, of which
$1,998,000,000 is available for obligation for the period
October 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003; and of which
$100,000,000 is available for the period October 1, 2002,
through June 30, 2005, for necessary expenses of
construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of Job Corps
centers.

community service employment for older americans

To carry out title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as
amended, $440,200,000.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of title I is as follows:

federal unemployment benefits and allowances

For payments during the current fiscal year of trade
adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I; and
for training, allowances for job search and relocation, and
related State administrative expenses under part II,
subchapters B and D, chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, $11,000,000, together with such amounts as
may be necessary to be charged to the subsequent
appropriation for payments for any period subsequent to
September 15 of the current year.
In addition, for such purposes, $404,650,000, to become
available only upon the enactment of authorizing legislation.

state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

For authorized administrative expenses, $163,452,000,
together with not to exceed $3,236,886,000 (including not to
exceed $1,228,000 which may be used for amortization payments
to States which had independent retirement plans in their
State employment service agencies prior to 1980), which may
be expended from the Employment Security Administration
Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund including the cost of
administering section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, section 7(d) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, as
amended, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Immigration
Act of 1990, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, as
amended, and of which the sums available in the allocation
for activities authorized by title III of the Social Security
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the sums available
in the allocation for necessary administrative expenses for
carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be available for
obligation by the States through December 31, 2002, except
that funds used for automation acquisitions shall be
available for obligation by the States through September 30,
2004; and of which $163,452,000, together with not to exceed
$773,283,000 of the amount which may be expended from said
trust fund, shall be available for obligation for the period
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, to fund activities under
the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, including the cost of
penalty mail authorized under 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E) made
available to States in lieu of allotments for such purpose:
Provided, That to the extent that the Average Weekly Insured
Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 2002 is projected by the
Department of Labor to exceed 2,622,000, an additional
$28,600,000 shall be available for

[[Page 19366]]

obligation for every 100,000 increase in the AWIU level
(including a pro rata amount for any increment less than
100,000) from the Employment Security Administration Account
of the Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds
appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a
national one-stop career center system, or which are used to
support the national activities of the Federal-State
unemployment insurance programs, may be obligated in
contracts, grants or agreements with non-State entities:
Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act for
activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as
amended, and title III of the Social Security Act, may be
used by the States to fund integrated Employment Service and
Unemployment Insurance automation efforts, notwithstanding
cost allocation principles prescribed under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-87.

advances to the unemployment trust fund and other funds

For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as
authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security
Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund
as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to
the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of
title 5, United States Code, and to the ``Federal
unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to remain
available until September 30, 2003, $464,000,000.
In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black
Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after
September 15, 2002, for costs incurred by the Black Lung
Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums
as may be necessary.

program administration

For expenses of administering employment and training
programs, $113,356,000, including $5,934,000 to administer
welfare-to-work grants, together with not to exceed
$48,507,000, which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund.

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, $109,866,000.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

pension benefit guaranty corporation fund

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to
make such expenditures, including financial assistance
authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits
of funds and borrowing authority available to such
Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such
contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government
Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may
be necessary in carrying out the program through September
30, 2002, for such Corporation: Provided, That not to exceed
$11,690,000 shall be available for administrative expenses of
the Corporation: Provided further, That expenses of such
Corporation in connection with the termination of pension
plans, for the acquisition, protection or management, and
investment of trust assets, and for benefits administration
services shall be considered as non-administrative expenses
for the purposes hereof, and excluded from the above
limitation.

Employment Standards Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards
Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal,
and local agencies and their employees for inspection
services rendered, $367,650,000, together with $1,981,000
which may be expended from the Special Fund in accordance
with sections 39(c), 44(d) and 44(j) of the Longshore and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Provided, That $2,000,000
shall be for the development of an alternative system for the
electronic submission of reports as required to be filed
under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, as amended, and for a computer database of the
information for each submission by whatever means, that is
indexed and easily searchable by the public via the Internet:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor is authorized
to accept, retain, and spend, until expended, in the name of
the Department of Labor, all sums of money ordered to be paid
to the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the terms of
the Consent Judgment in Civil Action No. 91-0027 of the
United States District Court for the District of the Northern
Mariana Islands (May 21, 1992): Provided further, That the
Secretary of Labor is authorized to establish and, in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect and deposit in the
Treasury fees for processing applications and issuing
certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 211(d) and 214)
and for processing applications and issuing registrations
under title I of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

special benefits

(including transfer of funds)

For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses
(except administrative expenses) accruing during the current
or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of
the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided
for under the heading ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the
Federal Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the
Employees' Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944;
sections 4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50
U.S.C. App. 2012); and 50 percent of the additional
compensation and benefits required by section 10(h) of the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended,
$121,000,000 together with such amounts as may be necessary
to be charged to the subsequent year appropriation for the
payment of compensation and other benefits for any period
subsequent to August 15 of the current year: Provided, That
amounts appropriated may be used under section 8104 of title
5, United States Code, by the Secretary of Labor to reimburse
an employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury,
for portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled
beneficiary: Provided further, That balances of
reimbursements unobligated on September 30, 2001, shall
remain available until expended for the payment of
compensation, benefits, and expenses: Provided further, That
in addition there shall be transferred to this appropriation
from the Postal Service and from any other corporation or
instrumentality required under section 8147(c) of title 5,
United States Code, to pay an amount for its fair share of
the cost of administration, such sums as the Secretary
determines to be the cost of administration for employees of
such fair share entities through September 30, 2002: Provided
further, That of those funds transferred to this account from
the fair share entities to pay the cost of administration of
the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, $36,696,000 shall be
made available to the Secretary as follows: (1) for the
operation of and enhancement to the automated data processing
systems, including document imaging, and conversion to a
paperless office, $24,522,000; (2) for medical bill review
and periodic roll management, $11,474,000; (3) for
communications redesign, $700,000; and (4) the remaining
funds shall be paid into the Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts: Provided further, That the Secretary may require
that any person filing a notice of injury or a claim for
benefits under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, or
33 U.S.C. 901 et seq., provide as part of such notice and
claim, such identifying information (including Social
Security account number) as such regulations may prescribe.

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program

For necessary expenses to administer the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Act, $136,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary
of Labor is authorized to transfer to any Executive agency
with authority under the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Act, including within the Department of
Labor, such sums as may be necessary in fiscal year 2002 to
carry out those authorities: Provided further, That the
Secretary may require that any person filing a claim for
benefits under the Act provide as part of such claim, such
identifying information (including Social Security account
number) as may be prescribed.

black lung disability trust fund

(including transfer of funds)

For payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund,
$1,036,115,000, of which $981,283,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2003, for payment of all benefits as
authorized by section 9501(d)(1), (2), (4), and (7) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and interest on
advances as authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act, and
of which $31,558,000 shall be available for transfer to
Employment Standards Administration, Salaries and Expenses,
$22,590,000 for transfer to Departmental Management, Salaries
and Expenses, $328,000 for transfer to Departmental
Management, Office of Inspector General, and $356,000 for
payment into miscellaneous receipts for the expenses of the
Department of Treasury, for expenses of operation and
administration of the Black Lung Benefits program as
authorized by section 9501(d)(5) of that Act: Provided, That,
in addition, such amounts as may be necessary may be charged
to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of
compensation, interest, or other benefits for any period
subsequent to August 15 of the current year.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, $435,307,000, including not to exceed
$88,694,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for
grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, which grants shall be no less than 50
percent of the costs of State occupational safety and health
programs required to be incurred under plans approved by the
Secretary under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970; and, in

[[Page 19367]]

addition, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration may retain up to $750,000
per fiscal year of training institute course tuition fees,
otherwise authorized by law to be collected, and may utilize
such sums for occupational safety and health training and
education grants: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302, the Secretary of Labor is authorized, during the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002, to collect and retain fees
for services provided to Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratories, and may utilize such sums, in accordance with
the provisions of 29 U.S.C. 9a, to administer national and
international laboratory recognition programs that ensure the
safety of equipment and products used by workers in the
workplace: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or
expended to prescribe, issue, administer, or enforce any
standard, rule, regulation, or order under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 which is applicable to any
person who is engaged in a farming operation which does not
maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or fewer
employees: Provided further, That no funds appropriated under
this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to administer
or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 with respect to
any employer of 10 or fewer employees who is included within
a category having an occupational injury lost workday case
rate, at the most precise Standard Industrial Classification
Code for which such data are published, less than the
national average rate as such rates are most recently
published by the Secretary, acting through the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, in accordance with section 24 of that Act
(29 U.S.C. 673), except--
(1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation,
technical assistance, educational and training services, and
to conduct surveys and studies;
(2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response
to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations
found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for
violations which are not corrected within a reasonable
abatement period and for any willful violations found;
(3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to imminent dangers;
(4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to health hazards;
(5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one
or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two
or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such
investigation authorized by such Act; and
(6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to complaints of discrimination against employees for
exercising rights under such Act:

Provided further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply
to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which
does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or
fewer employees.

Mine Safety and Health Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, $251,725,000, including purchase and bestowal
of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue
and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles;
including up to $1,000,000 for mine rescue and recovery
activities, which shall be available only to the extent that
fiscal year 2002 obligations for these activities exceed
$1,000,000; in addition, not to exceed $750,000 may be
collected by the National Mine Health and Safety Academy for
room, board, tuition, and the sale of training materials,
otherwise authorized by law to be collected, to be available
for mine safety and health education and training activities,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302; and, in addition, the Mine
Safety and Health Administration may retain up to $1,000,000
from fees collected for the approval and certification of
equipment, materials, and explosives for use in mines, and
may utilize such sums for such activities; the Secretary is
authorized to accept lands, buildings, equipment, and other
contributions from public and private sources and to
prosecute projects in cooperation with other agencies,
Federal, State, or private; the Mine Safety and Health
Administration is authorized to promote health and safety
education and training in the mining community through
cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety
associations; and any funds available to the Department may
be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for
the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event
of a major disaster.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and
local agencies and their employees for services rendered,
$397,696,000, together with not to exceed $69,132,000, which
may be expended from the Employment Security Administration
Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund; and $10,280,000,
which shall be available for obligation for the period of
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, for Occupational
Employment Statistics.

Office of Disability Employment Policy

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Office of Disability
Employment Policy to provide leadership, develop policy and
initiatives, and award grants furthering the objective of
eliminating barriers to the training and employment of people
with disabilities, $33,053,000, of which $2,640,000 shall be
for the President's Task Force on the Employment of Adults
with Disabilities.

Departmental Management

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for Departmental Management,
including the hire of three sedans, and including the
management or operation, through contracts, grants or other
arrangements of Departmental bilateral and multilateral
foreign technical assistance, and $51,708,000 for the
acquisition of Departmental information technology,
architecture, infrastructure, equipment, software and related
needs which will be allocated by the Department's Chief
Information Officer in accordance with the Department's
capital investment management process to assure a sound
investment strategy; $383,568,000; together with not to
exceed $310,000, which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund: Provided, That no funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Solicitor of Labor to participate in a review
in any United States court of appeals of any decision made by
the Benefits Review Board under section 21 of the Longshore
and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 921) where
such participation is precluded by the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding, 115 S.
Ct. 1278 (1995), notwithstanding any provisions to the
contrary contained in rule 15 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure: Provided further, That no funds made
available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Labor
to review a decision under the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) that has been
appealed and that has been pending before the Benefits Review
Board for more than 12 months: Provided further, That any
such decision pending a review by the Benefits Review Board
for more than 1 year shall be considered affirmed by the
Benefits Review Board on the 1-year anniversary of the filing
of the appeal, and shall be considered the final order of the
Board for purposes of obtaining a review in the United States
courts of appeals: Provided further, That these provisions
shall not be applicable to the review or appeal of any
decision issued under the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C.
901 et seq.).

assistant secretary for veterans employment and training

Not to exceed $186,903,000 may be derived from the
Employment Security Administration Account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38
U.S.C. 4100-4110A, 4212, 4214, and 4321-4327, and Public Law
103-353, and which shall be available for obligation by the
States through December 31, 2002. To carry out the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act and section 168 of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, $24,800,000, of which
$7,300,000 shall be available for obligation for the period
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003.

office of inspector general

For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $52,182,000, together with
not to exceed $4,951,000, which may be expended from the
Employment Security Administration Account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this title for
the Job Corps shall be used to pay the compensation of an
individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an
indirect cost, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 102. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for
the current fiscal year for the Department of Labor in this
Act may be transferred between appropriations, but no such
appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by
any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations
Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least
15 days in advance of any transfer.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor
Appropriations Act, 2002''.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee
in a colloquy.
I would ask the gentleman, in the bill language relating to H.R. 3621
he stated that the funding is provided for school improvement programs,
including the

[[Page 19368]]

rural education program as ``redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 as
passed by the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001.''
Is it the committee's intent, Mr. Chairman, that the funding for the
rural education program follow the program structure and funding
distribution as outlined in H.R. 1, title I, part (G), regarding rural
schools?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HILLEARY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The
committee's intention is to provide funding for programs included in
H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act, as it was passed by the House
this spring.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for clearing up that
ambiguity.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
Page 18, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $3,072,000)''.
Page 21, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $36,170,000) (increased by
$33,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $33,000,000)''.
Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $33,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $17,708,000)''.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment is to increase
by $33 million the amount appropriated for abstinence education, as has
been defined by this Congress in previous legislation.
Let me first state, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate that the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) in this base bill has increased
the funding for abstinence education. My regret is that it is not to a
level that many of us consider satisfactory, but that should not remove
our appreciation for the fact that it has been increased.
We have had for many years, for decades, Mr. Chairman, Federal
funding for so-called family planning or safe sex programs, as they are
often called. But Mr. Chairman, that has not reversed the trend of
increase in teen births out of wedlock.
However, in recent years, Federal funding began in 1995 and private
funding began in the couple of years before that, and in recent years
we have seen a very different approach that has taken place; that is,
promoting abstinence as the surest and only way to prevent sexually-
transmitted diseases, or to prevent the out-of-wedlock births among
teenagers.
Indeed, President George W. Bush, when he was campaigning, made the
commitment to bring the level of Federal funding for abstinence
education to the same level as we are spending on the family planning
and safe sex programs. That is what this amendment does. By the $33
million increase, it brings parity.
What we mean by that is we follow the definition of this Congress to
say that we are talking about the funding for education that has as its
exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains
to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity, and teaching that
abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage is the expected
standard for all school-aged children, and the only certain way to
avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancies, to avoid sexually-transmitted
diseases, and to avoid other associated health problems.
Indeed, only with the advent of abstinence education have we seen in
the last couple of years a reversal of the long-standing and deplorable
trend in this country of increases in teenage unwed births.

{time} 1445

Earlier this year, for the first time, grants were made to applicants
by the Department of Health and Human Services, putting out the first
20 million in competitive grants for this purpose. They were
overwhelmed. It was the greatest tide of applications they have ever
seen for any program. Over 359 entities across the country seeking some
$165 million applied for a program that only had $20 million available
to it.
We need to increase the amount of money we are putting into
abstinence education for the benefit of our kids, for the benefit of
our Nation, which pays exorbitant costs with out-of-wedlock births and
supporting the social problems that come from them, and we need to
start reinforcing what we teach our children at home, what we teach our
children at church, but too often is undercut by the messages sent by
the Federal Government.
Rather than defunding the Federal Government's programs relating to
so-called safe sex, we are seeking parity. We are seeking equity which
was what the commitment was by President Bush; and indeed, since the
original budget was submitted by the Bush administration, the amount
that we made available for this bill has gone up by some $2 billion
which created the room to make this comparatively minor increase in
abstinence education funding.
The Office of Management and Budget has submitted, we have made it
available to the Members, their letter supporting this increase in
funding to abstinence education. Let us bring the account up from the
40 million it has in the bill to 73 million which will be the effect of
this amendment. It is money that we can easily afford to fund. It keeps
the commitment certainly of Mr. Bush, but more importantly than that,
it keeps in place the values that we teach our kids and says we want to
reinforce them and not to be undercutting them.
So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly move the adoption of this amendment
that brings parity in the funding of these accounts and within the
scope of a bill as large as this one is a comparatively minor
adjustment.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his
point of order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet
read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of
rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of budget
authority in the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members seeking to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding from the
parliamentarian that it is necessary that the amendment be offered at a
place in the bill where the first adjustment, the first offset is being
made which is the point at which we have offered it in this bill.
Furthermore, it is dollar for dollar the same as the amount that is
contained in those sections of the bill involving any sort of transfer.
I would ask the Chair to overrule the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI an
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) proposes a net increase in the level of
budget authority or outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of
the subcommittee on appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause
2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read.
For that reason, the point of order is sustained.

[[Page 19369]]

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair yield for a parliamentary
inquiry?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the inquiry is when the amounts are dollar
for dollar the same as within the bill, upon reliance upon what
documents can the Chair maintain that it is anything else than dollar
for dollar the same amounts. If the Chair is referring to some
extraneous document, I think we would like to be aware of that.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma has the burden of proof to
show that his amendment and budget authority and outlays is neutral.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer the fact that on the face of the
amendment, it is dollar for dollar the same. If there is anything that
says it is not the same, then this body is entitled to know, that we
might proceed in order and make sure that valid issues can be
undertaken.
The CHAIRMAN. Even if the gentleman's argument is correct, the
outlays and budget authority must be neutral. The committee is arguing
that, in fact, they are not. The Chair sustains the position of the
committee.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, nobody has given what they purport to be a
differing amount of budget authority or outlay.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has the burden of proof. If he has a CBO
score, the Chair would be happy to receive it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, as a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair is referring to any document
or source that purports that the BA is any different than the dollar
for dollar that is in here, my parliamentary inquiry is upon what does
the Chair rely?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is relying on assertions of the Committee on
Appropriations. The burden of proof lies in the hands of the gentleman
from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, when the Chair says relying upon
assertions, the only assertion that has been presented on the floor is
the raising of the point of order contesting whether that is the case
as opposed to a factual assertion that is the case. If the Chair is
relying upon a factual assertion made by the committee or anyone else,
that is what I seek to learn.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman wishes to challenge the assertions of
the committee, he must have evidence from the CBO.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the committee has not made an assertion.
The committee has posed a question to the Chair. The Chair has said it
has received an assertion but has not told us the source. It has not
said that assertion came on the floor in a document, through something
extraneous, through this regular order.
The CHAIRMAN. The assertion of the subcommittee is from the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the subcommittee chairman.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
Does that mean that any time that the presenter of a bill on the
floor raises a point of order asking the Chair whether something is in
order between budget authority and outlay, that the Chair will
automatically assume that the point of order is well taken? That seems
to be the position that has been asserted.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would restate that the gentleman has the
burden of proof. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has the
burden of proof.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, so the burden of proof is not on the person
raising the point of order? Is not that a shift of the burden of proof?
The CHAIRMAN. In this particular case it is on the offerer of the
amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Does the burden rest
upon the person raising a point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The offerer of any amendment always has the burden of
proof to show that; the burden of proof in showing that their amendment
would be in order.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, does that mean that any person contesting
any dollar amendment can always raise a point of order that it is not
the same within budget authority and that point of order will
automatically be sustained absent some outside authority?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state that if it is a factual
contention the offerer of the amendment must, in fact, provide the
burden of proof.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have contended that these are the same
amounts, and you are saying that the factual assertion of a Member has
no standing because of an arbitrary action.
The CHAIRMAN. It is long-standing precedent of the House shown on
page 802 of the manual that the offerer of the amendment has the burden
of proof under clause 2 of rule XXI.
Mr. ISTOOK. So, therefore, there is no burden of proof resting upon
the person who raises a point of order under the Chair's ruling?
The CHAIRMAN. When there is a factual contention the burden of proof
is on the offerer of the amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the Chairman. We will reoffer the amendment as
many times as are necessary to make sure that it is in order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration

health resources and services

For carrying out titles II, III, VII, VIII, X, XII, XIX,
and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section 427(a) of
the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title V and
sections 1128E and 1820 of the Social Security Act, the
Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, as amended, the
Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, as amended, the
Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000, and the Poison Control
Center Enhancement and Awareness Act, $5,691,480,000, of
which $35,000,000 from general revenues, notwithstanding
section 1820(j) of the Social Security Act, shall be
available for carrying out the Medicare rural hospital
flexibility grants program under section 1820 of such Act:
Provided, That of the funds made available under this
heading, $250,000 shall be available until expended for
facilities renovations at the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease
Center: Provided further, That in addition to fees authorized
by section 427(b) of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act
of 1986, fees shall be collected for the full disclosure of
information under the Act sufficient to recover the full
costs of operating the National Practitioner Data Bank, and
shall remain available until expended to carry out that Act:
Provided further, That fees collected for the full disclosure
of information under the ``Health Care Fraud and Abuse Data
Collection Program,'' authorized by section 1128E(d)(2) of
the Social Security Act, shall be sufficient to recover the
full costs of operating the program, and shall remain
available until expended to carry out that Act: Provided
further, That no more than $15,000,000 is available for
carrying out the provisions of Public Law 104-73: Provided
further, That of the funds made available under this heading,
$264,170,000 shall be for the program under title X of the
Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary family
planning projects: Provided further, That amounts provided to
said projects under such title shall not be expended for
abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall be
nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended for
any activity (including the publication or distribution of
literature) that in any way tends to promote public support
or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate for
public office: Provided further, That $649,000,000 shall be
for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs authorized by section
2616 of the Public Health Service Act: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding section 502(a)(1) of the Social
Security Act, not to exceed $116,145,000 is available for
carrying out special projects of regional and national
significance pursuant to section 501(a)(2) of such Act. For
special projects of regional and national significance under
section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act, $10,000,000:
Provided further, That such amount shall not be counted
toward compliance with the allocation required in section
502(a)(1) of such Act: Provided further, That such amount
shall be used only for making competitive grants to provide
abstinence education (as defined in section 510(b)(2) of such
Act) to adolescents and for evaluations (including
longitudinal evaluations) of activities under the grants and
for Federal costs of administering the grants: Provided
further, That grants shall be made only to public and private
entities

[[Page 19370]]

which agree that, with respect to an adolescent to whom the
entities provide abstinence education under such grant, the
entities will not provide to that adolescent any other
education regarding sexual conduct, except that, in the case
of an entity expressly required by law to provide health
information or services the adolescent shall not be precluded
from seeking health information or services from the entity
in a different setting than the setting in which the
abstinence education was provided: Provided further, That the
funds expended for such evaluations may not exceed 3.5
percent of such amount.

health education assistance loans program

Such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of
the program, as authorized by title VII of the Public Health
Service Act, as amended. For administrative expenses to carry
out the guaranteed loan program, including section 709 of the
Public Health Service Act, $3,792,000.

vaccine injury compensation program trust fund

For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims
associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect
to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant
to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That for
necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $2,992,000
shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

disease control, research, and training

To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, XIX, and
XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102,
103, 201, 202, 203, 301, and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977, sections 20, 21, and 22 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, title IV of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and section 501 of the
Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980; including insurance
of official motor vehicles in foreign countries; and hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft, $4,077,060,000, of
which $175,000,000 shall remain available until expended for
equipment and construction and renovation of facilities, and
of which $137,527,000 for international HIV/AIDS shall remain
available until September 30, 2003, and in addition, such
sums as may be derived from authorized user fees, which shall
be credited to this account: Provided, That in addition to
amounts provided herein, up to $93,964,000 shall be available
from amounts available under section 241 of the Public Health
Service Act to carry out the National Center for Health
Statistics surveys: Provided further, That none of the funds
made available for injury prevention and control at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to
advocate or promote gun control: Provided further, That the
Director may redirect the total amount made available under
authority of Public Law 101-502, section 3, dated November 3,
1990, to activities the Director may so designate: Provided
further, That the Congress is to be notified promptly of any
such transfer: Provided further, That not to exceed
$10,000,000 may be available for making grants under section
1509 of the Public Health Service Act to not more than 15
States.

National Institutes of Health

national cancer institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $4,146,291,000.

national heart, lung, and blood institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and
blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $2,547,675,000.

national institute of dental and craniofacial research

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to dental disease,
$339,268,000.

national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and
kidney disease, $1,446,705,000.

national institute of neurological disorders and stroke

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and
stroke, $1,306,321,000.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I am going to withdraw because
I appreciate the work done by the chairman and ranking member on this
issue. But I think when we talk about health care, it is important to
raise the point about an aspect of health care that is not getting the
attention that it needs, and that I would hope that in conference
committee the chairman and the ranking member could help us address it.
Mr. Chairman, that deals with the crisis in dental care in the United
States of America.
I am more than aware of the overall crisis in health care. I strongly
support a national health care program that would guarantee health care
to every man, woman, and child. I think that we need to make
fundamental changes in our health care system. But having said that, it
is imperative to talk about something that is very rarely talked about.
And that is all over the United States of America, we have children, we
have adults, we have senior citizens, who simply cannot gain access to
a dental office and get their teeth adequately dealt with.
I held a hearing in Montpelier, Vermont several months ago; and I was
stunned to learn in my own city of Burlington we have low-income
children who have teeth rotting in their mouths who cannot gain access
to a dental office.
There are many reasons for the dental crisis. Number one, we do not
have enough dentists in this country; and many of our dentists are
getting old and are retiring. And we are not bringing enough younger
people into the dental profession. Second of all, the kind of
reimbursement rates we have for dental care on the Medicaid are
inadequate. Thirdly, the dental clinics all over this country are not
giving adequate support to dentistry.

{time} 1500

So, Mr. Chairman, if I may ask the chairman of the committee, my
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), if he could give me some
assurance that in conference committee we can pay more attention than
we have to the dental crisis which exists among low-income people in
this country.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the bill has been pretty sensitive
to research; but I believe what the gentleman is addressing is the
providing of dental care, and that really would, I think, be a Ways and
Means jurisdiction more so than our committee.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully
suggest to my friend that there are provisions in this bill which
provide grants through the Rural Outreach Grants Program, which include
dental programs, although primarily it is not dental. But I would hope
that at conference committee time an effort could be made to expand
funding or add funding to that in order to make sure that low-income
kids in this country do not continue to have teeth rotting in their
mouths.
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand the
problem. I dealt with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for many years, and
they have probably as much in the way of dental problems as any group
in our society. So I am sympathetic to it. However, it is a matter of
where we get the resources to do that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond by relating this
story. I announced the opening of a dental clinic in a four-county area
in my district last year. When I was at that clinic, one woman told me
that she had a son who was very, very sick. Her husband was also very,
very ill and could not work, so she was on Medicaid. She desperately
needed a dentist to take the braces off that child's teeth. She could
not find one, even though she had called over 30 dentists. As a result,
she held the kid down, while the father took the braces off with a pair
of pliers.
In my view, that should not happen to any American. I am for anything
anywhere that can increase dental care providers and services, and I
will do anything that is possibly within our reach to try to deal with
the problem. Unfortunately, as the gentleman says, most of what needs
to be done is within the Medicaid area, over which this committee does
not have jurisdiction.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the

[[Page 19371]]

gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments.
I will withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman, with the hope that all of
us can focus on a major crisis that exists all over this country,
perhaps most clearly in rural America, and with the hope that we can
work together to begin effectively addressing this.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I thank
the gentleman from Ohio for allowing me the opportunity to talk just
for a few minutes about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program,
otherwise known as LIHEAP. I want to thank the subcommittee for the
$1.7 billion in regular and the $300 million in emergency
appropriations for LIHEAP in this bill. This is a generous increase
over the President's request, and I believe it will make a significant
difference in the lives of many poor people this winter.
The amendment I would have submitted, but which I will withdraw and
have withdrawn, would have made advance appropriations for $2 million
for LIHEAP for fiscal year 2003, guaranteeing the State LIHEAP
administrators a firm figure upon which to plan their advances for next
winter. Although there is language in the 2002 budget resolution
allowing advance appropriations for LIHEAP, the Committee on Rules this
past week did not grant a waiver and the amendment was ruled out of
order.
We all know that these LIHEAP funds are most efficiently used when
the State LIHEAP administrators know how much money they are going to
get before they open up their programs. Winter heating programs need to
be prepared for in August before the appropriations have been made. We
seem to fight this battle and have the discussion each year. Winter
heating seasons, particularly when the appropriations process has been
delayed beyond the beginning of the fiscal year, need to begin before
the funding generally arrives.
Mr. Chairman, advance appropriations would allow the LIHEAP
administrators to know prior to the beginning of the fiscal year what
resources they will have to work with. They could therefore plan for a
certain amount of money, determine how many applicants they will be
able to help, stretch each dollar to its maximum extent, and provide a
measure of reassurance for households who very well may have to choose
between heat and food.
This is of particular concern this year. I would like to remind my
colleagues that the LIHEAP cases were up 30 percent last winter, but
most States were only able to help about 15 percent of their
applicants. In the emergency appropriations bill passed this summer,
there was $300 million in LIHEAP funding. This money should have been
distributed immediately to help the families with children and the
elderly who were unable to pay for their heating bills from last
winter.
The Department of Health and Human Services has signed off on the
money; but because OMB has not released the funding, these people are
in even worse situation than they were this past summer. Still behind
in their bills, still cut off, some of them, from heat, gas, and
electricity, and winter is at our doorstep.
I would like to urge the House to press for the release of these
emergency LIHEAP funds by OMB immediately and also to allow advance
appropriations for this vital and important program next year.
I want to thank the chairman, on behalf of the Northeast-Midwest
coalition here in the House, made up of States in our region, Members
of both parties, for his attention to this matter.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. QUINN. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say there has been no
greater advocate for the LIHEAP program than my friend from New York,
and I appreciate his efforts and I appreciate his remarks. His
compliments were directed toward the chairman of the subcommittee; but
I think also it is fair to say that the ranking member and the chairman
have worked closely together, and I appreciate his acknowledgment of
the generosity of the bill as it is with regard to LIHEAP. I would
reiterate that the bill includes the highest funding level ever
provided for the LIHEAP program at $2 billion.
So I thank the gentleman for his efforts. I am sure he will persevere
in the particular idea which he had for us today.
Mr. QUINN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
very much. We appreciate the cooperation we received from both sides of
the aisle in the subcommittee and the full committee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in
a colloquy with my colleague from California.
Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment designed to
correct an inequity in current law which penalizes students who attend
low-cost colleges. Since 1973, the Federal Pell Grant program has
helped nearly 80 million low- and middle-income students pay for
college. At just one community college in my district, Glendale
Community College, about 3,500 students receive Pell grants each year.
And while their tuition may be less than $1,000 for an academic year,
the full cost of attendance for a 9-month academic year is estimated to
be over $5,600; and that is for a student living at home with parents
or relatives.
Unfortunately, these students and others at community colleges in
California do not receive the full Pell grant award. At these colleges,
books can often surpass the cost of tuition; and add to that other
costs and fees of higher education, and there is an enormous burden on
the lowest-income students. The tuition sensitivity provision unfairly
penalizes these students in States like California, which have kept
tuition low by strong State support for higher education. These are the
poorest students at the least expensive schools.
My colleagues might be wondering why they have not heard of the
tuition-sensitivity provision. The answer is that right now this rule
only affects California students. However, as the Pell grant increases,
the tuition-sensitivity rule will limit financial aid to students in
other States, like Texas, North Carolina, Arkansas, Arizona, New
Mexico, and Oklahoma, just to name a few.
By repealing the tuition-sensitivity trigger, we assure fairness and
equity; we incentivize States to support higher education, not back
away from funding. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), for all his work on this issue and his
willingness to work together in the reauthorization process. He has
done an extraordinary job for the students of California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my good friend and
neighbor from California, for yielding; and I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss this very important issue.
I want to assure my friend that I am very much aware of the Pell
grant tuition-sensitivity provisions in current law that limit the
ability of California's lowest-income community college students from
receiving the maximum Pell grant award. As the chairman of the
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, which has jurisdiction
over higher-education issues, I have long been a strong supporter of
addressing the tuition-sensitivity provision.
The tuition-sensitivity provision in the Higher Education Act
precludes students, as the gentleman said, from the lowest-cost
institutions, like those attending California community colleges, from
receiving their full Pell grant eligibility. This affects almost
180,000 students from the California community college system alone.
I want to assure my friend that he has my full commitment to work
diligently to find a solution to this problem. I am eager to work with
him and others as we move into the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act in the next Congress to ensure that all students have
access to quality education.

[[Page 19372]]

Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague
for all his effort on behalf of the students in California and around
this country. I very much look forward to working with him. I also want
to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their consideration
today.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title II?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious
diseases, $2,337,204,000: Provided, That the Director may
transfer up to $25,000,000 to International Assistance
Programs, ``Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and
Tuberculosis,'' to remain available until expended.

national institute of general medical sciences

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences,
$1,706,968,000.

national institute of child health and human development

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to child health and human
development, $1,088,208,000.

national eye institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual
disorders, $566,725,000.

national institute of environmental health sciences

For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the
Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental
health sciences, $557,435,000.

national institute on aging

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to aging, $873,186,000.

national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and
musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $440,144,000.

national institute on deafness and other communication disorders

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other
communication disorders, $334,161,000.

national institute of nursing research

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to nursing research,
$116,773,000.

national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and
alcoholism, $379,026,000.

national institute on drug abuse

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $900,389,000.

national institute of mental health

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to mental health,
$1,228,780,000.

national human genome research institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to human genome research,
$423,454,000.

national institute of biomedical imaging and bioengineering

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to biomedical imaging and
bioengineering, $39,896,000.

national center for research resources

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to research resources and
general research support grants, $966,541,000: Provided, That
none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of the
general research support grants program any amount for
indirect expenses in connection with such grants: Provided
further, That $97,000,000 shall be for extramural facilities
construction grants, of which $5,000,000 shall be for
beginning construction of facilities for a Chimp Sanctuary
system as authorized in Public Law 106-551.

john e. fogarty international center

For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty
International Center, $56,021,000.

national library of medicine

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to health information
communications, $273,610,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be
available until expended for improvement of information
systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 2002, the Library may
enter into personal services contracts for the provision of
services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under
the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health.

national center for complementary and alternative medicine

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to complementary and
alternative medicine, $99,288,000.

national center on minority health and health disparities

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to minority health and health
disparities research, $157,204,000.

office of the director

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the
Director, National Institutes of Health, $232,098,000, of
which $53,540,000 shall be for the Office of AIDS Research:
Provided, That funding shall be available for the purchase of
not to exceed 29 passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only: Provided further, That the Director may direct up to 1
percent of the total amount made available in this or any
other Act to all National Institutes of Health appropriations
to activities the Director may so designate: Provided
further, That no such appropriation shall be decreased by
more than 1 percent by any such transfers and that the
Congress is promptly notified of the transfer: Provided
further, That the National Institutes of Health is authorized
to collect third party payments for the cost of clinical
services that are incurred in National Institutes of Health
research facilities and that such payments shall be credited
to the National Institutes of Health Management Fund:
Provided further, That all funds credited to the National
Institutes of Health Management Fund shall remain available
for one fiscal year after the fiscal year in which they are
deposited.

buildings and facilities

(including transfer of funds)

For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of
equipment for, facilities of or used by the National
Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real
property, $311,600,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $26,000,000 shall be for the John Edward Porter
Neuroscience Research Center: Provided, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, single contracts or related
contracts, which collectively include the full scope of the
project, may be employed for the development and construction
of the first and second phases of the John Edward Porter
Neuroscience Research Center: Provided further, That the
solicitations and contracts shall contain the clause
``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232-18: Provided
further, That the Director may transfer up to $75,000,000 to
International Assistance Programs, ``Global Fund to Fight
HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis,'' to remain available
until expended.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

substance abuse and mental health services

For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health
services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill
Individuals Act of 1986, and section 301 of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to program management,
$3,131,558,000.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

healthcare research and quality

For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health
Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act, $168,435,000; in addition, amounts received from Freedom
of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency
agreements, and the sale of data shall be credited to this
appropriation and shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section
926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed
$137,810,000.

Health Care Financing Administration

grants to states for medicaid

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI
and XIX of the Social Security Act, $106,821,882,000, to
remain available until expended.
For making, after May 31, 2002, payments to States under
title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of
fiscal year 2002 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making payments to States or in the case of section
1928 on behalf of States under title XIX of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2003,
$46,601,937,000, to remain available until expended.
Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with
respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during
such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and
approved in that or any subsequent quarter.

payments to health care trust funds

For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as
provided under section 1844 of the Social Security Act,
sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social Security Amendments
of 1965, section 278(d) of

[[Page 19373]]

Public Law 97-248, and for administrative expenses incurred
pursuant to section 201(g) of the Social Security Act,
$81,924,200,000.

program management

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI,
XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, titles XIII
and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed
$2,361,158,000, to be transferred from the Federal Hospital
Insurance and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance
Trust Funds, as authorized by section 201(g) of the Social
Security Act; together with all funds collected in accordance
with section 353 of the Public Health Service Act and section
1857(e)(2) of the Social Security Act, and such sums as may
be collected from authorized user fees and the sale of data,
which shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
all funds derived in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from
organizations established under title XIII of the Public
Health Service Act shall be credited to and available for
carrying out the purposes of this appropriation: Provided
further, That $18,200,000 appropriated under this heading for
the managed care system redesign shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That the Secretary of Health and
Human Services is directed to collect fees in fiscal year
2002 from Medicare+Choice organizations pursuant to section
1857(e)(2) of the Social Security Act and from eligible
organizations with risk-sharing contracts under section 1876
of that Act pursuant to section 1876(k)(4)(D) of that Act:
Provided further, That, for the current fiscal year, not more
than $680,000,000 may be made available under section
1817(k)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i(k)(4))
from the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account of the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund to carry out the
Medicare Integrity Program under section 1893 of such Act.

health maintenance organization loan and loan guarantee fund

For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of
the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the
Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under
title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available
without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding
obligations. During fiscal year 2002, no commitments for
direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.

Administration for Children and Families

payments to states for child support enforcement and family support
programs

For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social
Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9),
$2,447,800,000, to remain available until expended; and for
such purposes for the first quarter of fiscal year 2003,
$1,100,000,000, to remain available until expended.
For making payments to each State for carrying out the
program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under
title IV-A of the Social Security Act before the effective
date of the program of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) with respect to such State, such sums as may be
necessary: Provided, That the sum of the amounts available to
a State with respect to expenditures under such title IV-A in
fiscal year 1997 under this appropriation and under such
title IV-A as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 shall not exceed the
limitations under section 116(b) of such Act.
For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year,
payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles
I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and
the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the last 3
months of the current fiscal year for unanticipated costs,
incurred for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be
necessary.

low income home energy assistance

For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, $1,700,000,000.
For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, $300,000,000: Provided, That
these funds are for the unanticipated home energy assistance
needs of one or more States, as authorized by section 2604(e)
of the Act and notwithstanding the designation requirement of
section 2602(e) of such Act: Provided further, That these
funds are hereby designated by Congress to be emergency
requirements pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided
further, That these funds shall be made available only after
submission to Congress of a formal budget request by the
President that includes designation of the entire amount of
the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

refugee and entrant assistance

For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance
activities authorized by title IV of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), $450,224,000:
Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act for fiscal year 2002
shall be available for the costs of assistance provided and
other activities through September 30, 2004: Provided
further, That up to $10,000,000 is available to carry out the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.
For carrying out section 5 of the Torture Victims Relief
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-320), $10,000,000.

payments to states for the child care and development block grant

For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990), $2,199,987,000 shall be
used to supplement, not supplant state general revenue funds
for child care assistance for low-income families: Provided,
That $19,120,000 shall be available for child care resource
and referral and school-aged child care activities: Provided
further, That, in addition to the amounts required to be
reserved by the States under section 658G, $272,672,000 shall
be reserved by the States for activities authorized under
section 658G, of which $100,000,000 shall be for activities
that improve the quality of infant and toddler care: Provided
further, That $10,000,000 shall be for use by the Secretary
for child care research, demonstration, and evaluation
activities.

social services block grant

For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the
Social Security Act, $1,700,000,000: Provided, That
notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of section 404(d)(2) of such
Act, the applicable percent specified under such subparagraph
for a State to carry out State programs pursuant to title XX
of such Act shall be 10 percent.

children and families services programs

(including rescissions)

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway
and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Native American
Programs Act of 1974, title II of Public Law 95-266 (adoption
opportunities), the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-89), the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of
1988, part B(1) of title IV and sections 413, 429A, 1110, and
1115 of the Social Security Act, and sections 40155, 40211,
and 40241 of Public Law 103-322; for making payments under
the Community Services Block Grant Act, section 473A of the
Social Security Act, and title IV of Public Law 105-285, and
for necessary administrative expenses to carry out said Acts
and titles I, IV, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social
Security Act, the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, title IV of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee
Education Assistance Act of 1980, section 5 of the Torture
Victims Relief Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-320), sections
40155, 40211, and 40241 of Public Law 103-322, and section
126 and titles IV and V of Public Law 100-485,
$8,275,442,000, of which $43,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2003, shall be for grants to States for
adoption incentive payments, as authorized by section 473A of
title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670-679) and
may be made for adoptions completed in fiscal years 2000 and
2001; of which $620,000,000 shall be for making payments
under the Community Services Block Grant Act; and of which
$6,475,812,000 shall be for making payments under the Head
Start Act, of which $1,400,000,000 shall become available
October 1, 2002, and remain available through September 30,
2003: Provided, That to the extent Community Services Block
Grant funds are distributed as grant funds by a State to an
eligible entity as provided under the Act, and have not been
expended by such entity, they shall remain with such entity
for carryover into the next fiscal year for expenditure by
such entity consistent with program purposes: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall establish procedures
regarding the disposition of intangible property which
permits grant funds, or intangible assets acquired with funds
authorized under section 680 of the Community Services Block
Grant Act, as amended, to become the sole property of such
grantees after a period of not more than 12 years after the
end of the grant for purposes and uses consistent with the
original grant.
Funds appropriated for fiscal year 2002 under section
429A(e), part B of title IV of the Social Security Act shall
be reduced by $6,000,000.
Funds appropriated for fiscal year 2002 under section
413(h)(1) of the Social Security Act shall be reduced by
$15,000,000.

promoting safe and stable families

For carrying out subpart 2 of part B of title IV of the
Social Security Act, $305,000,000. In addition, for such
purposes, $70,000,000 to carry out such subpart.

payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance

For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, $4,885,600,000;
For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2003, $1,754,000,000.

[[Page 19374]]

Administration on Aging

aging services programs

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, and section 398 of
the Public Health Service Act, $1,144,832,000.

Office of the Secretary

general departmental management

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general
departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and
for carrying out titles III, XVII, and XX of the Public
Health Service Act, and the United States-Mexico Border
Health Commission Act, $333,036,000, together with
$5,851,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical
Insurance Trust Fund: Provided, That of this amount
$50,000,000 shall be available for minority AIDS prevention
and treatment activities; and $25,000,000 shall be available
for an Information Technology Security and Innovation Fund
for Department-wide activities involving cybersecurity,
information technology security, and related innovation
projects: Provided further, That no funds shall be obligated
for minority AIDS prevention and treatment activities until
the Department submits an operating plan to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.

office of inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $35,786,000: Provided, That, of such
amount, necessary sums are available for providing protective
services to the Secretary and investigating non-payment of
child support cases for which non-payment is a Federal
offense under 18 U.S.C. section 228: Provided further, That,
for the current fiscal year, not more than $130,000,000 may
be made available under section 1817(k)(3)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i(k)(3)(A)) from the Health Care
Fraud and Abuse Control Account of the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund for purposes of the activities of the
Office of Inspector General with respect to the Medicare and
Medicaid programs.

office for civil rights

For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights,
$28,691,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000, to be
transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1)
of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.

policy research

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
research studies under section 1110 of the Social Security
Act and title III of the Public Health Service Act,
$2,500,000: Provided, That in addition to amounts provided
herein, funds from amounts available under section 241 of the
Public Health Service Act may be used to carry out national
health or human services research and evaluation activities:
Provided further, That the expenditure of any funds available
under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act are
subject to the requirements of section 205 of this Act.

retirement pay and medical benefits for commissioned officers

For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health
Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, for
payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection
Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan, for medical care of
dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents'
Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), and for payments
pursuant to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 429(b)), such amounts as may be required during the
current fiscal year.

public health and social services emergency fund

For expenses necessary to support activities related to
countering potential biological, disease and chemical threats
to civilian populations, $300,619,000: Provided, That this
amount is distributed as follows: Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, $231,919,000, of which $52,000,000 shall
remain available until expended for the National
Pharmaceutical Stockpile; and Office of Emergency
Preparedness, $68,700,000.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be
available for not to exceed $37,000 for official reception
and representation expenses when specifically approved by the
Secretary.
Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through
assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health
Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in
AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency
for International Development, the United Nations
International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health
Organization.
Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may
be used to implement section 399L(b) of the Public Health
Service Act or section 1503 of the National Institutes of
Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43.
Sec. 204. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for
the National Institutes of Health and the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration shall be used to pay
the salary of an individual, through a grant or other
extramural mechanism, at a rate in excess of Executive Level
II.
Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service
Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act,
or for other taps and assessments made by any office located
in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the
Secretary's preparation and submission of a report to the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House
detailing the planned uses of such funds.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 206. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for
the current fiscal year for the Department of Health and
Human Services in this Act may be transferred between
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That
the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are
notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.
Sec. 207. The Director of the National Institutes of
Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS
Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes,
centers, and divisions from the total amounts identified by
these two Directors as funding for research pertaining to the
human immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Congress is
promptly notified of the transfer.
Sec. 208. Of the amounts made available in this Act for the
National Institutes of Health, the amount for research
related to the human immunodeficiency virus, as jointly
determined by the Director of the National Institutes of
Health and the Director of the Office of AIDS Research, shall
be made available to the ``Office of AIDS Research'' account.
The Director of the Office of AIDS Research shall transfer
from such account amounts necessary to carry out section
2353(d)(3) of the Public Health Service Act.
Sec. 209. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
made available to any entity under title X of the Public
Health Service Act unless the applicant for the award
certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family
participation in the decision of minors to seek family
planning services and that it provides counseling to minors
on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in
sexual activities.
Sec. 210. None of the funds appropriated by this Act
(including funds appropriated to any trust fund) may be used
to carry out the Medicare+Choice program if the Secretary
denies participation in such program to an otherwise eligible
entity (including a Provider Sponsored Organization) because
the entity informs the Secretary that it will not provide,
pay for, provide coverage of, or provide referrals for
abortions: Provided, That the Secretary shall make
appropriate prospective adjustments to the capitation payment
to such an entity (based on an actuarially sound estimate of
the expected costs of providing the service to such entity's
enrollees): Provided further, That nothing in this section
shall be construed to change the Medicare program's coverage
for such services and a Medicare+Choice organization
described in this section shall be responsible for informing
enrollees where to obtain information about all Medicare
covered services.
Sec. 211. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
provider of services under title X of the Public Health
Service Act shall be exempt from any State law requiring
notification or the reporting of child abuse, child
molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest.
Sec. 212. (a) Except as provided by subsection (e) none of
the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to withhold
substance abuse funding from a State pursuant to section 1926
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-26) if such
State certifies to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
by May 1, 2002 that the State will commit additional State
funds, in accordance with subsection (b), to ensure
compliance with State laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco
products to individuals under 18 years of age.
(b) The amount of funds to be committed by a State under
subsection (a) shall be equal to 1 percent of such State's
substance abuse block grant allocation for each percentage
point by which the State misses the retailer compliance rate
goal established by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under section 1926 of such Act.
(c) The State is to maintain State expenditures in fiscal
year 2002 for tobacco prevention programs and for compliance
activities at a level that is not less than the level of such
expenditures maintained by the State for fiscal year 2001,
and adding to that level the additional funds for tobacco
compliance activities required under subsection (a). The
State is to submit a report to the Secretary on all fiscal
year 2001 State expenditures and all fiscal year 2002
obligations for tobacco prevention and compliance activities
by program activity by July 31, 2002.
(d) The Secretary shall exercise discretion in enforcing
the timing of the State obligation of the additional funds
required by the

[[Page 19375]]

certification described in subsection (a) as late as July 31,
2002.
(e) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used
to withhold substance abuse funding pursuant to section 1926
from a territory that receives less than $1,000,000.
Sec. 213. (a) In order for the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention to carry out international HIV/AIDS and other
infectious disease, chronic and environmental disease, and
other health activities abroad during fiscal year 2002, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to--
(1) utilize the authorities contained in subsection 2(c) of
the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as
amended, subject to the limitations set forth in subsection
(b), and
(2) enter into reimbursable agreements with the Department
of State using any funds appropriated to the Department of
Health and Human Services, for the purposes for which the
funds were appropriated in accordance with authority granted
to the Secretary of Health and Human Services or under
authority governing the activities of the Department of
State.
(b) In exercising the authority set forth in subsection
(a)(1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services--
(1) shall not award contracts for performance of an
inherently governmental function; and
(2) shall follow otherwise applicable Federal procurement
laws and regulations to the maximum extent practicable.
Sec. 214. The Division of Federal Occupational Health may
utilize personal services contracting to employ professional
management/administrative and occupational health
professionals.
Sec. 215. Of the funds appropriated for the National
Institutes of Health for fiscal year 2002, $2,875,000,000
shall not be available for obligation until September 30,
2002.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and
Human Services Appropriations Act, 2002''.

Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of title II be considered as read, printed
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
At the end of title II, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. 2__. Of the amounts made available in this title under
the heading ``Health Resources and Services Administration--
health resources and services'', $60,000,000 of the amount
made available for carrying out part A of title XXVI of the
Public Health Service Act is transferred and made available
under such heading for the State AIDS Drug Assistance
Programs authorized by section 2616 of such Act, in addition
to other amounts available under such heading for such State
AIDS Drug Assistance Programs.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) reserves a
point of order on the amendment.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment shifts $60 million
from title II of the Ryan White CARE Act to title I of the Ryan White
CARE Act.
What my amendment does is to recognize that fully funding of the AIDS
Drug Assistance Program, or ADAP, should receive highest priority. This
is a question of life-sustaining drugs versus programs and other
services for those with AIDS. One thing we do know, programs and
services are of little use if AIDS patients do not have access to life-
sustaining drugs.
We have all been visited by those who run the ADAP programs in our
States expressing concerns about the shortfall in funding for this
critical program. We know that last year hundreds of AIDS patients were
unable to access basic lifesaving medication not in Africa, but here in
the United States.
As I have shared on this floor before, as a practicing physician
prior to coming to Congress in 1995, I provided medical care to
hundreds of HIV/AIDS patients. I was one of only two physicians in my
community that took care of more than 400,000 people who provided care
for AIDS patients, and I know how critical access to life-sustaining
drugs can be.
After Medicaid, ADAP is the single most important Federal program for
Americans living with AIDS and HIV. ADAP is the component of title II
of the Ryan White CARE Act that provides AIDS medications to Americans
living with HIV that have no other source of medical coverage.
According to the National Organizations Responding to AIDS, or NORA,
the Federal-State partnership in title II ADAP has significantly
contributed to the decline in AIDS deaths since 1995. NORA, which is
comprised of 175 organizations concerned about AIDS, recommends that a
$124 million increase over last year's ADAP appropriation is necessary
to ensure that every American infected with AIDS is provided access to
life-saving AIDS medications.
The House appropriations bill funds about half of this shortfall.
The ADAP working group wrote: ``We will absolutely be in very serious
difficulties if this appropriation isn't raised.''

{time} 1515

Mr. Chairman, a lack of the needed $60 million above what is
currently in the House bill means more than 5,000 Americans with HIV,
on top of those already on the waiting list for ADAP, will not have
access to the important life-sustaining combination drug therapies.
Allowing Americans with HIV to stand on waiting lists for access to
HIV medications is simply not acceptable. Every State, territory,
congressional district, and individual living with HIV with no other
access to AIDS medication is dependent on ADAP. Women and those in
minority communities living with HIV-AIDS disproportionately rely on
ADAP for their AIDS medications.
My amendment closes the $60 million shortfall in ADAP. Unlike ADAP,
title I is limited and only serves 51 cities across the country. One of
those cities, San Francisco, receives twice the amount per AIDS case as
every other city in the country. While title I services provide support
for some AIDS patients, not all of these services have the same life-
saving impact as ADAP.
Also, while the majority of the programs funded through title I Large
Cities Program are worthwhile, many of them are not as critical as the
ADAP program. Also of concern is the fact that the Senate recently
asked the HHS Inspector General to review some of the very questionable
programs that these funds are being used to support. I have received
some of these reports on these questionable programs, and I think any
reasonable person would conclude that ADAP should receive higher
priority.
It is clear to me that with the shift in funding, there is plenty of
room to accommodate important title I programs likes Primary Care,
while shifting $60 million to purchasing life-sustaining drugs. I urge
my colleagues to vote in support of my amendment. The failure to shift
this funding will leave 6,400 individuals, primarily women and
minorities, waiting in line for life-sustaining AIDS drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this amendment is
really in the form of a limitation; and, therefore, it should be coming
at the end of the bill. I think I would be within my rights if I made a
point of order at this point. But out of courtesy to the gentleman and
in order to save time, I will withdraw the reservation.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I oppose the amendment of the
gentleman from Florida for one very simple reason: it is very easy for
any individual Member to second guess what this Committee has done and
come to the floor and say we should have put $10 million here rather
than having put $10 million there. I have seen many a Member come to
the floor;

[[Page 19376]]

and no matter how high we have had an individual account, some have
said to me, frankly, no matter what the committee puts in, I will offer
an amendment to add $10 million or $20 million because that way they
get their day in court.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest in this instance we should not do that. The
gentleman is trying to take $60 million out of an account that has
received a $15 million increase. He is trying to put the money into an
account that has received a $60 million increase. This account has
already been increased four times as much as the account that the
gentleman is trying to take money out of.
Secondly, the treatment grants that the gentleman seeks to cut in
fact under this amendment are being cut below last year's level. I do
not believe that we ought to do that. I would urge Members of the House
to respect the many hours of hearings that we have held on these
subjects. These are all judgment calls. I respect the gentleman's right
to offer the amendment, but I would urge that Members stick with the
committee.
There will be amendments today that I am very much in favor of
personally, but which I will oppose because we have an understanding
that we are going to try to resist all amendments from either side of
the aisle in order to keep the delicately balanced bipartisan bill,
which it is at this point; and I would not want to begin to unravel
that. Besides, substantively I believe the gentleman is in error in
seeking to make the reduction that he is in this account. I would urge
defeat of the amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for not
insisting on his point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on asking for a recorded vote on this
amendment because I understand there is a very delicate balance here;
and I have another amendment that I will probably ask for a recorded
vote on. But I just raise the point to say that the accounts where I am
trying to move money out of, there is one particular account where I
think there has been a fair amount of money spent very unwisely; and
the account that I am trying to put this money into I think is a very
good use of the limited resources that we have. That is why I seek to
offer the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. That
again illustrates what Will Rogers said when he said when two people
agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.
The gentleman's opinion may very well be the sound one; ours may very
well be the sound one. But in this instance, this bill is the unanimous
product of the Committee; and I think we have made the best judgment
about where the money ought to go under the circumstances, and I would
urge that we not cut this program. This treatment program would be cut
below last year's level; and given the problem that we have with this
issue, I do not think that we ought to be doing that.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not going to ask for a recorded vote,
but just to reiterate what he recognizes, too, this is a delicately
balanced bill. We tried to balance all of the priorities. This is a
good example of it.
The Ryan White program serves a lot of people. This amendment would
cut out services to about 11,000 people; and it does focus on the big
cities. I think what the gentleman is expressing concern for is right.
It is just that we do not have enough money to do everything that we
would like to do. I congratulate the gentleman for his concern and for
the other areas that he sees as underserved by ADAP.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment to take money from primary care services delivered by Title I
and move it to the drug purchasing ADAP program. Delivering drugs to
the people who need them requires the strong infrastructure established
under Title I. Without that infrastructure, we will have a bigger pool
of money with which to buy drugs, but fewer people able to take
advantage of these life-saving medications. The amendment will merely
provide a windfall to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture
these drugs while hurting the people who need them.
The AIDS cocktail involves a complex daily drug regimen. To be
effective, drugs must be taken in a consistent manner following every
instruction exactly. Failure to do so can result in the medication
becoming ineffective in a person. In addition, these medications can
have severe side effects, including liver problems, dramatically
increased cholesterol, and diabetes. People taking these medications
need access to the primary care and support services provided by Title
I to ensure proper compliance and effective treatment for any side
effects.
Title I benefits the majority of people living with HIV in this
country. More than 75% of Americans with HIV reside in the 51 areas
that receive Title I funding. Without this funding, the public health
systems in these areas will face a major challenge that they are unable
to meet. The Ryan White CARE Act was created to prevent such a
situation. Also, the CARE Act was designed to provide comprehensive
medical services to people with HIV. This amendment will undermine that
goal by focusing on only one aspect of treatment.
AIDS medications have been remarkably successful and allowed people
to live much longer with a better quality of life. However, this
success also means that more people than ever are living with HIV and
AIDS in the US and require the services delivered through Title I of
the CARE Act. Many who are HIV-positive also have other pressing health
concerns, such as Hepatitis C, mental disorders and substance abuse
problems. To deal with these challenges, people rely on the overall
health infrastructure provided by Title I and cannot be helped by
merely receiving AIDS drugs.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Weldon Amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Weldon
amendment. This misguided amendment is the very essence of robbing
Peter to pay Paul. While I support the worthy goal of increasing the
appropriation for the Aids Drug Assistance Program, I cannot do so at
the expense of Title I of the Ryan White program.
No one can argue with Dr. Weldon that ADAP funding must be
significantly increased. ADAP is a vital program that is severely
underfunded. But his answer is truly perverse. He attacks the very
infrastructure needed to deliver these important services. If he
slashes funding for Title I, he will only make it harder for people
living with HIV and AIDS to receive the medication they need under
ADAP.
Let's look at what Title I does. Title I directs funding to the
metropolitan areas that are home to about 74 percent of all individuals
diagnosed with AIDS in the United States. The areas eligible for Title
I funding are magnets for individuals from all of the surrounding areas
who are in need of the critical primary care and supportive services
provided under this program. Whether it's primary health care, dental
care, substance abuse treatment, legal services, transitional housing,
transportation, or nutritional care, Title I provides the bedrock
safety net that people living with HIV and AIDS depend on. The bottom
line is that people will die without these services.
If Dr. Weldon wants to increase funding for ADAP, as he should, the
answer is not to attack Title I. The answer is to increase the total
appropriation. Despite a request for flat funding from the President, I
am pleased that the committee provided for a modest increase in Ryan
White funding. However, the need is far greater still. Title I alone
would require a 30 million dollar increase just to keep pace with
inflation. With the modest 17 million dollar increase provided,
services will already have to be scaled back and needs will go unmet.
To further cut 60 million dollars from this program would be simply
devastating.
Indeed, ADAP is significantly underfunded, as well. But the success
of the ADAP program, which has kept thousands of people alive, makes
the need for Title I money all the greater. As people live longer, they
rely on the services provided by Title I. This amendment might
temporarily plug one hole, but it would create a much larger one
elsewhere. Vote against this dangerous amendment.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the amendment of the gentleman from Florida.
The gentleman's amendment proposes to take $60 million in funding
from Title I of the Ryan White CARE Act and transfer it to the AIDS
Drug Assistance Program.
While both of these are critical components of the Ryan White CARE
Act, we cannot support moving money from one critical program in the
CARE Act to another critical program.

[[Page 19377]]

Our nation's response to the HIV/AIDS crisis must be comprehensive and
integrated. While the ADAP program needs additional funds, these
additional resources should not come from money approved for other
bipartisan-supported CARE Act programs, such as Title I, which provides
relief to metropolitan areas--like New York and Chicago--that are
disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS. Title I funds support
comprehensive HIV health care and treatment and essential services for
low-income uninsured and underserved persons living with HIV/AIDS.
Title I provides funds to the most impacted cities for the delivery
of critical medical and support service and medications. We cannot take
medical services away to provide the increase for ADAP. Funding for the
needed increase for ADAP must come from another source, not a medical
and support service delivery program.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
The amendment was rejected.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to call attention to the need for an
additional $5 million for fiscal year 2002 to the Department of Labor's
International Bureau of Labor Affairs, also known as ILAB, for programs
that promote workplace-based HIV-AIDS education and prevention programs
and the well-being of children orphaned by HIV-AIDS in developing
countries.
More than 36 million people are living with HIV-AIDS worldwide, and
more than 10 million children in sub-Saharan Africa alone have lost
their parents to this disease. The number of AIDS orphans could climb
to more than 40 million by 2010. Mr. Chairman, 40 million orphans in
Africa is equal to the number of children east of the Mississippi River
in this country. This amount of money equates to less than 13 cents per
year per orphan to improve their lives and help make them productive
members of their society.
The global HIV-AIDS pandemic is an extremely serious issue that
demands our continued attention, and one way to address the crisis is
to promote workplace-based education and prevention programs. The ILAB
has undertaken an innovative program to address HIV-AIDS through the
workplace as part of its efforts to promote safer, healthier, and more
productive work environments.
ILAB has already launched a workplace pilot project in the Republic
of Malawi in southern Africa. Increased funding will enable ILAB to
expand workplace HIV-AIDS education and prevention programs into other
developing countries. It will also enable a joint initiative with the
Department of Labor's International Child Labor Program to develop
programs aimed at children affected by HIV-AIDS.
Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively simple transfer of dollars. The
funding for this program comes from the account that contains Job
Corps, which receives $75 million more than requested, more than double
for fiscal year 2002. This is more than Job Corps can reasonably manage
within 1 year, and so we are asking that $15 million be considered. It
is only a general funds transfer if it is considered in conference, but
it is very important that the intended destination is discussed during
floor statements today.
The Congressional Budget Office indicated that a $15 million decrease
and $5 million increase was the only way this would work with
management and Department outlays. We certainly know that there is a
serious and strategic need. This international HIV-AIDS workplace
education program has developed a strategic plan for workplace-based
HIV-AIDS education focusing on the following three components:
prevention education stressing behavioral responsibility, gender
issues, and concepts relating to care and support; workplace policy
development addressing issues of stigma and discrimination; and
capacity building activities for government, employers, and labor to
strengthen the response to this crisis.
In the year 2000, IHWEP launched a workplace education pilot project
in the Republic of Malawi, implemented by the nongovernmental
organization Project HOPE, which is based in Millwood, Virginia.
A task force cochaired by Senators Frist and Kerry have deemed the
issue of AIDS orphans a high priority. These young people are heads of
households now that they have no parents; and it provides them with
care, vocational training, as well as microfinance opportunities. It
aims to enable child-headed households to develop an income-generating
skill and reduce the likelihood that they will resort to working in
areas where their health and safety may be compromised.
Mr. Chairman, I would sincerely ask that the conference committee
consider this request. It is of grave need.
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), for their leadership on this complex and difficult
appropriations bill; and particularly to express my appreciation for
the increase of $10 million to the State Survey and Certification
program funded under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The State Survey and Certification program provides States with money
to conduct inspections of facilities serving Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries, and fund the Nursing Home Oversight Improvement Program.
The need for adequate funding of these two programs has become
painfully clear when we are reminded that 5,283 nursing homes, one out
of three nursing homes, were cited for an abuse violation in the last 2
years.
At a time when the Department of Health and Human Services has
estimated almost half of all 65-year-olds will use a nursing home at
some point during their lives, this is unacceptable and immoral. Today
there are 1.5 million people who live in nursing homes, and this figure
is expected to rise to 6.6 million by the year 2050. Our loved ones
should not be made to fear inadequate care and abuse when entering a
nursing home for the first time.
Additional funding for this program is sorely needed. This additional
funding that we will agree to today will be distributed to the States
to cover survey and complaint visit workloads.
When the daughter of someone living in a nursing home notices that
her mother is not receiving adequate care, she should immediately call
her State Department of Health to report a complaint or evidence of
abuse. However, in my home State of Oklahoma, as in many other States,
these complaints are not investigated in a timely manner.

{time} 1530

The State Department of Health simply does not have adequate funding
to hire and train enough inspectors to investigate all of the
complaints submitted. And most family members are left without any
other possible recourse, unable to afford home health care or staying
home from work to care for their loved one themselves. How, then, can
we justify pouring Federal money into these facilities as so much of
our taxpayer dollars do flow into nursing homes when the government
cannot ensure the safety of the residents?
To ensure their safety, we must continue to increase funding to CMS's
State survey and certification program. An increase of only $10 million
for fiscal year 2002 is a good start but is certain not to address the
many needs that will expand in years to come.
Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on this
issue and for increasing funding to this important program by $10
million. Nevertheless, I ask that you continue to work for increased
funding of this vitally important program in the conference committee
and in future fiscal years. Knowing the commitment of both of these
gentlemen to this important issue, I know that they will work with me
to see that this is done.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank the gentleman for his

[[Page 19378]]

interest in this program. I know he has been most interested in seeing
that we appropriate as much money as possible for the inspection of
nursing homes and I appreciate his leadership on this issue.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and engage
Chairman Regula in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, in H.R. 3061, the elementary school counseling program
is funded in this bill at $30 million, which is last year's
appropriations level. The counseling program is the only Federal
program designed to increase student access to qualified school-based
mental health professionals. It is a vital program and particularly
relevant and timely in the wake of the World Trade Center tragedies and
the increasing violence levels in our schools.
Mr. Chairman, experts tell us that the psychiatric consequences of
traumas of this kind, social traumas of this kind, may not show up for
weeks or months in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder or other
serious mental and emotional problems. I am particularly concerned
about the effects this will have on our children. As the gentleman may
well remember, the National Institute for Mental Health, following the
Oklahoma City bombing, did a great in-depth study and it demonstrated
that it took months, if not years, for the development of mental health
problems in children not directly affected by the traumatic event.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that our schools are not adequately
equipped to address the mental health needs of our students. Even
before September 11, our Nation was experiencing an urgent need for
school-based mental health services, and this is certainly evidenced by
problems such as bullying, aggressive behavior, substance abuse and
violence in the schools. We know that. We have all been familiar with
it.
I would like to particularly point out to the chairman and to our
colleagues here that back in January of this year, Dr. David Satcher,
the Surgeon General, released a report on youth violence which
identified mental health services as a necessary component of effective
programs to prevent youth violence.
Mr. Chairman, children spend a large percentage of their time in
school. Teachers and other professionals have the chance to identify
potential problems and get children the help they need. Mental health
programs in a school environment make good sense. With a small increase
in funding for school-based mental health services, we will see
dramatic, far-reaching effects.
To conclude, I would like to state to the chairman, clearly there are
many objective reasons to assert the need for increased funding.
Indeed, other programs in this bill have increased funding, including a
new mentoring program which is funded at the same level as the
counseling program. I would simply like to ask the chairman if he could
work in conference to increase funding for this program to ensure that
the mental health needs of our Nation's children are appropriately
addressed. Again, let me say, this is a cost-effective investment.
Providing mental health services now will avert far more significant
problems and far more costly problems in the future.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and assure her
that I will work in conference to increase funding for the elementary
school counseling program.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his attention and
this colloquy.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to first associate myself with the remarks
of the gentlewoman from New Jersey whose leadership in the area of
mental health parity has been well known and whose work in this area is
something I applaud greatly.
It is also a great pleasure for me, Mr. Chairman, to rise in strong
support of this bipartisan bill. Before I get into the substance of
this legislation, I would like to commend both our chairman, Chairman
Regula, as well as our ranking member, our Democratic leader on this
committee, our ace-in-the-hole, David Obey, for the fantastic work that
he has done to make this a very open and inclusive process.
Also, Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the committee, I would like to
acknowledge the work of the staff who have managed to put a very
difficult piece of legislation into proper order. I especially want to
thank Cheryl Smith and David Reich and Christina Hamilton all for their
good work as well as to acknowledge my own staff member, Matt
Braunstein, for the great work he has done in offering his enthusiasm
and dedication to this effort.
On the issues, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be noted for speaking up
as the gentlewoman from New Jersey has just done in the area of mental
health. Right now, according to the World Health Organization, mental
illnesses are the second most disabling family of diseases in
industrialized nations, trailing only cardiovascular diseases.
According to the Surgeon General, more than 54 million Americans, about
20 percent, have a mental disorder in any given year, although fewer
than 8 million even seek treatment. This is obviously because of
insurance barriers as well as the overwhelming stigma that continues to
exist when it comes to diseases of the brain, which are somehow not
equated to diseases of the rest of the body for some strange reason.
Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the mental health and emotional
stability of our country represents the next big public health
challenge that we have as a Nation, especially in the wake of the
September 11 attack. It is for these reasons that I have been so
honored to work with our colleagues on this bill to see that we had a
$20 million increase in the mental health block grant. This is
especially important, because it is consistent with President Bush's
New Freedom Initiative as well as the Supreme Court's Olmsted decision
which talks about community-based services for those in need.
There is also, Mr. Chairman, an initiative which I cosponsored with
Ranking Member Obey to have a $5 million set-aside for the seniors
mental health initiative. Senior citizens are growing in this country
as a percentage of our overall population. Yet our country is not
prepared to meet the unique challenges of our senior citizen population
as it grows. As it was said, 20 percent of our population experiences
mental disorders and it is not surprising that much of this occurs
within our senior population, given the enormous depression that they
face with loss of loved ones and with loss of their own health. They
need the assistance and support to cope with these challenges, and I
hope this initiative will begin the way towards this problem.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to these initiatives in the area of mental
health, I want to acknowledge a few other areas in the bill that I
strongly support. Among them is the area of family literacy. Mr.
Chairman, we know with the 21st Century Learning Centers that we are
able to address the needs of as many as 8 million ``latchkey'' children
who are left alone unsupervised. The 21st Century Learning Centers give
them a place to go as well as a place to grow, and that is why I am so
pleased that we are able to increase the funding for this program,
thereby allowing school districts like mine in Rhode Island, like
Pawtucket, Providence and Central Falls, to all be able to continue
their after-school programming.
In addition to family literacy, the Even Start program, which is also
about family literacy, is being well funded in this program. Even Start
is about making sure that parents are able to read and write, because
if the parent is able to read and write, their children have a much
better crack at being able to read and write themselves. That is why
adult literacy should really be viewed as family literacy, because when
you help the parents, you certainly help the children as well. That is
why I am so supportive of

[[Page 19379]]

this committee's work to increase this funding by $10 million.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think that we did a great job increasing
funds for IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
particularly part C. This is the toddler's program. This is the area
where if we invest early, we gain a great deal of return for our
investment down the road.
For all these reasons, I support this important bill and ask that its
adoption be supported unanimously by this House of Representatives.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment at the desk which I intend to
withdraw out of appreciation for the way in which Chairman Regula and
Ranking Member Obey have preserved the Porter initiative to combat
obesity and overweight in the American population.
Originally Mr. Porter, our former colleague, for the first time
placed $125 million in the 2001 budget for a program directed against
obesity and overweight in children. My amendment would have sought full
funding. I am very appreciative that the chairman and ranking member
have kept this initiative from being defunded by placing $85 million in
the 2002 budget.
This is a major legacy of our former colleague, John Porter. It is
something he worked on for some years and in his last year I worked
with him. This initiative marks the first time the Congress has given
more than token funding to the most serious, widespread health problem
in the United States today, and that is overweight and obesity. Fifty
percent of Americans are either overweight or are obese.
At the time that this matter was on the floor last year, Chairman
Porter engaged in a colloquy with me on this provision. In that
colloquy, to quote briefly from it, I asked the chairman if he would
agree that some of the $125 million in this Labor-HHS bill be spent on
the activities specified in the LIFE bill legislation. That was my
legislation, Mr. Chairman, Lifetime Improvement in Food and Exercise.
Chairman Porter answered: I support the LIFE bill and believe that
some of the $125 million in additional funding I have included in this
appropriation bill for the CDC should be directed toward the
initiatives of the LIFE legislation.
The major difference in the LIFE legislation is that it applies
beyond children to Americans of all ages. Americans of all ages, of all
races, of all backgrounds and educational groups are experiencing this
epidemic in obesity and overweight.
I am pleased that the funding for the education part of this
initiative has already begun. The LIFE bill would also promote training
by health professionals to recognize the signs of obesity and then to
recommend prevention activities and actual strategies so that people
engage in exercise and other activities designed to mitigate this
extraordinary problem we have in our country.
The importance of this initiative springs from the fact that it is
the major contributor to some of the most serious preventable diseases
in the American population, everything from high cholesterol and Type
II diabetes to arthritis and cancer. The fact that there has been a 100
percent increase in obesity among children in the last 15 years ought
to itself make us all pause. It means that these children are on their
way to death early unless somehow we can put our country on a different
path, a path where people get out and walk, a path where there is less
in fatty foods and caloric foods and more in the kind of ordinary,
everyday exercise that can mean the difference now between life and
death.
I am very appreciative but not very surprised that the Chair and the
ranking member of this committee would understand that to get this kind
of funding finally and then to have it evaporate in a single year would
have done a disservice to this very serious health problem. I am very
appreciative for what they have done. I would like to work with them in
future years so that we can, in fact, get this matter up to full
funding. That way we will see it save much in Medicare and Medicaid,
not to mention the health care bill of Americans in general.

{time} 1545

The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title II?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
At the end of title II, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. 2__. Of the amounts made available in this title under
the heading ``Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--
disease control, research, and training'', $40,000,000 of the
amount made available for communicable disease activities
(HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and sexually transmitted diseases)
is transferred and made available under the heading ``Health
Resources and Services Administration--health resources and
services'' for child-health activities under title V of the
Social Security Act (relating to the Maternal and Child
Health Services Block Grant), in addition to other amounts
available under such Health Resources heading for such child-
health activities.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses the
silent epidemic that is hitting our Nation's children at an alarming
rate. Autism is the most prevalent developmental disorder in America. A
couple of decades ago, autism struck a few children out of every
10,000. Today it hits as many as 1 in 250. Over 500,000 Americans are
autistic.
My amendment increases funding for the Maternal and Child Health
Block Grant program by $40 million. This will provide States with
funding for early diagnosis and intervention for children with autism
and other developmental disorders. Early diagnosis and intervention is
critical in helping these children reach their greatest potential.
For point of reference, it is important to note that the number of
Americans suffering from autism is more than half the total number of
Americans living with HIV and AIDS. However, you would not know this
from looking at the budgets of CDC and NIH. Last year, the CDC spent
$12 per person for every person with autism. Conversely, CDC spent
about $800 per person for every person with HIV-AIDS.
Children are diagnosed with autism through no fault of their own, and
we spend almost nothing to figure out why they are autistic.
We have an opportunity to provide $40 million for autism early
intervention. My amendment shifts $40 million from CDC's HIV prevention
account to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. Even with the
adoption of my amendment, CDC's HIV prevention budget receives an $80
million increase.
I am concerned about some of the activities that are being funded by
the CDC. If the CDC can fund questionable activities, it says to me
there is too much money in that account. I believe that shifting $40
million of the $120 million increase to assist lower income families
would be a better use of these funds.
What type of questionable programs am I talking about? I ask Members
to weigh these activities against helping lower income parents with
their autistic children.
Some of the questionable programs receiving taxpayer assistance
include recently in St. Louis, Missouri, the mayor had to get $50,000
worth of offensive billboards pulled down. Why? Because they were too
offensive for the community. They were paid for with CDC's HIV
prevention funds.
On August 21, there was a workshop where people could come and learn
about sex techniques and share stories about their sexual experiences
and turn-ons. This was funded through the CDC with funds from Stop AIDS
Project, San Francisco.
On August 23, there was a GUYWATCH in San Francisco, a program for
homosexuals under the age of 25 where they can come and ``meet other
young guys.''
Also several television ad campaigns across the country funded with
Federal

[[Page 19380]]

tax dollars have been pulled because they offended most viewers. If
people want to sponsor and attend such programs, that is their
business. However, if they want to use taxpayer dollars for it, I think
we need to look into it and weigh it against other priorities.
Most reasonable people would say we have other more important
priorities. Prior to coming to Congress in 1995, I treated hundreds of
AIDS patients. I was one of only two physicians in my community of more
than 400,000 who took care of these AIDS patients. I have been at the
bedside of dying AIDS patients. I have gotten up in the middle of the
night to provide medical care for them. I have compassion for them and
their needs.
I would not be offering this amendment if I did not feel the cause
required it. I believe that a $80 million increase rather than a $120
million increase should be more than enough for this program. I
encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on his point
of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as was the case with the gentleman's previous
amendment, I think it is drafted in such a way that it makes it clear
it is a limitation, and therefore ought to be offered at the end of the
bill. So I think the point of order would hold if I were to insist upon
it.
Again, I would simply at this point reserve my reservation and I move
to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say to the gentleman, he has
talked to me about his concern about providing additional funding for
autism. I very much agree with that; and, as a matter of fact, I agree
with some of the comments he just made about some of the wasteful uses
of some of the funds in the program that he is discussing cutting.
About 4 years ago, I made a similar objection myself.
I would urge the gentleman to withdraw the amendment, with the
assurances that both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I and the
rest of the conferees will try in conference to gain additional
financial support for programs directed at autism, and a number of
others, for that matter.
I think the gentleman is correct in bringing it to our attention. I
hesitate to support the proposal as the gentleman is offering it,
because in addition to the limitations on the AIDS program that he is
talking about, we would also be reducing funding that would go for
dealing with diseases such as TB. That almost got out of the bottle a
few years ago. I do not want to see that happen again.
I would just urge the gentleman to respect the agreement that the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I have to oppose all amendments,
no matter how meritorious we might find parts of them. We would both be
happy to work with the gentleman in conference to try to accomplish
what the gentleman is trying to accomplish.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
comments and his willingness to work with me on this issue. His points,
I think, are very well taken.
I personally have been very grieved over the years that I have worked
here to see the tremendous amount of money that we spend on HIV and the
relatively minimal amount of money we spend on autism. Actually the
number of people with HIV and AIDS is about twice the number of autism,
but if you look at the people who are actually falling into the AIDS
category, it is about the same for both diseases. What is particularly
grievous is that many private insurance companies do not cover the care
that these kids need.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is a concern. I had a
conversation with the sponsor of the amendment, and I understand the
need for this funding. We have a tough time balancing off all the
different problems that afflict us in terms of disease and research. I
do want to talk to the NIH folks and see if we could get a little more
urgency on the part of NIH in doing research. Of course, we will also,
in the conference, see if we cannot get some additional funding for
this program.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, my first order of business is to rise to support this
legislation and to acknowledge the chairman of this committee, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); and the ranking member of the full
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and the
subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula); as well the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking subcommittee member on
this legislation.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to first acknowledge that this is a
monumental piece of legislation, so I rise to emphasize the issues that
are important not only to Texas, but to my home community.
The increase in the education funding is of crucial concern in the
fact that I just attended this past week a high school that had 3,042
students in one school. We are in need of assisting the education of
our children, to create for them an opportunity, and I applaud the
increase of the education funding generally.
We as well face an increasing epidemic in HIV-AIDS, particularly
African-American and Hispanic women, the rising numbers, and the
increase in dollars in the Ryan White treatment dollars will help reach
in underserved communities as well as serve those who have been exposed
or who are subject to the AIDS epidemic.
We have had an energy explosion or a concern with our energy needs,
and the funding for LIHEAP is a very important addition.
Might I also say that I rise in support of the substance abuse and
mental health funding as well. The increase that this committee has
provided, along with the increased dollars for Medicare grants to
States, is very important to the State of Texas. Even as we speak,
there is a dispute in Texas as to whether public hospitals can be held
liable for serving the indigents, who happen to be immigrants who may
not be documented.
We know that our responsibility is to care for the ill. We want to
use Federal funds responsibly. Texas needs those dollars, and as well
we use our local funds to serve those who come to our doors who need
good health care. We know that there is no grounds to hold these public
hospitals liable, and we hope to resolve that matter very quickly.
I rise as well to indicate my concern with the issues of September
11, as so many of us have done, but to put particular emphasis on the
children.
Tomorrow, the Congressional Children's Caucus, that I chair and that
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) co-chairs, will hold a
briefing on a very important issue; and that is the impact of September
11 on the children of those who died, a guardian, single parent, two
parents, that may have been lost.
I was intending to offer two amendments to indicate the importance of
focusing on the needs of those children. Right now we do not even have
an accounting of those children. We know that there are about 500
children of police and fire parents who were lost, 500 children being
impacted. We know that in one city in New Jersey, 25 dads were alleged
to have been lost.
I had intended to offer an amendment of $375 million to fund the
promoting safe and stable families. The primary goal of promoting safe
and stable families is to prevent the unnecessary separation of
children from their families.

[[Page 19381]]

We know that those children who lost parents cannot be reunited with
their parents, their birth parents, but Congress can assist these
children in obtaining appropriate living arrangements by targeting
critical adoption services.
My other amendment was to add $20 million in grants to the States for
adoption incentive programs to be able to help move those adoptions
along faster.
I had intended also to put into this legislation the language of H.
Con. Res. 228, a bipartisan sense of Congress bill supported by
Republicans and Democrats to move to the front of the line those
children who suffered the loss of a parent, a guardian, or two parents
in the September 11 tragedy.
I want to applaud the organizations today who appeared at the Lincoln
Memorial, child survival organizations, focusing on the loss and impact
1 month after this terrible impact of the children.

{time} 1600

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this Congress, and certainly I know
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been a great champion of
children and mental health needs, would support the idea of moving
these children up so that they could utilize the Federal benefits that
they might be eligible for and that this Congress would be sensitive to
the needs of the terrible loss of September 11 with children as our
concern.
I am not going to offer these amendments, because I would like to
work with the leaders of this particular bill and work with them
through the conference that the dollars that have been allotted, that
they will be certainly available for these children as they are made
eligible.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman is addressing what
is a serious problem. This is just one of the many fall-outs of
September 11. There will be more yet to come, and I think we need to be
sensitive to it. Probably as time flows along, the problems that the
gentlewoman is discussing will become even more evident. It is an
authorizing problem, as the gentlewoman realizes, and I am sure that
the gentlewoman's amendment will be before the authorizing committee
for a hearing. But we are well aware of it. Any portion that we deal
with here, we have tried to put adequate funding in.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I
would simply like to close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that there will be
an important briefing tomorrow where we will hear from parents who are
taking care of children who have lost one parent. I believe this bill
is a strong bill, but it is very important that we look at those needs
that impacted the children pursuant to the September 11 terrible
tragedy.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to reject the spirit that animates both this
rule and the larger debate we will hold here regarding Labor/HHS
appropriations. While I appreciate the image of bi-partisanship this
open rule suggests, the actions of the rules committee allowing the
Gentlelady from Pennsylvania to offer her controversial amendment casts
a shadow over that image.
For the leadership to allow this controversial school spending
provision as a ride to this spending package with full knowledge that
the parties had previously agreed to waive the layover on the bill is
the essence of divisiveness, and gives all too clear an indication as
to the divisive directions the Leadership wishes to drive this country.
The Chairman of the committee has been quoted as saying that the
structure for this rule ``goes back to agreements that were struck
several months ago.'' Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that this is
precisely the wrong reason to go forward in this fashion. These are new
times we live in, and we are faced with daunting struggles in the weeks
ahead. Bipartisanship does not connote a carte blanche for those in
authority to abuse their position. The work is supposed to invoke a
spirit of cooperation that ought to animate our proceedings, conduct,
and consciousness in this different time. This rule does not achieve
this lofty, yet attainable goal.
In pursuit of this goal I will offer two amendments to this bill. The
first calls for increased funding the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families program under subpart 2 of part B of Title IV of the Social
Security Act. The primary goals of Promoting Safe and Stable Families
are to prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their
families, and ensure permanency for children by reuniting them with
their parents, by adoption or by another permanent living arrangement.
The children who have lost their parents or guardian in the September
11, 2001 tragedies cannot be reunited with their birth parents, but the
Congress can assist these children in obtaining the appropriate living
arrangements by targeting critical adoption services. These children
are in need of foster care assistance, adoption assistance, medical,
nutritional and psychological care. These service are needed now.
Under this amendment, states could determine the specific needs of
children and families affected by these attacks, and use these funds to
address those needs expeditiously, within the broad parameters of the
existing program.
The second amendment increases by $20,000,000 the grants to the
States for adoption incentive payments as authorized by Section 473 A
of Title IV of the SSA (42 USC 670-679) and may be made for adoptions
completed in FY 2001 and 2002.
Unlike the rider to this appropriations bill, these amendments are
timely and promote both the immediate needs of children and families
affected by the tragedies of September 11 and the spirit of cooperation
our nation desperately needs.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3061, the Labor Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
On October 2, the President sent a letter to the Republican and
Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and the chairman and ranking
member of the House and Senate Appropriations committees in which he
stated that he supported the bipartisan agreement to set FY 2002
discretionary spending levels at $686 billion. Mr. Chairman, this is
the first time in several years that the Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education Appropriation bill reached a bipartisan
agreement in the committee and with the administration.
I want to applaud the Chairman and Ranking member for their hard work
on this bill.
The Labor Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2002 will touch the lives of many American citizens
including our children. This legislation provides critical funding for
Fiscal Year 2002 for a host of programs that improve the lives. At a
time when our nation has been shaken through tragedy, this legislation
is yet another sign of our strength and resolve to go forward with the
American way of life.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out some of the key provisions of this
bill, which I believe to be critical during these difficult times.
Mr. Chairman, the bill language calls for $375,000,000 to fund the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program under subpart 2 of part B of
Title IV of the Social Security Act. The primary goals of Promoting
Safe and Stable Families are to prevent the unnecessary separation of
children from their families, and ensure permanency for children by
reuniting them with their parents, by adoption or by another permanent
living arrangement.
The children who have lost their parents or guardian in the September
11, 2001 tragedies cannot be reunited with their birth parents, but the
Congress can assist these children in obtaining the appropriate living
arrangements by targeting critical adoption services. These children
are in need of foster care assistance, adoption assistance, medical,
nutritional and psychological care. These services are needed now.
Congress should target additional funds towards addressing the
specific child welfare needs of children and families affected by the
September 11 attacks.
The types of services that are offered under the Promoting Safe and
Stable Families program are very broad. Those services include family
preservation, family support, family reunification, adoption promotion
and support. Further, states have wide discretion in the use of these
funds.
Therefore, states could determine the specific needs of children and
families affected by these attacks, and use these funds to address
those needs expeditiously, within the broad parameters of the existing
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program.
I encourage the adoption of report language in the bill that would
urge the head of each federal agency responsible to put the highest
possible priority on delivery, and to the maximum extent possible, to
do so within 60 days

[[Page 19382]]

of the date of the determination of the death of the child's parent or
guardian.
Also, Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides additional funding for
the fight against HIV/AIDs in developing countries. During the August
recess, I lead a congressional delegation to Guatemala and Honduras,
along with the Global Health Council and USAID. There, I visited health
clinics and centers that are working to reduce malnutrition and improve
the health of children in their communities. While I was impressed by
the resourcefulness and commitment of our friends and neighbors as they
work to care for the most vulnerable children, such progress will not
continue without continued support from the U.S. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased that this legislation allows the transfer up to $75,000,000 to
International Assistance programs through the ``Global Fund to Fight
HIV/AIDs, Malaria, and Tuberculosis.'' Mr. Chairman, these funds are to
remain available until expended.
Mr. Chairman, this bill provides additional funding the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance program in the amount of $300,000,000. The funds
provided in this bill for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program
are needed because of the increase in unemployed Americans. Low-income
households are having an increasingly difficult time paying their home
energy bills. Last year, Mr. Chairman, the number of households
receiving energy assistance increased by 30% from 3.9 million to almost
5 million. Twelve states reported increases of more than 40%.

Explanation of Report Language: Page 42 of the Bill Promoting Safe and
Stable Families

The bill language calls for $375,000,000 to fund the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program under subpart 2 of
part B of Title IV of the Social Security Act. The primary
goals of Promoting Safe and Stable Families are to prevent
the unnecessary separation of children from their families,
and ensure permanency for children by reuniting them with
their parents, by adoption or by another permanent living
arrangement.
The children who have lost their parents or guardian in the
September 11, 2001 tragedies cannot be reunited with their
birth parents, but the Congress can assist these children in
obtaining the appropriate living arrangements by targeting
critical adoption services. These children are in need of
foster care assistance, adoption assistance, medical,
nutritional and psychological care. These services are needed
now.
Congress should target additional funds towards addressing
the specific child welfare needs of children and families
affected by the September 11 attacks.
The types of services that are offered under the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families program are very broad. Those
services include family preservation, family support, family
reunification, adoption promotion and support. Further,
states have wide discretion in the use of these funds.
Therefore, states could determine the specific needs of
children and families affected by these attacks, and use
these funds to address those needs expeditiously, within the
broad parameters of the existing Promoting Safe and Stable
Families program.
The report language in the bill should urge the head of
each federal agency responsible to put the highest possible
priority on delivery, and to the maximum extent possible, to
do so within 60 days of the date of the determination of the
death of the child's parent or guardian.

Explanation of the Amendment: #1

Explanation: this amendment increases by $20,000,000 the
grants to the States for adoption incentive payments as
authorized by Section 473A of Title IV of the SSA (42 U.S.C.
670-679) and may be made for adoptions completed in FY 2001
and 2002.
The offset is provided by reducing $20,000,000 from the
Community Services Block Grant Act.
The additional $20,000,000 is targeted to assist the states
with adoptions initiated after September 11, 2001 and where
the child lost a parent as a result of the attack on America.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title II?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

education for the disadvantaged

For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended by H.R. 1
of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of
Representatives on May 23, 2001, and section 418A of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, $12,547,900,000, of which
$5,667,700,000 shall become available on July 1, 2002, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2003, and of
which $6,758,300,000 shall become available on October 1,
2002 and shall remain available through September 30, 2003,
for academic year 2002-2003: Provided, That $8,037,000,000
shall be available for basic grants under section 1124:
Provided further, That $1,684,000,000 shall be available for
concentration grants under section 1124A: Provided further,
That $779,000,000 shall be available for targeted grants
under section 1125.

impact aid

For carrying out programs of financial assistance to
federally affected schools authorized by title VI of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as
passed by the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001,
$1,130,500,000, of which $982,500,000 shall be for basic
support payments under section 8003(b), $50,000,000 shall be
for payments for children with disabilities under section
8003(d), $35,000,000 shall be for construction under section
8007, $55,000,000 shall be for Federal property payments
under section 8002, and $8,000,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be for facilities maintenance under section
8008.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schaffer

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Schaffer:
In title III under the heading ``education for the
disadvantaged'', after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``school improvement
programs'', after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $410,000,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``bilingual and immigrant
education'', after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $240,000,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``special education'', after
the first dollar amount insert ``(increased by
$1,100,500,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``vocational and adult
education'', after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $154,000,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``higher education'', after
the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $183,000,000)''.
In title III under the heading ``education research,
statistics, and improvement'', after the first dollar amount
insert ``(reduced by $63,500,000)''.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, because we have
not seen the amendment as yet.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could we have a copy of the amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will distribute copies.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer is one that
moves a little over $1 billion to the IDEA program, the Individuals
With Disabilities in Education Act. This is a provision that almost all
of us in the Congress, Mr. Chairman, have spoken about at one time or
another and have professed our support for increasing this line item to
eventual full funding.
Back in the 1970s when the IDEA statute was established by the
Congress, the statute called for 40 percent funding at the Federal
level, and that was a promise and a commitment that we made. Just over
6 years ago, that funding level was down as far as 12 percent, and this
Congress in recent years has tried to bump that percentage up. Today, I
believe we are around 13 or 14 percent.
This amendment would make a substantial jump in the right direction,
but still leave us woefully short of the 40 percent obligation that
this Congress has committed to and to which school districts around the
country are expecting us to provide funding.
Since we have not done that, Mr. Chairman, what occurs is the
mandates associated with the Individuals with Disabilities in Education
Act cause every school administrator in the country to effectively
steal funds from other important priorities within their budgets, to
steal funds from funds that might be used, for example, for teacher pay
raises, maybe for capital construction, for investments in technology,
for new computers, to reduce class sizes. A number of priorities that
might be identified by local administrators and local officials go
unrealized because of the expensive Federal mandates associated with
this law and the paltry percentage of Federal funding that is put
forward to meet those mandates. Again, far under, far below the 40
percent promised by this Congress.
On three separate occasions in recent years, this House passed
resolutions, sense of Congress resolutions expressing our support for
full funding of IDEA. While we continue to say and vote and speak
throughout the course of our campaigns, throughout the course of our
business here on the floor that we are in favor of full funding of
IDEA, we just do not seem to do it.
Well, this amendment is one that tests our sincerity. It is one that
shows the world that we are serious about the promises that we have
made and that

[[Page 19383]]

in the end, schoolchildren matter more than the size and the comfort of
bureaucracies here in Washington, D.C. This amendment moves $1.1
billion from seven or eight different line items in the remainder of
title III, and it does so in a way that still leaves in more funds than
even the administration has requested. In no case are the funds taken
from any line item in a way that will render them underfunded according
to the request made by the Government itself, by the administration, by
those who represent the bureaucracy of our country.
This is an important undertaking, Mr. Chairman, once again, not only
because of the growing need for IDEA resources and funds and those
individuals who are directly affected by the programs, but, as I say,
because our failure to fully fund our obligation and our commitment
and, at the same time, leave the expensive mandates in place, causes
all children and all schools to suffer; and that is why I offer the
amendment. That is why I look forward to the broad-based bipartisan
support that I expect based on previous comment and testimony on the
amendment. I, on that basis, urge the adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his
point of order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to
increase IDEA funding by more than $1 billion. Year after year we pass
resolutions asserting Congress's commitment to fully fund the
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. Many of our fellow
colleagues join with me at this podium and assert our responsibility to
live up to our promise to our school districts. We declare that the
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act is the highest priority
among Federal elementary and secondary education programs, the highest
priority. Yet year after year, we increase funding for other programs
that are less vital to our local school districts.
My home State of Kansas can expect to see about one-fourth of the
promised $69 million this year for IDEA mandates. Anyone who has spoken
with school officials in their district knows that this is inadequate.
While school districts are forced to rob Peter in order to pay Paul to
meet IDEA mandates at the expense of both children with and without
disabilities, Congress has increased funding for Department of
Education programs that I consider are not vital to our children's
education.
I do not know how many Members have toured special education
facilities. I have. I have toured Levy Special Education Center in
Wichita, Kansas, and seen the special education children. I have met
with special education teachers and listened to their frustration about
the lack of funding, combined with the burden of increased paperwork.
Twenty-five years ago with the passage of IDEA, the Federal
Government mandated that our local school systems educate all children,
even those with severe mental and physical disabilities. IDEA has
placed an extreme financial burden on our public schools which could be
partially alleviated by keeping our commitment to fully fund the 40
percent of the program, the 40 percent originally promised. To not do
so we are completely ignoring the needs of our local school districts.
I challenge my fellow colleagues to live up to our responsibility and
support the effort today to put more money in IDEA. I encourage my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula),
the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the ranking member, for all that they have done for IDEA. They
have increased funding significantly in this bill, but more is needed.
So I am very happy to rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
In the fifth district of Virginia, school superintendents and school
board members have addressed the issue of funding for special education
more than any other school issue. These additional funds would bring so
much more flexibility to jurisdictions in the fifth district of
Virginia and across the United States. I hope it will be the pleasure
of this body to support this amendment and to help IDEA funding get
closer to the 40 percent.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
think that the IDEA program is an excellent one; and I know that the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, had this discussed when they did H.R. 1.
He said that we need to withhold until it is reauthorized. It will be
up for reauthorization next year. I think there will probably be
refinements made in the program that will enable it to even better
serve those who are in need.
I want to point out that the committee was very sensitive to this. We
increased the amount by $1.37 billion; it is a 22 percent increase over
last year. The total is $7.739 billion. We were, in fact, $375 million
over the President's request on the IDEA program.
So it is not a lack of sensitivity; and, of course, this tends to
free up money that goes into the regular school program. I think adding
money is not necessarily going to enhance the experience of the
children in the IDEA program; it simply would free up money for the
general school program that is now taken out of the regular school
budget.
I have to say that the offsets here, I believe, have a substantial
impact. It first takes money from the education for the disadvantaged,
and in the President's statement he points out that there is a real
need in this field as part of title I so that the students can profit
from the efforts that will be taken under title I.
Likewise, it takes out money from immigrant education; and, again, if
these individuals are going to be members of our society, they need an
ability to get education through our system. Otherwise, they will be on
the welfare rolls.
The school improvement programs, again, are something that are
affected by the offsets in this program, and I think the one that I am
concerned particularly about is vocational and adult education. We are
finding a lot of people are having to refine their job opportunities
because they are laid off from a factory; they are laid off from all
different types of things. It is almost a daily occurrence to read in
the newspaper where 5,000 are laid off by a major industry. These
people need the ability to get new skills to participate in our economy
in this Nation so that they can pay their mortgages, send their
children to school, to universities and colleges.
To take money out of vocational and adult education I think is a
misdirected priority at the moment, given what is happening in the
economy. We need to give people the opportunity to participate in the
economy, and the issues here that are being used to pay for this
additional funding, which will go to the schools' budgets and not
necessarily change the experience of any children in the IDEA program,
is not as high a priority in my judgment as providing for the education
for disadvantaged, as providing for vocational and adult education, and
higher education.

{time} 1615

We have increased the Pell Grants to help young people get a chance
to get a college education.
We are living in a far more sophisticated society than was true many
years ago. Therefore, people who want to participate effectively in our
economy need higher education; they need retraining, as offered by
vocational and adult education.
So I think, looking at the total sum of the priorities, that this is
a balanced bill. I hope that the Committee on Education and the
Workforce next year will take a look at this program in the
reauthorization process and make sure

[[Page 19384]]

it is even more effective than it is now in meeting the needs of the
children that are part of the IDEA program.
For this reason, I would urge the Members to reject this amendment.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
thank the chairman and the ranking member for all their work on this
fine piece of legislation. They have put in a lot of time and hours,
and they have listened to a lot of Members with respect to this very
complicated piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a wise amendment, and it is for this
reason: In 1975, Congress passed a very important piece of legislation.
That legislation is what we call special education, the Individuals
with Disabilities Act.
But at that time, that legislation said the Federal Government would
fund 40 percent of special education and the States would cover the
rest of it. Well, Mr. Chairman, that has not occurred. We are, at best,
funding 12 to 15 percent of special education, a Federal mandate on our
local schools which now, since those days, has become the largest
unfunded Federal mandate on our local school districts.
In the State of Wisconsin, from which I come and which I represent,
we have a revenue cap. What that means in States like Wisconsin and
other States across the country with the revenue cap, that means $1
that is used to chase an unfunded Federal mandate is $1 that is taken
away from every other resource allocation made by a local school
district. It is $1 taken away from all of these other programs.
It suffocates local control, it artificially props up property taxes,
and it disallows us from having the ability at home in our districts,
in our school districts, in our LEAs, from making the resource
decisions to cater our needs and problems per the problems of our
school districts.
So with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that
this Congress works very, very hard to try and meet that unfunded
Federal mandate, because if we do so, our school districts can address
all of these issues. They can address bilingual education, they can
address all of the programs that are being used to pay for in this
amendment. It will be up to the school districts.
These programs are important programs. This amendment does keep the
funding of these programs at or above the President's request. So I
think it is a very reasonable and commonsense amendment.
I just think it is very important, Mr. Chairman, that we finally
recognize that Washington all too often penalizes our local decision-
making. It forces unfunded mandates on our schools, and in States
especially where we have revenue caps it basically makes a choice
between higher property taxes or not or between taking money out of
every other education program in a school district or putting it into
special education.
We should not have to force school districts into that kind of
decision-making. A vote for this amendment is a vote to elevate the
percentage of special education from Washington from 15 percent to 21
percent, basically even half of the mandate, not even far enough. But
it is a vote for local control, it is a vote for local resource
allocation.
With that, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for all of
their work on this. I just think it is important that we make a
statement on behalf of local control. This is a great way of doing so.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding to me.
I appreciate those last remarks. It is within that context that I
want to address some of the comments that the chairman made.
Mr. Chairman, without a doubt, we are moving $1.1 billion away from
programs that are funded over and above the request of our President.
Now, the characterization of these being cuts is one that I flatly
dispute, because these programs are still receiving increases over and
above what they are budgeted in the current fiscal year. In fact, we
are, in many of these programs, increasing still above what the
President had requested.
As to whether doing so causes some kind of harm or endangers
students, I just do not think our President would do that. I think our
President has suggested a funding level that is reasonable and just,
and took into full consideration the impact that his funding increases
would have on America's children.
The President did suggest on several occasions his support for moving
toward full funding of IDEA. Although our promise to the American
people, to America's schoolchildren, their teachers, their
administrators, was that we would fund this Federal mandate at 40
percent, my amendment increases the amount the committee has suggested
by $1 billion. That only gets us to 21 percent. We still have a long
way to go to maintain the promises that we have made. I hope we can do
that. But we are not hurting anyone in accomplishing the fulfillment of
our obligations.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out or reiterate,
since the President has been mentioned here, that we are $375 million
above the President's request for IDEA, and this represents a 22
percent increase in this fund. So it is not as if we were not sensitive
to the needs in IDEA.
But also, we were sensitive to the needs of the unemployed, of the
economically handicapped and disadvantaged, and immigrant education. So
it is a matter of balance here. We have tried to balance out all of
these things in allocating the resources in the bill. I hope that the
Members will support the bill and vote against this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin indicated that
he wanted to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I for what
we have done in the bill. I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula)
and I would rather have less thanks and more support.
I have two things I would like to say, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
with respect to the duty that I think individual Members owe the
Committee, and vice versa. When the Committee produces a bill, there is
a report, a printed report. The bill is printed. The House has several
days' notice before the bill comes to the floor.
Yet, in contrast, I have seen at least four amendments offered today
on which the Committee has essentially been blindsided. Individual
Members keep amendments in their pockets until the last possible
moment. Then they bring them to the floor with no notice to the
Committee, so that we might work with them to fashion an amendment that
might be acceptable to both sides.
It just seems to me if committees are expected to exhibit certain
respect for individual Members, I think individual Members owe that
same respect to the Committee. I would urge Members to respond
accordingly.
Secondly, let me point out that this is one of those amendments that
I suspect no matter what we had put in this bill for IDEA, we would
have been told, oh, it is not enough. This Committee is one-upped every
time we turn around.
I want to read to the Members. People have suggested that the
Administration is in support of this amendment. That is most definitely
not true. I want to read a statement from the Secretary of Education:
``We believe that solutions to these challenges; namely, in IDEA,
should be addressed within the context of a thorough review of IDEA and
as part of a comprehensive package of reforms.'' In other words, they
do not think that we should be providing large amounts of money without
reforms to the program.

[[Page 19385]]

I want to point out what this amendment does. This amendment cuts
title I. We hear about how much IDEA is not reaching all the children
that it is supposed to reach. I recognize that. It would cost $17
billion to fully fund IDEA. It would cost $27 million to fully fund
title I, because title I is only reaching one-third of the children who
are eligible for service. Yet, this bill would cut that program to
finance a program which is already $375 million above the President.
I would point out that on IDEA, since 1996, this Committee has raised
the funding for that program from $2.3 billion to $7.7 billion. That is
not bad. That is not bad.
I would point out that only one-third of eligible kids in title I are
now served. Why do we not have an amendment on the floor raising that
to $27 billion? It seems to me it would be just as equitable.
I want to point out also that there are 8,200 schools in this country
who have low-income kids at least 35 percent of their enrollment, low-
income kids who do not get a dime in title I money. If we are going to
start talking about inadequacies, we ought to raise that program, too.
I do not see why we ought to cut vocational education, why we ought
to cut title I, why we ought to cut bilingual education when we have
3.6 million kids in this country who need to understand how to read
English and speak English. I do not know why we should cut education
research when there is still so much debate in this country about how
children learn. It would be nice if all of us could get off our biases
and get into some facts. The way we do that is with additional
education research.
So I would say the amendment, in terms of what it wants to increase,
is fine. But the source of money for that increase I think is ill-
advised, to put it kindly. In my view, the Committee has struck a
reasonable balance. There are people in the Senate, there are people in
the Senate in my party who want to see IDEA increased far above this
level, and who also want to see title I fully funded over the next 4
years so we pay for 100 percent of eligibility.
Is anybody here willing to put that $27 billion on the table? This
Committee has tried to be responsible. We have held down the
gentleman's wish list on that side of the aisle and our wish list on
this side of the aisle.
I would much prefer that we be able to provide every dollar for IDEA
that is suggested in this amendment, but not at the expense of title I,
not at the expense of vocational education, not at the expense of
educational research, not at the expense of TRIO programs.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members again to recognize that
we have hammered out over a 7-month period a bipartisan bill which does
not meet anybody's idea of what is pluperfect, but represents a
reasonable compromise between all of us. I urge Members to stick with
that judgment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
THE CHAIRMAN. An insufficient number has apparently arisen. . . .
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
Evidently a quorum is not present.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 6, rule XVIII, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the pending question following the quorum call.
The call was taken by electronic device.
The following Members responded to their names:

[Roll No. 376]

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

[[Page 19386]]

{time} 1652

The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred twelve Members have recorded their
presence. A quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its
business.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not finally announce that a recorded vote
had been refused. Therefore, under the circumstances, the gentleman's
request is pending. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
A sufficient number has arisen.
A recorded vote is ordered. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76,
noes 349, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 377]

AYES--76

Akin
Armey
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Cox
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Flake
Forbes
Gibbons
Gilman
Goode
Graham
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Largent
Manzullo
McInnis
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Norwood
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Simmons
Souder
Stearns
Sununu
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Weldon (FL)

NOES--349

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--5

Blunt
Kingston
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Velazquez

{time} 1701

Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this particular bill gives us an opportunity obviously
to talk about many important issues, and the issue of AIDS obviously is
very important. I want to bring to the attention of the House that
those of us who live in rural areas are beginning to see an increased
rise of AIDS in our areas, and the resources we have now allocated to
this horrific disease are skewed more to urban areas. I am not
proposing an amendment, I just want to bring to the committee's
attention that the Ryan White program, which is a very good resource,
is skewed to large populations.
Those of us who live in smaller communities, 50,000 and less, have
far more difficulty in being able to get those resources. I ask the
chairman if we could look for opportunities in the report language to
be more fair in the distribution of those resources.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have recognized the problem; and we have
increased those programs, as the gentlewoman has probably noticed. It
has been a difficult issue to balance out all of the demands that
confront us in this bill. We have tried to be fair in beefing up that
program.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I am very appreciative of what the
gentleman has done. I am only saying as a rural-urban allocation, those
of us who live in rural communities do not benefit from the program in
the same way. I urge the gentleman to work with us during the
conference report language to correct some of that disparity.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield,
we are aware of that; and will work with the gentlewoman.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula),
the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) in support of the bill. I appreciate the funding for the
Community Access Program which was placed in the bill, the CAP program.
The Census Bureau estimates that for a second year running there has
been a decline in the number of uninsured Americans, with 39 million
Americans without health insurance. As the Census Bureau also reports,
the slowing economy, higher levels of unemployment, and the uncertain
future could cause significant growth in the number of uninsured
Americans.
The CAP program is used to support a variety of programs to improve
access for all levels of care, for the uninsured and the underinsured.
CAP helps fill the gaps in our health safety net by improving
infrastructure and communication among agencies to ensure that care is
continuous.

[[Page 19387]]

With better information, agencies can provide preventive, primary,
and emergency clinical health services in an integrated and coordinated
manner. Each community designs a program which best addresses the needs
of the uninsured and underinsured and the providers in their community.
For example, in Florida in Broward County, they use CAP funds to form
an informational health line and referral system to publicize health
care prevention and points of access for health care services. They
purchased new software so that various providers could improve
eligibility determinations for public services.
Chicago, Illinois, focused on a CAP grant which institutes disease
management best practices because of the county's disproportionately
high mortality rates from diabetes and cancer. The CAP program has
worked, and is able to reach more than 300,000 residents in Chicago.
Mr. Chairman, in its two short years in existence, this program is
very successful; 75 communities around the country have received these
funds. I thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking
member, and also the subcommittee for including this provision in the
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title III?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

school improvement programs

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized
by titles I-B, E and G, II, III-A, IV, V and VII-A of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as
passed by the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001; the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; the Civil Rights
Act of 1964; section 10105, part B of title IX and part A of
title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965; and part B of title VIII of the Higher Education Act of
1965; $7,673,084,000, of which $2,178,750,000 shall become
available on July 1, 2002, and remain available through
September 30, 2003, and of which $1,960,000,000 shall become
available on October 1, 2002, and shall remain available
through September 30, 2003, for academic year 2002-2003.

indian education

For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not
otherwise provided, title III, part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended
by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of
Representatives on May 23, 2001, $123,235,000.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through title V be considered as read, printed in the
Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill through title V is as follows:

bilingual and immigrant education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
bilingual, foreign language and immigrant education
activities authorized by title III-A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended
by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of
Representatives on May 23, 2001, $700,000,000.

special education

For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, $8,860,076,000, of which $3,516,885,000 shall
become available for obligation on July 1, 2002, and shall
remain available through September 30, 2003, and of which
$5,072,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2002, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2003, for
academic year 2002-2003: Provided, That $9,500,000 shall be
for Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic to support the
development, production, and circulation of recorded
educational materials.

rehabilitation services and disability research

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Assistive Technology Act of
1998, and the Helen Keller National Center Act,
$2,942,117,000, of which $60,000,000 shall remain available
through September 30, 2003: Provided, That the funds provided
for title I of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (``the AT
Act'') shall be allocated notwithstanding section 105(b)(1)
of the AT Act: Provided further, That each State shall be
provided $50,000 for activities under section 102 of the AT
Act: Provided further, That $40,000,000 shall be used to
support grants for up to three years to States under title
III of the AT Act, of which the Federal share shall not
exceed 75 percent in the first year, 50 percent in the second
year, and 25 percent in the third year, and that the
requirements in section 301(c)(2) and section 302 of that Act
shall not apply to such grants.

Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities

american printing house for the blind

For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20
U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $13,000,000.

national technical institute for the deaf

For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under
titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20
U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $55,376,000, of which $5,376,000 shall
be for construction and shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That from the total amount available, the
Institute may at its discretion use funds for the endowment
program as authorized under section 207.

gallaudet university

For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model
Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of
Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education
of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.),
$95,600,000: Provided, That from the total amount available,
the University may at its discretion use funds for the
endowment program as authorized under section 207.

vocational and adult education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and title VIII-D
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,
$2,006,060,000, of which $1,191,310,000 shall become
available on July 1, 2002 and shall remain available through
September 30, 2003 and of which $808,750,000 shall become
available on October 1, 2002, and shall remain available
through September 30, 2003: Provided, That of the amount
provided for Adult Education State Grants, $70,000,000 shall
be made available for integrated English literacy and civics
education services to immigrants and other limited English
proficient populations: Provided further, That of the amount
reserved for integrated English literacy and civics
education, notwithstanding section 211 of the Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act, 65 percent shall be allocated to
States based on a State's absolute need as determined by
calculating each State's share of a 10-year average of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service data for immigrants
admitted for legal permanent residence for the 10 most recent
years, and 35 percent allocated to States that experienced
growth as measured by the average of the 3 most recent years
for which Immigration and Naturalization Service data for
immigrants admitted for legal permanent residence are
available, except that no State shall be allocated an amount
less than $60,000: Provided further, That of the amounts made
available for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act,
$9,500,000 shall be for national leadership activities under
section 243 and $6,560,000 shall be for the National
Institute for Literacy under section 242.

student financial assistance

For carrying out subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, section
428K, part C and part E of title IV of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended, $12,410,100,000, which shall remain
available through September 30, 2003.
The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be
eligible during award year 2002-2003 shall be $4,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 401(g) of the Act, if
the Secretary determines, prior to publication of the payment
schedule for such award year, that the amount included within
this appropriation for Pell Grant awards in such award year,
and any funds available from the fiscal year 2001
appropriation for Pell Grant awards, are insufficient to
satisfy fully all such awards for which students are
eligible, as calculated under section 401(b) of the Act, the
amount paid for each such award shall be reduced by either a
fixed or variable percentage, or by a fixed dollar amount, as
determined in accordance with a schedule of reductions
established by the Secretary for this purpose.

federal family education loan program account

For Federal administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed
student loans authorized by title IV, part B, of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, $49,636,000.

higher education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
section 121 and titles II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, section 1543 of
the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, and the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961;
$1,908,151,000, of which $5,000,000 for interest subsidies
authorized by section 121 of the Higher Education Act of
1965, shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
$10,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2003,
shall be available to fund fellowships for academic year
2003-2004 under part A, subpart 1 of title VII of said Act,
under the terms and conditions of part A, subpart 1: Provided
further, That $1,000,000 is for data collection and
evaluation activities for programs under the Higher Education
Act of 1965, including such activities needed to comply with
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

[[Page 19388]]

howard university

For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et
seq.), $242,474,000, of which not less than $3,600,000 shall
be for a matching endowment grant pursuant to the Howard
University Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480) and shall remain
available until expended.

college housing and academic facilities loans program

For Federal administrative expenses authorized under
section 121 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $762,000 to
carry out activities related to existing facility loans
entered into under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

historically black college and university capital financing program
account

The total amount of bonds insured pursuant to section 344
of title III, part D of the Higher Education Act of 1965
shall not exceed $357,000,000, and the cost, as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of such
bonds shall not exceed zero.
For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically
Black College and University Capital Financing Program
entered into pursuant to title III, part D of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, $208,000.

education research, statistics, and improvement

For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational
Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of
1994, including part E; the National Education Statistics Act
of 1994, including sections 411 and 412; title II-B and C,
title IV-A and title VII-A of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as redesignated and amended by H.R. 1
of the 107th Congress, as passed by the House of
Representatives on May 23, 2001, $445,620,000: Provided, That
$77,500,000 of the funds provided for the national education
research institutes shall be allocated notwithstanding
section 912(m)(1)(B-F) and subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
section 931(c)(2) of Public Law 103-227.

Departmental Management

program administration

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of two
passenger motor vehicles, $427,212,000.

office for civil rights

For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as
authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $79,934,000.

office of inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General,
as authorized by section 212 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $38,720,000.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for
the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or
for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or
school system.
Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be
used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation
of any student to a school other than the school which is
nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring
special education, to the school offering such special
education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an
indirect requirement of transportation of students includes
the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving
the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the
pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any
combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering.
The prohibition described in this section does not include
the establishment of magnet schools.
Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used
to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer
and meditation in the public schools.
Sec. 304. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for
the Department of Education in this Act may be transferred
between appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be
increased by more than 3 percent by any such transfer:
Provided, That the Appropriations Committees of both Houses
of Congress are notified at least 15 days in advance of any
transfer.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2002''.

TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

armed forces retirement home

For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid
from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Trust Fund, $71,440,000, of which $9,812,000 shall remain
available until expended for construction and renovation of
the physical plants at the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home: Provided,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single
contract or related contracts for development and
construction, to include construction of a long-term care
facility at the United States Naval Home, may be employed
which collectively include the full scope of the project:
Provided further, That the solicitation and contract shall
contain the clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR
52.232-18 and 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government
Obligations.

Corporation for National and Community Service

domestic volunteer service programs, operating expenses

For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and
Community Service to carry out the provisions of the Domestic
Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, $324,450,000:
Provided, That none of the funds made available to the
Corporation for National and Community Service in this Act
for activities authorized by part E of title II of the
Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 shall be used to
provide stipends or other monetary incentives to volunteers
or volunteer leaders whose incomes exceed 125 percent of the
national poverty level.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting

For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as
authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which
shall be available within limitations specified by that Act,
for the fiscal year 2004, $365,000,000: Provided, That no
funds made available to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting by this Act shall be used to pay for receptions,
parties, or similar forms of entertainment for Government
officials or employees: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this paragraph shall be available or used
to aid or support any program or activity from which any
person is excluded, or is denied benefits, or is
discriminated against, on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, or sex: Provided further, That in addition
to the amounts provided above, $25,000,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be for digitalization,
pending enactment of authorizing legislation.

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to carry out the functions vested in it
by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-
180, 182-183), including hire of passenger motor vehicles;
for expenses necessary for the Labor-Management Cooperation
Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a); and for expenses necessary for
the Service to carry out the functions vested in it by the
Civil Service Reform Act, Public Law 95-454 (5 U.S.C. ch.
71), $39,482,000, including $1,500,000, to remain available
through September 30, 2003, for activities authorized by the
Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a):
Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, fees charged,
up to full-cost recovery, for special training activities and
other conflict resolution services and technical assistance,
including those provided to foreign governments and
international organizations, and for arbitration services
shall be credited to and merged with this account, and shall
remain available until expended: Provided further, That fees
for arbitration services shall be available only for
education, training, and professional development of the
agency workforce: Provided further, That the Director of the
Service is authorized to accept and use on behalf of the
United States gifts of services and real, personal, or other
property in the aid of any projects or functions within the
Director's jurisdiction.

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), $6,939,000.

Institute of Museum and Library Services

Office of Library Services: Grants and Administration

For carrying out subtitle B of the Museum and Library
Services Act, $168,078,000, of which $11,081,000 shall be for
projects authorized by section 262 of such Act,
notwithstanding section 221(a)(1)(B).

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary to carry out section 1805 of the
Social Security Act, $8,000,000, to be transferred to this
appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science, established by the Act of
July 20, 1970 (Public Law 91-345, as amended), $1,000,000.

[[Page 19389]]

National Council on Disability

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the National Council on
Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, $2,830,000.

National Labor Relations Board

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations
Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
167), and other laws, $221,438,000: Provided, That no part of
this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist
in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection
with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders
concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers
as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29
U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the
Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said
definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation
of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained
or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95
percent of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for
farming purposes.

National Mediation Board

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including
emergency boards appointed by the President, $10,635,000.

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $8,964,000.

Railroad Retirement Board

Dual benefits payments account

For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account,
authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1974, $146,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming
available in fiscal year 2002 pursuant to section
224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount,
not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall
be available proportional to the amount by which the product
of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds
$146,000,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein
shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the
first day of each month in the fiscal year.

federal payments to the railroad retirement accounts

For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for
the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for
interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $150,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2003, which shall be the
maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417
of Public Law 98-76.

limitation on administration

For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board
for administration of the Railroad Retirement Act and the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, $97,700,000, to be
derived in such amounts as determined by the Board from the
railroad retirement accounts and from moneys credited to the
railroad unemployment insurance administration fund.

limitation on the office of inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized
by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more
than $6,042,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement
accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account:
Provided, That none of the funds made available in any other
paragraph of this Act may be transferred to the Office; used
to carry out any such transfer; used to provide any office
space, equipment, office supplies, communications facilities
or services, maintenance services, or administrative services
for the Office; used to pay any salary, benefit, or award for
any personnel of the Office; used to pay any other operating
expense of the Office; or used to reimburse the Office for
any service provided, or expense incurred, by the Office.

Social Security Administration

payments to social security trust funds

For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
and the Federal Disability Insurance trust funds, as provided
under sections 201(m), 217(g), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the
Social Security Act, $434,400,000.

special benefits for disabled coal miners

For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, $332,840,000, to remain available until
expended.
For making, after July 31 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, for costs incurred in the
current fiscal year, such amounts as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2003, $108,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

supplemental security income program

For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security
Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public
Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216,
including payment to the Social Security trust funds for
administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, $21,270,412,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That any portion
of the funds provided to a State in the current fiscal year
and not obligated by the State during that year shall be
returned to the Treasury.
In addition, $200,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2003, for payment to the Social Security trust
funds for administrative expenses for continuing disability
reviews as authorized by section 103 of Public Law 104-121
and section 10203 of Public Law 105-33. The term ``continuing
disability reviews'' means reviews and redeterminations as
defined under section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security
Act, as amended.
For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social
Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title XVI of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2003,
$10,790,000,000, to remain available until expended.

limitation on administrative expenses

For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger
motor vehicles, and not to exceed $35,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, not more than
$7,035,000,000 may be expended, as authorized by section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, from any one or all of
the trust funds referred to therein: Provided, That not less
than $1,800,000 shall be for the Social Security Advisory
Board: Provided further, That unobligated balances at the end
of fiscal year 2002 not needed for fiscal year 2002 shall
remain available until expended to invest in the Social
Security Administration information technology and
telecommunications hardware and software infrastructure,
including related equipment and non-payroll administrative
expenses associated solely with this information technology
and telecommunications infrastructure: Provided further, That
reimbursement to the trust funds under this heading for
expenditures for official time for employees of the Social
Security Administration pursuant to section 7131 of title 5,
United States Code, and for facilities or support services
for labor organizations pursuant to policies, regulations, or
procedures referred to in section 7135(b) of such title shall
be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, with interest, from
amounts in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, as
soon as possible after such expenditures are made.
From funds provided under the first paragraph, not less
than $200,000,000 shall be available for conducting
continuing disability reviews.
In addition to funding already available under this
heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions,
$433,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003,
for continuing disability reviews as authorized by section
103 of Public Law 104-121 and section 10203 of Public Law
105-33. The term ``continuing disability reviews'' means
reviews and redeterminations as defined under section
201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act, as amended.
In addition, $100,000,000 to be derived from administration
fees in excess of $5.00 per supplementary payment collected
pursuant to section 1616(d) of the Social Security Act or
section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66, which shall remain
available until expended. To the extent that the amounts
collected pursuant to such section 1616(d) or 212(b)(3) in
fiscal year 2002 exceed $100,000,000, the amounts shall be
available in fiscal year 2003 only to the extent provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
From funds previously appropriated for this purpose, any
unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2001 shall be
available to continue Federal-State partnerships which will
evaluate means to promote Medicare buy-in programs targeted
to elderly and disabled individuals under titles XVIII and
XIX of the Social Security Act.

office of inspector general

(including transfer of funds)

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $19,000,000, together with not to exceed
$56,000,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
In addition, an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total
provided in this appropriation may be transferred from the
``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'', Social Security
Administration, to be merged with this account, to be
available for the time and

[[Page 19390]]

purposes for which this account is available: Provided, That
notice of such transfers shall be transmitted promptly to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate.

United States Institute of Peace

operating expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of
Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace
Act, $15,000,000.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended
balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to
current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That
such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and
for the same periods of time, for which they were originally
appropriated.
Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in
this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized
executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or
propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or
use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio,
television, or video presentation designed to support or
defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State
legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any
State legislature itself.
(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act
shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or
contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient,
related to any activity designed to influence legislation or
appropriations pending before the Congress or any State
legislature.
Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are
authorized to make available not to exceed $20,000 and
$15,000, respectively, from funds available for salaries and
expenses under titles I and III, respectively, for official
reception and representation expenses; the Director of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $2,500 from the funds available for
``Salaries and expenses, Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service''; and the Chairman of the National Mediation Board
is authorized to make available for official reception and
representation expenses not to exceed $2,500 from funds
available for ``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation
Board''.
Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry
out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes
for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
Sec. 506. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into
any contract with, any entity using funds made available in
this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
(c) If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal
agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing
a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with
the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the
United States that is not made in the United States, the
person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or
subcontract made with funds made available in this Act,
pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility
procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title
48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 507. When issuing statements, press releases, requests
for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents
describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part
with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds
included in this Act, including but not limited to State and
local governments and recipients of Federal research grants,
shall clearly state: (1) the percentage of the total costs of
the program or project which will be financed with Federal
money; (2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project
or program; and (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total
costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-
governmental sources.
Sec. 508. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this
Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds
are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any
abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none
of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are
appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for health
benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
(c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package
of services covered by a managed care provider or
organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
Sec. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding
section shall not apply to an abortion--
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a
life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from
the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a
physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an
abortion is performed.
(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or
private person of State, local, or private funds (other than
a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching
funds).
(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
restricting the ability of any managed care provider from
offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or
locality to contract separately with such a provider for such
coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's
contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
Sec. 510. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research
purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are
destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death greater than that allowed for research on
fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo
or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human
subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis,
cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or
human diploid cells.
Sec. 511. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for any activity that promotes the legalization
of any drug or other substance included in schedule I of the
schedules of controlled substances established by section 202
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
(b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply when
there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic
advantage to the use of such drug or other substance or that
federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to
determine therapeutic advantage.
Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract
with an entity if--
(1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United
States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d)
of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an
annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment
of certain veterans; and
(2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by
that section for the most recent year for which such
requirement was applicable to such entity.
Sec. 513. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under
section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-
2(b)) providing for, or providing for the assignment of, a
unique health identifier for an individual (except in an
individual's capacity as an employer or a health care
provider), until legislation is enacted specifically
approving the standard.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the open portion of the bill
through title V?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF MARK-TO-MARKET PROGRAM FOR MULTIFAMILY ASSISTED
HOUSING

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Mark-to-
Market Extension Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
title is as follows:

TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF MARK-TO-MARKET PROGRAM FOR MULTIFAMILY ASSISTED
HOUSING

Sec. 601. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 602. Purposes.
Sec. 603. Effective date.

Subtitle A--Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Assistance Restructuring
and Section 8 Contract Renewal

Sec. 611. Definitions.
Sec. 612. Mark-to-market program amendments.
Sec. 613. Consistency of rent levels under enhanced voucher assistance
and rent restructurings.
Sec. 614. Eligible inclusions for renewal rents of partially assisted
buildings.
Sec. 615. Eligibility of restructuring projects for miscellaneous
housing insurance.
Sec. 616. Technical corrections.

Subtitle B--Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring

Sec. 621. Reauthorization of Office and extension of program.
Sec. 622. Appointment of Director.
Sec. 623. Vacancy in position of Director.

[[Page 19391]]

Sec. 624. Oversight by Federal Housing Commissioner.
Sec. 625. Limitation on subsequent employment.

Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Housing Program Amendments

Sec. 631. Extension of CDBG public services cap exception.
Sec. 632. Use of section 8 enhanced vouchers for prepayments.
Sec. 633. Prepayment and refinancing of loans for section 202
supportive housing.
Sec. 634. Technical correction.

SEC. 602. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this title are--
(1) to continue the progress of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (referred to in
this section as ``that Act'');
(2) to ensure that properties that undergo mortgage
restructurings pursuant to that Act are rehabilitated to a
standard that allows the properties to meet their long-term
affordability requirements;
(3) to ensure that, for properties that undergo mortgage
restructurings pursuant to that Act, reserves are set at
adequate levels to allow the properties to meet their long-
term affordability requirements;
(4) to ensure that properties that undergo mortgage
restructurings pursuant to that Act are operated efficiently,
and that operating expenses are sufficient to ensure the
long-term financial and physical integrity of the properties;
(5) to ensure that properties that undergo rent
restructurings have adequate resources to maintain the
properties in good condition;
(6) to ensure that the Office of Multifamily Housing
Assistance Restructuring of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development continues to focus on the portfolio of
properties eligible for restructuring under that Act;
(7) to ensure that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development carefully tracks the condition of those
properties on an ongoing basis;
(8) to ensure that tenant groups, nonprofit organizations,
and public entities continue to have the resources for
building the capacity of tenant organizations in furtherance
of the purposes of subtitle A of that Act; and
(9) to encourage the Office of Multifamily Housing
Assistance Restructuring to continue to provide participating
administrative entities, including public participating
administrative entities, with the flexibility to respond to
specific problems that individual cases may present, while
ensuring consistent outcomes around the country.

SEC. 603. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as provided in sections 616(a)(2), 633(b), and
634(b), this title and the amendments made by this title
shall take effect or are deemed to have taken effect, as
appropriate, on the earlier of--
(1) the date of the enactment of this title; or
(2) September 30, 2001.

Subtitle A--Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Assistance Restructuring
and Section 8 Contract Renewal

SEC. 611. DEFINITIONS.

Section 512 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(19) Office.--The term `Office' means the Office of
Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring established
under section 571.''.

SEC. 612. MARK-TO-MARKET PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.

(a) Funding for Tenant and Nonprofit Participation.--
Section 514(f)(3)(A) of the Multifamily Assisted Housing
Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary may provide not more than
$10,000,000 annually in funding'' and inserting ``Secretary
shall make available not more than $10,000,000 annually in
funding, which amount shall be in addition to any amounts
made available under this subparagraph and carried over from
previous years,''; and
(2) by striking ``entities), and for tenant services,'' and
inserting ``entities), for tenant services, and for tenant
groups, nonprofit organizations, and public entities
described in section 517(a)(5),''.
(b) Exception Rents.--Section 514(g)(2)(A) of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by striking
``restructured mortgages in any fiscal year'' and inserting
``portfolio restructuring agreements''.
(c) Notice to Displaced Tenants.--Section 516(d) of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by striking ``Subject
to'' and inserting the following:
``(1) Notice to certain residents.--The Office shall notify
any tenant that is residing in a project or receiving
assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) at the time of rejection under this
section, of such rejection, except that the Office may
delegate the responsibility to provide notice under this
paragraph to the participating administrative entity.
``(2) Assistance and moving expenses.--Subject to''.
(d) Restructuring Plans for Transfers of Prepayment
Projects.--The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
(1) in section 524(e), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Mortgage restructuring and rental assistance
sufficiency plans.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the owner
of the project may request, and the Secretary may consider,
mortgage restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency
plans to facilitate sales or transfers of properties under
this subtitle, subject to an approved plan of action under
the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 (12
U.S.C. 1715l note) or the Low-Income Housing Preservation and
Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (12 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.),
which plans shall result in a sale or transfer of those
properties.''; and
(2) in the last sentence of section 512(2), by inserting
``, but does include a project described in section
524(e)(3)'' after ``section 524(e)''.
(e) Addition of Significant Features.--Section 517 of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) (except that the striking of
such subsection may not be construed to have any effect on
the provisions of law amended by such subsection, as such
subsection was in effect before the date of the enactment of
this Act);
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``(7)'' and inserting
``(1)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Addition of significant features.--
``(A) Authority.--An approved mortgage restructuring and
rental assistance sufficiency plan may require the
improvement of the project by the addition of significant
features that are not necessary for rehabilitation to the
standard provided under paragraph (1), such as air
conditioning, an elevator, and additional community space.
The Secretary shall establish guidelines regarding the
inclusion of requirements regarding such additional
significant features under such plans.
``(B) Funding.--Significant features added pursuant to an
approved mortgage restructuring and rental assistance
sufficiency plan may be paid from the funding sources
specified in the first sentence of paragraph (1)(A).
``(C) Limitation on owner contribution.--An owner of a
project may not be required to contribute from non-project
resources, toward the cost of any additional significant
features required pursuant to this paragraph, more than 25
percent of the amount of any assistance received for the
inclusion of such features.
``(D) Applicability.--This paragraph shall apply to all
eligible multifamily housing projects, except projects for
which the Secretary and the project owner executed a mortgage
restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan on or
before the date of the enactment of the Mark-to-Market
Extension Act of 2001.''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) of subsection (b) the
following:
``(c) Rehabilitation Needs and Addition of Significant
Features.--''.
(f) Look-Back Projects.--Section 512(2) of the Multifamily
Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42
U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by adding after the period at
the end of the last sentence the following: ``Notwithstanding
any other provision of this title, the Secretary may treat a
project as an eligible multifamily housing project for
purposes of this title if (I) the project is assisted
pursuant to a contract for project-based assistance under
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 renewed
under section 524 of this Act, (II) the owner consents to
such treatment, and (III) the project met the requirements of
the first sentence of this paragraph for eligibility as an
eligible multifamily housing project before the initial
renewal of the contract under section 524.''.
(g) Second Mortgages.--Section 517(a) of the Multifamily
Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42
U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``no more than the''
and inserting the following: ``not more than the greater of--
``(i) the full or partial payment of claim made under this
subtitle; or
``(ii) the''; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``of the second
mortgage, assign the second mortgage to the acquiring
organization or agency,'' after ``terms''.
(h) Exemptions From Restructuring.--Section 514(h)(2) of
the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act
of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by inserting before
the semicolon the following: ``, or refinanced pursuant to
section 811 of the American Homeownership and Economic
Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note)''.

SEC. 613. CONSISTENCY OF RENT LEVELS UNDER ENHANCED VOUCHER
ASSISTANCE AND RENT RESTRUCTURINGS.

Subtitle A of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:

[[Page 19392]]

``SEC. 525. CONSISTENCY OF RENT LEVELS UNDER ENHANCED VOUCHER
ASSISTANCE AND RENT RESTRUCTURINGS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall examine the
standards and procedures for determining and establishing the
rent standards described under subsection (b). Pursuant to
such examination, the Secretary shall establish procedures
and guidelines that are designed to ensure that the amounts
determined by the various rent standards for the same
dwelling units are reasonably consistent and reflect rents
for comparable unassisted units in the same area as such
dwelling units.
``(b) Rent Standards.--The rent standards described in this
subsection are as follows:
``(1) Enhanced vouchers.--The payment standard for enhanced
voucher assistance under section 8(t) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)).
``(2) Mark-to-market.--The rents derived from comparable
properties, for purposes of section 514(g) of this Act.
``(3) Contract renewal.--The comparable market rents for
the market area, for purposes of section 524(a)(4) of this
Act.''.

SEC. 614. ELIGIBLE INCLUSIONS FOR RENEWAL RENTS OF PARTIALLY
ASSISTED BUILDINGS.

Section 524(a)(4)(C) of the Multifamily Assisted Housing
Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note)
is amended by adding after the period at the end the
following: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary shall include in such budget-based cost increases
costs relating to the project as a whole (including costs
incurred with respect to units not covered by the contract
for assistance), but only (I) if inclusion of such costs is
requested by the owner or purchaser of the project, (II) if
inclusion of such costs will permit capital repairs to the
project or acquisition of the project by a nonprofit
organization, and (III) to the extent that inclusion of such
costs (or a portion thereof) complies with the requirement
under clause (ii).''.

SEC. 615. ELIGIBILITY OF RESTRUCTURING PROJECTS FOR
MISCELLANEOUS HOUSING INSURANCE.

Section 223(a)(7) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715n(a)(7)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``under this Act: Provided, That the
principal'' and inserting the following: ``under this Act, or
an existing mortgage held by the Secretary that is subject to
a mortgage restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency
plan pursuant to the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note), provided
that--
``(A) the principal'';
(2) by striking ``except that (A)'' and inserting ``except
that (i)'';
(3) by striking ``(B)'' and inserting ``(ii)'';
(4) by striking ``(C)'' and inserting ``(iii)'';
(5) by striking ``(D)'' and inserting ``(iv)'';
(6) by striking ``: Provided further, That a mortgage'' and
inserting the following ``; and
``(B) a mortgage'';
(7) by striking ``or'' at the end; and
(8) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) a mortgage that is subject to a mortgage
restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan pursuant
to the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability
Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) and is refinanced under
this paragraph may have a term of not more than 30 years;
or''.

SEC. 616. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Exemptions From Restructuring.--
(1) In general.--Section 514(h) of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f
note) is amended to read as if the amendment made by section
531(c) of Public Law 106-74 (113 Stat. 1116) were made to
``Section 514(h)(1)'' instead of ``Section 514(h)''.
(2) Retroactive effect.--The amendment made by paragraph
(1) of this subsection is deemed to have taken effect on the
date of the enactment of Public Law 106-74 (113 Stat. 1109).
(b) Other.--The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
(1) in section 511(a)(12), by striking ``this Act'' and
inserting ``this title'';
(2) in section 513, by striking ``this Act'' each place
such term appears in subsections (a)(2)(I) and (b)(3) and
inserting ``this title'';
(3) in section 514(f)(3)(B), by inserting ``Housing'' after
``Multifamily'';
(4) in section 515(c)(1)(B), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(5) in section 517(b)--
(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by capitalizing
the first letter of the first word that follows the paragraph
heading;
(B) in each of paragraphs (1) through (5), by striking the
semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and
(C) in paragraph (6), by striking ``; and'' at the end and
inserting a period;
(6) in section 520(b), by striking ``Banking and''; and
(7) in section 573(d)(2), by striking ``Banking and''.

Subtitle B--Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring

SEC. 621. REAUTHORIZATION OF OFFICE AND EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

Section 579 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(a) Repeals.--
``(1) Mark-to-market program.--Subtitle A (except for
section 524) is repealed effective October 1, 2006.
``(2) OMHAR.--Subtitle D (except for this section) is
repealed effective October 1, 2004.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``October 1, 2001'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2006'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``upon September 30,
2001'' and inserting ``at the end of September 30, 2004'';
and
(4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(d) Transfer of Authority.--Effective upon the repeal of
subtitle D under subsection (a)(2) of this section, all
authority and responsibilities to administer the program
under subtitle A are transferred to the Secretary.''.

SEC. 622. APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR.

(a) In General.--Section 572 of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f
note) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the
following new subsection:
``(a) Appointment.--The Office shall be under the
management of a Director, who shall be appointed by the
President from among individuals who are citizens of the
United States and have a demonstrated understanding of
financing and mortgage restructuring for affordable
multifamily housing.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to the first Director of the Office of
Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development appointed after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and any such Director
appointed thereafter.

SEC. 623. VACANCY IN POSITION OF DIRECTOR.

(a) In General.--Section 572 of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f
note) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following new subsection:
``(b) Vacancy.--A vacancy in the position of Director shall
be filled by appointment in the manner provided under
subsection (a). The President shall make such an appointment
not later than 60 days after such position first becomes
vacant.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any vacancy in the position of Director of the
Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development which occurs or
exists after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 624. OVERSIGHT BY FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER.

(a) In General.--Section 578 of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f
note) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 578. OVERSIGHT BY FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER.

``All authority and responsibilities assigned under this
subtitle to the Secretary shall be carried out through the
Assistant Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development who is the Federal Housing Commissioner.''.
(b) Report.--The second sentence of section 573(b) of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended by striking
``Secretary'' and inserting ``Assistant Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development who is the
Federal Housing Commissioner''.

SEC. 625. LIMITATION ON SUBSEQUENT EMPLOYMENT.

Section 576 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended
by striking ``2-year period'' and inserting ``1-year
period''.

Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Housing Program Amendments

SEC. 631. EXTENSION OF CDBG PUBLIC SERVICES CAP EXCEPTION.

Section 105(a)(8) of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)) is amended by striking
``through 2001'' and inserting ``through 2003''.

SEC. 632. USE OF SECTION 8 ENHANCED VOUCHERS FOR PREPAYMENTS.

Section 8(t)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)(2)) is amended by inserting after
``insurance contract for the mortgage for such housing
project'' the following: ``(including any such mortgage
prepayment during fiscal year 1996 or a fiscal year
thereafter or any insurance contract voluntary termination
during fiscal year 1996 or a fiscal year thereafter)''.

SEC. 633. PREPAYMENT AND REFINANCING OF LOANS FOR SECTION 202
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

(a) In General.--Section 811 of the American Homeownership
and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note)
is amended by striking subsection (e).
(b) Effectiveness Upon Date of Enactment.--The amendment
made by subsection (a) of this section shall take effect upon
the date of the enactment of this Act and the provisions of
section 811 of the American Homeownership and Economic
Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note), as amended

[[Page 19393]]

by subsection (a) of this section, shall apply as so amended
upon such date of enactment, notwithstanding--
(1) any authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to issue regulations to implement or carry out
the amendments made by subsection (a) of this section or the
provisions of section 811 of the American Homeownership and
Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note); or
(2) any failure of the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to issue any such regulations authorized.

SEC. 634. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

(a) In General.--Section 101(a) of Public Law 100-77 (42
U.S.C. 11301 note) is amended to read as if the amendment
made by section 1 of Public Law 106-400 (114 Stat. 1675) were
made to ``Section 101'' instead of ``Section 1''.
(b) Retroactive Effect.--The amendment made by subsection
(a) of this section is deemed to have taken effect
immediately after the enactment of Public Law 106-400 (114
Stat. 1675).

Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 102, line 2, be
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer
amendment No. 6 from the end of the bill at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page __, after line __, insert the following new section:
Sec. __. No funds appropriated in this Act may be made
available to any person or entity that violates the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a straight limitation.
None of the funds appropriated in the act may be made available to any
person or entity that has violated the Buy American Act.
Mr. Chairman, the House should pay attention to something that
concerns me, and the appropriators especially. A notice has been posted
that the windows of the Capitol will have installed a protective
covering because of the September 11 terrorist attack and the increased
focus on terrorism. The company that made the product that will be
installed on the Capitol windows is from Belgium.
One of the big contracts given for the rebuilding of the Pentagon is
to a French company; and I might remind Members when we had a problem
with Khadafi, France would not let us use their air space or their
airports. Our military has bought boots from China, and probably most
of the flags Members see waving throughout America as a symbol of
American patriotism were made in Chinese sweatshops.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment makes sense. But I believe the leaders of
the Committee on Appropriations should start looking at procurement. We
certainly do not have to be an isolationist Nation or protectionist
Nation; but on military procurement, especially, I think we should
almost demand American products in the end that someday we may face a
nation who we depend on for a product that may not be all that friendly
to us.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this amendment on
our side.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman, who
is my neighbor. The subcommittee has done a tremendous job.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
At the end of title V, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. 5__. Of the amounts otherwise made available in this
Act to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal
year 2002, $12,000,000 is transferred and made available
under the account for the Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund as an additional amount to support activities
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.

{time} 1715

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Basically
it tries to help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that
relates to biological disease and chemical threats to the civilian
population and it essentially takes about 3 percent from the Public
Broadcasting Corporation and moves it over to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
Just this last week, our headline news has had two frightening what-
ifs, particularly in Florida. Three individuals have come in contact
with a manufactured form of anthrax. Of course, one person lost his
life. Americans, of course, felt this, as a collective body, sort of a
shiver upon hearing about this news. Early this week, we saw the case
in the D.C. Metro where somebody sprayed the crowd, unsuspecting crowd.
It turns out that about 35 people on the train, they had to evacuate.
This whole process of what could happen if anthrax is used in our
country in a large population is a great concern. And so I think the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should have sufficient funds
to study this. I do not believe the CDC has had sufficient funds, and
so this is a very small amount, about 3 percent, from the Public
Broadcasting Corporation. We take from them and give to CDC,
particularly for biological disease and chemical threat prevention
studies. I think it is a modest amount.
Mr. Chairman, on this debate can I control the balance of my time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must use his time or yield it back.
Mr. STEARNS. Let me conclude by saying that perhaps all of you saw
recently in the newspaper that the FCC now has allowed the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting to advertise as a means of getting more
revenues to their budget. Surely if PBS is going to use tax dollars to
support itself, a small amount could be contributed to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, because really public broadcasting has
now asked the FCC if we can start to advertise to get revenue, much
like private corporations. So the Public Broadcasting System is out
there doing the same thing that the private corporations are going to
do. The FCC is going to allow it, they are going to be able to
advertise to collect revenue, and these revenues will go to help
support the Public Broadcasting System, and I think this is good. I
think the Public Broadcasting System should have a certain amount of
revenues from advertising. However, I do not think they need to
continue to be on the public dole, that the government has to support
them with taxpayer-supported money.
So I think this is a small effort to say we need to help the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and, more importantly, have them
take this money and use it to study things like the proliferation of
anthrax and to prepare this Nation for some of the pitfalls that might
occur because of that.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Stearns
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on the point
of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the point in the
bill at which this amendment would be in order has already been passed
and so clearly, under the House rules, the gentleman's amendment is not
in order at this time. However, as a courtesy to him and in an effort
to save time, I will not insist on the point of order. I would simply
move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not insist on the point of order and
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not what it appears to

[[Page 19394]]

be. It is a trojan horse amendment. We all are aware of the terrorism
problem that has befallen this country and the world. This amendment,
in essence, pretends to do something significant about it when, in
fact, what it does about it is something that is minuscule and not at
all long lasting. What this amendment really is is a subterranean
attack on public television all over America.
The public television stations of this country are required by an FCC
mandate to move to digital technology. This bill provides the money, at
least the Federal share of the money, to help them do that. What this
amendment would do is to cut in half the Federal money which is being
provided in order to enable those stations to fulfill that Federal
mandate. And what it does is it pretends that it is going to have a
significant impact on programs run by the Centers for Disease Control
by transferring $12 million to that agency.
In fact, this bill already contains $232 million for that agency, a
28 percent increase over last year, and by the time we have finished
with the antiterrorism supplemental, there will be probably at least
another $1 billion and maybe as much as $2 billion, not million but
billion, for the very same purpose that this amendment purports to add
money for this evening.
So I would suggest the real way, the real way, the effective way to
deal with the problem of terrorist attacks on this country in the form
of biological or chemical agents is to support the committee bill and
to support the follow-on supplemental which will be provided to this
House before the appropriation process is finished under the agreement
that we have reached with the White House.
I would urge, under those circumstances, that Members not be deceived
into thinking that this is a significant effort to deal with that
problem. It is minuscule compared to the funding that will be needed
and will be provided by Members on both sides of the aisle. And so I
would urge rejection of the amendment, unless, of course, you want to
insist on a Federal mandate without paying for it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in opposition to this amendment because we have already added
$100 million to the CDC on bioterrorism. Their total account is almost
$400 million. In addition, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
has been assured that CDC will receive a portion of the money in the
$20 billion that we appropriated as a result of the events of September
11. So I think there is going to be a lot of money flowing to CDC for
bioterrorism. In addition, we beefed up the public health account.
Now, public broadcasting, and it is public broadcasting, I do not
always agree with what they do, but they have been required by FCC to
go to digital. And, of course, eventually the public, as they purchase
new television sets, will likewise be able to receive digital
programming which will, of course, improve the quality of the
broadcasting. While I may not be enthused about some of the things the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting does, I think it is our
responsibility since it is the FCC which is a Federal agency that has
made this order, and since it is public broadcasting, to support them
as this appropriation does.
If I thought there was a shortage in CDC, I would perhaps have a
different approach. But, again, we have enormously beefed up the CDC
money, plus the fact that they are going to get a very sizable sum from
the $20 billion that we have already put in for emergency funding for
national security.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the President will send
to this Congress tomorrow a request for $2 billion, not 12 million
dollars but $2 billion to combat disease-related potential attacks from
any source.
I would urge the House not to fall into the trap of using our concern
over the incident that happened a month ago to screw up every other
program that the government is engaged in. I mean, that is essentially
what would happen if this amendment is adopted with respect to our
obligation to help finance the mandate that the Federal Government
created with respect to digitalization.
If the Members want to support a real effort to help CDC prepare this
country, they will support that $2 billion request. They will not cut
in half what we are trying to do here for digitalization for public
television in order to create the appearance that we have done
something significant which, in fact, would be a thimbleful in an ocean
in terms of its impact.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is correct. I am
advised by our leadership, also, that there will be a $2 billion
request by the Administration in additional emergency funding for the
Centers for Disease Control to deal with bioterrorism, and that is a
lot of money. I do not believe we should cripple the ability of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to move into the 21st century in
their ability to transmit to the public effectively. Obviously the FCC
would not have made this requirement if it were not an important
element of their ability to serve the public.
I, therefore, oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of title V, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. 5 . None of the funds made available in this Act for
the Department of Health and Human Services may be used to
grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license pursuant to
chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code, except in
accordance with section 209 of such title (relating to the
availability to the public of an invention and its benefits
on reasonable terms).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment to lower
the cost of prescription drugs in this country. It is tripartisan and
is cosponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul)
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
When I first introduced a version of this amendment in 1996, it
received 180 votes. Last year, however, it passed 313-109. There is a
lot of support for this amendment in this body. I offer it tonight
again in the hope that the Senate will agree favorably to it and begin
to lower the price of prescription drugs developed with the taxpayers'
money through the National Institutes of Health. This amendment is
supported by organizations representing millions of American citizens,
including Families USA, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and Public
Citizen.
Mr. Chairman, over the years, the taxpayers of this country have
contributed billions of dollars to the National Institutes of Health
for research into new and important drugs, and that research money has
paid off. It has worked. Between 1955 and 1992, 92 percent of drugs
approved by the FDA to treat cancer were researched and developed by
the NIH. Today, many of the most widely used drugs in this country
dealing with a variety of illnesses were developed through NIH
research, and that is very good news for all of us.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield back the balance
of his time if we said that we would accept the amendment?

[[Page 19395]]

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman would let me finish my statement, I
have 2 more minutes. And he is going to accept it. I am happy to hear
that.

{time} 1730

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what if we will not accept it if the
gentleman finishes his speech?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I will read fast. It will be done in a
minute-and-a-half.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman and ranking member agreeing
to accept the amendment. But the point here is that the bad news, by
and large, is that those drugs that were developed at taxpayer expense
were given over to the pharmaceutical industry with no assurance that
American consumers would not be charged outrageously high prices. The
pharmaceutical companies constitute the most profitable industry in
America, yet while their profits sore, millions of Americans cannot
afford the prescription drugs they desperately need because of the high
prices they are forced to pay. That is bad. But what is even worse is
that many of these same drugs were developed with taxpayer dollars.
Imagine a situation where taxpayers contribute to develop a drug, and
then the person who paid taxes to develop that drug cannot afford to
buy it. That is an outrage.
There are many crises in terms of the high cost of prescription drugs
in this country. This amendment deals with one narrow aspect of that
problem. If taxpayers in America are going to contribute billions to
develop drugs, then when those drugs are marketed by the pharmaceutical
industry they must be sold at a reasonable price; and that is what this
amendment does.
I could list, but I will not, the many, many drugs that receive
Federal assistance that are now sold for outrageously high prices. It
is time for the United States Congress to stand up to represent the
taxpayers and consumers of this country and support this amendment.
Let me simply conclude by mentioning with gratitude that last year
over 300 Members of this House overwhelmingly supported this amendment.
I am very delighted and proud that the chairman and the ranking member
are prepared to accept it and that I hope that we can go on tonight.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am pleased that the amendment will be approved because I am a
cosponsor of this amendment. I compliment the gentleman for bringing
this to the floor.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul) for his strong support.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his point of
order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we withdraw our reservation and are
prepared to accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the amount made available in the second
sentence under the heading ``Health Resources and Services''
for special projects of regional and national significance
under section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act, reducing
the aggregate amount made available under the heading
``Disease Control, Research, and Training'', and reducing the
aggregate amount made available under the heading ``Payments
to States for the Child Care and Development Block Grant'',
by $33,000,000, $16,000,000, and $17,000,000, respectively.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this deals with the matter that was offered
earlier during the debate on this bill to make available an additional
$33 million for Abstinence Education Grants.
The offset, of course, is different from what it was before. It is
now under the Disease Control, Research, and Training program, which,
among other things, provides funding for combatting sexually
transmitted diseases, as well as other diseases.
Mr. Chairman, this is in response to the great crisis that we have
had for decades regarding teen pregnancy, teen sexual activity, unwed
births, and the tremendous catastrophic effect that it has had on
America and on millions and millions of lives in America. For decades,
since the 1970s, Mr. Chairman, we have been funding so-called safe sex
programs, family planning programs, things using a euphemism for
telling kids it is okay to have sex, as long as you are careful about
it.
What has been the result during that time? Mr. Chairman, as Federal
funding for these programs went up, teenage pregnancies and unwed
births went up along with it. The more we sent a mixed message that
says it is okay to have sex out of wedlock, it is okay, kids, just be
safe about it, the more we undercut what Mom and Dad tell their kids,
the more we undercut what they are taught at church, the more we found
that we got more of the problem.
But only when first in private funding and then, in 1995, in Federal
funding, did we start funding the abstinence programs that taught kids
about waiting until marriage and upholding values, only then have we
started to see this number come down in teenage unwed births.
That is what this is about, Mr. Chairman. We started funding that in
1995 at the rate of $50 million a year, and then, in the last year, we
began adding to that at a rate of $70 million a year. To the chairman's
credit, the bill in front of us would bring that number to $90 million,
but it does not bring it to parity with what we have been spending to
promote so-called safe sex, family planning. ``It is okay to do it as
long as you try to be careful,'' and teenagers are not able to be
careful that way, Mr. Chairman.
This is bringing parity, as the President has proposed. As we have
the supportive letter from OMB to support that, this is bringing parity
to the funding, saying that we ought to be spending at least as much on
the message of abstinence as we are on the other message.
We defined what we meant by abstinence. Teaching that has as its
exclusive purpose the social, psychological, and health gains to be
realized by abstaining from sexual activity. Teaching that abstinence
from sexual activity for teens outside marriage is the expected
standard, and it is the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the
only way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases that have exploded
along with the explosion of teen pregnancies.
Mr. Chairman, this is just saying let us have parity. This does not
attack the programs that we have been funding for years, but it does
say that it is about time that the average American, the typical
American, the normal values of everyday people in this country, receive
the same emphasis from their government as we have put on other things.
I ask Members to join me, Mr. Chairman, in supporting this amendment;
in supporting the $33 million which we calculated and the President
calculated would bring parity. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have got to
tell you, it is probably still about $15 million short of that parity,
but I am not asking for a higher number.
We asked early on in this session for this amount, this $73 million
for the grants on top of the $50 million that goes to the States to do
this. And there is huge demand for it. When the first grants were
awarded this year under the grant program, only $20 million was
available. Applicants applied for seven times that amount. The
Department of Health and Human Services

[[Page 19396]]

was overwhelmed with the number of applications. They have never had
such a response to a new program as they had for this.
Mr. Chairman, we need to put this funding in place. We have the
hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill. We have the extra
billions that were added in just the last week or two. It is not asking
too much to say that we ought to be active in seeking the abstinence
education.
Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the account that the gentleman is asking that
we increase has been increased in this bill by 100 percent. The account
that the gentleman would cut in order to finance the increase that he
is asking for is the account that funds infectious disease control
efforts at CDC; it is the account that funds the disease detectives who
are right now at this very moment searching for anthrax; it is the
account that funds breast and cervical screening; it is the account
that funds TB control; it is the account that funds sexually
transmitted diseases; and, in addition to that, the gentleman cuts the
Child Care Block Grant account.
Now, I would point out that with respect to the item that the
gentleman seeks to increase, he seeks to increase the funding that we
are providing for abstinence programs. I fully support those programs.
I voted for them in the past, and I have helped the gentleman get the
funding for them. I would point out that the increase that the
gentleman has gotten in this bill for those family planning programs is
twice as high as the increase that we have provided in this bill for
the traditional family planning programs.
So the gentleman has already gotten the better part of the deal. Now
he is asking us to fund yet another increase. And I have no problem
with that increase. I have no problem with it whatsoever. If the
gentleman wants to cut back some tax cuts in order to pay for it, or if
he wants to find some other reasonable accounts to cut, fine, I am all
for it. But I am not for funding a greater than 100 percent increase in
this account by reducing the other accounts before us.
I find it ironic that the previous amendment is trying to increase
the activities that the gentleman is trying to cut with this amendment.
This committee is being whipsawed. One minute we are being hit from the
northeast, and the next minute we are being hit from the southwest.
We are in the center with this bill. We have got a bipartisan
compromise, we have got reasonable increases for all of these programs,
and I would urge that in the interests of maintaining the balance in
this bill, that we oppose the gentleman's amendment.
If we can find some other way in conference to increase funding for
this in a balanced way, I have no sweats about that. But I am certainly
not interested in funding this increase at the expense of the decreases
that I have just described.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because in part it takes money
from very important programs, Child Care Development Block Grants. We
are all concerned about child care. We have heard earlier today
statements about the impact of September 11 on children, and that is
just part of the needs that face this Nation.
Likewise, we have just had a discussion on the importance of the
Center for Disease Control for research and training, again a response
to the impact of events over the recent time.
I would want to point out that I do not quarrel with what the
gentleman's goals are, and I think this program should be increased,
and we recognize that. We went $10 million more than the President
requested in his budget. We went $20 million more than last year.
It is not that we are ignoring this program. It is not that we do not
think it has great potential. I talked to a lady in my district who is
working with this program, and she pointed out to me a number of
effective things that are being done in the schools. But I think it
needs to be developed incrementally.
I believe that the money that we have put in, working to improve the
program, will accomplish the goals; and I would hope that in the future
we will have more evidence, such as what I have heard from one of my
constituents, that will persuade us that we should have another sizable
increase in the future.
But obviously if we are $10 million over the President and $20
million over last year, we are recognizing the value of this program,
and when I have to balance this off against the Centers for Disease
Control and all the items that the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned
that are part of the Child Care Development Block Grant, it just does
not balance out in terms of equities.
We have tried to have a balanced bill here. We have tried to
recognize all the different programs that are important. I think in
adding $10 million over the President, $20 million over last year's
budget, we are being fair in what is available for this program.
I would urge Members to vote against this amendment.

{time} 1745

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), my friend and colleague; but
I would begin my brief remarks on this bill by commending the chairman
and the ranking member for their very sincere commitment to abstinence
education and acknowledging the increases in the current bill, $20
million over last year, as the chairman said, and $10 million even over
the President's request.
But I, nevertheless, rise today in support of that noble, right,
pure, and true belief that we as a people should reconsider our
approach to family planning and to sex education and treatment in
America today. The truth is that we have a problem. Mr. Chairman, 3
million teenagers a year are catching sexually transmitted disease. The
United States has, Mr. Chairman, the highest teenage pregnancy rate of
all developed countries in the world, despite billions of dollars spent
over decades in traditional methods of birth control. Mr. Chairman, 1
million teenagers become pregnant each year, and one-third of those
pregnancies end tragically in abortion.
Not only do we have a problem, Mr. Chairman, but we have a solution.
Abstinence education, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the
chairman of the subcommittee, just reflected passionately works. We
know that it works. From the district that I serve in Indiana, we have
seen church organizations and civic organizations come together to
promote abstinence as an alternative. Here in Washington, D.C. where 15
percent of girls become sexually active in the eighth grade, according
to statistics, there is a program known as the Best Friends Foundation,
which has reduced that number to 5 percent in real terms. In the
District of Columbia, 27 percent of girls age 15 to 19 become pregnant
each year, but among the Best Friends girls in that age range, only 2.5
percent have ever become pregnant. Abstinence, as the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) says and as the chairman and the ranking member
reflect, abstinence works and we ought to be making a serious and
concerted commitment.
Another example: in Rochester, New York, the Not Me Not Now program
achieved remarkable results over a 4-year period. First intercourse
incidents among 15-year-olds dropped from 47 percent to 32 percent, and
among 17-year-olds it dropped from 54 percent to 40 percent. Mr.
Chairman, these are real gains; these are real improvements. But we
have a real need, despite the outstanding work of the committee on this
important piece of legislation. I, along with the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), believe that we can

[[Page 19397]]

and should do more; that, in fact, by adding $33 million to the annual
title V SPRANS Community Abstinence Education program, we will do much
to meet what is a real need in America today.
The title V program received 359 applications last year in its first
year of operation in funding abstinence programs around America. That
was the largest number of applications for a single new grant program
that anyone at HHS can even remember. It would have required $165
million in authorization to fund all of the applicants. This modest
increase of $73 million still will not meet the need; but it will move
us closer to a new vision, a balanced vision when it comes to sex
education in America today.
So again, with great respect to the chairman and to the ranking
member for their commitment to abstinence education, which I
acknowledge today, Mr. Chairman, is real and is heartfelt and is
genuine; and with appreciation for the increased commitment to
abstinence education in this bill I, nevertheless, very respectfully
stand with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and others to say
that we can and should do more.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, abstinence education. With all due respect to the good
intentions of the author of the amendment, as far as this amendment and
the priority-setting that produced this amendment on the floor of
Congress today, I think the whole matter is a true embarrassment.
The Pentagon held a memorial service this morning. It had a memorial
service for the men and women that we lost on September 11. Their loved
ones were not killed because of inadequate abstinence education; they
were killed because of major security breaches in our airports, and it
is high time that this Congress do something about it. Across our
country, millions of Americans have honored the victims of September 11
with a moment of silence. Well, this House has acted with more than a
moment; it has had a month of silence and inaction on the security
issue that lies at the heart of this tragedy. We can talk about the
pros and cons of abstinence education all night long, and I guess some
would like to do that, but when are we going to talk about effective
measures to ensure abstinence for terrorism?
I think that it is long past time to stop wasting our time talking
about safe sex and start talking about safe flight. In the 30 days that
have now passed since four airplanes were hijacked and crashed, the
Congress has failed utterly to provide for airline security. This
inaction borders on indifference, and it is a disgrace. If four crashes
were not enough to make this body respond, what in the world will? Can
we not devote at least as much time to this issue that every family in
America is concerned about tonight as we devote to talking about
abstinence?
One week after this attack, and this is part of a series of problems;
it is not just this amendment, one week after this attack, what was
this House doing? We were debating a family court in the District of
Columbia. Two weeks after this attack, we were establishing National
Character Counts Week. Three weeks after this tragedy, we were
considering the farm bill and approving the Virgin River Dinosaur
Footprint Preserve. This week, we are looking at Fast Track trading
authority, more tax breaks for corporations, and abstinence.
When in the world is this Congress going to deal with what Americans
are really concerned about: Will my wife get home safe tonight? Can the
kids come home for Thanksgiving? Those are the issues that we ought to
be establishing as our priorities.
We will not decrease terrorism by hoping that terrorists abstain from
further attacks. We will not be able to trade our way into the hearts
of the Taliban, and we will not make our families safer by spending
millions of dollars on abstinence education instead of substituting
skilled federal law enforcement on our airlines to search the bags and
be there when we go through the screening process instead of some
minimum-wage worker who could not get a job anywhere else. And of all
times, on a day when we are more and more concerned about Anthrax, to
fund this increased abstinence education by cutting the Centers for
Disease Control borders on insanity in terms of the priorities of this
Congress.
It has been 30 days, 30 days since September 11; and while most
Americans would have said, if asked, and if they had been here on the
floor of this Congress, do something about airline security, do
something about bioterrorism, and leave all of this other stuff alone.
This Congress is not doing it. This leadership will not permit us to
debate the issue of aviation safety and the needs on bioterrorism
tonight in this Congress because there is a hard-line idealogical
commitment that if we add one worker to the federal workforce, even if
they are to screen our bags, even if they are to screen the passengers,
that that is somehow a bad thing.
Mr. Chairman, I think we need to put a stop to the old way of dealing
with these problems and the old ideologies and recognize that we have a
new world after September 11. It is time to reject those old ways. The
failure to discuss airline security results from those old ways that
some refused to abandon.
Mr. Chairman, at 4:28 this afternoon, another headline out: ``FBI
Issues Terrorist Strikes Warning,'' which says that either inside or
outside the United States, during the next several days, we may face
additional terrorist attacks. Whether they are through Anthrax or
through airlines, this Congress ought to be dealing with these security
issues are a top priority.
The fact that our National Guard, and now our border guards, are
being pulled off the border and put into the airports, the fact that
this is happening results from the inaction of this Congress. The
failure of this Congress to act, which caused one Member of the other
body, Senator McCain from Arizona, to say it last night, this in his
words ``a farce''; and today is a continuation of that farce, resulting
from our failure to deal with this security priority tonight.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that the last time I checked, the item
before this Congress at the moment was the Labor-HHS bill. I totally
and thoroughly disagree with the gentleman's characterization of the
activity of this Congress. Twenty-four hours a day, 7 days a week for
the last 30 days we have been working very hard to deal with the issues
that he says we are ignoring.
Back to the bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) and to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their
consideration in increasing spending for a very crucial issue, which is
abstinence-until-marriage funding. I do not know of too many things
from a security standpoint that is any more important than the health
of our young people today. As we look at ways to increase the funding
which will improve health conditions for our young people, I appreciate
their concern, their approval of the funds; and I hope if this is not
the right place, I am sure that my colleagues will find the right place
to do this.
In North Carolina we have a law that we worked very, very hard in a
bipartisan fashion to pass; and that law says that we will have in our
health education curriculum that abstinence until marriage is the
expected standard of behavior. Young people, teenagers in particular,
are very, very bright. They respond to proper leadership and good
examples. If we tell them that this promiscuous behavior is going to
happen, they cannot make the right choices, and then offer them
contraceptives which have a 20 percent failure rate, we have not done
our duty. We have not protected our young people. But if we say to
them, abstinence until marriage is the healthy way to 100 percent
provide protection from sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted
pregnancies, then I say to my colleagues, we have done our job.
So I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the

[[Page 19398]]

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for their attention to this matter. I commend the amendment, I
support it very strongly, and I would love to work with my colleagues
in any way to make sure we make this happen. By the way, the President
in a recent letter does support funding at the $73 million level.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook amendment.
The Labor-HHS bill contains many programs that are very important to
the American people. At this time of crisis and increased concern about
the public welfare, we have a greater obligation than ever before to
prioritize. The chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member
have made an extraordinary effort to bring this good, balanced bill to
the floor, and I thank them.
The Istook amendment, I believe, undermines the bipartisan commitment
we have made to move this bill without unnecessary conflicts. It would
increase funding for a single health education grant program by $33
million. Funding began 1 year ago at $20 million, and the chairman's
mark already increased a promised $30 million by an additional $10
million. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) wants to go from this
$40 million program, a 100 percent increase over last year, to $73
million. Not only would this increase eclipse that of any other program
in the bill, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) offsets the cost
of this excessive increase by cutting funds for the CDC, the Child Care
Development Block grant. His cuts in CDC would force the CDC to make
reductions in these areas: infectious diseases, chronic diseases, STDs,
breast and cervical cancer. Which should we choose?

{time} 1800

I will repeat it again, it means cuts in infectious diseases, chronic
diseases, STDs, breast and cervical cancer. This is outrageous and
irresponsible.
Equally disturbing, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) proposes
to cut the child care development block grant. These funds are
desperately needed to ensure that children receive quality child care,
especially low-income families.
I want to make this clear to my colleagues: I know how important this
program is to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). In fact,
despite my strong reservations about the effectiveness of teaching
abstinence only until marriage, I have worked with my colleague, I have
worked with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) in designing these
community-based grants, because I believe abstinence is an important
message for our youth. We have worked together.
However, with the tremendous needs, Mr. Chairman, as a result of
September 11, and I feel so privileged to serve on a committee that can
meet these needs, and we cannot even find enough money for CDC. I know
my good chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), would like to
do more. So now is not the time, in my judgment, to allocate a three-
fold increase, and that means 200 percent, to one health education
program.
Even if our Nation was not in the state of emergency, a drastic
increase in this program is premature because it has only been in place
1 year. As part of our agreement, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook) and I had an agreement with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) and our former chair, Mr. Porter, to include rigorous evaluation
in this program, an evaluation which would include a range of sexuality
programs, not just abstinence-only programs, has not even begun.
Finally, our funding needs for CDC bioterrorism, the public health
emergency fund, worker training, unemployment insurance, mental health
counseling, to name just a few, are just enormous. They are great.
While we each continue our interest and advocacy for particular
programs, seeking an increase of this magnitude I feel is inappropriate
at this time. So let us give this program some time before providing an
even larger funding increase, especially considering our budgetary
restraints.
I want to thank the Members again. I hope my colleagues will vote no
on this Istook amendment, and I want to appreciate the good work of our
Chair, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), for bringing us
together working on a bipartisan agreement.
I really feel that it is unfortunate that one of our members of the
subcommittee chooses to violate the agreement and ask for a 200
percent, 200 percent increase in this program, which has not been
evaluated. It will not be evaluated until 2005.
I would be delighted to work with my colleague to make sure that we
continue to look at this program very carefully.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to be associated with the comments and
remarks of my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey),
and really every Member that has risen in opposition to the Istook
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, since the September 11 attacks, the objectives of our
Nation have changed dramatically. We are focused on combatting
terrorism, enhancing intelligence, and upgrading our public health
system. Each of these efforts costs money and deserves additional
funding.
The Istook amendment would give $33 million, a three-fold increase,
to a narrowly-focused program that puts teens at risk and is rooted in
wishful thinking. Abstinence-only education works only when it is
combined with comprehensive sexuality education. Evidence shows that
comprehensive sexuality education helps delay sexual relations among
young people, and increases contraceptive use among those who become
sexually active.
Telling independent-minded teenagers what not to do and depriving
them of information they might use to decide is a recipe for unplanned
pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases.
Ninety-three percent of Americans support teaching sexuality
education. We should follow the numbers and reject the Istook
amendment.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we give
credit where credit is due. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) earlier mentioned that they
have helped get this program off the ground. Despite this opposition to
this amendment, they deserve credit for that. I want to acknowledge
that publicly.
However, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said when someone else was
speaking earlier, I would rather have their support than their praise.
I would like to have the gentlewoman's support now, not just her praise
for getting the program under way but her support at this time, as
well.
I hear people argue, well, we really cannot afford this extra $33
million. Mr. Chairman, this is in a bill with discretionary spending,
not even counting the mandatory, discretionary spending of $123
billion, $11 billion more than last year, and $6.8 billion over the
President's request. It has a half-a-dozen accounts in it that are more
than $100 million over the President's request. It has over a dozen
accounts in it that are more than $100 million over last year's amount.
Then we are told, on one of the major problems of our time, with
teenage pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases, with 3 million
young Americans each year getting sexually-transmitted diseases, 3
million teens, we are told with all this money in the bill, it is a
good idea, but we really cannot afford it.
Give me a break. It is a question of where our priorities are. Do
Members want to fund the things that reinforce America's values? Do
Members want to fund the things that are having the

[[Page 19399]]

first success in three decades in combatting teenagers who are involved
sexually, get disease, get pregnant, drop out of school, turn to
alcohol, turn to drugs, do not get their education, cannot support
themselves, go on public assistance, raise kids in that environment? Is
that what we want?
Mr. Chairman, if we had more of these abstinence education programs,
we would not need all the other billions of dollars in this bill. Yet,
I hear people say, it is a good idea, but we really cannot afford it,
despite all the other billions of dollars in the bill. The real
question is getting our priorities straight.
We had $2 billion that was added to this piece of legislation in the
last week. Of course we can afford this.
The President's support? This is the letter dated September 24 from
his office, the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget: ``The President remains strongly committed to funding
parity between abstinence education and teen contraception. With this
in mind, the administration would support efforts in Congress to
increase funding to $73 million for abstinence education activities
under the administration's title V special programs of regional and
national significance within the Health and Human Services
Department.''
That is what this amendment does. The President has talked to us
about getting parity. That is what this amendment is about. In a bill
with all these billions of dollars, we do not have $33 million to put
into this high priority; $33 million that prevents disease, that
prevents children being raised in poverty?
I heard someone say, well, we have not done enough evaluations on
these abstinence education programs. These family planning programs,
title X programs, we have had since 1971, for 30 years; they have never
been evaluated. We spend over $200 million a year on them. We have not
evaluated them. But we are told that is a reason for not promoting
abstinence education, when teen pregnancy rates have only started
coming down once these programs got under way.
It is time we put more support into them. I would like to have the
support, not just the verbal support but the support in votes, of
people that have indeed helped to get this program under way. It needs
a little bit of nurture and nourishment right now. The demand is huge
in the United States. They are overwhelmed with applicants for these
grants. They cannot fill that demand.
Let us save some kids. Let us help people not get into this cycle of
disease and poverty. Let us support this amendment. I move its
adoption, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate
on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook) and any amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent. We could have less.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would simply
ask if we could get an idea how many Members actually have a burning
desire to speak on this. Then we might be able to shrink it to less
than that, which I think everybody would appreciate.
Mr. REGULA. We have no further speakers on this side.
Mr. OBEY. There are three on this side. Would it be acceptable to
have 3 minutes apiece?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, strike my original unanimous consent
request.
I ask unanimous consent that further debate on the pending amendment
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and any amendments
thereto be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and myself, the opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield my 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who has worked a long, long
time on one of the issues involved in this amendment.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member and
the distinguished chairman of the committee for their work and for the
bipartisan bill that they have brought forward. Mr. Chairman, this is
never an easy bill for a ranking member and a chairman to work out, so
I salute them, and I recognize the work that has gone into this.
But I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). Let me tell the Members why. The amendment
cuts the Centers for Disease Control. It is the account, not an account
but the account that funds the CDC's disease detectives who are right
now looking for anthrax in Florida.
It speaks to the dollars that are spent for controlling infectious
diseases: tuberculosis control, research into birth defects and
childhood disabilities, and asthma treatment and prevention.
Mr. Chairman, I want to zero in on another area of this budget, and
what this amendment would essentially cut and really hurt, and really
hurt. That is the issue of breast and cervical cancer screening.
In the last Congress, if there was one thing that I worked harder on
than anything else with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, it was
to come up with a bill that would take care of those women that are
underinsured or not insured at all, because when the CDC screened for
breast and cervical cancer, that was one part of it, but the part that
the Congress had never finished, had never done, was the next chapter.
That was that once there was detection, that we would help them.
We cannot afford to have that effort go down the drain. Mr. Bliley
was the chairman of the committee. There were over 300 cosponsors to
that bill. It was a great bipartisan effort. Everyone embraced it. They
understood that we could in fact take the next step and make a
difference for women and their families in this country. I think it is
one of the great accomplishments of the last Congress.
This amendment hurts that. It does not have to be the case. The
gentleman's amendment is not bragging about how much the 100 percent
increase over last year is already taken care of in the bipartisan
bill, going from $20 million to $40 million.
Maybe that is not my top priority, what the gentleman is doing, but I
salute him for what he cares about. But do not do this at the cost of
the anthrax cases that we need to look into, breast and cervical cancer
screening, and the care of women that absolutely need it and depend
upon it.
There is tuberculosis control. These are all things that the American
people rise up and say, good job, Congress.
Vote against the amendment. It hurts. It is not necessary, and it is
wrong.

{time} 1815

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I simply want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the account that is
the offset of this is an account that has received an increase of $1.1
billion. It has received an increase in excess of the President's
request. We are not sacrificing anything of value to make sure that we
provide for abstinence education and fund it accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment and wish to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook), for his constant support on this issue. This amendment
does not seek to address the constitutionality or morality questions
inherent in the abstinence education debate. Rather, this amendment
seeks to promote the health and safety of our children.
Each year, three million teens contract sexually transmitted
diseases; and nearly one million become pregnant. These statistics, Mr.
Chairman, are simply appalling. However, as appalling as these
statistics are, we must

[[Page 19400]]

note that these rates have declined in recent years. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, abstinence programs have
played a role in the decline in teenage birth rates, which have dropped
by 22 percent since 1991. As the CDC states, ``Many initiatives have
focused on the prevention of pregnancy through abstinence and many
teenagers have heard this message.''
Currently, the Federal Government spends more than $5 billion per
year on HIV/AIDS, STD, and unintended pregnancy prevention combined.
Most of these dollars go towards the provision of services such as
screening, pregnancy tests, free contraceptives and condoms and
referrals. About $15 million goes towards promoting ``safe sex''
messages and education.
Federally funded abstinence education programs receive only about $80
million per year, practically all of it promoting the fact that sexual
abstinence is the only method to be completely safe for preventing
unwanted pregnancies and diseases.
The need to support abstinence education is significant. More than
700 State and community-based abstinence education programs are funded
through title V. Much of this money is provided to volunteer
organizations that have annual budgets of less than $20,000. A small
grant of $2,500 or $5,000 means they can purchase some curriculum, some
videotapes, maybe a combination VCR/TV, and devote instructors to serve
and educate kids about how sex can wait and that many of the
consequences of early sexual activity are incurable and deadly.
Mr. Chairman, Federal abstinence education funding is making a
difference in my home State of Indiana. For example, the Peers
Educating Peers, or PEP program educates adolescents about sexual
health in nearly 20 Indiana counties serving more than 10,000
adolescents per year. PEP uses high school role models to educate
junior high school age students about refusal skills, open
communication, and responsible decision-making.
PEP has demonstrated its effectiveness as teen birth rates have
dropped an average of 43 percent in the five counties where the program
has been operating the longest.
Because of a SPRANS, or Special Projects of Regional and National
Significance grant, the PEP program will expand their successful
program to Evansville in my congressional district where the teen birth
rate is 40 births per thousand, the second highest birth rate in
Indiana.
This amendment, which would increase funding for abstinence
education, makes both common sense and public health sense. It makes
common sense because abstinence education works, and I have already
highlighted the success of programs like PEP in Indiana.
It makes public health sense because Federal abstinence education
funding goes towards prevention of sexual activity, just like public
health messages like ``wash your hands,'' ``do not smoke,'' or ``do not
drink and drive'' prevents communicable diseases, long-term disease,
accidents and death.
Finally, it puts the money where it is needed. The CDC reports that
about half of our children are sexually abstinent and about half of our
children have become sexually active. If those are the proportions,
according to CDC, then let Federal support reflect those proportions.
This amendment to increase abstinence funding is a good first step to
achieve a fair distribution of resources based on the needs of young
people.
As President Bush has stated, ``For children to realize their dreams,
they must learn the value of abstinence. We must send them the message
that of the many decisions they will make in their lives, choosing to
avoid early sex is one of the most important. We must stress that
abstinence is not just about saying no to sex; it is about saying yes
to a happier, healthier future.''
I urge my colleagues to support the proposed amendment and provide
increased funding for abstinence education.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this is, I am sure, a sincere amendment;
but it probably sets a record for ill timing. Because on the day where
I just walked out of the cloak room and I saw CNN running a headline
that the FBI is warning that we should be on the highest alert for
terrorist attacks, on a day when the country is extremely concerned
about our ability to deal with bioterrorism, we have a Member amendment
on the floor of the House to cut money out of the CDC people whose job
it is to find out if there is dangerous bacteria in our environment.
I cannot imagine a worse timed amendment, but I think there is a
bigger problem with what we are considering on the floor of the House
than just that. The fact of the matter is our House is on fire, and we
are dealing with all these ideological issues. We should be dealing
with the security of the United States of America now that we are 30
days past this tragedy.
Let me tell my colleagues why that is of concern. When my colleagues
and I get on a plane next Friday or tomorrow to go back to our
districts, did my colleagues know that almost all of the bags that go
into the belly of the airplane we get on will not be screened for
explosive devices? Over 90 percent of the bags that are going to be in
the luggage compartment of the plane we get on on Friday will not have
been screened for bombs.
Now, what are we doing about that problem today? Nothing, not a
single thing for a month after this terrorist attack. We have not done
a dang thing on this issue.
What have we done? We gave $15 billion to the airlines. Have we done
anything to require employees to walk through magnetometers so they
cannot carry bombs on to airplanes. We have not done anything.
The fact of the matter is these ideological concerns are trumping the
security interest of the United States. We have got a bill to deal with
airline security so that the people who guard the magnetometers will
have some modicum of training, will get maybe a little more than
minimum wage.
Many people think they ought to be Federal employees. I think they
ought to be Federal employees like FBI, like Marshals, like fire
department. But these ideological concerns are keeping even a vote on
the floor of this House to do anything like that. I just hope that,
number one, this amendment will fail; and I hope that the leadership of
this House will bring to the floor of the House in quick order,
starting at about noon tomorrow, some security bills so this House can
vote on them because that ought to be the order of the day.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not take money out of
the accounts for bioterrorism. I rise in support of the Istook
amendment because I believe we should honor the President's pledge to
increase funding for abstinence education to a level equal for funding
for title X abortion counseling programs.
Mr. Chairman, over the past few decades, we have been subjected to
the propaganda of the safe sex and the abortion lobbies. They would
have us believe that more contraceptives are the answer to the problems
of sexually transmitted disease and teen pregnancy despite evidence to
the contrary. We need to start teaching our young people the truth. Sex
outside of marriage is risky business, and it has physical and
emotional consequences. There is no substitute for abstinence when it
comes to avoiding problems associated with premarital sex.
We need to stop lying to our Nation's youth and stop assuming that
promiscuity is an inherent part of adolescent life. Instead, through
absence education, programs which have proven to be successful, we need
to promote their health and safety. We need to encourage them to
exercise self-control. We need to teach them about the benefits of
saving sex until marriage. If we believe that children can exercise
self-control to avoid smoking, what about premarital sex?
Our Nation's children deserve more than free contraception and
abortion

[[Page 19401]]

counseling. Our Nation's children deserve our love and our commitment
that we will help them seek the best future for themselves, a future
that is free of the emotional and the physical pitfalls that accompany
premarital sex.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Istook amendment to
increase the funding for abstinence programs.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney)
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my colleague who is presenting this
motion that, in fact, he has already done well what he purports to
represent. He has increased the amount of his package well over what it
was last year. The base bill does that, and he can feel that he has had
an accomplishment there. But when we talk about priorities, and I
understand that is a priority of his, and as I said he has addressed
it, America's priority right now is security.
If you walk down any street, any main street in my district or anyone
else's district, people are talking about security. They want to make
sure that they are safe in their homes, safe in their neighborhoods,
their children are safe in their schools, that our water is safe, that
our transportation is safe.
They are also talking about security of their income. Thousands and
thousands of people have lost their employment as a result of what went
on September 11; and those are issues which should, in fact, be a
priority of this country.
We have done nothing about them since September 11. We had an
opportunity when we bailed out the airline industry, excessively in my
opinion, when they could only identify $2 billion worth of losses
occasioned by the activities of September 11, but got $5 billion. We
had an opportunity then to do something for people that became
unemployed, to make sure they had health care for their families, to
make sure they had an adequate income so they could sustain themselves
and their families and their communities. We had an opportunity then to
do something about security on our airlines, in particular, as well as
other places.
The CDC does need money so it can make sure we are safe from anthrax
and other problems like that. We need to know that the pilots are
secure in their cockpit and that our luggage is getting checked. We
need to know our water is safe and that we are being protected. These
are going to be costly matters.
When you talk about the American people's priorities, rather than be
debating on what we have been debating here, excessively over this
bill's base amounts, we would better spend our time addressing what
people want, a job or employment security or income security, a way to
know they will have health care coverage for their family in a time of
need, and a way to know that when they travel they will be safe.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that is what this Congress should have
been doing over the past several weeks. It is a disgrace that we have
not been doing it. We should get on to that business now. That is
America's priority.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Wisconsin have the
right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are here because we need to be here, because we are
trying to take care of the things that we are responsible to take care
of, not only the security of the United States of America but the
welfare of its people. That is why we have this bill on the floor. Yes,
we could spend all of our time talking about foreign affairs; but if we
did, we would not be trying to have normalcy. And, yes, it is normal
that we get on the floor of this House, we have debates, we have
disagreements, and we have bills such as the annual appropriation bill
for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.
If we did not have that, then things such as the Centers for Disease
Control and public health programs would not have their funding and
where would the welfare of the Nation be?
Right now the congressional authorizations for these measures expires
unless we take action such as passing this bill. So of course we should
be here. We should be talking about the issues that are timeless and
timely, and this is among them.
We have, Mr. Chairman, according to the Centers for Disease Control
that is charged with, among other things, trying to stop the sexually
transmitted diseases which this amendment addresses. According to CDC
and the Institute of Medicine, 12 million new cases are reported each
year of sexually transmitted diseases, one-fourth of them among
teenagers.

{time} 1830

It is 89 percent of all reported diseases that constitute the top 10
in the whole U.S. of all diseases. Twenty-nine percent of those were
infected with chlamydia, which causes sterility. Young women often do
not find out until they reach their childbearing years they are not
able to have kids now because they got involved in teenage sex, they
got chlamydia, now they cannot have kids. Twenty-two percent had
herpes, 32 percent had HPV, human papilloma virus, which causes 80
percent of all genital cancers.
The Institute of Medicine concluded public awareness and knowledge
regarding STDs is dangerously low. It is unfocused. The
disproportionate impact on young people has not been measured.
That is what we are trying to get at, Mr. Chairman. We are trying to
make sure that kids get the message that ``safe sex'' does not stop
these sexually transmitted diseases. They happen with or without use of
contraceptives, with or without use of condoms or other devices trying
to prevent pregnancy. The only sure message is to say, ``wait until you
are married.''
That is what abstinence education is about. It is the best course; it
is the safest course. And this Congress needs to get on course, not
giving it just minor funding within a huge bill, with huge increases in
so many other programs, with more than twice as much being spent to
promote these safe sex programs, as they are called, as to promote
abstinence.
Let us bring some equality into this. This amendment is what the Bush
administration says is what we need to bring parity. I think they may
have underestimated it. I think we probably need about $15 million more
for parity, but I am not arguing that point, Mr. Chairman. I am arguing
equal treatment, a level playing field, so that there is some
reinforcement from Washington, D.C. and from groups that we help to
fund to get the message out and reinforce what we teach our kids at
school: wait until marriage.
It is the best course and the safest course. I move adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak against the Istook
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the offsets to this amendment will
hurt our counterterrorism effort, something most of us, all of us, feel
passionately about. It is also unfortunate that an issue on which
everyone agrees, the need to prevent teen pregnancy, is presented in
this amendment in an ideological form that splits us and hurts
achieving the goal.
As a mother of two daughters and two sons, I know that abstinence-
only education does not work. What does work? One, basic accurate
information on the risks of teen pregnancy; two, education on types of
and proper use of

[[Page 19402]]

contraception; and, three, the message that abstinence is the only 100
percent effective way to prevent teen pregnancy.
Preventing teen pregnancy still matters, even in the post-September
11 world, but this amendment is the wrong solution. Vote ``no.''
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have had some 14 amendments on this side of the
aisle that we have discouraged from offering today. I do not believe we
have offered a single one from this side of the aisle. I would urge
that we have the same response from all quarters of the House.
When, in fact, we measure accurately the amount of money in title I
which is aimed at teenagers, the resulting numbers will demonstrate
that we spend at least as much on abstinence directed to teenagers as
we provide in direct family planning services of the traditional
variety aimed at teenagers. The gentleman has already achieved parity,
and this bill gives him twice as large an increase in the programs he
is for as we have in the other traditional family planning programs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Let us keep this
bill together and get out of here at a reasonable time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Are there further amendments?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
At the end of the bill (before the short title, insert the
following:)
Sec. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce Executive Order
13166.
(b) The limitation established in subsection (a) shall not
apply to an agency that is subject to Executive Order 12866
after it has complied with the requirements of such Executive
Order, which has been issued pursuant to law.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I might mention that I am certainly
amenable to any unanimous consent request to limit total debate time on
this measure.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment states that until the Office of
Management and Budget issues a cost-benefit analysis of a series of
Federal regulations, those regulations are to be held in abeyance. They
are what is commonly called ``limited English proficiency''
regulations.
What is all this about? It is about an executive order that was
issued last August and regulations that were issued pursuant to it
mandating that not only Federal agencies but also State and local
agencies, businesses, nonprofit groups, anybody who has received any
funds to administer or handle or be involved with a Federal program
must make all vital documents, it says, available in multiple
translations; basically into any language group involving 3,000 people
or more.
Mr. Chairman, there are over 200 language groups in the United States
involving 3,000 people or more. If we are required to translate
everything into each one of these languages, the average cost for
billions of pages is $40 a page per language. Multiply $40 per page by
over 200 languages, by billions of documents, and my colleagues can
begin to see the nature of this problem, the huge unfunded mandate that
this puts on businesses and on local governments. In fact, nine or 10
States officially have petitioned for these not to go into effect
because of the unfunded mandate.
After all, Mr. Chairman, there are some large language groups; and we
have plenty of efforts to try to accommodate them. This amendment does
not restrict anyone from trying to accommodate a language group or to
make something available in another language. It simply removes the
Federal mandate that we have to do so in this unlimited number of
languages. It lets common sense prevail instead. It follows what the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled just April of this year is the law of the
land: there is no right to force somebody to translate civil documents
or civil activities for you.
Now, if an individual is charged in a court proceeding, yes, they
will make sure they have a translation as a defendant. But we are not
talking about that. There is no right, constitutional or statutory.
Yet, usurping the powers of this Congress, of this body, this executive
order and the regulations issued under it are putting that burden on
people all over the country.
Imagine being called up for a violation of Federal law because you
did not provide a translation, for example, into western Farsi, with a
million people in the United States speaking it; or because you did not
provide a translation into Kabuverdianu, that has hundreds of thousands
of people that speak it. My colleagues can pick whatever language they
want, I am not going to pick on any of them, but with over 200
languages, to be told, well, if there are more than 3,000 people
affected, you have to translate all vital documents, anything that this
person might need, any documents made generally available to the
public.
Mr. Chairman, we have thousands of informational brochures, bits of
information, guidance that go to people constantly. How much are we
going to pay for this? We ought to wait until we have the cost-benefit
analysis from the Office of Management and Budget. That is their job.
They ought to be doing it. We should not go into this thing blind.
I realize there will be some people, Mr. Chairman, who talk about
constituents they have that are not proficient in English. I understand
that. But that does not mean that we go out and put this mandate out
there to try to solve the problem.
The American Medical Association has said these will cause doctors to
stop seeing Medicare patients and Medicaid patients because they cannot
afford the cost of paying for a translator. The regulations even say it
is not good enough if they have a family member come with them to the
doctor to do a translation. Oh no, that is not permissible. The doctor
has to go out and hire a translator at hundreds of dollars an hour that
costs more than he is reimbursed, usually something about $30 or $40,
more than he is reimbursed for seeing the patient in the first place.
That is why the AMA, as well as so many States, wants us to pull back
on this.
Let us make a common-sense test. Let us apply the law under an
earlier executive order that says OMB is going to do cost-benefit
analyses when we have legislation that is this far-reaching.
I move the adoption of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate
on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook), and any amendments thereto, be limited to 20 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, could I ask
that the gentleman amend that to 12 minutes per side?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I will agree to 24 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
original request and to amend it so that further debate on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), and any
amendments thereto, be limited to 24 minutes, to be equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?

[[Page 19403]]

There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 12 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time; and once again I want to take the opportunity to commend our new
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), for his first Labor-HHS
bill on the floor; the ranking member of this subcommittee and the full
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and the chairman of
the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for their
great leadership in crafting this legislation and bringing it to the
floor.
I rise in defense of the committee position and in opposition to the
Istook amendment. Mr. Chairman, this guidance which is contain in the
bill does not create any new requirements or place any new mandates on
recipients of Federal funds. It simply clarifies the Department's long-
standing policy so that recipients have clear, concise, and
constructive information about their responsibilities under title IV.
This information helps grantees be sure that they are in compliance
with the law, as it has been in effect for over 30 years. This guidance
is intended to be flexible and recognizes that there are no one-size-
fits-all solutions. The guidance on limited English proficiency also
clarifies that recipients only have to undertake reasonable steps to
ensure meaningful access and that recipients are not required to take
steps that would incur unreasonable costs or burdens.

{time} 1845

This amendment ignores the positive impacts of limited English
proficiency. They ignore the Department of Justice's reasonable
direction. Many limited-English proficiency persons work in some of the
lowest paid jobs, are more subject to abusive employment situations,
and need more help with complicated government bureaucracies.
For example, a Cambodian refugee worked as a landscaper to support
his family of five children. After he was laid off, he made repeated
attempts to file an unemployment claim. He could not communicate with
his State agency, and often received contradictory information. For
most of the winter, he was without income and unemployment insurance
compensation.
The costs of providing assistance to persons who have limited English
speaking abilities does not have to be expensive. In California, the
limited-English speaking population is estimated to be over 3 million
people. Since 1973, we have had a State law with more specific
interpretation of translation requirements than title IV, which this
guidance addresses; and this law has not created a burdensome financial
strain on the State of California's Department of Social Services. That
department spends a total of $648,312 to staff an internal team of 13
employees to translate documents into Spanish, Chinese, Cambodian,
Russian and Vietnamese; and not that much more in outside contracts for
vendors for translation into other languages.
This is a very small cost for an $18 billion social service budget.
This guidance simply fulfills the goal that Secretary Chao expressed in
her welcoming ceremony remarks, making sure that no worker gets left
behind.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Istook
amendment and defend the committee's position.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula).
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this
amendment. The committee understands the concerns raised by the
amendment, but now is not the time to proceed with this amendment. I
understand that this executive order is under review by the
administration.
Furthermore, the committee report accompanying the bill recommends
that both Secretary Chao at the Department of Labor and Secretary
Thompson at the Department of Health and Human Services, quote,
``carefully review the guidance and revisit its implications, impacts
and consequences both practically and fiscally.''
I think we should give the administration time to address this in the
regular order and not adopt the amendment of the gentleman to shut off
funds. I might add that the administration will be able to address it
with a subsequent executive order once they have had time to review it.
I think out of courtesy we owe the administration time to review the
implications of this order. Therefore, I think the amendment would be
premature and should be rejected.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula), this amendment does give them time. It just says until they do
their job, the rest of the country should not be put under this
incredible burden.
Right now there are groups that are being pursued by HHS, pursued by
Federal agencies for supposed noncompliance with these regulations. We
ought to say you do not go after agencies pursuing these regulations
until we do that cost-benefit analysis. That is exactly what the
amendment does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, Executive Order 13-166 issued by
President Clinton is unwise, illegal and unconstitutional; and I urge
the Bush administration to rescind it forthwith. We would be doing them
a favor to avoid all of their complex review by simply adopting the
Istook amendment.
We cannot possibly impose on counties and cities and local
jurisdictions, States, and indeed on the Federal agencies the policy
inherent in this executive order which on its face is unreasonable.
There are 6,800 languages in the world today, many of these present in
the United States. Even the U.N. only has six official languages; and
here in the absence of congressional action, we already have the
Federal agencies setting forth the requirements of this executive order
and beginning to implement them.
For example, regulations applying Executive Order 13-166 have already
been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, the
Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Corporation for
National Community Service, General Services Administration, Consumer
Products Safety Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Council on Disability, the National
Science Foundation, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Mr. Chairman, we need to bring this to a halt now. We can do
something reasonable. In the absence of this executive order, something
reasonable is already set in place. But requiring all of our States and
localities to struggle to spend money they do not have, to produce
materials in any language any person requests up to I suppose 6,800
languages, is unreasonable and outrageous on its face.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is to be commended for this
amendment. We should have done this long ago, but I guess this is our
first opportunity since it has come up on this appropriations bill. I
urge Members to support his amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The first thought that comes to my mind, are we debating the same
executive order? I have heard allegations and assertions made from the
other side that truly are misrepresentative.
What we are talking about with this executive order, and the whole
basis of

[[Page 19404]]

the executive order was accountability and responsibility of those who
are providing services and receiving Federal dollars in providing those
services to make sure that they effectively deliver those services.
This is what it is all about.
The other thing, the other matter that really stands out is where
have we been. The census tells us much of what is going on in this
country. While individuals are perfecting their ability to speak
English, while we have these clustered groups of individuals from
different countries, they still require services in a language that
they would understand for their benefit. That is why we are providing
it.
Mr. Chairman, prior to this amendment we were arguing abstinence and
how we teach it, how we promote it. If my colleagues had their way,
they would basically be espousing abstinence in a language never
understood by the individual that Members seek to assist. This is what
is so crazy about this whole debate.
There are other matters I think which have been misrepresented. The
Sandoval case does not stand for the proposition that Americans do not
have a legal right to have everything in a particular language. It
simply states an individual citizen does not have a right to bring a
cause of action, but that the Federal Government does.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) and I met with the members
and representatives of the American Medical Association who had certain
concerns. Once we discussed it and they understood the intent of the
executive order, it was something that was acceptable. It was something
that was doable.
We are making it impossible by scaring individuals out there that
they will never be able to comply with the intent of this executive
order. That is an unfair characterization.
The executive order and the implementing guidance that follow it
stress the importance of complying with title VI of the Civil Rights
Act without unduly burdening the fundamental mission of the agency.
That is the standard. This goes contrary to the whole motive behind it.
Do not stand in the way now with misrepresentations. Face the facts.
Face the reality of our society, and let us deliver those services in a
meaningful way.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me first mention, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gonzalez) may or may not have read the executive order and all of the
regulations that have been issued pursuant to it from a number of
agencies. I have read them, and they get frightening in their impact.
Rather than being a reasonable effort to try to communicate with
people that may be receiving Federal services, it puts an affirmative
burden on groups that participate in a Federal program, such as the
police department or county health center, whatever it may be. It puts
an affirmative burden on them to take all documents that they make
available to the public, as well as everything that may relate to an
individual, and translate it into what becomes an unlimited number of
languages. That is where the unlimited expense comes from.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, Executive Order 13-166 is essentially
another attempt to construct an even higher level of the Tower of
Babel. Not only is that executive order an unfunded mandate, it is
incredibly wrong-headed.
To encourage non-English speakers to stay outside the mainstream of
America and thereby indirectly condemn them to a life of impoverishment
is essentially despicable. As the population of non-English speakers
increases, so too will the pressure to divide this Nation along
language lines. It will also contribute to the increased balkanization
of the Nation. We do none of these folks a favor by encouraging their
exclusion from the majority society.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Istook amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 55 seconds to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what is being said, if what
the gentleman was saying is accurate, I will be there for the
gentleman.
When the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and I met with the
medical association, we discovered what they were being told was not
practical and it was not correct.
We are not saying that we ought to consider those 200 languages. That
is not practicable. We are not saying if there is one person who is
Spanish speaking they ought to be responsive to them. That is not what
the law says. If Members look at the law, it is very specific. The law
says specifically that the size of the limited English proficient
population that is served needs to be considered. So allow the
administration that opportunity.
Secondly, it says the frequency of the visits in terms of the
hospitals. Most important, it also talks about the severity. If the
person has tuberculosis, cancer, and it is serious, there has to be a
real need to make sure that that person understands if it is a life-or-
death situation, so depending on the severity of the case and the
numbers of the population.
Mr. Chairman, I will again tell the gentleman that I will be with him
if they start forcing agencies to do it in the number of languages that
the gentleman says. That is not the intent. In addition, this is not
new. It is the 1964 civil rights legislation. What this does is allows
the Government, in this case the administration, an opportunity to
establish the guidelines that allow them to put it into effect. It is
nothing to get all bent out of shape over and to raise all of those
contrary items because that is not the case. If it is, I promise the
gentleman that I will be there for him in ensuring that the
administration does not do that.
In addition, let me state that it is going to be very important that
as we look at this, that we also consider the seriousness of the
situation. I had a case of a person who was told in English that they
were positive for AIDS, and that person understood positive as
everything being okay.

{time} 1900

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like the gentleman to be aware that the guidelines issued by
the Department of Justice on the same day as this executive order, and
the executive order expressly incorporated the DOJ guidelines, I quote
from the DOJ's document they titled Commonly Asked Questions and
Answers Regarding Executive Order 13166:
``Programs that serve a few, or even one LEP person are still subject
to the title VI obligation.''
If there is even one person that speaks some language other than
English and wants things translated, the Department of Justice says
that one person is enough to invoke this requirement. That is not
common sense. That is not meeting a major public demand. That is going
way overboard, when they require this multitude, these millions if not
billions, of pages to be translated into an unlimited number of
languages.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 55 seconds to the
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this issue has been posed as one where we are going to
subject the Federal Government and State and local governments and
everyone else to a multitude of languages. I think we heard the number
6,800, all the remaining languages in the world that have speakers
represented in this country.
I speak one of those very small languages. I think we number about
100,000 in the entire world, and about 50,000 inside the continental
United States and I can assure everyone that under these guidelines, I
have no ability to force anybody to produce documents in the Chamorro
language. This is simply about access and the protection of civil
rights. This is what this is all about.

[[Page 19405]]

We have lots of limited English proficient people in this country.
Instead of spending our time trying to deny them access to health care,
instead of putting forth more barriers to their exercise of their civil
rights, we ought to be contemplating how to facilitate that while they
are learning English, while they acquire the kind of English that is
necessary to survive in this society. This is not about a right to use
a certain language. This is about a time-honored, court-tested
provision emanating from the 1964 Civil Rights Act which says that when
national origin and the language that you use, if that can be used as a
way to impede your access to the resources of this country, then the
government is required to take a look at those processes in order to
allow you that access. This is what this is about. It is about access.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, it has taken a lot of time to review that executive
order and these regulations. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that were
this actually something that had been part of the civil rights acts
adopted in the 1960s, it would not have taken until August of 2000 for
someone to notice and start saying, now we have this new requirement.
Because that is what happened, August 8 of 2000, when former President
Clinton issued the executive order, had the guidelines of the Justice
Department that were issued the same day incorporated into them, and
set in motion a whole series of midnight actions. Most of the Federal
agencies that adopted these did so on January 17, just before
Inauguration Day. That is an inherited problem for the current
administration and one they still have not come to grips with.
This simply says, do not put your multibillion-dollar unfunded
mandate burden on the rest of the country until you get the cost-
benefit study done on this. That is what you are supposed to do on
major new initiatives and that is what this was, a major new
initiative.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 55 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, what I have is going to take a little bit
more than the time allotted. It is interesting in this country, in
America, we talk about diversity and understanding. We also talk about
inclusion rather than exclusion. This amendment is exclusionary. What
the executive order does from 1964, as the gentleman had explained, was
that this is fine-tuning, and people need direction.
As an administrator myself, when I take a law, an administrative
regulation, the right to be able to extend it even further is our
prerogative. That is probably what that department did when you read
that memo. That is all about service. That is about client service. We
in this office, we in our jobs, we understand client service and we
want to extend ourselves the best that we can.
The real point of this in terms of language is comprehension. If you
do not have comprehension, you are not going to be able to take
medicine properly. You are not going to be able to understand things
properly. As an educator, comprehensive input is key.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment for two reasons. First of all, in a former life, I was a
small businessperson who did contract work with the Federal Government.
The imposition of this on small business would just be devastating.
Secondly, and this is probably the best reason to support this
amendment. English is the language of commerce in our country. To
encourage people to not learn English does a great disservice to them.
That is exactly what this executive order does. It tells people, ``You
don't have to learn English, because we'll communicate with you in your
language.'' That just is not fair to them. If they are not conversant
in English, they are not using the language which is the language of
commerce in this country. As is so often the case when we try to help
people, we really hurt them. What this does to those who are not fluent
in English is really hurt them because we discourage them from learning
English.
This is a very good amendment and it is especially good for those for
whom English is not their primary language because they need to be
encouraged to learn English, not discouraged from learning English
because it is the language of commerce in this country. And the sooner
they learn it, the better they will do in this country. It is unfair of
us to discourage them from learning it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 1\3/4\
minutes remaining and the right to close.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, when these regulations were issued, when the executive
order was issued and then regulations were issued by Federal agencies,
we heard from a number of States, Michigan, that asked, quote, the
policy should be held in abeyance until, at the very least, a cost-
benefit analysis is conducted and adequate additional funding is
provided.
New Jersey complained that they would have to be translating things
into at least nine different languages and wrote, ``It is respectfully
requested that the published Department of Labor policy be temporarily
suspended pending a cost-benefit analysis.''
That is the normal way of proceeding. That is not the way we are
proceeding. Right now, people are being placed at risk because they are
being told, ``You're not complying with this law.'' At the very time
that people are concerned about bringing America together, we are being
told that you have to translate what you do into a multitude of other
languages as a condition of being involved in any sort of Federal
program. That is not right. That is going to cause a huge amount of
resentment.
There was a columnist that wrote in the New York Times, just wait
until an Hispanic shopkeeper is told they have to translate what they
do into Farsi. This hits everyone, Mr. Chairman, no matter what may be
your primary language. But it is right that we need to ask people to
focus on what brings us together. We spend billions of dollars that are
supposed to be helping people to learn English. Are we not going to
reinforce that with a policy that says we are not going to put billions
of extra upon ourselves to translate things into you rather than
helping you to learn English? That is a much better policy.
It is great to be bilingual, trilingual, however many languages you
may be able to speak. But let us keep us unified. This is not the time
to balkanize America and to say, you have to spend billions of dollars,
private money and public money, translating everything you do into a
multitude of dozens or scores of different languages.
We need to support the amendment, Mr. Chairman. We need to bring
common sense into place. And until common sense is brought into place,
until we have a cost-benefit analysis and they amend these proposals,
we should not be imposing them upon the country.
I move the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Istook's
amendment to impede the implementation of the Executive order to
``Improve Access to Services for Persons with Limited English
Proficiency.''
The Executive order is about fairness. Individuals with limited
English proficiency should not be blocked from accessing vital services
paid for by their, and their families', tax dollars.
The Executive order simply gives guidance on how the Federal
Government and Federal Government contractors can comply with existing
civil rights law that bars discrimination based on national origin.
Until this Executive order was issued, existing civil rights law to
protect limited English proficient persons went largely ignored.
The Executive order is reasonable, flexible, and accommodating to
small contractors and

[[Page 19406]]

government agencies. It recognizes that only critical services,
directly affecting health and livelihoods, are required to be
translated. Implementing the Executive order makes sense.
Imagine what would happen if someone with weak English skills who has
a communicable disease, like small pox or tuberculosis, is unable to
understand the advise of health professionals. A public health hazard
could ensue, harming many more people.
Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the
Istook amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, we are all products of our own past, I suppose.
I came to this country not understanding a word of English and I am
still working on my limited English proficiency. But when I was in the
fourth grade, my dentist, Dr. Sadao, my doctor, Dr. Linnertz, would say
to me, ``David, let me tell you something and then you translate it for
your mother. And then your mother can tell you and then you can tell
me.''
To me, my mother spoke perfectly fine English and so did Dr. Linnertz
and so did Dr. Sadao. What we are really talking about are all those
people out there who do not have a little fourth-grade David to
translate for them. I want to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma who he
proposes to leave behind: My mother? Another little old lady from
somewhere else in the world?
I would like to read something into the Record: ``I believe that
every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation,
every possession a duty.'' Those are the words of John D. Rockefeller.
I tell children all the time, you have got to learn the king's English.
But if you are asking children to learn the king's English, for God
sakes you cannot leave their parents behind. You cannot leave their
grandparents behind.
I would like the folks on the other side of this argument to say, who
are you leaving behind? Who will you cut out of the ability to
participate in our self-governing democratic society?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There is an executive order which the gentleman from Oklahoma does
not like. A Republican President, a Republican White House, is now
reviewing that executive order. Let us have the Congress get out of the
way and give him time to do it before we jump to conclusions.
As the gentleman has indicated, when you are in a doctor's office and
you need help, you do not have time for an English lesson.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook
amendment.
This abstinence-only amendment is a narrow and unrealistic approach
to addressing adolescent sexuality. We're not saying that our young
people should not be encouraged to abstain from sexual activity. We're
just saying they also need to be informed about how to protect
themselves from unintended pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs.
The truth is, comprehensive sexuality education programs expose young
adults to important information that they will not learn from an
abstinence-only program.
To date, there is no real evidence that can defend the effectiveness
of abstinence-only programs. Without such evidence, we cannot justify
spending additional dollars on a program that's already well funded.
However, family planning and comprehensive sexuality education
programs have clearly shown their effectiveness and ability to help
curb teen pregnancy.
Let's protect our Nation's future by providing teens with the
educational tools they need to be responsible.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Istook amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Istook amendment
calling for a $33 million increase in abstinence-only education.
First, everyone should understand one thing--this program is already
receiving a 100 percent increase in its funding over last year. That is
without the Istook amendment.
To put that in perspective--the President's number one priority
during his campaign (besides tax cuts) was education--and that receives
a 17 percent increase.
So, make no mistake about it, the Congress is already spending large
sums on the abstinence-only program, and we won't know the
effectiveness and results of the program until the congressionally
mandated report comes due in 2005.
What we do know is that publicly funded family planning has a
significant effect on teen pregnancy. Each year, family planning
services prevent an estimated 386,000 teenagers from becoming pregnant.
Title X funding plays a critical role in the lives of teens across
America--in preventing unwanted pregnancy and in providing needed
services to young people. Through title X teens receive gynecological
exams, screening for breast and cervical cancer, STD treatment, HIV
testing, contraceptive care, and counseling.
These services are desperately needed since we know that more than
750,000 teenagers become pregnant each year, and 80 percent of those
pregnancies are unintended. We know that nearly 4 million teenagers
acquire a sexually transmitted disease by age 24; and that an average
of two young people are infected with HIV every hour of every day.
It takes a comprehensive approach to address these problems and that
is why more than 120 national organizations support comprehensive sex
education including: American Academy of Pediatrics, American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association,
American Public Health Association, National Education Association,
National Medical Association, National School Boards Association, and
Society for Adolescent Medicine.
Americans overwhelmingly support sex education--more than 8 in 10
Americans favor comprehensive sex education that includes information
about contraception.
I urge my colleagues to heed their call and to continue to push for
comprehensive education. This is not the time to increase funding even
more than we already have for an untested program that is so limited in
scope.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Istook amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3061)
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________
{time} 1915

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.J. Res. 68; and that I may include tabular and
extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.

____________________

FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2002

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?

[[Page 19407]]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) to explain the resolution before us.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
to me just to explain briefly.
Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing resolution. The CR that we passed
last week runs the government until the 16th of October. It is obvious
we are not going to complete all of our conference reports by then.
This would extend the present CR for an additional week, until the 23rd
of October, by which time we will hope to have most, if not all, of the
conferences on appropriations bills completed.
In addition, this CR does make a technical change to a provision in
the previous CR relative to the Export-Import Bank. Also it allows the
Defense Health Program to make payments under the TRICARE for Life
program at rates that have already been authorized by the fiscal year
2001 National Defense Authorization Act.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this provides authority to the agencies to
begin the preparation of the benefit checks that will be mailed on the
first of November in order to begin processing those payments. It is
important that we include that in this CR.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, I would simply say I
agree with the gentleman on the need to pass this.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

H.J. Res. 68

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 107-44 is amended by striking ``October 16, 2001'' in
section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 23,
2001''; by adding the following before the semicolon in
section 101(b)(1) ``: Provided, That the rate for operations
of the Defense Health Program may exceed the current rate as
may be necessary to fund a pro rata share of the program
expansion authorized by section 712(a) of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Public Law 106-398)''; by striking section 115 and adding
the following: ``Sec. 115. Notwithstanding the dates
specified in section 7 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945
(12 U.S.C. 635f) and section 1(c) of Public Law 103-428, the
Export-Import Bank of the United States shall continue to
exercise its functions in connection with and in furtherance
of its objects and purposes through the date specified in
section 107(c) of this joint resolution.''; and adding the
following new section: ``Sec. 123. Notwithstanding section
107, funds shall be available and obligations for mandatory
payments due on or about November 1, 2001, may continue to be
made.''.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider
was laid on the table.

____________________

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 3061.

{time} 1918

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3061) making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Gutknecht (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose
earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) had been postponed and the
bill was open for amendment from page 82, line 17, through page 102,
line 2.
Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Stearns of Florida; the first amendment by Mr.
Istook of Oklahoma; the second amendment by Mr. Istook of Oklahoma.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Stearns) on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 107,
noes 312, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 378]

AYES--107

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Duncan
Emerson
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Gallegly
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Largent
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Manzullo
McCrery
Miller, Gary
Norwood
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Putnam
Ramstad
Riley
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shows
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Stearns
Stump
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wicker

NOES--312

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach

[[Page 19408]]

Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiberi
Tierney
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Blunt
Engel
Fossella
Gillmor
Kingston
McHugh
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Nadler
Towns
Velazquez

{time} 1940

Messrs. FARR of California, JOHN, and EHRLICH, and Ms. DeGETTE
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. COLLINS, CAMP, HOEKSTRA, DIAZ-BALART, and OTTER changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Pursuant to clause 6 of
rule XVIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device
will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed
further proceedings.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 106,
noes 311, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 379]

AYES--106

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burton
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Combest
Costello
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehrlich
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Ganske
Goode
Goodlatte
Graham
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilleary
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kerns
LaHood
Largent
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (KY)
Manzullo
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Riley
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shows
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Vitter
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf

NOES--311

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Blunt
Engel
Fletcher
Fossella
Gillmor
Kingston
McHugh
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Nadler
Sherman
Towns
Velazquez

{time} 1948

Mr. SHIMKUS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 379, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

[[Page 19409]]

The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 380]

AYES--156

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Graham
Graves
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McIntyre
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Osborne
Otter
Paul
Pence
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker

NOES--262

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Blunt
Engel
Ferguson
Fossella
Gillmor
Kingston
McHugh
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Nadler
Towns
Velazquez

{time} 1956

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments?
If not, the Clerk will read the last 3 lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2002''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gutknecht, Chairman pro tempore
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
3061) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, pursuant to the
order of the House, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the order of the House, the previous
question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 373,
nays 43, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 381]

YEAS--373

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard

[[Page 19410]]

Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--43

Armey
Barr
Bartlett
Cantor
Chabot
Crane
Culberson
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Flake
Goodlatte
Hayworth
Hefley
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kerns
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (NJ)
Stenholm
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Toomey
Vitter
Weldon (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Blunt
Engel
Fossella
Frank
Gillmor
Kingston
McHugh
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Nadler
Shuster
Towns
Velazquez
Waters

{time} 2014

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

{time} 2015

AUTHORIZING SPEAKER OR CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO RECOGNIZE
MEMBER AT 2 P.M. ON OCTOBER 12, 2001, TO LEAD HOUSE IN PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on October 12,
2001, tomorrow, the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole be authorized to recognize a Member at 2 p.m. for the purpose of
leading the House or the Committee in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like
to ask the gentleman if this is because Secretary of Education Paige
has asked that all of the schools in the country say the Pledge of
Allegiance at 2 p.m. tomorrow?
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MYRICK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman that is exactly
the purpose of the House taking this action tomorrow.
Tomorrow, Friday, October 12, America's schoolchildren, all of the
schools across the country, are invited to join in delivering
simultaneously the Pledge of Allegiance. This is a nationwide
synchronized Pledge of Allegiance that will take place in schools
across the country. It will be 2 p.m. here on the East Coast, 1 o'clock
central time, noon mountain time, 11 a.m. in my home State of
California, Pacific time, 10 a.m. in Alaska, 8 a.m. in Hawaii. Students
and teachers will all join at that time in reciting those simple words,
``I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.''
The President is also going to join in this national ceremony
tomorrow at the precise time from the White House. It is going to be an
unprecedented moment, and I think a poignant one, to honor our country,
our dead, and our freedom.
I would add also that the Pledge across America is not a government
program or a government initiative. We did not come up with the idea.
It came from the people, from a grass-roots effort started by one very
determined woman. Her nonprofit organization, Celebration USA, was
created to strengthen classroom instruction on the basic principles of
American democracy.
It all started in a California classroom with this teacher named
Paula Burton. She is an immigrant. When she was a schoolgirl, at the
age of 9, she fled with her family from the Nazi occupation. She grew
up here in America to realize her American dream of becoming a public
school teacher and noticed one day, when her students were reciting the
Pledge of Allegiance, that they seemed bored, uninterested or
apathetic. She sensed they did not even understand the meaning of the
words of the Pledge. So she went to the blackboard and she wrote down
the word ``indivisible.'' She wrote indivisible on the board and asked
the class what it meant, and they said it means you cannot see it.
This started her educational campaign to teach students to understand
the words of the Pledge and to stimulate pride in being an American.
She discovered the Pledge of Allegiance was originally written for a
national school celebration, a patriotic national observance in 1829,
accompanied by a proclamation from the President. Now her nationwide
program of informed patriotism is helping to lead our troubled Nation.
For 4 weeks, teachers in every community in America have been working
with students to help them understand what happened on September 11 and
to overcome their fears and concerns. They have also worked to teach
them more about our national history and the foundations of our free
society. Thanks to Paula Burton, whom I am proud to say is my
constituent in the 47th Congressional District in California, our
Nation will truly be united tomorrow.
I want to thank especially my colleague, the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for her work on ensuring that Congress will
participate in the Pledge Across America, and congratulate the
leadership on the Democratic side, because this is truly a bipartisan
national effort. As I said, President Bush will participate from the
White House and Paula Burton will be in Orange California with her
Catch the Spirit singing group and the boys and girls of Serrano
Elementary School.
I thank the gentlewoman for permitting that explanation of this
procedure on the House floor tomorrow.
Mrs. MYRICK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is
an exciting show of unity in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

[[Page 19411]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, and under a previous order of the House, the following
Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

____________________

GUNS, MONEY, AND A GREAT BIG BOOMERANG

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, what has the al-Qaeda organization, a
heavy 50-caliber sniper rifle designed for elite troops, and a firearms
manufacturer in Tennessee got in common? Guns, money, and a great big
boomerang.
Last Sunday, October 7, 2001, the Violence Policy Center issued a
report entitled ``Voting from the Rooftops,'' which detailed, among
other things, the sale and supply of 25 50-caliber sniper rifles
manufactured by a local gun manufacturer, Barrett Firearms
Manufacturing, in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, to the al-Qaeda terrorist
organization.
The report cites evidence given earlier this year in New York during
the African Embassy bombings trial that Essam al Ridi testified that in
about 1988 or 1989 he had purchased 25 Barrett 50-caliber sniper rifles
for $150,000 and shipped them to al-Qaeda. The report went on to detail
other sales of the special 50-caliber Barrett weapon to members of the
IRA and other groups. Tragically, the report cited numerous incidents
of British soldiers being shot and killed with sniper rifles.
The report said that there is no evidence yet available about whether
Ronnie G. Barrett, the 1993 trading name of Barrett Firearms
Manufacturing, actually knew that the 25 guns being sold to bin Laden's
al-Qaeda, nor do we know whether the guns were sold directly from the
factory or through a dealer or dealers. Jane's International Defense
Review reported in 1989 that, ``Barrett will not identify its weapons
purchasers.'' But the unavailability of evidence is not reassuring.
The fact is we should know all of the people who were in this country
buying and selling these kinds of specialist weapons to terrorists and
the hands that these specialist weapons pass through before they left
this country. The events of September 11 have now made that kind of
information vital to showing the links between the al-Qaeda members.
The Barrett and M82A1 50-caliber sniper rifle is a tremendously
powerful weapon providing heavy hitting power with high accuracy out to
an estimated 1,800 yards. U.S. Marines used the Barrett 50-caliber in
the Gulf War to knock out Iraqi armored vehicles from 1,750 yards away.
Mr. Speaker, for those of us in Washington, D.C., that is roughly the
distance from the Smithsonian Institute metro stop to the west front of
the Capitol.
These weapons are state-of-the-art firearms and can be used against
vehicle armor, fuel tanks, penetrating concrete walls, aircraft and
helicopters. These weapons should not be in the hands of terrorists.
These weapons should not be in the hands of civilians. These are
specialist weapons which should be sold and supplied only to the
military.
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing company's Web site ironically states
that ``long-range shooting competitors and large caliber rifle
enthusiasts throughout the world rely on Barrett products.'' Well, Mr.
Speaker, I can think of a lot of adjectives to describe members of al-
Qaeda and the IRA, but large caliber rifle enthusiasts is not among
them. Now, not only might our young servicemen and women be confronted
by the stinger missiles sold by the CIA, but it appears that they might
be confronted with sniper rifles from Tennessee.
I understand that Senator Feinstein and other Members of the Senate
have introduced a bill to curb the sale and supply of these specialist
50-caliber weapons and that the NRA has already come out against it.
Mr. Speaker, the NRA and its followers are fond of saying that ``guns
don't kill, people do.'' Well, in this case, the boomerang of unbridled
arms sales and bad public policy might just come back to hurt us in
Afghanistan. Arms sales are a boomerang.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO PENTAGON VOLUNTEERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schrock). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, soon after the tragic events of September 11,
I went down to the Pentagon so that I could witness firsthand the
destruction that was visited upon that spectacular building. As I made
my way through the security lines and came to the perimeter that had
been set up about 75 to 100 yards away from the actual destruction, I
looked up and saw in full glimpse what a gaping hole that really was.
The smoke and the ashes were still wafting from the rubble.
The next noticeable thing, which everyone had to observe who visited
that scene, were hundreds of people still working in the rubble,
sorting out different objects, pulling bodies and parts of bodies from
the wreckage, and engaged in humanitarian efforts the like of which I
hope we never see again but which were part of the normal scene at the
Pentagon in that moment.
What was more amazing than anything was that in the second perimeter
back of the immediate stage of recovery was something like a ring of
covered wagons that we used to see in the Wild West movies, and these
wagons were the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, McDonald's, and
different food and beverage outfits that had, in effect, set up what
they called a unity village, where the workers, who were exhausted,
could go back and lie down for an hour, they had rest areas, or they
could get a cup of coffee, or a full meal at some of the places.
These people were there 24 hours a day, volunteers from various
sectors of the country, to aid and to help the people who were helping
the victims and who were sorting out the wreckage. This was an amazing
site, one that requires us to make sure that it finds its way into the
Congressional Record. That is why I am here tonight.
Among those outfits was a Salvation Army unit from Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, the heart of my district. I spoke with some of the
Salvation Army people there and was informed that within minutes of the
crash into the Pentagon, within minutes, there were people on the scene
rendering assistance.

{time} 2030

Within an hour, most of the governmental authorities were on the
scene. Within 2 hours, most of the philanthropic and service
organizations like the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army had
established these extra perimeters. Out of this supreme tragedy, like
in New York and the Pentagon, arose the American spirit which we still
celebrate and which we have learned tonight will be further celebrated
tomorrow with a nationwide Pledge of Allegiance coordinated at 2 p.m.
eastern time. That is part of what has come out of rubble in real
effect.
I will be providing for the Record the names of the people from
central Pennsylvania, the 17th Congressional District, who did
participate in the events of recovery in New York and at the Pentagon.
The State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency rushed to the
scene with its volunteers. We had the National Guard from Pennsylvania
and other entities eager to do what they could in the wake of those
tragedies in New York and the Pentagon.
Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to our fellow citizens for coming to
the aid of their fellow citizens; and as we begin the work of amassing
the recovery efforts with the help of the funding from the Congress and
the volunteer work that is yet to be done, I think we can all be proud
of the fact that tragic as it was, that tragedy bore fruit in the

[[Page 19412]]

renewed spirit exhibited in our country.

____________________

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schrock). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) is recognized for
5 minutes.
(Ms. SANCHEZ addressed the House. Her remarks will appear hereafter
in the Extensions of Remarks.)

____________________

ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a few brief comments
about the continuing impact of the events that happened on the calendar
1 month ago today. As we, each of us in our own right, dwell on the
devastation of the Pentagon and at ground zero, the World Trade Center,
I think it is altogether fitting that we think about the impact that
the events of September 11 have had on that part of the American
economy where most of Americans get up and go to work every day, and
that is small business America.
The largely rural and medium-sized city district that I serve across
eastern Indiana is driven by businesses large and small, but truly by
businesses that fall in the category of small business. Today I held a
hearing in the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight of the
Committee on Small Business, where I have the privilege of serving as
chairman, where we took a hard look at the impact of September 11 on
small businesses. What we found out from witnesses who gathered from as
far away as Iowa and Maine was truly disturbing.
The shutdown of aviation facilities known as general aviation
facilities and businesses is the first place we looked for impact, and
it was not a pretty picture.
A small charter flight that leaves St. Thomas in the United States
Virgin Islands for Tortola in the British Virgin Islands, some 40 miles
away, and then flies to the Bahamas to return to the Virgin Islands is
just one example of the regulatory burdens that are being placed on
charter businesses upon which many of the businesses that I serve
depend, and many smaller communities around America rely.
Due to restrictions on general aviation in what is known as Class B
air space, pilots cannot get their planes to avionic maintenance
facilities, flight schools cannot provide flight instruction, and other
aviation businesses are simply withering on the vine as we speak.
According to one witness, after the immediate grounding was lifted
for general aviation facilities, while business has come back, business
remains at 40 percent from levels of a year ago.
Even if the FAA removes restrictions from general aviation, the costs
that they face may make it more difficult to continue. One proprietor
of a general aviation business was quoted a war-risk insurance annual
policy increase from $2,300 a year to $57,000 in a single year. In the
airline bailout legislation, as the media has described it, wherein we
rendered some $15 billion in assistance to major commercial airlines,
we dealt with the issue of insurance for commercial airlines; but
general aviation struggles similarly as well.
Of course the problems are not just among general aviation and small
charter facilities, but they extend to small businesses that are
affected by business travel all over America.
A travel agent from Lewiston, Maine, spoke with great emotion that
despite all of the benefits that her creditors have allowed, her
landlord giving her free rent for the next 3 months, she was in 3
weeks, according to her estimate, losing $4,000 a week; she was on
track to lose her travel agency of 33 years' business. When I asked her
how far in the future are people canceling their travel plans, she
simply responded under oath, ``I cannot see that far in the future.''
Here in Washington, D.C., hotels are facing major losses of business
due to the perception that National Airport and the Capital of the
United States is not open for business. One small hotel lost $100,000
due to the cancellation of World Bank events. A hotel operator was one
of 25 in the D.C. area that suffered similar losses. The question
remains, what will Congress do?
Airport concessionaires also spoke of the fixed rent that they pay
these small business operators, most of which come from the minority
community, small business operators who have fixed rent payments at
arenas and airports; and two of the over 400 airports in the United
States have allowed some accommodation in the fixed rent payments of
concessionaires.
Mr. Speaker, we are about to lose a plethora of small businesses in
America. As we approach an economic stimulus package, let us keep in
our hearts and minds small business America, and let us remember that
50 percent of those that file in the top marginal rate are actually
small businesses filing as individuals under subchapter S. Let us bring
relief to small business as well.

____________________

DUTY-FREE STATUS OF CANNED TUNA PRODUCTS FOR ANDEAN COUNTRIES SHOULD BE
OPPOSED

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from America Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, the entire United States tuna
industry, with the exception of StarKist, opposes granting duty-free
status to capped tuna products from Andean countries as contemplated in
the Andean Trade Preference Agreement. Shame on Charlie the Tuna. Shame
on StarKist for threatening an American industry, American consumers,
and even American workers.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is there is enough tuna
production capacity in Ecuador to supply the entire U.S. market with
canned tuna. Put another way, there is enough production capacity in
Ecuador to wipe out the U.S. brands of tuna that our Nation has come to
love and trust. No more Chicken of the Sea. No more Bumble Bee. If
canned tuna is not exempted from the Andean trade agreement, the only
thing America consumers will know is private-label tuna packed in
Ecuador and other Andean countries.
How safe is it? Consider this: Ecuador and Colombia incurred more
than 706 fishing violations in the years 1998 and 1999 and still
counting. Of those violations, only three actions were taken. In other
words, Ecuador goes unchecked. Ecuador keeps fishing beyond the closure
of the fisheries, past the quota, and breaks the rules; but America
lives by the rules, Mr. Speaker.
Our U.S. purse seining fleet, which conducts tuna fishing operations,
also plays by the rules, our rules. Chicken of the Sea lives by the
rules. Bumble Bee lives by the rules, but StarKist wants us to ignore
the rules. I say to Charlie the Tuna, sorry, rules are important.
The Andean pact countries are not up to the same standards utilized
by the U.S. canned tuna processors. How safe will canned tuna be if
Ecuador is allowed to dump its products in the United States? What does
this mean for the American consumer?
The fact of the matter is that canned tuna represents the third
fastest moving product category in the entire U.S. grocery business.
Canned tuna provides a high-quality affordable source of protein for 96
percent of U.S. families. Shame on Charlie the Tuna. Shame on StarKist
and H.J. Heinz for putting the American consumers at risk and for
putting Americans out of work.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate that the entire U.S. tuna industry
with the exception of Heinz and its subsidiary, StarKist, is opposed to
the inclusion of canned tuna in the Andean trade agreement. Every U.S.
processor, with the exception of StarKist, is about the business of
protecting America's tuna industry. I also wish to note that Bumble Bee
is the only American company that has invested in the Andean pact
region. Yet despite its presence in Ecuador, Bumble Bee does not
support

[[Page 19413]]

the inclusion of canned tuna in the Andean trade agreement. Chicken of
the Sea does not support the inclusion of canned tuna in the Andean
trade agreement. The U.S. fishing fleet does not support the inclusion
of canned tuna in the Andean trade agreement.
Today, the Andean pact nations have the largest fleet in the eastern
Pacific region controlling more than 35 percent of the total catch,
growing from about 20 obsolete fishing vessels now to 87 large fishing
vessels.
Mr. Speaker, Ecuador and others fail to adequately cooperate with
international conservation and abide by the Inter-American Tuna
Commission regulations. Elimination of duties will result in product
dumping, threatening American consumers and American industry. The U.S.
International Trade Commission conducted studies of the tuna industry
for 5 years, verifying canned tuna is an import-sensitive product.
Mr. Speaker, if Ecuador is allowed to send its tuna into America duty
free, canned tuna will become a foreign-controlled commodity instead of
a branded product U.S. consumers have trusted for over 95 years. If
Ecuador is allowed to send its tuna into the U.S. duty free, U.S. tuna
operations in California, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa will be
forced to close. I am talking about American workers losing 10,000 jobs
if this industry closes.
Mr. Speaker, I say respectfully shame on Charlie the Tuna. Shame on
StarKist. Shame on H.J. Heinz for threatening an American industry in a
time of national crisis.

____________________

REVISIONS TO ALLOCATION FOR HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Sec. 314 of the Congressional
Budget Act and Sec. 221(c) of H. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002, I submit for printing in
the Congressional Record revisions to the allocations for the House
Committee on Appropriations.
As reported to the House, H.R. 3061, the bill making appropriations
for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2002, includes an emergency-
designated appropriation providing $300,000,000 in new budget authority
for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Outlays totaling
$75,000,000 are expected to flow from that budget authority in fiscal
year 2002. Under the provisions of both the Budget Act and the budget
resolution, I must adjust the 302(a) allocations and budgetary
aggregates upon the reporting of a bill containing emergency
appropriations.

In addition, the bill contains appropriations for continuing
disability reviews (CDRs) and adoption assistance payments. The CDR
appropriation provides $433,000,000 in new budget authority and
$381,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2002. The adoption assistance
appropriation provides $20,000,000 in new budget authority and
$3,000,000 in outlays this year. I also must adjust the 302(a)
allocations and budgetary aggregates upon the reporting of a bill
containing appropriations for those purposes, up to the limits
contained in the Budget Act. The amounts provided by the appropriations
bill are within those limits.
To reflect these required adjustments, I hereby increase the 302(a)
allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations to $663,499,000,000
for budget authority and $683,378,000,000 for outlays. The increase in
the allocation also requires an increase in the budgetary aggregates to
$1,628,687,000,000 for budget authority and $1,591,076,000,000 for
outlays.
These adjustments apply while the legislation is under consideration
and take effect upon final enactment of such legislation. Questions may
be directed to Dan Kowalski at 67270.

____________________

AIRLINE BAGGAGE SCREENING

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, several of us have come to the well of the
House to address what is the most pressing national issue of the moment
that unfortunately the U.S. Congress has not dealt with adequately, and
that is the security of our families and our communities.
We just heard the President of the United States talking about the
existence of threats in this regard, that it is appropriate to be on
high alert for these particular threats. We have come to the House
tonight with a message that basically the House needs to act and act
quickly on measures designed to enhance our national security in our
homeland.
Unfortunately, although we are now a month past this terrible attack,
this Chamber has not had a significant vote on bringing a security
package for adoption by the U.S. Congress. We are very disappointed by
that. We think that the threat is real, that we have the ability to
respond to these threats, but to date we have not had the House deal
with these issues in a satisfactory fashion. We would like to talk
about a few of those issues tonight.
First, an issue that was brought to my attention about a week and a
half ago, Americans realize the threat we are under with airlines. We
Americans have an expectation, for instance, that the luggage that goes
into airlines will be screened for explosive devices. We in America
have the technology, fortunately, and this is good news, we have very,
very good technology that is available to screen 100 percent of the
luggage that goes into the belly of our airplanes.
Unfortunately, that is not happening. In fact, the truth is the vast
majority of bags that go into the luggage compartment of jets is not
screened, is not screened by X-ray, CAT scan, sniffing, human eye or
otherwise. A small percentage is.

{time} 2045

Clearly, given the nature of the threat, this Chamber needs to adopt
a law that will require 100 percent screening of our baggage that goes
into the baggage compartment of airplanes. We do this now fortunately
for carry-on baggage and we do it relatively effectively. But we have
equipment that will screen very, very effectively for the baggage that
goes into our aircraft. We need to make sure those are used with 100
percent of the baggage that goes into the aircraft.
I have introduced the Baggage Screening Act, with others, some of
whom are here tonight to address this issue. Unfortunately, we have not
had a vote on this. We have had votes on birth control issues, we have
had votes on gay partners' rights, but we have not had a vote on
security issues. We have come here tonight to urge the leadership of
the House to bring to the floor, amongst others, the Baggage Screening
Act so hopefully we can increase the security.
With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland), a cosponsor of the Baggage Screening Act who has been very
active in this regard.
Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank my friend from Washington for yielding. I
think most Americans believe that when they go to an airport and they
check their luggage, that that luggage will be screened for explosives
before it is loaded on the plane that they are going to be flying on,
with their families perhaps. I thought that was the case until a couple
of years ago when one of my constituents, a young woman, went to
Jamaica with two friends for a week's vacation. On the way back as they
were screening her luggage in Jamaica, they discovered a handgun in
that luggage and she was thrown in jail and remained in a Jamaican jail
for several days. It cost her family a lot of money for legal help and
so on to get her back to this country. As I was discussing this with
her, I said, ``Why did you take a gun with you to Jamaica?'' She said,
``I had no idea the gun was in the luggage. I borrowed the luggage from
my mother,'' her mother who had gone on a camping trip the summer
before. And I wondered how did this luggage get out of the airport in
Columbus, Ohio with a handgun without that being recognized, and that
is when I first discovered that luggage is not routinely examined for
contraband and

[[Page 19414]]

weapons and explosives when you check it.
As you know, only about, I think, 5 percent of the luggage is even
checked today. The theory has always been, well, if someone checks
luggage and then gets on the plane and is a passenger, that they
certainly would not have put an explosive on the plane, otherwise they
would end up killing themselves. We now know after September 11 that
there are people who are willing to kill themselves in order to kill
Americans. But even the theory that if you check your luggage and you
are getting on the plane that it is not likely to have an explosive
does not hold up because we do not even follow that procedure well.
Two weeks ago in Denver, I had some friends who were flying from
Denver to Columbus, Ohio, a young man and his wife and a young child.
They went to the Denver airport and they checked their luggage, and
they waited to get on their plane. As they were waiting to get on the
plane, they became increasingly nervous about flying. At the last
minute they decided not to fly but to drive to Columbus, Ohio. But
their luggage remained on that plane and a relative picked it up in
Columbus, Ohio.
So even the procedures that we are supposed to have in place now are
not being adequately followed through with. It is a serious thing. I
think the American public, the traveling public, will demand that this
luggage be screened, because I think that most people assume that it
already is.
I am glad you are bringing this to our attention and I am really
very, very pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation with the
gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. The good news here is
that Americans have the expectation that these bags will be screened
for explosives. They have the current expectation. And the good news is
we have very good technology to accomplish that. There are several
machines, several new generations of technology which have a very, very
high probability of finding an explosive device, any explosive
material; in fact, it can distinguish the density essentially of
explosive material and with a high degree of success they find if there
is a bomb in the luggage.
The problem is that we do not have enough of those machines deployed
in airports today and the ones that are deployed have not even been
used fully. They have only been used in a very small percentage of
passengers.
So we believe it is incumbent on the U.S. Congress to pass a
requirement that 100 percent of these bags be screened, and it is also
appropriate for the Federal Government to assist the airports in which
these will be located with the significant costs of these machines.
They are not cheap, but it is my belief that the airline flying public
believes this is a very worthwhile investment that ought to be made and
if it is a dollar or two on tickets, we believe it ought to be paid and
we think it ought to be part of our security package.
I would now like to yield to another cosponsor of the Baggage
Screening Act, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Let me begin by thanking and congratulating
the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for this very timely special
order. I cannot think of an issue that is more pertinent and more
relevant that the Congress of the United States should be addressing
than airline and aviation security.
I came to Congress fighting for aviation issues when I was first
elected in 1995. We have been fighting to expand capacity before the
events of September 11. I used to always joke whenever I would fly with
my brother Jonathan about flying coach. Jonathan would always argue
that flying coach was so much cheaper than flying first class, and he
would almost always quip, ``The coach section of the aircraft gets
there at the same time that the first class section does.''
So now we have 100 percent security from the first class section to
coach. That is looking at the aircraft from the nose of the aircraft to
its tail section. But underneath the aircraft, while every American is
now being subjected to an unusual and necessary amount of security and
screening, the gentleman from Ohio indicated that only about 5 percent
of baggage underneath the aircraft is being presently inspected. Not
only do we support in this critical piece of legislation the 100
percent screening of all baggage on aircraft, in the interim we should
allow manual inspection of all baggage on aircraft. If it requires more
National Guardsmen, more national U.S. Marshals, more Air Marshals, the
failure to inspect from one end of the aircraft to the other, including
those bags up underneath the aircraft, at a 100 percent rate is the
false illusion of security while we fly in our country.
To not inspect baggage, to give the illusion of security in the cabin
but not underneath the aircraft is called Pan Am 103, and we are
supposed to learn from our mistakes, having witnessed the tragic events
of Pan Am 103.
So in the interim, I would argue that yes, we must pass this piece of
critical legislation immediately. I talked with the ranking member of
the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who
indicated that we may be 3 to 4 years away from being able to fully
inspect every bag underneath the aircraft. But we are in a war against
terrorism at this hour, with almost guaranteed reprisals. Even the FBI
Director at 4:30 this afternoon said we can expect some reprisals from
the al Qaeda organization in the not so distant future. But we need not
repeat the mistakes of the past.
I would go one step further, because I fly like all Members of this
institution. The Congress of the United States should not only be
responsible for security above the aircraft but also security beneath
the aircraft. The airline industry does not believe that it is feasible
to inspect all aircraft, all baggage underneath the aircraft, except
for here is the problem: If there is one domestic incident on an
aircraft as a result of a device making it past our security screening
measures, we are going to stop flying the planes anyway. They are going
to bring them all to a halt again, with further erosion of confidence
by the American people in the aviation system, and that is ultimately
what this Congress must seek to avoid. We must save the lives of
Americans by ensuring that from the nose of this aircraft to the rear
of this aircraft, there is a complete inspection of that vehicle and
all baggage that is allowed on it.
Presently the only inspection devices that we have are above the
ground, that is, through the cabin security. I would make the argument
that until we are able to provide 100 percent inspection and security
for all aircraft in this Nation that the baggage compartment of these
aircraft ought to be sealed and no baggage should be allowed on these
aircraft unless it is physically inspected by marshals. That means that
only baggage that we can carry above the aircraft must be carried on
board and inspected at the point of entry of the aircraft, which we
presently do. And until the Federal Government can guarantee that every
bag on that aircraft is inspected, we should not allow baggage in those
compartments whatsoever, regardless of what the airline industry says,
regardless of what the airlines themselves are saying, until there is
100 percent inspection of this baggage. If it is 3 to 4 years away from
the technology because we cannot produce the machines fast enough, then
we are 3 to 4 years away from being able to have two bags per customer
on these airplanes. I am for the traveling public, but I am also for
the public interest above private interest. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. It is a very
important point, it seems to me, that I think we are going to be
successful without too much debate improving cockpit security in
response to the last tragedy. There seems to be momentum here in
Congress to do that. But we cannot just fight the last battle, the last
act of terrorism. We have got to be thinking ahead of the terrorists.
We have got to be ahead of the wave of terrorism. We have got to think
about the next potential act. And if we are going to take

[[Page 19415]]

away nail clippers from passengers, we certainly ought to be getting
the bombs out of the baggage in the belly of the jets. That is what
this bill will do. I really appreciate the gentleman from Illinois
joining us tonight.
I now want to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). I want
to note something before the Representative speaks. We did a $15
billion assistance, or bailout, depending on your perspective, of the
airline industry a couple of weeks ago, and the gentleman from Texas
asked some very, very good, salient questions about the use of that
taxpayer money. It concerned many of us, because in that assistance
package to the airline industry, and I believed some was appropriate
given the nature of the need for this infrastructure, critical
infrastructure, we did not require the airlines to do anything, to
provide additional security. So now we are 30 days past this terrible
attack on America, we are almost 2 weeks past a $15 billion package of
taxpayer money to the airlines and we have not required one single
additional security measure for the airlines yet. This Congress, this
House, they have not allowed us a vote, the leadership, who schedules
the agenda, unfortunately we are not setting the agenda at the moment,
have not allowed a vote on these security measures.
I really appreciate the gentleman from Texas' leadership on this to
insist that the Congress act for safety when the airlines will not,
because the airlines have not because they have not wanted to spend a
buck to do this. That has been a big, big mistake. It is penny-wise and
pound foolish.
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this
legislation, which is a very important part of the answer to the
security concerns that millions of Americans have tonight, and for
organizing this discussion for us to come together after hours and talk
about this problem, because this is really the only forum we have to
discuss this matter.
I reflect back, as I am sure my colleagues do, on the fact that only
today they had a major memorial service at the Pentagon. I am sure
there were similar ceremonies up in New York City. Thirty days have
gone by. Across America at various times, I am sure, at events in your
State, out in Illinois and Ohio, we have taken time from something we
might be doing to have a moment of silence because of the tragedy that
our country has endured. In this Congress, in this House of
Representatives in particular, we have had not just a moment of
silence, we have had a month of silence and inaction on the security
concerns that are at the heart of this tragedy.
We know that somehow, and we do not have all the details yet, that
some thugs with box cutters and other kinds of devices got past the
minimum wage workers at the airports, at some of these airports being
paid less to ensure the security of hand baggage and the passengers
going through, being paid less to do that job than the people that
clean the bathroom at the same airport, that those folks, without the
training and without the pay that they need, because they have
tremendous turnover in those positions, that we have not dealt with
that problem, we have not dealt with the screening of baggage which the
gentleman seeks to do, and the Congress, it is not that we have not had
enough time, we could be here doing this tonight in regular order.
We have taken up everything from the farm bill to a debate about an
issue in the District of Columbia that was a family court, to this
afternoon having a debate about whether there should be additional
millions spent on abstinence. I think we need abstinence from terror.
Unless we adopt some of the constructive measures like you have
suggested, like some of our other colleagues have advanced and get out
here and debate them here on the floor of this House, the people of
America are not going to have the confidence, with good reason, they
need to have in our air security, in our defenses against bioterrorism,
in knowing that a bag is going through and does not have something in
it that it should not have that could be an explosive.

{time} 2100

It is with some irony, I heard our colleague from Illinois a few
minutes ago point to the recent alert from the FBI, that we could face
another threat within days, that almost at the same time that that
report came out I received another report that afternoon here in
Washington that our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay),
one of those who was eager to shovel that taxpayer money out to
Continental Airlines almost before they asked for it, within hours of
this tragedy, that he says that even if Senator McCain, who called this
situation quite properly a farce that the Congress would sit here for
30 days and not act on this, he said that even if Senator McCain and
the bipartisan majority over in the United States Senate send over a
bill to take action to protect the American people at the airports and
ensure that some of those folks that are out there doing these jobs
have the training and the pay and the status really as a part of
Federal law enforcement at O'Hare, at Dallas-Ft. Worth, in Cleveland
and Cincinnati and Columbus and across the country, he says even if
they do that, and they have a strong bipartisan majority for it, he is
going to stop it here, because they have some kind of rigid, backward,
old thinking before September 11, maybe before the 21st century, that
if you add another worker to the Federal workforce, that that is an
evil, even if that is a worker that is going to be there to protect
your family and your family and mine and ensure that we can feel safe
getting on and off a plane and that somebody is not going to be on
there with some device that is going to cause another tragedy that has
torn asunder thousands of families across this country.
So I think that we have our work cut out for us because we have not
been given the opportunity to debate my colleague's, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee), very appropriate measure, ideas that the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland), and our colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, could
offer, could work together in a bipartisan way, trying to cooperate and
say what is the most effective way to work with our President and
address this issue of security.
The baggage screen is important. The people that are out there, that
are a part of Federal law enforcement, the cockpit doors, so many other
ideas that we may have on not only airline safety but on dealing with
the threat of bioterrorism and the other possible challenges we might
have. But so long as we have a bunch of ideologues here who are more
concerned in presenting some kind of ideological purity than dealing
with whether someone's family is going to get home safe next weekend,
we are not going to be able to do that.
I thank my colleague for his leadership on this.
Mr. INSLEE. I will yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson)
in one second.
One comment following up on that. There is some good news here. We
have bipartisan support for this bill for the Baggage Screening Act,
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been a great leader
for some great reform efforts, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella). We are going to pass this bill if we get a vote. We are going
to have tons of Republicans vote for it if we can get a vote, because
we have a bipartisan belief we do not want to be on airplanes with
bombs in the baggage compartment. We feel very confident we are going
to succeed on this if we can simply ask the leadership of the House to
schedule a vote.
I will now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding.
I just want to respond to the ideological point raised by my good
friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). One of the beautiful
things about this period in American history is we have beyond our
State flags, beyond our corporate banners, beyond where we work,

[[Page 19416]]

where we were elected, where we are from and the tragedy of September
11 for this moment in American history has forced all of us to seek
security in that which makes us one, the ideals that we believe in
fundamentally as Americans.
We have turned to our national flag. We have turned to our national
government, and even our President is experiencing unparalleled
approval ratings because the American people are rallying behind the
concept that we can defend ourselves as a Nation from these attacks.
So when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) raises the questions
about petty ideology keeping us from moving forward on some of these
critical issues, that is no small claim that the Member is advancing.
In order to provide inspection of every bag, in order to provide
security of equal high quality at every airport, in order to ensure
that there is an armed marshal on every flight, we would have to expand
the Federal Government on the issue of security so that every single
American can have some security, but no one in this Congress wants to
be accused of being part of any effort that would expand the Federal
Government. All of the American people at this hour on their cars,
hanging out of their windows, hanging out of their buildings are waving
the American flag because they expect their Federal Government for
which they pay enormous taxes to be able to provide a response that
provides ultimately then the kind of security they seek.
For ideological reasons, we want the airlines to be responsible for
security. We want the local States to be responsible for airports. We
want the local National Guard to be responsible. We do not want to
support a big Federal Government aviation bill that might force every
bag to be inspected on an aircraft because that would be a Federal
mandate. And who is going to pay for it?
We are caught up in an ideological argument at the moment. The
American people are expecting us as their Congress and as their
representatives to do something about that.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. INSLEE. I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Just one comment first.
This should not be a theoretical or a rhetorical argument. We had an
experiment with private enterprise in the airlines making decisions
about airline security. We had our experiment. It ended unsuccessfully
on September 11, and there really should not be a debate here. We have
had our test, and it failed.
The Federal Government needs to now mandate safety, and I will tell
my colleagues some good news. I think we can get a 100 percent
inspection a lot quicker than I think one of our fellows indicated. I
will tell my colleagues why. We have already been talking to some of
the manufacturers, and they can ramp up dramatically their production
rate above what we have had when we put out a Federal contract to buy
these machines, give them a guarantee.
We produced what, I do not know, 5,000 P51s in a year and a half in
World War II. That is the same type of mobilization we need now. We
need to mobilize the industrial resources in this country to build
these machines and other things. I am very confident we can do it.
I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think what we
are dealing with here is a matter of honesty, honesty with the American
people. I just heard the President in a press conference a few minutes
ago urge the American people to go back to normal lives. And I want the
American people to go back to normal living as well, but we also need
to be honest. And we need to say to the flying public, when you get on
a plane and the bags that are on that plane have not been screened for
explosives, that plane is in danger. The people who travel and who fly
need to know that information.
This argument about the training of those who do the inspection, I
would like to share an incident that I had at Dulles airport last
Saturday morning that I think my colleagues may find surprising.
Saturday morning at 20 minutes after 6 I went to the ticket counter at
Dulles airport to catch a flight from Dulles to Columbus, Ohio. I had
one bag with me, and I put it there. And I said to the woman behind the
counter I would like to check this bag.
She fixes my ticket and she gives me the seat assignment, and then
she says, sir, your bag has been chosen at random to be further
screened, certainly to be screened for explosives. She says this is
what I would like you to do. I would like you to get your bag, and if
you walk down this corridor about, I do not know, 40 feet, you turn to
your left and then you come to the next corridor and you turn to your
left, you will find the machine where they are doing the additional
screening over to your right. I said to her, ma'am, with all due
respect to whoever may have devised this system, what makes you think
that if I have got an explosive device in that bag that I will
willingly and voluntarily pick it up and carry it out of your sight to
a place and have it screened? I would simply take that bag perhaps and
leave the airport and come back another time and hope that it was not
selected at random for further screening.
So even what we are doing now at least on my experience does not make
sense. That is why we need, I think, a federalization of this effort.
We need standards for training. We need to pay people a decent wage,
and we need to hold them accountable as a Federal Government for
providing this kind of safety and security to the traveling public.
It is just beyond belief that on the one hand we would be saying we
want the traveling public to fly, we want to rescue the airline
industry from the slump that it is in, we want to restore confidence to
the American people. Well, we can do all of these things that we are
talking about in terms of stronger cockpit doors, better screening
devices for carry-on luggage, we can do all of that, but unless we deal
with this giant loophole, unless we screen the baggage that is put into
the bellies of these planes, we can never tell the traveling public
that they are safe.
Just this week, my colleague and I and some others met with two
fathers who lost their young sons in the flight that crashed at
Lockerbie, Scotland. One father lost a 20-year-old son; one father lost
a 24-year-old son. Those two fathers shared with us that for the last
many years they have been trying to get this done, and they have just
constantly been running up against roadblocks and brick walls.
The airline industry does not want to do this, but as was said in our
press conference earlier this week, if there is another plane that is
blown out of the sky, then the airline industry will suffer perhaps
unimaginable devastation because if this happens again, and it is
something that could have been prevented, people will give up flying.
They will use the train, they will drive, or they will just simply not
travel.
So, in the long run, it is in the best interest of the airline
industries themselves to come on board and say we are going to do this.
It is something that makes so much sense. It can be done
technologically. It will cost some money, but I fly sometimes twice a
week. I am willing to pay a little more if that is what it takes to
make sure that when I get on that airplane it is safe, and it will
never be safe to fly as long as the bags that are placed in the bellies
of these planes are not checked and checked thoroughly.
I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). A person may
choose to do it, they may choose to fly today, even though those bags
are not being checked, but they deserve the truth and they deserve to
know that those bags are not being checked. And until we check them, we
will never be safe as this government is capable of making us.
Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I want to tell my
colleagues I particularly appreciate his comment about maintaining the
confidence in this industry. I represent thousands of Boeing workers,
and let me tell my colleagues that if we do not

[[Page 19417]]

act in this Chamber and if the majority leadership does not allow us to
act in this Chamber for airline security and another plane goes down, I
have got Boeing workers by the thousands that are going to be out of
work more than already.
This is an economic issue, in addition to a safety issue, but I want
to know what the coming debate will be in the next week in this House;
and which I am, frankly, concerned about, one of the reasons I came
here tonight.
The only reason that has been advanced not to give Americans this
peace of mind when they ride in an airplane is some dollars. That is
the only reason. There is no technical reason. There is no value
reason. There is no constitutional issue. It is simply some dollars.
We are going to have a debate in this Chamber in this week because
one side, predominantly the aisle, is going to want to take the dollars
from a Federal Treasury, do about 60 to 120 billion dollar tax cut,
most of which for large corporations, capital gains or something, and
many of us believe the first dollar that is spent ought to be on
security because security is the biggest demand for this Nation right
now. We believe the money that it is going to take to mobilize the
industrial base to build these machines, which are already designed,
and there are four of them already at Seattle International Airport, I
saw them in operation the other day, they are good machines that I know
work, that ought to be the first dollar that we spend in this stimulus
package that is going to come up.
If we are going to stimulate something, we should stimulate airline
security because it creates jobs, it creates wealth, and it creates
safety. With a known threat that we have right now, we are going to
have debate with some of the Members across the aisle who want to give
that money away in capital gains tax.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. I serve on the Committee on Ways and Means, and we
already have scheduled tomorrow morning bright and early an attempt to
do just that. And I think our colleagues are aware that none of those
people who suffered the loss of life in New York or out here at the
Pentagon were killed because their taxes were too high. Rather, they
were killed because one of the reasons was, immediate reason, we did
not have the kind of security in our airline industry that we needed to
have.
Instead of dealing with that airline security, it is amazing but the
same old agenda that our Republican colleagues were advancing the
morning of September 10, they are back with it again and talking about
capital gains cuts. They are talking about cutting the tax for the
biggest corporations in the country, cutting the taxes for the most
wealthy people in America.

{time} 2115

That is something we have already done at least once this year, I
believe. And instead of dealing with security, they want to talk about
those old ideas. It is not going to help us get this job done of
assuring the safety of this industry to cut taxes. There may be some
legitimate changes in the Tax Code, but we ought to focus on the
stimulative effect of raising the wages of the workers that are charged
with the responsibility of protecting our lives on these airplanes and
getting them the skills that they need to do the job effectively.
Putting those machines on the line and hiring the workers that will
build the machines to scan the baggage, as the gentleman proposed;
doing the other kinds of upgrades on security at our water systems, at
our utilities, at our other places that could be endangered by a
terrorist attack, those are stimulative effects that will cause people
to be hired in good-paying jobs and help our economy move along and, at
the same time, will give us the peace of mind that when we get on an
airplane or when we get a drink of water, it is going to be safe from
terrorists.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, the operative word here is ``confidence,'' and the American
people have to have confidence in our security; they must have
confidence in our economy.
At the end of every aviation disaster, the National Transportation
Safety Board starts looking for the black box. Let me show my
colleagues just how irrational the present approach to security is. We
are going to end up with a National Transportation Safety Board looking
for a black box and a strong door, because that is going to be all that
is left is a black box and a strong door if we do not pass the
gentleman from Washington's bill in the event that a device, a foreign
device is allowed to get into the cargo area of these aircraft. That is
a fact.
What does the gentleman's legislation have to do with the economic
stimulus? It has a lot to do with the economic stimulus. Because
confidence in the aviation industry, which is confidence in tourism,
which is confidence in the ability to stay in a hotel, which every cab
driver in America needs, which every tourism board needs, which every
convention center needs, is a factor in why the economy needs to be
stimulated in the first place, because four aircraft were slammed,
essentially, into buildings, and one in Pennsylvania.
So unless we are prepared to provide the American people with the
security that they want, after this Congress votes and passes the
stimulus package, if there is another disaster in the aviation
industry, the Congress will have wasted the economic stimulus package,
because the American people are not going to leave their homes, they
are not going to travel, they are not going to go on vacations because
of the failure to provide security.
So the gentleman's bill is the centerpiece of any economic security
package or stimulus package for our Nation's economy.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I was just
listening to the gentleman here, and I thought of something that
happened on the day of September 11 in the afternoon in Columbus, Ohio.
There were gas stations that started charging $5 for a gallon of
gasoline on that day. These were individuals who were obviously using
what had been a national tragedy in order to enrich themselves.
Now, I have been watching what has happened around here over the last
couple of weeks; and I have become concerned that there are those who
are using the national tragedy that we have all experienced as a way of
enacting a preexisting agenda. When the gentleman talked about people
thinking on September 12 the way they did on September 10, I think that
is exactly the case. What we are seeing here with some of these tax
programs is an attempt to get these tax bills passed now when they
could not have been passed before this tragedy and, somehow, tying the
need for these tax breaks to what happened on September 11.
There is much we need to do as a result of the tragedy that has
befallen us, and we may need to cut some taxes in a way that gets money
to the consumer so that they can spend and get this economy jump-
started, but to use this tragedy to advance tax benefits for
corporations while leaving out the little guy and the working person
and those who have lost their jobs as a result of what happened; we
have yet to do anything for the airline workers who lost their jobs. We
took care of the airline companies with a $15 billion bailout; but we
have yet to step up to the plate and say, the individual men and women
who lost their jobs as a result of what happened on September 11, they
need our help too.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from
Washington, because the gentlewoman from Texas has come; but I want to
yield back with his words, because so much of what the gentleman just
said, and he said it in words that are going to be long remembered in
this body, when he posed the question during the airline bailout, ``Why
is it that in the Congress the big dogs always eat first?''
That is what has happened here and that is what is about to happen
tomorrow. Because there are those, as the

[[Page 19418]]

gentleman from Ohio just said, who want to exploit this tragedy for
their own agendas and they are doing that instead of dealing with
important legislation, like the gentleman has advanced tonight, to
assure the safety of families across America who do not care whether we
have a Republican or Democrat or right or left or upside down kind of
solution. They just want to be sure their families are safe, and that
is why we are here tonight demanding that this be made the top priority
of this House.
I think it may come to a point where we have to say, until the House
addresses this issue, we are going to see it addresses none other.
Because unless we can get the kind of bipartisanship that has been
occurring in the Senate and get people to come together to address the
security concern, we are going to have to take additional steps to
force that action on to the agenda of the House. I thank the gentleman
for his leadership.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the aggressive advocacy of the
gentleman from Texas in the Committee on Ways and Means, and we are
going to need that. Because, unfortunately, the proposals we have seen
are $60 to $120 billion worth of tax cuts, largely for corporate
interests, and not a dollar to screen luggage from bombs in aircraft.
So we need this message, and I appreciate the gentleman coming this
evening to do that.
One other note and then I will yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
It is important that when we talk about security that we say we are not
blaming the airlines for this tragedy. These evil, rank, low-lifes with
no respect for human life are responsible for this tragedy. But it is
incumbent on us to act reasonably as stewards for the safety of our
people. Right now, until we get votes on these bills, we are not able
to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Washington for the vision, and I thank my colleagues, because I
cannot think of a more important discussion than what has been engaged
in this evening.
Let me simply say to my colleagues that there were several memorials
today. There was one in New York; there was one at the Pentagon led by
the President. Many of my colleagues may not have been aware that there
was one at the Lincoln Memorial, the U.S. Coalition for Child Survival.
Its focus was ``remember the children.''
The gentleman is aware that I chair the Congressional Children's
Caucus. The idea was, in this time, our children, some who have lost
parents, guardians; as far as we know, we do not even have a count
between the airplanes and the tragedies in Washington, New York and
Somerset, Pennsylvania of how many children are impacted.
Now, this may seem that I am deviating from security issues, but I am
not. The focus is on the people. The fact that people were the ones
impacted on September 11, 2001, it is the people of America that we
must say to them that we have your interests at heart. We want you to
be secure in the highways and byways and the airways of America; we
want you to be secure that we are taking care of the children who may
have lost their parents, guardians. We do not even know if some are
being taken care of by neighbors. We know that there were a lot of
single parents that worked in those buildings. We know how the living
structures in New York are apartment buildings; we do not know if some
children are with neighbors or with relatives.
What should we be doing in this stimulus package? I think certainly
we should be giving the extended benefits on health and unemployment
benefits. I met with airline stewardesses on Monday, or whenever I was
in the district, I guess on Monday, and tears were in their eyes, the
fear, the need for security and those who were laid off, in addition to
other employees. I would say to the gentleman that part of the
legislation is, let us put the people first. Let us secure the airways
of America.
I believe that in fact we can do some partnerships. I believe we can
do some partnerships with the airlines maybe at the checkpoints. But I
am familiar with the technology that the gentleman is talking about. I
am familiar with the checking of what we call interline bags or check
bags. That is a key element to the comprehensive approach to safety.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be the Department of Justice and put
on the Web page fearful comments that I understand have been put on the
Web page across the Nation. I am very disappointed in that, because I
believe we have the responsibility that if we have something to say to
the American people, let us make it a public announcement about the
seriousness of their condition. I am concerned about that. That is
another issue that we have to address. I am shocked that we are finding
messages on the Web page telling Americans about possible incidences.
We should be here telling America how we are going to secure them. So
I believe that legislation and emphasis on securing them economically,
and tomorrow I will be in caucus to speak and raise the question of
these tax cuts, not because I do not believe in business success as
well, but because I believe that we do not have the focus.
I support the gentleman's legislation. I believe we should have this
equipment. I heard the cost of it. It does not overwhelm me. We can
begin step by step moving across the country with this equipment that
requires the intensive checking or the technological X-ray type
checking that is necessary to check these bags. I do not want to be a
nay-sayer here, but I am familiar with Pan Am 103. How many of us are?
I am very closely familiar with it. I am intimately familiar with it. I
represented an individual tragically impacted by Pan Am 103. We know
the story of what happened with that, an unaccompanied bag.
I do not want to leave this floor to the distinguished gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) with fear in our hearts and the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois and
the distinguished gentleman from Texas. I do not think we are here
trying to create hysteria. But what we are saying is, I want to work
through the weekend, through October, through November, whatever it
takes, to look the terrorists in the eye and tell them, no, we are not
on the run; but we are the most powerful Nation in the world. We
believe in our values, we believe in democracy; and what we are here to
tell you is we are going to take care of our people.
The children who do not have parents at this point and need our
assistance, nobody has been on the floor debating what do we do about
children who have lost their parents. By the way, as I close, let me
say we will be having a briefing tomorrow, if I may just add this, on
the children who have lost their parents. We will have a family come in
from New York, a man who lost his wife who had to leave his job and he
has three children. We know these stories are all over the country, but
this is a particularly unique situation. Has the Congress even dealt
with his case, his mental anguish, the funding we need to support him?
No. We need to put people first.
Mr. Speaker, I am gratified for the opportunity to join the gentleman
from Washington, to applaud him for this initiative, and to be able to
say to him that we have to roll up our sleeves and, as I have heard us
say on some occasions in the past, work, work, work. I guess I am
animated about this because I want to be able to say to the American
people, I am concerned and I am leading. And how am I leading? I am
putting you first, your security and your families and your children
and your ability to be able to provide for your families.
I appreciate the gentleman's leadership, and I hope he will join me
on my children's efforts as we work toward doing the people's work.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentlewoman's
comments, because our message tonight is not one of fear, but of
confidence and of belief in ourselves. We believe we can

[[Page 19419]]

screen 100 percent of these bags and the cost is about 1 percent of the
stimulus package that we are going to adopt, about 1 percent, that is
all we are talking about, about the billions of dollars that will be
invested in this stimulus package. We are talking about 1 percent to
make sure a plane does not get blown out of the sky.

{time} 2130

We do not think that is unreasonable.
The good news, the confident news, the positive news is we can do
this. We have the technology and ability to do it. We just have to get
the vote.
We have to get some of the bipartisan spirit that we have seen over
in the Senate, where John McCain has agreed to this airline security
bill, not this specific one but another one. But that has been blocked
here in the House. We need some of that bipartisanship here, because
Republicans and Democrats are going to vote for this, if we get a vote
on this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding, and I thank the gentlewoman for her critical and important
comments.
We think there is a lot of hysteria out here. The hysteria is the
illusion of security without ensuring that 100 percent of the bags
underneath these aircraft have been inspected.
But the gentleman raised the question also about the stimulus package
and what a real stimulus package in light of today's threats should be.
Why not critical investments in the real needs of the American people?
Before the events of September 11, Jane Garvey, the head of the
Federal Aviation Commission, said that we needed 10 new airports the
size of O'Hare Airport. That is 10 new airports that could be in every
region in the country.
The construction of these 10 new facilities alone would put hundreds
of thousands of Americans back to work, regardless of the next series
of events that this war might bring, even to our own shores.
How about high-speed rail? Every State in the Union could benefit
from a stimulus package that included high-speed rail, including the
steel industry, including the locomotive industry, including Amtrak,
including putting millions of Americans to work laying the track for
high-speed rail?
Regardless of the next series of events that this war might bring to
our own shores, high-speed rail is a project that would continue, and
is not subject to the fear factor associated with these events.
Before the events of September 11, we needed $322 billion to repair
the critical infrastructure of our schools. How many carpenters and how
many painters and how many teachers would we put to work if we had an
economic stimulus package that was a downpayment on rebuilding the
critical infrastructure for the 53 million kids in the 85,000 public
schools in the 15,000 school districts across our country?
Health care for all Americans: Economic stimulus. But beyond aviation
security, I know there are people in the country who think Congress is
obsessed with airplanes these days, we need train security. We need
security in our subways. The economic stimulus package must make every
American feel more secure in going about their daily lives.
So I thank the gentleman for beginning this process by arguing about
aviation security. But the broader economic stimulus should not be
something that, because of fear, the Congress comes back in several
more weeks or several more months needing an additional economic
stimulus package, simply because we did not invest in the critical
needs of the American people, which would be a long-term investment and
stimulus package that would keep millions of Americans working even
through this great war on terrorism.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.
I hope people understand, this is not the only security issue that we
are concerned about; it is one of many. Perhaps it is the most glaring
omission in our entire security system, but there are many that we need
to make sure of. That is a package that we should have been voting on
tonight. Instead of just talking about it, we should have been talking
about a security package to increase security at our borders.
We have had a porous border, both north and south. We now are trying
to improve it, and as a result, we have lines that are 5 hours long for
honest citizens to try to get across the Canadian border. This is
killing the economics both of Canada and the State of Washington.
Instead of putting on additional security personnel and funding that
out of our general funds, we are arguing about all these other things
here instead of security. We need to talk about border security. It
should be part of our stimulus package; not just $60 billion as a tax
cut for corporations, but let us talk about security.
Public health. We know, and this is hardly a secret, that we are not
where we should be and can be in dealing with biological and chemical
threats in the United States. Our people are concerned about that. We
do not want to be overly concerned. We want to respond in a rational,
confident way of developing a public health system that can give
Americans confidence that we can deal with this type of threat. We are
not there yet.
But instead of proposing and giving us a vote on a security measure
that will significantly increase our ability to respond to bioterrorism
and chemical threats, we are going to see a stimulus package with $60
to $120 billion more tax cuts.
I have to tell the Members, when I go home to Edmonds and Bainbridge,
Washington, people are coming up to me and saying, ``Jay, what are you
going to do about bioterrorism and making sure my airplane does not get
blown out of the sky?'' That is what they are asking me to do. That is
what we should be doing.
We have been here for 30 days since this terrible attack and we have
not had a chance to vote. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and myself, we have not had a
chance to vote. This is our job.
The Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who has done
I think a great job trying to help us find unity in the first several
weeks since this tragedy, I think he has been very sincere in trying to
find bipartisan consensus, and we have had other Republicans support us
on this security effort.
But somewhere in there somebody is blocking bipartisanship here. We
are very hopeful that the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert)
will be successful in an effort to free these security measures for a
vote on this floor. We need to have a bipartisan vote, because I think
we are going to pass these things.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I think
many of the security issues perhaps will be addressed in the bill. The
one aspect of security that I am fearful will not be included is what
we are talking about tonight specifically. That is the screening of all
the luggage that is placed in an airplane.
For some reason, this has been something that the airlines have
objected to for a long, long time. After we introduced the bill this
past week, I got a call from a young man in New York City. He said that
he had heard about the bill. He said, ``I am outraged because I am
going on a vacation in a few weeks with my wife and child, and I
thought the plane I was flying on would have the luggage screened.'' He
said, ``What can I do to help get this bill passed?''
I said, ``Well, the best thing you can do is contact your Senators
and your Congressperson and urge them to sign on to this bill. I think
the American people want this.''
I have not talked to a single person in the last few weeks about this
bill without encountering enthusiastic support for it. When people buy
a ticket and they get on an airplane, they want to be sure that that
airplane is not going to explode. It did over Lockerbie,

[[Page 19420]]

Scotland. There was a suitcase bomb. That plane exploded and killed a
lot of young people.
One of the fathers this week said that plane that exploded was like a
traveling schoolbus, because so many of the people on that plane were
very young, in their early twenties, most of them.
The fact is that the American public will never be able to feel as
safe as they have a right to feel if we do not pass this bill. I have
said something that I do not think is an extreme statement. I have said
that if we pass this legislation, lives will be saved. If we fail to
pass this legislation, it is inevitable, in my judgment, that lives
will be lost.
What we are talking about tonight is something that is of critical
importance to the American people.
Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate the gentleman's statement. His sentiment is
shared in a lot of different places.
In my flight back to Seattle, a flight attendant came up and said,
``Are you Congressman Inslee?'' And you never know when people ask you,
you think they might bite your head off when they ask this question.
But she said, ``I just kind of bless your efforts, because we have
got to have this. We just have to have this.'' This is an expert
talking. This is a person who spends her working life in the air. I am
hearing that sentiment all across America.
I appreciate the support of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson)
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for this bill.
I want to leave this discussion on an upbeat and confident note. I
believe if we get this word out to Americans and Americans contact
their Representatives and their Senators, justice is going to prevail
here. We are going to adopt or we are going to use these technologies,
we are going to fund them so airports do not go bankrupt in doing it,
we are going to have the Federal Government help local airports do
this, and we are going to use the industrial and technological might of
this country to put these machines in.
We are going to hire qualified, certified, well-trained, stable
employees to make sure they are operated right. I believe this is in
our ability to do, and I believe we are going to do it, and this is
going to help us, that the American people know what is at stake here.
So I am very appreciative. Did the gentleman have a final comment?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate the
gentleman for his noble efforts on behalf of the American people. My
wife and my 18-month old daughter are enormously grateful for the
gentleman's efforts, and I am sure all of us who have family members,
as much as Members of Congress travel, are very greatful for the
gentleman's efforts.
But for the millions of Americans whom many of us have never met and
still do not know, in the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) they
have the kind of leadership on the floor of the Congress that is
thinking about them and that is going to make a significant difference.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Let me give a note, too,
to thank the two gentlemen, for the families of the Lockerbie tragedy,
that have helped us so much. The families of the Lockerbie tragedy for
13 years have been asking Members of the U.S. Congress to act. Tonight
we are adding our voices to the effort. Let us make sure this happens
for the flying public.

____________________

AMERICA'S DEFENSES IN THE CURRENT WAR

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schrock). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I hope all of the Members have
had the opportunity at 8 o'clock, so about an hour and a half ago, to
listen to the President of the United States address the Nation. It was
a press conference, but I think the President made several pertinent
comments.
Let me begin by saying this: I think the President of the United
States and his team, whether it is the Vice President, Dick Cheney,
whether it is Condoleezza Rice, whether it is Don Rumsfeld, whether it
is John Ashcroft, I think they are doing a heck of a job.
If this kind of horrible tragedy had to occur, I think that it could
not have occurred with a better team in place than the team we have
today. I think it was indicated and reflected by the President's
comments during his press conference this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go through a few of those comments and discuss
them at length. I, of course, want to finish what I started yesterday,
and that is a discussion, I think a good discussion, of missile defense
and why this Nation needs missile defense, and why we as Congressmen
have an inherent responsibility for the security of this Nation to
provide missile defense. I want to talk about that tonight.
But let me talk, first of all, about a few comments that the
President made. I also want to visit briefly about civil liberties. I
also want to talk for a few moments about the great fight that we are
involved in.
We have heard people use the term ``war.'' That is exactly what this
is. As the President very ably said tonight, ``This is not a
conventional war that we are fighting. This is a war unlike we have
ever experienced in the past. First of all and foremost, we have been
attacked by the enemy within the borders of the United States. We have
suffered horrible losses in civilian casualties. These people, as the
President said, they did not agitate this, they did not provoke this
kind of thing. It was a blind attack of cold-blooded murder. There is
no justification.''
By the way, kudos to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani today, who received a $10
million check, a $10 million check from an individual. But that
individual, in handing that check, issued a statement that said that
the United States, as a result of this action, should reexamine its
policies in regard to Israel.
Rudolph Giuliani in New York City today said ``Look, you may have
just given us $10 million for our recovery fund for New York City, but
do not dare try and justify or say that perhaps there is some
legitimacy; to take a message across, regardless of the merits of the
message; do not try and legitimize this as a vehicle for communicating
that message, the act of terrorism. It is not justified.'' These were
the acts of evil men, as the President said this evening.
So Rudolph Giuliani gave the $10 million back and said, ``We do not
want the money. Do not come to us, no matter how much money you have,
do not come to the United States, do not come to New York City and
offer a lot of money, which was appreciated for the recovery effort,
but to have a little string attached to it that says, hey, maybe if
terrorists commit these kinds of acts against the United States of
America, America will adjust its national policies as a response to
that terrorist act.''
That is the wrong thing to do. We should not let this kind of act
that occurred on September 11 gain any kind of credibility whatsoever,
zero credibility, because if we begin to give those kinds of attacks
credibility; in other words, allow them to legitimize their cause, even
a slight legitimization of their cause, we in fact are contributing, in
my opinion, to the awful acts that are a result of terrorism. They
should not do that. Thank goodness, the Mayor stood up to that tonight.
I thought the President's comments about this war, it was amazing to
me. I thought the reporters on a couple of occasions tried to trap the
President: ``Can you give us an assurance, Mr. President, just how long
we are going to be engaged in this?''
Of course the President did not fall for that trick. He said, ``We
are going to be engaged in it until we get the job done.''
Congratulations, Mr. President. That is exactly the response that the
American people wanted to hear. That is exactly the response that the
American people feel in their heart.
This country cannot afford to do this job half-heartedly. We cannot
do the job halfway. We have to complete this job. We have to do
everything we can to minimize the threat of terrorism anywhere in the
world. Terrorism has no legitimate spot. Terrorism has no

[[Page 19421]]

legitimate spot anywhere in this world with any country.

{time} 2145

It must be eradicated, or as close to eradication as we can possibly
get. And the President said he is committed; that as long as he is the
President, he will stay the course. Did my colleagues hear that? He
will stay the course.
And that is exactly the kind of commitment that the United States
Congress has to give to the President as well. There will be lots of
trials and tribulations that we ourselves as leaders in this country
will come across, but we need to stay the course, keep her steady as
she goes. Keep her steady as she goes. As the President said, slowly
but surely, slowly but surely we are gaining ground; and we are gaining
victory in this battle against these evil people.
Now, I say they are evil people. I compared them in comments I made
yesterday and in comments I have made since the September 11 tragedy to
a cancer. There is no way to justify a cancer, ever. There is no
medical doctor in the history of the world that has come up with some
kind of a justification for not the cause, but some kind of a
justification to say that the cancer helps the human body. Cancer never
helps the human body. It is a foreign agent inside the body, and it has
one purpose in mind and that is to destroy the human body. That is what
cancer is about, to destroy the human body. It has one mission:
destruction, destruction, destruction.
There is no difference between bin Laden, between all of his
followers and between other terrorists in this world; there is no
distinction between those terrorists and cancer. They all are out for
the same thing. They are out there, as the President said tonight very
ably, and with a lot of credibility, he said what they have done is
hijacked a religion. They are trying to cloak themselves in Islam.
Islam does not allow terrorism. Islam does not permit the striking of
innocent people. Certainly Islam does not preach striking down other
people of the same faith, of those practicing Islam, that same faith.
Keep in mind that these terrorists, these evil people, when they hit
that tower, they did not just kill Americans; they killed the citizens
of 80 separate countries. They killed fellow Muslims, they killed
people who practice the Islamic faith. They killed Irish, they killed
black, they killed Canadians, they killed British, they killed Belgian,
German. Eighty countries suffered. These terrorists did not
discriminate amongst their victims, and now they have the audacity to
cloak themselves in religion, one of the great religions, as President
Bush said tonight, the religion of Islam.
Come on. We know that is a falsehood. And we have an obligation to
continue to look through that falsehood. As the President said tonight
again, and well said, I think, that bin Laden is just one part of the
puzzle, just one part of the cancer. And there is more than one element
to that cancer. Bin Laden is just one of the cells there. We have a
number of cells that we have to eliminate to cure ourselves, to cleanse
ourselves of this horrible cancer that has found its way to us.
So I thought the President spoke well. He spoke of our determination,
our will and our patience. The President has been very methodical in
his planning. He and his team have been very focused, and they are
determined, and they are strong, and they are patient. And I think the
President said it very well this evening.
I was very dismayed in the last week or so when one of our colleagues
here criticized the President, saying how could the President launch an
attack in 4 weeks; that he does not have enough preparation; he had not
done enough planning. Well, that colleague of mine was out of order, in
my opinion. Our constituents should know that we do not sit in the war
room and help design the day-to-day combat activities of our military
forces. Thank goodness, we do not. That is not our job. We are not
military experts. A lot may think they are military experts, but the
fact is we are not military experts. So to stand up at this point in
time and criticize our President, saying the President did not do
enough planning, when this colleague of ours did not spend 2 minutes in
the assistance of that planning, how the heck does he know what went on
down there?
What you do, as the President said tonight, you measure by
performance. And you can go turn on the TV tonight and look at the
performance. Slowly but surely, as the President said, we are gaining
ground. Obviously, we are gaining ground, and we are going to gain
ground every day. Now, some days we may get set back a little. But
every time we are set back, the sun will come again and we will gain a
little more the next day. The end game is that America will prevail.
America and its allies will prevail.
This Nation is too great, its civil liberties are too strong, its
freedoms mean too much to the world for the United States of America to
fail, and it will not. Failure is not even an option. Failure is not
even something to be discussed. The United States will be victorious at
whatever the cost, at whatever the sacrifice, at whatever amount of
time it takes. Mark my words, the United States of America will prevail
over this evil cancer.
Now, I want to mention a good friend, a good colleague of mine, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger); and he and I were talking about
missile defense. We were also talking about civil liberties. Now, the
gentleman from California and I agreed, and we agree on most things;
but we were talking about the fact that I want the American people to
know that in our anti-terrorist bill, for example, that we bring up
tomorrow on this House floor, that we need to let the people know that
we are not out there violating the constitutional rights of privacy or
the constitutional civil liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
That is not what is going to happen in this Congress.
What is happening is this: we are saying, look, we all have to pitch
in together. So what if they check our baggage a little more closely at
the airport? In fact, the previous speakers were talking about how
necessary that is. So what if someone decides they want to cross the
borders where they have a computer, a television face measuring
computer that will tell them whether or not an individual is wanted
anywhere in the world? So what if someone is requested to give a
fingerprint if they want to cross the borders into America? The fact is
America is going to have to tighten its borders.
We cannot afford to have 2\1/2\ million students, students who are
guests of the United States of America, we cannot afford to have 2\1/2\
million of them stay in our country after their visas expire. Of
course, we have a huge gap in regards to our student visa program. And
it was amazing to me the other day, even in my own State, that some of
the colleges and universities in my own State said that we should not
clamp down on student visas. The reason is because they need the money.
They want the money. They may charge high fees for these foreign
students to be educated in the United States. Well, it is about time
the United States thought of the United States.
Our homeland security requires that we have a border policy that
makes sense; that we have a border policy that protects America; that
we have a border policy that lives within the philosophy of America.
That philosophy of America is that America has always opened its arms
to citizens of other parts of the world; but we have to do so within a
system that is regulated. We just cannot open the borders and allow
anybody in here that wants to come in here. As we have seen,
unfortunately, on September 11, not everybody has good intentions in
mind. Some of those people are cancerous; and they want to lay cancer
on every woman, every child, and every man they can, regardless of
their religion, regardless of their ethnic background. These people
want to destroy.
We have every right, without violating the Constitution, to tighten
up our borders. We have every right, and it is not a violation of our
civil liberties, if someone wants to fly on an

[[Page 19422]]

airplane and checks on baggage, they should expect that someone is
going to look in their suitcase. They may even be looking through your
nighties or your pajamas. The fact is there are certain inconveniences,
not civil liberties, but there are certain inconveniences that all of
us will now have to suffer to try to keep our country safe from this
active cancer and the acts that these terrorists are trying to put upon
us.
I think the President handled very well tonight this general threat,
this seemingly high level of confidence of a legitimate threat against
the United States. Obviously, the President and the law enforcement
arms in our country, and by the way, kudos to our law enforcement
people that are so dedicated and put themselves out there on the front
line, and all of our emergency personnel, whether firemen, ambulance
drivers, et cetera; but the President made it very clear he does not
have specific information.
Obviously, if they did, if it was a train that was threatened or an
airplane that was threatened, they would shut it down. They just have a
general threat against the well-being of the United States.
I almost thought I heard criticism of the President not being more
specific, when the President did not have more specific information as
far as what the targets would be. The President made it very clear this
evening that the targets were not specific. I think the President did
an excellent job in his communication to the people that he leads, to
the people that he has assumed a major responsibility, the ultimately
responsibility for their security.
So the fact is, as the President said this evening, all of us have to
be more aware of our surroundings, and that is not just for the next 2
or 3 days; that is kind of something we are going to have to
permanently put into our minds. If we see something that looks odd, it
probably is out of place; and it probably arouses enough suspicion we
should call the authorities. The old saying, if it looks unusual, it
probably is. That is the kind of thing that we are facing here.
I used to be a police officer, and we did not develop any sixth
sense, as people say, that police officers develop. What we actually
did is develop common sense. Common sense that if in the middle of the
night you see somebody coming out of a window of a retail store that is
locked up, you might think that is a little unusual, and you would then
take appropriate action. That is what the President is cautioning the
American people to do, to just use common sense. If it does not look
like it makes sense, report it to the authorities. That is how we are
going to get ahead in this ball game.
Let me move on from the President's comments, although I want to
repeat once again that I thought the President did an excellent job. I
think the President and his team, the Vice President, the Secretary of
Defense, the national security advisers, Condoleezza Rice, this entire
team, combined with all those young men and women that are serving in
our military forces throughout the world, combined with our people like
our volunteers in the Peace Corps, with the Government employees, with
all the law enforcement agencies across this land, the firemen, et
cetera, et cetera, we are all coming together as a team to provide the
security that every citizen out there has a right to expect from their
government.
And thank goodness we live in the strongest country in the history of
the world. Thank goodness we have a country that has freedom of
religion, that has freedom of speech, that allows its borders to be
open to the world with reasonable regulations. That is what has made
this country such a strong country. And the blow we suffered on
September 11, and the blows that we will face in the future, if we stay
together as a team, if we bring together as a group but act as one, we
will survive this and come out of this stronger than we were before.
Sadder than we were before, because of the friends and the family and
the good people that were lost in this terrible tragedy, but stronger.
Let me visit about the question that the President was asked this
evening, an area that I spend a lot of time on, and that is missile
defense and the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Let me put out the
premise right now that I think every one of us in these Chambers, every
Congressman, every Senator in Washington, all of us had better not live
on a hope that we never get attacked by a missile. The far left in this
country, the radical left, wants the American people to hope and
believe that a missile will never be launched against the United
States, and that a missile probably will not be just based on that
hope. It is like hoping away cancer. It is not going to happen.
At some point in the future, the United States of America will face a
missile attack. It may be one missile that is accidentally fired
against the United States, or it may be a series of missiles that are
intentionally fired against the United States.

{time} 2200

Today we have time to prepare for it. That is exactly what we need to
do. There are several steps that we need to do. First of all, this body
has to stay together. We have to give the President the support that he
has asked for in building a missile defense system for this country.
Keep in mind what the country has today. This country has tremendous
capabilities as far as detection of a missile launch is concerned. In
fact, within moments after that missile was launched by accident by the
Ukrainian military during military exercises and hit a commercial
airliner one week ago, the United States of America, it was the United
States of America that knew about the launch. We picked it up at NORAD
in Colorado Springs.
We were within a couple of seconds able to figure out what kind of
missile it was or at least a good guess, the direction, the target, et
cetera. But once our NORAD defense system determines that a missile
launch has taken place, and after they figure out what size missile it
is and where its likely target is, all they can do is call up the
victims of the likely target and say, say a prayer, it is over. You
have an inbound missile. Its expected time of arrival is 15 minutes.
Nothing we can do for you.
Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation. We are required to protect the
American people, the American continent and our allies. How can we
stand up in front of our constituents, colleagues, how can we stand in
front of them and say that we have chosen not to provide an actual
missile defense system. Instead we have chosen the policy of the far
left which is let us hope it never happens, and it is crazy to think
that someone will attack this country with a missile.
I think a lot of people have thought some crazy things that we never
thought would happen, i.e., a terrorist attack would occur that would
kill thousands and thousands of American citizens. It occurred on
September 11. Who would imagine during a military exercise that a
military, under strict discipline, under careful scrutiny, would
accidentally launch a missile that brought down a commercial airliner.
The concerns we have in the future are not entirely focused on an
intentional launch of a missile against the United States. It could be
an accidental launch.
Mr. Speaker, I think the likelihood of an accidental missile launch
against the United States is pretty high. I think there is a good
likelihood it could be as much accidental as it is intentional. That is
why I think it is imperative that the Congress of the United States
follow the lead of the President of the United States, and that is to
deploy a missile defense policy in this country.
Let us go through the different arguments brought up. The gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger) and I talked about, we do not have the
technology. That technology is almost there. We have the laser
technology. We have the satellite technology. We have the detection
technology. Two months ago we were able to intercept an incoming
practice target missile. That technology is going to be there. Sure it
is going to take some trial and error to get there.
People say what if we fail. One way you can guarantee failure is not
to try

[[Page 19423]]

at all. That guarantees it. So my colleagues in these Chambers who do
not want to try at all to provide missile defense for this country, you
have guaranteed failure to your constituents. We have the capability to
come up with the technology. We have the resources to deploy a missile
defensive system to protect the people of this country, and we ought to
do it.
Some people will say what about the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
That was the question tonight to the President. When you meet with
President Putin from Russia, are you backing off, abandonment of the
anti-ballistic missile treaty, and the President said that treaty is
obsolete. It does no good for Russia or the United States.
Let me tell you a little history about the anti-ballistic missile
treaty. A few facts about it. First of all, the anti-ballistic missile
treaty is a treaty between two countries. Only two countries are
signatories to the treaty, the United States of America and the Soviet
Union. This treaty was signed in the 1970s. The treaty is well over 30
years ago. It went on a theory that was abandoned a long time, a theory
whose premise was questioned from the very first day.
What is the theory? At the time of the Cold War, at the time the
anti-ballistic missile treaty was drafted in the 1970s, there were only
two countries capable of delivering such weapons in the world, the
United States of America, and the Soviet Union.
Some people, that administration, thought it was logical for the
United States and Russia to get together and say look, you are the only
two in the world capable of delivering these types of missiles. Make a
treaty that will give you the ultimate resistance to fire a missile in
an offensive state against Russia or against the United States.
So the treaty they came up with is called the Anti-ballistic Missile
Treaty, and it works like this: Russia agrees not to build a missile
defensive system, and the United States agrees not to defend itself
with a missile defensive system. The theory being if you do not have
the capability to defend yourself, you would not fire a missile against
the Soviet Union because you know the Soviet Union would retaliate, and
your fear of retaliation would be enough incentive not to fire your
missile in the first place.
Well, the one good thing they did when they drafted this treaty was
they put a clause in there. The people that drafted this said,
justifiably, Look, we are not smart enough to be able to read the
future. We do not know what the future holds for the Soviet Union. We
do not know what the future holds for the United States of America. So
as we draft this treaty, the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, let us make
a provision, let us put a right within the treaty for the treaty to be
modified for either party, the Soviet Union or the United States, to
withdraw from the treaty.
Let me show Members that specific language. This is it right here.
Article XVI of the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. That treaty is called
the ABM. This treaty shall be of unlimited duration. Each party, and
look at this emphasis that I have put on here. This is a guaranteed
right. The parties have a right to abrogate this treaty. This is not a
breach of the treaty. It is not a breaking of the treaty. It is
exercising a right contained within the four corners of the treaty.
That is exactly what this language is. Let us go through it.
Each party, remember there are only two parties to the ABM, the
Soviet Union and the United States of America. Each party shall, in
exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from
this treaty. See the word ``right.'' It is not iffy. It is a guaranteed
right of the treaty. The treaty has it within its provisions. Have the
right to withdraw from this treaty if it decides that extraordinary
events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized
its supreme interests.
So we know that the right to abandon the treaty is contained within
the four corners of the treaty if in fact extraordinary events have
occurred. So the argument here is have extraordinary events occurred to
the extent that the supreme interests of the parties have been
impacted? Of course they have. I am going to show Members that in just
a moment.
It shall give notice of its decision to the other party 6 months
prior to withdraw from the treaty. Such notice shall include a
statement of the extraordinary events the notifying party regards as
having jeopardized its supreme interests. What are extraordinary
events.
Take a look at what has happened in the world in the last 30 years.
This is ballistic missile proliferation. Remember at the time the
treaty was drafted, there were two countries, the Soviet Union and the
United States of America, that were capable of ballistic missile
delivery against each other. Only two countries. That is why only two
countries signed the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Take a look at what
has occurred in proliferation in countries throughout the world as
indicated by the purple color on this chart. This is the proliferation
of ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles do not have to contain a
nuclear warhead. They can, in fact, contain a warhead that has got a
biological weapon. So these can be missiles with incoming biological
weapons.
The fact is numerous countries throughout the world have acquired the
capability to deliver a ballistic missile against the United States or
against other countries or against allies of the United States or in
fact against Russia. It is in Russia's best interests as well as the
best interests of the United States that we acknowledge the fact that
the world, that extraordinary events have occurred, and at the very top
of that list is the capability to deliver a biological or nuclear
weapon in either one of our countries by people who have not signed
this treaty. That is the proliferation.
That is an extraordinary event. On that alone, this treaty should be
abrogated. Let us look here. Remember again when we signed the treaty
in the 1970s there were two countries with nuclear capability. Two of
them, the Soviet Union and the United States. Now take a look. These
are countries that now possess nuclear weapons: Britain, China, France,
Pakistan, Israel, United States. I would add to that list North Korea.
Of concern over here, I think North Korea has already accomplished it,
Iraq, Iran, Libya.
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing, unfortunately, extraordinary events take
place with the proliferation of countries, rogue countries, Third World
countries, that are doing everything they can to acquire nuclear
weapons. We stand back and say we should not build a missile defense.
We are doing an injustice to future generations of this Nation. We see
the disaster coming. We see the disaster coming. We have the
opportunity today, the American people, the leaders of the American
people, the government of the American people, we have the opportunity
today to build a system that will stop missile delivery of nuclear
weapons. That will stop missile delivery of biological weapons. That is
our obligation. We can do it.
So any kind of argument that we see in these Chambers about the fact
that the United States does not need missile defense are ill-founded on
their face. Of course this Nation needs it. Thank goodness the
President of the United States recognizes the fact that the Anti-
ballistic Missile Treaty, which is the only thing standing in the way
of an effective missile defense for this country, thank goodness that
the President recognizes that extraordinary events which trigger the
ability to leave the treaty have occurred.
The President's response tonight, which I thought was very eloquent,
he talked about it is to Russia's benefit as well. The United States is
not developing a missile defensive system to the exclusion of every
other country in the world. It is our intent to develop a system that
we can share with our close friends like the British, like Canada, and
Mexico and frankly be willing to share with other countries. If we
build the right kind of system, satellite laser system, we actually
could assist any country in the world, friend or foe, from a missile
attack against that country.
Just imagine for a moment if Russia, for example, by accident
launched a

[[Page 19424]]

missile on this country. A nuclear missile. Let us say that it hit
Philadelphia or some city and wipes out a city. You know, the
retaliation or the repercussions of the actual hit, the result of that
missile, would be so significant none of us can even imagine. It is as
hard to imagine those kinds of results as what we saw occur in New York
City on September 11.

{time} 2215

What would it mean? Would it mean a new world war? Would it mean such
massive retaliation by the United States that Russia then would fire
whatever they had left at the United States? We have an opportunity to
avoid that disaster by providing this country with the capability to
stop incoming missiles whether they are accidentally fired at the
United States or whether they are intentionally fired against the
United States.
Now, some people will say to you, ``Well, now look, you know, Scott,
this kind of missile thing is not going to happen. Let's hope it
away.''
And I just tell you 10 days ago, although the press has been very
heavy on Afghanistan and our military theater of operations over there,
consider the fact that about 10 days ago, a missile was fired by
accident, and a missile did hit a target that no one intended for it to
hit and it did in fact bring down a commercial airliner and killed
everybody on board. That ought to tell you that accidents can happen.
We are naive, and we are almost shameful if we do not think that in the
future at some point this country is going to be challenged by a
missile that is inbound, and we have the opportunity today to stop it.
We have not only the opportunity today to stop it, we have the
obligation to stop it. And we can do it.
So missile defense, I was so pleased that that question was asked of
the President tonight. This President intends to lead this Nation not
only to victory over the cancer of terrorism but he also intends to
lead this country to victory in its defense of its homeland security.
And a part of that is to build a missile defensive system that will
give us the kind of security that a lot of us think we have right now.
There are a lot of people out there that think we have the capability
to stop these kind of things. So this President, as he is doing with
other causes, is taking the leadership role. I for one am more than
happy to stand tall behind him. As all of us are standing, most of us,
tall behind his leadership against the cancer of terrorism, let us too
be counted standing behind him for the missile defense system of this
country.
Let me go back, leave this subject for a moment, and talk very
briefly about the economy, because the President also covered the
economy this evening, and I think his remarks were very important. This
economy will recover. This economy has some very fundamental strengths
to it. This economy has been bruised by the September 11 attacks. The
economy was limping along prior to September 11. It happens. Our
economy runs in cycles. It has run in cycles throughout the history of
mankind. The economies of every country in the world run in cycles. We
are in a cyclical state. The worst thing that can keep us in a downward
cycle, the worst thing that can continue to propel us into the ground
is loss of confidence. It is just like the worst thing that could work
against us is the fear of fear. Our greatest fear is but fear itself.
And it is the same thing, too, we should apply to our economy. We as
Americans need to continue to go out and do what we can to bolster our
economy, increase our job performance. Employers, you need to pay your
employees what is necessary to keep them so that they can support their
families. Our inventors, our capital investment, our inventors need to
continue to invent the great products that this country is known for.
We need to keep incentive in the system out there. I am very confident
that the economy will continue through its cyclical correction but that
the country will again see an uplift in our economy. So I urge people
not to panic. I urge people that as the Christmas season approaches, go
out and buy and spend as you would in a normal Christmas. I am not
saying to do it unwisely. I am not saying to waste money. But I am
saying that your consumer confidence, our constituents' confidence is
the big engine that is driving this economy. And if we can, whatever we
can do to sit down with our constituents and tell them just what the
basic fundamentals of our economy are and how strong they are, we are
not going to have a recovery tomorrow. We are not going to see the boom
times with the stock market. People were actually writing and selling
books about what happens when the Dow hits 30,000. We are not going to
see that. But what we are going to see is a cyclical correction that
also leads to the recovery of an economy. We here in the United States
Congress will be acting on a stimulus package. In fact our fine
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), will be chairing
the Committee on Ways and Means upon which I sit tomorrow to consider
debate and to report out a bill for some type of stimulus package. The
government cannot do it all. I think our constituents understand that.
We do not need to lecture our constituents. They understand the
government cannot do it all, but the government can help. Alan
Greenspan has helped by putting more money in, by lowering interest
rates. Any of our constituents that are out there that are paying
credit card interest that is at all above 10 percent in my opinion, I
would consider it excessive. I mean, Greenspan has lowered those rates
so dramatically that every American, every American that uses credit,
whether it is on your credit card or whether it is for your house ought
to be seeing the benefit. And if you are not seeing the benefit, if
your constituents are not seeing the benefit of lower interest rates
from their credit card companies, tell them to dump that company and go
with a company that is going to be fair with them, that is going to
give them a rate that fairly evaluates the risk that is involved in
doing business with them.
There are a lot of things out there that are going to work in our
favor. One of the things that I think that can come out of that
stimulus package tomorrow is broad based tax cuts, not tax cuts for one
specific individual or one specific industry but broad based. We need
to get consumer confidence back in an upward mode. A stimulus package
cannot do it all, as I said, but we can go a long ways, in putting
incentive out there in the system so that once again our economic
engine warms up and begins that climb up the hill. I know I can; I know
I can. We know that that is going to happen. So I feel confident about
our economy.
To wrap it up, I want to first of all thank my colleague the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for the discussion, I thought a
very thorough discussion we had this evening on missile defense. I
think the President did a very commendable job. And I, like many, many
hundreds of thousands of Americans, and I like most of my colleagues,
if not all of my colleagues on this House floor, stand in gratitude for
the leadership that the President has shown to this country, to the
leadership that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice
and the other Cabinet members and our national security team and our
military leaders and our military personnel, all across this country,
thank God we have got these kind of people that are dedicated, in many
cases with their lives, are dedicated to the cause of the United States
of America. Thank God we have got people who are willing to make it
their entire focus, in a patient, strong but dedicated way to make sure
that the United States of America continues to prevail for the next
generation in the good way that it has prevailed for our generation.
Thank goodness we have got a country that recognizes all types of
different religions, that allows people of different ethnic backgrounds
to thrive in this country. We are equal under our laws around here.
There are some countries in this world that will not allow foreign
people to come in and be citizens. Many countries do not have open
borders at all. They have closed borders. There are a lot of countries
in this world who discriminate very clearly against other

[[Page 19425]]

religions. But in the United States of America, whether you practice
Islam, whether you are a Catholic, whether you are a Methodist,
Episcopalian, a Mormon, even being an atheist in this country is
protected by our Constitution. It is the strength of that Constitution
that will increase the strength of this country. It is being respected
by this President and his team.
My final remark is that I stand tall with all my colleagues in
backing the President and his team. Let us go out there and let us
eradicate the cancer that has fallen upon us. We owe it to ourselves.
We owe it to future generations. It is an obligation and a
responsibility of our job. And, frankly, we can get the job done.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schrock). Pursuant to clause 12 of rule
I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the
Chair.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

____________________
{time} 0857

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Sessions) at 8 o'clock and 57 minutes a.m.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A)
OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 107-237) on the resolution (H. Res. 263) waiving a
requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration
of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. McHugh (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today after 6:15 p.m.
and the balance of the week on account of illness in the family.
Mr. Blunt (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today and the balance of
the week on account of personal reasons.
Mr. Gillmor (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today after 5:00 p.m.
and the balance of the week on account of personal reasons.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Ms. McKinney) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. McKinney, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Sanchez, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Faleomavaega, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Gekas) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Gekas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pence, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Nussle, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission to revise and extend remarks was
granted to:
Mr. Bereuter and to include extraneous material, notwithstanding the
fact that it exceeds two pages of the Record and is estimated by the
Public Printer to cost $780.00

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 58 minutes
a.m.), the House adjourned until today, October 12, 2001, at 9 a.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

4206. A letter from the Acting Administrator, Agriculture
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Oranges and Grapefruit (Texas
and States Other Than Florida, California and Arizona); Grade
Standards [Docket Number FV-00-304] received September 25,
2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
4207. A letter from the Acting Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Tomatoes Grown in Florida;
Changes to the Handling Regulation for Producer Field-Packed
Tomatoes [Docket No. FV01-966-1 FR] received September 25,
2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
4208. A letter from the Acting Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Papayas Grown in Hawaii;
Suspension of Grade, Inspection, and Related Reporting
Requirements [Docket No. FV01-928-1 FIR] received September
25, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Agriculture.
4209. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule--Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerances for
Emergency Exemptions [OPP-301169; FRL-6801-5] (RIN: 2070-
AB78) received September 24, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
4210. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule--Cyhalofop-butyl; Pesticide
Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [OPP-301167; FRL-6800-2]
(RIN: 2070-AB78) received September 24, 2001, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
4211. A letter from the General Counsel, National Credit
Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Truth in Savings--received September 26, 2001, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial
Services.
4212. A letter from the General Counsel, National Credit
Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Organization and Operations of Federal Credit Unions--
received September 26, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
4213. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule--California: Final Authorization of
Revisions to State Hazardous Waste Management Program [FRL-
7065-7] received September 24, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4214. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule--Missouri: Final Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision [FRL-7068-
1] received September 24, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4215. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule--Approval and Promulgation of State
Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Texas:
Control of Emissions From Existing Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators [TX-128-1-7466a; FRL-7067-6]
received September 24, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4216. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule--Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Rate of Progress
Plans and Contingency Measures for the Baltimore Ozone
Nonattainment Area [MD057/71/98/115-3082 FRL-7066-3] received
September 24, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4217. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule--Clean Air Act Final Approval of
Operating Permits Program; Commonwealth of Massachusetts [AD-
FRL-7065-9] received September 24, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4218. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule--Clean Air Act Final Approval of
Operating Permits Program; State of Rhode Island [AD-FRL-
7068-9] received September 25, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

[[Page 19426]]

801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4219. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule--Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District [CA 242-0294a; FRL-7066-8] received September 24,
2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
4220. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule--Correction to the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR): Revisions to the Mixture and
Derived-from Rules; Direct Final Rule [FRL-7066-2] (RIN:
2050-AE07) received September 24, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4221. A letter from the Director, International
Cooperation, Department of Defense, transmitting a copy of
Transmittal No. 13-01 which informs the intent to sign
Amendment Number One to the Air Defense Command and Control
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the United States and
the NATO Hawk Production and Logistics Organization (NHLPO)
for the Fire Direction Operation Center (FDOC), pursuant to
22 U.S.C. 2796a(a); to the Committee on International
Relations.
4222. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); to the
Committee on International Relations.
4223. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 135, ``Food
Regulation Temporary Amendment Act of 2001'' received October
11, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
4224. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-133, ``Free
Clinic Assistance Program Extension Temporary Amendment Act
of 2001'' received October 11, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
4225. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 132, ``National
Capital Revitalization Corporation Temporary Amendment Act of
2001'' received October 11, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
4226. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 134, ``Parental
Kidnapping Extradition Amendment Act of 2001'' received
October 11, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1);
to the Committee on Government Reform.
4227. A letter from the Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Pelagic Longline
Fishery; Sea Turtle Protection Measures [Docket No.
010710169-1169-01; I.D. 060401B] (RIN: 0648-AP31) received
August 23, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:

Mr. SKEEN: Committee of Conference. Conference report on
H.R. 2217. A bill making appropriations for the Department of
the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes (Rept. 107-234).
Ordered to be printed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 2559. A
bill to amend chapter 90 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to Federal long-term care insurance (Rept. 107-235
Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 2975. A
bill to combat terrorism, and for other purposes; with an
amendment (Rept. 107-236 Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.

discharge of committee

Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII the Committees on International
Relations, Resources, and Ways and Means discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 2975.

____________________

TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL

Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII the following action was taken by
the Speaker:

H.R. 2975. Referral to the Committee on Intelligence
(Permanent Select) extended for a period ending not later
than October 12, 2001.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. NUSSLE (for himself and Mr. Spratt):
H.R. 3084. A bill to revise the discretionary spending
limits for fiscal year 2002 set forth in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and to make
conforming changes respecting the appropriate section 302(a)
allocation for fiscal year 2002 established pursuant to the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Budget.
By Mrs. KELLY:
H.R. 3085. A bill to authorize the Administrator of the
Small Business Administration to make direct loans to small
business concerns that suffered substantial economic injury
as a result of the terrorist attacks against the United
States that occurred on September 11, 2001; to the Committee
on Small Business.
By Mr. McKEON (for himself, Mr. Boehner, Mr. George
Miller of California, Mr. Armey, Mr. Watts of
Oklahoma, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Petri, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Hoekstra, Mr. Owens, Mr. Castle, Mr. Payne, Mr.
Greenwood, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Andrews, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Scott, Mr. Ehlers, Ms.
Woolsey, Mr. Fletcher, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Hinojosa, Mr. Goodlatte, Mrs. McCarthy of New York,
Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Platts, Mr. Ford, Mr.
Tiberi, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Keller, Mr. Wu, Mr.
Osborne, Mr. Holt, Ms. Solis, Mrs. Davis of
California, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Baker, Mr. Berman, Mr.
Bilirakis, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Calvert, Mr.
Crenshaw, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Evans, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Hall of Texas, Ms. Harman,
Mr. Herger, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jones of North Carolina,
Mr. King, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Shows,
Mr. Simpson, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Smith of New Jersey,
Mr. Snyder, Mr. Stump, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr.
Turner, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Walsh, Ms. Waters, and Mr.
Waxman):
H.R. 3086. A bill to provide the Secretary of Education
with specific waiver authority to respond to conditions in
the national emergency declared by the President of the
United States on September 14, 2001; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. EVANS (for himself, Mr. Reyes, and Ms. Brown of
Florida):
H.R. 3087. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide that veterans who are 65 years of age or older shall
be eligible for pension benefits under laws administered by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs without regard to
disability; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. GILMAN (for himself, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Royce,
Mr. Menendez, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mrs. Maloney of New
York, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Sam
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Jones of North
Carolina, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Gutknecht, and Mr.
Sawyer):
H.R. 3088. A bill to contribute to the defense of the
United States against future terrorist attack by providing
for the removal from power of the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. TERRY (for himself, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr.
Pickering, and Mr. Norwood):
H.R. 3089. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to promote
energy security, environmental protection, electricity price
stability, and electric reliability by providing for the use
of net metering by certain small electric energy generation
systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. THOMAS:
H.R. 3090. A bill to provide tax incentives for economic
recovery; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BLAGOJEVICH:
H.R. 3091. A bill to combat terrorism and defend the Nation
against terrorist; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BROWN of Ohio:
H.R. 3092. A bill to amend part B of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to expand coverage of durable medical
equipment to include physician prescribed equipment necessary
so unpaid caregivers can effectively and safely care for
patients; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. COSTELLO:
H.R. 3093. A bill to designate the Federal building and
United States courthouse located at 501 Bell Street in Alton,
Illinois, as the ``William L. Beatty Federal Building and
United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. CRANE (for himself and Mr. Manzullo):

[[Page 19427]]

H.R. 3094. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to exclude services of certain providers from
the skilled nursing facility prospective payment system, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and
in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DELAHUNT:
H.R. 3095. A bill to coordinate and expand United States
and international programs for the conservation and
protection of North Atlantic Right Whales; to the Committee
on Resources, and in addition to the Committees on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and International
Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. FLETCHER:
H.R. 3096. A bill to amend the Appalachian Regional
Development Act of 1965 to add Nicholas County, Kentucky, to
the Appalachian region; to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
By Mr. HERGER (for himself and Mr. McCrery):
H.R. 3097. A bill to repeal the Federal unemployment
surtax; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HOEKSTRA (for himself, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Upton,
Mr. Camp, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Smith of Michigan, and
Mr. Rogers of Michigan):
H.R. 3098. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to classify office furniture as 5-year property for
purposes of accelerated depreciation; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.R. 3099. A bill to provide for a Biofuels Feedstocks
Energy Reserve, and to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture
to make and guarantee loans for the production, distribution,
development, and storage of biofuels; to the Committee on
Agriculture.
By Mr. LaFALCE (for himself, Mr. Quinn, and Mr.
Reynolds):
H.R. 3100. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow for the expansion of areas designated as
renewal communities based on 2000 census data; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. MATHESON (for himself and Mr. Honda):
H.R. 3101. A bill to direct the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to ensure the development of
standards and measures for effective aviation security
technologies, to direct the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration to carry out a pilot program to test
and evaluate new and emerging aviation security technologies,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Science, and in
addition to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. McKEON:
H.R. 3102. A bill to direct the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to waive repayment requirements
in connection with a grant made to Granada Hills Community
Hospital in Granada Hills, California; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mrs. MINK of Hawaii (for herself, Mr. Abercrombie,
and Mr. Hastings of Florida):
H.R. 3103. A bill to ensure that individuals scheduled for
certain flights are not penalized for canceling or
rescheduling such flights; to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
By Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota (for himself, Mr. McHugh,
Mr. Saxton, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Pickering,
and Mr. Walsh):
H.R. 3104. A bill to protect the public's ability to fish
for sport, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. ROYCE:
H.R. 3105. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow amounts elected for reimbursement of medical
care expenses under a health flexible spending arrangements,
as defined in Code Section 106(c)(2) and the regulations
promulgated under Section 125, that are unused during a Plan
Year to be carried over within the account to subsequent plan
years for the reimbursement of future eligible medical
expenses; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. SLAUGHTER:
H.R. 3106. A bill to protect children from terrorism; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committees on Education and the Workforce, and Transportation
and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. STRICKLAND:
H.R. 3107. A bill to prohibit the importation for sale of
foreign-made flags of the United States of America; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. YOUNG of Florida:
H.J. Res. 68. A joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations. considered and
passed.
By Mrs. BONO (for herself, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Rohrabacher,
and Mr. Calvert):
H. Con. Res. 247. Concurrent resolution recognizing and
honoring the service of the men and women who volunteer their
time to participate in funeral honor guards at the interment
or memorialization of deceased veterans of the uniformed
services of the United States at national cemeteries across
the country; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia (for herself, Mr.
Goode, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Schrock, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Tom
Davis of Virginia, Mr. Scott, Mr. Moran of Virginia,
Mr. Cantor, and Mr. Goodlatte):
H. Res. 261. A resolution recognizing the historical
significance of the Aquia sandstone quarries of Government
Island in Stafford County, Virginia, for their contributions
to the construction of the Capital of the United States; to
the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. OSE:
H. Res. 262. A resolution congratulating Barry Bonds for
setting the record of 73 home runs in a single season; to the
Committee on Government Reform.

____________________

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:

193. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the House of
Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
relative to a Resolution memorializing the United States
Congress to support the Secretary of State in recalling our
delegation to the flawed United Nation's Conference on racism
and commends him for his decisive action; to the Committee on
International Relations.
194. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Ohio,
relative to Senate Resolution No. 1056 memorializing the
United States Congress that the State Senate supports the
President of the United States and the United States Congress
in the actions they must take in order to seek justice for
the devastation that our nation has suffered from terrorism
and to protect our nation from further terrorist acts of
aggression; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
195. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of
Michigan, relative to Senate Resolution Memorializing the
United States Congress to enact H.R. 2374 to amend the
Internal Revenue Code to consider certain transitional dealer
assistance related to the phase-out of Oldsmobile as an
involuntary conversion; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
196. Also, a memorial of the House of Delegates of the
State of West Virginia, relative to House Resolution No. 1
memorializing the United States Congress to accept the House
of Delegates expression of their deepest heartfelt sympathy
to the families and friends of those killed and injured in
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the recovery
efforts following the attacks; jointly to the Committees on
the Judiciary and International Relations.
197. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of West
Virginia, relative to Senate Resolution No. 503 memorializing
the United States Congress that the State Senate condemns the
action of terrorists and their attack on the United States on
September 11, 2001; and for other purposes; jointly to the
Committees on the Judiciary and International Relations.
198. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the State of Alabama, relative to Resolution No. 146
memorializing the United States Congress to enact appropriate
laws which will result in reducing terrorist threats within
our borders; and for other purposes; jointly to the
Committees on the Judiciary, Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Armed Services.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:

H.R. 31: Mr. Sweeney.
H.R. 51: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 97: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 162: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas and Mr. Lewis
of Georgia.
H.R. 218: Mr. Quinn and Mr. Sweeney.
H.R. 292: Mr. Kucinich and Ms. Lee.
H.R. 437: Mr. Cantor.
H.R. 440: Mr. Bentsen.
H.R. 600: Mr. LoBiondo and Mr. LaTourette.
H.R. 606: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 632: Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 680: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 684: Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Ackerman, and Ms. Watson.
H.R. 688: Mr. Norwood.
H.R. 742: Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 914: Mr. Herger.
H.R. 952: Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 984: Mr. McCrery and Mr. Rehberg.
H.R. 1071: Mr. Oberstar, Mr. John, Mr. Pascrell, Mr.
Rangel, Ms. Pelosi, Mr.

[[Page 19428]]

McDermott, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Wynn, Mr.
Lantos, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 1073: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 1084: Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 1086: Ms. Carson of Indiana.
H.R. 1109: Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Ehrlich.
H.R. 1143: Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Norton, and Mr.
Souder.
H.R. 1158: Mr. Pickering.
H.R. 1178: Mr. Baldacci.
H.R. 1254: Mr. Baird.
H.R. 1296: Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Clay, and
Mr. Honda.
H.R. 1310: Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 1351: Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Gekas, and
Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 1543: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1556: Mr. Gekas.
H.R. 1582: Mr. Solis and Ms. Lee.
H.R. 1606: Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Acevedo-Vila, and Mr.
Rahall.
H.R. 1609: Mr. Greenwood.
H.R. 1645: Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, and
Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 1672: Ms. Brown of Florida, Mrs. Capps, Mrs. Thurman,
and Mr. Ross.
H.R. 1680: Mr. Kleczka and Ms. Hart.
H.R. 1782: Mr. Tancredo.
H.R. 1786: Mr. Rogers of Michigan.
H.R. 1819: Mr. McNulty and Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 1975: Mr. Graham and Mr. Hoekstra.
H.R. 2284: Mr. LaHood, Mr. Evans, Mr. Bishop, and Mr.
Schrock.
H.R. 2348: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Souder, and Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 2354: Mrs. Capps, Mr. Sandlin, Ms. DeLauro, and Mr.
Walsh.
H.R. 2357: Mr. Tiberi.
H.R. 2362: Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Kingston.
H.R. 2374: Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 2427: Ms. Carson of Indiana.
H.R. 2466: Mr. Graves.
H.R. 2485: Mr. Cantor.
H.R. 2515: Mr. Owens and Mr. Etheridge.
H.R. 2527: Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Costello.
H.R. 2598: Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Stark, and Mr. Frost.
H.R. 2623: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 2630: Mr. Bonior.
H.R. 2638: Mr. Becerra.
H.R. 2709: Mr. Neal of Massachusetts and Mr. Portman.
H.R. 2716: Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. McKeon, Ms. Carson of
Indiana, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, and Mr. Shows.
H.R. 2722: Ms. Solis, Mr. Gonzalez, Mrs. Christensen, and
Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 2725: Mr. Lantos and Mr. Owens.
H.R. 2739: Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Schaffer, Mr.
Berman, Mr. Frost, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 2768: Mr. Lampson.
H.R. 2781: Mr. Clement and Mr. Latham.
H.R. 2792: Mr. Shows and Mr. Thune.
H.R. 2804: Mr. Pastor.
H.R. 2839: Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 2894: Mr. Crowley, Mr. Berman, and Mr. English.
H.R. 2895: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 2899: Mrs. Mink of Hawaii.
H.R. 2908: Mr. Watt of North Carolina and Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 2935: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 2940: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 2946: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
H.R. 2961: Mr. Smith of New Jersey and Mr. Frank.
H.R. 2965: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 2969: Ms. Norton and Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 2975: Mr. Smith of Texas.
H.R. 2996: Mr. English, Mr. Thune, Mr. Goode, Mr. Rehberg,
and Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 2998: Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr.
Kerns, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Greenwood,
and Mr. English.
H.R. 3003: Ms. McKinney, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Norton, and
Mr. Owens.
H.R. 3006: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 3007: Mr. Inslee, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Israel, and Mr. Kirk.
H.R. 3015: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 3022: Ms. Brown of Florida.
H.R. 3026: Mr. Sherman and Mr. Bishop.
H.R. 3029: Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Holt,
Mr. Doggett, and Mr. Isakson.
H.R. 3050: Mr. Toomey, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Terry, Mr. Schaffer,
Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Pitts.
H.R. 3067: Mr. Honda, Mr. Owens, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lantos, and
Ms. Watson.
H.R. 3073: Mr. Graves.
H.R. 3077: Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. English, and Mr. Gutknecht.
H. Res. 6: Mr. Holden.
H. Con. Res. 104: Mr. Cramer, Mrs. Thurman, and Ms. Carson
of Indiana.
H. Con. Res. 164: Mr. Waxman.
H. Con. Res. 194: Mr. Wexler, Mr. Pence, Mr. Doyle, Mr.
Issa, and Mr. Souder.
H. Con. Res. 211: Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr.
Farr of California, Mr. Engel, Mr. Flake, and Mr. Waxman.
H. Con. Res. 232: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Ramstad,
Ms. McCollum, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Graves, Mr. Mascara, Mr.
LoBiondo, and Mr. Hill.
H. Con. Res. 234: Mr. Bonior, Mr. Costello, and Mr.
Mollohan.
H. Con. Res. 240: Mr. Rothman, Ms. McCollum, and Mr.
Hilliard.
H. Con. Res. 243: Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr.
Bereuter, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Ehrlich,
Mr. Shaw, Mr. Cantor, Mrs. Wilson, Mr. Baldacci, and Mr.
Smith of New Jersey.
H. Res. 243: Mr. Sabo and Mrs. Lowey.

____________________

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the
clerk's desk and referred as follows:

33. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Slidell City
Council, Louisiana, relative to Resolution No. R01-21
petitioning the United States Congress to carefully consider
any changes to the National Flood Insurance Program
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; to
the Committee on Financial Services.
34. Also, a petition of the Legislature of Rockland County,
New York, relative to Resolution No. 472 petitioning the
United States Congress to oppose the granting of any
discretionary economic benefit by the United States, New York
State or Rockland County governments or public benefit
corporations in an attempt to locate the siting of power
plants in the Torne Valley in Rockland County; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
35. Also, a petition of the Legislature of Rockland County,
New York, relative to Resolution No. 472 petitioning the
United States Congress to request the New York State
Legislature to amend Title X of the Public Service Law to
require that no electrical generating facility other than
hydroelectric shall be placed within one-half mile of a
primary sole source aquifer or one-half mile from any
abutting highly permeable soils as determined by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation without the
prior consent of the Governor of the State of New York after
a finding by the Governor of an extrordinary need for said
facility; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
36. Also, a petition of the City of Lauderdale Lakes
Commission, Florida, relative to Resolution No. 01-232
petitioning the United States Congress that the Commission
expresses confidence in the Nation, its citizens, the
President of the United States, the Congress and the
Administration, and encourages all Americans to join together
and rededicate themselves to the Nation's underlying
principles of the capitalist democracy established in the
Constitution of the United States of America; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
37. Also, a petition of Forty-Three State Legislators,
Minnesota, relative to a letter expressing profound sympathy
to the citizens of New York City and Washington, DC; pledging
unwavering support to the President and Congress; and
expressing hope that the President and Congress will act
decisively to counteract this terrorism; jointly to the
Committees on the Judiciary and International Relations.

____________________

AMENDMENTS

Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:

H.R. 2975

Offered By: Mr. Traficant

Amendment No. 1: At the end of Section 702 paragraph d of
Title VII (page --, after --), insert the following new
section:

SEC. 802. DESIGNATION OF POLICE OFFICERS.

The Act of June 1, 1948 (40 U.S.C. 318-318d), is amended--
(1) in section 1 by striking the section heading and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 2 POLICE OFFICERS.'';

(2) in section 1 and 3 by striking ``special policemen''
each place it appears and inserting ``police officers'';
(3) in section 1(a) by striking ``uniformed guards'' and
inserting ``certain employees''; and
(4) in section 1(b) by striking ``Special policemen'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Police officers''.

SEC. 803. POWERS.

Section 1(b) of the Act of June 1, 1948 (40 U.S.C. 318(b)),
is further amended--
(1) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Additional powers.--Subject to paragraph (3), a
police officer appointed under this section is authorized
while on duty--
``(A) to carry firearms in any State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory
or possession of the United States;
``(B) to petition Federal courts for arrest and search
warrants and to execute such warrants;
``(C) to arrest an individual without a warrant if the
individual commits a crime in the officer's presence or if
the officer has probable cause to believe that the individual
has committed a crime or is committing a crime; and
``(D) to conduct investigations, on and off the property in
question, of offenses that have been or may be committed
against property under the charge and control of the
Administrator or against persons on such property.
``(3) Approval of regulations by attorney general.--The
additional powers granted to police officers under paragraph
(2) shall

[[Page 19429]]

become effective only after the Commissioner of the Federal
Protective Service issues regulations implementing paragraph
(2) and the Attorney General of the United States approves
such regulations.
``(4) Authority outside federal property.--The
Administrator may enter into agreements with State and local
governments to obtain authority for police officers appointed
under this section to exercise, concurrently with State and
local law enforcement authorities, the powers granted to such
officers under this section in areas adjacent to property
owned or occupied by the United States and under the charge
and control of the Administrator.''; and
(2) by moving the left margin of paragraph (1) (as
designated by section 202(4) of this Act) so as to
appropriately align with paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as
added by paragraph (1) of this subsection).

SEC. 804. PENALTIES.

Section 4(a) of the Act of June 1, 1948 (40 U.S.C.
318c(a)), is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
whoever violates any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant
to section 2 shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, in an
amount not to exceed the maximum amount provided for a Class
C misdemeanor under sections 3571 and 3581 of title 18,
United States Code.''.

SEC 805. SPECIAL AGENTS.

``Section 5 of the Act of June 1, 1948 (40 U.S.C. 318d), is
amended--
(1) by striking ``nonuniformed special policemen'' each
place it appears and inserting ``special agents'';
(2) by striking ``special policemen'' and inserting
``special agent''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``Any such special
agent while on duty shall have the same authority outside
Federal property as police officers have under section
1(b)(4).''.

SEC. 806. ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE.

``(a) In General.--The Act of June 1, 1948 (40 U.S.C. 318-
318d), is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE.

``(a) In General.--The Administrator of General Services
shall establish the Federal Protective Service as a separate
operating service of the General Service Administration.
``(b) Appointment of Commissioner.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal Protective Service shall be
headed by a Commissioner who shall be appointed by and report
directly to the Administrator.
``(2) Qualifications.--The Commissioner shall be appointed
from among individuals who have at least 5 years of
professional law enforcement experience in a command or
supervisory position.
``(c) Duties of the Commissioner.--The Commissioner shall--
``(1) assist the Administrator in carrying out the duties
of the Administrator under this Act;
``(2) except as otherwise provided by law, serve as the law
enforcement officer and security official of the United
States with respect to the protection of Federal officers and
employees in buildings and areas that are owned or occupied
by the United States and under the charge and control of the
Administrator (other than buildings and areas that are
secured by the United States Secret Service);
``(3) render necessary assistance, as determined by the
Administrator, to other Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies upon request; and
``(4) coordinate the activities of the Commissioner with
the activities of the Commissioner of the Public Buildings
Service.

Nothing in this subsection may be construed to supersede or
otherwise affect the duties and responsibilities of the
United States Secret Service under sections 1752 and 3056 of
title 18, United States Code.
``(d) Appointment of Regional Directors and Assistant
Commissioners.--
``(1) In general.--The Commissioner may appoint regional
directors and assistant commissioners of the Federal
Protective Service.
``(2) Qualifications.--The Commissioner shall select
individuals for appointments under paragraph (1) from among
individuals who have at least 5 years of direct law
enforcement experience, including at least 2 years in a
supervisory position.''.
``(b) Pay Level of Commissioner.--Section 5316 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after the
paragraph relating to the Commissioner of the Public
Buildings Service the following: ``Commissioner, Federal
Protective Service, General Services Administration.''.

SEC. 807. PAY AND BENEFITS.

The Act of June 1, 1948 (40 U.S.C. 318-318d), is further
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 7. PAY AND BENEFITS.

``(A) Survey.--The Director of the Office of Personnel
Management shall conduct a survey of the pay and benefits of
all Federal police forces to determine whether there are
disparities between the pay and benefit of such forces that
are not commensurate with differences in duties of working
conditions.
``(b) Pay Schedule.--The Director of the Office of
Personnel Management shall in connection with the survey
conducted in subsection (a) produce a pay and benefit
schedule for employees of the Federal Protective Service to
be contained in the findings and recommendations.
``(c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Director shall transmit to
Congress a report containing the results of the survey
conducted under subsection (a), together with the Director's
findings and recommendations.''.

SEC. 808. NUMBER OF POLICE OFFICERS.

``(a) In General.--The Act of June 1, 1948 (40 U.S.C. 318-
318d), is further amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 8. NUMBER OF POLICE OFFICERS.

``After the 1-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this section, there shall be at least 730 full-
time equivalent police officers in the Federal Protective
Service. This number shall not be reduced unless specifically
authorized by law.''.

SEC. 909. EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AND TRAINING.

The Act of June 1, 1948 (40 U.S.C. 318-318d), is further
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 9. EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AND TRAINING.

``(a) In General.--The Commissioner of the Federal
Protective Service shall prescribe minimum standards of
suitably for employment to be applied in the contracting of
security personnel for buildings and areas that are owned or
occupied by the United States and under the control and
charge of the Administrator of General Services.''.
``(1) Contract cost.--The Commissioner of the Federal
Protective Service shall conduct a cost analysis on each
security personnel supply contract to determine if the use of
personnel directly employed by the United States would be
more cost effective for use in buildings and areas that are
owned or occupied by the United States and under the control
and charge of the Administrator of General Services.''.

SEC. 1001. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

The Act of June 1, 1948 (40 U.S.C. 318-318d), is further
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There is authorized to be appropriated from the Federal
Buildings Fund established by section 210(f) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
490(f)) such sums as may be necessary to carry out this
Act.''.

TITLE II--FEDERAL FACILITY SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT

SEC. 1002. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Federal Facility Safety
Enhancement Act.''

SEC. 2. SAFETY AND SECURITY OF PERSONS IN FEDERAL FACILITIES

The Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 22. SAFETY AND SECURITY OF PERSONS IN CHILDCARE
FACILITIES.

``(a) Written Notice to Parents or Guardians.--
``(1) Initial notification.--Before the enrollment of any
child in a childcare facility located in a public building
under the control of the Administrator, the Administrator
shall provide to the parents or guardians of the child a
written notification containing--
``(A) an identification of the current tenants in the
public building; and
``(B) the designation of the level of security of the
public building.
``(2) Notification of new tenants.--After providing a
written notification to the parents or guardians of a child
under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall provide to the
parents or guardians a written notification if any new
Federal tenant is scheduled to take occupancy in the public
building.
``(b) Written Notice to Federal Employees.--
``(1) Initial notification.--The Administrator shall
provide Federal employees a written notification containing
--
``(A) an identification of the current tenants in the
public building; and
``(B) the designation of the level of security of the
public building.
``(2) Notification of serious threats to safety or
security.--As soon as practicable after being informed of a
serious threat, as determined by the Administrator, that
could affect the safety and security of Federal employees,
members of the public and children enrolled in a childcare
facility in a public building under the control of the
Administrator, the Administrator shall provide notice of the
threat to the contact person for each tenant in the facility
and to the parents or guardians of each child in the
facility.
``(c) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
transmit to Congress a comprehensive report on childcare
facilities in public buildings under the control of the
Administrator.
``(2) Contents.--The report to be transmitted under
paragraph (1) shall include--
``(A) an identification and description of each childcare
facility located in a public building under the control of
the Administrator;

[[Page 19430]]

``(B) an assessment of the level of safety and security of
children enrolled in the childcare facility and
recommendations on methods for enhancing that safety and
security; and
``(C) an estimate of cost associated with recommendations
furnished under paragraph (2)(B).
``(3) Windows and interior furnishings.--In conducting an
assessment of a childcare facility under paragraph (2)(B),
the Administrator shall examine the windows and interior
furnishings of the facility to determine whether adequate
protective measures have been implemented to protect children
in the facility against the dangers associated with windows
and interior furnishings in the event of a natural disaster
or terrorist attack, including the deadly effect of flying
glass.''.

H.R. 3061

Offered By: Mr. Carson of Oklahoma

Amendment No. 10: Page 18, line 8, after the dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

H.R. 3061

Offered By: Ms. Velazquez

Amendment No. 11: In title I, in the item relating to
``Bureau of Labor Statistics--Salaries and Expenses'', insert
before the period at the end the following:

``Provided, That, of such amounts, $4,600,000 shall be
available for enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) (including investigations
related to such enforcement)''.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

This ``bullet'' symbol identifies statements or insertions
which are not spoken by a member of the Senate on the floor.

October 11, 2001
October 11, 2001

[[Page 19431]]

SENATE--Thursday, October 11, 2001

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Jack Reed, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island.
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Faithful Father, on this day of remembrance of the infamous terrorist
attack on our Nation one month ago, we hear the words of the Psalmist
sounding in our souls, ``Wait on the Lord; be of good courage, and He
shall strengthen your heart; wait, I say, on the Lord!''--Psalm 27:14.
You alone are the source of our strength and courage. Continue to heal
the aching hearts of those who lost loved ones and friends at the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Dear Lord of comfort, we intercede for the families of the police and
firefighters who died seeking to save others. We feel the incredible
grief of those who endure loneliness now for those gallant people who
were aboard the airplanes that were turned into missiles of
destruction. All across our Nation people are gripped by fear of future
attacks. Replace that panic with Your peace. Bolster our broken hearts
with relentless resolve to confront and conquer terrorism. Bless the
women and men of our armed services. Keep them safe as they press on to
victory. Without Your help we cannot succeed; with Your power we shall
not fail. You are our Lord and Saviour. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Jack Reed led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore [Mr. Byrd].
The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:

U.S. Senate,

President pro tempore,

Washington, DC, October 11, 2001.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Jack Reed, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.

Mr. REED thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The acting majority leader is
recognized.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate resumes consideration of S. 1477,
the aviation security bill. It is my understanding that the managers
are expecting to clear some more amendments this morning and are
working with other Members who have indicated they have amendments to
this important legislation.
The first vote--on the Daschle-Carnahan amendment--will be later
today. After we vote on that, Senators may expect other votes to occur
this afternoon and into this evening as we make every effort to
complete action on this important legislation today and then turn our
attention today, we hope--and we really need to do this--to another
important matter, the counterterrorism bill, on which a unanimous
consent agreement has been reached.
Because of some very important matters that some Members have, some
of which are spiritual in nature, I ask unanimous consent that the
previously scheduled cloture vote on the Daschle-Carnahan amendment
occur at 1:35 p.m. today and that the other provisions remain in
effect, with the time from 12:35 until 1:35 to be divided in the usual
form.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as Senator Hollings has indicated, he also
believes we can finish this legislation. I just completed a
conversation with him. He has worked on this legislation, along with
Senator McCain, for so long. We are anxious and happy we are on this
legislation. It is important for the country. We ask everyone's
cooperation. If they have an amendment, come and work on the amendment.
In regard to this legislation, everyone should know we are not going to
wait around for people to come in with amendments. If we arrive at a
point where we have no amendments, we will move on to complete
consideration of the bill in its entirety.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.

____________________

AVIATION SECURITY ACT

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1477, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1447) to improve aviation security, and for
other purposes.

Pending:

Daschle (for Carnahan) amendment No. 1855, to provide
assistance for employees who are separated from employment as
a result of reductions in service by air carriers, and
closures of airports, caused by terrorist actions or security
measures.
Gramm amendment No. 1859 (to amendment No. 1855), to
provide for the exploration, development, and production of
oil and gas resources of the Arctic Coastal Plains.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we all realize this morning that a month
has passed since the disaster of September 11, and we still are
confronted with the need for airline security, as the headlines in Roll
Call state, ``Airport Firms Form Alliance''; as well as, ``Baggage
Screening Companies Take Case to the Hill.''
So one month after this fanatical killing of 5,000 to 6,000
Americans, thousands more casualties, and as many as 10,000 children
left without a parent, some without 2 parents, we are being delayed by
the contractors and the lobbyists. One of them particularly, cited in
this case, has banded together in a lobbying drive that so far has
succeeded--Argenbright.
There is also an article in the Miami Herald published Thursday,
September 13 about their efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the
article in full be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Miami Herald, Sept. 13, 2001]

Company Pleaded Guilty to Previous Violations

(By Tyler Bridges)

Atlanta.--The security company that provides the checkpoint
workers at the airports breached by Tuesday's hijackers has
been cited at least twice for security lapses. In its worst
infraction, Atlanta-based Argenbright Security pleaded guilty
last year to allowing untrained employees, some with criminal
backgrounds, to operate checkpoints at

[[Page 19432]]

Philadelphia International Airport. In settling the charges,
Argenbright agreed to pay $1.2 million in fines and
investigative costs. Argenbright also came under criticism in
1999 for security breaches that caused delays of Northwest
Airline flights. Argenbright was also found to have committed
dozens of violations of federal labor laws against its
employees at Los Angeles International Airport, an
adminsitrative law judge ruled in February 2000. The
violations included 40 suspensions and final warnings
stemming from a strike by the employees in April 1999. The
violations also include the disciplining of another union
activist and threats, both written and verbal, against the
Argenbright employees. Among other disciplinary action,
Argenbright was required to remove warnings from files
related to the strike and give suspended workers back pay.
Argenbright, a subsidiary of AHL Services, provides
security workers at 17 of the nation's 20 largest airport
hubs, including Newark, Logan and Dulles, where the hijacked
flights originated. The company is hired by the airlines.
There was a report Wednesday that two of the hijackers who
flew out of Logan might have arrived there from Portland
International Airport in Maine. A spokesman there said the
airlines at the airport use another security firm, not
Argenbright.
Argenbright officials declined to speak with a reporter
Wednesday. The company released a statement that expressed
sorrow for the ``tragic events'' and said officials are
``working closely with and providing full support to its
airline customers as they deal with the aftermath of
yesterday's major terrorist attack.'' Argenbright also
provides checkpoint security at Miami International Airport.
Gary Dellapa, the airport's former director, said the company
got average marks for its work.
In the Philadelphia case, Argenbright hired more than 1,300
untrained checkpoint screeners form 1995 through 1998 without
checking their backgrounds. Among these employees were
``dozens of criminals,'' according to the government's
sentencing memorandum. Argenbright falsely certified that the
company had done the background checks and fraudulently
charged airlines for this work, the government said. U.S.
Attorney Michael R. Stiles in Philadelphia said the
violations of Federal Aviation Administration Regulations did
not harm any passengers or the airlines. But his office said
that ``if corporations such as Argenbright Security Inc. fail
to meet their obligations and responsibilities, then the
millions of people who fly on commercial aircraft every day
are put at risk.'' Edwin R. Mellett, vice chairman and co-
chief executive officer of AHL Services, said at the time
that the company fired the employees directly involved in the
fraud and cooperated with the investigation.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Argenbright is a contractor at Logan Airport, at Newark
Airport, and at Dulles, all three airports from which the planes on
that disastrous day were taken over.
The article relayed how the firm was fined for misgivings and
misdeeds at Philadelphia. It says Argenbright, a subsidiary of AHL
Services, provides security workers at 17 of the Nation's 20 largest
airport hubs, including Newark, Logan, and Dulles, where the hijacked
flights originated.
The company is hired by the airlines. Incidentally, the major
amendment we have is for airline worker benefits. I thought we passed a
$15 billion package so we could stabilize the airlines so they could
continue the health care and pay for their workers. But, no, we have to
have an additional amendment to take care of the unemployed airline
workers. I do not know what the $15 billion did, whether or not it took
care of the airline bonuses that we all know about.
Let me read. In the Philadelphia case, Argenbright hired more than
1,300 untrained checkpoint screeners from 1995 through 1998 without
checking their backgrounds. Among these employees were dozens of
criminals. That is in quote marks--``dozens of criminals.'' According
to the Government's sentencing memorandum, Argenbright falsely
certified the company had done the background checks and fraudulently
charged the airlines for this work. In other words, they lied about the
background checks and charged the airlines for the background checks
they lied about. Yet they hold us up for an entire month because we
want to prevent further negligence. As has been stated, we had a pretty
sobering lesson with Pan Am 103 and we knew how security was lax at
that particular time, so we were working to strengthen it. We were
going to have higher standards. We were going to have more training. We
were going to have supervision and more pay.
And then in 1996, TWA 800. Guess what. We had all kinds of studies,
commissions, hearings. All this debate about contracts has been ongoing
now for 15 years. What did we come up with? More higher standards, more
training hours, more supervision, and more pay. But you have to
contract out.
No one would ever think contracting would help the Border Patrol. No
one would think of contracting out the FBI. No one would ever think
about contracting out the security and protection of the President, the
Secret Service. No one would think about contracting out our security,
the Capitol Police.
Walking into the Capitol today, I was asked, should we get the
National Guard around the Capitol? We have the Capitol Police. They are
not only adequate, they are more than adequate. They have been doing an
outstanding job. We don't need any more National Guard troops running
around and everything else of that kind. Terrorists would do better
than getting a Senator or two or a bunch of them. They would be
replaced by the Governor by sundown, so you couldn't get rid of them.
In any event, here we come. No one would think about contracting out
the Customs agents or any of these other security workers or the
669,000 civilian workers in defense. They are Civil Service, they get
health care. They get retirement benefits. They are stable. They are
reliable. They are professional. They are accountable. That is what we
are trying to do in a bipartisan fashion.
Who is holding the Senate up? The lying, thieving lobbyists who said
contract, contract, contract out.
We have federalization in the bill. I want to see who comes to take
it out of the bill. The unmitigated gall of that crowd running around
here after learning what we've learned for 15 years, and particularly
after the September 11 hijackings and terrorist killings, they have the
unmitigated gall to say that is what we ought to do again.
They don't have any idea of security. They have an idea of their
political issue and their reelection because they pledged to downsize,
get rid of the Government--the Government is not the solution, the
Government is the problem. So they can't viscerally, ideologically, or
philosophically, even think in terms of security. They are like a
chicken with the line in the sand: In my reelection, I pledged to get
rid of the Government, and I'm not about to vote for 28,000
professionals.
If we get the bill to the House, we can negotiate what is necessary.
The traveling public are ready, willing, and anxious to pay for it.
Heavens above, we ought to at least take away the threat of being shot
down. The day before yesterday, and yesterday again, somebody hands a
note to the pilot, and good gosh, you have F-16s, A-10s, F-15s flying
above ready to shoot you down. Who wants to get on a plane and get shot
down?
This bill, S. 1447, will take care of that. We lock the cockpit door;
it is never open. Let me emphasize, the chief pilot of El Al said: My
wife can be assaulted in the cabin, but I don't open that door. The
intended hijacker knows he will not be able to hijack the plane. He can
start a fight. He can maybe kill some people. He is going to get killed
himself.
You can see how the traveling public is ready to take them out. They
did on the flight yesterday. They did on the flight the day before.
More power to these patriotic Americans. The people understand. When is
the Senate going to understand and cut out this dillying around and get
together to pass security, safety? It is unheard of that they would
resist, having learned from all of these other experiences, having
learned from September 11 to not even give it a second thought, just
bite their teeth and say: We are not going to have the Federal
Government do anything. We don't trust government.
I think we were elected to get the Government to work. And we have
tried the so-called contracting already. We can easily lock that door.
That does away with the expense of everybody being on alert, flying
planes around. No one put that cost down in defense, but we will get
the Defense appropriations

[[Page 19433]]

measure, and they will find out, as a result of our dillying around, we
have a charge now for guard units that are alerted--to do what? To
shoot down domestic flights. Why? Because of the Senate.
We should have gotten off our backsides and seen reality and been
ready, by gosh, to get moving here on an airline security measure. Yes,
we federalize. We are proud of it. It is taken care of. It is paid for.
The pilots are for it. The executives are for it. The flight attendants
are for it. The municipal association is for it. Everybody is for it
except the lobbyists, who want to continue to cheat and continue to
defraud. Isn't it grand? We have put up with it long enough.
There is no reason we can't get through this bill today. We have two
or three amendments. I think we can temporarily set aside Carnahan. We
have the final vote at 1:35, so that time has been changed because the
distinguished cardinal is coming to town and we have a prayer service.
So we will go along and put it off for another hour, but they can
debate that amendment. Everyone knows its merit. Otherwise, we ought to
have two or three amendments here this morning and move ahead this
afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at 1:35 we will vote on the Carnahan
amendment. I am proud to be a sponsor with Senator Carnahan. I thank
Senator Carnahan for the thoughtful amendment she has proposed. I join
in urging our colleagues to support that amendment.
As the opening prayer indicated, we all have a sense as we rise on
the Senate floor about the momentous time this is, the 1-month
anniversary of the terrorist attack. We are being summoned as a nation
to give thoughtful prayer and consideration to those who lost their
lives. Our colleagues are doing so at the Pentagon and other services
throughout the day. We are all mindful of that, and supportive of it.
But we also want to carry on our Nation's business, and we are
mindful of the actions that have been taken and will be taken in the
very near future. We know that just after the attacks on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon that all the airlines effectively were
grounded for a period of time, as a direct result of that. We found
that the airline industry was compromised and was facing a very bleak
and ominous future. Whether the industry itself was going to be able to
survive was in question.
Those issues were talked about here, discussed, debated on the floor
of the Senate. It is unusual that the Federal Government effectively
closes down a particular industry, an industry that has very broad
implications in terms of our economy. But, the federal government took
that action and, therefore, we felt we had an additional responsibility
to help, assist, and offset the losses of those airlines, particularly
those losses that had been incurred as a result of the Federal action.
Of course it is a complicated issue because some of these airlines
were facing difficult financial situations at best and those adverse
situations were accelerated because of the actions of the Federal
Government. But no one questions or doubts that the actions taken by
the FAA and Department of Transportation were in the national interest.
No one questions that. So we have a responsibility to address that.
In a matter of really 2 or 3 days here in the Senate we took action,
some $15 billion to make sure the airline industry was going to be
preserved and that there were a range of different financial supports
for the airline industry. As a result, we took care of an industry and
we took care of management personnel, but we failed, in a very serious
way, to take care of the workers in that industry who were just as
adversely impacted as those who fly the planes and the management
personnel who supervise the industry, without which the airline
industry would not be able to function. These workers were left out and
left behind. That was a critical mistake.
The Carnahan amendment is an attempt to remedy that mistake. 120,000
workers were directly affected by the decision regarding the airline
industry, which is trying to get back on its feet. As a direct result
of the terrorist attack, those 120,000 workers have lost their jobs--
the flight attendants, reservation clerks, baggage handlers, caterers,
mechanics, those who make the spare parts and those who service and
clean the aircraft--they would be working today. They would have a
future of some hope and some opportunity. Now 120,000 of them have lost
their jobs. The Carnahan amendment will not restore their jobs, but it
will ease the pain that these workers are experiencing by extending
unemployment compensation, to which they have indirectly contributed,
maintaining their health insurance, and maintaining the opportunity for
some training for these workers.
They lost their jobs, not because they didn't show up for work, not
because they have not worked and had superior job performance over a
period of years--one worker who I met on Sunday night before returning
to Washington, had worked for the airline for 10 years. Yet they were
cutting down, people who had worked there for 10 years--she lost her
job. She had been an outstanding employee.
All this amendment is saying is, as we took care of the airline
industry, as we took care of the management personnel, let us at least
show some consideration for the 120,000 workers.
We know we have an important responsibility to pass this legislation.
I am eager to vote for it and support the position of the Senator from
South Carolina, in terms of the federalization of these workers at the
airports. We can get through that today. No one is interested in undue
delay.
We know we are also going to have the antiterrorism bill which we
have every expectation will pass this week. Then we know we will have
an opportunity to talk about the stimulus package, to try to meet our
responsibility to the millions of workers who have been laid off, have
lost their jobs and are suffering in all parts of our Nation. We have a
responsibility to address those needs.
The Carnahan amendment basically addresses an issue of fairness. It
is fairness to the workers. We are saying we took care of the industry
in those emergency times in a few short days, but we left out the
workers. That is unfair. Americans understand fairness. All we are
saying, for those particular workers to whom we were unfair at that
time when we passed the Airline Security Act, we are going to be fair
to them to some extent. We are not going to restore their jobs, which
would be something they would want and they would be eager to accept,
but we are showing we are not forgetting them. That is why this
Carnahan amendment is so important.
We have to speak for those workers. I supported the airline emergency
legislation. It was important. But we recognize that at that time, as
we were looking at the industry and also focused on the victims, those
families who had gone through such extraordinary trauma and loss, the
workers were left out and left behind. That was wrong. This amendment
tries to redress that kind of injustice.
It is fair. It is sensible. It is responsible. It is a very moderate
amendment in what it tries to do, in terms of the health insurance,
training, and unemployment compensation. It would be wrong for this
body to reject that proposal. I am hopeful that we will accept it and
will vote on cloture and vote to accept this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to
temporarily set aside the Carnahan amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 1861

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 1861,
which is at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] proposed an
amendment numbered 1861.

[[Page 19434]]

Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . LESS-THAN-LETHAL WEAPONRY FOR FLIGHT DECK CREWS.

(a) National Institute of Justice Study.--The National
Institute of Justice shall assess the range of less-than-
lethal weaponry available for use by a flight deck crewmember
temporarily to incapacitate an individual who presents a
clear and present danger to the safety of the aircraft, its
passengers, or individuals on the ground and report its
findings and recommendations to the Secretary of
Transportation within 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.
Section 44903 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Authority to Arm Flight Deck Crew with Less-than-
lethal Weapons.
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary, after receiving the
recommendations of the National Institute of Justice,
determines, with the approval of the Attorney General and the
Secretary of State, that it is appropriate and necessary and
would effectively serve the public interest in avoiding air
piracy, the Secretary may authorize members of the flight
deck crew on any aircraft providing air transportation or
intrastate air transportation to carry a less-than-lethal
weapon while the aircraft is engaged in providing such
transportation.
``(2) Usage.--If the Secretary grants authority under
paragraph (1) for flight deck crew members to carry a less-
than-lethal weapon while engaged in providing air
transportation or intrastate air transportation, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) prescribe rules requiring that any such crew member
to trained in the proper use of the weapon; and
``(B) prescribe guidelines setting forth the circumstances
under which such weapons may be used.''.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, it is absolutely, critically important
that the bill before the Senate pass and be signed into law, and that
it be passed and signed into law as quickly as possible.
One of the biggest concerns the American public have, ever since the
tragic day of September 11, is the fear of getting back into airplanes
in safety. That, certainly, by any measure, is an understandable fear.
If you look at some of the incidents that have occurred, even since
September 11, you see a greater degree of concern than we have ever had
since the Wright Brothers started flying airplanes about airplane
safety.
Yesterday a plane had to make an emergency landing in Shreveport, LA,
because of a disturbed, deranged passenger. We saw just a couple of
days ago a passenger breaking into the cockpit of a commercial
airliner--again a deranged passenger, not necessarily connected with
any terrorist incident.
But all of this points to the fact that we can no longer do business
as usual when it comes to airline security and safety. Our surface
transportation subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, which I am
privileged to chair, is also looking at the safety and security of not
only airplanes, but also whether it is safe to ride on Amtrak passenger
trains, whether it is safe to take a trip on a passenger cruise line
with literally thousands of working people and crew on those ships as
well as, literally, thousands of passengers. So all modes of
transportation are being looked at as we have never before done in the
history of this country. And that is good.
This Congress, in a bipartisan way so far, has been able to respond
to those threats, has been able to produce legislation in a timely
fashion, like the bill of the chairman, Senator Hollings, that is
before the Senate today. In a bipartisan fashion it says we are no
longer going to be lackadaisical about airline security.
We are no longer going to give the job of making sure airlines are
secure to the low bidder. We are not going to be worried about who can
do it the cheapest but rather who can do it the best.
That is what this bill before the Senate, which I strongly support,
is all about. It is must-do legislation, and it should be done as
quickly as possible.
Along with that debate, a lot of people have made various suggestions
about how we can further secure the flying public on airlines.
Some have suggested that every airline should have air marshals
aboard. I think that is a good suggestion--people who are trained in
order to prevent hijacking or disturbing the operations of the plane.
Some have suggested we ought to arm the pilot, the copilot, and the
navigator, if there is one on a particular plane, so they can protect
the cockpit.
Actually, I think the best way to protect the cockpit is to seal it
off. If you can't get into the cockpit from the back of the plane, the
plane cannot be hijacked to a different location. I think it is just
that simple.
The security of the cockpit door so that it is completely
inaccessible from the back of the cabin, unless the pilot and the
copilot want it to be, is absolutely essential. This bill would allow
that to occur. That is a degree of safety that is very important.
Others have argued that the pilot and the copilot should be armed. I
do not know if they want to arm them with AK-47s or .38 or .45 pistols
or rifles or shotguns. But they have suggested various methods to arm
the crew of a plane with lethal weapons that could be used in the event
of a disturbance by passengers who are intent on bringing down the
aircraft or doing bodily harm to the people on the plane. I think that
goes a little further than I think most Members of Congress are willing
to go.
Obviously, if you have lethal weapons in a plane, a number of things
can happen. Just like when you throw a ball at a football game, only
two things can happen: You can complete the pass, or have an
interception; or, possibly three: You can have an incompleted pass.
Only one of those is good for your team.
When you arm the cockpit, a number of things can happen. Many of them
are not good: You can have those weapons get into the hands of the
hijackers themselves. You can have those weapons do bodily damage to
passengers or kill them on the plane, by mistake or by accident. Or you
can have a lethal weapon with a high-powered bullet actually penetrate
the skin of the airplane, causing decompression of the airplane and
causing it to be in a very precarious position and in danger of
crashing and killing everyone on the plane.
A lot of bad, unintended things can happen if you arm the pilot and
the crew with lethal weapons on the plane.
Therefore, my amendment simply says that we want to take a look at
other types of weapons which would be nonlethal and which also could be
effective in disarming people who are intent on bringing down or
hijacking the plane, thereby providing greater security to the captain
and the copilot of the plane.
My amendment is relatively very simple. It requires the Institute of
Justice to assess the range of nonlethal weapons for use by flight deck
crew members that could temporarily incapacitate an individual who
presents a clear and present danger to that aircraft and present those
findings to the Secretary of Transportation within 90 days.
If the Secretary--after they get that recommendation and after it has
been carefully considered--determines that nonlethal weapons are
appropriate and necessary and would effectively serve the public
interest, then the Secretary may authorize the flight deck crew in an
airliner to carry that less-than-lethal weapon while the airline is
engaged in providing transportation.
If the Secretary makes the determination that they want to go
forward, the Secretary must prescribe the rules the crew members have
to follow. And they also have to establish the rules that require the
crew members be in fact trained in the proper use of the weapon and
precise guidelines as to when those weapons can be used.
It is very interesting. I am sure the Presiding Officer, with his
military background, has seen a lot of different weapons that are
lethal and nonlethal, of course.
On the nonlethal weapons, I had a demonstration in my office. It is
another story about how they got the nonlethal weapons into my office.
They

[[Page 19435]]

said they did not have much of a problem at all. They walked in with a
suitcase full of very curious weapons and said they were bringing them
to show me. And they got right in. I guess they were properly checked
and that security was followed. I hope so.
The members of the Justice Department brought in a whole array of
what they call nonlethal weapons that are available under current
technology. They range from electronic shock weapons to stun guns. The
brand name is Tasers. They are really interesting. They can
incapacitate a person by merely touching them with the weapon. The new
stun guns can actually deliver an electric shock to a disturbed or a
terrorist individual from a distance of up to about 20 feet and
incapacitate them with the stun gun in order for people to take control
of those individuals while they are knocked semiconscious, not killing
them but certainly incapacitating them so you can again control of the
airplane. These are effective.
The technology is proven technology. And we are saying that the
Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice, which does
that type of work within the Justice Department, should evaluate the
potential for using these types of stun guns on airplanes. I think they
can be very effective weapons in incapacitating someone who is trying
to take over the airplane without doing deadly harm to other passengers
and without danger of penetrating the walls of the airplane,
decompressing the airplane, and causing severe problems.
These weapons can work. But I don't think I know enough about them--
and I dare say most Members don't know enough about them--as to whether
they can really be used on the airplane. That is why I am calling for
this study and to report back to the Congress to let us know what they
are doing. When the Secretary gets that report, he can authorize it if
he thinks it is appropriate.
Other items that are nonlethal in addition to the stun guns are what
they call chemical incapacitants, which is a fancy name for basically
the pepper-spray-type system, which looks like a handgun or a pistol
and shoots these little pellets that contain various pepper
ingredients. They are very small.
When these pepper spray dispersants shoot these little pellets, they
will hit the person in the chest. They don't break or explode
violently, but they will burst open and spray the person who has been
hit with it with a pepper-type ingredient which will incapacitate them
temporarily and sufficiently to allow people to take control of that
individual.
The anesthetizing darts are nonlethal projectiles which can
anesthetize someone and incapacitate them at the same time. It is a
little dart that cannot penetrate the cabin, but a dart would penetrate
the individual to anesthetize and incapacitate them.
There are little things called impact projectiles, which are airfoil
projectiles. They are hard plastic projectiles. If you get hit with
them, you are going to get knocked down and not be able to continue
doing what you were doing before you were hit by them; I guarantee it.
There are disabling devices called dazzling-laser-light devices,
which are sort of interesting. They showed me these weapons in my
office. You can hit a person in the face with this laser light, and the
closer they come to the weapon, or the laser light, the less they can
see because it really hits them with a laser light that absolutely
temporarily blinds and they cannot see. This is a Flash Gordon-type of
weapon that can incapacitate someone. It has a lot of possibilities.
Finally, physical entanglement devices: This is a small projectile
that actually sends out a net. I have seen it used in wildlife reserves
when wildlife officials try to capture a wild animal. This net covers
the animal and allows the people to catch the animal for whatever
purpose they are trying to catch it. It does not harm the animal, but
it certainly incapacitates it. These same types of systems can be used
in a plane and be very effective.
I do not know that any of these are the answer, but I do suspect one,
or a combination of some of them, would be effective for the pilot, for
the copilot, or for members of the flight crew, to give them extra
protection.
I do not want to make a decision today in this Chamber that one of
these is the best. That is why this amendment simply says we would
require the Institute of Justice, within the Department of Justice, to
assess the range of these weapons, and within 90 days--it is not going
to take that long--to give a report to the Secretary of Transportation
on their findings of whether one is good, one is better, one is not so
good, or whether none of them is good, and make that recommendation to
the Secretary.
Under my amendment, if the Secretary, after getting those
recommendations, determines, with the approval of the Attorney
General--and I have the approval of the Secretary of State--that it is
appropriate and necessary and would effectively serve the public
interest, then the Secretary can authorize the members of the flight
deck to carry less-than-lethal weapons on board. I think it is in
keeping with the chairman's desire to protect the passengers and crew.
This is a good bill. It should not be delayed. We should do it this
week. It will be the added security that the American flying public
will have, to give them the guarantee that, in fact, it is absolutely
totally safe to get back in our planes to fly to whatever destination
safely, and secure in the knowledge that everything has been done to
protect them and the crew. I hope my colleagues will be in a position
to realize this is the correct approach.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Louisiana,
Senator Breaux, for his thoughtful presentation.
The chief pilot of all the pilots of El Al, in his testimony, asked
for stun guns at that particular time. I know there has been a
suggestion about a Colt .45. I carried one of those for 3 years-plus,
and other weaponry, in combat. But you do not want anybody with a Colt
.45 on a plane. The distinguished Presiding Officer, as a great West
Point graduate, knows you are liable to hit what you want to hit, but
then the bullet could go through and ricochet around and hit two or
three other people. That is just too much firepower.
This particular approach is deliberate and thoughtful. I would be
ready to accept it on behalf of our side. We are checking with Senator
McCain and the other side right now to see what they desire. There
could be further debate. I heard a moment ago that another Senator
wishes to address the subject.
Let me commend Senator Breaux for his leadership in this particular
regard because this can be analyzed. Obviously, the Senators cannot
analyze everything that is necessary to give the proper security. There
is no doubt that some kind of added protection would be in order.
For my part, of course, when we close that secure cockpit door, we
have pilots to fly, not to fight. So it is that even then, with a stun
gun, fine, all right, so they cannot really kill someone, but even that
would not be necessary in this Senator's view. But whatever the
decision of the body is on this particular score, it seems to me that
the Senator from Louisiana is on the right track.
It can be studied, analyzed, and provided for with this particular
approach--not just for us, for wanting to have done something, to say,
well, we are going to authorize a .45 caliber pistol or a Thompson
submachine gun or an M-1, or anything else of that particular kind. We
have to be far, far more careful in some of the security initiatives
that we have undertaken.
I thank the distinguished Senator. We will check with our colleague
who wants to be heard on this matter. Pending that, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 19436]]

The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in urging the adoption of the Breaux
amendment, there is one colleague at the memorial exercise who would
want to be heard and perhaps have an amendment. The adoption of the
Breaux amendment will not forgo any consideration he may have, if he
thinks it is an improvement. I wanted to say that publicly because we
are not trying, on the one hand, to disregard the desire of all of us
to be at that memorial service and at the same time overriding the duty
we have here on the floor to move this legislation.
In that light, I then urge the adoption of the Breaux amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate? If not,
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1861) was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set
aside the Daschle-Carnahan amendment so that we can consider both the
Inouye and the Rockefeller amendments.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 1865

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii,
Mr. Inouye, has an amendment that I send to the desk and ask the clerk
to report.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr.
Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 1865.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to grant waivers
for restrictions on air transportation of freight, mail, and medical
supplies, personnel, and patients to, from, and within States with
extraordinary air transportation needs or concerns during national
emergencies)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . MAIL AND FREIGHT WAIVERS.

During a national emergency affecting air transportation or
intrastate air transportation, the Secretary of
Transportation, after consultation with the Aviation Security
Coordination Council, may grant a complete or partial waiver
of any restrictions on the carriage by aircraft of freight,
mail, emergency medical supplies, personnel, or patients on
aircraft, imposed by the Department of Transportation (or
other Federal agency or department) that would permit such
carriage of freight, mail, emergency medical supplies,
personnel, or patients on flights, to, from, or within States
with extraordinary air transportation needs or concerns if
the Secretary determines that the waiver is in the public
interest, taking into consideration the isolation of and
dependence on air transportation of such States. The
Secretary may impose reasonable limitations on any such
waivers.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this particular amendment has to do with
waiver authority. At the time of the terrorism of 9/11, there were body
parts in flight and prepared for flight in Hawaii to be used, of
course, in life-saving organ operations. It was pointed out that those
particular operations had to be stalled and set aside. This measure
will provide emergency power to the Secretary to make a waiver for this
reason in case planes have to be grounded, as was properly done on 9/
11.
I urge for the adoption of that amendment. It has been cleared on
both sides.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate? If not,
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1865) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1866, 1867, and 1868, en bloc

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, with respect to the three Rockefeller
amendments, one has to do with safety and security of onboard supplies
that the flight personnel and pilots are concerned with.
The other Rockefeller amendment has to do with property and
passengers. We have prescribed, everyone can see it on page 18 of the
managers' amendment, whereby every bit of passenger luggage, cargo, and
property will be screened. This provision would guarantee that all
objects are checked, as I read it, by adding language on page 18,
insert ``cargo, carry-on, and checked baggage, other articles.'' The
other articles would be anything else. So there would be no dispute on
that particular amendment.
With the third amendment, the reference is to the Secretary ensuring
that the training curriculum is developed in consultation with Federal
law enforcement. The Federal law enforcement has the expertise
necessary. We want to make sure of this. The distinguished Senator and
chairman of our Aviation Subcommittee, the Senator from West Virginia,
Mr. Rockefeller, wants to make sure of it.
I send these three amendments to the desk and ask the clerk to report
each.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr.
Rockefeller, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 1866, 1867,
and 1868.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 1866

(Purpose: To establish minimum requirements for the antihijack training
curriculum)

On page 17, line 16, after the period insert ``The
Secretary shall ensure that the training curriculum is
developed in consultation with Federal law enforcement
agencies with expertise in terrorism, self-defense, hijacker
psychology, and current threat conditions.''.
____

amendment no. 1867

(Purpose: To require screening of carry-on and checked baggage and
other articles carried aboard an aircraft)

On page 17, line 23, insert ``AND PROPERTY'' after
``PASSENGER''.
On page 18, line 5, after ``mail,'' insert ``cargo, carry-
on and checked baggage, and other articles,''.
____

amendment no. 1868

(Purpose: To ensure that supplies carried aboard an aircraft are safe
and secure)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . SAFETY AND SECURITY OF ON-BOARD SUPPLIES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
establish procedures to ensure the safety and integrity of
all supplies, including catering and passenger amenities,
placed aboard aircraft providing passenger air transportation
or intrastate air transportation.b)
(b) Measures.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary may require--
(1) security procedures for supplies and their facilities;
(2) the sealing of supplies to ensure easy visual detection
of tampering; and
(3) the screening of personnel, vehicles, and supplies
entering secured areas of the airport or used in servicing
aircraft.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of each of the
three amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without
objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 1866, 1867, and 1868) were agreed to.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair. They have been cleared on both
sides.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page 19437]]

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1855

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak to the
Carnahan amendment. As everyone knows, the vote will be cast in a
couple of hours. Today, it is 1 month since the terrorist attacks on
America. In the days following September 11, we saw unbearable loss and
unmatched heroism.
Now, as we take on those who perpetrated these attacks abroad, we
have the opportunity--we have the duty--to prevent the economic
aftereffects from rippling farther outward here at home.
For America's aviation workers and their families, the economic
impact of the crisis is real, it is immediate, and it is devastating.
Every day we see more reports of more layoffs. It is now estimated that
150,000 workers have lost their jobs in the airline industry alone.
Many of these workers and their families have no income and no health
insurance. What they face is not a recession; for them, it is a
depression.
I think we all agree it was right for Congress to act quickly to
stabilize the airline industry. It is long past the time for us,
however, to help those aviation workers who got no help from that bill
we passed a couple of weeks ago. That is what the Carnahan amendment
would do. It is a fair, balanced, and temporary package of assistance
to aviation workers.
There are those who say helping workers isn't relevant to this bill.
Some are suggesting that we should again put off helping those working
families. Let me ask you, how could you possibly say to 150,000
workers, who had good jobs one day and no jobs the next, that they are
not relevant? How could you possibly tell 150,000 people, whose
families have lost their source of income and, in many cases, their
health care, that they should wait a little longer?
This is not a vote about relevance or timing. Let's be very clear
about what this vote is. A vote against cloture is a vote against
150,000 aviation workers who lost their jobs as a direct result of the
September 11 attacks. It is a vote against giving workers unemployment
insurance. It is a vote against helping those workers and their
families maintain health insurance. It is a vote against giving workers
who lost their jobs training so they can find new jobs that will allow
them to support themselves and their families.
A month ago today, America suffered the worst terrorist attack in all
of history. All over the country, people are remembering the more than
6,000 innocent men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day.
We need to remember that the people who died on September 11 were the
terrorists' first victims. They were not their last. There are hundreds
of thousands of other Americans who didn't lose their lives, but they
did lose their livelihoods. They are the economic victims of the
September 11 attack.
Right now, they are looking to us for help. They don't expect this
Congress to solve all their problems. All they want is a little help to
make it through one of the worst times in their lives.
Just days after September 11, when we passed that $15 billion airline
bailout package, many of us wanted, even then, to include this help for
displaced workers; but we were told: ``This is not the time. There will
be another chance soon. We are going to consider an airline security
bill. We can help the workers then.''
We reluctantly agreed to wait because we were told if we didn't get
that airline bill done that Friday, the airlines would be grounded on
Monday and we would see hundreds of thousands of additional workers out
of work. So we passed that bill to keep our airlines flying, and keep
those workers working.
After a week of delay, we are finally debating that airline security
bill. Now what are we hearing? ``This is not the time. There is another
bill coming, an economic stimulus package. We can help workers then.''
It is always ``then.'' It is never ``now.''
Senator Carnahan and others have put together a good, fair,
affordable, and extremely limited assistance package for these workers.
They have been remarkably flexible. They have made concession after
concession. They have compromised and they have compromised.
They have cut the costs of the package by more than $1 billion. They
have done everything anyone can do to build bipartisan support for this
package.
It is time for Congress to show its commitment not only to the
airline industry, but also to its workers. The time has come to move
this package. We must not put these workers on hold yet again.
This issue is about values. We all espouse the importance of values.
I have heard those speeches countless times here in the Senate Chamber
how we hold our values so dear. Of all those values, I do not know of a
value of greater import than the value of family, than the value of
ensuring that we, as Americans, help one another. We built a country on
those values--values of family, values of neighbor helping neighbor.
This, too, is about values.
This is about preserving the integrity and the economic viability of
those families who are the economic victims of September 11. This is
about the values of people helping people in this country in a time of
need.
The response since September 11th has been remarkable. Our country
has responded in ways that make me proud to be an American. To watch
those rescuers climb that rubble in the days following the attacks, as
I did, to watch those Red Cross workers come to the site and work 20,
22-hour days as I did, to see people all over the country respond by
putting up their flags, as they have, and, yes, to see Congress work
together as closely as we have now for these last 4 weeks, makes me
proud.
How sad it would be if we say, yes, we will help New York; yes, we
will help the airlines; yes, we will try to do as many things as
possible to put this country right again, but we will say no to those
aviation workers.
Does that reflect our values? Is that in keeping with what we have
done for these last 4 weeks? I do not think so.
I mentioned the word ``hope.'' The one thing we need to do, above and
beyond anything else in our capacity as leaders in this country, is to
give people hope. They need a reason for hope. That is what we are
talking about this morning. That is why it is important we allow this
legislation to pass. That is why we have to vote for cloture.
I hope every Member of this Senate, when they vote on cloture this
afternoon, will imagine themselves sitting in the living room of one of
those unemployed families. You are sitting in the armchair, and they
are sitting on the sofa across the room, and they are asking you to
vote. I would like you to look in their eyes and say no. No one could
do that.
We have to look in their eyes in that living room. We have to say: We
understand all of your anxiety and all of your pain and all of the
economic concern you have for your family. And then we must say, in the
context of values, and in the belief that neighbor helps neighbor in
this country, we are going to help you, just as we helped the airlines,
just as we, indeed, needed to help the people of New York. We are going
to give you hope. We are going to say yes to you, too.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of
S. 1447, the Aviation Security Act. I, first of all, extend my
appreciation to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator
Hollings, for the brilliant work he has done on this matter, and

[[Page 19438]]

to the ranking member, Senator McCain, for his persistence and ability
to work as a team with Senator Hollings.
I see in the Chamber today somebody who has worked hard on this
measure, and that is the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison. She also
has done an outstanding job in working on a bipartisan basis to make
sure airports are safe. I appreciate her help.
This bill is crucial to enhance aviation safety. It is critical, in
fact, to enhance aviation safety and security for America, for the
State of Nevada, for the State of Nebraska, for all States. This
Aviation Security Act represents a well-crafted bill that provides a
modern and effective aviation security program for our country.
This bill establishes, among other things, a Deputy Secretary for
Aviation Security within the Department of Transportation; it mandates
cockpit doors and locks to protect our flight crews. This is not
something that is a choice; it is mandatory. And it federalizes airport
screening of passengers and cargo.
This is so important. We have a system that is unique to this country
where we have airlines putting out to the lowest bidder the job of
protecting and ensuring our safety. It does not work. We all have been
through airport security around the country. We know they are well-
meaning people, but their average term of employment is 90 days, and
then they are off doing something else. They are not trained well, they
are not paid well, and they do not do a good job, as hard as they might
try.
Democrats and Republicans alike have drawn the same conclusions: We
must pass this very important legislation to protect the traveling
American public. Why? Because we need to get America flying and flying
a lot again.
The airline industry is a key component in our Nation's economy. My
State is very dependent on our Nation's air transportation system.
McCarran Airport in Las Vegas provided service for 34 million
passengers last year. That is a lot of people. We expected more to come
this year. We hope that still will be the case.
We are building another airport terminal. We are building a new
airport in Las Vegas, one of the few places in the country where a new
airport is being built. We received permission from Congress to use
Federal land to build another airport about 35 miles outside of Las
Vegas. That is now being done. So the airline industry is a key
component of our Nation's economy. It is a key component of Nevada's
economy.
The legislation we are considering today will bring our airport
security system into the new century by reducing the risks that a
commercial airliner will again be turned into a weapon of mass
destruction. This is a goal on which we can all agree. This can never
happen again.
I stress to my colleagues the need for this aviation security
legislation is widely supported by the American people, and we must
move forward now. The bill we are considering will allow the United
States to move forward and provide our Nation the aviation security
that is necessary to address this new century. It is a good bill for
America.
This bill, we understand, is controversial in some people's minds.
One of the reasons it is controversial is the amendment upon which we
are going to vote at 1:35 p.m. today, and that is the Carnahan
amendment. I applaud Senator Carnahan for her work on this legislation.
No one better among us can ever understand the loss in New York than
Senator Carnahan, whose husband and son were killed in an airplane
crash a short time ago. I am sure Senator Carnahan, being the sensitive
person she is, was compelled to offer this legislation because she
better understands how people feel after a loss such as this.
What does her amendment do? Her amendment would provide financial
assistance, training, and health care coverage to employees of the
aviation industry who lost or will lose their jobs as a result of the
attack on September 11. The benefits would be distributed within the
framework created by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. Based on
preliminary estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, the cost is
expected to be $2.8 billion, but this amendment is pared down. As the
majority leader said, in an effort to work this through the process, we
have pared this down, and rightfully so. It is not the full amount
needed, but it certainly will be a tremendous shot in the arm for these
people.
Who is eligible? Employees of airlines, commercial aircraft
manufacturers, suppliers of airlines, and airports. Only those
employees who lose their jobs as a direct result of the attacks on
September 11, or security measures taken in response to the attacks as
determined by the Secretary of Labor, will be eligible.
What are the benefits we are begging the Senate to approve? Provide
an additional 52 weeks of unemployment insurance to people who no
longer are working as a result of this incident. Fifty-two weeks of
unemployment insurance benefits and training for those workers who lose
their jobs. This training would allow workers who have permanently lost
their jobs to receive income assistance and training to assist them in
moving into a new industry or job.
There is also a provision to supplement unemployment insurance gaps;
that is, provide 26 weeks of unemployment insurance-like benefits for
those workers who would not otherwise qualify for unemployment
insurance. They were working but maybe they had not worked long enough
to qualify. This would include workers who have been recently hired,
who had been working less than 6 months, part-time workers, low-wage
workers, and workers with intermittent employment; for example, single
parents who have had to take time off to care for their children.
This legislation would provide Federal reimbursement of COBRA health
insurance premiums for eligible workers for up to 18 months and provide
States the option to provide medicaid coverage for those workers who do
not qualify for COBRA benefits. This would include new hires, low-wage,
part-time, or intermittent workers as well as those workers whose
employers did not provide health insurance or are independent
contractors; for example, workers who load luggage or other cargo on
the planes.
This legislation is important for the country, and this specific
amendment is important for people who have been directly hurt, harmed,
and damaged by this terrible act of September 11. People who step down
into the well of this Chamber to vote should understand today this is
more than political philosophy. It is a philosophy directed to say that
this country cares, this country is concerned and wants to help those
people who have been directly impacted, workers who have been directly
impacted as a result of this incident of September 11.
I hope everyone will vote to invoke cloture.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I also rise as a cosponsor of the
Carnahan amendment to help those who are most hurt by the economic
impact of the terrorist attacks of September: the unemployed airline
and airplane manufacture workers.
Thousands of American workers have lost their jobs during this
economic downturn. These workers need our help. That's why we need to
act quickly on a robust stimulus package targeted at workers.
No workers have been hit as hard as those in the airline and aviation
industry; 140,000 thousand of these workers have been laid off since
the terrorist attacks of September 11. Unemployment is steadily rising.
Last week the largest number of people in 9 years filed for
unemployment, over 528,000 people. That's nearly the population of
Baltimore City; 650,000 people live in Baltimore.

[[Page 19439]]

These are the pilots, the flight attendants, the baggage handlers,
the concessionaires, and the aircraft builders. These workers have:
lost their paychecks, lost their health care and could lose their
homes. They need help immediately, just as we've helped their former
employers with a $15 billion stabilization package of grants and loan
guarantees.
I am confident that the airline industry and the U.S. economy will
recover; But help is needed today. How would the Carnahan amendment
help the airline workers?
Senator Carnahan's amendment would provide financial assistance,
training, and health care coverage to employees of the airline industry
who lose their jobs as a result of the attacks on September 11, 2001.
The Carnahan amendment would provide income support by extending the
number of weeks eligible individuals can receive unemployment insurance
from 26 weeks to 79 weeks. That's a year and a half. These cash
payments would not create a strain on state budgets because they would
be funded entirely by the Federal Government.
For many workers do not meet their States' requirements for
unemployment insurance would not be left out. They would receive 26
weeks of federally financed unemployment insurance.
Some workers may not return to their jobs within the airline
industry. These people would be eligible for retraining benefits.
Others may find alternative jobs within the airline industry. These
workers would be eligible for training to upgrade their skills.
The amendment would enable laid off workers to keep their health care
by expanding the COBRA program which helps people who've lost their
jobs to keep their health insurance. The amendment enables the Federal
Government to fully reimburse for COBRA premiums. Yet about half of
those who lose their jobs are not eligible for COBRA, so the amendment
would make these families eligible for Medicaid for up to 18 months,
with the Federal Government covering 100 percent of the premiums.
I strongly support the Carnahan amendment. It's a thoughtful and
comprehensive airline workers relief package. It's a good starting
point to address the needs of working families. It also provides a good
model for a broader economic stimulus package that Congress should
consider soon.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Carnahan
amendment.
All of America was shaken by the horrendous events of September 11.
America's heart still aches for the thousands of people who lost their
lives and whose lives have been altered permanently in one way or
another.
And now, as we watch America valiantly begin to recover, we are just
starting to realize the economic impact of this terrible tragedy. As we
are all too well aware, people are losing their jobs and futures are at
risk.
I cannot imagine living through the tremendous stress of the past
several weeks only to be told that I have now lost my job or I am being
laid off because my company cannot afford to keep running at full
speed. Unfortunately, the numbers of layoffs are increasing and the
unemployment rate is trending upward.
One of the industries hardest hit by the economic downturn is the
airline industry. In the short span of just a few weeks, hundreds of
thousands of workers at airlines, airports, aircraft manufacturers and
at the companies that supply the airlines, have lost their jobs.
Workers from commonly known companies like Boeing, Pratt and Whitney,
American and United Airlines, to name but a few, are losing their jobs
and being laid off, their futures are less than certain.
The effects have been devastating. Hundreds of thousands of men and
women who support the airline industry are losing their family's
primary source of income and health insurance.
But we can help. We can lend a helping hand to the thousands of
displaced workers at these companies. We can restore their hope. We can
make a difference.
That is why I support and I ask my colleagues to support Senator
Carnahan's displaced worker relief amendment. This amendment would
provide income support, job training and health care benefits for those
airline industry workers affected by the aftermath of the events of
September 11. It would extend State unemployment benefits to provide
income, establish job re-training or job upgrade benefits to those who
permanently lose their jobs in the airline industry, and provide
critical health care coverage for the workers and their families. These
initiatives will go a long way to restore the economic security of
airline industry workers and their families.
No one expected the events of September 11, and no one envisioned
these terrible events would have such devastating repercussions in our
country's most critical transportation industry. I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment and help airline industry workers get back on
their feet and back to work.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of the
Carnahan amendment to provide much needed assistance to airline
industry employees.
Almost a month later, we are still sorting through the aftermath of
September 11th. Thousands of people from New York and New Jersey were
among those lost or injured on that terrible day. And now thousands
more across the country are beginning to feel the economic impact of
the tragedy.
A few weeks ago, this Congress did the right thing when we passed
legislation to help the airline industry. As a result of the attacks,
the airlines lost billions of dollars in the days that planes were
grounded.
And so many people have decided not to fly, the airlines have cut the
number of flights by 20 percent since September 11th.
In my State, that has meant 300 fewer daily flights out of Newark
International Airport.
This Nation's economy depends on healthy airlines to keep people and
goods moving, and Congress was right to help.
And now this Congress must continue to do right by passing this
amendment to help the people who work for the airlines and related
industries who have lost their jobs and health insurance as a result of
this slowdown.
So far, more than 140,000 airline industry workers across the nation
have lost their jobs and their healthcare. Virtually all of the
airlines have laid off workers:
American Airlines--20,000 people; United Airlines--20,000 people;
Delta Airlines--13,000 people; US Airways--11,000 people; Continental
Airlines--11,000 people; Northwest Airlines--10,000 people; America
West--2,000 people; Midway--1,700 people; and American Trans Air--1,500
people.
Airlines are a crucial employer in my state, more than 19,000 people
in New Jersey are employed by the major airlines. Continental Airlines
has one of its hubs at Newark International Airport.
But just a few weeks ago, 2,000 of those Continental workers at
Newark were laid off.
And it is not just airline workers who are feeling the cuts. The
people who provide the meal services and run the airport concessions
have also suffered thousands of lay-offs.
We cannot continue to delay. We must pass this amendment to help
these workers who have bills to pay and children to care for but who
don't know where they will be getting their next paycheck.
This amendment provides critical assistance in three ways.
Income support: Under current law, laid-off workers are eligible for
26 weeks of State unemployment insurance. Under this amendment, they
would be eligible for an additional 20 weeks of federal benefits.
Training: No one knows when these airline jobs will come back or in
what other industries these laid-off workers will find work. Under this
amendment, individuals who did not return to the airline industry would
be eligible for retraining benefits; those who find alternative jobs
within the airline industry would be eligible for upgrade training.

[[Page 19440]]

Health Care: For up to a year, the Federal Government would fully
reimburse eligible individuals for their COBRA premiums. Individuals
who do not qualify for COBRA and are otherwise uninsured would be
eligible for Medicaid, with the Federal Government covering 100 percent
of the premiums.
We have waited long enough. It is time to make good on our obligation
to provide for the airline industry workers who have lost their jobs
and health care. I urge passage of the Carnahan amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this Nation is still reeling from the
horrific events of September 11. During the past month, our country has
come together to mourn those we have lost, to help those who have been
injured, and to comfort the many families involved. We continue to
honor those who rushed selflessly to the aid of the victims and those
who still work tirelessly in the rubble. We support our men and women
in uniform who are making a bold strike against terrorism half the
world away.
The ripple effects of the terrorist attacks of one month ago are
being felt across the country. One of those effects is the tightening
of security measures around the country, perhaps most visibly at our
Nation's airports. I commend the thousands of National Guard personnel
who are patrolling our airports, including seven airports in Wisconsin.
The impact that these vicious attacks have had on the airline
industry is undeniable. There is certainly a legitimate need to provide
some kind of assistance to our Nation's airlines in this time of
crisis, and for that reason I supported the airline relief package that
the Senate adopted last month.
But this assistance should not stop at the board room door. We should
not forget about airline employees and their families, including many
Wisconsinites. In the past month, more than 100,000 layoffs have been
announced by the airlines, and thousands more workers in related
industries have been or will be laid off in the coming months. These
massive layoffs are a double blow to an already shocked country.
Midwest Express Airlines, which is based in Oak Creek WI, has
announced that it will lay off 450 workers, or 12 percent of its work
force. Another Wisconsin-based airline, Air Wisconsin of Appleton,
which is affiliated with United Airlines, has announced 300 layoffs, or
10 percent of its workforce.
These airline workers are not just statistics. They are our
neighbors, our friends, and our constituents. It is past time that we
act to ensure that those who work for our Nation's airlines and their
families receive adequate relief, including continued access to health
care and unemployment and job training assistance. The amendment
offered by the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. Carnahan, will provide these
workers with this crucial assistance.
I disagree with the argument that this amendment is not relevant to
the underlying airport security legislation. The financial well-being
of all Americans is a vital part of our national security.
I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the Carnahan amendment
and to support its passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to our colleagues who have
suggestions or amendments on this bill, that we want to encourage them
to come down because we have the cloture vote on the Carnahan amendment
scheduled, and once that is disposed of we hope we can move to the
relevant amendments that people have to offer and finish this bill
today.
I think it is the intention of the majority leader, and the minority
leader as well, to have an aviation security bill passed today. I think
we can do it because we only have a few amendments, and there are
qualified legitimate differences of opinion and we can take those up
and go forward. So I hope everybody will come down.
What we have is 95-percent agreement on the basics of this bill. The
Carnahan amendment has a lot of positives, and I think we will pass
something for our airline workers who have been laid off and workers in
other industries who have been laid off because of the economic
downturn. I do not think it should go on this bill because, frankly, I
do not think we are ready yet. I do not think we have all of the
relevant information we need to know about what is not covered in
unemployment compensation and COBRA to determine how much the Federal
Government needs to step in. So I hope we would not go to the Carnahan
amendment. I hope we would be able to go to the rest of the bill and
the legitimate differences on the aviation security issues so we can
move down the road.
We will deal with the employees who have been laid off, and it is my
hope that many of the people who have been laid off in one industry
will be able to go into the areas where we know we are going to
increase employment. We are going to increase employment in the defense
area. We are going to increase employment in airline security and
airport security. That is the bill we are trying to pass right now,
which we think will create many new jobs.
The way we are trying to pass this bill is as a quality aviation
security package that assures we have a qualified workforce to do this
law enforcement responsibility, and we are trying to make sure there is
a clear standard in every airport. We need a uniform standard. That is
why our bill tries to make sure we have screeners who have the
qualifications and standards that would be required to have this
uniformity.
I think we are making great progress. I am very pleased that we are.
I hope everybody will cooperate. I hope we can keep extraneous
amendments off, even if they have a lot of merit, because we have not
finished passing emergency legislation yet from what happened on
September 11.
Sad to say, we are now memorializing the 1-month anniversary of this
terrible tragedy to our country, but I would also say we are making
great progress since September 11. We have already passed $40 billion
in authorization for emergency expenditures to help clean up New York
and the Pentagon and to help the victims in their earliest needs. We
have already allocated money for emergency needs for our Department of
Defense, and I can not think of anything more relevant and more urgent
than the needs of our military today as we know we are in a
mobilization that is required to win this war on terrorism.
We have already allocated the billions of dollars that will be
required for that. At the same time we are also trying to take care of
the Afghan people, who are fleeing their homes, by trying to make sure
we have humanitarian aid for them.
We need to add aviation security as an accomplishment. We need to add
the aid to the terrorism bill that gives our intelligence agencies the
capabilities they need to continue their extraordinary investigation of
the terrorist cells that have tentacles throughout our country and
throughout other countries around the world. So I hope the
antiterrorism bill and the aviation security bill will be passed by the
Senate this week. We could be very pleased with that accomplishment on
the 1-month anniversary of this tragedy. That, coupled with progress on
aviation security and antiterrorism would be the right approach to
continue moving down the road and meeting our responsibility to deal
with this emergency.
What has come out every day since September 11 is the spirit of the
American people. From the horrible tragedy of September 11, we are
seeing extraordinary heroism displayed every day by the American
people--a spirit seen especially when you go home. I have gone home
every single weekend since September 11. The flags are flying in
people's homes, the flags are flying in people's businesses, the flags
are flying on people's cars and people are doing added things for their
neighbors and friends. All of these things have certainly bonded
Americans.
In 1 month, we have come of age in our generation. We are dealing
with a crisis that has not presented itself to our generation in our
live time's, and

[[Page 19441]]

now we have it. I think we are responding very well. I am proud of the
progress we are making.
I look forward to continuing work on aviation security and
antiterrorism this week. I hope we will then go on to the economic
stimulus package, dealing with the displaced employees, for next week's
accomplishments. We are making progress, and I am proud of America
today. I think we are going to be filled with pride as we move down the
road to see how America is coming together to meet the crisis of our
generation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support and
commend the President's back-to-work relief package.
From the workers in New York whose offices now lie in rubble to the
workers on the opposite coast who have lost their jobs in a massive
layoff, the terrorist attacks of September 11 have had a devastating
impact on our Nation's workforce. Just as we must rebuild the
structures damaged or destroyed, we must help to rebuild the lives of
workers who have been displaced because of the attacks.
As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and
Training, I am particularly concerned with providing effective and
immediate assistance to workers affected by the terrorist attacks. To
do so, the President's package must:
1, be targeted to individuals directly impacted by the September 11
attacks;
2, build upon existing programs, not create new ones. That is a major
point. We are doing a lot of things well already. We don't need a new
Federal bureaucracy to do it;
3, provide State and local flexibility to address needs;
4, enable individuals to return to the workforce as quickly as
possible through job training and job search assistance.
The President's back-to-work relief package is, indeed, based on
these principles. He deserves our unyielding support for a proposal
that is based on what works best for workers.
To enhance existing assistance programs available to displaced
workers, the President's proposal will extend unemployment benefits by
13 weeks for Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of the
terrorist attacks. It will provide $3 billion in special national
emergency grants to States to help displaced workers maintain health
coverage, to supplement their income, and to receive job training. It
makes $11 billion available to States to help low-income displaced
workers receive health insurance. And, finally, it encourages displaced
workers to take advantage of the more than $6 billion in existing
Federal programs that provide job search, training, and placement
services.
While the President's package is targeted to workers directly
impacted by the terrorist attack, it is not restricted to employees of
the airlines and related industries. That is an important point. There
are many workers in other industries who have also lost their jobs as a
consequence of the attacks. It is inequitable to deny them relief
provided only to employees in certain industries.
I am especially pleased to see that the President's proposal will
utilize national emergency grants under the Workforce Investment Act to
provide additional assistance to those communities and populations
hardest hit by the terrorist attacks. I have been a strong supporter of
the Workforce Investment Act and the fundamental principles upon which
this landmark legislation was based.
Under the Workforce Investment act, States and localities have
increased flexibility to meet the needs of the local and regional labor
markets. Today, in the wake of the tragic events of September 11, it is
even more critical that States have the flexibility to effectively
respond to the needs of their dislocated workers.
States affected by the terrorist attacks will be able to receive
national emergency grants. The States may in turn use these funds to
help ensure that dislocated workers maintain health insurance coverage,
that they receive income support during the recovery period, and they
return to the workforce through training and job search assistance.
Both the Workforce Investment Act and the President's package
recognize that decisions regarding worker assistance should be made by
those closest to the problem and, therefore, closest to the solution.
State and local governments--not the Federal Government--are best
positioned to respond to workforce needs. That is the way our system is
set up.
Under the President's package, national emergency grants may be used
to provide training and job search assistance. In addition, displaced
workers are encouraged to take advantage of the $6 billion in existing
Federal programs that provide training and placement services. Rather
than waste precious time and resources on creating new Federal
programs, displaced workers can immediately access one-stop centers and
receive job assistance services. In fact, New York, Massachusetts, and
Minnesota have already applied for national emergency grants in the
wake of the attacks.
Finally, the President's proposal is termed a relief package. It is
designed to provide supplementary, temporary work to displaced workers
during the recovery period after the terrorist attacks. Now is not the
time to create widespread new Federal programs and entitlements. Now is
the time to address the immediate needs of workers who have lost their
jobs as a result of the tragic events of September 11 while utilizing
existing programs to help these people return to the workforce as
quickly as possible. Ultimately, this approach, which the President has
taken, will best serve these workers and the American economy.
The question we must all answer is, How do we define success? The
answer is, Getting everybody back to work. How do we achieve that? We
activate proven, existing, and therefore immediate programs
administered by those closest to the people. I trust Mayor Giuliani and
I trust Governor Pataki to be responsive, just as I trust the mayor of
Boston and the Governor of Minnesota. A lot of that is because these
people have already been dealing with these existing programs. We don't
need to be creating something new just to throw money at them.
In closing, I say to my colleagues, the President's back-to-work
relief package is aptly named. It is designed to return to the
workforce those who lost their jobs as a result of the events of
September 11. The best way to help stimulate our economy is to get
these people working again as soon as possible.
To recap, I am in opposition to the cloture motion filed. We will
vote on it at 1:35. I commend the President for taking a broader look
and particularly commend the President for his willingness and desire
to use those existing programs and existing people who are already in
place, use the talents that have already been built and trained to do
it, to provide the necessary recovery we need, without winding up with
an additional bureaucracy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my
distinguished colleague from Wyoming, and I agree with him 100 percent
that there is no need for an additional program in which to dispense
these funds that we wanted to get to our airline workers so quickly.
That is why my amendment is set up to service needs under the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Act, already in place, that has worked so well at
the Department of Labor. I appreciate his concern for that, but I would
like to reassure him that we have taken that into consideration.
Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking my colleagues who
have risen in support of this amendment. I am heartened by their
efforts on behalf of the airline industry. I am also very pleased to
ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be added as a cosponsor of
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 19442]]

Mrs. CARNAHAN. The amendment provides assistance to airline industry
employees who are laid off from their jobs as a result of terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11. It brings assistance to those
who had been employed by airlines, airports, aircraft manufacturers,
and suppliers to airlines. For those workers, this legislation would
provide three basic benefits.
First, it extends unemployment compensation for an additional 20
weeks after employees have exhausted their State benefits. This
provides a safety net to help them make their mortgage payments, to
feed their families for a few extra months while they are trying to get
new jobs.
Second, this legislation provides training assistance to workers who
will not be able to return to their former jobs, training that is so
essential today in a changing economy.
Third, this legislation helps workers maintain health insurance for
themselves and for their families. As my colleagues know, many workers
who were laid off are eligible to purchase health insurance from their
former employer. The average cost of these premiums is $500 per month.
People who have been abruptly laid off will not have an extra $500 a
month to spend on health insurance. Without help, they will be without
health coverage.
This legislation reimburses the cost of those health insurance
premiums for 12 months. For those workers who are not eligible to
purchase health benefits, this legislation enables States to provide
Medicaid benefits. This is an important step for Congress to take to
prevent even more children from joining the ranks of the uninsured in
America.
Some have suggested the benefits I propose are out of line with what
has been provided to other workers who have lost their jobs. Let me
respond by pointing out that I modeled my legislation after an existing
program, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. The Trade Adjustment
Assistance Act provides help to those workers who have lost their jobs
as a result of trade agreements. That program provides extended
unemployment compensation for 52 weeks--much longer than the 20 weeks
that I propose. That program also provides training for 18 months,
while I have proposed providing training for less than 12 months.
The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been a lifeline for many
workers. Between 1994 and 2000, over 1 million workers received these
payments. I am glad they did. But let's be clear; these workers get
more generous benefits than all other workers who lost their jobs
during that time period.
The State with the most workers receiving unemployment and training
benefits under TAA is Texas. Texas has 8 percent of all the workers in
this program, about 86,000 people. Workers from Texas companies such as
Big Dog Drilling, Tubby's Auto Service, and Rio Grande Cutters
participate in this program. These workers qualify for enhanced
benefits because they lost their jobs due to trade. Why shouldn't
airline workers who lost their benefits when they lost their jobs due
to terrorism qualify?
My legislation provides one thing that the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Act does not, and that is health coverage. I have added this
because I believe it is important that these workers and their families
be able to maintain their health coverage. I am pleased that President
Bush has recognized this need as well.
Last week, the President laid out some options for how the Government
can help provide health coverage to unemployed workers. Today is our
chance to rise to that occasion.
My amendment will also be an economic stimulus. It will put money
into the pockets of Americans who need it most. We know these families
will spend the money. They need it to pay their bills. That is what we
need to get the economy going. We need consumer spending.
Finally, some have argued that this amendment has no place on an
airline security bill. I respectfully disagree. Right now we are
passing legislation in response to the terrorist attacks. These airline
industry workers were laid off as a result of these attacks. The
linkage is direct.
We must act today. There is no reason to delay assistance any longer.
We acted quickly to provide $40 billion in response to the terrorist
attacks and the cleanup of Manhattan. That was the right thing to do.
And we acted quickly to shore up the airlines with $15 billion, and
that was the right thing to do. Now is the time to do something for
workers. A vote at 1:35 this afternoon is the first opportunity since
the terrorist attack that we will have to invest in our workers, the
heart and the soul of America. I have collaborated with my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle drafting this amendment. We have come up
with a reasonable proposal. Now I am asking simply that my colleagues
allow the Senate to vote on this proposal. This amendment deserves an
up-or-down vote. I hope the Senate does the right thing this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the Senator from
Missouri by saying, first of all, I don't think this is a question of
whether we are going to respond to people who have been affected by the
events of September 11. The question is how best to respond to that. As
she noted, the President has a proposal that is going to broadly deal
with the problems of unemployment associated with the attacks on
September 11. But the question here is whether we are going to focus on
extending unemployment benefits, as the proposed amendment does, or are
we going to get people back to work? It seems to me these people would
much prefer to get their jobs back, to get back to the routines they
enjoyed prior to September 11, rather than focusing for a long time on
extending unemployment benefits, having to buy health insurance under
COBRA, and having to be retrained for a different job.
My guess is these people would be very happy just to get the old job
back doing the same work they were doing before. That is why I think we
have the focus wrong.
I have proposed, and I am going to be urging my colleagues to very
seriously consider, as part of the economic stimulus package a tax
credit to get people traveling again. The problem is people are not
traveling. If we had as much travel today, 1 month after this event, as
we did on the day of September 11, all of the people we are concerned
about under this amendment would have their jobs. We would not be
worried about unemployment benefits. We would not be worried about
training them to do a different kind of job. They would have the same
job they had exactly a month ago. So shouldn't we be trying to get the
American public back to the habits it had prior to September 11? And
that specifically relates to travel. There is no question that of all
of the economy, the travel industry is the most hard hit by the attack.
That should be obvious to everyone. It seems to me it should also be
obvious, if we are going to talk about benefiting that segment of the
economy, either to help the people who were unemployed as a result of
it or to stimulate the economy, what we need to do is focus on the air,
where the patient is hurting the most.
The patient was hurting on September 11. Our economy was not in good
shape. You could say we had a case of pneumonia. We were going to be
getting better over time, of course. We were going to be treating it
with antibiotics, but that was the condition then. Since then what has
happened, if you want to have a gruesome analogy, is we had an accident
in which the arm was practically cut off. We are bleeding to death, and
we have to stop the bleeding in that the part of the body that is
hurting the most and that is the travel industry.
So why aren't we focusing our efforts on getting that industry back
going again? That will save the jobs of the people who want nothing
more than to go back to work. My proposal gives a tax credit for the
people to travel. It says if you make a financial commitment to travel
before the end of this year, you get a tax credit of $500 on

[[Page 19443]]

your 2001 taxes; if it is a joint filing, $1,000. That is enough to
stimulate people to get back into the habits they had prior to
September 11. All you have to do is make that financial commitment. It
can be air travel, automobile, or bus. It can be a reservation at the
hotel. We have people who are hurting far more than just people who
worked at airports--from the maid who makes up the bed in the hotel to
someone who, frankly, was working at Boeing aircraft making airplanes;
they are not making them because nobody is buying them and because
people aren't traveling--all the way from A to Z. We have people
throughout our economy--about one in seven jobs in the civilian
sector--who are adversely affected by the events of a month ago.
Throughout the economy, the ripple effect of these attacks is
incredible.
I talked to the CEO of Phelps-Dodge Corporation, a copper company in
Arizona. They had a big contract with Boeing to supply a special alloy
metal used in making airplanes. We need to think about the impact of
what occurred throughout the economy. It is not just people who work at
airports on whom we ought to be focusing; we ought to be focusing on
the economy broadly and on everybody affected by the travel industry.
How do you directly deal with that problem in the quickest way that
gets the people their jobs back? You do that by providing some kind of
incentive for people to resume the habits they had exactly a month ago.
I haven't heard a better idea than the one I proposed with this tax
credit. When you file your taxes for 2001 and calculate your tax
liability to the Government, and you subtract $1,000, that is a pretty
good incentive. You wouldn't have to travel before the end of the year
as long as you made your financial commitment to do so. You could be
traveling next Easter. It could be tourism; it could be business; it
could be just going to visit somebody; it could be visiting a sick
relative--whatever it is.
People are now disinclined to travel primarily because they are
unsure of the safety of the airline industry. They are unsure generally
of what is in our future. Frankly, they need to get back into the habit
of doing what they did before September 11 or terrorists will have won.
The purpose of terrorism is to demoralize. It is to change for all of
America the way we conduct our society and our culture. That is their
effort. They are going to succeed in that if we simply throw up our
hands and say, well, for all of the people who are out of work, we
might as well find something else for them to do because we will never
get back to the way we were before September 11.
I reject that. We can get back to the way it was before September 11.
A lot of things are going to change. We have to convince the American
public that it is safe to travel. If we can't do that, we are not doing
our jobs.
I have been on six separate commercial air trips since the events on
September 11--flying back home and then back to Washington. I believe
it is safe to travel. I think it is safer to travel than prior to a
month ago.
We have to pass legislation that convinces the American public that
they can travel safely. Then I think we have to provide them some
financial incentive because of our general economic conditions. That
incentive would be to get them to go back to traveling, and to do so
quickly. If we wait for all of this work throughout the system for a
couple of years, then everybody is going to be the loser. We will have
all of these people unemployed. We will have to pay additional benefits
in health care and retrain them to do something else. It would be far
easier, less disruptive, better for the economy, and, frankly, better
for the psyche of the Nation to get back to the place we were a month
ago where people who lost jobs could go back to doing what they were
doing before.
It seems to me that instead of hastily acting on the proposal that
only applies to a narrow segment of our society--frankly, a minority of
the people who have been harmed by the attacks on September 11, a
minority of the people who have been harmed as a direct result of the
American public traveling less--let's do two other things: Let's take a
look at what the President proposed in the way of benefits for people
who have lost their jobs but is broader based in approach; second,
let's get the American public traveling again.
I urge my colleagues, as we are putting together this so-called
stimulus package, to differentiate between all of those wonderful ideas
that have been trotted out and proposing all kinds of things to spend
money for or cutting taxes that we think will have some long-term
effect on the economy--distinguishing between those proposals, on the
one hand, and others which can immediately and directly stimulate the
economy in the precise areas where it is needed the most.
What area needs it the most? The travel industry. What area was hit
the hardest by the attack last month? The travel industry. What area,
therefore, should we be focusing on? The travel industry. If we do
that, we are not going to have to worry about extending unemployment
benefits because we will get these people back to work.
Isn't that far better than focusing and, in effect, saying there is
nothing we can do about it and we might as well decide right now to
extend all of these unemployment benefits and retrain people to do some
different job? I think they would rather go back to the job they were
doing a month ago. That is what I propose we do.
Two things: No. 1, defeat this amendment. I think we ought to focus
on the President's proposal instead; and, No. 2, we ought to agree that
we have to have in the stimulus package something that will stimulate
trade quickly.
If somebody can come up with better idea than a tax credit proposal,
I welcome it. In the meantime, that is what is on the table.
I urge my colleagues to support this as a way of stimulating travel,
of getting people back to work again, and of denying the terrorists the
victory they sought of demoralizing the American people.
We will not be demoralized. We will not be defeatists and say we are
going to have to change our way of doing things by putting people on
the unemployment rolls and retraining them to do something else. I
reject that. We have to deny the terrorists the victories they sought.
I think the way I propose to do it is the best way.
With all due respect of my friend from Missouri, I think her
proposal--I understand why it is being put together--is not the best
medicine for what we are facing today.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to support the
amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator
Carnahan.
I have been listening to some of the discussion this morning.
Frankly, I believe there is much value on both points of view to
commend. I think we err if we consider some of these proposals to be
either/or propositions.
This last Monday, the senior Senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone,
arranged a hearing in Minnesota on the effects of the September 11
disasters on people of our State. It was an excellent hearing. It
lasted for about 3 hours. We had representatives from the business
community testify about their needs, including the head of the Carlson
corporation, one of the largest travel firms in America, headquartered
in Minnesota. Marilyn Carlson Nelson spoke very eloquently about the
need for the kind of assistance that my good friend and colleague,
Senator Kyl from Arizona, just described. We also heard from a number
of the workers who were affected in Minnesota by the events and the
aftermath of the events of September 11.
As you may know, in my home State of Minnesota, Northwest Airlines is
one of the largest employers within the State. It employs over 21,000
Minnesotans. It has operations worldwide. It has an enormous impact on
our State's economy. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11
bombings, they announced the layoff of over 4,500 Minnesotans. These
are men and women

[[Page 19444]]

from all backgrounds and walks of life--corporate executives to
mechanics, to airline attendants, to stewardesses. It also affected
people in the ancillary businesses that relate to the airline industry:
Carpet cleaners, food processors, delivery men and women.
The hearing underscored the urgency and the precariousness of many of
these people's situations. People want to be working; there is no
question about that. They don't want to be out of a job. They don't
want to be drawing unemployment benefits or receiving other kinds of
assistance. But the hard reality is they are out of work today. Their
prospects of being called back to work tomorrow are somewhere in
between slim and none.
I agree with the Senator from Arizona that the object here is to get
these people back into their previous employment. I think we have taken
some important steps in that direction.
We provided emergency aid to the airline industry in the form of
immediate cash assistance and in the form of loan guarantees which the
Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from South Carolina and
other colleagues have been marshaling through this body. But that is
not going to get these people back to work tomorrow. It is not going to
meet their need for emergency assistance until they do.
We heard from, particularly women, including one I remember
distinctly. I remember on Monday, an Ethiopian woman--the mother of
eight children--who works, along with her husband. She works in the
sector providing food services to airplanes. She lost her job. Because
she worked there an insufficient length of time, she is not eligible to
receive unemployment benefits from the State of Minnesota. She lost her
health coverage for herself and her family of eight children when she
was laid off of work. She is not receiving any unemployment assistance
today. She receives no health care assistance for herself and her
family.
So my question to those who oppose this amendment is, what happens to
them? What happens to people who at this point are not even receiving
any unemployment assistance or any health care assistance? It is bad
enough that we are going to deprive those who do qualify today for an
abbreviated period of 26 weeks, at which point they are going to lose a
continuation of their unemployment benefits, of their health care
coverage, but what about the people--and I was amazed at this hearing
last Monday to realize that there are a great number of people in
Minnesota, and I assume then across the country, since we are one of
the best States in the Nation of covering people and making people
eligible for these assistances--what is going to happen to this woman
with eight children, and to others like her--thousands of others across
this country--who are not even today receiving any unemployment
benefits, who today do not have any health care coverage? What is going
to happen to them if we do not take this action today?
I must say, I am also, frankly--``disappointed'' would be a mild
word--I am really shocked that this body is suddenly so stingy when it
comes to providing the help and assistance that real people, working
people, people who are among the hardest working strivers in our
society--suddenly when it is their turn to receive some necessary help,
the cupboard is bare or the budget does not provide for assistance, or
we just do not have enough money to provide help for them.
Two weeks go, my colleagues and I in the Senate joined--I believe it
was almost unanimous--together to provide help to bail out the airline
industry. Prior to that vote, we were told there was not enough time to
come to an agreement on the Carnahan amendment to add assistance for
the workers to the assistance we were providing to the corporations who
run these airlines.
As I said, I am very sympathetic to their plight because Northwest
Airlines is one of the largest and most important employers in the
State of Minnesota. But it was my understanding --and in hindsight, I
guess I was maybe mistaken to have relied upon the assurances that were
given to us prior to that vote--I relied on those assurances that there
would be a subsequent package that would have bipartisan support
sufficient to pass it that would be in support of the Carnahan
amendment.
On that basis, I, and most of the Senate, if not all of the Senate,
voted in favor of that legislation. And I am glad I did. But now,
frankly, I am shocked to find out that agreement does not suffice, and
that even after we have taken this Carnahan amendment--and I commend
the distinguished Senator from Missouri for her hard work on this,
along with others, and for the dialogue that they have had across the
aisle--but the fact is, this has gone from over a $3 billion price
tag--I think close to $5 billion initially; after costed out, to $3
billion--and now I am told it is $1.9 billion. We continue to pare it
back. Yet we, possibly, do not have sufficient support today to adopt
it.
That means I go back to that Ethiopian mother of eight children and
say: Sorry, you just have to make it somehow without any benefits. You
have to make it somehow without any health coverage for your family. We
don't have enough money to do that, but we have enough money to provide
loan guarantees and financial assistance to the corporations.
We also, according to what I am reading today, have the debate
upcoming on economic stimulus. We are going to have an administration
proposal supported by many of the very people who oppose this
assistance for workers. According to the Washington Post today, that is
going to cost revenue between $90 billion and $120 billion in the year
2002. This includes a provision allowing business to write off 30
percent of the value of their new assets. It would reduce revenue by
$48 billion in this year.
They want to speed up the phasing in of the tax reductions, passed
last spring, for the very wealthiest people in this society, bring
those rates down, accelerate the elimination of the estate tax, as
though encouraging people to--what?--die sooner, and that is going to
stimulate our Nation's economy?
We hear, on the one hand, we have all this extra money available for
these kinds of very questionable tax breaks that are certainly going to
benefit the wealthy. They are going to benefit already profitable
corporations, who are maybe going through a difficult period of time
but, frankly, are still going to do just fine; but there isn't enough
money here to provide for that mother back in Minnesota with eight
children because it is not that we do not have the money, but that we
do not have the heart to do it.
So again, I say to Senator Carnahan, congratulations on a job very
well done. I hope the amendment will receive the kind of consideration
from our colleagues today that enables it to be adopted because I,
frankly, think if we do not do so, if we do not even follow suit with
what the President, to his credit, is supporting, that we are going to
go back to a very serious divide in this body and in this country
between those who somehow qualify for these additional considerations
at this point in time and the real people, people who are really down
and out, through no choice or fault of their own.
Are we going to say, sorry, we are not going to help you, not because
we do not have the money to do so but because we do not have the will
to do so? I think that would be cruel and unusual punishment for them.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe it would be appropriate to
ask unanimous consent that I may introduce an amendment, two amendments
on the Aviation Security Act. It may be necessary to set aside the
Carnahan amendment for an opportunity to introduce two amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

[[Page 19445]]

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may
introduce one amendment that I don't believe is controversial. It
covers the issue of allowing pilots to continue to fly until the age of
63.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is
asking that we object to every unanimous consent request regarding
offering of amendments. Will the Senator withhold to let me see if I
can get a procedure by which the Senator from Alaska can offer the
amendment.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1863, which is
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Reserving the right to object, this amendment, as I
understand it, is the first amendment that will be unrelated to the
bill. I don't want to comment further on that. We are going to have our
cloture vote at 1:35. I object, at least for this period of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I may ask unanimous consent
that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for about 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

THE NEED FOR PILOTS TO HAVE GUNS IN THE COCKPIT

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it was my intent to call up two
amendments. But there is objection. As a consequence, I will use this
opportunity to discuss the merits since I will not be offering the
amendments now. They have already been filed at the desk. It is my
intent, at the appropriate time, without objection, to ask for a
recorded vote on the amendments. I want to speak on the application of
the amendments and the importance of the amendments.
One of the amendments seeks to address the issue of what we do with
our commercial aviation safety relative to the reality that we do put
our lives in the hands of the pilot in command--and the copilot, to a
degree, depending on who has control of the aircraft. With the limited
knowledge that we have relative to the two aircraft that went into the
World Trade Center, and looking back at the apparent effort by
passengers and, perhaps, some members of the crew, to try to take over
the aircraft that went down in Pennsylvania, one clearly can project
what the outcome might have been had the captain of any of those
aircraft had a handgun in the cockpit, available for such a set of
circumstances.
It reminds me of an occasion with a little different circumstance. I
will try to put it in the vein in which it was communicated to me. It
is not an exact parallel, but it represents a reality associated with a
handgun emergency. My wife and I were in New York a number of years ago
and had been to the theater and were going back to our hotel in the
financial district. As the taxicab came to a stoplight with several
other cabs, there was a policeman with his baton tapping on the
windows.
The cabbie rolled down the window and the policeman said: How is your
fare?
He said: Fine. And then the window was rolled up and the taxicab went
on.
I asked the cabbie: What was that all about?
He said: We have had a number of robberies and a couple of taxicab
drivers have been murdered in New York, so we are tightening up
security.
We went on for a while, and I casually said: Have you ever had a
problem?
He said: Only once.
I asked him what the problem was. He said he was taking a couple
somewhere and felt a little uneasy because they didn't seem to know
where they were going. He took them to an area, and he decided the best
thing he could do would be to let the fares out. There were two women
and a man. As he told them to get out of the cab, suddenly he felt a
razor at his neck. They said: Turn over your wallet, and all the money
you have.
He said: I can't until I get out of the cab. They had to move at that
time so they could get out of the back seat and he could get out of the
front seat. As he did, he reached under the seat and pulled out a
pistol. The next time they confronted him, they were looking right at
the end of his barrel.
I asked him: What did you do then?
This is the part of the story that is really not apropos.
He said: I lined them up to the fence and robbed them.
I thought that was an interesting turn of events.
I said: Did you report it?
He said: Well, no, I didn't have a permit for the gun.
That is a little story that I think applies, at least in the sense
that had the pilot in command had the availability of a gun, things
might have been entirely different. One of my amendments seeks to arm
pilots of commercial aircraft with handguns, and I think the
justification for that speaks for itself.
We put our lives in the hands of a pilot. Aviation security is of
vital importance to our Nation's security, our economy, and we have
learned a lot since the tragic events since September 11 about how much
our Nation depends on our freedom to move about our country. We also
rely, obviously, on our lifeline of shipments and products. Most
importantly, our citizens rely upon the airlines for safe transit
around the country and throughout the world.
I think it is our duty to ensure that they are traveling safe and
secure, and their confidence by our efforts will decide the future of
air travel in our Nation and, in turn, the health of our country.
Throughout this debate, we must remember that, as each passenger boards
a commercial airliner, they first look toward the cockpit. They look
toward the cockpit and the flight crew for their immediate security,
because we all know that they, indeed, have our lives in their hands
and they are trained and competent. When the plane rises into the sky
and the wheels tuck away into the underbelly of the aircraft, it is the
pilot, copilot, and sometimes the navigator--the entire flight crew--
who serve as the last line of defense and security for that aircraft
and the passengers therein.
So we as legislators, and as passengers, trust the flight crew with
our safety and security. We must ensure that they have the tools to
compete, if you will, and to complete the task. For this reason, I have
an amendment at the desk, which I will not call up at this time, but I
intend to do so when there is no objection. This amendment would be to
the Aviation Safety Act, and it would allow pilots, copilots, and in
the case of navigators on commercial aircraft the ability and authority
to carry a handgun while in flight for the defense of the plane.
We are talking about putting air marshals on the aircraft, aren't we?
We are talking about allowing them to be armed. The authority of an air
marshal currently on an aircraft indeed suggests that that individual
is armed. You can't put air marshals on all flights, but you can
provide the authority for the captain and copilot to carry a handgun in
the cockpit.
I think this is, first and foremost, really an effort to increase the
level of safety aboard our commercial fleets. It is intended to give
crew members the weapons and the necessary skills to thwart future
hijacking attempts and to assist Federal sky marshals assigned to
commercial aircraft.
I don't take this amendment lightly. My amendment does not cavalierly
attempt to hand out guns to flight crews

[[Page 19446]]

and simply wish them the best. Because of the September 11 tragedy, and
the tactics used by the hijackers that day, we must change the way
aircraft and passengers are protected, and I believe my amendment
contributes to that effort because it provides for strict and thorough
background checks on all individuals who would be armed under this
provision.
Secondly, it would require that flight deck personnel attend a
training program approved by the Secretary of Transportation in
consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies.
My amendment also requires annual recertification to ensure that
flight deck personnel maintain a high level of training.
Third, this amendment deputizes flight deck personnel who have passed
training certification. This is a critical component, and this
amendment is necessary because it is imperative to keep the crew
protected and in control of the craft, but it is carefully tailored to
limit authority to cockpit protection.
As many in this Chamber are aware, there is a large percentage of
pilots who have served in the military. Many have served in law
enforcement. In fact, many also serve as Reservists in different
branches of the military. These pilots have been trained in the use of
weaponry. Why not utilize the trained personnel we already have?
I am not alone in this. The Airline Pilots Association supports this
concept. They have written to the FBI requesting a program to train
cockpit personnel, and I have heard from many pilots, particularly in
my State of Alaska and around the country, who support it.
Frankly, many of our aircraft in Alaska fly in the bush and carry
guns on the aircraft in control of the captain. It is done for a number
of reasons, primarily not associated with terrorism, but simply the
reality if you have an accident, if you go down in an isolated area,
you damn well better have a gun for your own survival and that of your
passengers. Why not further enhance the chances of passenger and
aircraft survival.
I applaud the administration and this Congress for moving quickly to
secure the cockpit cabins and adding the sky marshals who, obviously,
will have guns, improving airport perimeter security, training
screening personnel, and increasing flight deck security. But we must
also afford passengers the utmost security after the plane has cleared
the runway. Arming pilots is not the only solution, but it is an
important component because it might have resulted in those aircraft
not reaching the tragic end they did.
The pilots know what they need. The pilots have spoken. The
passengers certainly will support it, and the Congress should pass it.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment when it does come
up and is not objected to and the entire Aviation Security Act.
There is one other amendment I wish to talk about but which I am not
prepared to offer because of the objection, but I plan to offer an
amendment that would repeal the Federal Aviation Administration rule
which requires pilots who fly under part 121 to retire at age 60. It
might be a good thing if we had to retire around here at age 60, but
obviously there is no check and balance on the Senate, but there is on
pilots.
If you are 60, you are through. How ridiculous is that? This was
something that was done many years ago. I would much rather fly with an
experienced pilot who has lived to 60, and the fact that suddenly he
turns 60 and he is no longer fit to fly is totally unrealistic. The
hours gained and the experience gained provides a level of safety with
which we all feel more comfortable.
If you fly with a person who has limited hours, who may be very young
and very quick, they may not have the experience to know what to do
under certain conditions, mechanical, weather, or otherwise.
This amendment seeks to end blatant age discrimination against our
Nation's commercial pilots. Under the amendment I propose, pilots who
pass the physical and are in excellent health will be allowed to
continue to pilot commercial aircraft until their 63rd birthday. This
is optional. They do not have to. They can retire at 60. We are
offering an extension.
The amendment will also allow the FAA to require pilots to undergo
additional medical and cognitive testing for certification as well as
established standards for crew pairings. In many European countries you
can fly until 65. What is the difference?
This measure was the subject of a full Commerce Committee hearing and
was voted out of committee by a majority in March of this year. This
issue has had a hearing.
Why does the FAA mandate pilots retire at 60? Good question.
According to the agency, it is because of ``medical uncertainties
concerning pilot health after the age of 60.'' That was a long time
ago. We live longer. We are in better health. We have regular
physicals.
There are other theories. While public comments were accepted, no
public hearing to debate the issue was ever held. Think of that. While
public comments were accepted by the FAA, no public hearing to debate
the issue was held. Despite broad industry, pilot and union opposition,
the rule went into effect in 1960. The union supported it then. They
wanted the pilots to be allowed to fly longer.
Since that time, we have seen studies sponsored by the FAA. None
produced concrete evidence that pilots over 60 years of age are a
threat to the flying public. In fact, the studies have not even
included pilots over 60. Why? The FAA believes it lacks scientific
consensus, whatever that means, in favor of changing the age 60 rule.
The argument exists that there is no test that can determine the
medical and psychological fitness of a pilot to fly after 60. However,
advanced physiological and neurobehavioral testing methods do exist to
test pilots of any age.
Today, simulator training data estimates the risk of incapacitation
due specifically to cardiac complaint as only one event in more than 20
million flight hours. Sudden in-flight incapacitation is clearly a far
less threat to aviation safety than are mishaps due to, what?
Inexperienced pilot error, those pilots who are younger and who simply
do not have the time, experience and know-how to recover from
situations that can occur.
Medical science has vastly improved since 1959 with improvements in
diagnosis which include early detection, prevention, health awareness,
exercise, and diet. All of these factors have increased life expectancy
since 1959.
Airline pilots consistently demonstrate superior task performance
across all age groups when compared to age-matched nonpilots. Pilots
are also subjected to comprehensive medical examinations, when? Every 6
months.
In the 42 years since the rule was promulgated, there has not been
any evidence shown that pilots over age 60 are not fully capable of
handling their flight responsibilities. As many of my colleagues are
aware, up until the end of 1999, pilots were allowed to fly past the
age of 60 in commuter operations.
This amendment also brings to mind several other pieces of
legislation. During the debate on the Senior Citizens' Right to Work
Act of 2000, Senators supported the notion that workers today live
longer, are healthier, and live more productive lives, and that senior
workers are an invaluable resource to our Nation.
When enacting the Experienced Pilot Act of 1978, Congress stated that
the age 60 rule is arbitrary and discriminatory on its face. It
deprives qualified individuals of the right to continue in their
occupation and, at the same time, deprives the airlines of their most
qualified and experienced employees.
The time has come for Congress to repeal the age restrictions for
commercial pilots. We have had the hearings, and we have the need.
Years of medical and safety data have failed to support the position
that the chronological age of 60 represents a passenger safety concern.
Therefore, as long as pilots can pass the rigorous medical exam, he or
she should be allowed to fly.
We are proposing this only until age 63. We will evaluate the
program, obviously, after that time. Air service is critical, as we
know, to keeping commerce alive. Experienced airmen are

[[Page 19447]]

especially critical in rural States. In my State of Alaska, we have a
huge land mass, one-fifth the size of the United States. Many of our
smaller carriers provide the training ground for pilots and then
suddenly those pilots leave to go work for the larger airlines. We are
constantly experiencing a level of experience that lends itself
occasionally to accidents as a consequence of the inexperience. We want
to keep pilots, and if we could even bring some back who are over 60
and want to keep flying in the commuter area, I think it would be
beneficial.
It is time we end age discrimination once and for all and keep
experience in the cockpit. I recognize some of the unions are a little
jumpy on this one, but those pilots in the right seat, the copilots,
are going to want to fly a little longer when they get a little older,
too. So this thing can all level out.
The difference between the unions on this issue and the airlines is
it is a business decision, a matter of retirement. What we are talking
about is a need for these pilots to fly. They are healthy. Give them
another 3 years, evaluate the program, and get the benefit of
experience.
I thank the Chair for the attention and the courtesies of allowing me
to finish, and at an appropriate time I want to advise the floor
managers I intend to offer the amendments that are at the desk for a
formal introduction and ask for rollcall votes at that time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter dated October 1, 2001, from Alaska Airlines pilot Carroll John
Campbell.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Chugiak, AK, October, 1, 2001.
Hon. Senator Robert Smith,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: I am writing in response to a
conversation I had with one of your staff members concerning
aviation safety. My name is Carroll John Campbell. I am an
airline pilot with Alaska Airlines. The recent change in the
tactics of hijackers aboard our aircraft have necessitated a
change in our response as an airline crew and as a traveling
public. Today, one has to believe that if a terrorist
breaches the cockpit, which is easy, they are going to kill
everyone on board the aircraft and any number of people on
the ground. Our current security procedures lack the ability
to stand in the way of these atrocities. New, stronger
cockpit doors are a must, and even those may be compromised.
In this event, the only thing standing between the airplane
and our friends and families on the ground is the flight
crew.
Lethal weapons are the surest means of defense. Handguns
are our best option. Non-lethal weapons such as stun guns are
of limited value in a phone booth sized compartment when
fighting a knife. I would much rather have the knife.
Current FAR's (108.11) authorize crews to be armed.
However, the FAA and airline policy double team the pilot to
keep us unarmed. We need new fool proof legislation that
guarantees any pilot who wants to be armed, can be armed.
I will be happy to work with your office to draft this
legislation. The public is finally demanding our incapable
security system be fixed after these horrendous attacks on
Sept. 11, 2001. Please don't let them down.
Sincerely,
Carroll John Campbell.

____________________

AVIATION SECURITY ACT--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, the assistant
majority leader, is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the next 55 minutes we are under
controlled time, controlled by the majority and minority leaders. So if
anyone desires to speak on this very important matter which will occur,
as I said, in 55 minutes--each side has an equal amount of time--I will
yield to whomever wants to speak.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. We have plenty of time. I ask the Senator from New York,
how much time does the Senator wish to use?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 25 minutes 48 seconds remaining on
the Democratic side.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I expect to consume 5 minutes or less.
Mr. REID. On behalf of the majority leader, Senator Rockefeller will
yield the time until the vote occurs, or if Senator Hollings comes in,
he will yield the time.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I do not want to impinge upon the time
of my good friend, Senator Rockefeller.
Mr. REID. No. Please go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise again in support of the amendment
offered by Senator Carnahan to provide immediate assistance to the over
100,000 airline workers and those in aviation-related industries who
have been laid off and lost their jobs as a direct result of the
terrorist attacks of September 11.
I just came from a very moving ceremony of commemoration at the
Pentagon, where the lives of those military and civilian employees at
the Pentagon, as well as the lives of the crew and passengers of the
airplane that was mercilessly driven into the Pentagon, were honored.
I know we are working on other kinds of relief, and I am grateful to
the President, the administration, and my colleagues for the work that
is being done on the economic stimulus package and for the work that is
being done with respect to unemployment insurance and dislocated
workers' assistance, but I believe we have an obligation to move
quickly with respect to the workers who have been laid off through no
fault of their own or of their industry, and we cannot wait for the
larger packages to be put together and negotiated.
Just as we must provide security to all Americans who are flying in
our skies, we also should provide economic security to those who have
supported us in the hundreds of thousands and millions of flights that
were a matter of course before September 11. They were doing an
important job in maintaining our free travel and supporting an
important economic activity, and now they are confronting the cruelest
kind of questions: How will they make their next car payment? How will
they be able to afford the clothes their children might need? How will
they know whether to go out and look for another job or hope and wait
that business picks up on our airlines? I do not think we should be
leaving our workers who have already been laid off. They need our help
right now. I do agree we have to address the need to help all workers.
In New York, for example, the State labor department is estimating
that 285,000 workers throughout New York will lose their jobs as a
result of the attack we suffered. I do not think we should leave any of
these workers behind. If we are trying to build confidence--confidence
in consumers, confidence in citizens--then we should address the needs
of those people who have been economically harmed by these attacks. I
respect the work that others are undertaking. I will support that.
I ask this Chamber to send a message by voting in favor of Senator
Carnahan's amendment that we are not going to just bail out airlines;
we are not just going to protect the traveling public. We are going to
help protect economically those who we hope will be back in the skies,
back behind the counters, handling the baggage.
I met yesterday with a group of executives from the travel and
tourism industry. Stories from them about the low occupancy rates, the
fact that people are not traveling for business or pleasure, were very
disturbing to me. Everyone knows we have real economic challenges. The
last thing in the world we need is people who are scared to go about
their daily business, who are scared to take that long-planned trip to
Disney World, who are scared to fly across the country to show off
their new baby to their mother or grandmother.
Until we can get that confidence up--and I applaud our wonderful
leadership

[[Page 19448]]

of Chairman Hollings and Ranking Member McCain on the aviation security
bill--until we can get that confidence once again moving forward so
people will fly, we can't turn our backs on those men and women who
were the backbone of this airline industry.
I hope every Senator will support the Carnahan amendment and do
everything possible to demonstrate our concern and commitment to those
who were on the front lines and lost their jobs and livelihood because
of the terrorist attacks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New York for
her statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
West Virginia controls the time.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator
from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding time
and commend my colleague from New York for her statement. What she has
heard in traveling about her State and the Nation I have heard in
Illinois. During the last 2 weeks I had roundtables across my State,
from the city of Chicago to major cities downstate, bringing in
business and economic leaders and saying, what can we do at this moment
to breathe life back into this economy? They have said, restore
consumer confidence. We have to get people back into the stores and
making decisions for purchases.
The Carnahan amendment which we are going to consider today takes an
unfortunate group of people related to the aviation industry, who have
been disadvantaged by being laid off or terminated, and says we are
going to try to give them a hand to get back on their feet as quickly
as possible.
A few weeks ago when President Bush suggested we help the aviation
industry, I was happy to do it. We have 50,000 people in the
Chicagoland area who work in aviation in some way, shape, or form. We
are proud to be the home of United Airlines, a major hub for American
Airlines, and now the business headquarters for Boeing aircraft. With
that sensitivity, I voted for that bill, understanding that unless we
got the airlines back on their feet, it was unlikely the economy would
respond. So we gave some $5 billion in grants and $10 billion in loans
to the industry.
The sad part was the bill was passed in a hurry and didn't include
everything that should have been included. It did not include the
Carnahan amendment. Senator Jean Carnahan of Missouri has rightfully
stated that if we are going to help the companies, if we are going to
help the airlines, don't forget the employees. She notes, in preparing
for this bill, that some 140,000 people related to airlines and the
aviation industry may find themselves laid off as a result of the
September 11 terrorism attack against the United States.
I met with several flight attendants today who worked for Trans World
Airlines, now part of American Airlines. They were concerned about the
fact that 20 percent of their flight attendants have been laid off
already. We have seen 20,000 employees at United and American laid off,
and perhaps even more.
The heartening thing is people are flying again. I notice it in the
airports. I am glad to see it. We want to encourage more and more
people to take that trip, whether it is for business or for pleasure.
But in the meantime, over 100,000 of our fellow Americans in jobs
related to the aviation industry are struggling to survive.
Senator Carnahan's amendment addresses three particular areas that
need to be changed in the law to help these people. First and foremost,
eligibility for unemployment compensation. The 26-week eligibility
certainly may be enough, but Senator Carnahan suggests we give them
eligibility for an additional 52 weeks, if necessary. Most of them will
either be back at work or find another job before that, but giving them
the peace of mind that they will have unemployment compensation is
appropriate.
Second, she talks about training. Some of the people in the industry
may decide to go into another field--for one thing, into security. We
have talked about aviation security. We will need some of the best and
brightest working in our airports and all across this country to
protect the people and the traveling public. She includes in her
amendment a training provision. I think that makes sense as well.
The last point is one that not only makes sense for 140,000 aviation
industry employees, but it makes sense for every American. Senator
Carnahan wants to make certain that we help these laid-off employees
pay for their health insurance. When I was in Chicago, I talked to some
administrators of hospitals. They said if we reach a point where more
and more people are out of work and lose their health insurance, these
folks will turn up at the hospital sick, and they will be treated, but
the cost of their treatment will have to be absorbed by the hospital
and generally by everyone else paying health insurance premiums. It
makes sense, under the Carnahan amendment, to be sensitive to this, to
help the laid-off aviation and airline industry employees pay for their
health insurance.
A lot of Members have talked about how to get the economy moving
again. Believe me, by taking this group of employees and saying to
them, we are going to give you a helping hand, it has to help them,
their families, and our economy in general. Having said that, I will
vote for the Carnahan amendment. I hope my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle will join me.
I suggest further that there are many people in many other industries
who are also losing their jobs. A friend of mine who has a number of
hotels told me about the necessary cutbacks in employment at those
hotels. Many know that the people working in hotels, whether in food
service or working in room service, or trying to do the housekeeping,
have startup jobs. They are low paying jobs. And these folks are being
laid off. Many of them are facing very difficult times. I am glad the
President has suggested extending unemployment insurance. But we as a
Congress should be sensitive to this as well.
If you want to know how to stimulate America's economy, it is not by
leaving our friends, neighbors, and relatives by the side of the road
as we press forward. Bring them along on this journey. Bring them along
to see the economy's rebirth, which I believe will take place. It means
that Congress has to do something about it.
Frankly, let me tell you, a few of my colleagues, and only a few,
think the way to get the economy moving again is not to pay attention
to the unemployed and the laid off but rather those who are doing well
and are prosperous. They are suggesting we should, again, give tax cuts
to the wealthiest people in America. That is just incredible to my
mind, to suggest at this moment in our history we would show less
sensitivity to those who are out of work and more generosity to those
who are already doing extremely well.
I think if we are going to have tax cuts, they should be focused on
those in the lower and middle-income categories, the millions who have
been left behind by the original tax cut package which Congress passed
a few months ago, and others who need a helping hand. It is by
invigorating our economy in this way that I think we will see the
restoration of consumer confidence.
I hope this Congress not only passes the Carnahan amendment to help
the specific employees but goes on to pass an economic stimulus package
which can be helpful as well. How can we do it? One suggestion is a
moratorium on the FICA tax, a holiday on the FICA tax. It means a 7 or
8 percent increase in pay for every employee in America. That means
more money to take home when it is payday, more money to spend, I hope,
to get this economy moving. That is something that can be done quickly
and across the board.
The one thing Congress usually fails to do is come up with a solution
in a timely fashion. Sadly, we don't have time on our side. We have
started the holiday buying season and purchasing season across America.
We need to do

[[Page 19449]]

something this month, in October, or early November that will tell
people they are going to have more resources to deal with meeting the
needs of their family and planning for the holidays. That means doing
something immediately. Putting a moratorium on the FICA tax is one of
those things. It will be seen in the next paycheck. People will know it
instantly.
There are also suggestions of State sales tax holidays. That is
something we ought to explore. Of course, the Federal Government would
compensate the State and local governments for the loss of revenue from
sales tax, but it would mean a reduction in price of many products
which people might turn around and buy.
These are reasonable suggestions. I also think we ought to consider
in the economic stimulus package tax benefits to businesses which are
now making necessary investments in security. These investments are
important. They are absolutely critical in light of the September 11
attack, and we ought to help these businesses--whether it is in
surveillance cameras or additional security personnel. Unfortunately,
those acquisitions do not add to productivity; they just take from the
bottom line. If we can help businesses get through this, then they may
not be forced to lay off people because of the pressures they face as a
result of the recession we are currently experiencing.
So I say to my colleagues, as you consider all the possibilities of
what we might do this week, don't forget the people on the front line.
Don't forget the aviation and airline employees. We were good to their
companies when we should have been. I was happy to cast my vote that
way. But I believe we should not forget the men and women who make up
the employee workforce of the aviation and airline industry. I am going
to support the Carnahan amendment and recommend all my colleagues do
the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mrs. BOXER. May I ask my friend, would he be willing to yield me 3
minutes following completion of the remarks of my colleague? Would he
yield me 3 minutes once the Senator finishes?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Senator from California, there are at
least one, perhaps two Senators on this side of the aisle who wish to
speak.
Mrs. BOXER. Would they be willing to yield me the 3 minutes?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will agree to that if following the 8 minutes I
will have the opportunity to give Senator Allard 10 minutes, and then I
will take the rest of my time according to--let me just ask how much
time is remaining on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JOHNSON). There remains 23 minutes 48
seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I could have some time following the Senator from
California, I agree to that.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I can do this in less than 5 minutes because it feels
as if every day, day after day after day, week after week after week, I
have been on the floor to speak to the question of simple justice,
which is to make sure we provide help to aviation employees.
I am starting to regret that I just didn't hold up the $15 billion
package for the industry. I want to support the industry. I think it
was the right thing to do. But I knew then--I have been here long
enough--that this was some leverage that we had to make sure the
employees were included.
I don't think the aviation industry was exaggerating their
difficulty. We were very worried about what was going to happen, but I
knew we would have some leverage for employees. But on the basis of
commitments that had been made from other Senators that surely we were
going to help the employees, I thought: Let's go forward and help the
aviation industry. Surely there will not be any opposition to helping
the employees.
We have 4,500 Northwest employees out of work. There is also Sun
Country; there is Mesaba Airlines. There are other aviation employees
out of work as well. I find it hard to believe that we do not have
enough heart here to provide the help for them.
We have an aviation airline safety bill on the floor with Senator
Hollings providing great leadership. It is an important piece of
legislation and must be passed. It makes all the sense in the world to
support the Carnahan amendment. For people who are in a lot of economic
pain, the Carnahan amendment says do three things: No. 1, extend the
unemployment benefits up to a year; No. 2, since the economy is fluid
and some people may want to get skills for other jobs that are
available, make sure you have the workforce development; No. 3, and I
argue most important of all, since it is terrifying not only to be out
of work but to know in a couple of months you are not going to have any
health care coverage for yourself and your loved ones, provide up to 12
months of helping these families afford health care coverage for
themselves and their children.
Is this too much to support now? Instead, we have a second-degree
amendment. I will not get into ANWR. Some of my colleagues are so much
in a rush to help the oil industry, so much in a rush to do something
that is environmentally reckless--it doesn't have a heck of a lot to do
with what we need to do by way of having an independent energy policy--
anything that can be done to block help for hard-pressed employees who
are out of work. This doesn't make sense.
I was convinced 2 weeks ago when we passed this package for the
companies that there would not be any resistance at all. I said
yesterday--I will say it again--99.9 percent of the people in Minnesota
believe that we should not only help the industry, but we should be
helping the employees. Mr. President, 99 percent of the people in
Minnesota believe it is a matter of elementary justice and fairness.
Apparently too many Senators do not get it, and they are blocking this
assistance.
If this is the dividing line between Democrats and Republicans, I am
proud to be a Democrat. Better yet would be if we had the support of
every single Senator, which would be the right thing to do, but
apparently we have an all-out effort to block this package.
I wish my colleagues had such passion and had such a heart not to
oppose helping people who are flat on their backs but to help them
instead. And the Senator from Illinois is right. Actually the sooner we
do this the better because the fact is, we are in a recession in our
country. It is a deep recession. It has cut across a broad section of
the population--certainly in Minnesota, way beyond the aviation
industry. There are lots of small businesses and lots of other
employees--tourism, you name it--and the fact is, we need to pass an
economic stimulus package. We need to pass an economic stimulus package
that puts the purchasing power back into the hands of working
families--whether it be tax rebates vis-a-vis payroll tax that helps
them or whether it be a massive school construction program where we
repair buildings that have been crumbling and create jobs; whether it
be affordable housing and we create jobs; whether it be extending
unemployment benefits; getting the health care benefits; whether or not
we do a lot of other things that will help employees support their
families and buy in this economy.
The sooner the better. We ought to be supporting the Carnahan
amendment as an important first step.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for
3 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this country gives trade adjustment
assistance to workers when they lose their jobs due to trade. I support
that. We all seem to support that. But it is shocking to me that a
number of people in this Senate today do not support such

[[Page 19450]]

assistance because of terrorism, an attack on our country, on our
people, on our workers. It is stunning to me.
You will hear every excuse in the book about why it doesn't belong on
this bill. People cannot pay their mortgages; they have been laid off.
They cannot pay their health insurance; they have been laid off.
Let me read to you simply a letter that went out from one of my
airlines, American Eagle:

Unfortunately, due to the circumstances of this national
emergency which are beyond our control, it may be necessary
to close or reduce the size of some of our business
locations. This will cause some or all American Eagle
personnel at those locations to be laid off. Because American
Eagle's future rests on how well we can rebound from our
current situation, we cannot say at this time how long these
layoffs may last.

We gave the airlines a huge package. I supported it. I still support
it. But I assumed we would follow it up to help those people who make
those airlines run. I am shocked, stunned, and in disbelief that we are
not here as patriotic Americans, both sides of the aisle, standing up
for the patriotic workers who lost their jobs because of an attack on
the United States of America.
I will look at this vote very carefully. It will hurt my heart if we
don't win this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of my remaining
time to the Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.
(The remarks of Mr. Allen pertaining to the introduction of S. 1532
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Carnahan amendment which
addresses the issues faced by employees who have been dislocated as a
result of the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
While we have not yet determined the full impact of the events of
September 11 on our economy, the preliminary information from the
Department of Labor estimates that over 200,000 U.S. jobs were
eliminated in September. This includes a first-time unemployment claim
increase of over 7,700 jobs in my own State of Michigan. Expectations
are that the October unemployment claim numbers will be even higher.
Many of these workers were individuals employed in the airline and
travel related industries. The Carnahan amendment will help these
workers by providing extended income support, training benefits and
health care benefits.
The issue of assisting dislocated workers should have been addressed
last month when we passed legislation to assist the airline industry at
a price tag of $15 billion. But over the objections of many of us,
provisions to assist workers in the airline and travel industry were
taken out of the airline industry assistance bill. We cannot continue
to sit by idly while thousands of American workers lose their jobs
because of the actions of terrorists. We now have an opportunity to
assist workers who have been devastated economically by the tragic
events of September 11. Senators who oppose assisting those workers
should at least allow the Senate to debate the issue openly and vote
quickly on the bill on its merits.
The Carnahan amendment specifically addresses the current economic
situation of employees of airlines, commercial aircraft manufacturers,
suppliers to airlines and airports. This bill currently has bipartisan
support and over 35 cosponsors. I would like to commend Senator
Carnahan for her tireless efforts to assist dislocated workers.
The Carnahan amendment would provide individuals who exhaust their
26-week eligibility for State unemployment insurance an additional 20
weeks of cash payments funded entirely by the Federal Government. The
bill would also allow individuals who do not meet their States'
requirements for unemployment insurance to receive 26 weeks of
federally financed unemployment insurance.
The bill would also allow individuals who would not be expected to
return to their jobs within the airline industry to become eligible for
retraining benefits. Individuals who would not be expected to return to
their jobs, but who may find some alternative job within the airline
industry, would be eligible for upgrade training.
Finally under the provisions of the Carnahan amendment, the Federal
Government would fully reimburse eligible individuals for their COBRA
premiums so they can continue to be fully insured. Individuals who do
not qualify for COBRA and are otherwise uninsured would be eligible for
Medicaid with the Federal Government covering 100 percent of the
premiums. These health care benefits would last for a maximum of 12
months.
I can't stress enough the importance of assisting these dislocated
workers. The tragedy of September 11 has brought American families
closer together and given us all an opportunity to help those who have
been directly affected by the terrorist attacks. I hope that in the
Senate's newly found spirit of bipartisanship, we can agree to help
those American workers who urgently need our assistance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak for 3 additional minutes, for a total of 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, this Senate has acted swiftly and with
unity in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. We provided
$40 billion to begin the relief effort. We authorized the President to
use force in pursuing the terrorists and the nations that harbor them.
And we created a $15 billion relief package to help stabilize our
Nation's airlines.
I have been very proud of the manner in which this body has acted
over the last month, but we have not yet acted on behalf of the tens of
thousands of Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of these
attacks. Now is the time to do something for the workers.
Before we passed the airline stabilization bill, I came to this
Chamber on several occasions to argue on behalf of including assistance
to displaced workers as part of that package, but in an effort to pass
the bill expeditiously, I was asked to withhold my amendment. So I did.
That was the right thing to do.
We cannot delay any longer. Some of my colleagues have spoken in
opposition to my amendment, by arguing that we have already helped
airline workers by providing assistance to airlines. That is only half
right. By helping the airlines avoid bankruptcy, we saved many jobs.
However, we have not done anything for the families of the 140,000
airline industry employees who are losing their jobs despite the
airline stabilization package.
The $15 billion we gave to the airlines is not helping those families
pay their mortgage. That money is not helping them put food on the
dinner table. And that money certainly is not helping them pay for
health insurance for their families. The modest assistance provided in
this amendment will help these families deal with a tough situation.
There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are losing their
jobs. Some of my colleagues have asked why we should provide special
assistance to airline workers.
First, let me say, I am eager to work with President Bush and my
colleagues to provide assistance to all displaced workers as a part of
the economic stimulus package. This vote is not a choice between my
plan and the President's plan. We can do both. I believe we must
address airline workers separately, and now.
Furthermore, current law already treats some displaced workers
differently than others. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program
provides special benefits to workers who have lost their jobs as a
result of increased

[[Page 19451]]

imports. Over 1 million workers have benefitted from this program. I am
glad they did. But let's be clear; they received a better benefit
package than other laid off workers. If we can provide these benefits
to aid workers who lost jobs due to trade, can't we do so for workers
who lost their jobs due to terrorism?
The amendment we are about to vote on would provide similar benefits
to airline industry workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the
September 11 attacks.
The more than 140,000 airline industry employees who are being laid
off have been dealt a terrible blow. I don't know how many Members of
this body know what it is like to be a child in a family with a laid
off worker. I do. My grandparents, with whom I lived for many years,
when my parents worked, lived in this very city. I can recall a time
when my grandfather, a carpenter, came home and sat in the kitchen and
said to my grandmother: I have been laid off. I remember her tears, and
I remember their fears, as they did not know what the future held for
them.
It is time we gave to these workers of America's airlines a sense of
confidence that their future is assured. This is our chance to send a
message to the workers of America that we know they are facing hard
times, we want to help, and this Senate stands ready to take action.
It is not enough to say, wait for the next piece of legislation, and
the next after that. It is not enough to say that we have to move on to
other pressing business. This measure deserves an up-or-down vote on
its merits, not a filibuster.
I urge my colleagues to let the Senate vote on this amendment, and I
urge a vote in favor of cloture.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Carnahan for her
amendment. I congratulate her and express my appreciation for her
efforts on behalf of employees of the airlines who have suffered
directly as a result of Federal action.
I am sympathetic to the needs of the displaced workers who she and so
many of our colleagues want to address. I say this to the Senator: I
believe this issue has to be addressed. There are people who, as a
result of Federal action, were put out of work. That is a fact.
I cannot support this amendment. For one reason, Senator Hollings and
I made a commitment; and we made that commitment because, if we allow
one amendment that is not germane to this bill, then there is no reason
why we should not allow numerous others, which is the same reason why I
will oppose any other amendment, including the Murkowski-Smith
amendment.
But I hope we can work together. I think Senator Carnahan's amendment
needs to be narrowed dramatically. I think it can be addressed to
specific individuals who have been affected by Federal action. I
believe in the Senator's amendment there are some employees who are not
directly impacted who would receive help that may not be necessary.
I also submit that both the airlines and the employees needed to be
helped. We did give financial assistance to the airlines, and we do
need to move forward. I know the chairman shares my views that we need
to move forward on that issue.
I agree that we still need to provide assistance to workers who have
been laid off as a result of these attacks. The appropriate amount,
nature, and recipients of Federal assistance for the unemployed is a
difficult and inevitably contentious issue.
Last night Senator Gramm criticized the Carnahan amendment for being
unfairly narrow because it only helps certain industry sectors where
workers have been laid off as a result of the September 11 attacks and
does not address hotel workers, restaurant workers, transportation
service workers, travel agents, and many others whose layoffs can be
attributed to terrorist actions. I do not agree with that comment.
I understand that the benefits provided under the expanded trade
adjustment assistance model are over and above traditional unemployment
assistance available to other displaced employees.
In addition to concerns about the scope of the amendment--which may
be overinclusive in some respects and underinclusive in others--I think
there are very significant practical problems that render the amendment
fundamentally unworkable.
The Carnahan amendment charges the Department of Labor with paying
100 percent of eligible workers' COBRA premiums and suggests these
premiums be made directly to insurance providers. I understand,
however, that Labor simply has no mechanism in place for doing this.
Determining COBRA eligibility; verifying the amounts that are owed to
insurers on behalf of tens of thousands of workers; to whom it is owed;
and how it is to be paid is not something that can be turned around
overnight. If the intention is to provide laid off workers with
benefits in the near term, the Carnahan COBRA compensation mechanism
does not seem very workable to me.
But having addressed some of the concerns I have with it, let me
reiterate again, however, that I agree with what Senator Carnahan and
others are doing in trying to provide assistance to workers who have
been laid off as a result of the terrorist attacks.
I look forward to working with her and others.
I say to Senator Carnahan, no matter how this amendment is taken care
of--and I believe that the required 60 votes will not be obtained by
the sponsor of the amendment--the issue is not going away. I know that
Senator Hollings and I are committed to working with the Senator. We
have taken care of the shareholders and the airline executives and the
airlines themselves. Now we need to take care of the unfortunate
victims of this terrorist attack.
I hope Senator Carnahan recognizes that it is not out of a lack of
sympathy, but we simply have to move forward because the safety and
security of Americans on airliners is the most important and paramount
factor, and the reason why this legislation is on the floor, as we
speak--safety and security. That is why this amendment has to be
rejected at this time, in my opinion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is there time remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes remaining.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague, Senator
McCain. I support much of what is in the Carnahan amendment, but this
is not the right vehicle for it. It has not yet been determined how
much we need to do and how we should do it. We need to work that out.
I will be working with Senator Allen, Senator Carnahan, and others to
assure we have the help we need for displaced workers. Right now, if we
are going to keep jobs in the aviation industry, we need to pass the
Aviation Security Act. If something is going to keep the bill from
having the strong support of the Senate, then we will get bogged down
in that amendment.
Let's get these people back to work. The way we get them back to work
is for people in America to be secure in flying again. That is what our
bill will do. It is going to provide a security system that gives
people confidence that they will be safe when they fly. If we can bring
the people back to flying again, we will bring the jobs back on the
market. That is what these people want. They want to work for the same
airline, the aircraft manufacturing company or the hotel that they
left. The way to keep those jobs is to bring the public back to flying
again.
We want business as usual in our country. We want the economy to
stabilize. We want to get those people back on the job. They would
rather work than collect unemployment benefits. We can put them to work
if we can pass this aviation security bill. We are very close. If we
can keep from starting a process of having extraneous amendments on
this bill, we will be able to pass it because we will be able to take

[[Page 19452]]

amendments, vote on them, and pass the bill. I hope we will be able to
do that tonight.
I thank everybody who has cooperated so much on the bill. I look
forward to working on passage of the bill after we have taken the stand
that we will not allow extraneous amendments.
I ask the distinguished Senator from Arizona if it would be proper to
yield back the time and start the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). All time is yielded back. Under
the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Daschle
amendment No. 1855 to S. 1447, the Aviation Security bill:
Harry Reid, Bob Graham, Bob Torricelli, Jean Carnahan,
Jeff Bingaman, Maria Cantwell, Richard J. Durbin, John
Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Mark Dayton, Ben Nelson, Evan
Bayh, Tim Johnson, Russell Feingold, Kent Conrad, Tom
Daschle, Bill Nelson, Edward M. Kennedy, Barbara A.
Mikulski, and Paul Wellstone.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 1855 to S. 1447, a bill to improve aviation security, and
for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 293 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--44

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). On this vote, the yeas are 56,
the nays are 44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is clear a majority of the Senate
wants to act in favor of taking some action for those directly affected
by the shutdown of America's airlines after September 11. So if a
majority of the Senate has expressed their will, I strongly suggest we
sit down and negotiate a reasonable package. We did take care of the
airlines in a very generous package. Now we need to move forward with
an agreement that would get at least 60 votes so we can address the
needs and plight of 100,000 employees, at least, who have been rendered
unemployed by the September 11 events.
I voted to not invoke cloture on this amendment. I intend to work
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle so we can come up with a
reasonable package to compensate individuals who were directly affected
by an act of the Federal Government. That is what we are talking about.
That is what we are talking about. I always thought one of the
obligations of government was to care of those who were affected by
events and decisions beyond their control. It was a decision of the
Federal Government, and a right one, to shut down the airlines of
America, including 3 weeks at Reagan National Airport.
I want to work with my colleagues and get this legislation in a
package that can be agreed to by, hopefully, all, including the
administration. I believe very strongly we need to act on it. I don't
want to be repetitive except to say we should have a sense of urgency
about 100,000 employees who were rendered unemployed just as we did
over the plight of the airlines and their shareholders and executives,
as well as the American flying public.
Very shortly we will hopefully move to an amendment from Senator
Smith and Senator Murkowski. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, with the consent of the two managers of
the bill, we have three people who wish to speak on the vote that just
took place. I ask unanimous consent Senators Dodd, Cantwell, and Reid
be allowed to speak for a total of up to 15 minutes, and prior to that,
Senator Murkowski will introduce his amendment. As soon as we finish
with the three speeches, we will move to the Smith-Murkowski amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I failed to acknowledge we still have
pending the Carnahan amendment. So what I would ask in the consent is
we temporarily set aside the Carnahan amendment; that we go to the
Murkowski amendment, but at such time as the majority leader, who
offered the amendment on behalf of Senator Carnahan, comes to the
floor, that he be recognized to take whatever appropriate action on the
underlying amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.

Amendment No. 1863

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, it is my intention to propose
amendment No. 1863, about which I have already spoken at some length.
This particular amendment allows, under the circumstances, the
extension to commercial airline pilots the right to fly beyond the age
of 60 to the age of 63. It is my intention to ask for a recorded vote
on the amendment.
I ask that the clerk report the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 1863.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish age limitations for airmen)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. AGE AND OTHER LIMITATIONS.

(A) General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
beginning on the date that is 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act--
(1) section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations shall not apply;
(2) no certificate holder may use the services of any
person as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under
part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, if that
person is 63 years of age or older; and
(3) no person may serve as a pilot on an airplane engaged
in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, if that person is 63 years of age or older.

[[Page 19453]]

(b) Certificate Holder.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``certificate holder'' means a holder of a certificate
to operate as an air carrier or commercial operator issued by
the Federal Aviation Administration.
(c) Reservation of Safety Authority.--Nothing in this
section is intended to change the authority of the Federal
Aviation Administration to take steps to ensure the safety of
air transportation operations involving a pilot who has
reached the age of 60, including its authority--
(1) to require such a pilot to undergo additional or more
stringent medical, cognitive, or proficiency testing in order
to retain certification; or
(2) to establish crew pairing standards for crews with such
a pilot.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, it is my understanding at a time
agreed upon by the floor leaders, Senator Smith will be recognized to
offer a first-degree amendment for himself as well as Senator Murkowski
regarding cockpit security, and no second-degree amendments will be in
order.
I further ask consent that there be 20 minutes for debate equally
divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of the
time, the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, is this the amendment we
anticipated coming up?
I have no objection.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Amendment No. 1855

Mr. DODD. Madam President, if I may, I want to take a couple of
minutes to express my disappointment at the Senate's failure to invoke
cloture and to allow for the consideration of the Carnahan amendment. I
am saddened, in the midst of this otherwise harmonious relationship we
have been developing, that we would deny the opportunity to have a
vote, an up-or-down vote, where 51 votes would win, 50 or fewer would
cause the amendment to fail. We are not even going to have a chance for
a straight vote on the amendment being offered by the Senator from
Missouri.
Let me tell you why I am disappointed. First, I think the country
has, with almost unanimity, watched the Congress of the United States
and the President of the United States work in a fashion unprecedented
for those of us who are today serving here. There are some whose
service goes back many years. But I suggest even for those with the
longest service in the Senate, they could not recall a time during
their service when we have been as united as a people and as united as
public servants as we are today.
With that as a backdrop, it was terribly disappointing to me to see
us walk away from those individuals who every day go to work and try to
make our airlines work as well as they can. We all stood together
here--with the exception of 1 vote--when the airline industry came up
and said, we need some help. We did not get involved in filibusters or
demanding 30 hours of debate. Democrats and Republicans, with the
exception of one of our colleagues, raised their hands and cast their
votes ``aye'' to help out this industry.
The suggestion was made during that debate that we could not do
anything to help out the workers right away but we would do it as soon
as we could. So we said: Fine, with that kind of a general assurance,
we will vote to bail out the shareholders--in effect. That is what we
did. I voted for that bill, and I am glad I did. I think it was
necessary because not just the airlines but other industries that
depend upon a healthy airline service would be adversely affected as
well.
But to turn around and say to the thousands of people who have lost
their jobs, whose home mortgages, car payments and health care benefits
are in jeopardy--you must go find a meaningful level of employment in
an economy that was already in trouble before September 11. Mr.
President, I do not understand this Chamber that could find in its
pockets enough money to bail out a shareholder and yet couldn't find
the small change to bail out innocent people.
This has been tough enough on our country over the last month. We
have seen today at the Pentagon, and elsewhere, memorial services to
recognize the contribution of those who lost their lives. That is
appropriate and proper.
I listened to the eloquent words of the Secretary of Defense, and the
eloquent speech of the President to the employees at the Pentagon, and
to the world, for that matter.
But it is our obligation as well, not only to recognize those who
have given their lives but to also recognize the living and what they
are going through. The idea that you cannot have a simple vote on
whether or not you are going to extend unemployment insurance for an
additional number of weeks; that you are not going to provide for COBRA
continuation coverage for individuals--I do not understand that.
What happened to us in the last couple of weeks? When it comes to
those at the very top of the income spectrum, with all due respect,
they are not the ones suffering from the airline industry problems. But
the idea that the majority of people who lose their jobs have little or
no value is something I do not understand.
My hope is that we have a vote on this issue and those who did not
vote for cloture would cast a vote in favor of the thousands who have
lost their jobs and find themselves and their families in a very
precarious situation.
Individuals who do not qualify for extended health insurance under
COBRA and who are otherwise uninsured would be eligible for Medicaid,
with the Federal Government covering 100 percent of the premiums. For a
few weeks, to get people back on their feet, could we not find it in
our hearts to extend to them the kind of help they need?
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. I took to the floor earlier, in a brief moment that I
had, and I made the connection between trade adjustment assistance and
this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). The time of the Senator from
Connecticut has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I made the connection between trade adjustment assistance
and this bill, which Senator Carnahan based on the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Act. I ask my friend, doesn't he think if we can help people
when they lose their job because of trade, we should help people when
they lose their job because of a terrorist attack on this country? I
ask him, doesn't it seem ironic that somehow, when you lose your job
because of trade, you get the help, but not if it is a result of a
terrorist attack?
Mr. DODD. I think the Senator from California raises a very good
question, and one that she provides the answer for in her question.
Obviously, over the years, we have said to people, if you lose your
job because of trade policies--which we think have a long-term
beneficial effect on the country and we see something good come out of
that--if you lose your job because we are trying to achieve a greater
good, we will step into that breach and provide some assistance to you
and your family.
How ironic that when something terrible happens and you lose your
job, we can't provide benefits to help you and your family during
difficult times.
I am stunned by this. I thought this was going to be a non-issue. I
could see where people might want to modify this a bit. Instead of 52
weeks, make it 45 weeks; instead of 100 percent of Medicaid, we will
make it 90 percent.
I can understand people making a case that we need to modify the
Carnahan amendment. But not to provide for any kind of alternative is
something that just gets away.
We have to finish the bill. I know the distinguished chairman of the
committee has an awful burden to get this done. He has argued very
persuasively that we have a responsibility to meet the security needs.
Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 19454]]

Mr. DODD. I understand the sense of urgency to get this done. I am
sure my friend from South Carolina would not argue with that coming up
rather quickly as we did with the airline bailout. That didn't take
long. We managed to find the time around here to come up with the time
to debate it, discuss it, and work it out. Again, I voted for that
bill. I would again today. I don't argue with that at all.
But I am stunned that we can't find the time somehow to say to those
thousands of workers--baggage handlers, flight attendants, and
mechanics--who have lost their jobs and are wondering how they are
going to make ends meet--we have time for everybody but you. Everybody
else got in line. But you don't. We are sending the message that we
don't have enough time to take care of you.
I am terribly disappointed that our colleagues have decided to reject
this cloture motion. But I tell you that people out there have lost
their jobs. Millions of other Americans are watching this vote to see
what we did to average people out there on this day, 1 month later. We
memorialize those who lost their lives but this Chamber couldn't find
in its heart to come up with a few extra dollars to help some people
who have lost their work.
That is a sad day. That is not the way to commemorate those who gave
so much 1 month ago. I am deeply disappointed in my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Washington is recognized.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I also rise with a great deal of
frustration over the last vote where the majority of my colleagues in
the Senate want to act to help workers who have been impacted by the
acts of September 11 and the emergency that has prevailed; that we do
something to help those who have been most impacted by job layoffs by
cutbacks in major industries related to transportation; and that we act
immediately.
I am very frustrated, even though a majority of my colleagues want to
see such legislation passed to help workers who are going to be laid
off, who are going to have to struggle with how to pay for health
insurance, who will not have the assistance for job training that might
put them back in the economy sooner, that they are going to be without
assistance. They are going to be without that assistance, even though a
majority of my colleagues wanted to see that legislation passed,
because we could not get this cloture vote in the Senate today.
I ask, if not now, when?
We were told after the events of September 11, when everybody wanted
to work in a bipartisan fashion to expedite the decisionmaking in the
Senate, that we needed to band together. We did. We acted quickly on
legislation to help and assist the airline industry. I think the vote
was 98 to 0.
At that same time, we were told we need to act now to help the
industry. We will come back to help workers. So with earnest, Senator
Carnahan, Senator Kennedy, myself, and Senator Murray from Washington
have been working diligently on this proposal.
Today we are sending the wrong message to the American people. We are
sending the message that this body thinks it is more important to help
the corporate executives and the shareholders of the airline industry
than it is to help the American workers. That is absolutely the wrong
message.
When you think about it, consumer confidence counts for about two-
thirds of our economy. In the past month of September, consumer
confidence has been at its all-time low since 1996.
This is an economic issue. Just as the assistance package for the
airlines was an economic issue, this assistance to the workers is an
economic issue. Instead of working together in a bipartisan fashion, we
showed our partisan colors today by not allowing this vote to take
place. The majority of Senators wish this legislation would have
passed.
In Washington State, where 20,000 to 30,000 workers could be laid off
by the end of next year, the impact will be real. Some estimates are
that a $1.29 billion loss will be felt by our local economy. That is
quite significant in the State of Washington where we have already been
feeling the impact of the downturn in the economy.
When you think about the individual workers, yes, they will receive
some unemployment benefits. What about health care? When you think
about it, a typical worker in the aerospace industry might make $40,000
to $50,000. Yet the impact of losing that income and having
unemployment insurance is not being able to pay for health care
benefits. An average worker with a family might pay as much as $850 a
month for the loss of health care benefits, on top of other bills they
have to pay--for their mortgage, for their food, and for their
children's education.
We are sending a terrible message that it is more important to help
corporate executives and shareholders than to care about the
educational needs of the airline workers in our country. That is the
wrong message.
We need to move ahead in a bipartisan fashion to think about the
ripple effect on our economy. It is not just the airline manufacturing
industry, as I said, with 20,000 to 30,000 layoffs, but the hundred-
plus thousand layoffs in the airline industry overall. That impact on
our economy at a time when our economy is already seeing a downturn is
not the kind of message we need to be sending.
It is very important that we move ahead. If not now, when will we act
to support workers in this country in their time of need?
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the majority leader is now in the Chamber.
I am not going to use the 5 minutes allocated to me under the previous
order. I ask unanimous consent that the time be given to the majority
leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I come to the floor to express my grave
disappointment at what the Senate has just done.
This is the first time we have said no to any of the victims of
disaster of 1 month ago. It is the first time we have said no to
working families struggling to put their lives back together.
I am troubled, disappointed, and disillusioned.
I will say this: We will not give up. We will not quit. We will not
allow those workers to in any way believe that this country is going to
turn its back on them when they need it the most. We will help them. We
will find a way to do this. We will keep the fight. We are committed,
as people determined to help all of those who are hurting so badly,
including those who have no job, including those who have no health
insurance, including those who need training today--including all of
those victims. We cannot say no to these people. We will be back. We
will not give up.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, under the previous order, it is now my
understanding we are going to go to the Smith-Murkowski amendment on a
20-minute time agreement; is that right?
Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 1874

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I have amendment No.
1874 at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration as
described under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself,
Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Thurmond, proposes an
amendment numbered 1874.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To further provide for the safety of American aviation and
the suppression of terrorism)

At the appropriate place, add the following:

[[Page 19455]]

SEC. . FLIGHT DECK SECURITY.

(a) Title.--This Section may be cited as the `Flight Deck
Security Act of 2001'.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four
civilian aircraft, crashing two of the aircraft into the
towers of the World Trade Center in New York, New York, and a
third into the Pentagon outside Washington, District of
Columbia.
(2) Thousands of innocent Americans and citizens of other
countries were killed or injured as a result of these
attacks, including the passengers and crew of the four
aircraft, workers in the World Trade Center and in the
Pentagon, rescue workers, and bystanders.
(3) These attacks destroyed both towers of the World Trade
Center, as well as adjacent buildings, and seriously damaged
the Pentagon.
(4) These attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist
attacks ever launched against the United States and, by
targeting symbols of America, clearly were intended to
intimidate our Nation and weaken its resolve.
(5) Armed pilots, co-pilots, and flight engineers with
proper training will be the last line of defense against
terrorists by providing cockpit security and aircraft
security.
(6) Secured doors separating the flight deck from the
passenger cabin have been effective in deterring hijackings
in other nations and will serve as a deterrent to future
contemplated acts of terrorism in the United States.
(c) Aviation Safety and the Suppression of Terrorism by
Commercial Aircraft.--
(1) Possession of firearms on commercial flights.--The FAA
is authorized to permit a pilot, co-pilot, or flight engineer
of a commercial aircraft who has successfully completed the
requirements of section (c)(2) of this Act, who is not
otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, from
possessing or carrying a firearm approved by the FAA for the
protection of the aircraft under procedures or regulations as
necessary, to ensure the safety and integrity of flight.
(2) Federal pilot officers.--
(A) In addition to the protections provided by the section
(c)(1) of this Act, the FAA shall also establish a voluntary
program to train and supervise commercial airline pilots.
(B) Under the program, the FAA shall make available
appropriate training and supervision for all such pilots,
which may include training by private entities.
(C) The power granted to such persons shall be limited to
enforcing Federal law in the cockpit of commercial aircraft
and, under reasonable circumstances the passenger compartment
to protect the integrity of the commercial aircraft and the
lives of the passengers.
(D) The FAA shall make available appropriate training to
any qualified pilot who requests such training pursuant to
this Act.
(E) The FAA may prescribe regulations for purposes of this
section.
(d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than six months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and every six months
thereafter, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to
Congress a report on the effectiveness of the requirements in
this section in facilitating commercial aviation safety and
the suppression of terrorism by commercial aircraft.''.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I say to my colleagues,
I will be very brief. If there are others who wish to speak, they may
want to come to the Chamber. We have only, as I understand it, 20
minutes equally divided.
This amendment, I say to my colleagues, is the one that has been
known as the gun-in-the-cockpits amendment. I am pleased to report
that, to the best of my knowledge, the Senate has agreed to accept this
amendment, which I think is good news for the airline industry and good
news for all of us who fly across America, and all over the world, as a
matter of fact.
First of all, I thank my colleagues, Senator Murkowski and Senator
Burns, for their leadership, and also Senator Thurmond for working with
me to put this amendment together. Also, Senator McCain and Senator
Hollings were very helpful as we worked out the compromise so we could
offer this amendment without a lot of rancor.
The motto of my legislation is that armed pilots are the first line
of deterrence and the last line of defense--the first line of
deterrence because terrorists will know that armed pilots will be able
to defend the cockpit and defend the aircraft from a hijacking; the
last line of defense because when all else fails, including the air
marshals and perhaps even a reinforced cockpit door, an armed pilot
will be in the cockpit to defend that cockpit from terrorist hijackers.
I think it is important for us to think and reflect back on what has
happened in the past month. We all know what happened on September 11.
Those terrorists got in that cockpit, and the pilots had no defense
once that door was kicked in, except their bare hands. We have had
another----
Mrs. BOXER. The Senate is not in order, and I am extremely interested
in hearing about the content of this amendment. I hope the Senate can
be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Senators will take
their conversations to the back of the Chamber.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator from California for
her courtesy.
In the last week, we have had another incident--not a terrorist
incident but one where a person got into the cockpit and caused the
plane to be destabilized momentarily.
I think it is important to understand, after all of the events of
September 11, and all of the efforts we have made to encourage and
bring people back to flying again, we still had another incident where
a person actually got into the cockpit.
Now we know--and we are working on all of this--we are going to
reinforce the cockpit doors; there will be armed marshals; we are going
to increase security on the aircraft. All of these things are being
done. But I would ask my colleagues to reflect for a moment as to what
would happen if, in spite of all of that--in spite of all three of
those things: The marshals, the reinforced cockpit doors, and increased
security around the aircraft--somebody got into that cockpit again.
They could bring that plane down.
If, in fact, a pilot had a gun, that pilot would have the opportunity
to stop that hijacker or person coming into that cockpit to cause
damage. If the pilot could not do it, if the pilot did not have a
weapon, and that person got into the cockpit, the worst of all things
could be that the hijacker would commandeer the plane and do some
terrible destruction using the aircraft as a weapon of mass
destruction. But what might happen, and what could have happened last
time, were it not for the brave passengers on Flight 93, we could have
to shoot down our own commercial aircraft with our own American
citizens in that aircraft.
It is far preferable to have the pilot shoot the hijacker and
maintain control of the cockpit than it is to have the hijacker get
control of the cockpit and have the President of the United States have
to make that god-awful, gut-wrenching decision to shoot down a
commercial aircraft to save the lives of thousands, killing perhaps a
couple hundred American citizens. So this is the right thing to do.
The Senator from California mentioned that she wants to know the
content of the amendment. The content of the amendment, I say to the
Senator, is very reasonable. It says that the FAA is authorized to
permit, if the airlines and the pilots would agree to do it--if they
did agree; no one is forced to carry a weapon into the cockpit. That is
the pilots' and the airlines' decision.
So I think it is reasonable. I have met with dozens of pilots on this
issue, many from New Hampshire and Massachusetts, some here, from most
of the airlines. I know there are very few who disagree with this
amendment, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the pilots, probably
95 percent of them, agree with it. It is the right thing to do, and not
only for safety reasons but also, if we are going to bring back the
airline industry and get those people back to work who have lost their
jobs, we have to bring passengers back to the airplanes; we have to
restore their confidence.
I am going to feel a lot more confident knowing that pilot is going
to have the opportunity to stop that hijacker when that hijacker comes
through that cockpit door, if he gets through the cockpit door in spite
of all the other things we are doing.
So remember, this is not an amendment that is just hanging out there
with nothing else. This is an amendment that is working in conjunction

[[Page 19456]]

with increased airport and aircraft security, reinforced cockpit doors,
and perhaps a Federal marshal--at least spot-checked on flights. It
goes with all of that. And this is the final stop, so that pilot can
have the assurance, with that TV camera or monitor, so he or she can
see what is going on in the back of that aircraft, in the cabin. At
that point, the pilot can turn and be prepared to face that hijacker
who could cause unbelievable destruction.
So I am pleased and proud to offer the amendment on behalf of myself,
Senator Burns, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Thurmond. I know there
are others who support it as well.
Madam President, I know other people would like to speak, so I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the Senator whatever time she
wishes to consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
Madam President, as someone who for a long time has taken the
opposite position on guns, I think this amendment makes sense.
We are working toward having air marshals on our airplanes. We will
also be working--and I want to announce here my support of the Burns
amendment--to really move security into the Department of Justice where
it belongs.
Until we do all this, I think this amendment makes sense. It gives
the FAA a chance to decide if they think it is prudent for a pilot, who
is trained, and who wants to, and who is willing to, to be able to
defend the aircraft.
I just want to remind my colleagues that every single plane that was
hijacked was going to my State of California. I want you to know that
every time I think about this, I think of how many people are
suffering. I think we need to do everything we can to prevent any more
of these hijackings from occurring.
Therefore, I believe this amendment is right. I believe it is
prudent. It also was supported in front of our Commerce Committee--I
see my chairman in the Chamber--by the gentleman who represented the
pilots at the last hearing we had.
So I thank my friend. I am supporting this amendment, as well as the
Burns amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I yield whatever time he
may consume to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes remain to the sponsor.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Before I yield, however, I ask unanimous
consent to have three letters of support printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Gun Owners of America,

Springfield, VA, October 3, 2001.
Dear Senator: Senator Bob Smith will be introducing an
amendment to the Aviation Security Act. I urge you to vote in
favor of his amendment.
The Smith amendment will provide the opportunity for pilots
to use firearms to defend their passengers and planes, as
well as provide for reinforcing the cockpit doors on
commercial aircraft.
I urge you to vote for the Smith amendment, as it can help
save the lives of pilots, crew members, and passengers--not
to mention the lives of thousands of citizens on the ground.
Sincerely,
John Velleco,
Director of Federal Affairs.
____

National Rifle Association of America, Institute for
Legislative Action,
Washington, DC, October 3, 2001.
Dear Senator: In the aftermath of the tragedy that occurred
on September 11th, various proposals have been offered to
deal with airline security. As the United States Senate
begins debate on the Aviation Security Act, S. 1147,
amendments may be offered relating to pilot and passenger
security.
One proposal, sponsored by Senators Bob Smith and Conrad
Burns, addresses pilot safety by allowing--not requiring--
properly trained commercial pilots, co-pilots, and flight
engineers to carry firearms. On behalf of the 4 million
members of the National Rifle Association, I urge you to
support this common sense and well-balanced measure.
Armed pilots with proper training and suitable equipment
will be the last line of defense against hijackers and
terrorists in providing cockpit and aircraft security.
Obviously, proper training is an essential component of this
legislation. Along with the possibility of U.S. Air Marshals
accompanying commercial flights, this measure would send a
strong message to potential attackers that self-defense
exists in the air as well as on our land.
The National Rifle Association stands with the Air Line
Pilots Association and the Allied Pilots Association in
supporting this amendment. This measure will provide both
deterrence to hijackers and terrorists and safety to airline
employees and the traveling public. Please vote ``yes'' on
the Smith/Burns amendment to S. 1147.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Cunningham,
Director, NRA Federal Affairs.
____

Air Line Pilots

Association, International,

Washington, DC, October 3, 2001.
Hon. Robert C. Smith,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the 67,000 members of the
Air Line Pilots Association, International, I want to offer
our most sincere thanks and our support for your amendment to
S. 1447, which would provide for armed federal pilot
officers.
The Administration, Congress, and the industry are all
heavily involved in activities and discussions aimed at
improving security. Many of the proposed security initiatives
and proposals will take months, even years to implement; some
of them are also very expensive.
We have learned, in a most tragic fashion, that the
occupants of the cockpit must be protected in the event of a
cockpit door breach in order to prevent further loss of life
to passengers, crew, and those on the ground. Provision of
armed air marshals and enhanced cockpit doors will help.
However, not all flights will have the protection of air
marshals, and new, more secure cockpit doors will not be
installed overnight.
For those reasons, it is our strong belief that the last
line of defense must be a method of training, deputizing and
arming those pilots who both volunteer and qualify to carry a
means of lethal self-defense. Not all pilots will want to
carry a weapon, and some who do may not qualify under the
FBI's strict screening and training criteria, but there will
be thousands of our members who can meet both criteria. Once
the cost of training these pilots is complete, there would be
virtually no other expense for providing an FBI-trained
federal officer in the cockpit who is capable of
administering lethal force.
In addition to adding a genuine security enhancement in the
very near term, the creation of a federal pilot officer
program would also generate a tremendous amount of confidence
among pilots to protect themselves and, thereby, their
passengers. We believe that your proposal, if implemented,
should also translate into greater confidence in air travel
security by the traveling public and help the airlines return
to profitability much sooner than they could otherwise.
In summary, we believe that your proposed federal pilot
officer program is a most reasonable, practical, cost-
effective, and efficient means of enhancing airline security.
ALPA supports it and we urge its enactment.
Sincerely,
Duane E. Woerth,
President.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from New Hampshire.
Madam President, I want to say to all those folks who would be
critical, this does not make it mandatory for a weapon to be on the
flight deck. This says they are able to take one if they are
comfortable with one.
I point to American Airlines Flight 11, which was the first plane to
hit the north tower. The pilot was a Vietnam veteran and the copilot
was a Navy Top Gun pilot. On American Airlines Flight 77, Charlie
Burlingame was a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a Top Gun
pilot. On United Airlines 175, which was the second plane to hit the
south tower, both the pilot and copilot were veterans, one a Navy
pilot, one a Marine Corps veteran.
What we are saying is, if these men and women who operate the flight
deck are comfortable with a weapon, they should be allowed to have a
weapon. That is what this amendment says.
I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his leadership and the
Senator from California for her support.

[[Page 19457]]

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the following letter from the Allied Pilots Association be printed
in the Record in support of amendment No. 1874.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Allied Pilots Association,

Fort Worth, TX, October 7, 2001.
Hon. Robert Smith,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the Allied Pilots
Association, which represents the 11,500 pilots of American
Airlines, I wish to express our strong support for the
``Flight Deck Security Act of 2001.''
We must take immediate action to enhance our nation's
aviation security. We believe the ``Flight Deck Security
Act,'' S. 1463, will help ensure the safety of both airline
flight crews and the flying public.
APA supports allowing qualified pilots to carry firearms.
The majority of our pilots have served in the military, where
they received weapons training, and many are already
qualified to handle small arms. Armed pilots will help deter
terrorists from attempting to hijack an aircraft.
Furthermore, they would provide a last line of defense to
resist the hijacking of commercial aircraft.
The Allied Pilots Association urges the Senate to pass the
``Flight Deck Security Act.'' We believe S. 1463's voluntary
firearm program should be enacted immediately.
Sincerely,
Captain John Darrah,
President,

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how many minutes would the Senator want?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I know there is an amendment. I want to make some
general comments about the bill. What would be the appropriate way?
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside the
amendment and the Senator from Maryland be allowed to speak for 5
minutes on the legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Arizona, the national leader
on this topic.
Madam President, we just came from the Pentagon memorial for all of
those who died at the Pentagon on the fateful day, 9/11, one month ago.
We have been going to several memorials. They have been heartfelt.
Whether it was at Emmitsburg for the National Fallen Firefighters
Memorial, today at the Pentagon, joining with Senators Lott and
Daschle, having the resolution on a national day of remembrance, all of
these are very special to me because on that fateful day, I lost 60
Maryland constituents: 54 at the Pentagon, those who were working at
the Pentagon and who were on that fateful flight. Six others, who we
currently know of, lost their lives at other sites.
I know the Chair knows we feel a great debt of gratitude to the
gallant people on Flight 93 who probably saved our lives. I support the
memorials. I was honored to be there.
I am pleased to join in a resolution for a national day of
remembrance. I think we need a permanent way of remembering those
people who died on that very fateful, grim, horrific day. The way we
honor their memory is to make sure it never, ever can happen again.
This is why I am so passionate about our moving our aviation security
bill, why I am very firm in terms of trying to make our railroads safe
and also ensuring that those people who work in the field of
transportation and in airports and airlines are not doubly victimized,
first by the terrorists and then by an economic compensation system
that leaves them without jobs, without incomes, without future
training, and a bleak future. We should not doubly punish them by
leaving them without an economic security safety net.
I plead to my colleagues today: Let us put aside our ideologies on
how we think Government should be this size or Government should be
that size. We need to think about what is the right thing to do for the
American people. I want to get America moving again. I want them to be
on the rails. I want them to be in planes. I want them to feel free to
travel. This is why I am so passionate about the need to have an
aviation security bill that also federalizes our security operations.
It ensures that we have the best to guard us. We have the best to
guard us at the military; God bless them. We have the best to help
rescue us in our fire and police departments; God bless them. Let's
have the very best and the best trained at our airports.
While we are making our airports safe, let us look at other areas of
vulnerability, and then that goes to our railroads. We need, again,
passenger screening. We need baggage screening. We need to assure the
safety of our tunnels, of which we have many in the Northeast corridor.
I know the Chair is from a railroad corridor State. Last but not at all
least, I am concerned about those 528,000 people who filed for
unemployment last week. That is just a little bit less than the size of
my great city of Baltimore. A half million people are on unemployment,
not because they were laggards, not because they don't want to work,
not because they don't want to show up for duty, but because of
circumstances outside of their control.
We have it within our control to make an economic safety net for
them. I say to my colleagues, we have clotured this; we have bargained
that; we have negotiated that. Let us get back to the spirit we had a
few weeks ago when we were not a Republican Party or a Democratic
Party. We were the red, white, and blue party. Let's do right for
airline security. Let's do right for railroad security. Let's do right
for the people who have lost their jobs because of terrorist attacks.
That will be the best permanent memorial we could make to those who
have fallen because of this horrific deed.
Madam President, four civilian airliners from three of our Nation's
airports were used as weapons of war on September 11. As we're debating
this legislation, our military is taking action against those who were
responsible. One way to support our troops is to improve safety for all
Americans. That's the goal of this legislation. This bill enables us to
take three concrete actions to improve the safety of our skies.
Security is a high skill job. Yet airport screeners in this country
are low paid--$6.00 an hour or less. Fast food restaurant employees are
paid better.
They are poorly trained. The FAA requires 12 hours of classroom
training. Other countries do a better job. France requires 60 hours of
training. Belgium requires at least 40 hours. Often, those who perform
the training have had only a few hours of training themselves.
They are inexperienced. Turnover rates are alarming: 126 percent from
May 1998 through April 1999 at our nation's 19 largest airports; as
high as 416 percent in some instances.
They have low morale which leads to poor performance.
FAA inspection reports reveal significant weaknesses in the
performance of our airport screeners. Security inspectors showed that
BWI ranked fifth among major airports in the number of bombs, grenades
or other weapons that went undetected in federal inspections.
This is not a new problem. The GAO reports that in 1987 airport
screeners missed 20 percent of the potentially dangerous objects used
in tests and it's been getting worse over the past few years.
Part of the solution is to federalize our airport security workforce.
We have Federal officials protecting our borders and protecting our
President. We also need Federal officials protecting our flying public.
Why federal workers? They can be fully trained and monitored. Their
primary goal would be safety, not the economic bottom line. The
Hollings bill does this by Federalizing airport security operations, by
requiring extensive training--40 hours of classroom training, 60 hours
of on-the-job instruction--by deploying law enforcement personnel at
each airport, including armed personnel at airport security screening
locations.
The safety of our pilots is critical to ensuring the safety of the
passengers. The tragedies of September 11 showed that we need to
strengthen the cockpit door and locks to prevent entry by non-flight
deck crewmembers.

[[Page 19458]]

In a hijacking situation, we've always focused on deterrence, that
pilots and copilots should negotiate with hijackers until the aircraft
is safely on the ground. September 11 shattered that idea.
This bill prohibits access to the flight deck cockpit by any person
other than a flight deck crew member. It requires the strengthening of
the cockpit door and locks to prevent entry by non-flight deck crew
members and requires commuter aircraft that do not have doors to get
doors.
On September 11, some heroic Americans on United Airlines flight 93
lost their lives as they confronted the terrorists. They prevented the
plane from flying into the Capitol or the White House. These brave
citizens lost their lives, yet they saved many others--perhaps even
those of us in this chamber.
Yet we can't ask American citizens to risk or lose their lives. We
need Federal air marshals on our airplanes to protect our citizens.
The Sky Marshal Program dates back to the Kennedy Administration when
the concern of hijackings to Cuba was prevalent. In 1970, the program
was greatly expanded to include 1,500 U.S. Customs officers, 800
military personnel. Two years later, the U.S. Customs Sky Marshal
Program was phased out.
Then, in 1985, a 727 TWA flight from Athens was diverted to Beirut
where terrorists murdered Robert Dean Stetham of Maryland. The
highjackings of 1985 prompted Congress to reinstate the Air Marshal
program, but it is spartan and skimpy.
This legislation would require a marshal on every flight. That's
about 25,000 flights a day, pre-September 11, on all domestic flights
and on all international flights originating in the U.S.
The events of September 11 were an attack against America and against
humanity. We are a nation that is grief stricken, but we are not
paralyzed in our determination to rid the world of terrorism. In the
mean time, we must act to make transportation safer in the United
States. We must have a sense of urgency and pass this legislation
immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, unless the Senator from New Hampshire
would like to speak again, we yield back the remainder of our time and
urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1874) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1875

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I have an amendment and I send it to the
desk and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for himself, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. DeWine, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment
numbered 1875.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make the Attorney General responsible for aviation safety
and security)

On page 4, strike lines 10, 11, and 12.
On page 4, line 13, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(A)''.
On page 4, line 18, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
On page 4, line 22, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
On page 4, beginning with line 23, strike through line 5 on
page 5.
On page 5, line 6, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 5, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
(b) Attorney General Responsibilities.--The Attorney
General of the United States--
(1) is responsible for day-to-day Federal security
screening operations for passenger air transportation or
intrastate air transportation under sections 44901 and 44935
of title 49, United States Code;
(2) shall work in conjunction with the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration with respect to any actions
or activities that may affect aviation safety or air carrier
operations;
(3) is responsible for hiring and training personnel to
provide security screening at all United States airports
involved in passenger air transportation or intrastate air
transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, Secretary of Defense, and the heads of other
appropriate Federal agencies and departments; and
(4) shall actively cooperate and coordinate with the
Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Defense, and
the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies and
departments with responsibilities for national security and
criminal justice enforcement activities that are related to
aviation security through the Aviation Security Coordination
Council. On page 5, line 14, strike ``(b)'' and insert
``(c)''.
On page 6, line 4, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
On page 10, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
(a) Air Marshals Under Attorney General Guidelines.--The
Attorney General shall prescribe guidelines for the training
and deployment of individuals authorized, with the approval
of the Attorney General, to carry firearms and make arrests
under section 44903(d) of title 49, United States Code. The
Secretary of Transportation shall administer the air marshal
program under that section in accordance with the guidelines
prescribed by the Attorney General.
On page 10, line 7, strike ``(a) In General.--'' and insert
``(b) Deployment.--''.
On page 10, line 23, strike ``(b) Deployment.--'' and
insert ``(c) Training, Supervision, and Flight Assignment.--
''.
On page 11, line 14, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
On page 11, line 20, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
On page 12, line 3, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
On page 12, line 4, before ``Secretary'' insert ``Attorney
General and the''.
On page 12, line 22, before ``Secretary'' insert ``Attorney
General and the''.
On page 12, line 24, strike ``the Secretary'' and insert
``they''.
On page 13, line 3, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
On page 18, beginning in line 2, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General,''
and insert ``Attorney General, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
On page 18, line 11, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 18, beginning in line 17, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 18, line 25, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 19, line 4, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 19, line 7, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 19, beginning in line 12, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, with the approval of the Attorney General,''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 20, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 20, beginning in line 12, strike ``Secretary, in
consultation with the Attorney General,'' and insert
``Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation,''.
On page 20, beginning in line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 21, beginning in line 3, strike ``Secretary and''.
On page 21, line 12, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 21, line 19, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 21, line 23, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General or the Secretary of Transportation''.
On page 22, line 4, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 22, beginning in line 7, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 22, line 9, strike ``the Attorney General or''.
On page 22, strike lines 13 through 22.
On page 22, line 23, strike ``(c) Transition.--The
Secretary of Transportation'' and insert ``(b) Transition.--
The Attorney General''.
On page 23, line 3, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 23, line 6, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 23, beginning in line 18, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General,''
and insert ``Attorney General, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
On page 23, line 23, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 24, line 20, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 24, beginning in line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.

[[Page 19459]]

On page 25, line 3, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 25, line 11, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 25, beginning in line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 26, line 3, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 26, line 15 strike, ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 29, beginning in line 1, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 29, line 20, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 29, beginning in line 23, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 29, beginning in line 25, strike ``the Attorney
General, or''.
On page 30, line 6, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 30, line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 30, beginning in line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 31, beginning in line 5, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 31, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 31, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 31, line 25, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 32, line 1, strike ``Secretary of Transportation''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 32, beginning in line 4, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 32, line 7, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 32, line 11, strike ``Secretary of Transportation''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 3, strike ``Secretary of Transportation''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 33, beginning in line 5, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 13, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 16, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 19, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 34, line 15, strike ``Transportation'' and insert
``Justice''.
On page 34, line 17, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 34, line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 34, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 35, line 4, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Section''.
On page 35, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
(b) Coordination With Attorney General.--Section 44912(b)
of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Beginning on the date of enactment of the Aviation
Security Act, the Administrator shall conduct all research
related to screening technology and procedures in conjunction
with the Attorney General.''.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, Senator DeWine of Ohio and Senator
McConnell of Kentucky are cosponsors of this amendment. It has been a
subject of conversation for the last week. The events of September 11
changed a lot of things--where we place emphasis and how we do business
in this town. We are changing who is directly responsible and directly
accountable for airport security.
When I first looked at the legislation as it was being drafted, there
was one glaring fault. That was that the enforcement of security and
safety of America's traveling air passengers was still in the
Department of Transportation. I have believed since September 11 that
something had to be changed. In other words, we had to do something
that would give the flying public a sense of security and safety and
the rules would be made outside of the Department of Transportation. I
believe it should be in the Department of Justice.
If you look at what we have to do and the areas in which we have to
do it, the argument that the chairman of the full committee made, which
is when you take those areas of intelligence and passengers lists,
which we are going to have to scrutinize a little bit better and more
in the future than we have in the past, when we take a look at the
outside of the airport or the peripherals and the security of the
airport security itself, when you look at security in the check-in area
and also the area known as the departure gate, then we shift our
emphasis to cargo, that which is shipped on regularly scheduled flights
and also among the people who are in the air freight business, also the
area in which we park our aircraft overnight or aircraft that has been
parked for some length of time, and the aircraft itself--those are
distinct areas where we have responsibilities for security and safety--
no other agency in the Government is better equipped to do the job in
all those areas than the Department of Justice.
So what my amendment says is that we give a bright line of authority
to the Attorney General, who is accountable and responsible for the
security and safety of air traffic. That does not say that the
Department of Transportation, or even the FAA, doesn't have a little
say about what goes on in their business. They should be able to set
some of the rules and make sure aircraft are certified to fly and
pilots are certified to fly, and those things. But on the security end
of it, America is telling me they want law enforcement powers just for
the sense of security when they travel.
I have often used this analogy with folks who like football and those
folks who like baseball and basketball: they are great sports, but you
never see the teams refereeing or umpiring themselves. It has to be
done by an entity that understands the rules or the mission of safety,
and security. So that is where we are.
That is what this amendment is all about. It allows a setting of
standards. It allows the checking of employees, if they work in
sensitive areas, such as bag handling, and they are near the aircraft.
Those employees are going to have to stand the scrutiny of the Justice
Department in order to get a job on the ramp, so to speak.
When I came out of the Marine Corps, I worked for the airlines for
about 3 years. I understand what goes on out there. They are not doing
many things differently today than they did 35 or 40 years ago. They
have better equipment. They don't have to lift as much as we used to in
the old days, but there is more security.
What this amendment does is it says the Department of Justice, the
Attorney General of the United States of America, will be responsible
for setting up the apparatus through the Justice Department to make
sure that our areas are secure and people are safe when they fly.
So I offer this amendment. I ask for your support as we move forward.
I think we have worked out just about all of the kinks. We have people
who want to make statements. I say to my ranking member and my boss on
the Commerce Committee that they want to speak a little bit on this
amendment. Then I will turn it over to him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Montana, who I
have had the privilege of working with for many years on the Commerce
Committee, I think this is a good amendment. One of the reasons I think
it is a good amendment is because we are trying to address a major
issue with this legislation, and that is to restore confidence on the
part of the American people in the belief that they can fly on
airliners and be in airports with a sense of security.
I think the Senator's amendment, by putting these responsibilities
into the Department of Justice, will increase that confidence factor
rather dramatically. I don't think right now that most Americans know
who is in charge of the airport screening procedures. I have often
asked that question myself. I don't think Americans believe that one
agency that is in charge has done a very good job, whoever is
responsible for it. We see continued breaches of airport security--even
after September 11. So I think the amendment of the Senator from
Montana is a good one. I think it will move the process in the
direction we are seeking for this legislation.
I thank Senator Burns for his active participation and involvement in
this issue. I know Mr. McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, wants to
speak on this amendment as well. If the chairman wants to speak,
perhaps we can wait a few minutes for Senator McConnell after he
finishes.

[[Page 19460]]

I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Arizona
has pointed out the main concern that we have, and that is that airline
travelers have complete confidence in the security, safety, and
normalcy of our airlines--as we are all pleading with the people of the
country to get back to normal travel. The best way to do that is to
have law enforcement immediately connected to personnel in and around
the facility, and out on the tarmac, that they are all aware of
security threats--specifically, to be on the lookout for people on a
watch list.
The overall security effort would be developed, no question, by the
FBI domestic homefront security office. They are the ones that would
have immediate knowledge of anyone on a watch list, communicating
immediately, of course, with their screeners and others working in the
airport and its facility.
I think it is a well-considered measure. The Senator from Montana
recommended this when we approached this subject 3 or 4 weeks ago. We
talked back and forth. We are trying to get things done. In order to
get things done, sometimes your own personal choice is subjugated to
the good of the body generally. The good of the body and the White
House, for that matter, was to put responsibility for airport security
under the Department of Transportation's purview.
But there is no question, as the Senator from Arizona says, this
amendment would facilitate the enactment and passage of this
legislation. I support it.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the bill we are discussing today would help
to ensure the safety of flying for passengers on the planes as well as
innocent civilians on the ground.
However, I am concerned that the bill will broadly expand the law
enforcement authority of the Department of Transportation and the
Federal Aviation Administration. I believe we should let experienced
law enforcers set the standards to protect the safety of commercial air
operations.
The mission of the DOT is to:

serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe,
efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system
that meets our vital national interests and enhances the
quality of life of the American people, today and into the
future.

The mission of the U.S. Marshall Service under the oversight of the
Attorney General is to:

enforce federal laws and provide support to virtually all
elements of the federal justice system by providing for the
security of federal court facilities and the safety of judges
and other court personnel; apprehending criminals; exercising
custody of federal prisoners and providing for their security
and transportation to correctional facilities; executing
federal court orders; seizing assets gained by illegal means
and providing for the custody, management and disposal of
forfeited assets; assuring the safety of endangered
government witnesses and their families; and collecting and
disbursing funds.

The key phrase is to ``enforce Federal laws.'' The Justice Department
is a law enforcement body. That agency is tasked to protect the
American people through the enforcement of laws set by Congress.
Prior to 9/11, the primary responsibility for aviation security was
shared by the FAA, airports and the carriers.
The FAA set the standards and regulations that were followed by the
airports and carriers. The FAA was responsible to provide threat
information obtained from the intelligence community to the security
apparatus protecting our airports and carriers.
The Air Marshall program, although active, was relatively non-
existent as there were fewer than 50 security personnel enlisted to
secure our passenger airplanes.
Airports remain responsible for the physical security of airport
facilities, law enforcement and security personnel. In Montana, our
Governor has temporarily deployed the Montana National Guard to protect
our airports while a threat remains significant. I have discussed
airport security with Montana's airport managers and they have informed
me of their current practices.
Airlines and cargo carriers are responsible for implementing those
security activities that directly affect the flow of passengers,
baggage and cargo aboard aircraft.
Since 9/11 we have entered a new era. The last hijacking of a U.S.
airline using a weapon was in 1989, when a passenger used a starter
pistol and two folding knives to hijack an American Airlines plane.
Prior to that, a Pacific Southwest Airline jet crashed in 1987 after
a former ticket agent for the airline smuggled a gun aboard and broke
into the cockpit, killing the flight crew. All 43 people aboard were
killed.
But is was the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988 over
Lockerbie, Scotland that turned the attention of security officials
from guns to bombs, which can be relatively small and made of plastic.
While we have upgraded our equipment to detect bombs, we have not
addressed concerns about uniform standards used to detect potential
human threats in a plane.
At airport security checkpoints, walk-through metal detectors
currently screen passengers. If the detector alarms, screeners use
metal-detecting hand wands. Nonmetallic objects, including plastic and
ceramic weapons, will generally not be found by either procedure.
At the same checkpoints, carry-on bags are screened by equipment that
displays an x-ray image of bag contents. An operator who sees a
suspicious object in the image, or whose view is blocked by a
concealing object, may hand search a bag as a backup procedure.
Nonmetallic objects may be visible in the checkpoint x-ray image, but
less clearly than metal items, and operator training has, up to now,
been focused on identifying metal items.
The checkpoint screeners who work for these private security
companies have rapid turnover, more than 100 percent per year at many
airports. The pay is low and is largely attributed to this high rate of
turnover.
Until directed otherwise by the Secretary of Transportation on
September 12, 2001, many small knives, such as pocketknives, were
permitted on board aircraft, even if detected by security personnel.
I have concerns about unsecured access to the plane. There were
several reports about finding box cutters and other potential weapons
on planes that had landed on 9/11/01. These findings could lead one to
believe there were other planned attacks during that fateful day.
Prior to 9/11, several people had access to an aircraft and could,
perhaps, leave a weapon in a hidden location for use by someone else.
These people include the flight crew, maintenance personnel, cleaners,
caterers, and baggage handlers.
The DOT Inspector General reported his office was able to gain
unauthorized access to secure areas of airports 68% of the time in
tests during 1998 and 1999 and has found in audits that background
checks of airport personnel are ineffective and are frequently not
conducted as required.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. We need to
establish a national standard that protects American citizens. I
believe the Justice Department is the proper authority to set that
standard.
I thank the chairman, and I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1855, Withdrawn

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
Senator Daschle, that the Carnahan amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio is recognized.

Amendment No. 1875

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Burns amendment.
First, I congratulate my colleague for his work on this amendment. He
has been very diligent in explaining in meeting after meeting off the
floor of the Senate for the last week or 10 days why his amendment
should pass. I congratulate him on his amendment. I congratulate him on
his diligence and his perception of what we should be doing.
This is a simple amendment, one that I believe makes a very big
statement. The statement says we believe our Justice Department is best
suited to manage particular aspects of security at

[[Page 19461]]

our airports. The reality is we need accountability. We need to know
there is an agency in charge that knows how to manage security. That
agency, I believe, is the Justice Department of the United States.
I say that because the Justice Department is in the business of law
enforcement, and it is in the business of security in the Marshal
Service. Protecting our airports and protecting the traveling public is
a law enforcement and a security function. It is a function, I believe,
best handled by the Department of Justice.
The fact is, those in charge of law enforcement have a different way
of looking at things. I first understood that when I became an
assistant county prosecuting attorney at the age of 25. I could not
believe how the police officers in Xenia, OH, or the sheriff's office
in Fairborn, OH, saw things differently than I saw them.
They saw things through the eyes of a trained officer. They saw
things from the law enforcement point of view. They saw things from a
security point of view. We would go to crime scenes, and they would
explain what they saw. We would look at situations where we were
worried about security, and they would see things that I would never
see.
It is not just training. It is not just experience. It also is a
culture. I guess we use the word ``culture'' when we do not know
another word to explain it, but it is a fundamental way of approaching
things.
I believe it makes eminent sense to take an agency that is concerned
every single day about the security of Americans--that is what they get
paid to do--and say we are going to put you in charge of the flying
public's security while they are on the ground. We are going to leave
it up to the FAA, the experts, about how to fly, when those planes fly,
when they do not fly, and things that go on in the air. But when we are
talking about ground security, we are going to leave that up to other
experts, and those experts are in the Justice Department.
We have an example of how this is done. Justice really does two
things: They do law enforcement, but they also do security. The Marshal
Service does security every single day. They break it down. They make a
distinction between the sworn officers and the contract employees.
Later on in this debate, before final passage, I am going to have a
little more to say about that.
When you go in, for example, to a Federal courthouse, or when you go
into a Federal building, it is the U.S. Marshal Service that is in
charge of that security. So there is precedent for doing this. There is
an experience level that exists in the Justice Department.
I do not want to take a lot of the time of my colleagues, but I again
congratulate my colleague, Senator Burns, for this idea. I think it is
the right idea. It basically says the whole issue of security on the
ground--not just the checking of the baggage, not just the checking of
the passengers, but the whole view and concept of what should be done
in regard to each individual airport in this country--should be in the
hands of the experts. And I believe those experts are in the Justice
Department.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment in order to address some amendments that have been
agreed to on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1876

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Domenici,
proposes an amendment numbered 1876.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To further enhance research and development regarding
aviation security)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
( ) Additional Matters Regarding Research and
Development.--
(1) Additional program requirements.--Subsection (a) of
section 44912 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph (4):
``(4)(A) In carrying out the program established under this
subsection, the Administrator shall designate an individual
to be responsible for engineering, research, and development
with respect to security technology under the program.
``(B) The individual designated under subparagraph (A)
shall use appropriate systems engineering and risk management
models in making decisions regarding the allocation of funds
for engineering, research, and development with respect to
security technology under the program.
``(C) The individual designated under subparagraph (A)
shall, on an annual basis, submit to the Research,
Engineering and Development Advisory Committee a report on
activities under this paragraph during the preceding year.
Each report shall include, for the year covered by such
report, information on--
``(i) progress made in engineering, research, and
development with respect to security technology;
``(ii) the allocation of funds for engineering, research,
and development with respect to security technology; and
``(iii) engineering, research, and development with respect
to any technologies drawn from other agencies, including the
rationale for engineering, research, and development with
respect to such technologies.''.
(2) Review of threats.--Subsection (b)(1) of that section
is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (F) as
subparagraphs (B) through (G), respectively; and
(B) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so
redesignated, the following new subparagraph (A):
``(A) a comprehensive systems analysis (employing
vulnerability analysis, threat attribute definition, and
technology roadmaps) of the civil aviation system,
including--
``(i) the destruction, commandeering, or diversion of civil
aircraft or the use of civil aircraft as a weapon; and
``(ii) the disruption of civil aviation service, including
by cyber attack;''.
(3) Scientific advisory panel.--Subsection (c) of that
section is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Scientific Advisory Panel.--(1) The Administrator
shall establish a scientific advisory panel, as a
subcommittee of the Research, Engineering, and Development
Advisory Committee, to review, comment on, advise the
progress of, and recommend modifications in, the program
established under subsection (a) of this section, including
the need for long-range research programs to detect and
prevent catastrophic damage to commercial aircraft,
commercial aviation facilities, commercial aviation personnel
and passengers, and other components of the commercial
aviation system by the next generation of terrorist weapons.
``(2)(A) The advisory panel shall consist of individuals
who have scientific and technical expertise in--
``(i) the development and testing of effective explosive
detection systems;
``(ii) aircraft structure and experimentation to decide on
the type and minimum weights of explosives that an effective
explosive detection technology must be capable of detecting;
``(iii) technologies involved in minimizing airframe damage
to aircraft from explosives; and
``(iv) other scientific and technical areas the
Administrator considers appropriate.
``(B) In appointing individuals to the advisory panel, the
Administrator should consider individuals from academia and
the national laboratories, as appropriate.
``(3) The Administrator shall organize the advisory panel
into teams capable of undertaking the review of policies and
technologies upon request.
``(4) Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of the Aviation Security Act, and every two years
thereafter, the Administrator shall review the composition of
the advisory panel in order to ensure that the expertise of
the individuals on the panel is suited to the current and
anticipated duties of the panel.''.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, this
amendment provides for the appointment of an advisory board which would
make recommendations concerning the best way to ensure the best
technology is available to increase security, especially at airports,
but also at other vital installations around the country. It is a good
amendment. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

[[Page 19462]]

The amendment (No. 1876) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1877

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Georgia, Mr.
Cleland, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Cleland,
proposes an amendment numbered 1877.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To expand the registration requirements with respect to
airmen)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. AMENDMENTS TO AIRMEN REGISTRY AUTHORITY.

Section 44703(g) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``pilots'' and inserting ``airmen''; and
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``and related to
combating acts of terrorism.''; and
(2) by adding at the end, the following new paragraphs:
``(3) For purposes of this section, the term `acts of
terrorism' means an activity that involves a violent act or
an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the
criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that
would be a criminal violation if committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States or of any State, and
appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population, to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a
government by assassination or kidnaping.
``(4) The Administrator is authorized and directed to work
with State and local authorities, and other Federal agencies,
to assist in the identification of individuals applying for
or holding airmen certificates.''.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from Georgia
has been agreed to on both sides. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1877) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a very brief
statement?
Mr. McCAIN. It will be my pleasure.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdrew the Carnahan amendment. One
reason it was withdrawn is because of the statements made by the
Senator from Arizona that on the next vehicle moving through here, we
can look to help the employees we are trying to help, and he said he
would help us. He has been very good on this legislation, and his
statements regarding these displaced workers and people who need help
so badly is very much appreciated.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. We are in the process of
continuing negotiations. I think we are very close to an agreement
between myself and the principals.

Amendment No. 1878

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thompson, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Thompson,
proposes an amendment numbered 1878.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Aviation Security Act to ensure that those
responsible for security meet performance standards, and for other
purposes)

Insert at the appropriate place the following:

SEC. . RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 449 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the
following:

Sec. Performance Goals and Objectives

(a) Short Term Transition.--
(1) In general.--Within 60 days of enactment, the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security shall, in consultation
with Congress--
(A) establish acceptable levels of performance for aviation
security, including screening operations and access control,
and
(B) provide Congress with an action plan, containing
measurable goals and milestones, that outlines how those
levels of performance will be achieved.
(2) Basics of action plan.--The action plan shall clarify
the responsibilities of the Department of Transportation, the
Federal Aviation Administration and any other agency or
organization that may have a role in ensuring the safety and
security of the civil air transportation system.
(b) Long-Term Results-Based Management.--
(1) Performance plan and report.--
(A) Performance plan.--
(i) Each year, consistent with the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the
Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security shall agree on a performance plan for the succeeding
5 years that establishes measurable goals and objectives for
aviation security. The plan shall identify action steps
necessary to achieve such goals.
(ii) In addition to meeting the requirements of GPRA, the
performance plan shall clarify the responsibilities of the
Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security
and any other agency or organization that may have a role in
ensuring the safety and security of the civil air
transportation system.
(iii) The performance plan shall be available to the
public. The Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security may
prepare a non-public appendix covering performance goals and
indicators that, if revealed to the public, would likely
impede achievement of those goals and indicators.
(B) Performance Report.--
(i) Each year, consistent with the requirements of GPRA,
the Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security shall
prepare and submit to Congress an annual report including an
evaluation of the extent goals and objectives were met. The
report shall include the results achieved during the year
relative to the goals established in the performance plan.
(ii) The performance report shall be available to the
public. The Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security may
prepare a nonpublic appendix covering performance goals and
indicators that, if revealed to the public, would likely
impede achievement of those goals and indicators.

Sec. Performance Management System.

[[Page 19463]]

(ii) Bonuses or other incentives.--In addition, senior
managers can receive bonuses or other incentives based on the
Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security's evaluation of
their performance in relation to goals in agreements. Total
compensation cannot exceed 125 percent of the maximum rate of
base pay for the Senior Executive Service. Further, the
Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security shall establish,
within the performance management system, a program allowing
for the payment of bonuses or other incentives to other
managers and employees. Such a program shall provide for
bonuses or other incentives based on their performance.
(e) Performance-Based Service Contracting.--To the extent
contracts, if any, are used to implement this act, the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security shall, to the extent
practical, maximize the use of performance-based service
contracts. These contracts should be consistent with
guidelines published by the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President. The attacks of September 11 demonstrated
that we had not done all we could to prevent or mitigate them. But even
these events weren't necessary to show us that. We have known for some
time that airport security was less than acceptable, and we all agree
that the system used to screen airline passengers and baggage needs to
be overhauled. However, in the rush to fix the problem by
``federalizing'' the security workforce, I am concerned that not enough
attention is being given to a critical flaw in existing security
operations, that is, the failure to set and insist on performance
standards. It doesn't matter who does this work, if we continue to fail
to hold those responsible for security, from top to bottom,
accountable. In the past, some fines were levied, but no one was held
accountable for improvement.
Passenger and baggage screeners and their employers, whether civil
servants or contractors, must be required to meet performance
standards, and then must be subject to meaningful sanctions if those
standards are not met. This has not occurred in the past. The General
Accounting Office has issued several reports that document the Federal
Aviation Administration's failure to hold airlines accountable for the
declining performance of their baggage screeners over the last decade.
Note that I said detection rates have declined virtually every year
over the last decade.
It's important to note that we have been trying to implement
performance-based management in the Federal Government for some time.
Since 1994, agencies of the Federal Government have been required to
set goals for what they do and report to Congress and the American
people on whether agencies are meeting those goals. Oddly, the
Department of Transportation has been a leader in setting goals. It's
just that in the area of aviation security, they haven't been meeting
them.
In 1997, we asked the Department of Transportation Inspector General
to identify the Department's worst management challenges. Since that
time, the Inspector General has routinely identified aviation security
as the Department's greatest management challenge. And since 1999, I've
been asking the Department of Transportation to set goals to address
and improve aviation security. The Department did set a goal for the
rate at which screeners detect dangerous objects, and it reported as
recently as April of this year that it failed to meet its goal.
Let me read to you from the Department of Transportation's
Performance Report, which it issued this spring:

DOT did not meet this year's performance target [for
aviation security, which specifically measures the detection
rate for explosives and weapons that may be brought aboard
aircraft.] The technology is functioning well and provides
superior security protection, but screener performance has
not improved enough.

The report states further: FAA may face a greater challenge than
expected to meet the FY 2001 performance targets in some areas of
screening.
Like so many things in Washington, we have known this was a problem
for some time. Detection rates at the Nation's airports have been
declining steadily since 1993. But clearly, we weren't holding those
responsible for aviation security accountable for their performance.
So, I have to ask, what assurances do we have that the Department of
Transportation will hold new screeners, under this bill, more
accountable?
Lax enforcement of standards inevitably leads to lax security,
regardless of who hires those screeners. This amendment will ensure
that results-oriented management is a key component of whatever changes
are made to our airport security system. We can not afford more
business as usual. We have to insist that the traveling public is safe
from those who would perpetrate evil deeds like those of September 11.
First, my amendment requires the Federal Government to set and
enforce goals for aviation security. It requires the head of aviation
security, within 60 days of enactment, to establish acceptable levels
of performance and provide Congress with an action plan to achieve that
performance. Over the long-term, the head of aviation security must
establish a process for performance planning and reporting that informs
Congress and the American people about how the Government is meeting
its goals. By creating this process, we will be constantly assessing
the threats we face and ensuring that we have the means to measure our
progress in preparing for those threats. This is a new, detailed method
for ensuring that performance management is in place specifically in
the Government's aviation security programs.
I firmly believe that good people, well managed, can substantially
improve our aviation security. So this amendment gives those
responsible for aviation security enhanced tools to regain the
confidence of America's flying public. We employ a good mix of carrots
and sticks to drive performance. For instance: This amendment
establishes an annual staff performance management system that includes
setting individual, group, and organizational performance goals
consistent with an annual performance plan. Managers and employees
would be eligible for bonuses for good performance. The amendment
allows management to hold employees, whether public, private, or a mix
thereof, accountable for meeting their performance standards.
This approach is not new. Agencies like IRS, the Patent and Trademark
Office, and the Office of Student and Financial Assistance, have
performance-based management systems. But this will be the first time
that performance-based management has been used to better government
performance at every level of a government agency.
I've been trying for many years to get agencies to set goals and
strive to meet them. It seems so commonsensical, but for so many years,
the Federal Government did not do that. And we in the Congress,
admittedly, have not really held agencies' feet to the fire as far as
performance goes.
There has never been, in my opinion, a clearer example of good goals,
but poor performance, as in the area of aviation security. This
amendment will restore confidence in air travel. With my amendment, we
will say, if you are not meeting your goals, whether it be detecting
dangerous objects that people try to get on planes or preventing access
to secure areas of an airport or airplane, you can be held accountable.
And those who meet their goals can be rewarded.
This amendment makes sense. I hope we can assure the American people
that we are doing all we can, remaining vigilant, by strictly enforcing
standards for the safety and security of the Nation's airports and
airplanes. I urge the adoption of this simple, but critical,
performance-based amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. It
deserves a couple minutes of explanation.
One of the difficulties we have had in the past is we passed
legislation and authorized certain activities, and then we forgot about
them as a Congress. We do not pay enough attention to the performance
of the bureaucracies that we either create or designate to carry out
certain programs.
Senator Thompson's amendment is basically results-based management.
It is going to require reporting. It is going to require performance
reports. It is going to require performance plans. It is going to
establish a system for measuring staff performance, management
accountability for meeting

[[Page 19464]]

performance goals, compensation, the Deputy Secretary for
Transportation Security, et cetera.
It is comprehensive performance-based management and results-based
management. I believe it is an important amendment in making sure this
legislation is accountable to the American people as well as the
Congress. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1878) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1879

(Purpose: To require expanded utilization of current security
technologies, establish short-term assessment and deployment of
emergency security technologies, and for other purposes)

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, finally, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, I
send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Lieberman,
for himself, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered
1879.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator
Durbin to offer an amendment to S. 1447, the Aviation Security Act, to
improve airport and aircraft safety through heightened screening of
passengers, carry-on luggage, checked baggage, and those entering
secure areas of airports. The overriding purpose of my amendment is to
put our superior technological knowledge to better, more accurate, more
widespread, and, therefore, more effective use.
In the wake of the horrific attacks of September 11, the Nation's
confidence in the safety of our skies has been deeply shaken. Apart
from the thousands of lives lost, public trust in airport security has
suffered a severe blow, which in turn has had a devastating impact on
the fortunes of the airline sector as well as the general economy.
Three weeks ago, Congress approved a $15 billion bailout plan for the
airline industry, which we all hope will keep the nation's carriers
financially and operationally viable for at least the immediate future.
Ultimately, however, the long-term recovery of air commerce will
require nothing less than developing ironclad confidence in the safety
of our airports and air carriers. My amendment and the bill now under
discussion are first steps toward achieving that goal.
On September 25, the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair,
held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, chaired by Senator Durbin, to explore the adequacy of
airline and airport screening. Witnesses from the airline industry, the
aviation security industry, major airports, the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Department of Transportation Inspector General's
Office, and the General Accounting Office provided sobering testimony
on shortcomings in our current airport security system. The amendment I
am offering today is derived in large part from the expert advice and
recommendations the Committee received at the hearing.
The amendment has three general aims: First, to expand the use of
current security technologies and procedures; second, to improve upon
and upgrade those existing technologies and procedures; and, third, to
fund development of newer, better, and more cost-effective technologies
and procedures.
The very first step that must be taken in order to accomplish these
ends must be to ensure that those working in and around airports are
beyond reproach, because the best technologies and procedures are,
frankly, useless if the people employing them cannot be trusted. My
amendment, therefore, would require completion of intensive background
checks on all airport personnel who have access to secure areas at
commercial airports. This includes FBI criminal checks for all workers,
not just for new hires but for current employees as well.
Next, the amendment would require the Federal Aviation Administration
to expand the use of bulk explosive detection technology already being
deployed at most major airports. We would require the technology to be
used more precisely, more cost effectively, and more often than is
currently the case. To ensure that every link in the chain of security
is strong, the FAA would also be asked to establish goals for the
purchase of additional detection machines for certain mid-sized
airports.
Carriers would be required to increase the number of checked bags
that are positively matched with a boarded passenger, until airports
are scanning 100 percent of checked baggage with explosive detection
technology. The purpose here is to prevent a situation in which a
terrorist loads explosives onto a plane in his baggage, without
actually boarding the plane himself.
The measure would require carriers to build upon the Computer-
Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System, (CAPPS), which now uses a
range of criteria to identify passengers who may present a threat. The
way it works now, baggage checked by selected passengers is subjected
to scanning for possible explosives. Under this amendment I am
offering, passengers identified under this system would be subject to
additional security checks of their persons and their carry-on luggage,
whether or not they had checked baggage.
Additionally, to improve and upgrade existing procedures, the
amendment focuses on the ease with which people may obtain unauthorized
access to restricted areas within airports. This is a widespread and
potentially lethal problem that can be easily remedied. In 1998 and
1999, undercover investigators working for the Department of
Transportation Inspector General's office were able to access secure
areas in airports a whopping 68 percent of the time. Once the
investigators entered the secure areas, they were able to board
aircraft in 117 cases, an astonishing number.
The amendment calls on the Department of Transportation to recommend
ways to prevent unauthorized access to restricted areas--for example,
by employing so-called biometrics systems, systems that employ retinal,
facial, and hand identification technologies or similar scanning
methods, that are currently in use at several U.S. airports; or by
increasing surveillance at access points; upgrading card- or keypad-
based access systems; improving airport emergency exit systems; and
eliminating the practice commonly referred to as ``piggy-backing,''
where an unauthorized person follows an authorized person through a
security access point.
Further, the amendment calls for better coordinating the distribution
of information about passengers on law enforcement ``watch lists.''
And, it requests a review of options for improving the positive
identification of passengers, through biometrics and smart cards.
Finally, the amendment would set aside $50 million for researching
and developing new technologies to improve aviation safety in the
future; and, $20 million for research and development of longer-term
security improvements, including further advances in biometrics,
advanced weapons detection, and improved systems for the sharing of
information among law enforcement entities.
I believe that these provisions together represent a substantial
improvement on the present state of passenger and baggage screening and
other elements of the aviation security system. In conjunction with the
larger changes contemplated in the underlying bill, I am confident that
the measures I call for in this amendment will take us

[[Page 19465]]

along the path toward real and measurable safety and security for our
airways. Like all Americans, I look forward to the day when each of us
can once again enter an airport, and board an airplane, knowing that
terror has been banished from our skies.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, this
amendment requires expanded utilization of current security
technologies, establishes short-term assessment and deployment of
emergency security technologies, and for other purposes.
This has been agreed to by both sides. I think it is a good amendment
and, again, along with the amendment on the part of Senator Thompson, I
think it would give an efficient reporting and accountability aspect to
this amendment which was lacking in its original form.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1879) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 1880

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray, Senator
Shelby, Senator Byrd, myself, and the managers, I send an amendment to
the desk with respect to the language clarification subjecting, of
course, the fees and amounts under this particular measure to the
appropriations process. I think it is clear in the bill but we wanted
to make it absolutely clear, and on behalf of Senator Murray, Senator
Byrd, and Senator Shelby, we are pleased to present the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mrs.
Murray, for herself, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Shelby, proposes an
amendment numbered 1880.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the user fee funding mechanism)

On page 43, line 19, add the words ``annual appropriations
for'' after the word ``offset'';
On page 43, line 20, strike the sentence beginning with the
word ``The'' and ending with the word ``expended.'' on line
23;
On page 43, at the end of line 25, insert the following new
subsection:
(c) User of Fees.--A fee collected under this section shall
be used solely for the costs associated with providing
aviation security services and may be used only to the extent
provided in advance in an appropriation law.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1880) was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1881

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, I send a technical
amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 1881.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the employment, suspension, and termination of
airport passenger security screeners without regard to the provisions
of title 5, United States Code, otherwise applicable to such employees)

On page 32, beginning with line 9, strike through line 2 on
page 35 and insert the following:
(d) Screener Personnel.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation may employ,
appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the compensation,
terms, and conditions of employment of such a number of
individuals as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
carry out the passenger security screening functions of the
Secretary under section 44901 of title 49, United States
Code.
(e) Strikes Prohibited.--An individual employed as a
security screener under section 44901 of title 49, United
States Code, is prohibited from participating in a strike or
asserting the right to strike pursuant to section 7311(3) or
7116(b)(7) of title 5, United States Code.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the
management of the programs and the terms of employment. It has been
discussed by both sides. I ask for its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1881) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1875

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Kentucky,
Mr. McConnell, is on his way over to speak on the pending amendment. I
ask that we return to the pending amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I announce on behalf of Senator Hollings
and myself we are now down to just a couple or three amendments. If
there are Senators who have amendments, we would like for them to come
to the Chamber and offer them because I think we are about ready to
wrap up. I understand there may be at least two amendments on this side
but we would like to get them considered and disposed of.
It would be very helpful if we could move from this legislation to
the antiterrorism legislation.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.
Mr. REID. As I announced today on behalf of Senator Daschle, there
are some really important things to do. This bill is extremely
important. The two managers of this bill have been talking about its
importance for 1 week. It seems at least people with amendments could
come and offer them. If they do not, the majority leader and the
minority leader are going to move from this legislation, finish it,
because we have waiting in the wings the very important antiterrorism
legislation which the Attorney General and the President of the United
States and all of us think is vitally important. So people do not have
the luxury of finishing their appointments or whatever else they are
doing. The business of the Senate is proceeding and we are going to
move to third reading.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. If it is agreeable, in
about 20 minutes--it is now 25 after 3--we will move that no further
amendments be considered. That gives Senators 20 minutes to come over
and propose their amendments.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Very good.
Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1875

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding the amendment of
my good friend from Montana, Senator Burns, has been agreed to on both
sides. It is that amendment to which I want to speak for a few moments
prior to its adoption.
Immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, airline
security suddenly became a national law enforcement priority, shedding
its former status as a routine administrative

[[Page 19466]]

function of the airlines. Once this occurred, it became imperative that
we enlist the expertise of our Nation's top law enforcement agencies to
prevent further attacks on America through our aviation system.
Three weeks ago, and before Senators Hollings and McCain introduced
their first comprehensive airline security bill, I also introduced S.
1444, the Federal Air Marshal and Safe Sky Act. My bill had two
important objectives that I felt strongly about. One, to make airport
security a national priority by having Federal standards, Federal
training, and Federal oversight of all airport security functions and,
two, to make airport security a law enforcement responsibility in the
hands of the Attorney General, our Nation's top law enforcement
official.
Since I introduced my bill, which was cosponsored by Senators
Brownback, Gregg, Thurmond, and Helms, we have worked closely with both
the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee, as well as
Senator Burns and Senator DeWine, on these important issues. That is
why I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Burns' amendment, which
would transfer airport screening and armed personnel to the Department
of Justice and allow the Department of Justice to set standards of
training for Federal air marshals.
For a comprehensive air marshal program to be most effective, we need
to relieve the obligations of airport security from the FAA and the
airlines, where the primary purpose is to facilitate the managed air
travel, and entrust that responsibility to the Department of Justice,
whose primary mission is to enforce Federal law and, most importantly,
to safeguard and protect us from further acts of terrorism.
The Justice Department already has a model in place for Federal
security. That model is our Federal courthouses which are currently
secured by the U.S. marshals who employ court security officers,
commonly referred to as CSOs, to provide security around the perimeter
of the building, at each point of entry, and in the courtrooms
themselves. These court security officers are themselves retired
Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel.
Part of the reason our courthouses enjoy such security today is that
this unified system provides for layers of security far before when one
enters the actual courtroom. Our democracy demands, in the interests of
our national security, that we make sure our airports are every bit as
secure as our courthouses.
Finally, I would add that it is important both substantively and
symbolically for the American people to know that one of our nation's
top law enforcement priorities will now be handled by our nation's top
law enforcement agency.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, for his
leadership and hard work on this amendment. I also thank the chairman
and ranking member for their hard work on this important piece of
legislation and express my enthusiastic support for the Burns amendment
and indicate my pride in being added as a cosponsor. I enjoyed working
with the Senator from Montana on this matter and am glad the amendment
will be accepted. It is an outstanding amendment and will add
substantially to the goal of ensuring we have airports that are as safe
as possible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I thank my good friend, the Senator from Kentucky. I also
thank him for his legislation issuing war bonds to pay for this
operation, this antiterrorism effort, and to bring fugitives to justice
and to fulfill this operation.
Since he introduced that legislation--and I was a cosponsor of it--I
have been getting mail from all over the State of Montana wanting to
know where to buy a war bond because they want to participate in the
security of this country. Since September 11, we as a society have
changed a lot of our priorities and agenda.
Mr. McCONNELL. As Senator Burns pointed out, this legislation has now
passed the Senate and was added as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal
appropriations bill. We are optimistic that the conferees will keep
that amendment since it was not in the House version and it could be on
the way, hopefully, for the President's signature downtown. We are
optimistic that the Treasury Department will pick up this device which
gives Americans a great opportunity.
One hears the question, What can I do? As the Senator from Montana
pointed out, this is the answer to that.
Mr. BURNS. It was a great amendment. Americans want to participate.
They want to do their share. Knowing we are in a crisis in this
country, this is a way to help.
The operations we have going on are very expensive. This is a way we
ask Americans to help us get the job done, help this President who has
dedicated himself to getting this job done.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I don't believe there is further debate on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1875) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the leadership for their courtesy and their staffs
who worked with my staff closely in passing this amendment. It does
enhance the legislation. We hope what we have done gives a bright line
of accountability. I appreciate the leadership of the chairman of the
Commerce Committee, the ranking member, and their staffs.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from Montana for his leadership and
help in enhancing security with respect to airline travel.
Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know the manager and the Senator McCain
are working very hard to resolve the final issues on this legislation.
I take the floor again to say thank them for their hard work on this
legislation. It has been a long, tortured trail to get this aviation
security bill to the floor of the Senate; and, second, to begin to
resolve all of the difficulties and hopefully get it passed as quickly
as possible.
I mention one issue that will not hang up the bill for me. I will
strongly support this bill because of the work they have done. The one
issue I talked to both Senator Hollings and Senator McCain about is
something that they have agreed to discuss in conference to see if we
can make some adjustments.
Here is the situation with respect to the enplanement fee of $2.50.
If you are flying in this country from one of the spokes in the system
and fly from the spoke to a hub and to another hub--for example, from
Bismark you go to Minneapolis, get on another plane, fly to Washington,
DC, and then you fly back--you are going to pay four enplanement fees
totaling $10.
The problem with respect to that enplanement fee is one in which if
you start at a spoke in this system and fly to a hub and then to
another hub, which many people do, they are going to always pay $10,
because they will have taken four segments at $2.50 per segment.
Those who live in the big cities that fly to another major city will
pay $5. If you are from a small airport and go to a hub and then
another big city, which

[[Page 19467]]

most travelers do--I do for every trip to North Dakota; I fly from here
to Minneapolis, and either from there to Minot, or Grand Forks, or
Fargo--for every one of those tickets, my constituents will always pay
four $2.50 enplanement fees. Someone who lives in Chicago or
Minneapolis and flies to Washington, DC will always pay a $5 fee. They
will pay a fee when they leave Chicago, then a fee when they leave
Washington, DC because they do not have to change planes. They only
have two segments, not four. We have a circumstance where the current
fee will double for those who are on the spokes part of the hub in the
spoke system. That is just not fair.
So I visited just in this Chamber today with Senator Hollings and
Senator McCain and described that circumstance. They have agreed to
take a look at that in conference. I understand we cannot modify that
at this moment, but they have said, yes, they understand that
circumstance, and they would be willing to take a look at that in
conference. I appreciate that.
It is just a circumstance where, in one more situation, those at the
end of the line, those in the smaller airports who have to fly to a hub
and then change planes to go someplace are going to end up paying more.
They already pay too much, in my judgment.
Those who have the satisfaction of flying between pairs of the
largest cities in the country have the wonderful treat of being able to
see multiple carriers competing around price for those seats; and they
get a pretty good deal under deregulation. That has not been the case
for a lot of other consumers.
When we add to the airline tickets some fee to recover the charge for
aviation security, we must do it in a manner that is fair. I submit, as
I have indicated to Senator Hollings and Senator McCain, it is not, in
my judgment, good policy for us to say to all of those who live out on
the end of a spoke in the hub-and-spoke system pay twice as much as
those who live in the hub. That is not something that would make sense,
not something that would be fair to a lot of folks around this country
who fly from the smaller airports.
So let me again say, I wanted to call this to the attention of my
colleagues today. I did today, with a discussion with Senator Hollings
and Senator McCain. They have agreed to take a good look at that in
conference. That is all I can ask at this point.
Let me conclude, as I started, by saying this bill has an urgency to
it. It has been frustrating that it has taken so long to get to the
floor, but it is here. I will take great satisfaction in the work that
my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, has done; my
colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, has done; along with many
others--Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, myself, and so many
others who worked on this bill in the Commerce Committee. Thanks to
their good work, we will pass an aviation security bill now--I hope
today--and get to conference, make the changes necessary, and get this
bill to the President's desk.
This country needs this bill. The airline industry needs it. This
economy needs it. It is much more than just this piece of legislation.
It is about confidence. This economy and this country, and especially
the airline industry at this point, desperately need that cushion of
confidence that a number of steps, including this piece of legislation,
will offer.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Amendment No. 1863

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I now offer the amendment that I spoke
of earlier in the afternoon, which would allow pilots under Part 121--
who are now required to retire at the age of 60--to continue to pilot
commercial airlines until the age of 63.
It is my intention, at the end of my statement, to ask for the yeas
and nays on the amendment. My understanding is that the floor managers
are reviewing the amendment.
If procedure allows, I would like to speak on the amendment at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is currently pending.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry; I did not hear the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is currently pending.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, earlier today I spoke of an amendment that I planned
to offer that would repeal the Federal Aviation Administration's rule
which requires pilots who fly under Part 121 to retire at the age of
60. This is a mandatory retirement.
It is kind of interesting to note that foreign airlines--Lufthansa,
and others--allow pilots to fly beyond age 60; in some cases 65, in
some cases longer.
Under the amendment, pilots in excellent health--and I mean subject
to not just the regular physical exams which they have to undergo now
to fly under age 60--but, as a consequence of extending this to age 63,
would be allowed to continue to pilot commercial airlines. It would
allow the FAA to require those pilots to undergo additional medical and
cognitive testing for certification as well as establish standards for
crew pairings.
I live in Alaska. I fly a great deal. To suggest that suddenly, when
an experienced pilot reaches age 60, he or she is no longer fit to fly,
flies in the face of age discrimination certainly. It flies in the face
of the value that an experienced pilot has.
Some might suggest that this is not germane to aviation safety. Well,
if anything is germane to aviation safety, it is an experienced pilot.
How do you get experience? You get experience in aviation by flying,
you gain experience in what to do during mechanical difficulties, you
gain experience in what to do during weather difficulties. It is
experience, Mr. President. And it is germane to this legislation, which
is airline safety.
I do not want to fly, necessarily, in adverse weather, under IFR
conditions, in an unpressurized aircraft in my State of Alaska without
an experienced pilot.
The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hale Boggs, and
the Representative for the State of Alaska in the House of
Representatives, Nick Begich, were flying in adverse weather in an
unpressurized aircraft. It was the largest aerial search ever
undertaken. They have never found any remains, any evidence of where
the aircraft crashed.
My point is, experience counts. This particular amendment is germane.
This particular amendment has had a hearing in the Commerce Committee.
The protections that we provide, by requiring commercial airline pilots
to undergo additional medical and cognitive testing for certification
covers the exposure.
As I look around this Chamber, with the exception of a few of our
colleagues who happen to be in the candy drawer right now, virtually
everyone is over 60 years old. Suddenly, at their 60th birthday, are
they no longer fit to represent their constituents? They are certainly
experienced. And this measure is applicable here.
There is an objection from the unions, and I recognize their
objection, but it is a matter of retirement. That is an agreement
between the unions and the airlines. What we are talking about is
airline safety. We are talking about experience. You have a legitimate
complaint about the unions wanting to move these pilots out, to make
room for others.
But what we are doing in this country today is, we are calling our
pilots back to the military because we have a crisis. We need them. For
all practical purposes, we have a pilot shortage in this country.
The European airlines recognize reality. Experience counts.
Experience counts in my State. This measure was subject to a full
Commerce Committee hearing. It was voted out of committee by a majority
in March of this year. We have had numerous studies sponsored by the
FAA. None have ever produced concrete evidence that pilots over 60
years of age are a threat to the flying public. In fact, the studies
have not even included pilots over 60. So where is this coming from?
Experience does count. If you are in good physical condition--you
live

[[Page 19468]]

longer; you take better care of yourself; you have a better health
provider--what is wrong here? We have age discrimination against pilots
who are 60 years old; you do not let them fly anymore. That is
discrimination of the worst kind. If they can pass a physical, why not?
Advanced psychological and neurobehavioral testing methods do exist
to test pilots of any age. More importantly, we have simulator training
that can estimate the risk of any number of things--such as cardiac
complaints as evidence shows that there is one event in more than 20
million hours of flight time. Sudden flight incapacitation is clearly
less a threat to aviation safety than are mishaps due to inexperienced
pilot error.
Let's go through the list of accidents. We recognize that most
accidents associated with aviation in the area of qualifications under
pilot error are due to inexperienced pilots, not experienced pilots.
That can only come with time and age. That is why it is so important to
recognize that when a pilot becomes 60 years of age, he or she should
not be simply eliminated from commercial aviation.
The European countries recognize this and take experience into
consideration and allow pilots to fly until the age of 65. My amendment
would allow them to fly until age 63.
Medical science has vastly improved since 1959--improvements in
diagnosis, which include early detection, prevention, health awareness,
and diet. All of these factors have increased life expectancy since
1959.
Our airline pilots consistently demonstrate superior task
performances across all age groups when compared to age-matched non-
pilots. Pilots are subjected to comprehensive medical examinations
every 6 months. In the 42 years since the rule was promulgated, there
has not been any evidence that pilots over age 60 are not fully capable
of handling their flight responsibilities.
As an example, pilots who flew in commuter operations were allowed to
fly past the age of 60 until the end of 1999. This practice ended with
the 1995 commuter rule. It mandated that any airline company which
offered scheduled service using aircraft with nine or more seats had to
fly under part 121 operations. However, this rule made special
provisions to allow pilots who were then flying over 60 to continue to
fly for 4 more years as pilots in command and allowed companies to
continue to hire pilots 60 and older for 15 months. There were over 100
pilots over 60 years of age flying at that time. A study of 31
determined that they flew without a single accident or a single
incident.
In 1999, 69 current and former airline captains organized and
underwent extensive medical testing and petitioned the FAA to drop this
antiquated mandatory retirement. They were tested by a panel of
nationally and internationally recognized experts in the field of
aerospace medicine, cardiology, internal medicine, geriatrics, and
neuropsychological medicine. The panel determined that they were all
qualified to perform airline captain and command duties beyond 60. Do
you know what happened? The FAA denied their exemption request.
In supporting documents to their petition, they showed that the FAA
had relaxed its medical requirements to allow pilots to fly with
various medical problems, including hypertension, diabetes, alcoholism,
spinal cord injury, defective vision, liberalized height and weight
restrictions. They allowed that. It was an exemption. They were under
60. But if you were 60 and in good health, you couldn't fly the next
day.
In the area of cardiovascular special issuances, the American Medical
Association applauded the FAA as having demonstrated an understanding
of the advances in diagnostic treatment and rehabilitation. So we have
the American Medical Association applauding the FAA for allowing
exemptions for those under 60, but if you are in perfect health and you
are over 60, you can't fly.
In 1999, the FAA granted medical certificates to 6,072 airline pilots
under the age of 60 who had sufficient medical pathology permitting
them to operate as airline crewmen.
How does the FAA derive its medical consensus that it is safe for
those pilots to continue to fly and not those who have been flying for
41 years without such medical pathology who happen to just arrive at
the age of 60? It is rather interesting. You can go down to the FAA and
see who is flying, who is giving check rides. Most of them are over 60
because they are exempt. Where is the logic in this, if the FAA can
keep its pilots on over 60, have them checked out, then you have a
regulation here that is absolutely inconsistent with reality?
Twenty-five countries belonging to the European Joint Aviation
Authority raised the mandatory retirement age to 65, joining many Asian
countries that increased the age to 63 or 65. I know of no evidence
that those foreign pilots have a worse safety record than pilots under
the age of 60.
The time has come for Congress to repeal the age restriction on
commercial pilots. This is age discrimination. Years of medical and
safety data have failed to support the position that the chronological
age of 60 represents a passenger safety concern. Therefore, as long as
a pilot can pass the rigorous medical exam, he or she should be allowed
to fly.
We must, as a legislative body, eliminate age discrimination against
pilots who can and should be flying our commercial aircraft.
To suggest that somehow this is not germane to this bill flies in the
face of reality. This is an aviation safety bill. What is more basic to
aviation safety than having experience? And how do you get experience?
It comes with age, whether you like it or not.
I think it is time we end this age discrimination once and for all.
We need experience in the cockpit. I know that I appreciate it when I
am flying with a pilot who has seen more than a few thousand hours in
the air as well as simulator time. We value the aspects certainly
associated with life and maturing, but we should not be hypocritical in
how we treat pilots.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and ask for the yeas
and nays on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, only a month ago, our Nation faced a
terrible tragedy. We learned loud and clear that we need to improve
aviation security and safety, not decrease it, which is what this
amendment would do. At a time that we need to protect the American
public, Congress should not be decreasing safety standards. Even the
FAA opposes this amendment because of safety concerns.
This amendment would eliminate the current rule that commercial pilot
must retire at age 60. It was put into place to help ensure safety in
the air. It should only be changed if research can prove the effects of
aging do not impact a pilot's ability to fly a commercial jet at age
60.
The ``Age 60 Rule'' for retirement of airline pilots was implemented
by the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, based on safety concerns
that medical evidence showed that as a group pilots begin to
demonstrate the affects of aging around age 60.
Here is what the medical evidence of aging shows: there is a
progressive deterioration of physiological and psychological functions
and this increases more rapidly as people age; sudden incapacity from
heart attacks or strokes become more frequent in any group reaching age
60; there is a the loss in ability to perform highly skilled tasks
rapidly; it becomes harder to maintain physical stamina; it is more
difficult to perform effectively in a complex and stressful environment
and to apply experience, judgment and reasoning rapidly in new,
changing and emergency situations; and, there is an increased
difficulty to learn new techniques, skills and procedures.
While it is recognized that such losses generally start well before
age 60, it determined that beyond age 59, the risks associated with
these losses become unacceptable for pilots in airline operations.

[[Page 19469]]

Additionally, the Airline Pilots Association, the largest pilot
union, does not support raising the mandatory retirement age. In fact,
they oppose it.
Also, older pilots with seniority fly the largest, highest
performance aircraft that carry the greatest number of passengers with
the longest nonstop flights into the highest density air traffic. These
are concerns as pilots age.
Additionally, a mandatory retirement age is not unique in the airline
field. For example, air traffic controllers have a congressionally
mandated retirement age of 56 years old.
Yes, I am sure that there are a few pilots who can fly past 60. But,
our decision should be made to protect the safety of the American
flying public.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I know the good intentions of the Senator
from Alaska. I have spoken to him on many occasions about this issue.
There likely is a time and place for this amendment. It is not on this
bill.
I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for the
consideration of several amendments that have been agreed to prior to
the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1886

Mr. McCAIN. On behalf of Senators Enzi and Dorgan, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Enzi and Mr.
Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 1886.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 15, line 2, after the period insert the following:

``The Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with
the appropriate State or local government law enforcement
authorities, shall reexamine the safety requirements for
small community airports to reflect a reasonable level of
threat to those individual small community airports,
including the parking of passenger vehicles within 300 feet
of the airport terminal building with respect to that
airport.''

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1886) was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1887 and 1888, En Bloc

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send two amendments on behalf of
Senator Hutchison of Texas to the desk, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mrs. Hutchison,
proposes amendments numbered 1887 and 1888, en bloc.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 1887

(Purpose: To apply present law background and fingerprinting
requirements to existing, as well as new, airport employees with access
to security-sensitive areas)

On page 35, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(e) Background Checks for Existing Employees.--
(1) In general.--Section 44936 of title 49, United States
Code is amended--
(A) by inserting ``is or'' before ``will'' in subsection
(a)(1)(B)(i); and
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
apply with respect to individuals employed on or after the
date of enactment of the Aviation Security Act in a position
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 44936(a)(1)
of title 49, United States Code. The Secretary of
Transportation may provide by order for a phased-in
implementation of the requirements of section 44936 of that
title made applicable to individuals employed in such
positions at airports on the date of enactment of this Act.
____

Amendment No. 1888

(Purpose: To require screening of all airport and airport
concessionaire employees)

On page 18, line 1, strike ``passengers'' and insert
``passengers, individuals with access to secure areas,''.
On page 18, line 10, after the period, insert ``The
Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall
provide for the screening of all persons, including airport,
air carrier, foreign air carrier, and airport concessionaire
employees, before they are allowed into sterile or secure
areas of the airport, as determined by the Secretary.
The screening of airport, air carrier, foreign air carrier,
and airport concessionaire employees, and other nonpassengers
with access to secure areas, shall be conducted in the same
manner as passenger screenings are conducted, except that the
Secretary may authorize alternative screening procedures for
personnel engaged in providing airport or aviation security
at an airport.''.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the first amendment requires background
checks for existing aviation security employees over a time certain.
The other one requires screening of all employees prior to entering the
secure areas.
I want to take a moment to thank Senator Hutchison for her wonderful
work on this bill and on these amendments.
I urge adoption of the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 1887 and 1888) were agreed to, en bloc.

Amendments Nos. 1889 through 1893 and 1873 As Modified, En Bloc

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for me to send to the desk a couple more amendments; that they be
agreed to, en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table,
and that any modifications of the filed amendments be in order with
respect to these amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes amendments
en bloc numbered 1889 through 1893 and 1873, as modified.

amendment no. 1889

(Purpose: To require the Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation
Security to establish an employment register)

At the end of the bill, insert the following:

SEC. . USE OF FACILITIES.

(a) Employment Register.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation shall
establish and maintain an employment register.
(b) Training Facility.--The Secretary of Transportation
may, where feasible, use the existing Federal Aviation
Administration's training facilities to design, develop, or
conduct training of security screening personnel.
____

amendment no. 1890

(Purpose: To require a report on any air space restrictions put in
place as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that
remain in place)

Strike the section heading for section 14 and insert the
following:

SEC. 14. REPORT ON NATIONAL AIR SPACE RESTRICTIONS PUT IN
PLACE AFTER TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT REMAIN IN
PLACE.

(a) Report.--Within 30 days of the enactment of this Act,
the President shall submit to the committees of Congress
specified in subsection (b) a report containing--
(1) a description of each restriction, if any, on the use
of national airspace put in place as a result of the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that remains in place
as of the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) a justification for such restriction remaining in
place.
(b) Committees of Congress.--The committees of Congress
specified in this subsection are the following:
(1) The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
(2) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives.
(3) The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate.

[[Page 19470]]

(4) The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.

SEC. 15. DEFINITIONS.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 1891

(Purpose: To facilitate the voluntary provision of emergency services
during commercial air flights)

Strike the section heading for section 14 and insert the
following:

SEC. 14. VOLUNTARY PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DURING
COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS.

(a) Program for Provision of Voluntary Services.--
(1) Program.--The Secretary of Transportation shall carry
out a program to permit qualified law enforcement officers,
firefighters, and emergency medical technicians to provide
emergency services on commercial air flights during
emergencies.
(2) Requirements.--The Secretary shall establish such
requirements for qualifications of providers of voluntary
services under the program under paragraph (1), including
training requirements, as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(3) Confidentiality of registry.--If as part of the program
under paragraph (1) the Secretary requires or permits
registration of law enforcement officers, firefighters, or
emergency medical technicians who are willing to provide
emergency services on commercial flights during emergencies,
the Secretary shall take appropriate actions to ensure that
the registry is available only to appropriate airline
personnel and otherwise remains confidential.
(4) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with
appropriate representatives of the commercial airline
industry, and organizations representing community-based law
enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians,
in carrying out the program under paragraph (1), including
the actions taken under paragraph (3).
(b) Protection From Liability.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 449 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``Sec. 44939. Exemption of volunteers from liability

``(a) In General.--An individual shall not be liable for
damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court
that arises from an act or omission of the individual in
providing or attempting to provide assistance in the case of
an inflight emergency in an aircraft of an air carrier if the
individual meets such qualifications as the Secretary shall
prescribe for purposes of this section.
``(b) Exception.--The exemption under subsection (a) shall
not apply in any case in which an individual provides, or
attempts to provide, assistance described in that paragraph
in a manner that constitutes gross negligence or willful
misconduct.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``44939. Exemption of volunteers from liability.''.

(c) Construction Regarding Possession of Firearms.--Nothing
in this section may be construed to require any modification
of regulations of the Department of Transportation governing
the possession of firearms while in aircraft or air
transportation facilities or to authorize the possession of a
firearm in an aircraft or any such facility not authorized
under those regulations.

SEC. 15. DEFINITIONS.
____

amendment no. 1892

(Purpose: To make minor and technical corrections in the managers'
amendment)

On page 1, in the matter appearing after line 5, strike the
item relating to section 1 and insert the following:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
On page 4, line 23, strike ``hiring and training'' and
insert ``hiring, training, and evaluating''.
On page 8, beginning with line 18, strike through line 20
on page 9 and insert the following:
(a) In General.--As soon as possible after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall--
(1) issue an order (without regard to the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code)--
(A) prohibiting access to the flight deck of aircraft
engaged in passenger air transportation or intrastate air
transportation except to authorized personnel;
(B) requiring the strengthening of the flight deck door and
locks on any such aircraft operating in air transportation or
intrastate air transportation that has a rigid door in a
bulkhead between the flight deck and the passenger area to
ensure that the door cannot be forced open from the passenger
compartment;
(C) requiring that such flight deck doors remain locked
while any such aircraft is in flight except when necessary to
permit the flight deck crew access and egress; and
(D) prohibiting the possession of a key to any such flight
deck door by any member of the flight crew who is not
assigned to the flight deck; and
(2) take such other action, including modification of
safety and security procedures, as may be necessary to ensure
the safety and security of the aircraft.
On page 10, line 9, insert closing quotation marks after
``(1)'' the second place it appears.
On page 10, line 20, insert opening quotation marks before
``(3)''.
On page 15, line 17, insert a semicolon before the closing
quotation marks.
On page 16, beginning in line 18, strike ``Employment
Investigations and Restrictions.--'' and insert ``Airport
Security Pilot Program.--''.
On page 18, line 9, strike ``an'' and insert ``a''.
On page 18, line 10, strike ``215'' and insert ``2105''.
On page 21, beginning with line 22, strike through line 6
on page 22 and insert the following:
(b) Deputizing of State and Local Law Enforcement
Officers.--Section 512 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century is amended--
(1) by striking ``purpose of'' in subsection (b)(1)(A) and
inserting ``purposes of (i)'';
(2) by striking ``transportation;'' in subsection (b)(1)(A)
and inserting ``transportation, and (ii) regulate the
provisions of security screening services under section
44901(c) of title 49, United States Code;'';
(3) by striking ``not federal responsibility'' in the
heading of subsection (b)(3)(b);
(4) by striking ``shall not be responsible for providing''
in subsection (b)(3)(B) and inserting ``may provide'';
(5) by striking ``flight.'' in subsection (c)(2) and
inserting ``flight and security screening functions under
section 44901(c) of title 49, United States Code.'';
(6) by striking ``General'' in subsection (e) and inserting
``General, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation,''; and
(7) by striking subsection (f).
On page 31, line 20, strike ``(2)Section'' and ``(2)
Section''.
On page 31, after line 25, insert the following:
(3) Section 44936(a)(1)(E) is amended by striking clause
(iv).
On page 32, line 20, insert ``under section 44901 of title
49, United States Code,'' after ``screener''.
On page 32, strike line 23, and insert ``5, United States
Code.''.
On page 33, line 2, insert ``any other'' before
``provision''.
On page 36, line 8, after ``alien'' insert ``or other
individual''.
On page 38, line 25, strike ``Congress'' and insert
``Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure''.
On page 39, line 6, strike ``Congress'' and insert ``Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure''.
On page 41, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
(5) The use of technology that will permit enhanced instant
communications and information between airborne passenger
aircraft and appropriate individuals or facilities on the
ground.
On page 43, line 3, insert ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' before ``the best''.
On page 43, line 9, strike ``to certify'' and insert
``on''.
In amendment No. 1881, on page 1, line 5, insert ``Federal
service for'' after ``of''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 1893

(Purpose: To require the Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation
Security to have certain detection technologies in place by September
30, 2002)

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. __. IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES.

(a) In General.--Not later than September 30, 2002, the
Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation Security shall
review and make a determination on the feasibility of
implementing technologies described in subsection (b).
(b) Technologies Described.--The technologies described in
this subsection are technologies that are--
(1) designed to protect passengers, aviation employees, air
cargo, airport facilities, and airplanes; and
(2) material specific and able to automatically and non-
intrusively detect, without human interpretation and without
regard to shape or method of concealment, explosives, illegal
narcotics, hazardous chemical agents, and nuclear devices.
____

AMENDMENT No. 1873 as modified

At the appropriate place, insert:

SEC. __. ENHANCED SECURITY FOR AIRCRAFT.

[[Page 19471]]

screening for all aircraft operations conducted with respect
to any aircraft having a maximum certified takeoff weight of
more than 12,500 pounds that is not operating as of the date
of the implementation of the program under security
procedures prescribed by the Administrator.
(2) Waiver.--
(A) Authority to waive.--The Administrator may waive the
applicability of the program under this section with respect
to any aircraft or class of aircraft otherwise described by
this section if the Administrator determines that aircraft
described in this section can be operated safely without the
applicability of the program to such aircraft or class of
aircraft, as the case may be.
(B) Limitations.--A waiver under subparagraph (A) may not
go into effect--
(i) unless approved by the Secretary of Transportation; and
(ii) until 10 days after the date on which notice of the
waiver has been submitted to the appropriate committees of
Congress.
(3) Program elements.--The program under paragraph (1)
shall require the following:
(A) The search of any aircraft covered by the program
before takeoff.
(B) The screening of all crew members, passengers, and
other persons boarding any aircraft covered by the program,
and their property to be brought on board such aircraft,
before boarding.
(4) Procedures for searches and screening.--The
Administrator shall develop procedures for searches and
screenings under the program under paragraph (1). Such
procedures may not be implemented until approved by the
Secretary.
(b) Security for Smaller Aircraft.--
(1) Program required.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
commence implementation of a program to provide security for
all aircraft operations conducted with respect to any
aircraft having a maximum certified takeoff weight of 12,500
pounds or less that is not operating as of the date of the
implementation of the program under security procedures
prescribed by the Administrator. The program shall address
security with respect to crew members, passengers, baggage
handlers, maintenance workers, and other individuals with
access to aircraft covered by the program, and to baggage.
(2) Report on program.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report containing
a proposal for the program to be implemented under paragraph
(1).
(c) Background Checks for Aliens Engaged in Certain
Transactions Regarding Aircraft.--
(1) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and subject to paragraph (2), no person or entity may
sell, lease, or charter any aircraft to an alien, or any
other individual specified by the Secretary for purposes of
this subsection, within the United States unless the Attorney
General issues a certification of the completion of a
background investigation of the alien, or other individual,
as the case may be, that meets the requirements of section
44939(b) of title 49, United States Code, as added by section
13 of this Act.
(2) Expiration.--The prohibition in paragraph (1) shall
expire as follows:
(A) In the case of an aircraft having a maximum certified
takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds, upon
implementation of the program required by subsection (a).
(B) In the case of an aircraft having a maximum certified
takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, upon implementation
of the program required by subsection (b).
(3) Alien defined.--In this subsection, the term ``alien''
has the meaning given that term in section 44939(f) of title
49, United States Code, as so added.
(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Commerce of the House of
Representatives.

Mr. McCAIN. These amendments have been agreed to on both sides. I
urge their adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 1889 through 1893 and 1873, as modified) were
agreed to en bloc.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 1863

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the Murkowski amendment No. 1863.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 294 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Gramm
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--47

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carper
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. I yield to my friend from Alaska for 1 minute without
losing my right to the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I share with Members the transcribed
words of our President from a few moments ago in an open Cabinet
meeting.
He urges the Senate to ``move a bill that will help Americans find
work and also make it easier for all of us around this table to protect
the security of this country. The less dependent we are on foreign
sources of crude oil, the more secure we are at home.
``We spend a lot of time talking about homeland security. An integral
piece of homeland security is energy independence. I ask the Senate to
respond to the call to get an energy bill moving.''
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I was about to introduce, along with the
Presiding Officer in the chair, the Senator from New York, as well as
about 12 other colleagues, an amendment to this legislation for
security needs for Amtrak. They are at a minimum of $1.8 billion. Just
the six tunnels that go into New York City carry 350,000 people per
day. They are antiquated, built around 1910, and need significant
upgrading to protect the safety and security of the people traveling on
those rails. I could go down the list. I will not, in the interest of
time.
The managers of the bill have made an agreement with me and with the
Presiding Officer and many others to do the following: We will withhold
that amendment on this aviation safety bill. The chair and the ranking
member of the Commerce Committee are going to attempt to mark up an
Amtrak security bill and possibly a port security bill in their
committee as early as next Tuesday. God willing and the creek not
rising, as my grandfather would say, there is a possibility they will
be able to report that to the floor sometime next week. I have spoken
to the leadership on our side and have not had a chance to speak with
the leadership on the Republican side. It is our hope to bring that
bill up and vote on that piece of legislation.
In addition to that, I have had an opportunity to speak with the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and others who have indicated
there would be an attempt as we deal with the appropriated money for
this legislation

[[Page 19472]]

we are about to pass, as well as other security needs, that Amtrak
would be considered in that process. I particularly thank my friend
from Arizona who is all for safety but not so much all for Amtrak. He
has been very helpful here and has indicated if we are not able to
get--I ask him to correct me if I am wrong--if for some reason we are
prevented from getting the authorizing legislation up before the
appropriators do their job, he will not object to the appropriators
going forward, notwithstanding his long-held view, as I have as
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, of not wanting the
appropriators to do the work of the authorization committee.
I ask my friend, is that basically correct?
Mr. McCAIN. No.
The Senator from Delaware is correct, but I would like to emphasize
that we do have a safety and security problem with the railway system
in America. It isn't just Amtrak; it is railway, railroad stations, it
is railway centers and hubs all over America. So we need to take care
of security and safety requirements so that people can ride on
railroads just as we are attempting with this aviation legislation so
that people can ride on airplanes in safety and security.
Yes, I am sorry to say, the Senator from Delaware is correct. I would
support an appropriation for safety and security, but I certainly
would, as usually has been my custom, resist the appropriations that
would have to do with other matters, including additional track, rail,
salary, pay, union, and almost anything that can ever be imagined is
usually proposed on one of these bills.
I thank the Senator. I thank my dear friend from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I think it is more appropriate to refer to this as rail
safety. To give an example, the 350,000 people who go through the
tunnels are not all on Amtrak trains. They are on the Long Island
Railroad, they are on the New Jersey transit, using the Baltimore
tunnel, for example, the Maryland transit, et cetera. It is rail
safety. It is not just Amtrak. But Amtrak is responsible for the rail
safety provisions of that. That is the reason I refer to it as Amtrak.
I thank Members on behalf of my 11 other colleagues. I see my
colleague from Delaware, a former board member of Amtrak. I am
delighted to yield to him for a few moments if he would like to make
comments on why we are not moving forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I thank the senior Senator for yielding.
To Senator Biden, to Senator McCain, to Senator Hollings, and others
who have been part of getting us to this rather extraordinary
compromise and position to go forward on the authorizing track and on
the appropriations track as well: Well done.
Mario Cuomo, when he was Governor of New York, would talk about
campaigning and governing. He used to say:

We campaign in poetry, we govern in prose.

Here in the Senate, here in Congress, we authorize in poetry, but we
appropriate in prose.
As important as this authorization is, and it is important that we
get the authorization for work on the tunnels, for work on having more
security onboard our trains and in our stations, and I think some help
in refurbishing some of the older rolling stock, locomotives and cars
that are needed to carry the extra people who are riding the trains
now, as important as the authorizing is, the appropriations is where
the rubber hits the road.
I pledge to work with Senator Biden and Senator Hollings and Senator
McCain and Senator Hutchison and others to make sure we get the work
done, not just on the poetry side but the hard work on the prose side
as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me affirm the exchange between the
distinguished Senator from Delaware and our ranking member, the Senator
from Arizona. The fact is, a railroad infrastructure enhancement bill
was introduced today, with some 10 cosponsors. The reason I mention
that is because we have been working long before September 11 on that
need of the Nation.
With respect to stimulus, there is no better stimulus than
construction, and there is no more needed construction than to
refurbish the Amtrak line itself. Extend that: America needs high-speed
rail.
Of course my distinguished colleague from Arizona, our ranking
member, is disposed at the moment only for safety. We will call up the
bill and we will mark up what we can, facilitate, if necessary, and try
to separate perhaps a bill. But I hope to move next week in committee
on this matter, as was indicated in our previous conversations, on
Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock when we can get a quorum and mark that
bill up and report authorization out here so we will not be confronted
later on with obstacles. I think long before any passage of an
authorization bill we are going to be hitting appropriations on the
stimulus bill or some other bill because we need to immediately take
care of safety and rail transportation.
The frustration of both Senators from Delaware is well understood.
When we adjourned last year, we had everybody running around--
Republican, Democrat, leader and plebeians like myself--saying: Oh, the
first thing we are going to do next year, the first thing we are going
to do is take up Amtrak. It is now October.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I hope my distinguished friend and colleague from South
Carolina did not include me in that group.
Mr. HOLLINGS. No.
Mr. McCAIN. I again thank the Senator from Delaware. I believe we can
mark up a bill on Tuesday with the chairman's leadership. I think we
also need to address seaport security as well. I believe seaport
security is a very serious issue as well as rail security. I hope we
will understand those are priority items that need to be addressed.
Senator Hollings is far more knowledgeable than I am. But some of the
information we have about the amount of cargo, the amount of shipping,
the people and trafficking that goes in and out of the seaports in
America is also a very important issue that we need to address.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the Senator's leadership and support.
Arizona obviously doesn't have very many seaports. But Senator Graham
of Florida and myself have been on this issue for at least 2 years. We
have had all kinds of hearings long before September 11, and we have
produced a seaport security bill that we have been trying to fashion
because it is a many-splendored thing. You have to get the entities,
namely the Port Authorities, to connect with the Customs, Drug
Enforcement Administration, the Coast Guard, and the captain of the
port, who really has legal authority and responsibility. We have to get
them all working together rather than just moving, moving, moving cargo
but actually having as a primary concern, safety and security.
We will be moving that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I will just take another second. I note the Senator from
South Carolina said the distinguished Senator from Arizona doesn't have
a port.
I am reminded when I first got here as a young Senator, I went to
Senator Eastland, who I served under on the Judiciary Committee.
Sitting in his office one day, as I often did, with Senator Thurmond,
asking him anything a young kid, a 30-year-old Senator would ask, I
asked: Who is the most powerful man you ever served with?
He said: Senator Kerr.
I said: Senator Kerr, Senator Kerr of Oklahoma?
He said: Yeah--in his southern drawl which I will not attempt to
imitate on the floor as I often do off the floor.
He said: Who in the heck else could bring up the Gulf of Mexico in
the middle of his State if he wasn't powerful?
I think, as the Senator's power continues to increase, he may bring
the

[[Page 19473]]

Pacific Ocean to Arizona, but I am not sure how he will do it.
Mr. McCAIN. The most entertaining man I ever knew was Morris Udall,
who often was heard saying: We in Arizona eagerly await the next
earthquake so Arizona would be a coastal State.
That is not as amusing as it was once, since there was one out there.
But perhaps the Port of Yuma will still be a place the Senator from
Delaware can help us with.
In case our colleagues are wondering what we are doing, we are hoping
to resolve one remaining issue before final passage. Negotiations are
going on as we speak so we would be able to move to final passage. We
hope within minutes that we will have that issue resolved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 1894

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Vermont,
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I send an amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr.
Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 1894.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend title 49, United States Code)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . REPORT.

Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General shall report to the House Committee
on the Judiciary, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on
the new responsibilities of the Department of Justice for
aviation security under this Act.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it has been cleared on both sides. This
is just to conform the Burns amendment relative to the Department of
Justice having certain authorities. This is to conform, then to report
back to the Judiciary Committees of both Houses.
I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1894) was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1895

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the
distinguished Senator, Mr. McCain, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for himself
and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1895.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 1, in the matter appearing after line 5, strike the
item relating to section 1 and insert the following:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

On page 4, line 23, strike ``hiring and training'' and
insert ``hiring, training, and evaluating''.
On page 8, beginning with line 18, strike through line 20
on page 9 and insert the following:
(a) In General.--As soon as possible after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall--
(1) issue an order (without regard to the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code)--
(A) prohibiting access to the flight deck of aircraft
engaged in passenger air transportation or intrastate air
transportation except to authorized personnel;
(B) requiring the strengthening of the flight deck door and
locks on any such aircraft operating in air transportation or
intrastate air transportation that has a rigid door in a
bulkhead between the flight deck and the passenger area to
ensure that the door cannot be forced open from the passenger
compartment;
(C) requiring that such flight deck doors remain locked
while any such aircraft is in flight except when necessary to
permit the flight deck crew access and egress; and
(D) prohibiting the possession of a key to any such flight
deck door by any member of the flight crew who is not
assigned to the flight deck; and
(2) take such other action, including modification of
safety and security procedures, as may be necessary to ensure
the safety and security of the aircraft.
On page 10, line 9, insert closing quotation marks after
``(1)'' the second place it appears.
On page 10, line 20, insert opening quotation marks before
``(3)'',
On page 15, line 17, insert a semicolon before the closing
quotation marks.
On page 16, beginning in line 18, strike ``Employment
Investigations and Restrictions.--'' and insert ``Airport
Security Pilot Program.--''.
On page 18, line 9, strike ``an'' and insert ``a''.
On page 18, line 10, strike ``215'' and insert ``2105''.
On page 21, beginning with line 22, strike through line 6
on page 22 and insert the following:
(b) Deputizing of State and Local Law Enforcement
Officers.--Section 512 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century is amended--
(1) by striking ``purpose of'' in subsection (b)(1)(A) and
inserting ``purpose of (i)'';
(2) by striking ``transportation;'' in subsection (b)(1)(A)
and inserting ``transportation, and (ii) regulate the
provisions of security screening services under section
44901(c) of title 49, United States Code;'';
(3) by striking ``not federal responsibility'' in the
heading of subsection (b)(3)(b);
(4) by striking ``shall not be responsible for providing''
in subsection (b)(3)(B) and inserting ``may provide'';
(5) by striking ``flight.'' in subsection (c)(2) and
inserting ``flight and security screening functions under
section 44901(c) of title 49, United States Code.'';
(6) by striking ``General'' in subsection (e) and inserting
``General, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation,''; and
(7) by striking subsection (f).
On page 31, after line 25, insert the following:
(3) Section 44936(a)(1)(E) is amended by striking clause
(iv).
On page 32, line 20, insert ``under section 44901 of title
49, United States Code,'' after ``screener''.
On page 32, strike line 23, and insert ``5, United States
Code.''.
On page 33, line 2, insert ``any other'' before
``provision''.
On page 36, line 8, after ``alien'' insert ``or other
individual''.
On page 38, line 25, strike ``Congress'' and insert
``Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure''.
On page 39, line 6, strike ``Congress'' and insert ``Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure''.
On page 41, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
(5) the use of technology that will permit enhanced instant
communications and information between airborne passenger
aircraft and appropriate individuals or facilities on the
ground.
On page 43, line 3, insert ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' before ``the best''.
On page 43, line 9, strike ``to certify'' and insert
``on''.
In amendment no. 1881, on page 1, line 5, insert ``Federal
service for'' after ``of''.

Mr. HOLLINGS. This amendment is a technical amendment, a final
wrapup, change of the ands and ifs and buts and what have you. It has
nothing to do with the substance but to conform various technicalities
in the other amendments that we agreed upon in the course of
consideration of this particular bill.
I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1895) was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 19474]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
disposition of the Warner amendment no further amendments be
considered, and that we go to third reading and final passage.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have to object. I know how hard the
Senator worked on this, but I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on this bill now
before the Senate, that there be three amendments in order, one by the
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and two by the Senator from Vermont,
Mr. Jeffords, and that no other amendments be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. And that then the Senate will move to third reading and
final passage.
Mr. REID. Yes. That goes without saying, Mr. President. As soon as we
finish these, we move to third reading and final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 1896

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself and Senator Allen and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr.
Allen, proposes an amendment numbered 1896.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide payment for losses incurred by the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority and businesses at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport for limitations on the use of the airport
after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PAYMENT FOR LOSSES RESULTING FROM LIMITATIONS ON USE
OF RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
FOLLOWING TERRORIST ATTACKS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available
immediately by the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on
the United States (Public Law 107-38) that are available for
obligation, $65,648,183 shall be available to the Secretary
of Transportation for payment to the Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority (MWAA) and concessionaires at Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport for losses resulting from
the closure, and subsequent limitations on use, of the
airport following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
and subsequent reopening of other United States airports
after September 13, 2001.
(b) Allocation of Funds.--The amount available under
subsection (a) shall be allocated as follows:
(1) $37,816,093 shall be available for payment for losses
of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority that
occurred as a result of the closure of Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport after September 13, 2001.
(2) $27,832,090 shall be available for payment for losses
of concessionaires at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport that occurred as a result of the closure of Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport after September 13, 2001.
(c) Application.--A concessionaire at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport seeking payment under this
section for losses described in subsection (a) shall submit
to the Secretary an application for payment in such form and
containing such information as the Secretary shall require.
The application shall, at a minimum, substantiate the losses
incurred by the concessionaire described in subsection (a).

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague from the State of Virginia
and I do this on behalf of the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority. It is all very clear to each and every one of us in the
Senate that for reasons which are justifiable--because of security
considerations--this airport had to be closed the longest of all. As a
consequence, the Airports Authority has an extensive financial package
that has been in place for several years. The ability to gain revenue
to service that package has been taken away from it.
We have a number of small businesses and others associated with
conducting, in the physical plant, the airport itself, their business
activities; they have suffered just irreparable injury. We all know
that. And we all want to help. There are various ways by which this can
be done.
I am prepared to hear from the distinguished manager, who I believe
will be speaking on behalf of the leadership, about how this serious
financial situation at this particular airport--mind you, all other
airports were able to open shortly afterwards. I am not quarreling at
all with the justification for closing it, but this one remained
closed, and also it is functioning at somewhere between 15 and 25
percent of flight capacity as of now. The projections are, as we go to
additional phases, that capacity will be increased, but we have no
assurance at what point we reach 50 percent, 60 percent, and are able
to gain the revenue to service the necessary financial requirements.
So if I might, for the moment, yield the floor in hopes that the
managers, who have been very helpful to me and to others on this
question, will address this issue. I would be happy to consider that
before proceeding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia, I
appreciate his cooperation on this issue, particularly his appreciation
of the fact that this is an airport/airline security bill, and the
issue, as compelling as it is, that the Senator from Virginia raises is
related to the compensation--well-deserved compensation--of the people
who live and work at National Airport and who, because of an order of
the Federal Government, have been deeply harmed economically and,
unfortunately, in other ways as well.
So I appreciate the sensitivity of the Senator from Virginia to the
parameters of this bill. The distinguished chairman and I have had to
turn back a number of amendments because they were not related--
liability, and a number of others--to airport security.
But that does not change the fact that there is still a compelling
problem out there. It is an issue that must be addressed. I believe the
stimulus package is a place where it would be very appropriate. I do
not think anyone who is aware of what happened at National Airport--a
3-week shutdown by direct order of the Federal Government--does not
realize that we have some responsibility. The size of that
responsibility, and how, I think can be the subject of negotiations and
discussion with the administration, the Finance Committee, members of
the Appropriations Committee, et cetera.
But I do not know of a Member of this body who isn't totally
sympathetic and appreciative of the leadership of the Senator from
Virginia--in fact, both Senators from Virginia--in their commitment on
this issue. Since this has happened, I know both Senators have made it
their highest priority to address this issue, so that these people who
are innocent--innocent of any wrongdoing, and are victims in a very
real way of a terrorist attack on America, and who need to receive
compensation--receive compensation and help.
I am very grateful for your leadership, as I am sure the people in
the northern part of Virginia are very appreciative of the Senators'
efforts.
So I would like to join with all of my colleagues in saying we want
to help, we want to assist, and we think there are ways that must be
implemented--not later, but sooner rather than later--to address this
compelling problem.
I thank the Senator from Virginia and yield the floor.

[[Page 19475]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from
Virginia will yield, not only as chairman of the Commerce Committee but
also as a former member of the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority, I was vitally interested in the whys and wherefores of
holding back Reagan National Airport.
We had the Secretary of Transportation 2 days after this particular
tragic event. We were allowing, say, Dulles, and other airports, to
function. There was no reason, once we secured the cockpit--I realize
you had the general security problems--but once you secured that
cockpit--and Boeing said they could retrofit immediately sufficient
planes to be landing and taking off at Reagan National--that we at
least ought to start back the shuttles to New York and then on to
Boston.
So I have been down the path of the Senator from Virginia on this
particular score. I endorse his idea 100 percent. It is just that kind
of situation on airport security. As you know, the junior Senator, Mr.
Allen, has been vitally interested in it. He is a member of our
committee. He and I have been working on this particular bill, moving
as much as we possibly can.
So in any way I can possibly promise you that you will have my
support on the amounts, and everything else of that kind, I would be
glad to help.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, those are very reassuring comments from my
two long-time friends and associates here in the Senate, colleagues I
trust and colleagues who, when they make commitments, follow through.
Given that, and the fact that you have entertained the petitions of
other Senators with respect to facilities in their States----
Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
Mr. WARNER. And that there has been a uniform practice here between
the chairman and the distinguished ranking member as to how to deal
with those amendments, I am prepared, at this time, to withdraw the
amendment, with those assurances that at the stimulus package juncture,
this body will study that.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Very definitely we will be supporting that on the
stimulus package, or some other bill that comes up that is appropriate
and germane.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.

Amendment No. 1896 Withdrawn

Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 1897

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe we have one Jeffords amendment
to which we have agreed. I send it to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Jeffords,
proposes an amendment numbered 1897.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To give retired pilots the same preference as law enforcement
officers to be air marshals)

In amendment No. 1858, on page 1, line 8, insert ``or an
individual discharged or furloughed from commercial airline
cockpit crew position'' after ``age,''.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment is going to give pilots the
same preference as law enforcement officers to be air marshals. I think
it is a good amendment. I think many of our pilots, including those who
are required to retire at age 60, would make excellent air marshals.
This amendment would give them the same preference as law enforcements
officers. I think it is a good amendment.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we support the amendment on this side.
It has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1897) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

AIR MARSHALS FUNDING

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am concerned that the $2.50 user fee
in this bill is not sufficient to provide all of the air marshals we
need. The $2.50 user fee would only provide between $1.3 billion and
$1.7 billion annually, in my opinion, enough to fund Federal security
screeners at our airports, but not enough to provide additional air
marshals.
Today, I intended to offer an amendment to give the Secretary of
Transportation discretion to raise this fee to $5, which would raise
over $3 billion annually to devote to aviation safety.
To ensure that the bill on the Floor passes quickly and we provide
increased aviation security as soon as possible, I have decided not to
proceed with my amendment. I still believe, however, that people are
willing to pay more to feel safe on airplanes and the more air marshals
we have, the better.
I want to thank the Members of the Commerce Committee for their hard
work on this bill, and especially the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Committee, Senator Hollings and Senator McCain.
Mr. McCAIN. Thank you Senator Feinstein. I too am concerned about
airline safety and want to be sure we have provided enough funding for
marshals. The Senator from California has my full assurance that if
more air marshals are needed, I will support providing more funding to
the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation
Administration to accomplish that goal.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I too am in agreement with the Senator from Arizona and
stand with him in support of funding the needed air marshal program.

airlines honoring airline tickets

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, because of the events of September 11, tens
of thousands of airline passengers who bought airline tickets before
and after that date will find that the flight they wanted is
unavailable. How do these ticket holders get another flight or get
their money back?
If they paid cash for their tickets, then, they are out of luck if
the airline goes bankrupt. There is no guarantee that another airline
will honor the ticket.
If they bought their ticket using a credit card, then as I understand
it, Federal law protects them, but at a tremendous cost to those few
banks who process airline tickets. The ticket holder has the right
under Federal law, the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, to seek a
refund from their credit card issuing bank. If the airline is unable to
cover such charge-backs, the loss is borne by the acquiring or
processing bank. The burden on the banking system as a result of the
events of September 11, and the requirements of Regulation Z, is not
small. About $5 billion of advanced ticket sales by credit card exist
at any given time. I doubt that anyone anticipated that Regulation Z
would be used in this manner after an act of war shut down the entire
air transportation system and caused the failure of perhaps several
airlines.
There is a simple and equitable way to protect these passengers who
paid cash and have no recourse. It can also relieve some of the burden
that the law puts on a very few banks. I have a letter from Consumers
Union that proposes the solution. It says, ``Consumers Union believes
that carriers that receive federal funds under H.R. 2926 should be
obligated to honor the tickets of other carriers, where due to service
changes or discontinuation, the issuing carrier is unable to provide
the contracted service.''
In short, if an airline has empty seats, then let the passengers who
would otherwise be denied service use those seats.
I intended to offer an amendment to this effect. Instead, I would ask
the distinguished floor manager a question.

[[Page 19476]]

Does he agree that in light of the aid this Congress has provided to
the airlines, it is not too much to ask them to honor, to the extent
practicable, the tickets of other carriers that are unable to provide
the contracted service?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I think that is entirely reasonable. This could be done
by regulation or even by an explicit gentleman's agreement from the
airlines. I do not think it is too much to ask.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Administration has
taken the first step toward an important safety initiative by limiting
carry-on bags to one bag plus one personal item such as a purse or a
briefcase.
In this context, I would like to mention a special issue that has
arisen concerning the safety procedures we promulgate, and the impact
they might have on the practice of many musicians and musical artists
carrying their instruments with them. I know that many of us have heard
from the American Federation of Musicians, ASCAP, the Music Educators
National Conference, the National Association of Music Education, and
the Recording Industry Association of America, among others, about this
issue. These organizations have expressed concerns, in light of recent
security enhancements, about the ability of their members to continue
carrying musical instruments aboard airplanes.
Rules promulgated by the Federal Government or by air carriers that
would prohibit musicians from traveling with instruments in-cabin
would, among other things, severely limit the ability of orchestras to
present guest artists, audition musicians, and tour within the United
States and internationally, and put at risk valuable, historical
musical instruments. Limitations on carry-on bags should not put an
undue burden on musicians, consistent with the requirements of safety.
I am certain we can make it clear to those charged with the detailed
administration of air safety policies that there is obviously a rule of
reason and practicality to be observed.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Senators Hollings
and McCain for this much awaited, much needed piece of legislation and
to urge my colleagues to help pass it.
It is critical to our Nation's economy that we restore the flying
public's confidence in the safety of the aviation system. We need to
get more planes in the air and we need to make sure they are full.
Legislation that improves and expands security at our airports and on
planes is essential to getting citizens back in the air.
While it is safer to fly today than it ever has been before, this
package, which improves our Nation's aviation security, shows that the
Senate is making an aggressive and firm commitment to America's
aviation security and America's economy.
Two weeks ago I was on a flight from Montana back to Washington. By
chance, I sat next to a gentleman who I appointed to the Air Force
Academy in Colorado Springs 20 years ago. He was an F-16 fighter pilot.
And is now a commercial airline pilot.
In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, he had a bunch of
ideas to increase security on airplanes and airports. I asked him to
write his ideas down. He found a scrap of paper and jotted them down.
This is the paper he gave me. I am so pleased to see many of his ideas
in S. 1447.
From Federal marshals on domestic flights to protecting our pilots in
the cockpit. From vastly improving airport security measures to better
screening of airport employees, this legislation takes a giant step
forward in securing our flying public.
And securing our flying public is a giant step closer to securing our
economy.
I would like to specifically address three items in the bill that I
believe are of vital importance:
First, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I am pleased to say that
there is no ticket tax levied on airline passengers. I don't believe
that this is the time to raise taxes. In my State of Montana, people
believe they pay enough to fly around the country. Since we are
relieving the airlines of their security responsibilities, it makes
perfect sense that the $2.50 per passenger user fee be assessed to the
airlines, not the passengers.
Second, I am pleased to see a temporary expansion of the Airport
Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge funds for use on
security operations. This flexibility will surely help defray some of
the costs for smaller airports.
I have been hearing from many airports back home. They are desperate
for financial relief. These small, rural airports are faced with
significant increased costs in order to comply with new FAA security
standards. These new costs alone would be enough to tap their already
paltry resources. However, like all airports around the country they
are also facing declining revenues including landing fees, parking lot
fees, car rental fees, bars and restaurants and gift shop fees. We need
to help them, just like we helped the airlines.
I enthusiastically supported the airline relief package Congress
passed 2 weeks ago. We needed to assist the airlines for the good of
our traveling public and the good of our economy.
But relief to the airlines won't do anyone any good, if they don't
have airports to land in. We are in danger of many of our airports
closing their doors and their gates and their runways because they are
out of money.
The flexibility provided in this bill will make a real dent in the
airport's economic situation.
Third, I am also pleased to see a reimbursement program for these
airports for completed security-related projects. This program, along
with the AIP/PFC flexibility are extremely helpful, but are only a
temporary life preserver for the airports. Discussions need to continue
about how we can really save them from drowning.
I would like to close by once again commending the work done on this
bill by both staff and Senators and to urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of S. 1447. The public needs it and our economy needs it. Folks
at home will thank you for it.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation
before the Senate which is designed to overhaul aviation security in
this Nation.
This is an issue of vital national importance during these dark days
in America's history, and as a member of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I believe it is critical that we
pass the strongest possible enhancements to our existing system and do
so as soon as possible.
The fact of the matter is, the images of the unspeakable horrors of
September 11, 2001, will be etched in our minds forever. When the
``devil incarnate'' hit the United States, he attacked not only
America, but freedom-loving nations everywhere. We are going to need
the resources of the United States coupled with the cooperation of our
global neighbors in order to wage this fight against terrorism. For it
is a fight we must win, and will win.
But there should be no mistake, victory will not come overnight. We
are here today debating this bill because, as we mourn the tremendous
loss of life both of those in the air and on the ground, we also know
that our transportation system must endure and must be secure if we are
to move the Nation forward.
We must leave no stone unturned in the effort to preserve this
Nation's transportation infrastructure, so that we might both carry on
the business of the Nation and ensure our continued economic viability,
and also ensure that we are in a position of strength to be able to
wage the kind of war necessary to eradicate terrorism. And, we cannot
remain strong if we cannot remain mobile.
Specifically, we are here today to improve our aviation security
infrastructure and policies, to instill the kind of confidence that is
vital to the health of our country's commercial airline industry.
Clearly, our way of life, our freedom to travel and do so with
relatively minimal encroachment, was used against us in the most
horrific way imaginable. And it is vital that we

[[Page 19477]]

take the necessary steps now to prevent such catastrophes from
recurring.
The debate on this legislation is so critical because aviation
security will only be addressed with a comprehensive, exhaustive
approach that recognizes we are dealing with interlocking rings of
issues, from perimeter security to on-site airport security to on-board
aircraft security to a range of other issues, and that the entire
aviation security system is only as strong as the weakest ring.
That is why I have cosponsored Senator Hollings's comprehensive
legislation to improve aviation security. This bipartisan legislation
takes critical steps to safeguard the security of our airports and
aircraft. It includes provisions to strengthen cockpit doors, increase
the number of sky marshals, which is a critical issue also addressed in
Senator Hutchison's bill, S. 1421, of which I am a cosponsor, to
increase the number of sky marshals, federalize security, and improve
training and testing for screening personnel.
Federalizing security, in particular, is an issue I feel very
strongly about. The fact of the matter is, if the flying public does
not have confidence in airport security, they will remain reluctant to
fly, and this will have severe long-term repercussions in the aviation
sector and in our economy. Imposing stringent Federal control and
oversight over airport security will go a long way to helping instill
confidence in the flying public, and will enable the government to
exercise much greater control over the quality of screening.
This is a problem that was identified long ago. In September 1996,
the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security recommended
that FAA was, in fact, poised, at the time of the terrorist attacks, to
issue a final rule, as directed by Congress last year in the Airport
Security Improvement Act of 2000, establishing training requirements
for screeners and requiring screening companies to be certified.
And in its January 18, 2001, Top DOT Management Challenges Report,
the Department of Transportation Inspector General noted that, to close
this critical gap in security, the Government ``. . . needs to have a
means to measure screener performance, and methods of providing initial
and recurrent screener training as well as ensuring that the screeners
maintain their proficiency through actual experience with the machines
in the airport environment.'' The IG also concluded that the ``. . .
FAA must complete deployment of equipment that will help in the testing
and training of screeners.''
Quite frankly, I am not convinced that we can ever have full
confidence in our airport security without stringent Federal controls,
which is why it is vital we resolve the issue of federalization once
and for all.
In addition to addressing the issue of airport security, the Hollings
legislation:
Establishes a Deputy Administrator within the U.S. DOT for
Transportation Security,
Establishes an Aviation Security Council, comprised of
representatives from FAA, DOJ, DOD, and the CIA to coordinate national
security, intelligence, and aviation security information and make
recommendations;
Stipulates hijack training for flight crews;
Requires background checks on students at flight schools; and
Increases perimeter security.
I would note I am particularly pleased that the legislation before us
includes my amendment directing a new Deputy Secretary for
Transportation Security within U.S. DOT, which is established in the
underlying bill, to focus on the critical mission of better
coordinating all modes of transportation nationwide during a national
emergency, such as the tragic events that unfolded on September 11. And
I thank Senators Hollings and McCain, in particular, for working with
me and for their support on this important issue.
I am also very pleased that the Hollings bill addresses the issue of
background checks on students at flight schools. On September 21, I
introduced legislation, S. 1455, to regulate the training of aliens to
operate certain aircraft. Under S. 1455, background checks would be
required before any alien would be permitted to receive jet flight
training.
I also commend the President for his leadership. The President's
proposal addresses many of the same core issues. His air travel
security plan would expand the sky marshal program. It urges Governors
to deploy the National Guard at Federal expense at all commercial
airports. It would provide oversight and control of airport screening
by the Federal Government. And it would provide $500 million to help
airlines fortify cockpit doors, install surveillance cameras and
install aircraft tracking devices that cannot be turned off.
Under the President's plan, contractors would continue to perform
screening. The Federal Government would set standards, supervise
operations, conduct background checks and training, purchase and
maintain equipment, and oversee airport access control.
I believe the administration's proposal would be a major step in the
right direction. And I understand that some have concerns that
federalizing the screener workforce could make it difficult to remove
employees who are not performing their important duties.
It is my hope and my expectation that we will find common ground on
this point while coming together to ensure that Americans have complete
confidence in the men and women who form the last line of defense when
it comes to preventing weapons from getting on our aircraft. And I am
very pleased that S. 1447 includes provisions to exert federal control
over security screening once and for all.
One way or the other, this issue must be worked out so there is no
doubt about the quality of this critical workforce, this has got to
happen if we are to restore the American public's confidence in flying
and, by extension, the health of America's commercial airline industry.
At the end of the day, we must have a screening system with stringent
Federal controls and oversight, so that the government will control
hiring standards, compensation, training, and re-training. We need a
reliable, professional force of screeners.
We must move heaven and earth to make flying safe. That is our
mission here today. One national poll, CNN/USA Today/Gallup, found that
43 percent of Americans are less willing to fly, with the majority of
their concerns centering on the adequacy of airport security. They are
also willing to sacrifice convenience for safety, with the same poll
finding widespread support for new measures, even if it means checking
in two to three hours before a flight, or paying more to cover the
increased security costs.
The failure to correct the existing deficiencies in the aviation
security system has already cost us dearly, and we no longer have the
luxury to postpone action. Accordingly, we must pass this bill now.
It is critical that we come together, as we did on a resolution
supporting the use of force to combat terrorism, as we did on
legislation providing emergency funding for the recovery and relief
effort after the tragic attacks of September 11, as we did on a
financial relief package for the airline industry, and pass legislation
promptly to address the gaps in aviation security and restore the
confidence of the American people in our aviation system.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments and
observations about the September 11 attacks and about some of the
aviation security issues facing the Senate in the pending legislation.
To put these issues in perspective, I'd like to recall the
extraordinary actions of the passengers on United Flight 93 on
September 11, the ill-fated flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. In the
ultimate act of self-sacrifice and heroism, a group of passengers
rushed the cockpit and thwarted the terrorists aboard that flight from
inflicting additional damage and loss on this great Nation.
Without doubt, those fathers, mothers, husbands, and wives, patriots
one and all, saved the lives of hundreds of Americans wherever that
aircraft was targeted. They understood what was

[[Page 19478]]

happening, that they would probably never again see their loved ones,
but they acted heroically and, in sacrificing their own lives and
dreams, probably saved the lives of hundreds of their fellow citizens.
This Nation, and perhaps this Congress on an even more personal
level, owes them a debt of honor and gratitude that is hard to
articulate.
They deserve our recognition and our commitment that we will meet,
address, and repel the threat that forced them to pay so great a price.
They were among the many Americans in New York, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and around the Nation who acted courageously during and
in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on September 11. They brought
honor to all who love this country and what it represents, they are
what America is all about.
These were not warriors or law enforcement officials. You might say
that they were neighbors, members of parishes, or people we might meet
in our grocery stores. They were just ``average'' Americans. And the
world should wonder and our enemies should tremble at their mettle.
As devastating as the heinous act of September 11 was, and as
incalculable as the pain, disruption, and loss inflicted upon the
victims at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and onboard the four
hijacked United and American flights was, America and our very way of
life we cherish will endure.
No one can make right the loss that the families, the coworkers, the
friends and loved ones of the victims suffered because of these
despicable acts. I know that all of us here in the Senate and across
this great Nation continue to reflect and pray every day for the
aggrieved and the fallen.
We must take every step to assure the Nation that this tragedy cannot
be repeated. That is a tall order. I commend to your attention the
comments made by the pilot of United Flight 564 on Saturday, September
15 to the passengers aboard that flight after the door closed and as
they prepared to depart from Denver International Airport. He is
reported to have said:

I want to thank you brave folks for coming out today. We
don't have any new instructions from the Federal government,
so from now on we're on our own.

He continued:

Sometimes a potential hijacker will announce that he has a
bomb. There are no bombs on this aircraft and if someone were
to get up and make that claim, don't believe him.
If someone were to stand up, brandish something such as a
plastic knife and say ``This is a hijacking'' or words to
that effect, here is what you should do: Every one of you
should stand up and immediately throw things at that person,
pillows, books, magazines, eyeglasses, shoes, anything that
will throw him off balance and distract his attention.
If he has a confederate or two, do the same with them. Most
important: get a blanket over him, then wrestle him to the
floor and keep him there. We'll land the plane at the nearest
airport and the authorities will take it from there.
Remember, there will be one of him and maybe a few
confederates, but there are 200 of you. You can overwhelm
them.
The Declaration of Independence says, ``We, the people . .
.'' and that's just what it is when we're up in the air: we,
the people, vs. would-be terrorists. I don't think we are
going to have any such problem today or tomorrow or for a
while, but some time down the road, it is going to happen
again and I want you to know what to do.
Now, since we're a family for the next few hours, I'll ask
you to turn to the person next to you, introduce yourself,
tell them a little about yourself and ask them to do the
same.

That pilot's guidance is serious--but these are serious times.
Americans are a people who empower themselves to do great things.
Clearly, the actions of the passengers and the crew on the American
airlines flight earlier this week illustrate that the flying public,
the pilots and the crews are willing and committed to maintaining the
safety and security of our airways.
We should not delude ourselves into thinking that simple
pronouncements from the FAA, with all due respect, or tweaking the
Federal Aviation Regulations, will allow us to sleep comfortably on
transcontinental flights.
It is all of our responsibility to ensure the safety of our airways.
The passengers aboard United Flight 93 knew that instinctively, the
pilot on the United flight out of Denver merely reminds us of it.
Accordingly, as we review and reform our safety and security
procedures, we must ask a simple question: would the actions and
initiatives we propose to undertake have prevented the recent terrorist
attacks and will they prevent future acts. Unfortunately, I'm concerned
that the bill as currently drafted may fall short of meeting that
standard.
Our actions must be meaningful, effective, and they must restore the
confidence of the American public in the integrity and safety of our
transportation systems.
If there ever were a time for bold and aggressive steps to improve
the safety of our transportation systems, now is that time. I believe,
no, I know, that this Congress and the American people will accept and
embrace meaningful steps toward that end.
We only need look at the full measure of sacrifice made by the
passengers aboard United Flight 93 to know the depths of our
responsibility and I am heartened by the fact that I know that same
spirit is aboard every plane in the sky.
I believe that it all starts with our intelligence capability, we
have to have the best possible intelligence about potential or imminent
threats in order to constantly focus and modify security procedures and
efforts. Intelligence is the first line of offense in our war against
terrorism.
The principle that should guide us is that through human scrutiny and
technological screening, we should put passengers through sufficient
security procedures to identify potential threats;
For the passenger, that might mean answering computer generated and
tailored questions at the ticket counter which might be followed by
interviews with security personnel; passage through a metal detector
which might be followed by a thorough physical search of carry-on
baggage, and perhaps passage through another magnetometer or wanding
before boarding the aircraft.
For checked baggage, that should mean passage through various and
increasingly sophisticated explosive detection systems followed by
thorough physical search for any bag that requires further scrutiny,
there should also be random physical searches for all bags to improve
proficiency and to raise the security penetration.
In addition, we should accelerate our research into emerging
technologies to improve our ability to detect weapons carried by people
or explosives secreted away in baggage. We also may need to consider
stronger limitations on both hand carried and checked bags.
For the aircraft, that should mean armed air marshals on flights and
hardening the cockpit door, as Delta Airlines has already begun,
revising access procedures to the cockpit, and increasing the security
training of pilots and crews, including allowing pilots the option of
defending themselves.
We should require background checks of everyone who has access to the
aircraft: whether pilots, crew, ground personnel, baggage handlers,
caterers, and other contract personnel, with regular and periodic
reviews.
For the airport, it entails a more substantial armed police force,
conspicuously and constantly present in the public areas and
concourses. In addition, we need to improve the airport access
procedures and technologies to make sure that people are where they are
supposed to be and not in places that could present a threat to the
aircraft or passengers.
Simply put, we need to expeditiously pursue security technologies and
procedures at airport access points that cannot be defeated by even
well organized and clever terrorists.
And so, we come full circle back to intelligence, without a robust
and aggressive intelligence effort that is constantly questioning
where, how, and who may plan the next attack, our security measure will
not evolve to meet the challenge. Unfortunately, if that is the case,
we're merely waiting for the next attack.
Clearly, we must approach airline, airport, and aircraft security
issues in

[[Page 19479]]

complementary and overlapping ways to establish a security ``net''
around our aviation system. What do I mean by a ``net?'' If we are
suspicious about a bag or a passenger, that information is relayed and
additional, more extensive security measure like I've described would
be employed.
The increased tempo and breadth of security operations pose dramatic
cost increases for airlines and airports and for the Federal
Government. I note that the legislation before the Senate contains an
authorization to reimburse airports for the direct costs of increased
law enforcement requirements mandated by the FAA.
I think this is a legitimate and reasonable approach. The Federal
Government should not place unfunded Federal mandates on our airports
or any other unit of local government.
Clearly, the FAA mandated security directive requiring airports to
increase the law enforcement presence is necessary. I intend to work
with my colleagues on the appropriations committee to provide funding
to help defray these costs and I commend the authorizing committee for
providing that authorization in this bill.
However, notwithstanding that there are some useful provisions in
this bill, I'm concerned that this legislation and this debate has
gotten bogged down about whether we should ``federalize'' the aviation
screening functions. I doubt that ``federalizing'' is the panacea that
some would have you believe.
For some, it is an instinctive response to turn to the Federal
Government in the wake of a crisis without ever questioning if it is
the responsible action to take or if the federal bureaucracy will be
any better. So, ``federalization'' may be a bad idea whose time has
come.
We're missing the point if we misinterpret the mandate from the
American people to improve aviation security with a public desire that
the people searching our bags or manning the security checkpoint must
be receive a paycheck from the U.S. Treasury.
Keep in mind, the weapons that the terrorists carried on the aircraft
were legal to carry on the aircraft. What failed was intelligence, our
response time, and the lack of security on board the aircraft. Let's
fix those things. Until September 11, it was legal to take a 4-inch
knife on board an aircraft, and metal knives were commonplace in first
class meal service.
The price tag for full Federal assumption of airport security is not
small, in excess of $2 billion annually and that cost will only rise.
And that's forever.
We must weigh that commitment of taxpayer dollars against whether it
would result in either improved security, or the perception of improved
security. There are a lot of things that the Federal Government does
well, I would argue that this is not one of them.
Let's not mislead the public into interpreting ``federalization'' to
mean that baggage screening is going to be conducted by law enforcement
officers.
Not even the supporters of full federalization are contemplating
having Federal law enforcement officers search passengers or carry-on
baggage.
In a federalized world, the metal detectors and bag searches would be
conducted by Federal bureaucrats. I don't think that over time, the
American taxpayer is going to look at a bureaucrat bag screener and
say, ``I feel safer because a Federal employee is checking my bags.''
Remember, the money we spend on replacing private sector employees
with government bureaucrats means we will have that much less money for
other security improvements, and we're talking about hiring as many as
30,000 new Federal employees. That's three Army divisions.
I'm also concerned about the concept of a two-tier airport security
construct. Some have advocated that we ``federalize'' at the largest
airports while not ``federalizing'' at other smaller airports. That
logic is inconsistent with its proponents' other flawed reasoning that
security will somehow be magically improved and tightened by virtue of
``federalization.''
The simple fact is we must improve aviation security at all airports.
We cannot have weaker points and stronger points in the system.
Instead, we must tailor our security architecture to stop terrorists no
matter where they attempt to get into the system.
Further, I fail to see how creating a new Deputy Administrator at the
FAA or a new Deputy or Assistant Secretary at the Department of
Transportation moves the aviation security ball down the field.
Since both the past administration and this administration have had
such difficulty in filling the Deputy Administrator of the FAA
position, I'm concerned that we're unnecessarily confusing and
complicating the Federal bureaucracy.
I can't remember a case where an additional layer of bureaucracy led
to the swift, decisive leadership I believe is necessary, especially in
regards to safety and security. I'm also not certain that either the
DOT or the FAA are the only, or the best place, for any new security
function to reside.
I would hope that the relevant committees of jurisdiction would
explore whether these responsibilities wouldn't be better executed at
the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, or in the
new Office of Homeland Security.
Personally, I believe that the President got it right in his
proposal. The Federal Government would assume management and oversight
of the security function. It is imperative that we have standards for
personnel, background checks, and training, as the President proposed,
to improve the security net.
That is the appropriate role of the Federal Government. I'm
disappointed that the bill before us today seems to be taking this
issue in a different direction.
When we addressed the imminent financial crisis facing the airline
industry 2 weeks ago, we acted expeditiously to restore the confidence
of the financial markets that Congress and the administration had
confidence in the future of air travel in America.
Congress and the administration must move expeditiously, but
deliberately, to augment the interim security procedures already
instituted by the Administration. This is not a one time infusion of
capital or liquidity as was necessary in the Airline Stabilization
legislation.
Make no mistake, we must get this done and get it right before the
end of this Congress. Taking a few more weeks as this bill moves
through conference will not shake the confidence of the American
public.
The American people will live with our decisions on aviation security
for a long time. It is critical that we address the problems in the
system without rushing to judgment. If we act precipitously we run the
risk of failing to address security in a thoughtful and comprehensive
fashion, and, we may well lose the opportunity to make the meaningful
improvements that are essential to provide a system worthy of the
American public's confidence.
In the extreme, we run the risk of perpetrating a fraud on the
American public by misleading them into a false sense of comfort that
we have met the security challenge in this bill.
Congress has time to get this right. This is a complicated and
crucial issue and we should take the time to get it right. The
administration has taken the interim steps to restore public confidence
and to bolster security at airports; our actions should augment and
complement those steps, not quibble over organization charts and who
mans the security checkpoints.
Clearly, the airlines, the airports, and pilots, such as the United
Airline captain I quoted earlier, are taking responsible and meaningful
steps to improve safety and security. We should follow their example.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will pass
the Aviation Security Act. This bill will help restore our Nation's
confidence in commercial aviation by boosting the security in our skies
and our airports. The strengthening of cockpit doors and the deployment
of sky marshals, among other security measures in this bill, are
meaningful and worthwhile steps in making air travel safer.

[[Page 19480]]

This bill also includes a safety provision based on a bill I recently
introduced. The idea is from a couple of Wisconsinites. When I held one
of my listening sessions following the vicious attacks on September 11,
Fire Chief James Reseburg and Deputy Police Chief Charles Tubbs of
Beloit, WI, suggested an idea that they thought would help make our
skies safer. Part of their idea was to create a registration system
through which law enforcement officials, firefighters, and emergency
medical technicians could register voluntarily to serve in the event of
an emergency on a commercial airplane.
For example, if an official was going on vacation on an airplane, he
would simply register with the airline beforehand to notify them that
they would have a public safety official on that flight. Like the sky
marshals, only authorized airline personnel would know when one of
these volunteers was on the plane. In many cases, these public servants
already notify the crew when they board that they are trained for
emergencies and are willing to help out in the event they are needed.
They are trained to respond calmly during emergencies and can be of
great assistance to an airline crew.
As many of my colleagues have stated, if the airline industry is to
recover fully from the events of September 11, 2001, we must make the
flying public feel safe once again in our skies. The Aviation Security
Act will help us do just that.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Aviation
Security Act.
On September 11, four civilian airliners from three of our nation's
airports were used as weapons of war. As were debating this
legislation, our military is taking action against those who are
responsible. One way to support our troops is to improve safety for all
Americans. That is the goal of this legislation. This bill enables us
to take three concrete actions to improve safety in our skies.
First, it federalizes airport security operations. Security is a high
skill job, yet airport screeners in this country are low paid, poorly
trained, and inexperienced. Many of our airport screeners make $6.00 to
$7.00 an hour. That is a lower wage than many of our fast food workers
receive. Our airport screeners receive minimal training. The FAA
currently requires 12 hours of classroom training for our airport
screeners, while France requires at least 60 hours of training.
Turnover rates are also abysmal. From May 1998 through April 1999,
turnover rates for workers at our nation's nineteen largest airports
averaged 126 percent, and as high as 416 percent in some instances.
When morale and incentive are low, poor performance follows. FAA
inspection reports reveal significant weaknesses in the performance of
our airport screeners. Security inspections showed that B.W.I. ranked
fifth among major airports in the number of bombs, grenades or other
weapons that went undetected in federal inspections. This is not a new
problem, however. The GAO reports that in 1987 airport screeners missed
20 percent of the potentially dangerous weapons used in tests, and it's
been getting worse over the past decade. That is why this legislation
is so important. We have Federal officials protecting our borders and
protecting our President. We also need federal officials protecting our
flying public. Federal workers can be fully trained and monitored.
Their primary goal would be safety, not the economic bottom line. The
Hollings bill does this by federalizing airport security operations,
requiring extensive training and deploying law enforcement personnel at
airport security screening locations.
The second item this bill addresses is the safety of our pilots. We
all know that the safety of our pilots is critical to ensuring the
safety of our passengers. The tragedies of September 11 showed that we
need to strengthen the cockpit doors and locks to prevent entry by non-
flight deck crew members. This bill prohibits access to the flight deck
cockpit by any person other than a flight deck crew member and requires
the strengthening of the cockpit door and locks to prevent entry by
non-flight deck crew members.
The third critical item this bill addresses is the expansion of the
Federal Air Marshal program. On September 11, some heroic Americans on
United Airlines flight 93 lost their lives as they confronted the
terrorists. They prevented the plane from possibly flying into the
Capitol or the White House. These brave citizens lost their lives, yet
they saved many others. Perhaps they saved the lives of those of us in
this chamber. We can't ask American citizens to risk or lose their
lives on airplanes. We need federal air marshals on our airplanes to
protect our flying public. The Sky Marshal Program dates back to the
Kennedy Administration when the concern of highjackings to Cuba was
prevalent. In 1970 the program was greatly expanded to include U.S.
Customs and military personnel. Two years later the program was phased
out. Then, in 1985 a 727 flight from Athens was diverted to Beirut,
where terrorists murdered Robert Dean Stetham of Maryland. The
highjackings of 1985 prompted Congress to reinstate the Federal Air
Marshal program, but it's skimpy and spartan. This bill would allow a
federal air marshal on every domestic flight and every international
flight originating in the United States.
The events of September 11 were an attack against America and an
attack against humanity. We are a nation that is grief stricken, but we
are not paralyzed in our determination to rid the world of terrorism.
In the mean time we must act to make transportation safer in the United
States. We must exhibit a sense of urgency and pass this legislation
immediately.
Airline security is a crucial part of transportation security, but we
can't stop there. We must also improve the safety of our railroads and
our ports. We must ensure the safety of all components of our rail
system, including: tunnel security, terminal safety, bridge safety and
protection of our track switchboards. Over 22 million people a year
ride our railroads and forty percent of all freight is transported on
our rails. A terrorist attack on our rails could result in catastrophic
loss of life and paralyze our economy. Amtrak is ready and willing to
improve passenger rail safety in this country, but it also must address
its critical infrastructure needs. For example, the tunnels that run
through Washington, Baltimore, and New York accommodates trains that
carry roughly 350,000 people a day. These tunnels don't meet minimum
safety standards, they don't have proper ventilation, and there is not
adequate lighting. Rail safety requires federal help, but annual
appropriations for Amtrak is frozen at $521 million, about half of its
$955 million authorization in TEA-21. The Amtrak emergency package
would improve safety and security on our trains by: hiring more police
officers to patrol trains, stations and railroads; provide anti-
terrorism training for employees; install cameras to monitor
facilities; improve the safety of tunnels, especially in the aging
tunnels that run through Maryland, Washington, and New York.
The Amtrak emergency package would also provide additional rail
capacity to accommodates increased ridership. In the days following the
September 11th tragedy, Amtrak employees worked around the clock to
provide a safe, viable option to our traveling public. Daily ridership
from September 12 to September 17 jumped 17 percent, and that doesn't
include all of the airline tickets that Amtrak honored to keep America
on the move. On the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak added roughly 30 percent
more seating capacity, or 2,000 more seats per day on unreserved
trains. Amtrak responded to our national crisis in many ways: they
helped carry our mail, they delivered thousand of emergency relief kits
to New York, and they provided transportation to firefighters, police
and medical personnel. Some may argue that now is not the time to
discuss Amtrak. I would argue there's never been a better time. Now is
the time to give Amtrak the support it needs to keep America moving
quickly and safely. The simple truth is that we have a National
Passenger Railroad System in this country that needs our immediate help
with security and capacity upgrades. It is our duty to respond.

[[Page 19481]]

I would also like to take this opportunity to rise as a cosponsor of
the Carnahan amendment. This important amendment would help those who
are most hurt by the economic impact of the terrorist attacks of
September 11. Thousands of American workers have lost their jobs during
this economic downturn. These workers need our help. We need to act
quickly on a economic stimulus package that targets the American
worker. Airline and aviation employees have been especially hard hit.
140,000 thousand of these workers have been laid off since the
terrorist attacks. Unemployment is steadily rising in the industry.
Last week, 528,000 people filed for unemployment. That is the nearly
the population of Baltimore City, and a figure we haven't seen in nine
years. These people are our pilots, our flight attendants, baggage
handlers, concessionaires and aircraft builders. These workers have
lost their paychecks, lost their health care and could lose their
homes. They need our immediate help, just as we helped their former
employers with a $15 billion stabilization package of grant and loan
guarantees.
I am confident that the airline industry and the U.S. economy will
recover, but help is needed today. Senator Carnahan's amendment would
provide financial assistance, training and health care coverage to
employees of the airline industry who lose their jobs as a result of
the attacks on September 11. The Carnahan amendment would provide
income support by extending the number of weeks eligible individuals
can receive unemployment insurance, from 26 weeks to 79 weeks. These
cash payments would not create a strain on state budgets, because they
would be funded entirely by the Federal Government. Workers who don't
meet their states' requirements for unemployment insurance would not be
left out. They would receive 26 weeks of federally financed
unemployment insurance.
This amendment also addresses job training. Workers who may not
return to their jobs within the airline industry would be eligible for
retraining benefits. Other workers would be eligible for training to
upgrade their skills. This amendment would enable laid off workers to
keep their health care by expanding the COBRA program. This would
enable people who have lost their jobs to retain their health
insurance. Madame President, I strongly support the Carnahan amendment.
It is a thoughtful and comprehensive airline workers relief package.
It's also a good starting point to address the needs of working
families in America, and provides a good model for a broader economic
stimulus package.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe in just a minute we will move to
final passage.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if there are no further amendments, we
are ready for third reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.

____________________

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S.J. RES. 25

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon
disposition of S. 1447, the aviation safety bill, the Senate proceed to
the consideration of S.J. Res. 25, the joint resolution designating
September 11 as a day of remembrance; that there be 20 minutes for
debate on the resolution, equally divided between the two leaders or
their designees; that no amendments or motions be in order; and that
upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote without any
intervening action on final passage of the joint resolution.
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator from
Nevada, could he include in there that immediately after the vote,
Senator Voinovich be given 15 minutes to speak as in morning business
on the legislation just passed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. REID. That would be fine. The Senator from Ohio would speak
immediately following the vote on final passage. I am wondering:
Everyone will be here. If consent is granted, we are going to have,
immediately following that, two more votes on judges. It would appear
to me the Senator from Ohio has to be here anyway. Perhaps we could
have him give his speech then.
Mr. McCAIN. I would ask in modification that both Senators from Ohio
would like to speak for 10 minutes and it would take place following
the election of the judges.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, could I have my first unanimous consent
request approved; that is, we are going to take care of the resolution
dealing with the day of remembrance?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous
consent that immediately following the disposition of the joint
resolution establishing a day of remembrance, the Senate proceed to
executive session and vote on the nominations of Barrington Parker to
be a circuit court judge and Michael Mills to be a Federal district
court judge; that any statements thereon appear at the appropriate
place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the
Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous
consent that we now order the yeas and nays on both of these
nominations with one show of seconds. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Is there
a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REID. I further ask unanimous consent that following these votes,
Senator Voinovich and Senator DeWine be recognized for up to 10 minutes
each as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I alert all Members, Senator Daschle has the
right, under the order previously entered, to call up the antiterrorism
legislation. It is my understanding, having spoken to the leader not
too long ago, that that is his intention. Following all this, we would
take up tonight the antiterrorism legislation, so everyone should be
aware of that. We have four amendments in order. We have some time for
general debate. It could be a long evening.

____________________

AVIATION SECURITY ACT--Continued

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
committee for his leadership and effort on this very important
legislation, and all the staff who have been involved. I also thank
Senator Rockefeller, particularly, and Senator Hutchison, as well, for
her incredible efforts on this legislation.
This is an appropriate day for this legislation and the antiterrorism
legislation, given that it has been 1 month since the terrorist attack.
We in the Senate are taking a major step in ensuring that this kind of
thing can never happen again. All of us in this body can be pleased at
the effort that has been put forth on this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

[[Page 19482]]

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished ranking
member, Senator McCain, for his total cooperation and leadership on
this measure, along with Senator Hutchison of Texas and Senator
Rockefeller of West Virginia who lead our Aviation Subcommittee. It is
not only an important safety measure but, in a sense, an airport and
airline stimulus bill because now, if the House can take this up in
judicious fashion, we can move forward and everyone can be assured
immediately of security in air travel.
For example, the American people will know once and forever that a
domestic airliner is never going to be used as a weapon of mass
destruction because we will have that cockpit secured, never to be
opened in flight, so then we can economize on our requirements for the
military patrolling over flights, ready to shoot down a domestic
airline because it cannot be hijacked in the sense of taken over and
directed anywhere, beyond a particular discord or disruption in the
cabin itself. Once that occurs, the pilots will be informed, they will
land, law enforcement will be there, and that will end hijacking in
America, as it has in Israel.
It is a very important measure with which we move forward promptly. I
am delighted and pleased, particularly with the cooperation I
mentioned, the staffs on both sides. But the whip, Democratic whip,
Harry Reid, Lord knows--I have been here 35 years; I am still 20 years
younger than Strom; he was here a minute ago--he is the best whip I
have seen.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 295 Leg.]

YEAS--100

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The bill (S. 1447) was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Senate has done a terrific job of
doing something on the 1-month anniversary of this tragedy for America
that will begin to rehabilitate the economy of our country, and that is
with aviation security we can begin to assure the American public they
can fly in safety.
The Senate has passed its bill. I think it is a terrific bill. It
will augment the cockpit. It will give better quality screening. It
will put air marshals in the air.
The American public needs to know the flying system is safe, and this
aviation bill is a good start in that direction. I hope the House will
follow suit and pass its bill. I know there are some differences, but I
hope they will act expeditiously so we can send a bill to the President
that will begin to rehabilitate the whole aviation industry and the
industries that depend on it.
So I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator
Hollings, Senator McCain, Senator Rockefeller, my counterpart on the
Subcommittee on Aviation. We could not have done it without the total
support and the total bipartisanship that produced the 100-0 vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me thank, once again, the distinguished Senator,
Mrs. Hutchison of Texas. It is bipartisan, mainly because of her
leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

____________________

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. DASCHLE. I, too, compliment the distinguished chair, the ranking
member, the subcommittee chair, and the ranking member for their
outstanding work in getting us to this point.
A few days ago people would have been very skeptical about any
prediction that this bill would have been passed 100-0, but it has been
passed in large measure because of their leadership, and we are
grateful.
The next vote, as I think our colleagues are aware, is the resolution
on the day of remembrance.
I notify Senators there are three additional votes. There will be a
vote on the National Day of Remembrance. There will be two additional
rollcall votes on two judges.
I ask unanimous consent that the third and fourth vote in this next
sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my hope and expectation we will
take up the counterterrorism legislation tonight following these votes.
It is my hope we could finish the work tonight. If we cannot, of
course, we will finish the work tomorrow morning. If there is the
possibility we could finish it tonight, it would be my desire not to
have any votes tomorrow. So we will leave that to Senators who wish to
speak and wish to debate the bill, but we will go to counterterrorism
immediately following the votes to which we have just referred.
We have a lot of work yet to do tonight, and I urge Senators to stay
close to the Chamber.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with regard to the schedule, I support what
Senator Daschle is trying to do. I think we have done the right thing
by moving the aviation security bill. We will have an opportunity to
work on it further in conference, for those who do have concerns, but
we have to say to the American people--in fact, we have to be assured
we can tell the American people we have addressed this aviation
security question as soon as possible. Next week hopefully we will be
able to get into conference and produce a bill.
It is very important that as soon as possible we move this
counterterrorism legislation. Good work has been done in the Senate. We
have pointed the way in this effort, and so I hope our colleagues will
work to complete the bill as soon as possible. I hope all of the
general debate time will not necessarily be used, although it is up to
4 hours. We also have as many as four amendments in order under the
agreement that was reached. I hope we can get through that at a
reasonable hour and complete the work tonight, but if it becomes
evident it is going to take 4 or 5 hours to do this, then we will have
to have the votes in the morning.
Even then, I presume the votes would begin at a relatively early
hour, 9 or 9:30 a.m. Certainly Senator Daschle will announce that.
Whether there are two or three votes, whatever it would be, we will be
completed after that.
Having said that, at the end of this week, if we complete action on
these two bills, I think we will have done a great deal to move toward
restoring the confidence of the American people. I am proud of the
progress I am seeing made.

[[Page 19483]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. I understand it is the intention, then, of the
leadership to complete the counterterrorism bill this evening; is that
correct?
Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator will yield, I will phrase it by saying it
is my hope to finish it. We know what the time parameters are. We have
already agreed to that. If we are compelled to go through all of the
votes and it gets to be too late, we may have to move it into tomorrow.
So I am not going to say definitively tonight at this moment we will
finish our work on the counterterrorism bill, but that would be my
hope.
Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, if we can complete work on the
counterterrorism bill this evening, then we will not be in tomorrow, or
at least we will not be transacting business that requires votes
tomorrow. Is that correct?
Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct. We would not have votes tomorrow. We
would have completed our work. I assume we could be in for morning
business to accommodate Senators who may wish to speak, but it is my
intention not to have any rollcall votes tomorrow.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I express the hope our leadership on both sides of the
aisle can help to press hard to get the remaining appropriations bills
completed and sent to the President singly and not as an omnibus bill.
The Appropriations Committee in the Senate today reported out the D.C.
appropriations bill and the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. This makes
12 of the 13 appropriations bills that the Appropriations Committee in
the Senate has reported out.
The House, I understand, is working on the Defense appropriations
bill and will soon act on it and will shortly send over the conference
report on the Department of the Interior.
We will have to have another CR. That will be coming along probably
today. In any event, our committee and our chairmen and ranking members
on all the subcommittees have worked diligently and hard, and I hope
the leadership will help us to bring pressure on both sides of the
Capitol to move these appropriations conferences. The staffs have done
the preliminary work, a good bit of it in many instances.
It is absolutely necessary we show the American people that this
Congress can do its work, is doing its work, but it is going to take
some effort on the part of all of us, I say to the distinguished
minority leader and the majority leader, to bring these remaining
conference reports to the floor. We shouldn't have to have another
continuing resolution after this next one. We ought to complete these
appropriations bills in the remaining days of this month.
Let's go home, for Heavens' sake, and see our families and
constituents and not delay further. I don't think it is intentional,
but it amounts to delay.
I thank both leaders for the efforts they made. We have some work yet
to be done. We can do it.
Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the distinguished Chairman, I share his
determination to complete our work on the appropriations bills. He and
I have had many private conversations, and if I recall, even
considerations on the floor.
I informed him and our colleagues on Monday there will be a vote on
an appropriations bill, either the Interior conference report or on
cloture on the motion to proceed to foreign operations. I share his
determination to continue to plow through these bills and to accomplish
as much as we can in the next 2 weeks.
As I understand it, the next continuing resolution will be for 1
week. If that is the case, we have 2 weeks within which to complete our
work so as not to pass yet another continuing resolution. We have a lot
to do. I appreciate very much his willingness to call attention again
to that fact tonight.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished majority leader. We must show the
American people that we can pass these bills. We owe it to ourselves,
we owe it to the country, we owe it to the President of the United
States to send him individual appropriations bills, no omnibus bill.
Let him have his opportunity to sign or veto the bills as he sees fit.
Mr. LOTT. If I might say briefly--I don't want to drag this out--
obviously we need to be able to move our appropriations bills.
I must say, of course, how quickly we do that depends on several
things: One, how many controversial issues are in these bills when they
come out of the committee. I don't know what happened, for instance, on
the D.C. appropriations bill, but it had difficult and time-consuming
issues in it. There may not be now.
The other thing is several of the bills, including Labor-HHS, often
take a week or two; Defense quite often takes 3 or 4 days. Part of it
depends on the willingness of Senators to withhold controversial
amendments to move the process along. We have been doing that
magnificently over the past month. Hopefully, we can do that even with
appropriations bills--even though these are big bills, important bills,
and Senators may want to be heard and offer amendments.
We also have to continue to work together on other issues that become
problematic, such as getting judicial confirmations moving because
there is a need for that, too.
Senator Daschle and I are working on this on all fronts. I talked to
Senator Stevens about it. I want to get the appropriations bills
completed. It will take a lot of cooperation. We are prepared to give
it that cooperation and time.
Mr. BYRD. I thank both leaders.

____________________

NATIONAL DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report Senate Joint Resolution 25.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 25) designating September 11,
2001, as a National Day of Remembrance.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, one month ago today, more than 6,000
innocent men and women had their lives stolen from them in an act of
terrorism so hideous and cruel that it still almost defies belief.
In the days since, we have come together--not as Democrats or
Republicans--as Americans, to honor the memory of all those who died at
the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in that lonely field in
western Pennsylvania.
We have come together to tell their families they are not alone. They
are part of our American family and we are with them--now in their hour
of grief, and in the days and years to come.
And we have also come together to say, in the strongest possible
terms, that we stand with President Bush in his determination to find
those who committed these hideous attacks and hold them accountable,
and to destroy their global network of hate and terror.
I had the opportunity to join many of my Senate colleagues in the
days after the attack to visit Ground Zero in New York City. There, in
a mountain of rubble and wreckage that is beyond my ability to
describe, I saw a sign scrawled on a wall. It read simply: ``We will
never forget.''
That is true. Whether we live another hundred months, or another
hundred years, we will never forget the thousands of innocent victims
who lost their lives on September 11th.
We will never forget the heartbreak of those they left behind, or the
stunning bravery of those who tried to save them.
And we will never forget our responsibility to find those who
committed these evil acts and stop them.
That is our promise.
In the aftermath of the attacks, America has searched for words to
describe the enormity of what happened.
Every description has fallen short--and so we simply refer to the
day: September 11th.
This day has become hallowed in our memories, and in our history.

[[Page 19484]]

Today, Senator Lott and I are introducing a resolution to honor it on
our calendars, as well.
This resolution designates September 11 as our national day of
mourning and remembrance.
We ask that each year on September 11, the President issue a
proclamation, the flags be lowered to half-mast, and that America
observe a moment of silence.
It is yet another guarantee that as years pass, and wounds heal, that
we will never forget what happened on that day.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
Is all time yielded back?
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution having been read the third
time, the question is, Shall the resolution pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 296 Leg.]

YEAS--100

S.J. Res. 25

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Day of Remembrance
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL DAY OF REMEMBRANCE.

(a) Designation.--September 11 is National Day of
Remembrance.
(b) Proclamation.--The President is requested to issue each
year a proclamation--
(1) remembering those who tragically lost their lives as a
result of the terrorist attacks on the United States on
September 11, 2001, and honoring the police, firefighters,
and emergency personnel who responded with such valor on
September 11, 2001;
(2) calling on United States Government officials to
display the flag of the United States at half mast on
National Day of Remembrance in honor of those who lost their
lives as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United
States on September 11, 2001;
(3) inviting State and local governments and the people of
the United States to observe National Day of Remembrance with
appropriate ceremonies; and
(4) urging all people of the United States to observe a
moment of silence on National Day of Remembrance in honor of
those who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist
attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, all Senators should know that the next two
votes are 10-minute votes. When we finish these two votes, we will go
on to the antiterrorism legislation. The majority leader said we are
going to finish that night. We will stick to the 10-minute votes. If
Members are not here at or near that time, we will close the vote.

____________________

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

______

NOMINATION OF BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR., OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

______

NOMINATION OF MICHAEL P. MILLS, OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the Senate confirms Barrington Parker
to the Second Circuit, we will have confirmed more Court of Appeals
judges since July of this year than were confirmed in the entire first
year of the Clinton administration. When the committee completes its
consideration of Edith Brown Clement and she is confirmed to the Fifth
Circuit, we will match the total confirmed Court of Appeals judges for
the entire first year of the first Bush administration.
When we confirmed Judge Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit on July
20, the Senate had confirmed more Court of Appeals judges than a
Republican-controlled Senate was willing to confirm in all of the 1996
session--a year in which not a single nominee to the Courts of Appeals
was confirmed, not one all session.
Until I became chairman and began holding hearings in July, no
judicial nominations had hearings or were confirmed by the Senate this
year. We are now ahead of the pace of confirmations for judicial
nominees in the first year of the Clinton administration and the pace
in the first year of the first Bush administration.
In the first year of the Clinton administration, 1993, without all
the disruptions, distractions and shifts in Senate majority that we
have experienced this year through July and without the terrorist
attacks of September 11, the first Court of Appeals judge was not
confirmed until September 30, the third was not confirmed until
November and, as I have noted, the Senate never confirmed a fourth
Court of Appeals nominee.
In the entire first year of the first Bush administration, 1989,
without all the disruptions, distractions and shifts of Senate majority
that we have experienced this year through July and without the
terrorist attacks of September 11, the fourth Court of Appeals nominee
was not confirmed until November 8. Today, on October 11, the Senate
will confirm its fourth Court of Appeals nominee since July 20 of this
year. Thus, in spite of everything we are more than one month ahead of
the pace in 1989.
During the more than 6 years in which the Republicans most recently
controlled the Senate schedule, there were 34 months with no hearing at
all, 30 months with only one hearing and only 12 times in almost 6\1/2\
years did the Judiciary Committee hold as many as two hearings
involving judicial nominations during a month. I held two hearings in
July involving judicial nominations and two unprecedented hearings in
August, during the traditional recess. I held a fifth hearing in
September, the sixth last week, and have scheduled a seventh hearing
and second for October for next week. Thus, during the 4 months that I
have been chairman with a reconstituted Judiciary Committee we will
have held seven hearings involving judicial nominees and held two
hearings in three of those 4 months.
A fair assessment of the circumstances of this year--in this
shortened time frame of only a few months in session, with the
obstruction in reorganization, the Republican objection that required
all judicial nominations to be returned to the White House over the
August recess, the President's unprecedented change in the process that
shunted ABA peer review to the back end after the nomination, and now
with the aftermath of the September 11

[[Page 19485]]

terrorist attacks--the committee and the Senate should be commended,
not criticized, for our efforts to out pace the confirmations in the
first years of the Clinton administration and the first year of the
first Bush administration. Although we have redirected much of the
committee work and attention to hearings and a legislative response
following the terrible terrorist attacks on September 11, I have
continued to hold confirmation hearings for judicial nominations at a
pace far in excess of that maintained by my Republican predecessor.
In spite of unfair and unfounded criticism, I have continued to
proceed with additional hearings and press onward as best I can to have
the committee work to fulfil its role in the confirmation process. With
cooperation from the White House and all Senators, both Republican and
Democratic, I have no doubt that we can match and likely better the
confirmation totals for the first year of the first Bush administration
in 1989 by the end of the month.
I was encouraged to hear the White House sound a different tune
recently when its spokesperson suggested that the point at which to
assess our progress on judicial nominations will be at the end of the
session. That is a far cry from the predictions earlier that there
would be no confirmations by the Democratic majority and the subsequent
White House prediction, which we have already topped, that there would
be only five confirmations all year. I think that is a sensible thought
and that we would be in position to compare apples with apples at the
end of the first year of this administration.
Some Republican Senators have worked with me to expedite
consideration of judicial nominees needed for their States and I
appreciate their courtesy and have tried to accommodate them and the
needs of the Federal courts in their States at the earliest
opportunity. Others will carp and criticize no matter what we are able
to achieve. I only wish those who now are rushing forward in the first
weeks of my chairmanship to ``champion'' the cause of the Federal
judiciary and see the current vacancies as a crisis would have sounded
the call during the slowdown over the last 7 years. Had they joined
with me in my efforts when they were in the majority, we would not have
the vacancies we have now around the country. Many more would have been
filled more quickly. I welcome them to the cause of the administration
of justice but have to wonder whether their conversion is one of
principle or partisanship. With few exceptions--Senator Specter comes
to mind as someone who urged prompt action on nominees over the course
of his Senate career including during the last several years--today's
critics were comfortable defenders of slower confirmation hearings,
long-delayed action on scores of nominees and no action on many others.
Given that none of the current critics has yet admitted that
Republicans did anything wrong over the last 7 years and has
steadfastly defended the pace at which the Republican majority chose to
act then, I would think they would be praising our current efforts that
exceed the confirmation pace and hearing schedule that Republicans
maintained when they held the Senate majority.
When I became chairman in June, I expressed my commitment to
improving upon the inefficiency and lack of bipartisanship displayed by
the committee in recent years. With respect to judicial nominations,
our first hearing was noticed within 10 minutes of the adoption of the
reorganization resolution and within a day of the committee's
membership being set on July 10. I have alluded to the two
unprecedented August recess hearings I chaired last month involving
judicial nominations.
Indeed, at the first on August 22, no Republican member of the
committee even attended. In addition to taking place during the August
recess, those August hearings were unusual in that they were held
without having nominations pending before the committee.
Just before the Senate recessed in early August, the Senate
leadership requested that nominations, including all pending
nominations for judicial appointment, be retained through the August
recess. This proposal was made by the Democratic leadership
notwithstanding the Senate rule that nominations should be returned to
the President when the Senate recesses for a period of more than 30
days.
It was the objection of the Republican leader to that unanimous
consent request that resulted in the return of all nominations,
including all judicial nominations, to the President in early August.
That Republican objection has resulted in the strict application of the
Senate rules which has required needless paperwork and occasioned more
unnecessary delay.
Given the objection by the Republican leader, no nominations were
pending before the Senate or the Judiciary Committee on August 22 or
August 27 when we convened our recess hearings. In order to proceed
last month, we did so in a highly unusual manner. I did so with a high
level of concern about that unusual procedure and noting the
exceptional nature of those hearings.
Like the month-long delay in reorganizing the Senate, the objection
of the Republican leader to the Senate retaining pending nominations
through the August recess served to complicate and delay consideration
of nominations. The bumps in the road created by the other side are
especially frustrating. Similarly, President Bush's decision to delay
the American Bar Association's evaluation of a judicial nominee's
qualifications until the nomination is made public, has forced delays
in the rest of the process as well.
As a result of this administration's break with the 50-year-old
precedent established under President Eisenhower, the confirmation
process of even the least controversial and most qualified candidates
is necessarily delayed by several weeks after nominations are received
by the Senate. There were no District Court nominees who had been
evaluated in time for the confirmation hearing I convened on July 24.
With the return to the President of the District Court nominees the
President sent to the Senate in early August and the delay in ABA peer
review that results from the White House's decision to change the
process that had worked for more than 50 years for Republican and
Democratic Presidents alike, we have continued to have a limited pool
of District Court nominees available for consideration at hearings.
Likewise, this administration's failures early on to consult with
Senators from both parties and to seek nominees who would enjoy broad
bipartisan support remains a source of concern. We have nominees
pending whom the home State Senators do not know, and with whom they
are not familiar and have never met.
In spite of these difficulties, we continue to move forward and
exceed the pace set by both the Bush administration in 1989 and the
Clinton administration in 1993. Under Democratic leadership, the
Judiciary Committee is making important strides toward replenishing our
Federal judiciary. I have adhered, and will continue to adhere, to a
rigorous schedule, despite the terrorist attacks of September 11, and
despite the limited opportunities provided by my not assuming the
chairmanship until mid-session.
The Federal courts remain a symbol of justice to our citizens and to
believers in peace and democracy throughout the world, and therefore, I
will work diligently to keep the judicial nominations process on track.
Judge Parker will be a good addition to the Second Circuit. He is
universally praised by the Senators from New York and Connecticut. He
has been an outstanding District Court Judge. He is another from among
the first group of nominees sent to the Senate by President Bush in May
and resubmitted in September. He was reported unanimously by the
Judiciary Committee, received the highest possible review from the ABA,
and comes from a distinguished family of jurists.
Justice Mills is strongly supported by his home State Senators. He
literally went the extra mile and drove from Mississippi to his
confirmation hearing on September 13 when the air

[[Page 19486]]

travel system in the country was still recovering from the terrorist
hijackings of September 11. I was gratified to hear Justice Mills
testify that he will follow the time-honored principles of stare
decisis and respect the settled law establishing a woman's right to
choose.
I had been concerned about his interpretation of binding precedent
and the law given his dissent in McMillan v. City of Jackson. In his
dissent he concluded that a protester convicted of trespassing at a
family planning clinic should have been permitted to present a defense
of necessity--in other words to justify his unlawful conduct by arguing
that the protester had a reasonable belief that such action was
necessary to prevent a significant evil.
Having heard Justice Mills state at his hearing that he will have the
utmost respect for judicial precedent as a judge on the federal bench,
I am prepared to support his nomination in spite of his dissent in
McMillan and out of respect for Senator Cochran and Senator Lott.
In addition to the judicial nominees the Senate is considering, we
are also considering the nominations of 14 men and women to become
United States Attorneys across the country, as well as the nomination
of Benigno Reyna to be the Director of the United States Marshals
Service.
Earlier this year I raised the problem created by the administration
being so slow to nominate United States Attorneys after calling upon
those holding those critical law enforcement posts to tender their
resignations. I am glad that the White House took those observations to
heart and began sending us nominees to be the Justice Department
representatives in districts in each of our States all across the
country.
The President did not nominate anyone to be a United States Attorney
until July 31, just before the August recess. Unfortunately, due to the
objection of the Republican leader even those few nominations were
required under Senate rules to be returned to the White House during
the recess. In essence, we are working through nominees effectively
received on September 5 and thereafter.
Since that time the Judiciary Committee has already reported almost
half of the nominations received between September 5 and September 19
and will continue to press the administration to complete the paperwork
requirements on these nominations as soon as possible. The paperwork on
the first group of nominees was not completed until the second week of
September. They were then reported out and confirmed.
This second large group of 14 United States Attorneys will bring to
26 the United States Attorneys confirmed in the period between
September 14 and October 11. I am proud of our record. We have managed
to work through almost half of the 54 nominations for United States
Attorney in a short period. Of course, the President has yet to
nominate as many as 40 United States Attorneys. We will continue to try
to work with the administration to make progress on these nominations.
I remain disturbed that the administration has yet to nominate a
single United States Marshal for the 95 Districts across the country.
The Marshals Service is older than the Department of Justice itself and
has long been an essential component in Federal law enforcement. Yet
here we are in mid-October without a single nominee. It was created by
the first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789.
When we are calling upon the Marshal Offices and their deputies to
help with security at airports, to contribute to the sky marshal
program, to provide security at Federal buildings and for the Federal
courts and to protect us in so many ways, we need to take these matters
seriously and move forward.
I know that Deputy Marshals from Vermont, for example, are helping
with operations in Vermont and in other parts of New England to ensure
airport security and to protect government operations and all
Americans. Senators can be helpful to the administration in the
selection of United States Marshals and trust that the administration
will begin consulting with Senators so that we can move forward to fill
these vital positions.
Today the Senate does have before it the nomination of Benigno Reyna
to head the United States Marshals Service as its new Director. He will
direct a crucial component of our Federal law enforcement family, the
United States Marshals Service. In this difficult time for America in
the wake of the attacks on September 11, I am pleased that we have been
able to expedite his consideration by the Senate.
Having received his nomination on September 12, we proceeded to
include him in a confirmation hearing on September. Even though we did
not receive his nomination until September 12, we were able to move him
quickly to a hearing within a week and he is being considered by the
Senate less than one month after his nomination.
I thank the Acting Director of the United States Marshals Service,
Louie T. McKinney, and all of the acting United States Marshals and
Deputy Marshals from around the country for their service in the past
difficult days and for their continuing dedication and sacrifice.
I wish Director Reyna, as well as the 14 new United States Attorneys
around the country success in their new challenges.
I am proud of the hard work the Judiciary Committee has been doing to
confirm these and others of the President's nominees to the Department
of Justice. Since the committee was reassigned members on July 10, we
have held ten nomination hearings for executive branch nominees.
We have proceeded expeditiously with hearings for the FBI Director,
the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the
Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, the Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Justice Programs, the Director of the
National Institute of Justice, the Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, the Director of the Office for Victims of Crime, the
Director of the United States Marshals Service, the Associate Attorney
General, and the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal
Counsel.
Further, we have proceeded to confirm Assistant Attorneys General to
head the Civil Rights, Antitrust, Civil and Tax Divisions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just say, if I may, in the first
year of the Clinton administration the committee was controlled by
Democrats. In the last year of the Bush administration the committee
was controlled by Democrats. I have to say--when the all-time champion,
with 382 confirmed judges, was Ronald Reagan--that it seems to me the
moaning should quit at this point because we confirmed 377, 5 fewer
than Reagan, including the time Senator Biden was chairman; and he did
a good job. There were five fewer than Reagan during the Clinton years.
In my opinion, they would have had at least three more than Reagan, had
it not been for Democratic holds and objections to their own nominees.
So let's just understand something: We are not putting these judges
through anywhere near as fast as we should be putting them through.
Most of the statistics show that the judges who were nominated in the
first year of a President, up to August 1st, basically went through.
When we have had confirmation of these two judges, there will be
eight who will have gone through, three of whom are Democrats, whom I
support. I think we have to do a better job because the Federal
judiciary is one-third of the separated powers of this country. We now
have 110 vacancies. With these 2, it will be 108. We have 51 judges,
nominees, sitting here, not getting hearings.

I happen to appreciate the work the distinguished Senator from
Vermont has done with the ones who have gone through, but we have not
done nearly what we should do before the end of this particular session
of Congress. I hope we can do a better job in the last week or so of
this Congress to get more judges confirmed.
It isn't a matter of politics; it is a matter of doing what is right
for a

[[Page 19487]]

third of the separated powers of our Government. I have to say, I do
get a little tired of hearing that we put through as many as the first
year of the Clinton administration and the last year of the Bush
administration, both of which were controlled by Democrats.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.
First, let me say to Senator Leahy from Vermont, for those who have
been confirmed and those who are going to be reported out, I say thank
you very much. We do appreciate that sincerely. I am convinced that
Senator Leahy, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the
Judiciary Committee, working with the leadership, will be having more
hearings and will be reporting out additional judges. I certainly hope
that is the case.
Our concern, though, is some of the statistics that I think are not
disputable. For instance, since the August recess, I believe we have
only confirmed two judges--one circuit, one district. I understand
there have been two more reported, and we will be voting on those two.
So that is four.
I understand there has been a hearing, and maybe five more may be
reported out this week, and then that they would be voted on, I assume,
next week. But it is a fact that there are 110 vacancies, and there are
49 nominees pending before the committee. I believe that is right.
Mr. HATCH. Fifty-three.
Mr. LOTT. Well, I keep hearing different numbers. The fact is, there
is a large number pending. But here is what really does concern me. Of
the judges whose names were submitted as far back as May and June, of
that group of circuit judges, which included 19 of them, and including
Judge Gregory, who clearly is a Democratic nominee, only 3 have been
confirmed. One more has been reported. And there has been 1 hearing,
leaving 14 of the 19 circuit judges' names submitted in May or early
June. I understand the ABA reports are completed. They have had no
hearing and have not been reported.
On the circuit judges, of those who were reported in May and June,
three have been confirmed. None is on the calendar. Two hearings have
been completed. And there are two on which there has been no action.
So there are 16 judges--circuit and district--who have been there
since May and June.
Having said that, I know the chairmanship changed in June, and it
took time to get organized in July, and we were out in August, and we
had an incident on September 11 that affected our schedule, and the
Senator from Vermont and the committee have been involved in the
counterterrorism.
But that is as it is.
What I have asked Senator Daschle and Senator Leahy is to give me
some indication of how the hearings will proceed, how the reports will
proceed throughout the rest of October and into November.
You know, it is so funny. One final point.
Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator like an answer?
Mr. LOTT. I would. One final point: It is amazing how history repeats
itself. What you were saying last year we are saying this year. I guess
before that, we were saying it or you were saying it.
So I would like to submit for the Record--and I ask unanimous consent
to have this printed in the Record--quotes that were being offered just
1 year ago on this same subject. There were complaints from me that the
intelligence authorization bill was being held up, appropriations bills
were being delayed, not enough judges were being moved. So this is not
new. But I just ask that we continue to work together to try to move
the judicial nominations forward.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

A Year Ago, It Was Democrats Pushing For Judicial Confirmations

``I was in the Minority for a number of years in my present
position and . . . I worked very hard in moving legislation,
and we did not hold up legislation based on judges. We did
not do that. . . . We did not hold up legislation based upon
judges . . . we had a right to do so, but I felt, and Senator
Daschle felt as minority leader that we had an obligation to
move legislation. . . .''--Senator Harry Reid, Congressional
Record, 10/10/2001, S10405
Compare the Majority Whip's remarks yesterday with the
following statements he and the then Minority Leader made a
year ago when they were in the minority and their party's
president was in the White House.
Exhibit No. 1: On July 21, 2000, while objecting to
Majority Leader Lott's attempt to proceed to S. 2507, the
Intelligence Authorization Bill, Minority Leader Daschle
stated: ``I hope we can accommodate this unanimous consent
request for the intelligence authorization. As [does] Senator
Lott, I recognize that it is important, and I hope we can
address it. I also hope we can address the additional
appropriations bills. There is no reason we can't. We can
find a compromise if there is a will, and I am sure there is.
But we also want to see the list of what we expect will
probably be the final list of judicial nominees to be
considered for hearings in the Judicial Committee this year.
I am anxious to talk with him and work with him on that
issue. All of this is interrelated, as he said, and because
of that, we take it slowly.'' [Congressional Record, S7426]
Exhibit No. 2: On July 24, 2000, while objecting to Senator
Lott's repeated attempt to proceed to S. 2507, the
Intelligence Authorization Bill, Minority Whip Reid stated:
``I think it is unfortunate that we have been unable today to
deal with [Judiciary Committee Chairman] Hatch. . . . I hope
this evening or tomorrow we can sit down and talk. For
example, I believe the judge's name is White . . . who has
been before the committee and has not had a hearing. . . . In
short, we hope in the meeting with Senator Hatch, either
tonight or tomorrow, we will be in a position where we can
expedite the rest of the work this week and move on to other
things.'' [Congressional Record, S7469]
Exhibit No. 3: On July 25, 2000, while discussing with
Senator Domenici the delays in proceeding to the Energy and
Water Appropriations Bill, Senator Reid stated: ``We believe
there should be certain rights protected. Also under [the]
Constitution, we have a situation that was developed by our
Founding Fathers in which Senators would give the executive
branch--the President--recommendations for people to serve in
the judiciary. Once these recommendations were given, the
President would send the names back to the Senate and we
would confirm or approve those names. One of the problems we
are having here is it is very difficult to get people
approved, confirmed. This has nothing to do with the energy
and water bill. It does, however, have something to do with
the other bills. We could have moved forward on the energy
and water bill on Friday until this glitch came up.''
[Congressional Record, S7525]
Exhibit No. 4: On July 25, 2000, while discussing with
Senator Wellstone the need to ``do the Senate's business''
and the then-current status of bills under the Republican-
lead Senate, Senator Reid stated: ``We have a very simple
situation here. We in the minority believe we have had the
right to have a few judges approved by the Senate. . . . We
also believe we have some appropriation bills that need to
move forward, and there are some strings on that. We want to
work, but there are some things that we think, in fairness,
we deserve. As a result of that, things have slowed down,
which is too bad.'' [Congressional Record, S7504]

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand that a judge whose name was
submitted in June, and had his ABA rating of ``excellent'' in July, has
not had a hearing. But, as a matter of fact, he is going to have one
next week. So the process is moving. I hope we will continue to get
that done. But we have a lot of them who have been here since May and
June on whom we do need action. I hope we can get a commitment to get
that action soon.
With that, I yield for a question or comment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Republican leader and I have been
friends for over 20 years. He is a year younger, so I think of him as
still a good friend. I must admit that he is ahead of me in one area,
especially: He has two grandchildren now, and will be happy to show any
Senators pictures. I only have one.
But he asked where we are going to go. I will tell him there is a
couple things we will not do. We had 34 months the Republicans
controlled the Senate during the Clinton years where there were no
hearings at all. I have no idea how many months or years I might be
chairman of this committee, but I have no intention of having a record
like that.
In fact, when we reorganized committees, we actually had a committee

[[Page 19488]]

within 10 minutes of the time--10 minutes--and the notice of the first
hearing in a matter of days. When Senators have told me there was a
problem--the Senator from Mississippi had no problem getting his judges
up. We are going to vote on one in just a few minutes. There were
earlier objections because of rulings that judge made. I helped clear
those objections. I believe the Senator from Mississippi has another
judge up for a hearing next week.
So, one, I will not go 34 months; two, I have been trying to
accommodate Senators when they have told me they have had a problem. I
even had hearings in the August recess to help out with this.
Now the Republicans did control the Senate for a while this year.
They did not have any hearings. I had 2 days of hearings during the
August recess. Ironically enough, no Republican even showed up for one
of them, for judges; and one Republican member of the committee
issued--actually two members criticized us for even holding the
hearings in August on President Bush's nominees.
So I think you are kind of in a ``damned if you do, damned if you
don't'' situation. One Republican Senator announced to the whole Senate
that I had announced in the press that one of these nominees would
never get a hearing. When I asked him where that was in the press, he
said, well, maybe somebody else said it; but he did nothing to retract
that, of course.
So it is kind of a difficult thing, I tell my good friend. But I am
not going to do as the Republicans did in 1996, where we had no courts
of appeals hearings. I do recognize there are some vacancies. Of
course, there were nominees for those vacancies. Some sat here for 3 or
4 years without having any hearing or vote under the Republican
administration of the Senate; 3 or 4 years unable to even get a hearing
or vote.
We are moving. We will have more hearings next week. I will probably
continue to have hearings during recesses. I will probably continue to
have complaints from Republican Senators or their offices when I have
those hearings during a recess, and some will probably not bother to
show up. But because I have told my friend from Mississippi we will
keep moving, we will. He should rest assured that, as tonight, when his
judge is here, in a couple more weeks, his judge will be here again. I
don't know if that helps as an answer to him.
I also suspect, I say to my friend from Mississippi, we have a
terrorism bill to go to tonight. He would probably like us to get to
votes on his judge and another judge so we can get to terrorism.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will take another couple minutes. I want
to set the record straight. During the first year of the Clinton
administration, only five court of appeals nominees were nominated
during the first year. Of those five nominees, three were reported out
the same year. That is 60 percent of President Clinton's court of
appeals nominees in his first year that were reported. In contrast,
President Bush has nominated 25 circuit court nominees, and the
committee has reported 4. That is 16 percent. There were only two
circuit court nominees at the end of President Clinton's first year
left in the committee. There are currently 21 of President Bush's
circuit court nominees pending in committee and who will be left at the
end of his first year if the committee does not act soon.
It is an unfair comparison when you take into account the fact that
President Bush has chosen to nominate 20 more circuit court nominees
than President Clinton did in his first year.
The fact is, most of these circuit court nominees have well-qualified
ratings, meaning they have the highest ratings the American Bar
Association can give. I can point to a lot of instances where the ABA
has not done a fair job. You have to presume they really have to be
good to get well-qualified ratings. It is absolutely wrong that we are
not moving on those circuit court nominees as well as the district
court nominees. I hope we can get that done in the near future.
I will work with Senator Leahy to try to get it done. We have to do
better than we are doing.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree, we want to do better than we did
in the last 6 years. I will certainly try to move faster on these than
the Senator from Utah did when he was chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in light of the conversations just
ensued, I say to the Senator from Vermont that he has done an
absolutely superb job over the last month since September 11 in being
able to put together the antiterrorism bill we will be considering
later this evening. I, for one, think this should have been clearly the
first and only priority of the committee over that period of time.
We have had this long discussion. Certainly for the period since
September 11, the accomplishments of the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee and his colleagues on that committee in shaping that
legislation and getting it before us tonight were splendid.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Judge
Barrington Parker to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second
Circuit. It is a distinct pleasure for me to recommend Judge Parker to
the Senate.
I would like to point out that this is not the first time that the
Senate has been called upon to confirm Judge Parker. On September 14,
1994, he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to serve as judge for
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Judge Parker is a distinguished jurist. He has proven that the
Senate's trust in his abilities were well placed. He has accumulated a
superb record as a Federal jurist. His career on the bench has been
marked by the same character of excellence and the same principled work
ethic that marked his career as a lawyer first at the New York law firm
of Sullivan & Cromwell, Parker Auspitz Neesemann & Delehanty and
finally at the firm of Morrison & Foerster.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that Judge Parker has made such
great contributions to the legal community in New York and to the
Federal bench. After all, he was educated at an extraordinary college
and law school in the great state of Connecticut. The time he spent at
Yale equipped him to serve with distinction. And incidentally, his
choice of residence in the State of Connecticut further demonstrates,
at least to me, that he possesses excellence judgement.
Members of law enforcement sometimes refer to themselves as the
``thin blue line.'' In a similar way, members of the judicial branch
can be considered the ``thin black line.'' Judges stand as the critical
bulwarks in our society against forces that can break down a society,
against injustice, against prejudice and against the neglect of
individual rights. They take the high and lofty principles upon which
our republic is founded and hand them down to all, the rich and the
poor, the high and the low, all alike.
It has been said that the Constitution and the laws that are enacted
under the Constitution comprise living, breathing documents. That is,
of course, true. But it's also true that it is the labor of people who
live, professionally speaking, in the law, the students, the
practitioners, and especially the adjudicators of the law, that
constantly breath new life into what would otherwise be fine but
ineffectual words on a page.
The rights and freedoms that we each enjoy as Americans are an
inheritance, not an entitlement. They exist for us only to the degree
that we are willing to struggle to retain them and to constantly define
what they mean for our times.
Judges are indispensable actors in this struggle. In Judge Parker I
believe we have a jurist whose experience and temperament will prove a
valuable asset to the Second Circuit and the great and enduring cause
of equal justice under law. Especially now, when that cause has come
under unprecedented attack from acts of terror, our nation needs the
commitment and

[[Page 19489]]

service of people like Barrington Parker. Based on everything I know
about Judge Parker, he meets the highest standards of judicial
professionalism.
I hope and trust that the Senate will reach the same conclusion that
I have reached and will confirm Judge Parker as United States Circuit
Judge for the Second Circuit.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to respond to three points
raised earlier this evening concerning judicial nominations. The first
is the assertion that the Judiciary Committee has acted on as many
nominations this year as it did during President Clinton's first year
in office. That assertion is not only incorrect, but also ignores
several important facts.
President Clinton nominated 32 judges before October 31, 1993, his
first year in office. Twenty-eight were confirmed that year. That's an
88 percent confirmation rate. It's similar to the confirmation rate
during the first year of President G.H.W. Bush's presidency--89
percent--and compares to President Reagan's 100 percent rate of
confirmation for nominees sent to the Senate before October 31, 1981.
Compare these rates to where we are under President Bush and Chairman
Leahy. President Bush has nominated 59 judicial nominees. Only eight
have been confirmed--including the two the Senate confirmed tonight.
That's a rate of 13.5 percent. If the Senate completes this session
without raising this rate to the range of 88 to 100 percent, it will be
a dramatic break with precedent and a great embarrassment to this
entire body. This is especially true because today we have 108
vacancies in the federal judiciary. That means that 12.6 percent of
federal judgeships are unfilled. These empty seats should especially
concern us in light of the enormous law enforcement effort underway to
investigate the recent terrorist attacks and to prevent any future
terrorist events.
Today's 12.6 percent vacancy is atypical. Compare it to the rates at
the conclusion of the three Congresses when Bill Clinton was President
and I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. At the end of the 104th
Congress, the vacancy rate was 7.7 percent. At the end of the 105th, it
was 5.9 percent. And last year at the end of the 106th Congress, it was
7.9 percent. Ironically, some of the same people who constantly
bemoaned the judicial vacancies when Bill Clinton was President are
silent today despite the much larger number of vacancies.
Mr. President, the second point to which I want to respond is the
implication that the lack of a Senate organizational resolution in June
of this year precluded the Judiciary Committee from holding
confirmation hearings on judicial nominees during the three weeks that
elapsed between June 5, the date our Democratic colleagues assumed
control of the Senate, and June 29, the date the Senate reached an
agreement on reorganization. That implication arises from the statement
that the Committee scheduled a hearing within minutes of the Senate
reorganization. I am puzzled by these remarks, because I see no reason
why the Committee could not have held confirmation hearings under
Democratic control prior to reorganization.
The lack of an organizational resolution did not stop other Senate
committees from holding confirmation hearings. In fact, by my count,
after the change in Senate control, nine different Senate Committee
Chairmen held 16 different nomination hearings for 44 different
nominees before reorganization. One of these committees--Veterans'
Affairs--even held a mark-up on a pending nomination. But in the same
period of time, the Judiciary Committee did not hold a single
confirmation hearing for any of the then 39 judicial and executive
branch nominees pending before us--despite the fact that some of those
nominees had been waiting nearly two months.
What's more, the lack of an organizational resolution did not prevent
the Judiciary Committee from holding five hearings in three weeks on a
variety of other issues besides pending nominations. Between June 5 and
June 27, the Committee held hearings on the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the faith-based initiative, and death penalty cases.
There were also subcommittee hearings on capital punishment and on
injecting political ideology into the Committee's process of reviewing
judicial nominations.
Although several members were not technically on the Committee until
the Senate reorganization was completed, there was no reason why
Senators who were slated to become official members of the Committee
upon reorganization could not have been permitted to participate in any
nomination hearings. This was successfully accomplished in the case of
the confirmation hearing of Attorney General John Ashcroft, which was
held when the Senate was similarly situated in January of this year.
So, while I appreciate the Chairman's efforts, I am compelled to
clarify that neither the lack of an organizational resolution nor any
other factor prevented this Committee from holding confirmation
hearings in June. Consequently, there is simply no significance to the
fact that the scheduling of a hearing occurred in proximity to the
adoption of the resolution.
Mr. President, the third point to which I want to respond is the use
of a statistic: the number of months during my chairmanship in which no
nominations hearings were held. I am not going to quibble over that
particular number here tonight because I disagree with the whole idea
that such a statistic could be relevant to any analysis of whether the
Senate is performing its constitutional advice and consent function
sufficiently.
Perhaps an analogy would help. Say you had a fire that is going to
require 108 gallons of water to extinguish. And say that the person in
charge of supplying you the water prefers to count in ``containers''
rather than gallons--but won't tell you how big the containers are or
how much water is in them. Every time you say ``I need 108 gallons of
water,'' he responds, ``I've already delivered several containers.''
My point is that, with 108 judicial vacancies in our courts, and only
8 of 59 nominees confirmed this year, it is not particularly useful to
measure progress in terms of the number of hearings held. I suppose the
Committee could hold 8 hearings to confirm 8 nominees if it wanted to,
but the result would be no different than having a single hearing with
8 nominees. Although we cannot have confirmations without hearings,
hearings are not an end in themselves. What matters is the number of
judges confirmed to the bench.
The bottom line of the Chairmanship is that the Senate confirmed
essentially the same number of judges for President Clinton as it did
for President Reagan--only 5 fewer. This proves the Republicans were
fair--especially because it was a six-year Republican-controlled Senate
that confirmed 382 Reagan nominees, and a six-year Republican
controlled Senate that confirmed 377 Clinton nominees. Some Democrats
avoid discussing this bottom-line fairness because they know there is
no partisan retort. So instead of working toward their own bottom-line
number proving fairness to President Bush, some are focusing instead on
the number of hearings held. In the end, the only statistic that
matters is the number of confirmations. I urge the Democrats to get to
work.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the nomination of Barrington D. Parker, Jr.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Barrington D. Parker,
Jr., of Connecticut, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second
Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Barrington D. Parker, Jr., of Connecticut,
to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second District? On this
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[[Page 19490]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 297 Ex.]

YEAS --- 100

Vote on Nomination of Michael P. Mills

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination Michael
P. Mills.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael P. Mills, of
Mississippi, to be United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Mississippi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Michael P. Mills, of Mississippi, to be
United States District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi?
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) was necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 298 Ex.]

YEAS--98

NOT VOTING--2

Dodd
Jeffords

The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President is
notified of the Senate's actions.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will return to legislative session.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Ohio is recognized.

____________________

FEDERALIZATION OF AVIATION SECURITY

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Hollings and
Senator McCain for their hard work and diligence in getting the
aviation security bill passed this evening. I congratulate them for
this accomplishment.
Let me also thank and commend my colleague from Montana, Senator
Burns, for his contribution to this bill. I cosponsored and I spoke
earlier today in support of his amendment to put certain aspects of
aviation security in the hands of the Justice Department.
I support this effort because the Justice Department is in the law
enforcement and security business. The Department has a law enforcement
mindset, a security mindset, and that is the mindset, a way of
thinking, that is essential to making sure our airports and aircraft
are safe and our people are secure.
Having said that, the bill we passed today, though it has some very
good and very important provisions, also has, in my opinion, a very
significant problem. That problem is the bill as currently written
mandates all security functions at the Nation's major airports be
handled exclusively by Federal employees. I believe this is a problem
because this provision does not allow for the hiring flexibility
necessary to protect the traveling public. How can this Congress say
with absolute certainty that a 100-percent federalized security force
will in every case do the best job in carrying out security measures? I
do not think we really can say that.
The reality is we do not know right now. Yes, we do know we need the
Federal Government to be in charge at our airports, and this bill,
thank Heavens, does that. I also believe strongly that flexibility is
key to determining the best makeup of the security workforce.
Flexibility in hiring between Federal workers and private contractors
is absolutely essential.
At the same time, we need the Government to establish and enforce
higher, more stringent security standards. That is clear. The
Government must set the security standards. The Government must be in
charge. The Government must assess the risks, set the standards, and
then test compliance with those standards. The standards, yes, must be
strict and they must be tough and they must be comprehensive.
The public demands we do this, and the public is right. That does not
necessarily mean a 100-percent federalized security workforce at our
airports is in every case going to be the best security; that somehow a
Federal takeover and full Government presence at our airports will
restore the public's confidence in air travel. Rather, higher standards
and enforcement of those standards by our Government will give the
public back its trust in the system.
There are certainly gaps in our current airport security system. The
way security works now is the airlines that have the biggest presence
at a given airport usually are the ones responsible for hiring contract
security employees. Not surprisingly, the jobs normally go to the
lowest bidders. It should come as no shock that current security is not
what it should be. Screeners of baggage are low-skilled, low-paid
employees. Turnover is subsequently often as high as 100 percent in a
given year, with the average employee today staying no longer than 6
months in that job.
The fact is, unless there is accountability, unless there is a way to
ensure the security personnel are doing their jobs, we cannot protect
the traveling public. If private sector personnel are not doing the
job, we will and can cancel their contract. It is that simple. They
have a very real and very practical incentive to do a good job.
Further, it is difficult for the Government to be in the business of
``regulating security'' and carrying out its actual operation. Other
nations around the world don't do it that way. Israel, with one of the
best security records and one of the most dangerous terrorist-ridden
parts of the world, does not do it that way. They do not do what this
bill mandates.
Most nations in Europe had total federalization, and now they have
changed to a mixed system. Most of the countries in Europe, as the
chart indicates, contract out well over a majority of the security
operations while the government maintains the regulatory role.
The average Federal private personnel split in airport security
across Europe is 85-percent private employees, mostly handling
screening; 15 percent are government employees, performing

[[Page 19491]]

the main law enforcement duties. The chart clearly shows this. European
passenger screening is the responsibility of the government, not the
airlines, but the European governments, in turn, have the flexibility
to use either civil servants or private contractors to do the job. This
works and it works very well. It is a public-private mix.
A recent FAA study found airport screeners in an unnamed European
country were twice as likely as their American counterparts to spot
dangerous items in scanned baggage. Additionally, in European airports
they have a 2.5 times greater personnel outlay than in the United
States. They pay more. The cost is 2\1/2\ times for security in Europe
than in the United States. We see the results.
The fact is, privately contracted security personnel in Europe are
seen as professionals. They take their jobs very seriously and the
public respects that. It is no secret that there is a perception
problem at home at our airports about the image of the current airport
screening workforce. I understand that. But the way to repair that
image is by setting better standards, repair that by raising the bar.
Like the U.S. Marshals I spoke about earlier today, the men and women
tasked with protecting our Federal buildings and our courtrooms, we
respect them. They do a fine job. The Marshal Service is able to do
this great job largely because it sets high standards and then
contracts out many of the functions of its security in the protection
of our courtrooms and courthouses. For example, the Federal Marshal
Service hires and manages about 3,300 contracted court security
officers, CSOs. They are mostly, as we would expect, former law
enforcement personnel who assist with the court security. They get the
job done. They do it well. That blend works very well. The Marshal
Service stays in charge, they are the professionals, but they contract
out a portion of what they do.
There is no question we need to pay people better. We need to train
them better, and we need to make this a professionalized workforce, one
that gets respect and reflects the importance of the work they do. We
need to think about things differently. The first step in doing so
involves improving and enhancing security measures at our airports.
That means we need better standards; we need better enforcement.
I hope by the time this bill reaches the President, we will have
given the executive branch more flexibility. What we really need to do
is to say to the executive branch and through our legislation, set
higher standards. Then give them the job. Whether that is the Justice
Department, the FAA, give the administration the job to get that job
done and then hold them accountable.
When you give someone a job, when you say you are going to hold them
accountable and when you set high standards but give them the
obligation to get the job done, it only makes sense to allow them some
flexibility in deciding how best to get that job done. Judge them by
the results but give them the flexibility.
I hope we will look at this again, and by the time this bill finally
reaches the President of the United States, we will give the President
the tools he needs to get the job done for our security.
I yield the floor.

____________________

CARNAHAN AMENDMENT NO. 1855

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about fiscal
responsibility. Before I begin, I take a moment to discuss the Carnahan
amendment to the aviation security bill. First, I congratulate Senator
McCain and Senator Hollings for the passage of the airport security
bill. The passage of that bill is long overdue. It is needed to secure
our airports and aviation and to build confidence in the American
public.
One of the things that has gone unmentioned is most economists agree
one of the best things we can do to get the economy off the ground is
to get our airlines into the air.
My constituents in Ohio have a significant stake in this bill because
Ohio has a significant aviation presence. In fact, with no disrespect
to my good friends from North Carolina, Ohio is the birth place of
aviation since the Wright brothers hailed from Dayton and honed their
skills in Ohio. They just happened to test out the ``flyer'' at Kitty
Hawk.
Today, a number of airlines have hubs in Ohio: Continental in
Cleveland, Delta in Cincinnati, America West has a big presence in
Columbus.
Thousands of men and women working in the airline industry are
hurting. I greatly appreciate the effort of my colleague from Missouri
to aid them. There is no question the aviation sector has suffered
particularly hard from this economic downturn and was hit right in the
eye with the terrorist attack on September 11. However, as my
colleagues well know, there are tens of thousands around the country
who have lost their jobs in the past few months. There are tens of
thousands more who are facing tough times, particularly in
manufacturing States such as Ohio. There are thousands of Ohioans who
lost their jobs in the steel mills, in the polymer industry, and in the
auto plants. According to the most recent statistics from the Ohio
Department of Jobs and Family Services, 250,000 Ohioans today are
unemployed. This figure is before September 11. Now, undoubtedly that
number is larger. The vast majority of these workers would not benefit
from the provisions of the Carnahan amendment.
It is very important that whatever assistance Congress renders to the
workers of this Nation, it is not just restricted to a set of workers.
I would have offered an amendment to the airport security bill, but I
felt it would delay the bill and I also felt it would be more properly
a part of the economic stimulus package. I intend to offer an amendment
to that package when it comes before the Senate. I hope that happens
quite soon.

____________________

ALTERED FISCAL PRIORITIES

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, discussions of the budget that once
dominated the news headlines have been eclipsed since the world was
forever changed by the horrendous events of September 11, and no one
knows more about those events than the Presiding Officer.
Perhaps one of the most significant changes resulting from the
terrorist attacks is how significantly our fiscal priorities have been
altered. Almost instantly the debate shifted from how to protect the
Social Security surplus to how we should spend it to pay for
counterterrorism and homeland defense efforts and stimulate the
economy.
By necessity, this dramatic change in our fiscal situation calls for
Congress to sort out our top priorities between those that existed
before September 11 and which continue to demand our attention and our
new priorities, defending our homeland, fighting terrorism, and
boosting the economy. We will commit the resources that are needed to
succeed in this challenge and we will obtain those resources in
whatever way is necessary.
Some of my colleagues will remember that prior to the events of
September 11 I was working closely with the administration and several
of my colleagues on a bill designed to protect the Social Security
surplus, control spending, and ensure debt reduction. That legislation
had two exceptions: recession and war. If it had been in place, both of
these exceptions would apply.
Having said that, I emphatically say to my colleagues that the need
for fiscal discipline is greater now than ever before. It must not be a
casualty of September 11. We still need to prioritize our spending and
we still need to make hard choices. As I said, the events of September
11 changed everything, and they have also changed our fiscal outlook
for years to come.
Over the past few fiscal years, sustained by peace, prosperity, and
assuredness, our Nation has had record budget surpluses. Unfortunately,
the existence of surpluses has had an undesirable effect. Congress has
expanded the Government, created new programs, and dramatically
increased

[[Page 19492]]

spending in others. The speed at which the fiscal fortunes of the
Federal Government have shifted is astounding. Almost 8 months ago, CBO
projected we would run an on-budget surplus for fiscal year 2001 of
$125 billion, as well as a $156 billion Social Security surplus--a
total of $281 billion that was supposed to be used for debt reduction.
However, on September 26, the CBO released its monthly budget review
and revealed a much different story. According to the CBO, when all is
said and done the total unified budget surplus in fiscal year 2001 will
be $121 billion, a change of $160 billion from the January estimate.
This means Congress used $40 billion of the Social Security surplus to
fund the general Government activities.
The news for fiscal year 2002 is equally sobering. Last week the
Senate Budget Committee, working in a bipartisan manner, released new
figures on the budget outlook for fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year
2011. The committee predicts that we are on track to spend the entire
Social Security surplus in the 2002 fiscal year, and most or part of
the Social Security surplus in the following year.
We see that on this chart. We show a $52 billion surplus, but the
fact is, we are truly in deficit because we will be using $122 billion
of Social Security in 2002, $125 billion in 2003, and so forth. So we
are going to be using the Social Security surplus, according to this
chart, all the way out to the year 2006.
I remind my colleagues the projected $52 billion unified surplus is a
gross exaggeration of the possible surplus this year because we have
pledged we are going to use $60 to $75 billion to stimulate the
economy, which means we are going to wipe out this $52 billion surplus
in 2002. In fact, we are going to have to borrow the money from the
public to pay for the things we want to do.
I would like to remind my colleagues the bleak budget outlook I
described goes way out into future years. The Senate Budget Committee
projected we will spend significant portions of Social Security
surpluses, as I mentioned, in 2003 to 2006.
I further remind my colleagues that these figures on this chart, as
bad as they are, do not tell the whole story. These we are showing are
based on a cost-of-living increase in spending based on inflation.
Remember Congress spent 14.5 percent more in fiscal 2001 on nondefense
discretionary spending than they did in fiscal year 2000. We should
have no illusions that Congress is going to spend at the rate of
inflation. I don't know of any time that Congress has spent money at
the rate of inflation. As to these numbers on this chart, you might as
well forget them. They are gone because the projections are based on
inflationary increases and we know that is not going to be the case.
Our current crisis should not be used as an excuse to run up the tab
for programs and projects not related to the war on terrorism or
stimulating our economy. Now more than ever before we have to
prioritize our funding and make tough choices. Do our spending choices
put the safety of American lives at home and abroad front and center?
Will they truly boost the economy? These are the questions that should
be applied to every dollar Congress spends. Our current fiscal position
does not allow for any unnecessary spending. Domestic needs must be
reprioritized. Those of us who have been concerned about fiscal
responsibility have to recommit ourselves to fiscal discipline. We have
to make the tough choices to keep in check the urge to spend, keeping
in mind we are spending the Nation's Social Security money with every
additional dollar that goes out the door. Once it has gone out the
door, we are then going to borrow that money from the public.
I am concerned that some proposals being considered in this Senate
are inappropriate, given the long-term budget pressures we face. You
will be hearing from me and hopefully many others about some of those
proposals. If the stimulus package we put in place results in chronic
budget deficits, it is going to drive up interest rates. And make no
mistake about it, the financial markets are closely watching what we
do. If they see Congress taking actions that will steer the Federal
Government towards persistent deficits, they will drive interest rates
higher. Higher interest rates will have exactly the opposite effect on
the economy from what we want. They would put a brake on the economy by
raising consumers' interest payments and discouraging economic
activity.
Remember, low interest rates are important to the economy. In fact,
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has been quite clear about this
as he has highlighted this to many of us.
I think this is very important. This is not merely an academic
exercise. The recent rise in long-term interest rates is attributed to
the deteriorating budget condition of the Federal Government in the
past few weeks. As my colleagues know, Congress will consider a true
stimulus package in the near future. Helping America's workers, all
workers, should be and will be a part of that package and should be our
No. 1 priority.
The stimulus package can only be so big. So it is critical that we
touch as many Americans as possible. All of them should participate in
that economic stimulus package. That same message applies to the money
we allocate to fight terrorism at home and abroad. We need to
prioritize and we need to get the biggest bang for our buck, literally
and figuratively.
We in this body must never lose sight that the day of reckoning with
the baby boomer retirement has not been put off by our current crisis.
Like it or not, the baby boomers will begin to retire in about 10
years, and if we fail to act, we will put an unacceptable burden on our
children and grandchildren. We face an important challenge in preparing
for that day. Our goal should be to fund our war on terrorism at home
and abroad, respond to the needs of the victims of the terrorist attack
in New York and here in Washington, get our economy going, and as soon
as possible end deficit spending. We owe it to our children and
grandchildren.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation under
the unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is nothing pending before the Senate.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator yielding.
On behalf of Senator Daschle, I now ask that the Senate consider S.
1510.

____________________

UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1510) to deter and punish terrorist acts in the
United States and around the world, to enhance law
enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the time agreement that we are now
operating under?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 hours equally divided. In
addition, there are 40 minutes on each of the four amendments to be
offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
I cannot help but think in looking at our distinguished Presiding
Officer, the senior Senator from New York, how much his State has
suffered. Both he and his distinguished colleague, Senator Clinton,
have spoken so eloquently, both on the floor and elsewhere, about that.
I know in my own private conversations with the distinguished Presiding
Officer I felt the depth of his grief and emotion for a city that he
obviously and unabashedly loves. His references to New York City

[[Page 19493]]

over the years are almost similar to the kind of comments I make about
Vermont. But I do note the accent is somewhat different. I assume it is
because of the Vermont accent.
But I think the Senators from New York, and the Senators from New
Jersey and Connecticut have especially spoken of the effect on families
and loved ones in the New York City area. People who work there are
from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. I know how sad they feel.
I think of the people who died in Pennsylvania in an airplane that
was probably planning to strike the very building we are in--this
symbol of democracy. Only with a great loss of life did it not happen.
But there would be an enormous disruption in our Government. The next
day, the view that most people around the world have--our symbol of
democracy--would be gone.
I think of the brave men and women who died, as the President and
others have said, doing their duty at the Pentagon, and the hundreds--
even thousands--of children who went to school happily in the morning
and came home to find that they were orphans.
It was a terrible, terrible day.
I think back to what happened in Oklahoma City in 1995 and the
actions we took then. We are moving, of course, much faster now than we
did at that time, and I hope perhaps with more care on legislation.
We have before us the USA Act of 2001. I worked with Chairman
Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers and Republican and Democratic
leaders in the House because I hope Congress can act swiftly to enact
this measure.
Some may be concerned if we have a conference--because the House is
somewhat different than the Senate--that we could take a year or more
to resolve these issues. That happened after Oklahoma City. That
legislation took nearly a year to reconcile.
I believe the American people and my fellow Senators, both Republican
and Democratic, deserve faster final action.
I assure the Senate, when we go to conference, we will complete that
conference very quickly. We have demonstrated the ability in this
body--and also Senators who have worked with me on both sides of the
aisle and our staff--that we can work around the clock.
The distinguished senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and I have
been working together in constant communication with our staffs.
Last Thursday, October 4, I was pleased to introduce, along with the
majority leader, Senator Daschle, and the Republican leader, Senator
Lott, also the chairmen of the Banking and Intelligence Committees,
Senator Sarbanes, Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Hatch, and Senator
Shelby, the USA Act.
I must say this bill is not the bill I would have written if I were
the only one writing it. I daresay it is not the bill the distinguished
Presiding Officer, one of the brightest and most accomplished people I
know, would have written, if he were writing it. It is not the bill the
distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee would have written if
he were writing it. It is not the bill the distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Hatch, would have written when he was chairman, if he was
solely writing the bill. It is really not the bill that any one of the
other Members would have written. We can't pass 100 bills.
We have tried to put together the best possible bill. Of course,
Republican and Democratic colleagues must come together, and that is
what we did.
I should point out that this is not the bill the administration,
through the Attorney General, delivered to us and asked for immediate
passage. We actually did the administration a favor because rather than
take the bill they dropped in our laps and said pass immediately, we
did something that apparently they had not done. We read it and were
able to refine and supplement their proposal in a number of ways. We
were able to remove a number of unconstitutional parts. The
administration accepted a number of practical steps that I proposed to
improve our security on the Northern Border to assist our State,
Federal, and local law enforcement officers and provide compensation to
the victims of terrorist acts and to the public safety officers that
gave their lives to protect us.
It also provides proposed checks on Government powers--checks that
were not contained in the Attorney General's initial proposal.
In negotiations with the administration, I have done my best to
strike a reasonable balance between the need to address the threat of
terrorism, which we all keenly feel at the present time, and the need
to protect our constitutional freedoms. Despite my misgivings, I have
acquiesced in some of the administration's proposals because it is
important to preserve national unity in this time of national crisis
and to move the legislative process forward.
We still have room for improvement. Even after the Senate passes
judgment on this bill--I believe it will tonight--the debate is not
going to be finished because we have to consider those important things
done in the other body.
What I have done throughout this time is to remember the words of
Benjamin Franklin--when he literally had his neck on the line because
if the Revolution had failed, he and the others would have been
hanged--when he said: A people who would trade their liberty for
security deserve neither.
We protected our security, but I am not going to give up the
liberties that Americans have spent 220 years to obtain.
Moreover, our ability to make rapid progress was impeded because the
negotiations with the Administration did not progress in a straight
line. On several key issues that are of particular concern to me, we
had reached an agreement with the Administration on Sunday, September
30. Unfortunately, within two days, the Administration announced that
it was reneging on the deal. I appreciate the complex task of
considering the concerns and missions of multiple federal agencies, and
that sometimes agreements must be modified as their implications are
scrutinized by affected agencies. When agreements made by the
Administration must be withdrawn and negotiations on resolved issues
reopened, those in the Administration who blame the Congress for delay
with what the New York Times described last week as ``scurrilous
remarks,'' do not help the process move forward.
Hearings. We have expedited the legislative process in the Judiciary
Committee to consider the Administration's proposals. In daily news
conferences, the Attorney General has referred to the need for such
prompt consideration. I commend him for making the time to appear
before the Judiciary Committee at a hearing September 25 to respond to
questions that Members from both parties have about the
Administration's initial proposals. I also thank the Attorney General
for extending the hour and a half he was able to make in his schedule
for the hearing for another fifteen minutes so that Senator Feinstein
and Senator Specter were able to ask questions before his departure. I
regret that the Attorney General did not have the time to respond to
questions from all the Members of the committee either on September 25
or last week, but again thank him for the attention he promised to give
to written questions Members submitted about the legislation. We have
not received answers to those written questions yet, but I will make
them a part of the hearing whenever they are sent.
The Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, Senator Feingold, also
held an important hearing on October 3 on the civil liberties
ramifications of the expanded surveillance powers requested by the
Administration. I thank him for his assistance in illuminating these
critical issues for the Senate.
Rule 14. To accede to the Administration's request for prompt
consideration of this legislation, the Leaders decided to hold the USA
Act at the desk rather than refer the bill to the Committee for mark-
up, as is regular practice. Senator Hatch specifically urged that this
occur and I support this decision. Indeed, when the Senate considered
the anti-terrorism act in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing, we
bypassed

[[Page 19494]]

Committee in order to deal with the legislation more promptly on the
floor.
Given the expedited process that we have used to move this bill, I
will take more time than usual to detail its provisions.
Victims. The heart of every American aches for those who died or have
been injured because of the tragic terrorist attacks in New York,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania on September 11th. Even now, we cannot
assess the full measure of this attack in terms of human lives, but we
know that the number of casualties is extraordinarily high.
Congress acted swiftly to help the victims of September 11th. Within
10 days, we passed legislation to establish a Victims Compensation
Program, which will provide fair compensation to those most affected by
this national tragedy. I am proud of our work on that legislation,
which will expedite payments to thousands of Americans whose lives were
so suddenly shattered.
But now more than ever, we should remember the tens of thousands of
Americans whose needs are not being met--the victims of crimes that
have not made the national headlines. Just one day before the events
that have so transformed our nation, I came before this body to express
my concern that we were not doing more for crime victims. I noted that
the pace of victims legislation has slowed, and that many opportunities
for progress had been squandered. I suggested that this year, we had a
golden opportunity to make significant progress in this area by passing
S. 783, the Leahy-Kennedy Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2001.
I am pleased, therefore, that the antiterrorism package now before
the Senate contains substantial portions of S. 783 aimed at refining
the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA), and improving the manner in
which the Crime Victims Fund is managed and preserved. Most
significantly, section 621 of the USA Act will eliminate the cap on
VOCA spending, which has prevented more than $700 million in Fund
deposits from reaching victims and supporting essential services.
Congress has capped spending from the Fund for the last two fiscal
year, and President Bush has proposed a third cap for fiscal year 2002.
These limits on VOCA spending have created a growing sense of confusion
and unease by many of those concerned about the future of the Fund.
We should not be imposing artificial caps on VOCA spending while
substantial unmet needs continue to exist. Section 621 of the USA Act
replaces the cap with a self-regulating system that will ensure
stability and protection of Fund assets, while allowing more money to
be distributed to the States for victim compensation and assistance.
Other provisions included from S. 783 will also make an immediate
difference in the lives of victims, including victims of terrorism.
Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, I proposed and the Congress
adopted the Victims of Terrorism Act of 1995. This legislation
authorized the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) to set aside an
emergency reserve of up to $50 million as part of the Crime Victims
Fund. The emergency reserve was intended to serve as a ``rainy day''
fund to supplement compensation and assistance grants to States to
provide emergency relief in the wake of an act of terrorism or mass
violence that might otherwise overwhelm the resources of a State's
crime victim compensation program and crime victim assistance services.
Last month's disaster created vast needs that have all but depleted the
reserve. Section 621 of the USA Act authorizes OVC to replenish the
reserve with up to $50 million, and streamlines the mechanism for
replenishment in future years.
Another critical provision of the USA Act will enable OVC to provide
more immediate and effective assistance to victims of terrorism and
mass violence occurring within the United States. I proposed this
measure last year as an amendment to the Justice for Victims of
Terrorism Act, but was compelled to drop it to achieve bipartisan
consensus. I am pleased that we are finally getting it done this year.
These and other VOCA reforms in the USA Act are long overdue. Yet, I
regret that we are not doing more. In my view, we should pass the Crime
Victims Assistance Act in its entirety. In addition to the provisions
that are included in today's antiterrorism package, this legislation
provides for comprehensive reform of Federal law to establish enhanced
rights and protections for victims of Federal crime. It also proposes
several programs to help States provide better assistance for victims
of State crimes.
I also regret that we have not done more for other victims of recent
terrorist attacks. While all Americans are numbed by the heinous acts
of September 11th, we should not forget the victims of the 1998 embassy
bombings in East Africa. Eleven Americans and many Kenyan and Tanzanian
nationals employed by the United States lost their lives in that tragic
incident. It is my understanding that compensation to the families of
these victims has in many instances fallen short. It is my hope that
OVC will use a portion of the newly replenished reserve fund to remedy
any inequity in the way that these individuals have been treated.
Hate crimes. We cannot speak of the victims of the September 11
without also noting that Arab-Americans and Muslims in this country
have become the targets of hate crimes, harassment, and intimidation. I
applaud the President for speaking out against and condemning such
acts, and visiting a mosque to demonstrate by action that all religions
are embraced in this country. I also commend the FBI Director for his
periodic reports on the number of hate crime incidents against Arab-
American and Muslims that the FBI is aggressively investigating and
making clear that this conduct is taken seriously and will be punished.
The USA Act contains, in section 102, a sense of the Congress that
crimes and discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans are
condemned. Many of us would like to do more, and finally enact
effective hate crimes legislation, but the Administration has asked
that the debate on that legislation be postponed. One of my greatest
regrets regarding the negotiations in this bill was the objections that
prevented the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, S. 625, from being
included in the USA Act.
State and local law enforcement. The Administration's initial
proposal was entirely focused on Federal law enforcement. Yet, we must
remember that state and local law enforcement officers have critical
roles to play in preventing and investigating terrorist acts. I am
pleased that the USA Act we consider today recognizes this fact.
As a former State prosecutor, I know that State and local law
enforcement officers are often the first responders to a crime. On
September 11th, the nation saw that the first on the scene were the
heroic firefighters, police officers and emergency personnel in New
York City. These New York public safety officers, many of whom gave the
ultimate sacrifice, remind us of how important it is to support our
State and local law enforcement partners. The USA Act provides three
critical measures of Federal support for our State and local law
enforcement officers in the war against terrorism.
First, we streamline and expedite the Public Safety Officers'
Benefits application process for family members of fire fighters,
police officers and rescue workers who perish or suffer a disabling
injury in connection with prevention, investigation, rescue or recovery
efforts related to a future terrorist attack.
The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program provides benefits for
each of the families of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and
emergency response crew members who are killed or disabled in the line
of duty. Current regulations, however, require the families of public
safety officers who have fallen in the line of duty to go through a
cumbersome and time-consuming application process. In the face of our
national fight against terrorism, it is important that we provide a
quick process to support the families of brave Americans who selflessly
give their lives so that others might live before, during and after a
terrorist attack.

[[Page 19495]]

This provision builds on the new law championed by Senator Clinton,
Senator Schumer and Congressman Nadler to speed the benefit payment
process for families of public safety officers killed in the line of
duty in New York City, Virginia, and Western Pennsylvania, on September
11.
Second, we have raised the total amount of Public Safety Officers'
Benefit Program payments from approximately $150,000 to $250,000. This
provision retroactively goes into effort to provide much-needed relief
for the families of the brave men and women who sacrificed their own
lives for their fellow Americans during the year. Although this
increase in benefits can never replace a family's tragic loss, it is
the right thing to do for the families of our fallen heroes. I want to
thank Senator Biden and Senator Hatch for their bipartisan leadership
on this provision.
Third, we expand the Department of Justice Regional Information
Sharing Systems Program to promote information sharing among Federal,
State and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute
terrorist conspiracies and activities and authorize a doubling of
funding for this year and next year. The RISS Secure Intranet is a
nationwide law enforcement network that already allows secure
communications among the more than 5,700 Federal, State and local law
enforcement agencies. Effective communication is key to effective law
enforcement efforts and will be essential in our national fight against
terrorism.
The RISS program enables its member agencies to send secure,
encrypted communications--whether within just one agency or from one
agency to another. Federal agencies, such as the FBI, do not have this
capability, but recognize the need for it. Indeed, on September 11,
2001, immediately after the terrorist attacks, FBI Headquarters called
RISS officials to request ``Smartgate'' cards and readers to secure
their communications systems. The FBI agency in Philadelphia called
soon after to request more Smartgate cards and readers as well.
The Regional Information sharing Systems Program is a proven success
that we need to expand to improve secure information sharing among
Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies to coordinate their
counter-terrorism efforts.
Our State and local law enforcement partners welcome the challenge to
join in our national mission to combat terrorism. We cannot ask State
and local law enforcement officers to assume these new national
responsibilities without also providing new Federal support. The USA
Act provides the necessary Federal support for our State and local law
enforcement officers to serve as full partners in our fight against
terrorism.
I am deeply troubled by continuing reports that information is not
being shared with state local law enforcement. In particular, the
testimony of Baltimore Police Chief Ed Norris before the House
Government Reform Committee last week highlighted the current problem.
Northern borders. The unfolding facts about how the terrorists who
committed the September 11 attack were able to enter this country
without difficulty are chilling. Since the attacks many have pointed to
our northern border as vulnerable to the entry of future terrorists.
This is not surprising when a simple review of the numbers shows that
the northern border has been routinely short-changed in personnel.
While the number of border patrol agents along the southern border has
increased over the last few years to over 8,000, the number at the
northern border has remained the same as a decade ago at 300. This
remains true despite the fact that Admad Ressam, the Algerian who
planned to blow up the Los Angeles International Airport in 1999, and
who has been linked to those involved in the September 11 attacks,
chose to enter the United States at our northern border. It will remain
an inviting target until we dramatically improve our security.
The USA Act includes my proposals to provide the substantial and long
overdue assistance for our law enforcement and border control efforts
along the Northern Border. My home state of Vermont has seen huge
increases in customs and INS activity since the signing of NAFTA. The
number of people coming through our borders has risen steeply over the
years, but our staff and our resources have not.
I proposed--and this legislation authorizes in section 402--tripling
the number of Border Patrol, INS inspectors, and customs Service
employees in each of the States along the 4,000-mile Northern Border. I
was gratified when 22 Senators--Democrats and Republicans--wrote to the
President supporting such an increase, and I am pleased that the
Administration agreed that this critical law enforcement improvement
should be included in the bill. Senators Cantwell and Schumer in the
Committee and Senators Murray and Dorgan have been especially strong
advocates of these provisions and I thank them for their leadership. In
addition, the USA Act, in section 401, authorizes the Attorney General
to waive the FTE cap on INS personnel in order to address the national
security needs of the United States on the northern border. Now more
than ever, we must patrol our border vigilantly and prevent those who
wish America harm from gaining entry. At the same time, we must work
with the Canadians to allow speedy crossing to legitimate visitors and
foster the continued growth of trade which is beneficial to both
countries.
In addition to providing for more personnel, this bill also includes,
in section 402(4), my proposal to provide $100 million in funding for
both the INS and the Customs Service to improve the technology used to
monitor the Northern Border and to purchase additional equipment. The
bill also includes, in section 403(c), an important provisions from
Senator Cantwell directing the Attorney General, in consultation with
other agencies, to develop a technical standard for identifying
electronically the identity of persons applying for visas or seeking to
enter the United States. In short, this bill provides a comprehensive
high-tech boost for the security of our nation.
This bill also includes important proposals to enhance data sharing.
The bill, in section 403, directs the Attorney General and the FBI
Director to give the State Department and INS access to the criminal
history information in the FBI's National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) database, as the Administration and I both proposed. The
Attorney General is directed to report back to the Congress in two
years on progress in implementing this requirement. We have also
adopted the Administration's language, in section 413, to make it
easier for the State Department to share information with foreign
governments for aid in terrorist investigations.
Criminal justice improvements. The USA Act contains a number of
provisions intended to improve and update the federal criminal code to
address better the nature of terrorist activity, assist the FBI in
translating foreign language information collected, and ensure that
federal prosecutors are unhindered by conflicting local rules of
conduct to get the job done. I will mention just a few of these
provisions.
FBI translators. The truth certainly seems self-evident that all the
best surveillance techniques in the world will not help this country
defend itself from terrorist attack if the information cannot be
understood in a timely fashion. Indeed, within days of the September
11, the FBI Director issued an employment ad on national TV by calling
upon those who speak Arabic to apply for a job as an FBI translator.
This is a dire situation that needs attention. I am therefore gratified
that the Administration accepted by proposal, in section 205, to waive
any federal personnel requirements and limitations imposed by any other
law in order to expedite the hiring of translators at the FBI.
This bill also directs the FBI Director to establish such security
requirements as are necessary for the personnel employed as
translators. We know the effort to recruit translators has a high
priority, and the Congress should provide all possible support.
Therefore, the bill calls on the Attorney General to report to the
Judiciary

[[Page 19496]]

Committees on the number of translators employed by the Justice
Department, any legal or practical impediments to using translators
employed by other Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full, part-
time, or shared basis; and the needs of the FBI for specific
translation services in certain languages, and recommendations for
meeting those needs.
Federal crime of terrorism. The Administration's initial proposal
assembled a laundry list of more than 40 Federal crimes ranging from
computer hacking to malicious mischief to the use of weapons of mass
destruction, and designated them as ``Federal terrorism offenses,''
regardless of the circumstances under which they were committed. For
example, a teenager who spammed the NASA website and, as a result,
recklessly caused damage, would be deemed to have committed this new
``terrorism'' offense. Under the Administration's proposal, the
consequences of this designation were severe. Crimes on the list would
carry no statute of limitations. The maximum penalties would shoot up
to life imprisonment, and those released earlier would be subject to a
lifetime of supervised release. Moreover, anyone who harbored a person
whom he had ``reasonable grounds to suspect'' had committed, or was
about to commit, a ``Federal terrorism offense''--whether it was the
Taliban or the mother of my hypothetical teenage computer hacker--would
be subject to stiff criminal penalties. I worked closely with the
Administration to ensure that the definition of ``terrorism'' in the
USA Act fit the crime.
First, we have trimmed the list of crimes that may be considered as
terrorism predicates in section 808 of the bill. This shorter, more
focused list, to be codified at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2332(g)(5)(B), more
closely reflects the sorts of offenses committed by terrorists.
Second, we have provided, in section 810, that the current 8-year
limitations period for this new set of offenses will remain in place,
except where the commission of the offense resulted in, or created a
risk of, death or serious bodily injury.
Third, rather than make an across-the-board, one-size-fits-all
increase of the penalties for every offense on the list, without regard
to the severity of the offense, we have made, in section 811, more
measured increases in maximum penalties where appropriate, including
life imprisonment or lifetime supervised release in cases in which the
offense resulted in death. We have also added, in section 812,
conspiracy provisions to a few criminal statutes where appropriate,
with penalties equal to the penalties for the object offense, up to
life imprisonment.
Finally, we have more carefully defined the new crime of harboring
terrorists in section 804, so that it applies only to those harboring
people who have committed, or are about to commit, the most serious of
federal terrorism-related crimes, such as the use of weapons of mass
destruction. Moreover, it is not enough that the defendant had
``reasonable grounds to suspect'' that the person he was harboring had
committed, or was about to commit, such a crime; the government must
prove that the defendant knew or had ``reasonable grounds to believe''
that this was so.
McDade fix. The massive investigation underway into who was
responsible for and assisted in carrying out the September 11 attacks
stretches across state and national boundaries. While the scope of the
tragedy is unsurpassed, the disregard for state and national borders of
this criminal conspiracy is not unusual. Federal investigative officers
and prosecutors often must follow leads and conduct investigations
outside their assigned jurisdictions. At the end of the 105th Congress,
a legal impediment to such multi-jurisdiction investigations was
slipped into the omnibus appropriations bill, over the objection at the
time of every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I have spoken many times over the past two years of the problems
caused by the so-called McDade law, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 530B. According to
the Justice Department, the McDade law has delayed important criminal
investigations, prevented the use of effective and traditionally-
accepted investigative techniques, and served as the basis of
litigation to interfere with legitimate federal prosecutions. At a time
when we need federal law enforcement authorities to move quickly to
catch those responsible for the September 11th attacks, and to prevent
further attacks on our country, we can no longer tolerate the drag on
federal investigations and prosecutions caused by this ill-considered
legislation.
On September 19th, I introduced S. 1437, the Professional Standards
for Government Attorneys Act of 2001, along with Senators Hatch and
Wyden. This bill proposes to modify the McDade law by establishing a
set of rules that clarify the professional standards applicable to
government attorneys. I am delighted that the Administration recognized
the importance of S. 1437 for improving federal law enforcement and
combating terrorism, and agreed to its inclusion as section 501 of the
USA Act.
The first part of section 501 embodies the traditional understanding
that when lawyers handle cases before a Federal court, they should be
subject to the Federal court's standards of professional
responsibility, and not to the possibly inconsistent standards of other
jurisdictions. By incorporating this ordinary choice-of-law principle,
the bill preserves the Federal courts' traditional authority to oversee
the professional conduct of Federal trial lawyers, including Federal
prosecutors. It thus avoids the uncertainties presented by the McDade
law, which potentially subjects Federal prosecutors to State laws,
rules of criminal procedure, and judicial decisions which differ from
existing Federal law.
Another part of section 501 specifically addresses the situation in
Oregon, where a state court ruling has seriously impeded the ability of
Federal agents to engage in undercover operations and other covert
activities. See In re Gatti, 330 Or. 517 (2000). Such activities are
legitimate and essential crime-fighting tools. The Professional
Standards for Government Attorneys Act ensures that these tools will be
available to combat terrorism.
Finally, section 501 addresses the most pressing contemporary
question of government attorney ethics--namely, the question of which
rule should govern government attorneys' communications with
represented persons. It asks the Judicial Conference of the United
States to submit to the Supreme Court a proposed uniform national rule
to govern this area of professional conduct, and to study the need for
additional national rules to govern other areas in which the
proliferation of local rules may interfere with effective Federal law
enforcement. The Rules Enabling Act process is the ideal one for
developing such rules, both because the Federal judiciary traditionally
is responsible for overseeing the conduct of lawyers in Federal court
proceedings, and because this process would best provide the Supreme
Court an opportunity fully to consider and objectively to weigh all
relevant considerations.
The problems posed to Federal law enforcement investigations and
prosecutions by the McDade law are real and urgent. The Professional
Standards for Government Attorneys Act provides a reasonable and
measured alternative: It preserves the traditional role of the State
courts in regulating the conduct of attorneys licensed to practice
before them, while ensuring that Federal prosecutors and law
enforcement agents will be able to use traditional Federal
investigative techniques. We need to pass this corrective legislation
before more cases are compromised.
Terrorist attacks against mass transportation systems. Another
provision of the USA Act that was not included in the Administration's
initial proposal is section 801, which targets acts of terrorism and
other violence against mass transportation systems. Just last week, a
Greyhound bus crashed in Tennessee after a deranged passenger slit the
driver's throat and then grabbed the steering wheel, force the bus into
the oncoming traffic. Six people were killed in the crash. Because
there are

[[Page 19497]]

currently no federal law addressing terrorism of mass transportation
systems, however, there may be no federal jurisdiction over such as
case, even if it were committed by suspected terrorists. Clearly, there
is an urgent need for strong criminal legislation to deter attacks
against mass transportation systems. Section 801 will fill this gap.
Cybercrime. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030, is
the primary federal criminal statue prohibiting computer frauds and
hacking. I worked with Senator Hatch in the last Congress to make
improvements to this law in the Internet Security Act, which passed the
Senate as part of another bill. Our work is included in section 815 of
the USA Act. This section would amend the statute to clarify the
appropriate scope of federal jurisdiction. First, the bill adds a
definition of ``loss'' to cover any reasonable cost to the victim in
responding to a computer hacker. Calculation of loss is important both
in determining whether the $5,000 jurisdictional hurdle in the statute
is met, and, at sentencing, in calculating the appropriate guideline
range and restitution amount.
Second, the bill amends the definitions of ``protected computer'' to
include qualified computers even when they are physically located
outside of the United States. This clarification will preserve the
ability of the United States to assist in internal hacking cases.
Finally, this section eliminates the current directive to the
Sentencing Commission requiring that all violations, including
misdemeanor violations, of certain provisions of the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act be punished with a term of imprisonment of at least six
months.
Biological weapons. Borrowing from a bill introduced in the last
Congress By Senator Biden, the USA Act contains a provision in section
802 to strengthen our federal laws relating to the threat of biological
weapons. Current law prohibits the possession, development, or
acquisition of biological agents or toxins ``for use as a weapon.''
This section amends the definition of ``for use as a weapon'' to
include all situations in which it can be proven that the defendant had
any purpose other than a peaceful purpose. This will enhance the
government's ability to prosecute suspected terrorists in possession of
biological agents or toxins, and conform the scope of the criminal
offense in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 175 more closely to the related forfeiture
provision in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 176. This section also contains a new
statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 175b, which generally makes it an offense for
certain restricted persons, including non-resident aliens from
countries that support international terrorism, to possess a listed
biological agent or toxin.
Of greater consequence, section 802 defines another additional
offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, of possessing a
biological agent, toxin, or delivery system ``of a type or in a
quantity that, under the circumstances,'' is not reasonably justified
by a peaceful purpose. As originally proposed by the Administration,
this provision specifically stated that knowledge of whether the type
or quantity of the agent or toxin was reasonably justified was not an
element of the offense. Thus, although the burden of proof is always on
the government, every person who possesses a biological agent, toxin,
or delivery system was at some level of risk. I am pleased that the
Administration agreed to drop this portion of the provision.
Nevertheless, I remain troubled by the subjectivity of the
substantive standard for violation of this new criminal prohibition,
and question whether it provides sufficient notice under the
Constitution. I also share the concerns of the American Society for
Microbiology and the Association of American Universities that this
provision will have a chilling effect upon legitimate scientific
inquiry that offsets any benefit in protecting against terrorism. While
we have tried to prevent against this by creating an explicit exclusion
for ``bona fide research,'' this provision may yet prove unworkable,
unconstitutional, or both. I urge the Justice Department and the
research community to work together on substitute language that would
provide prosecutors with a more workable tool.
Secret Service jurisdiction. Two sections of the USA Act were added
at the request of the United States Secret Service, with the support of
the Administration. I was pleased to accommodate the Secret Service by
including these provisions in the bill to expand Electronic Crimes Task
Force and to clarify the authority of the Secret Service to
investigator computer crimes.
The Secret Service is committed to the development of new tools to
combat the growing areas of financial crime, computer fraud, and
cyberterrorism. Recognizing a need for law enforcement, private
industry and academia to pool their resources, skills and revision to
combat criminal elements in cyberspace, the Secret Service created the
New York Electronic Crimes Task Force (NYECTF). This highly successful
model is comprised of over 250 individual members, including 50
different Federal, State and local enforcement agencies, 100 private
companies, and 9 universities. Since its inception in 1995, the NYECTF
has successfully investigated a range of financial and electronic
crimes, including credit card fraud, identify theft, bank fraud,
computer systems intrusions, and e-mail threats against protectees of
the Secret Service. Section 105 of the USA Act authorizes the Secret
Service to develop similar task forces in cities and regions across the
country where critical infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks from
terrorists or other cyber-criminals.
Section 507 of the USA Act gives the Secret Service concurrent
jurisdiction to investigate offenses under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030.
relating to fraud and related activity in connection with computers.
Prior to the 1996 amendments to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the
Secret Service was authorized to investigate any an all violations of
section 1030, pursuant to an agreement between the Secretary of
Treasury and the Attorney General. The 1996 amendments, however,
concentrated Secret Service jurisdiction on certain specified
subsections of section 1030. The current amendment would return full
jurisdiction to the Secret Service and would allow the Justice and
Treasury Departments to decide on the appropriate work-sharing balance
between the two. This will enable the Secret Service to investigate a
wide range of potential White House network intrusions, as well as
intrusions into remote sites (outside of the White House) that could
impact the safety and security of its protectees, and to continue its
mission to protect the nation's critical infrastructure and financial
payment systems.
Counter-terrorism Fund. The USA Act also authorizes, for the first
time, a counter-terrorism fund in the Treasury of the United States to
reimburse Justice Department for any costs incurred in connection with
the fight against terrorism.
Specifically, this counter-terrorism fund will: (1) reestablish an
office or facility that has been damaged as the result of any domestic
or international terrorism incident; (2) provide support to counter,
investigate, or prosecute domestic or international terrorism,
including paying rewards in connection with these activities; (3)
conduct terrorism threat assessments of Federal agencies; and (4) for
costs incurred in connection with detaining individuals in foreign
countries who are accused of acts of terrorism in violation of United
States law.
I first authored this counter-terrorism fund in the S. 1319, the 21st
Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, which
Senator Hatch and I introduced in August.
Enhanced surveillance procedures. The USA Act provides enhanced
surveillance procedures for the investigation of terrorism and other
crimes. The challenge before us has been to strike a reasonable balance
to protect both security and the liberties of our people. In some
respects, the changes made are appropriate and important ones to update
surveillance and investigative procedures in light of new technology
and experience with current law. Yet, in other respects, I have deep
concerns that we may be increasing surveillance

[[Page 19498]]

powers and the sharing of criminal justice information without adequate
checks on how information may be handled and without adequate
accountability in the form of judicial review.
The bill contains a number of sensible proposals that should not be
controversial.
Wiretap predicates. For example, sections 201 and 202 of the USA Act
would add to the list of crimes that may be used as predicates for
wiretaps certain offenses which are specifically tailored to the
terrorist threat. In addition to crimes that relate directly to
terrorism, the list would include crimes of computer fraud and abuse
which are committed by terrorists to support and advance their illegal
objectives.
FISA roving wiretraps. The bill, in section 206, would authorize the
use of roving wiretaps in the course of a foreign intelligence
investigation and brings FISA into line with criminal procedures that
allow surveillance to follow a person, rather than requiring a separate
court order identifying each telephone company or other communication
common carrier whose assistance is needed. This is a matter on which
the Attorney General and I reached early agreement. This is the kind of
change that has a compelling justification, because it recognizes the
ease with which targets of investigations can evade surveillance by
changing phones. In fact, the original roving wiretap authority for use
in criminal investigations was enacted as part of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) in 1986. I was proud to be the
primary Senate sponsor of that earlier law.
Paralleling the statutory rules applicable to criminal
investigations, the formulation I originally proposed made clear that
this roving wiretap authority must be requested in the application
before the FISA court was authorized to order such roving surveillance
authority. Indeed, the Administration agrees that the FISA court may
not grant such authority sua sponte. Nevertheless, we have accepted the
Administration's formulation of the new roving wiretap authority, which
requires the FISA court to make a finding that the actions of the
person whose communications are to be intercepted could have the effect
of thwarting the identification of a specified facility or place. While
no amendment is made to the statutory directions for what must be
included in the application for a FISA electronic surveillance order,
these applications should include the necessary information to support
the FISA court's finding that roving wiretap authority is warranted.
Search warrants. The USA Act, in section 219, authorizes nationwide
service of search warrants in terrorism investigations. This will allow
the judge who is most familiar with the developments in a fast-breaking
and complex terrorism investigation to make determinations of probable
cause, no matter where the property to be searched is located. This
will not only save time by avoiding having to bring up-to-speed another
judge in another jurisdiction where the property is located, but also
serves privacy and Fourth Amendment interests in ensuring that the most
knowledgeable judge makes the determination of probable cause. The
bill, in section 209, also authorizes voice mail messages to be seized
on the authority of a probable cause search warrant rather than through
the more burdensome and time-consuming process of a wiretap.
Electronic records. The bill updates the laws pertaining to
electronic records in three primary ways. First, in section 210, the
bill authorizes the nationwide service of subpoenas for subscriber
information and expands the list of items subject to subpoena to
include the means and source of payment for the service.
Second, in section 211, the bill equalizes the standard for law
enforcement access to cable subscriber records on the same basis as
other electronic records. The Cable Communications Policy Act, passed
in 1984 to regulate various aspects of the cable television industry,
did not take into account the changes in technology that have occurred
over the last fifteen years. Cable television companies now often
provide Internet access and telephone service in addition to television
programming. This amendment clarifies that a cable company must comply
with the laws governing the interception and disclosure of wire and
electronic communications just like any other telephone company or
Internet service provider. The amendments would retain current
standards that govern the release of customer records for television
programming.
Finally, the bill, in section 212, permits, but does not require, an
electronic communications service to disclose the contents of and
subscriber information about communications in emergencies involving
the immediate danger of death or serious physical injury. Under current
law, if an ISP's customer receives an e-mail death threat from another
customer of the same ISP, and the victim provides a copy of the
communication to the ISP, the ISP is limited in what actions it may
take. On one hand, the ISP may disclose the contents of the forwarded
communication to law enforcement (or to any other third party as it
sees fit). See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2702(b)(3). On the other hand, current
law does not expressly authorize the ISP to voluntarily provide law
enforcement with the identity, home address, and other subscriber
information of the user making the threat. See 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2703(c)(1)(B),(C) (permitting disclosure to government entities
only in response to legal process). In those cases where the risk of
death or injury is imminent, the law should not require providers to
sit idly by. This voluntary disclosure, however, in no way creates an
affirmative obligation to review customer communications in search of
such imminent dangers.
Also, under existing law, a provider (even one providing services to
the public) may disclose the contents of a customer's communications--
to law enforcement or anyone else--in order to protect its rights or
property. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2702(b)(5). However, the current statute
does not expressly permit a provider voluntarily to disclose non-
content records (such as a subscriber's login records) to law
enforcement for purposes of self-protection. See 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2703(c)(1)(B). Yet the right to disclose the content of
communications necessarily implies the less intrusive ability to
disclose non-content records. Cf. United States v. Auler, 539 F.2d 642,
646 n.9 (7th Cir. 1976) (phone company's authority to monitor and
disclose conversations to protect against fraud necessarily implies
right to commit lesser invasion of using, and disclosing fruits of, pen
register device) (citing United States v. Freeman, 524 F.2d 337, 341
(7th Cir. 1975)). Moreover, as a practical matter providers must have
the right to disclose the facts surrounding attacks on their systems.
When a telephone carrier is defrauded by a subscriber, or when an ISP's
authorized user launches a network intrusion against his own ISP, the
provider must have the legal ability to report the complete details of
the crime to law enforcement. The bill clarifies that service providers
have the statutory authority to make such disclosures.
Pen registers. There is consensus that the existing legal procedures
for pen register and trap-and-trace authority are antiquated and need
to be updated. I have been proposing ways to update the pen register
and trap and trace statutes for several years, but not necessarily in
the same ways as the Administration initially proposed. In fact, in
1998, I introduced with then-Senator Ashcroft, the E-PRIVACY Act, S.
2067, which proposed changes in the pen register laws. In 1999, I
introduced the E-RIGHTS Act, S. 934, also with proposals to update the
pen register laws.
Again, in the last Congress, I introduced the Internet Security Act,
S. 2430, on April 13, 2000, that proposed (1) changing the pen register
and trap and trace device law to give nationwide effect to pen register
and trap and trace orders obtained by Government attorneys and obviate
the need to obtain identical orders in multiple federal jurisdictions;
(2) clarifying that such devices can be used for computer transmissions
to obtain electronic addresses, not just on telephone lines; and (3)

[[Page 19499]]

as a guard against abuse, providing for meaningful judicial review of
government attorney applications for pen registers and trap and trace
devices.
As the outline of my earlier legislation suggests, I have long
supported modernizing the pen register and trap and trace device laws
by modifying the statutory language to cover the use of these orders on
computer transmissions; to remove the jurisdictional limits on service
of these orders; and to update the judicial review procedure, which,
unlike any other area in criminal procedure, bars the exercise of
judicial discretion in reviewing the justification for the order. The
USA Act, in section 216, updates the pen register and trap and trace
laws only in two out of three respects I believe are important, and
without allowing meaningful judicial review. Yet, we were able to
improve the Administration's initial proposal, which suffered from the
same problem as the provision that was hastily taken up and passed by
the Senate, by voice vote, on September, 13, 2001, as an amendment to
the Commerce Justice State Appropriations Act.
Nationwide service. The existing legal procedures for pen register
and trap-and-trace authority require service of individual orders for
installation of pen register or trap and trace device on the service
providers that carried the targeted communications. Deregulation of the
telecommunications industry has had the consequence that one
communication may be carried by multiple providers. For example, a
telephone call may be carried by a competitive local exchange carrier,
which passes it at a switch to a local Bell Operating Company, which
passes it to a long distance carrier, which hands it to an incumbent
local exchange carrier elsewhere in the U.S., which in turn may finally
hand it to a cellular carrier. If these carriers do not pass source
information with each call, identifying that source may require
compelling information from a host of providers located throughout the
country.
Under present law, a court may only authorize the installation of a
pen register or trap device ``within the jurisdiction of the court.''
As a result, when one provider indicates that the source of a
communication is a carrier in another district, a second order may be
necessary. The Department of Justice has advised, for example, that in
1996, a hacker (who later turned out to be launching his attacks from a
foreign country) extensively penetrated computers belonging to the
Department of Defense. This hacker was dialing into a computer at
Harvard University and used this computer as an intermediate staging
point in an effort to conceal his location and identity. Investigators
obtained a trap and trace order instructing the phone company, Nynex,
to trace these calls, but Nynex could only report that the
communications were coming to it from a long-distance carrier, MCI.
Investigators then applied for a court order to obtain the connection
information from MCI, but since the hacker was no longer actually using
the connection, MCI could not identify its source. Only if the
investigators could have served MCI with a trap and trace order while
the hacker was actively on-line could they have successfully traced
back and located him.
In another example provided by the Department of Justice,
investigators encountered similar difficulties in attempting to track
Kevin Mitnick, a criminal who continued to hack into computers attached
to the Internet despite the fact that he was on supervised release for
a prior computer crime conviction. The FBI attempted to trace these
electronic communications while they were in progress. In order to
evade arrest, however, Mitnick moved around the country and used cloned
cellular phones and other evasive techniques. His hacking attacks would
often pass through one of two cellular carriers, a local phone company,
and then two Internet service providers. In this situation, where
investigators and service providers had to act quickly to trace Mitnick
in the act of hacking, only many repeated attempts--accompanied by an
order to each service provider--finally produced success. Fortunately,
Mitnick was such a persistent hacker that he gave law enforcement many
chances to complete the trace.
This duplicative process of obtaining a separate order for each link
in the communications chain can be quite time-consuming, and it serves
no useful purpose since the original court has already authorized the
trace. Moreover, a second or third order addressed to a particular
carrier that carried part of a prior communication may prove useless
during the next attack: in computer intrusion cases, for example, the
target may use an entirely different path (i.e., utilize a different
set of intermediate providers) for his or her subsequent activity.
The bill would modify the pen register and trap and trace statutes to
allow for nationwide service of a single order for installation of
these devices, without the necessity of returning to court for each new
carrier. I support this change.
Second, the language of the existing statute is hopelessly out of
date and speaks of a pen register or trap and trace ``device'' being
``attached'' to a telephone ``line.'' However, the rapid
computerization of the telephone system has changed the tracing
process. No longer are such functions normally accomplished by physical
hardware components attached to telephone lines. Instead, these
functions are typically performed by computerized collection and
retention of call routing information passing through a communications
system.
The statute's definition of a ``pen register'' as a ``device'' that
is ``attached'' to a particular ``telephone line'' is particularly
obsolete when applied to the wireless portion of a cellular phone call,
which has no line to which anything can be attached. While courts have
authorized pen register orders for wireless phones based on the notion
of obtaining access to a ``virtual line,'' updating the law to keep
pace with current technology is a better course.
Moreover, the statute is ill-equipped to facilitate the tracing of
communications that take place over the Internet. For example, the pen
register definition refers to telephone ``numbers'' rather than the
broader concept of a user's communications account. Although pen
register and trap orders have been obtained for activity on computer
networks, Internet service providers have challenged the application of
the statute to electronic communications, frustrating legitimate
investigations. I have long supported updating the statute by removing
words such as ``numbers . . . dialed'' that do not apply to the way
that pen/trap devices are used and to clarify the statute's proper
application to tracing communications in an electronic environment, but
in a manner that is technology neutral and does not capture the content
of communications. That being said, I have been concerned about the FBI
and Justice Department's insistence over the past few years that the
pen/trap devices statutes be updated with broad, undefined terms that
continue to flame concerns that these laws will be used to intercept
private communications content.
The Administration's initial pen/trap device proposal added the terms
``routing'' and ``addressing'' to the definitions describing the
information that was authorized for interception on the low relevance
standard under these laws. The Administration and the Department of
Justice flatly rejected my suggestion that these terms be defined to
respond to concerns that the new terms might encompass matter
considered content, which may be captured only upon a showing of
probable cause, not the mere relevancy of the pen/trap statute.
Instead, the Administration agreed that the definition should expressly
exclude the use of pen/trap devices to intercept ``content,'' which is
broadly defined in 18 U.S.C. 2510(8).
While this is an improvement, the FBI and Justice Department are
short-sighted in their refusal to define these terms. We should be
clear about the consequence of not providing definitions for these new
terms in the pen/trap device statutes. These terms will be defined, if
not by the Congress, then by the courts in the context of criminal
cases where pen/trap devices have

[[Page 19500]]

been used and challenged by defendants. If a court determines that a
pen register has captured ``content,'' which the FBI admits such
devices do, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, suppression may be
ordered, not only of the pen register evidence but any other evidence
derived from it. We are leaving the courts with little or no guidance
of what is covered by ``addressing'' or ``routing.''
The USA Act also requires the government to use reasonably available
technology that limits the interceptions under the pen/trap device laws
``so as not to include the contents of any wire or electronic
communications.'' This limitation on the technology used by the
government to execute pen/trap orders is important since, as the FBI
advised me June, 2000, pen register devices ``do capture all electronic
impulses transmitted by the facility on which they are attached,
including such impulses transmitted after a phone call is connected to
the called party.'' The impulses made after the call is connected could
reflect the electronic banking transactions a caller makes, or the
electronic ordering from a catalogue that a customer makes over the
telephone, or the electronic ordering of a prescription drug.
This transactional data intercepted after the call is connected is
``content.'' As the Justice Department explained in May, 1998 in a
letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, ``the
retrieval of the electronic impulses that a caller necessarily
generated in attempting to direct the phone call'' does not constitute
a ``search'' requiring probable cause since ``no part of the
substantive information transmitted after the caller had reached the
called party'' is obtained. But the Justice Department made clear that
``all of the information transmitted after a phone call is connected to
the called party . . . is substantive in nature. These electronic
impulses are the `contents' of the call: They are not used to direct or
process the call, but instead convey certain messages to the
recipient.''
When I added the direction on use of reasonably available technology
(codified as 18 U.S.C. 3121(c)) to the pen register statute as part of
the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994,
I recognized that these devices collected content and that such
collection was unconstitutional on the mere relevance standard.
Nevertheless, the FBI advised me in June, 2000, that pen register
devices for telephone services ``continue to operate as they have for
decades'' and that ``there had been no change . . . that would better
restrict the recording or decoding of electronic or other impulses to
the dialing and signaling information utilized in call processing.''
Perhaps, if there were meaningful judicial review and accountability,
the FBI would take the statutory direction more seriously and actually
implement it.
Judicial review. Due in significant part to the fact that pen/trap
devices in use today collect ``content,'' I have sought in legislation
introduced over the past few years to update and modify the judicial
review procedure for pen register and trap and trace devices. Existing
law requires an attorney for the government to certify that the
information likely to be obtained by the installation of a pen register
or trap and trace device will be relevant to an ongoing criminal
investigation. The court is required to issue an order upon seeing the
prosecutor's certification. The court is not authorized to look behind
the certification to evaluate the judgment of the prosecutor.
I have urged that government attorneys be required to include facts
about their investigations in their applications for pen/trap orders
and allow courts to grant such orders only where the facts support the
relevancy of the information likely to be obtained by the orders. This
is not a change in the applicable standard, which would remain the very
low relevancy standard. Instead, this change would simply allow the
court to evaluate the facts presented by a prosecutor, and, if it finds
that the facts support the government's assertion that the information
to be collected will be relevant, issue the order. Although this change
will place an additional burden on law enforcement, it will allow the
courts a greater ability to assure that government attorneys are using
such orders properly.
Some have called this change a ``roll-back'' in the statute, as if
the concept of allowing meaningful judicial review was an extreme
position. To the contrary, this is a change that the Clinton
Administration supported in legislation transmitted to the Congress
last year. This is a change that the House Judiciary Committee also
supported last year. In the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, H.R.
5018, that Committee proposed that before a pen/trap device ``could be
ordered installed, the government must first demonstrate to an
independent judge that `specific and articulable facts reasonably
indicate that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed, and
information likely to be obtained by such installation and use . . . is
relevant to an investigation of that crime.'' (Report 106-932, 106th
Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 2000, p. 13). Unfortunately, the Bush
Administration has taken a contrary position and has rejected this
change in the judicial review process.
Computer trespasser. Currently, an owner or operator of a computer
that is accessed by a hacker as a means for the hacker to reach a third
computer, cannot simply consent to law enforcement monitoring of the
computer. Instead, because the owner or operator is not technically a
party to the communication, law enforcement needs wiretap authorization
under Title III to conduct such monitoring. I have long been interested
in closing this loophole. Indeed, when I asked about this problem, the
FBI explained to me in June, 2000, that:

This anomaly in the law creates an untenable situation
whereby providers are sometimes forced to sit idly by as they
witness hackers enter and, in some situations, destroy or
damage their systems and networks while law enforcement
begins the detailed process of seeking court authorization to
assist them. In the real world, the situation is akin to a
homeowner being forced to helplessly watch a burglar or
vandal while police seek a search warrant to enter the
dwelling.

I therefore introduced as part of the Internet Security Act, S. 2430,
in 2000, an exception to the wiretap statute that would explicitly
permit such monitoring without a wiretap if prior consent is obtained
from the person whose computer is being hacked through and used to send
``harmful interference to a lawfully operating computer system.''
The Administration initially proposed a different formulation of the
exception that would have allowed an owner/operator of any computer
connected to the Internet to consent to FBI wiretapping of any user who
violated a workplace computer use policy or online service term of
service and was thereby an ``unauthorized'' user. The Administration's
proposal was not limited to computer hacking offenses under 18 U.S.C.
1030 or to conduct that caused harm to a computer or computer system.
The Administration rejected these refinements to their proposed wiretap
exception, but did agree, in section 217 of the USA Act, to limit the
authority for wiretapping with the consent of the owner/operator to
communications of unauthorized users without an existing subscriber or
other contractual relationship with the owner/operator.
Sharing criminal justice information. The USA Act will make
significant changes in the sharing of confidential criminal justice
information with various Federal agencies. For those of us who have
been concerned about the leaks from the FBI that can irreparably damage
reputations of innocent people and frustrate investigations by alerting
suspects to flee or destroy material evidence, the Administration's
insistence on the broadest authority to disseminate such information,
without any judicial check, is disturbing. Nonetheless, I believe we
have improved the Administration's initial proposal in responsible
ways. Only time will tell whether the improvements we were able to
reach agreement on are sufficient.
At the outset, we should be clear that current law allows the sharing
of confidential criminal justice information, but with close court
supervision. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)

[[Page 19501]]

provides that matters occurring before a grand jury may be disclosed
only to an attorney for the government, such other government personnel
as are necessary to assist the attorney and another grand jury. Further
disclosure is also allowed as specifically authorized by a court.
Similarly, section 2517 of title 18, United States Code provides that
wiretap evidence may be disclosed in testimony during official
proceedings and to investigative or law enforcement officers to the
extent appropriate to the proper performance of their official duties.
In addition, the wiretap law allows disclosure of wiretap evidence
``relating to offenses other than specified in the order'' when
authorized or approved by a judge. Indeed, just last year, the Justice
Department assured us that ``law enforcement agencies have authority
under current law to share title III information regarding terrorism
with intelligence agencies when the information is of overriding
importance to the national security.'' (Letter from Robert Raben,
Assistant Attorney General, September 28, 2000).
For this reason, and others, the Justice Department at the time
opposed an amendment proposed by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to S. 2507,
the ``Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2001 that would have
allowed the sharing of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence
information collected from wiretaps with the intelligence community. I
deferred to the Justice Department on this issue and sought changes in
the proposed amendment to address the Department's concern that this
provision was not only unnecessary but also ``could have significant
implications for prosecutions and the discovery process in
litigation'', ``raises significant issues regarding the sharing with
intelligence agencies of information collected about United States
persons'' and jeopardized ``the need to protect equities relating to
ongoing criminal investigations.'' In the end, the amendment was
revised to address the Justice Department's concerns and passed the
Senate as a free-standing bill, S. 3205, the Counterterrorism Act of
2000. The House took no action on this legislation.
Disclosure of wiretap information. The Administration initially
proposed adding a sweeping provision to the wiretap statute that
broadened the definition of an ``investigative or law enforcement
officer'' who may receive disclosures of information obtained through
wiretaps to include federal law enforcement, intelligence, national
security, national defense, protective and immigration personnel and
the President and Vice President. This proposal troubled me because
information intercepted by a wiretap has enormous potential to infringe
upon the privacy rights of innocent people, including people who are
not even suspected of a crime and merely happen to speak on the
telephone with the targets of an investigation. For this reason, the
authority to disclose information obtained through a wiretap has always
been carefully circumscribed in law.
While I recognize that appropriate officials in the executive branch
of government should have access to wiretap information that is
important to combating terrorism or protecting the national security, I
proposed allowing such disclosures where specifically authorized by a
court order. Further, with respect to information relating to
terrorism, I proposed allowing the disclosure without a court order as
long as the judge who authorized the wiretap was notified as soon as
practicable after the fact. This would have provided a check against
abuses of the disclosure authority by providing for review by a neutral
judicial official. At the same time, there was a little likelihood that
a judge would deny any requests for disclosure in cases where it was
warranted.
On Sunday, September 30, the Administration agreed to my proposal,
but within two days, it backed away from its agreement. I remain
concerned that the resulting provision will allow the unprecedented,
widespread disclosure of this highly sensitive information without any
notification to or review by the court that authorizes and supervises
the wiretap. This is clearly an area where our Committee will have to
exercise close oversight to make sure that the newly-minted disclosure
authority is not being abused.
The Administration offered three reasons for reneging on the original
deal. First, they claimed that the involvement of the court would
inhibit Federal investigators and attorneys from disclosing information
needed by intelligence and national security officials. Second, they
said the courts might not have adequate security and therefore should
not be told that information was disclosed for intelligence or national
security purposes. And third, they said the President's constitutional
powers under Article II give him authority to get whatever foreign
intelligence he needs to exercise his national security
responsibilities.
I believe these concerns are unfounded. Federal investigators and
attorneys will recognize the need to disclose information relevant to
terrorism investigations. Courts can be trusted to keep secrets and
recognize the needs of the President.
Current law requires that such information be used only for law
enforcement purpose. This provides an assurance that highly intrusive
invasions of privacy are confined to the purpose for which they have
been approved by a court, based on probable cause, as required by the
Fourth Amendment. Current law calls for minimization procedures to
ensure that the surveillance does not gather information about private
and personal conduct and conversations that are not relevant to the
criminal investigation.
When the Administration reneged on the agreement regarding court
supervision, we turned to other safeguards and were more successful in
changing other questionable features of the Administration's bill. The
Administration accepted my proposal to strike the term ``national
security'' from the description of wiretap information that may be
shared throughout the executive branch and replace it with ``foreign
intelligence'' information. This change is important in clarifying what
information may be disclosed because the term ``foreign intelligence''
is specifically defined by statute whereas ``national security'' is
not.
Moreoever, the rubric of ``national security'' has been used to
justify some particularly unsavory activities by the government in the
past. We must have at least some assurance that we are not embarked on
a course that will lead to a repetition of these abuses because the
statute will now more clearly define what type of information is
subject to disclosure. In addition, Federal officials who receive the
information may use it only as necessary to the conduct of their
official duties. Therefore, any disclosure or use outside the conduct
of their official duties remains subject to all limitations applicable
to their retention and dissemination of information of the type of
information received. This includes the Privacy Act, the criminal
penalties for unauthorized disclosure of electronic surveillance
information under chapter 119 of title 18, and the contempt penalties
for unauthorized disclosure of grand jury information. In addition, the
Attorney General must establish procedures for the handling of
information that identifies a United States person, such as the
restrictions on retention and dissemination of foreign intelligence and
counterintelligence information pertaining to United States persons
currently in effect under Executive Order 12333.
While these safeguards do not fully substitute for court supervision,
they can provide some assurance against misuse of the private,
personal, and business information about Americans, that is acquired in
the course of criminal investigations and that may flow more widely in
the intelligence, defense, and national security worlds.
Disclosure of grand jury information. The wiretap statute was not the
only provision in which the Administration sought broader authority to
disclose highly sensitive investigative information. It also proposed
broadening Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to
allow the disclosure of information relating to terrorism and national
security obtained from grand

[[Page 19502]]

jury proceedings to a broad range of officials in the executive branch
of government. As with wiretaps, few would disagree that information
learned in a criminal investigation that is necessary to combating
terrorism or protecting the national security ought to be shared with
the appropriate intelligence and national security officials. The
question is how best to regulate and limit such disclosures so as not
to compromise the important policies of secrecy and confidentiality
that have long applied to grand jury proceedings.
I proposed that we require judicial review of requests to disclose
terrorism and foreign intelligence information to officials in the
executive branch beyond those already authorized to receive such
disclosures. Once again, the Administration agreed to my proposal on
Sunday, September 30, but reneged within two days. As a result, the
bill does not provide for any judicial supervision of the new
authorization for dissemination of grand jury information throughout
the executive branch. The bill does contain the safeguards that I have
discussed with respect to law enforcement wiretap information. However,
as with the new wiretap disclosure authority, I am troubled by this
issue and plan to exercise the close oversight of the Judiciary
Committee to make sure it is not being abused.
Foreign intelligence information sharing. The Administration also
sought a provision that would allow the sharing of foreign intelligence
information throughout the executive branch of the government
notwithstanding any current legal prohibition that may prevent or limit
its disclosure. I have resisted this proposal more strongly than
anything else that still remains in the bill. What concerns me is that
it is not clear what existing prohibitions this provision would affect
beyond the grand jury secrecy rule and the wiretap statute, which are
already covered by other provisions in the bill. Even the
Administration, which wrote this provision, has not been able to
provide a fully satisfactory explanation of its scope.
If there are specific laws that the Administration believes impede
the necessary sharing of information on terrorism and foreign
intelligence within the executive branch, we should address those
problems through legislation that is narrowly targeted to those
statutes. Tacking on a blunderbuss provision whose scope we do not
fully understand can only lead to consequences that we cannot foresee.
Further, I am concerned that such legislation, broadly authorizing the
secret sharing of intelligence information throughout the executive
branch, will fuel the unwarranted fears and dark conspiracy theories of
Americans who do not trust their government. This was another provision
of which the Administration reneged on its agreement with me; it agreed
to drop it on September 30, but resurrected it within two days,
insisting that it remain in the bill. I have been able to mitigate its
potential for abuse somewhat by adding the same safeguards that apply
to disclosure of law enforcement wiretap and grand jury information.
``Sneak and peek'' search warrants. Another issue that has caused me
serious concern relates to the Administration's proposal for so-called
``sneak and peek'' search warrants. The House Judiciary Committee
dropped this proposal entirely from its version of the legislation.
Normally, when law enforcement officers execute a search warrant, they
must leave a copy of the warrant and a receipt for all property seized
at the premises searched. Thus, even if the search occurs when the
owner of the premises is not present, the owner will receive notice
that the premises have been lawfully searched pursuant to a warrant
rather than, for example, burglarized.
Two circuit courts of appeal, the Second and the Ninth Circuits, have
recognized a limited exception to this requirement. When specifically
authorized by the issuing judge or magistrate, the officers may delay
providing notice of the search to avoid compromising an ongoing
investigation or for some other good reason. However, this authority
has been carefully circumscribed.
First, the Second and Ninth Circuit cases have dealt only with
situations where the officers search a premises without seizing any
tangible property. As the Second Circuit explained, such searches are
``less intrusive than a conventional search with physical seizure
because the latter deprives the owner not only of privacy but also of
the use of his property.'' United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324,
899 F.2d 1324, 1337 (2d Cir. 1990).
Second, the cases have required that the officers seeking the warrant
must show good reason for the delay. Finally, while the courts have
allowed notice of the search may be delayed, it must be provided within
a reasonable period thereafter, which should generally be no more than
seven days. The reasons for these careful limitations were spelled out
succinctly by Judge Sneed of the Ninth Circuit: ``The mere thought of
strangers walking through and visually examining the center of our
privacy interest, our home, arouses our passion for freedom as does
nothing else. That passion, the true source of the Fourth Amendment,
demands that surreptitious entries be closely circumscribed.'' United
States v. Freitas, 800 F.2d 1451, 1456 (9th Cir. 1986).
The Administration's original proposal would have ignored some of the
key limitations created by the caselaw for sneak and peek search
warrants. First, it would have broadly authorized officers not only to
conduct surreptitious searches, but also to secretly seize any type of
property without any additional showing of necessity. This type of
warrant, which has never been addressed by a published decision of a
federal appellate court, has been referred to in a law review article
written by an FBI agent as a ``sneak and steal'' warrant. See K. Corr,
``Sneaky But Lawful: The Use of Sneak and Peek Search Warrants,'' 43 U.
Kan. L. Rev. 1103, 1113 (1995). Second, the proposal would simply have
adopted the procedural requirements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2705 for
providing delayed notice of a wiretap. Among other things, this would
have extended the permissible period of delay to a maximum of 90 days,
instead of the presumptive seven-day period provided by the caselaw on
sneak and peek warrants.
I was able to make significant improvements in the Administration's
original proposal that will help to ensure that the government's
authority to obtain sneak and peek warrants is not abused. First, the
provision that is now in section 213 of the bill prohibits the
government from seizing any tangible property or any wire or electronic
communication or stored electronic information unless it makes a
showing of reasonable necessity for the seizure. Thus, in contrast to
the Administration's original proposal, the presumption is that the
warrant will authorize only a search unless the government can make a
specific showing of additional need for a seizure. Second, the
provision now requires that notice be given within a reasonable time of
the execution of the warrant rather than giving a blanket authorization
for up to a 90-day delay. What constitutes a reasonable time, of
course, will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. But
I would expect courts to be guided by the teachings of the Second and
the Ninth Circuits that, in the ordinary case, a reasonable time is no
more than seven days.
FISA. Several changes in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) are designed to clarify technical aspects of the statutory
framework and take account of experience in practical implementation.
These changes are not controversial, and they will facilitate the
collection of intelligence for counterterrorism and counterintelligence
purposes. Other changes are more significant and required careful
evaluation and revision of the Administration's proposals.
Duration of surveillance. The USA Act, in section 297, changes the
duration of electronic surveillance under FISA in cases of an agent of
a foreign power, other than a United States persons, who acts in the
United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power or as a
member of an international terrorist group. Current law limits court
orders in these cases to 90 days, the same duration as for United

[[Page 19503]]

States persons. Experience indicates, however, that after the initial
period has confirmed probable cause that the foreign national meets the
statutory standard, court orders are renewed repeatedly and the 90-day
renewal becomes an unnecessary procedural for investigators taxed with
far more pressing duties.
The Administration proposed that the period of electronic
surveillance be changed from 90 days to one year in these cases. This
proposal did not ensure adequate review after the initial stage to
ensure that the probable cause determination remained justified over
time. Therefore, the bill changes the initial period of the
surveillance 90 to 120 days and changes the period for extensions from
90 days to one year. The initial 120-day period provides for a review
of the results of the surveillance or search directed at an individual
before one-year extensions are requested. These changes do not affect
surveillance of a United States person.
The bill also changes the period for execution of an order for
physical search under FISA from 45 to 90 days. This change applies to
United States persons as well as foreign nationals. Experience since
physical search authority was added to FISA in 1994 indicates that 45
days is frequently not long enough to plan and carry out a covert
physical search. There is no change in the restrictions which provide
that United States persons may not be the targets of search or
surveillance under FISA unless a judge finds probable cause to believe
that they are agents of foreign powers who engage in specified
international terrorist, sabotage, or clandestine intelligence
activities that may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the
United States.
FISA judges. The bill, in section 208, seeks to ensure that the
special court established under FISA has sufficient judges to handle
the workload. While changing the duration of orders and extensions will
reduce the number of cases in some categories, the bill retains the
court's role in pen register and trap and trace cases and expands the
court's responsibility for issuing orders for records and other
tangible items needed for counterintelligence and counter terrorism
investigations. Upon reviewing the court's requirements, the
Administration requested an increase in the number of federal district
judges designated for the court from seven to 11 of whom no less than 3
shall reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia. The latter
provision ensures that more than one judge is available to handle cases
on short notice and reduces the need to invoke the alternative of
Attorney General approval under the emergency authorities in FISA.
Agent of a foreign power standard. Other changes in FISA and related
national security laws are more controversial. In several areas, the
bill reflects a serious effort to accommodate the requests for expanded
surveillance authority with the need for safeguards against misuse,
especially the gathering of intelligence about the lawful political or
commercial activities of Americans. One of the most difficult issues
was whether to eliminate the existing statutory ``agent of a foreign
power'' standards for surveillance and investigative techniques that
raise important privacy concerns, but not at the level that the supreme
Court has held to require a court order and a probable cause finding
under the Fourth Amendment. These include pen register and trap and
trace devices, access to business records and other tangible items held
by third parties, and access to records that have statutory privacy
protection. The latter include telephone, bank, and credit records.
The ``agent of a foreign power'' standard in existing law was
designed to ensure that the FBI and other intelligence agencies do not
use these surveillance and investigative methods to investigate the
lawful activities of Americans in the name of an undefined authority to
collect foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information. The
law has required a showing of reasonable suspicion, less than probable
cause, to believe that a United States person is an ``agent of a
foreign power'' engaged in international terrorism or clandestine
intelligence activities.
However, the ``agent of a foreign power'' standard is more stringent
than the standard under comparable criminal law enforcement procedures
which require only a showing of relevance to a criminal investigation.
The FBI's experience under existing laws since they were enacted at
various time over the past 15 years has been that, in practice, the
requirement to show reasonable suspicion that a person is an ``agent of
a foreign power'' has been almost as burdensome as the requirement to
show probable cause required by the Fourth Amendment for more intrusive
techniques. The FBI has made a clear case that a relevance standard is
appropriate for counterintelligence and counterterrorism
investigations, as well as for criminal investigations.
The challenge, then, was to define those investigations. The
alternative proposed by the Administration was to cover any
investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information. This was
extremely broad, because the definition includes any information with
respect to a foreign power that relates to, and if concerning a United
States person is necessary to, the national defense or the security of
the United States or the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United
States. This goes far beyond FBI counterintelligence and
counterterrorism requirements. Instead, the bill requires that use of
the surveillance technique or access to the records concerning a United
States person be relevant to an investigation to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
In addition, an investigation of a United States person may not be
based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment. This
framework applies to pen registers and trap and trace under section
215, access to records and other items under section 215, and the
national security authorities for access to telephone, bank, and credit
records under section 506. Lawful political dissent and protest by
American citizens against the government may not be the basis for FBI
counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations under these
provisions.
A separate issue for pen registers and trap and trace under FISA is
whether the court should have the discretion to make the decision on
relevance. The Administration has insisted on a certification process.
I discussed this issue as it comes up in the criminal procedures for
pen registers and trap and trace under title 18, and my concerns apply
to the FISA procedures as well.
The purpose of FISA. The most controversial change in FISA requested
by the Administration was the proposal to allow surveillance and search
when ``a purpose'' is to obtain foreign intelligence information.
Current law requires that the secret procedures and different probable
cause standards under FISA be used only if a high-level executive
official certifies that ``the purpose'' is to obtain foreign
intelligence formation. The Administration's aim was to allow FISA
surveillance and search for law enforcement purposes, so long as there
was at least some element of a foreign intelligence purpose. This
proposal raised constitutional concerns, which were addressed in a
legal opinion provided by the Justice Department, which I insert in the
record at the end of my statement.
The Justice Department opinion did not defend the constitutionality
of the original proposal. Instead, it addressed a suggestion made by
Senator Feinstein to the Attorney General at the Judiciary Committee
hearing to change ``the purpose'' to ``a significant purpose.'' No
matter what statutory change is made even the Department concedes that
the court's may impose a constitutional requirement of ``primary
purpose'' based on the appellate court decisions upholding FISA against
constitutional challenges over the past 20 years.
Section 218 of the bill adopts ``significant purpose,'' and it will
be up to the courts to determine how far law enforcement agencies may
use FISA for criminal investigation and prosecution beyond the scope of
the statutory definition of ``foreign intelligence information.''

[[Page 19504]]

In addition, I proposed and the Administration agreed to an
additional provision in Section 505 that clarifies the boundaries for
consultation and coordination between officials who conduct FISA search
and surveillance and Federal law enforcement officials including
prosecutors. Such consultation and coordination is authorized for the
enforcement of laws that protect against international terrorism,
clandestine intelligence activities of foreign agents, and other grave
foreign threats to the nation. Protection against these foreign-based
threats by any lawful means is within the scope of the definition of
``foreign intelligence information,'' and the use of FISA to gather
evidence for the enforcement of these laws was contemplated in the
enactment of FISA. The Justice Department's opinion cites relevant
legislative history from the Senate Intelligence Committee's report in
1978, and there is comparable language in the House report.
Immigration. The Administration initially proposed that the Attorney
General be authorized to detain any alien indefinitely upon
certification of suspicion to links to terrorist activities or
organizations. Under close questioning by both Senator Kennedy and
Senator Specter at the Committee hearing on September 25, the Attorney
General said that his proposal was intended only to allow the
government to hold an alien suspected of terrorist activity while
deportation proceedings were ongoing. In response to a question by
Senator Specter, the Attorney General said: ``Our intention is to be
able to detain individuals who are the subject of deportation
proceedings on other grounds, to detain them as if they were the
subject of deportation proceedings on terrorism.'' The Justice
Department, however, continued to insist on broader authority,
including the power to detain even if the alien was found not to be
deportable.
I remain concerned about the provision, in section 412, but I believe
that it has been improved from the original proposal offered by the
Administration. First, the Justice Department must now charge an alien
with an immigration or criminal violation within seven days of taking
custody, and the Attorney General's certification of an alien under
this section is subject to judicial review. Second, if an alien is
found not to be removable, he must be released from custody. Third, the
Attorney General can only delegate the power to certify an alien to the
Deputy Attorney General, ensuring greater accountability and preventing
the certification decision from being made by low-level officials.
Despite these improvements, I would have preferred that this provision
not be included, and I would urge the Attorney General and his
successors to employ great discretion in using this new power.
In addition, the Administration initially proposed a sweeping
definition of terrorist activity and new powers for the Secretary of
State to designate an organization as a terrorist organization for
purposes of immigration law. We were able to work with the
Administration to refine this definition to limit its application to
individuals who had innocent contacts with non-designated
organizations. We also limited the retroactive effect of these new
definitions. If an alien solicited funds or membership, or provided
material support for an organization that was not designated at that
time by the Secretary of State, the alien will have the opportunity to
show that he did not know and should have known that his acts would
further the organization's terrorist activity. This is substantially
better than the administration's proposal, which by its terms, would
have empowered the INS to deport someone who raised money for the
African National Congress in the 1980s.
Throughout our negotiations on these issues, Senator Kennedy provided
steadfast leadership. Although neither of us are pleased with the final
product, it is far better than it would have been without his active
involvement.
Trade Sanctions. I was disappointed that the Administration's initial
proposal authorizing the President to impose unilateral food and
medical sanctions would have undermined a law we passed last year with
overwhelming bipartisan support.
Under that law, the President already has full authority to impose
unilateral food and medicine sanctions during this crisis because of
two exceptions built into the law that apply to our current situation.
Nevertheless, the Administration sought to undo this law and obtain
virtually unlimited authority in the future to impose food and medicine
embargoes, without making any effort for a multi-lateral approach in
cooperation with other nations. Absent such a multi-lateral approach,
other nations would be free to step in immediately and take over
business from American firms and farmers that they are unilaterally
barred from pursuing.
Over 30 farm and export groups, including the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the National Farmers
Union, and the U.S. Dairy Export Council, wrote to me and explained
that the Administration proposal would ``not achieve its intended
policy goal.''
I worked with Senator Enzi, and other Senators, on substitute
language to give the Administration the tools it needs in this crisis.
This substitute has been carefully crafted to avoid needlessly hurting
American farmers in the future, yet it will assure that the U.S. can
engage in effective multilateral sanctions.
This bipartisan agreement limits the authority in the bill to
existing laws and executive orders, which give the President full
authority regarding this conflict, and grants authority for the
President to restrict exports of agricultural products, medicine or
medical devices. I continue to agree with then-Senator Ashcroft who
argued in 1999 that unilateral U.S. food and medicine sanctions simply
do not work when he introduced the ``Food and Medicine for the World
Act.''
As recently as October 2000, then-Senator Ashcroft pointed out how
broad, unilateral embargoes of food or medicine are often
counterproductive. Many Republican and Democratic Senators made it
clear just last year that the U.S. should work with other countries on
food and medical sanctions so that the sanctions will be effective in
hurting our enemies, instead of just hurting the U.S. I am glad that
with Senator Enzi's help, we were able to make changes in the trade
sanctions provision to both protect our farmers and help the President
during this crisis.
Money Laundering. Title III of the USA Act consists of a bipartisan
bill that was reported out of the Banking Committee on October 4, 2001.
I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of that Committee, Senators
Sarbanes and Gramm, for working together to produce a balanced and
effective package of measures to combat international money laundering
and the financing of terrorism.
I am pleased that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Banking
Committee agreed to our inclusion in the managers' amendment of a small
change to a provision of title III, section 319, relating to forfeiture
of funds in United States interbank accounts. As reported by the
Banking Committee, this provision included language suggesting that in
a criminal case, the government may have authority to seek a pretrial
restraining order of substitute assets. In fact, as all but one of the
circuit courts to consider the issue have held, the government has no
such authority. The managers' amendment strikes the offending language
from section 319.
Another provision added as part of the Banking Committee title--
section 351--is far more troubling. Section 351 creates a new Bank
Secrecy Act offense involving the bulk smuggling of more than $10,000
in currency in any conveyance, article of luggage or merchandise or
container, either into or out of the United States. The obvious purpose
of this section is to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision in United
States v. Bajakajian, 118 S. Ct. 2029 (1998), which held that a
``punitive'' forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the
Eighth Amendment if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the
offense it is designed to punish.

[[Page 19505]]

In fact, the crime created in section 351--willfully evading a
currency reporting requirement by ``concealing'' and transporting more
than $10,000 across a U.S. border--is no different than the crime at
issue in Bajakajian--willfully evading a currency reporting requirement
by transporting more than $10,000 across a U.S. border. A forfeiture
that is ``grossly disproportional'' with respect to the latter will
inevitably be found ``grossly disproportional'' with respect to the
former. The new element of ``concealment'' does little or nothing to
bolster the government's claim to forfeiture of the unreported
currency, since this element is already implicit in the current crime
of evasion: It is hardly likely that a person who is in the process of
willfully evading the currency reporting requirement will be waiving
his currency around for all the world to see.
Conclusion. I have done my best under the circumstances and want to
thank especially Senator Kennedy for his leadership on the Immigration
parts of the bill. My efforts have not been completely successful and
there are a number of provisions on which the Administration has
insisted with which I disagree. Frankly, the agreement of September 30,
2001 would have led to a better balanced bill. I could not stop the
Administration from reneging on the agreement any more than I could
have sped the process to reconstitute this bill in the aftermath of
those breaches. In these times we need to work together to face the
challenges of international terrorism. I have sought to do so in good
faith.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I enjoyed the remarks of my distinguished
colleague from Vermont. I compliment him for the work he has done on
this bill and for the hard work, over the last 3 weeks, that he and his
staff have put into this bill, as well as other members of the
Judiciary Committee as a whole, and, of course, people on my side as
well.
Mr. President, I do not intend to take very long. I know our
colleagues are tired, and I know they would like to go home. I also
know that we have a distinguished colleague in the Chamber who has some
amendments on which we may have to vote.
Four weeks ago we were a relatively tranquil nation, but on September
11, in what amounted to a dastardly attack, an unprovoked attack of
war, the World Trade Center was destroyed, along with almost 6,000
people, or maybe more. Our Pentagon was struck by a volitionary act of
terrorism.
As a result of the acts of heroes, one of the planes was downed in
Pennsylvania, killing all aboard, including those heroes who made sure
that that plane did not strike either the Capitol or the White House. I
want to pay special tribute to those people who were so heroic as to
give up their own lives to protect the lives of so many others.
There have been so many acts of heroism and self-sacrifice--the
firefighters who gave their lives, the firefighters who worked day and
night, the volunteers who have gone in there, the mayor of New York
City, the Governor, and so many others who deserve mention.
This bill, hopefully, will help to at least rectify and redeem some
of the problems, problems that have existed ever since September 11.
We did not seek this war; it was thrust upon us. It was an unprovoked
attack by people who claim that they represent a religious point of
view when, in fact, what they represent is a complete distortion of the
religion of Islam.
Islamic people do not believe in murder, murdering innocent
civilians. The Koran does not teach that. They do not believe in
suicide. The Koran does not teach that.
This is not a war against Islam; this is a war against terrorism and
people who have so little regard for human life that they would do
something against innocent civilians that was unthinkable before
September 11.
Therefore, we live in a dangerous and difficult world today. It is a
different world. And we are going to have to wake up and do the things
we have to do to protect our citizenry and, of course, to protect the
rest of the world to the extent this great Nation can, with the help of
other nations, a number of which have become supportive of our efforts.
We are very grateful to them.
But a lot of people do not realize we have terror cells in this
country--that has been in the media even--and there are people in this
country who are dedicated to the overthrow of America. There are people
who are dedicated to terrorism right here within our Nation. And some
of these people who have participated in this matter may very well be
people who were rightfully in our Nation--or at least we thought were
rightfully in our Nation.
The responsibility of redeeming and rectifying this situation is the
responsibility of the Congress, the Justice Department, the FBI, the
INS, and the Border Patrol. It is our job to provide the tools, and for
them to first identify and then eradicate terrorist activity within our
borders. And our President has taken the extraordinary step of saying
we are going to go after terrorists worldwide and those who harbor
them.
I agree with the President. I think it is time to do it. It is time
to hit them where it hurts. It is time to let them know we are not
going to put up with this type of activity.
A few weeks ago, the Justice Department sent up its legislative
proposal. It was a good legislative proposal. They had a lot of ideas
in there that literally we have been trying to get through for years.
When we passed the 1996 antiterrorism, effective death penalty act, a
number of us tried to get some of these provisions in at that time, but
we were unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, some very sincere.
The fact is, a lot of the provisions we have in the bill are not
brand new; a lot of them have been requested for years. And had they
been in play, who knows but we might have been able to interdict these
terrorists and have stopped what happened and have stopped the loss of
civil liberties for approximately 6,000 or more people.
In the past several weeks, after the Justice Department sent up its
bill, Senator Leahy and I, Justice Department officials, White House
officials, staff members from both of our staffs, and staff members
from other members of the committee have worked day and night to come
up with this particular bill.
I congratulate my partner and my colleague, Senator Leahy, for his
hard work on this bill, and his staffers' for the work they have done
on this bill, and, of course, my own staffers, and, of course, those
others I have named.
This has been a very difficult bill to put forward because there are
all kinds of cross-pressures, all kinds of ideas, all kinds of
different thoughts, all kinds of differing philosophies. We believe,
with all kinds of deliberation and work, we have been able to put
together a bill that really makes sense, that will give the Justice
Department the tools it needs to be able to work and stamp out
terrorist activity within our country. At least we want to give them
the very best tools we possibly can.
We have tried to accommodate the concerns of Senators on both sides
of the aisle. We have worked very hard to do so. We cannot accommodate
everybody's concerns. As Senator Leahy has said, this is not a perfect
bill. Nothing ever seems to be perfect around here. But this is as good
a bill as can be put together, in a bipartisan way, in this area in the
history of the Senate. I really feel good about it, that we have done
this type of a job.
As I say, a lot of these provisions have been requested by the
Justice Department and both Democrat and Republican White Houses for
years. We took into consideration civil liberties throughout our
discussions on this bill. I think we got it just right. We are
protective of civil liberties while at the same time giving the tools
to the law enforcement agencies to be able to do their jobs in this
country.
I might mention that this bill encourages information sharing, that
would be absolutely prohibited under

[[Page 19506]]

current law, among various agencies of Government, information sharing
that should have been allowed a long time ago, at least in my view.
It updates the laws with regard to electronic surveillance and brings
those laws into the digital age, and brings them into an effective way
so that we can, in a modernized way, protect our society, at least to
the extent we can, from these types of terrorist activities.
Of course, little things, such as pen registers, trap-and-trace
authority--we have been able to resolve these problems after years of
problems.
I would like to make a few comments regarding the process for this
legislation. Although we have considered this in a more expedited
manner than other legislation, my colleagues can be assured that this
bill has received thorough consideration. First, the fact is that the
bulk of these proposals have been requested by the Department of
Justice for years, and have languished in Congress for years because we
have been unable to muster the collective political will to enact them
into law.
No one can say whether these tools could have prevented the attacks
of September 11. But, as the Attorney General has said, it is certain
that without these tools, we did not stop the vicious acts of last
month. I say to my colleagues, Mr. President, that if these tools could
help us now to track down the perpetrators--if they will help us in our
continued pursuit of terrorist activities within our national borders
then we should not hesitate any further to pass these reforms into law.
As long as these reforms are consistent with our--Constitution and they
are--it is difficult to see why anyone would oppose their passage.
Furthermore, I would like to clearly dispel the myth that the reforms
in this legislation somehow abridge the Constitutional freedoms enjoyed
by law-abiding American citizens. Some press reports have portrayed
this issue as a choice between individual liberties on the one hand,
and on the other hand, enhanced powers for our law enforcement
institutions. This is a false dichotomy. We should all take comfort
that the reforms in this bill are primarily directed at allowing law
enforcement agents to work smarter and more efficiently--in no case do
they curtail the precious civil liberties protected by our
Constitution. I want to assure my colleagues that we worked very hard
over the past several weeks to ensure that this legislation upholds all
of the constitutional freedoms our citizens cherish. It does.
Mr. President, I will submit for the Record my extended remarks
describing this legislation, but I would like to take a minute to
explain briefly a few of the most important provisions of this critical
legislation.
First, the legislation encourages information-sharing between various
arms of the federal government. I believe most of our citizens would be
shocked to learn that, even if certain government agents had prior
knowledge of the September 11 attacks, under many circumstances they
would have been prohibited by law from sharing that information with
the appropriate intelligence or national security authorities.
This legislation makes sure that, in the future, such information
flows freely within the Federal government, so that it will be received
by those responsible for protecting against terrorist attacks.
By making these reforms, we are rejecting the outdated Cold War
paradigm that has prevented cooperation between our intelligence
community and our law enforcement agents. Current law does not
adequately allow for such cooperation, artificially hampering our
government's ability to identify and prevent acts of terrorism against
our citizens.
In this new war, terrorists are a hybrid between domestic criminals
and international agents. We must lower the barriers that discourage
our law enforcement and intelligence agencies from working together to
stop these terrorists. These hybrid criminals call for new, hybrid
tools.
Second, this bill updates the laws relating to electronic
surveillance. Electronic surveillance, conducted under the supervision
of a federal judge, is one of the most powerful tools at the disposal
of our law enforcement community. It is simply a disgrace that we have
not acted to modernize the laws currently on the books which govern
such surveillance, laws that were enacted before the fax machine came
into common usage, and well before the advent of cellular telephones,
e-mail, and instant messaging. The Department of Justice has asked us
for years to update these laws to reflect the new technologies, but
there has always been a call to go slow, to seek more information, to
order further studies.
This is no hypothetical problem. We now know that e-mail, cellular
telephones, and the Internet have been principal tools used by the
terrorists to coordinate their atrocious activities. We need to pursue
all solid investigatory leads that exist right now that our law
enforcement agents would be unable to pursue because they must continue
to work within these outdated laws. It is high time that we update our
laws so that our law enforcement agencies can deal with the world as it
is, rather than the world as it existed 20 years ago.
A good example of way we our handicapping our law enforcement
agencies relates to devices called ``pen registers.'' Pen registers may
be employed by the FBI, after obtaining a court order, to determine
what telephone numbers are being dialed from a particular telephone.
These devices are essential investigatory tools, which allow law
enforcement agents to determine who is speaking to whom, within a
criminal conspiracy.
The Supreme Court has held, in Smith v. Maryland, that the
information obtained by pen register devices is not information that is
subject to any constitutional protection. Unlike the content of your
telephone conversation once your call is connected, the numbers you
dial into your telephone are not private. Because you have no
reasonable expectation that such numbers will be kept private, they are
not protected under the Constitution. The Smith holding was cited with
approval by the Supreme Court just earlier this year.
The legislation under consideration today would make clear what the
Federal courts have already ruled--that Federal judges may grant pen
register authority to the FBI to cover, not just telephones, but other
more modern modes of communication such as e-mail or instant messaging.
Let me make clear that the bill does not allow law enforcement to
receive the content of the communication, but they can receive the
addressing information to identify the computer or computers a suspect
is using to further his criminal activity.
Importantly, reform of the pen register law does not allow--as has
sometimes been misreported in the press--for law enforcement agents to
view the content of any e-mail messages--not even the subject line of
e-mails. In addition, this legislation we are considering today makes
it explicit that content can not be collected through such pen register
orders.
This legislation also allows judges to enter pen register orders with
nationwide scope. Nationwide jurisdiction for pen register orders makes
common sense. It helps law enforcement agents efficiently identify
communications facilities throughout the country, which greatly
enhances the ability of law enforcement to identify quickly other
members of a criminal organization, such as a terrorist cell.
Moreover, this legislation provides our intelligence community with
the same authority to use pen register devices, under the auspices of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that our law enforcement
agents have when investigating criminal offenses. It simply makes sense
to provide law enforcement with the same tools to catch terrorists that
they already possess in connection with other criminal investigations,
such as drug crimes or illegal gambling.
In addition to the pen register statute, this legislation updates
other aspects of our wiretapping statutes. It is amazing that law
enforcement agents do not currently have authority to

[[Page 19507]]

seek wiretapping authority from a Federal judge when investigating a
terrorist offense. This legislation fixes that problem.
Moving on, I note that much has been made of the complex immigration
provisions of this bill. I know Senators Specter, Kohl and Kennedy had
questions about earlier provisions, particularly the detention
provision for suspected alien terrorists.
I want to assure my colleagues that we have worked hard to address
your concerns, and the concerns of the public. As with the other
immigration provisions of this bill, we have made painstaking efforts
to achieve this workable compromise.
Let me address some of the specific concerns. In response to the
concern that the INS might detain a suspected terrorist indefinitely,
the Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, and I worked out a compromise that
limits the provision. It provides that the alien must be charged with
an immigration or criminal violation within seven days after the
commencement of detention or be released. In addition, contrary to what
has been alleged, the certification itself is subject to judicial
review. The Attorney General's power to detain a suspected terrorist
under this bill is, then, not unfettered.
Moreover, Senator Leahy and I have also worked diligently to craft
necessary language that provides for the deportation of those aliens
who are representatives of organizations that endorse terrorist
activity, those who use a position of prominence to endorse terrorist
activity or persuade others to support terrorist activity, or those who
provide material support to terrorist organizations. If we are to fight
terrorism, we can not allow those who support terrorists to remain in
our country. Also, I should note that we have worked hard to provide
the State Department and the INS the tools they need to ensure that no
applicant for admission who is a terrorist is able to secure entry into
the United States through legal channels.
Finally, the bill gives law enforcement agencies powerful tools to
attack the financial infrastructure of terrorism giving our Government
the ability to choke off the financing that these dangerous terrorist
organizations need to survive. It criminalizes the practice of
harboring terrorists, and puts teeth in the laws against providing
material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations. It gives
the President expanded authority to freeze the assets of terrorists and
terrorist organizations, and provides for the eventual seizure of such
assets. These tools are vital to our ability to effectively wage the
war against terrorism, and ultimately to win it.
There have been few, if any, times in our nation's great history
where an event has brought home to so many of our citizens, so quickly,
and in such a graphic fashion, a sense of our vulnerability to
unexpected attack.
I believe we all took some comfort when President Bush promised us
that our law enforcement institutions would have the tools necessary to
protect us from the danger that we are only just beginning to perceive.
The Attorney General has told us what tools he needs. We have taken
the time to review the problems with our current laws, and to reflect
on their solutions. The time to act is now. Let us please move forward
expeditiously, and give those who are in the business of protecting us
the tools that they need to do the job.
Mr. President, I think most people understand this is an important
bill. All of us understand it needs to be done. All of us understand
that these are tools our law enforcement people deserve and need to
have. And, frankly, it is a bill that I think can make a real
difference with regard to the interdiction of future acts of terrorism
in our society.
Nobody can guarantee, when you have people willing to commit suicide
in the perpetration of these awful acts, at all times that we can
absolutely protect our Nation. But this bill will provide the tools
whereby we might be able--and in most cases should be able--to resolve
even those types of problems.
So with that, I am happy to yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Who yields time?
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of S.
1510, the Uniting and Strengthening America Act of 2001, and in
particular, Title III of S. 1510, the International Money Laundering
Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 2001.
Title III was reported out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs, which I am privileged to chair, a week ago today by a
unanimous vote of 21 to 0.
President Bush said on September 24: ``We have launched a strike on
the financial foundation of the global terror network.''
Title III of our comprehensive anti-terrorism package supplies the
armament for that strike. Osama bin Laden may have boasted that ``al-
Qaeda [includes] modern, educated youth who are aware of the cracks
inside the western financial system, as they are aware of the lines in
their hands.'' With Title III, we are sealing up those cracks.
Title III contains, among other things, authority to take targeted
action against countries, institutions, transactions, or types of
accounts the Secretary of the Treasury finds to be of ``primary money-
laundering concern.'' It also contains requirements for due diligence
standards directed at corresponding accounts opened at U.S. banks by
foreign offshore banks and banks in jurisdictions that have been found
to fall significantly below international anti-money laundering
standards.
It contains a bar on the maintenance of U.S. correspondent accounts
for offshore shell banks--those banks that have no physical presence or
employees anywhere, and that are not part of a regulated and recognized
banking company. There is also a requirement that all financial
institutions establish anti-money laundering programs.
Title III also contains several provisions that should enhance the
ability of the Government to share more specific information with
banks, and the ability of banks to share information with one another
relating to potential terrorist or money-laundering activities, and a
large number of important technical improvements in anti-money
laundering statutes, as well as, mandates to the Department of the
Treasury to act or formulate recommendations to improve our anti-money
laundering programs.
The problem of money laundering is not a new one. There have been
significant efforts for some time in Congress to cut the financial
lifelines on which criminal operations depend. Senator John Kerry's
exhaustive investigation nearly a decade ago into the collapse of a
shady institution called BCCI, which he found was established with
``the specific purpose of evading regulation or control by
governments,'' led him to introduce anti-money laundering legislation.
A bill similar to his was approved last year by the Banking Committee
of the House of Representatives on a 31 to 1 vote.
Recent investigations by Senator Carl Levin's Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations produced two excellent reports on the ways criminals
use financial institutions to launder funds and how we can counter
these activities. Senator Levin's reports demonstrated dramatically how
correspondent banking facilities and private banking services impede
financial transparency and hide foreign client identity and activity,
thereby contributing to international money laundering.
Senator Charles Grassley has also advocated for stronger money
laundering legislation, and sponsored the Money Laundering and
Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, which mandates the development
of an annual national money laundering strategy.
Two weeks ago we held our own hearings in the Banking Committee. We
heard from a number of expert witnesses and from Under Secretary of the

[[Page 19508]]

Treasury Gurule; Assistant Attorney General Chertoff; and Ambassador
Stuart Eizenstat, the former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.
On October 4, the Banking Committee marked-up and reported out our
own bill. The committee print was built, in a sense, on the foundation
given to us by Senators Kerry, Levin, Grassley, and by others in this
institution.
Before describing the provisions of Title III in greater detail, I
want to thank all members of the Banking Committee for their
contributions to this legislation. As I indicated, it came out of the
committee on a vote of 21 to 0. The Ranking Member, Senator Gramm,
provided crucial support. He raised certain issues which were addressed
in the course of the mark-up involving, among other things, important
due process protections. Senators Stabenow and Johnson were
instrumental in producing a compromise to resolve a dispute over one of
the package's most important provisions. Senator Enzi contributed his
experience as an accountant in refining another critical provision.
Senator Schumer, who has been involved in past efforts to address
money laundering activities, played an important role, as did Senators
Allard, Bayh, Corzine, and Crapo, who offered amendments and
contributed important improvements to various parts of the subtitle.
I am deeply grateful to all of the members of the committee for their
strong, positive, and constructive contributions and for their
willingness to work day and night. It is my understanding that the
committee staff went three consecutive nights without any sleep in
order to prepare this legislation. This is carefully considered
legislation because it reflects and builds upon efforts which have been
made over a number of years.
Earlier today, our colleagues on the Financial Services Committee in
the House of Representatives marked-up a bill, many of the provisions
of which are identical or virtually identical to those contained in
Title III of the package now before us.
Public support across the country for anti-money laundering
legislation is extremely strong. Jim Hoagland put it plainly in the
Washington Post:

This crisis offers Washington an opportunity to force
American and international banks to clean up concealment and
laundering practices they now tolerate or encourage and which
terrorism can exploit.

Terrorist attacks require major investments of time, planning,
training, practice, and financial resources to pay the bills. Money
laundering is the transmission belt that gives terrorists the resources
to carry out their campaigns of carnage. We intend, with Title III of
this legislation, to end that transmission belt and its ability to
bring resources to the networks that enable terrorists to carry out
their campaigns of violence.
Title III addresses all aspects of our defenses against money
laundering. Those defenses generally fall into three parts. The first
is the Bank Secrecy Act, ``BSA'', passed in 1970. It requires financial
institutions to keep standardized transaction records and report large
currency transactions and suspicious transactions and mandates
reporting of the movement of more than $10,000 in currency into or out
of the country. The statute is called the ``bank secrecy act,'' because
it bars bank secrecy in America, by preventing financial institutions
from maintaining opaque records, or discarding their records
altogether. Secrecy is the hiding place for crime, and Congress has
barred our institutions from allowing those hiding places. The
financial institutions covered by that act include banks, broker-
dealers, casinos, and non-bank transmitters of funds, currency
exchangers, and check cashers--all financial services businesses
through which our citizens--and criminals hiding as legitimate
citizens--can move funds into and through our economy. Unfortunately,
reporting regulations covering some of these institutions have not yet
been promulgated.
The second part of our money laundering defenses are the criminal
statutes first enacted in 1986 that make it a crime to launder money
and allow criminal and civil forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. The
third part is the statutory framework that allows information to be
communicated to and between law enforcement officials. Our goal must be
to assure--to the greatest extent consistent with reasonable privacy
protections--that the necessary information can be used by the right
persons in ``real time'' to cut off terrorism and crime.
Title III modernizes provisions in all three areas to meet today's
threats in a global economy. Its provisions are divided into five
subtitles, dealing, respectively, with ``international counter-money
laundering measures''--sections 311-328--``Bank Secrecy Act
improvements''--sections 331-342--bulk cash smuggling--section 351 and
anti-corruption measures--sections 361-363.
There are 39 provisions in Title III. At this time, I want to
summarize some of the bill's most important provisions.
Section 311 gives the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with
other senior government officials, authority to impose one or more of
five new ``special measures'' against foreign jurisdictions, entities,
transactions or accounts that the Secretary, after consultation with
other senior federal officials, determines to pose a ``primary money
laundering concern'' to the United States. The special measures all
involve special recordkeeping and reporting measures--to eliminate the
curtains behind which launderers hide. In extreme cases the Secretary
is permitted to bar certain kinds of inter-bank accounts from
especially problematic jurisdictions. The statute specifies the
considerations the Secretary must take into account in using the new
authority and contains provisions to supplement the Administrative
Procedure Act to assure that any remedies--except certain short-term
measures--are subject to full comment from all affected persons.
This new provision gives the Secretary real authority to act to close
overseas loopholes through which U.S. financial institutions are
abused. At present the Secretary has no weapons except Treasury
Advisories--which don't impose specific requirements--or full economic
sanctions that suspend financial and trade relations with offending
targets. President Bush's invocation of the International Economic
Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) several weeks ago was obviously
appropriate. But there are many other situations in which we will not
want to block all transactions, but in which we will want to do more
than simply advise financial institutions about under-regulated foreign
financial institutions or holes in foreign counter-money laundering
efforts. Former Deputy Secretary Eizenstat testified before the
Committee that adding this tool to the Secretary's arsenal was
essential.
Section 312 focuses on another aspect of the fight against money
laundering, the financial institutions that are on the front lines
making the initial decisions about what foreign banks to allow inside
the United States. It requires U.S. financial institutions to exercise
appropriate due diligence when dealing with private banking accounts
and interbank correspondent relationships with foreign banks. With
respect to foreign banks, the section requires U.S. financial
institutions to apply appropriate due diligence to all correspondent
accounts with foreign banks, and enhanced due diligence for accounts
sought by offshore banks or banks in jurisdictions found to have
substandard money laundering controls or which the Secretary determines
to be of primary money laundering concern under the new authority given
him by section 311.
The section also specifies certain minimum standards for the enhanced
due diligence that U.S. financial institutions are required to apply to
accounts opened for two categories of foreign banks with high money
laundering risks--offshore banks and banks in jurisdictions with weak
anti-money laundering and banking controls. These minimum standards
were developed from, and are based upon, the factual record and
analysis contained in the Levin staff report on correspondent banking
and money laundering.

[[Page 19509]]

Section 312 is essential to Title III. It addresses, with appropriate
flexibility, mechanisms whose very importance for the conduct of
commercial banking makes them special targets of money launderers, as
illustrated in Senator Levin's extensive reports and hearings. A
related provision, in section 319, requires foreign banks that maintain
correspondent accounts in the United States to appoint agents for
service of process within the United States and authorizes the Attorney
General and the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a summons or
subpoena to any such foreign bank seeking records, wherever located,
relating to such a correspondent account. U.S. banks must sever
correspondent arrangements with foreign banks that do not either comply
with or contest any such summons or subpoena, and if the Attorney
General or the Secretary of the Treasury asks them to sever the
arrangements.
These provisions send a simple message to foreign banks doing
business through U.S. correspondent accounts: be prepared, if you want
to use our banking facilities, to operate in accordance with U.S. law.
Section 313 also builds on the factual record before the Banking
Committee to bar from the United States financial system pure ``brass-
plate'' shell banks created outside the U.S. that have no physical
presence anywhere and are not affiliated with recognized banking
institutions. These shell banks carry the highest money laundering
risks in the banking world because they are inherently unavailable for
effective oversight--there is no office where a bank regulator or law
enforcement official can go to observe bank operations, review
documents or freeze funds.
Section 327 permits the Secretary to deal with abuse of another
recognized commercial banking mechanism--concentration accounts that
are used to commingle related funds in one place temporarily pending
disbursement or the transfer of funds into individual client accounts.
Concentration accounts have been used to launder funds, and the bill
permits the Secretary to issue rules to bar the use of concentration
accounts to move client funds anonymously, without documentation
linking particular funds to their true owners.
Section 332 requires financial institutions to establish minimum
anti-money laundering programs that include appropriate internal
policies, management, employee training, and audit features. This is
not a ``one size fits all'' requirement; in fact its very generality
recognizes that different types of programs will be appropriate for
different types and sizes of institutions.
A number of improvements are made to the suspicious activity
reporting rules. First, technical changes strengthen the safe harbor
from civil liability for institutions that report suspicious activity
to the Treasury. The provisions not only add to the protection for
reporting institutions; they also address individual privacy concerns
by making it clear that government officers may not disclose suspicious
transaction reports information except in the conduct of their official
duties. The Act also requires the issuance of suspicious transaction
reporting rules applicable to brokers and dealers in securities within
270 days of the date of enactment.
Sections 341 and 342 of the Title deal with underground banking
systems such as the Hawala, which is suspected of being a channel used
to finance the al Qaeda network. Section 341 makes it clear that
underground money transmitters are subject to the same recordkeeping
rules--and the same penalties for violating those rules--as above-
ground, recognized, money transmitters. It also directs the Secretary
of the Treasury to report to Congress, within one year, on the need for
additional legislation or regulatory controls relating to underground
banking systems. Section 342 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury
to instruct the United States Executive Director of each of the
international financial institutions to use such Director's ``voice and
vote'' to support loans and other use of resources to benefit nations
that the President determines to be contributing to efforts to combat
international terrorism, and to require the auditing of each
international financial institution to ensure that funds are not paid
to persons engaged in or supporting terrorism.
Section 351 creates a new Bank Secrecy Act offense involving the bulk
smuggling of more than $10,000 in currency in any conveyance, article
of luggage or merchandise or container, either into or out of the
United States, and related forfeiture provisions. This provision has
been sought for several years by both the Departments of Justice and
Treasury.
Other provisions of the bill address relevant provisions of the
Criminal Code. These provisions were worked out with the Judiciary
Committee and are included in Title III because of their close
relationship to the provisions of Title 31 added or modified by Title
III.
The most important is section 315, which expands the list of
specified unlawful activities under 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957 to include
foreign corruption offenses, certain U.S. export control violations,
offenses subject to U.S. extradition obligations under multilateral
treaties, and misuse of funds of international financial institutions.
Section 316 establishes procedures to protect the rights of persons
whose property may be subject to confiscation in the exercise of the
government's anti-terrorism authority.
Section 319 treats amounts deposited by foreign banks in interbank
accounts with U.S. banks as having been deposited in the United States
for purposes of the forfeiture rules, but grants the Attorney General
authority, in the interest of fairness and consistent with the United
States' national interest, to suspend a forfeiture proceeding based on
that presumption. This closes an important forfeiture loophole.
Section 321 allows the United States to exclude any alien that the
Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is or has engaged in or
abetted certain money laundering offenses.
A third important set of provisions modernize information sharing
rules to reflect the reality of the fight against money laundering and
terrorism.
Section 314 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to issue
regulations to encourage cooperation among financial institutions,
financial regulators and law enforcement officials and to permit the
sharing of information by law enforcement and regulatory authorities
with such institutions regarding persons reasonably suspected, based on
credible evidence, of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering
activities. The section also allows banks to share information
involving possible money laundering or terrorist activity among
themselves--with notice to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Section 335 permits, but does not require, a bank to include
information, in a response to a request for an employment reference by
a second bank, about the possible involvement of a former institution-
affiliated party in potentially unlawful activity, and creates a safe
harbor from civil liability for the bank that includes such information
in response to an employment reference request, except in the case of
malicious intent. Given its different focus, it is not my intention to
similarly limit a bank's safe harbor from civil liability for the
filing of suspicious activity reports under the Bank Secrecy Act.
Section 340 contains amendments to various provisions of the Bank
Secrecy Act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, and the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, to permit information subject to those statutes to be
used in the conduct of United States intelligence or
counterintelligence activities to protect against international
terrorism.

The modernization of our money laundering laws represented by
Subtitle III is long overdue. It is not the work of one week or one
weekend, but represents years of careful study and a bipartisan effort
to produce a piece of prudent legislation. The care taken in producing
the legislation extends to several provisions calling for reporting on
the legislation's effect and a provision for a three-year review of the
legislation's effectiveness.
Title III responds, as I've indicated, to the statement of Assistant
Attorney

[[Page 19510]]

General Chertoff, the head of the Department of Justice's Criminal
Division, at the Banking Committee's September 26 hearing that ``[w]e
are fighting with outdated weapons in the money laundering arena
today.'' Without this legislation, the cracks in the system of which
bin Laden boasted will remain open. We should not, indeed we can not,
allow that to happen, any more than we can delay dealing with the
financial aspects of the terrorist threat.
Title III is a balanced effort to address a complex area of national
concern. I strongly urge my colleagues to follow the unanimous
recommendation of the Banking Committee and support this important
component of the anti-terrorism package.
I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of Title
III be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Title III--International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist
Financing Act of 2001--Section-by-Section Summary

Sec. 301. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 302. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 303. Provides that the provisions added and amendments
made by Title III will terminate after September 30, 2004, if
the Congress enacts a joint resolution to that effect, and
that such joint resolution will be given expedited
consideration in each Houses of Congress.

subtitle A. International Counter-Money Laundering and Related Measures

Sec. 311. Gives the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with other senior government officials,
authority (in the Secretary's discretion) to impose one or
more of five new ``special measures'' against foreign
jurisdictions, entities, transactions and accounts that the
Secretary, after consultation with other senior federal
officials, determines to pose a ``primary money laundering
concern'' to the United States. The special measures include:
(1) requiring additional recordkeeping or reporting for
particular transactions, (2) requiring the identification of
the foreign beneficial owners of certain accounts at a U.S.
financial institution, (3) requiring the identification of
customers of a foreign bank who use an interbank payable-
through account opened by that foreign bank at a U.S. bank,
(4) requiring the identification of customers of a foreign
bank who use an interbank correspondent account opened by
that foreign bank at a U.S. bank, and (5) after consultation
with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, restricting or
prohibiting the opening or maintaining of certain interbank
correspondent or payable-through accounts. Measures 1-4 may
not be imposed, other than by regulation, for a period in
excess of 120 days; measure 5 may only be imposed by
regulation. Also requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the appropriate Federal banking agencies,
to submit to Congress, within 180 days of the date of
enactment, recommendations for the most effective way to
require foreign nationals opening a U.S. bank account to
provide identification comparable to that required when U.S.
citizens open a bank account.
Sec. 312. Requires a U.S. financial institution that
maintains a correspondent account or private banking account
for a non-United States person to establish appropriate and,
if necessary, enhanced due diligence procedures to detect and
report instances of money laundering. Creates a minimum anti-
money laundering due diligence standards for U.S. financial
institutions that enter into correspondent banking
relationships with banks that operate under offshore banking
licenses or under banking licenses issued by countries that
(a) have been found noncooperative with international counter
money laundering principles, or (b) have been the subject of
special measures authorized by Sec. 311. Creates minimum
anti-money laundering due diligence standards for maintenance
of private banking accounts by U.S. financial institutions.
Sec. 313. Bars depository institutions and broker-dealers
operating in the United States from establishing,
maintaining, administering, or managing correspondent
accounts for foreign shell banks, other than shell bank
vehicles affiliated with recognized and regulated depository
institutions.
Sec. 314. Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to issue
regulations to encourage cooperation among financial
institutions, financial regulators and law enforcement
officials and to permit the sharing of information by law
enforcement and regulatory authorities with such institutions
regarding persons reasonably suspected, based on credible
evidence, of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering
activities. Allows (with notice to the Secretary of the
Treasury) the sharing of information among banks involving
possible terrorist or money laundering activity.
Sec. 315. Expands the list of specified unlawful activities
under 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957 to include foreign corruption
offenses, certain U.S. export control violations, and misuse
of funds of the IMF.
Sec. 316. Establishes procedures to protect the rights of
persons whose property may be subject to confiscation in the
exercise of the government's anti-terrorism authority.
Sec. 317. Gives United States courts ``long-arm''
jurisdiction over foreign persons committing money laundering
offenses in the United States, over foreign banks opening
United States bank accounts, and over foreign persons seizing
assets ordered forfeited by a U.S. court.
Sec. 318. Expands the definition of financial institution
for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957 to include banks
operating outside the United States.
Sec. 319. Treats amounts deposited by foreign banks in
interbank accounts with U.S. banks as having been deposited
in the United States for purposes of the forfeiture rules,
but grants the Attorney General authority, in the interest of
justice and consistent with the United States' national
interest, to suspend a forfeiture proceeding based on that
presumption. Requires U.S. financial institutions to reply to
a request for information from a U.S. regulator relating to
anti-money laundering compliance within 120 hours of receipt
of such a request. Requires foreign banks that maintain
correspondent accounts in the United States to appoint agents
for service of process within the United States and
authorizes the Attorney General and the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue a summons or subpoena to any such foreign
bank seeking records, wherever located, relating to such a
correspondent account. Requires U.S. banks to sever
correspondent arrangements with foreign banks that do not
either comply with or contest any such summons or subpoena.
Authorizes United States courts to order a convicted criminal
to return property located abroad and to order a civil
forfeiture defendant to return property located abroad
pending trial on the merits. Authorizes United States
prosecutors to use a court-appointed Federal receiver to find
a criminal defendant's assets, wherever located.
Sec. 320. Permits the United States to institute forfeiture
proceedings against the proceeds of foreign criminal offenses
found in the United States.
Sec. 321. Allows the United States to exclude any alien
that the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is
or has engaged in or abetted certain money laundering
offenses.
Sec. 322. Extends the prohibition against the maintenance
of a forfeiture proceedings on behalf of a fugitive to
include a proceeding by a corporation whose majority
shareholder is a fugitive and a proceeding in which the
corporation's claim is instituted by a fugitive.
Sec. 323. Permits the government to seek a restraining
order to preserve the availability of property subject to a
foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgment.
Sec. 324. Increases from $100,000 to $1,000,000 the maximum
civil and criminal penalties for a violation of provisions
added to the Bank Secrecy Act by sections 311 and 312 of the
Act.
Sec. 325. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Attorney General, the Federal banking
agencies, the SEC, the CFTC and other appropriate agencies to
evaluate operation of the provisions of Subtitle A of Title
III of the Act and recommend to Congress any relevant
legislative action, within 30 months of the date of
enactment.
Sec. 326. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to report
annually to the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial
Services Committee on measures taken pursuant to Subtitle A
of Title III of the Act.
Sec. 327. Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue
regulations concerning the maintenance of concentration
accounts by U.S. depository institutions to prevent an
institution's customers from anonymously directing funds into
or through such accounts.
Sec. 328. Provides criminal penalties for officials who
violate their trust in connection with the administration of
Title III.

Subtitle B. Currency Transaction Reporting Amendments and Related
Improvements

Sec. 331. Clarifies the terms of the safe harbor from civil
liability for financial institutions filing suspicious
activity reports pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5318(g).
Sec. 332. Requires financial institutions to establish
anti-money laundering programs and grants the Secretary of
the Treasury authority to set minimum standards for such
programs.
Sec. 333. Clarifies that penalties for violation of the
Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations also apply
to violation of Geographic Targeting Orders issued under 31
U.S.C. 3526, and to certain recordkeeping requirements
relating to funds transfers. Otherwise clarifies and updates
certain provisions of 31 U.S.C. 5326 relating to Geographic
Targeting Orders.
Sec. 334. Adds ``money laundering related to terrorist
funding'' to the list of subjects to be dealt with in the
annual National Money Laundering Strategy prepared by the
Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the

[[Page 19511]]

``Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of
1998.''
Sec. 335. Permits (but does not require) a bank to include
information, in a response to a request for an employment
reference by a second bank, about the possible involvement of
a former institution-affiliated party in potentially unlawful
activity, and creates a safe harbor from civil liability for
the bank that includes such information in response to an
employment reference request, except in the case of malicious
intent.
Sec. 336. requires the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group to
include a privacy advocate among its membership and to
operate under certain of the ``sunshine'' provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Sec. 337. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Federal bank regulatory agencies to submit reports to
Congress, one year after the date of enactment, containing
recommendations on possible legislation to conform the
penalties imposed on depository institutions for violations
of the Bank Secrecy Act with penalties imposed on such
institutions under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act.
Sec. 338. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury, after
consultation with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
the Federal Reserve Board, to promulgate regulations, within
270 days of the date of enactment, requiring broker-dealers
to file suspicious activity reports. Also requires the
Secretary of the Treasury, the SEC, Federal Reserve Board,
and the CFTC to submit jointly to Congress, within one year
of the date of enactment, recommendations for effective
application of the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 5311-30 to both
registered and unregistered investment companies.
Sec. 339. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a
report to Congress, six months after the date of enactment,
on the role of the Internal Revenue Service in the
administration of the Bank Secrecy Act, with emphasis on
whether IRS Bank Secrecy Act information processing
responsibility (for reports filed by all financial
institutions) or Bank Secrecy Act audit and examination
responsibility (for certain non-bank financial institutions)
should be retained or transferred.
Sec. 340. Contains amendments to various provisions of the
Bank Secrecy Act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, and the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, to permit information to be used
in the conduct of United States intelligence or
counterintelligence activities to protect against
international terrorism.
Sec. 341. Clarifies that the Bank Secrecy Act treats
certain underground banking systems as financial
institutions, and that the funds transfer recordkeeping rules
applicable to licensed money transmitters also apply to such
underground systems. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to
report to Congress, within one year of the date of enactment,
on the need for additional legislation or regulatory controls
relating to underground banking systems.
Sec. 342. Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to
instruct the United States Executive Director of each of the
international financial institutions (for example, the IMF
and the World Bank) to use such Director's ``voice and vote''
to support loans and other use of resources to benefit
nations that the President determines to be contributing to
United States efforts to combat international terrorism, and
to require the auditing of each international financial
institution to ensure that funds are not paid to persons
engaged in or supporting terrorism.

subtitle c. currency crimes

Sec. 351. Creates a new Bank Secrecy Act offense involving
the bulk smuggling of more than $10,000 in currency in any
conveyance, article of luggage or merchandise or container,
either into or out of the United States, and related
forfeiture provisions.

subtitle d. anti-corruption measures

Sec. 361. Expresses the sense of Congress that the United
States should take all steps necessary to identify the
proceeds of foreign government corruption that have been
deposited in United States financial institutions and return
such proceeds to the citizens of the country to whom such
assets belong.
Sec. 362. Expresses the sense of Congress that the United
States must continue actively and publicly to support the
objectives of the 29-country Financial Action Task Force
Against Money Laundering.
Sec. 363. Expresses the sense of Congress that the United
States, in its deliberations and negotiations with other
countries, should promote international efforts to identify
and prevent the transmittal of funds to and from terrorist
organizations.

subtitle e. miscellaneous

Sec. 371. Expands the SEC's emergency order authority.
Sec. 372. Creates uniform protection standards for Federal
Reserve facilities.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Banking Committee, the senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. He
did unbelievable work in this committee to pass out a money-laundering
bill--a very complex and difficult subject. He did it unanimously, I
believe, in a committee that probably has as diverse a membership--that
is an understatement--as one might find. I compliment him and thank him
for his kind words.
I reserve the remainder of my time. I see the chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee here, who wishes to give his opening statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I conferred with Senator Daschle a few
minutes ago. It is his desire--so there is no misunderstanding of the
Members--that a number of opening statements be given: The Senator from
Florida, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and we understand
Senator Stabenow wishes to speak, and there may be a couple of other
opening statements.
As soon as that is done, we are going to turn to Senator Feingold to
offer the first of his amendments. After that, there will be a vote on
the first Feingold amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the senior Senator
from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to commend Senators Daschle and
Lott for their leadership in bringing this critical piece of
legislation to the Senate just 1 month after the horrific events of
September 11. Senators Leahy and Hatch also deserve credit for moving
quickly to shape the judiciary components of this bill and choreograph
other provisions, including those affecting the intelligence agencies.
My remarks will focus on title IX of this legislation, which is
entitled ``Improved Intelligence,'' as well as the other provisions in
the bill that directly affect the mission of the agencies of the
intelligence community.
Title IX is derived from S. 1448, legislation which was developed
within the intelligence community, entitled ``Intelligence to Prevent
Terrorism Act of 2001.''
Since long before September 11, I have been working with members of
the committee, particularly Senators Feinstein and Kyl, on
comprehensive counterterrorism legislation. Most of the provisions of
our bill, with some changes requested by the administration, have now
become title IX of S. 1510.
The provisions in title IX, as well as other provisions in the bill,
are designed to accomplish a daunting but not impossible task. That
task is to change the cultures within the Federal law enforcement and
intelligence agencies--primarily the FBI and the CIA--so they work
seamlessly together for the good of the American people.
Both the FBI and the CIA are very good. They are the standards of the
world in their own missions. But those missions are very different. The
Federal Bureau of Investigation is goal oriented. A criminal case has a
beginning, a middle, and an end. In a case that has developed the
guilty party, the end is a conviction for the crime committed. The
information collected during a criminal case is very closely held. It
is held closely because its purpose is to result in the successful
prosecution of an event that occurred in the past--not to inform
thinking about what may happen now or in the future.
The Central Intelligence Agency, on the other hand, as well as its
other companions in the intelligence community, has a global approach,
literally and figuratively. The CIA is restricted to activities outside
the United States of America. The CIA collects information on a
worldwide basis, and it processes that information, analyzes that
information, and it places it in the hands of its customers. Its
customers are other Federal agencies and senior policymakers, including
the President of the United States. The purpose of that information is
to allow those senior policymakers to make more informed decisions.
Given the threats we now face, the cultures growing out of these
different missions must be melded. We cannot fight terrorism by putting
yellow tape around a bomb site, calling it a crime scene, collecting
evidence, and proceeding to trial frequently years later.

[[Page 19512]]

We must put the evidence collected after such an event to work for us
in real time so we can predict and prevent the next attack. If there is
a single goal of the intelligence components of this antiterrorism
bill, it is to change the focus from responding to acts that have
already occurred to preventing the acts which threaten the lives of
American citizens in this country and abroad.
It is critical that all information lawfully available to the Federal
Government be used efficiently and effectively to fight terrorism. We
cannot continue to use critical information only in a criminal trial.
Any information collected must be available to intelligence officials
to inform their operational initiatives so as to prevent the next
attack.
Along these lines, several provisions of S. 1510 are designed to
change the way information is handled within the Federal Government.
For example, section 203 permits law enforcement to share information
collected in grand jury proceedings and from title III criminal
wiretaps with intelligence agencies. Current law, as it has been
interpreted, prevents that sharing, except in very limited
circumstances.
Section 905 then complements section 203 in that it requires law
enforcement officers, FBI agents, and the Justice Department
prosecutors to provide foreign intelligence derived in the course of a
criminal investigation, including grand juries, criminal wiretaps, FBI
interviews, and the like, to the Central Intelligence Agency and to
other intelligence agencies.
A ``permissive'' approach is not good enough under current
circumstances. Too many lives have been lost, too many lives are at
risk. Law enforcement sharing of information with the intelligence
agencies must be mandatory.
Section 908 further complements this legislation by providing the
training of law enforcement officers at the Federal, State, and local
agencies so they will be better equipped to recognize foreign
intelligence information when they see it, and to get it to the right
place on a timely basis.
Let me give a couple of hypothetical but eerily-close-to-reality
examples. It is likely that there are, tonight, grand juries meeting at
various places in the United States to deal with issues related to the
events of September 11. Witnesses may be providing information--
information about training camps in Afghanistan, ground warfare
techniques used by al-Qaida and the Taliban, the types and quantity of
weapons available. This type of information will be critical for the
military--critical for the military now, not 2 years from now when
these cases might go to trial.
Another example is in the area of wiretaps. Let me just take two
wiretaps. One has been issued under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act because there was a finding by a Federal judge that
there was credible evidence that the telephone was being used by an
agent of a foreign power.
In the course of listening to the wiretap, this conversation comes
across: I am planning to fly from a specifically designated site in
Central America to a city in Texas. I am going to take my flight a week
from Monday. My intention is, once I arrive over that city, to
distribute chemical or biological materials that will terrorize the
people of that city by creating havoc due to the illnesses that will be
provoked.
But how are you going to pay for this? You don't have the money to
buy a plane, chemicals, or get the expertise necessary to do that?
I am going to do that because I am going to rob a bank next Monday in
order to get the money that I need to pay for this operation. The bank
is going to be located at the corner of First and Main, and I am going
to do it 3 hours after the bank closes next Monday.
The person listening to that conversation with a foreign intelligence
wiretap is under a legal obligation to make known to the appropriate
law enforcement officials that there is about to be a bank robbery at a
specific location on a specific date and time in a certain Texas city.
Conversely, if that exact conversation had taken place under a
criminal wiretap under title 3, the person listening to that
conversation would be prohibited from telling the foreign intelligence
agencies that there was about to be a terrorist attack on a date
certain against a specific Texas city originating at a specific site in
Central America.
Try to convince the American people that makes sense. It clearly does
not in today's reality. This legislation is going to make the same
requirement of mandatory sharing when the information is gathered under
a criminal wiretap that involves foreign intelligence information, as
is the case today when information gathered under a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act wiretap must be made available to
appropriate law enforcement officials.
Another provision of title 9 addresses the role of the Director of
Central Intelligence in the process of collecting foreign intelligence
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It recognizes the need
to target limited resources, including personnel and translators
against the highest priority targets.
I ask if I can have an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. I have about 11 minutes left that has not been committed
which I thought I might use to answer some questions. I give the
Senator 2 of my 11 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the Senator's limitations.
Mr. LEAHY. We just had one Senator ask me for 30 minutes. I am
looking at my 11. How can I give him 30? But I will give you 2 of the
11.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont.
We have a provision that the Director of Central Intelligence, the
DCI, will set the overall strategic goals for the collection of foreign
intelligence so that we can use our limited resources as effectively as
possible.
In order to complement that, we also have a provision that will
establish a national virtual translation center as a means of
increasing our woefully limited linguistic capabilities to translate
the material which we are gathering.
We will also provide for additional capability with human
intelligence. We have become very reliant on technology--eavesdropping,
satellite imagery, to the exclusion of the use of human beings. If we
want to gain information about the bin Ladens of the world, we cannot
just take a picture of bin Laden.
Today it is increasingly difficult to eavesdrop on bin Laden. What we
need to do is get a human being who is able to get close enough to bin
Laden to learn his intentions and capabilities. This gets to the
difficult issue of what kind of assets, human beings, we hire to work
for us to gather such information?
We would all like to employ the purist of people, all choir boys to
do this type of work. Unfortunately, they are not the type of people
who are likely to be able to get close to the bin Ladens of the world.
Thus, we have a provision in this legislation in the nature of a sense
of Congress which we hope will send a strong message to the
intelligence community that we are encouraging them to overcome some
previous messages from Congress and to proceed to recruit the persons
who they find to be necessary to gain access to terrorists so that we
can have the best opportunity of protecting ourselves.
With the adoption of this legislation, we have not reached the end of
our task or responsibilities to protect the American people. We are
taking a substantial step in that direction.
To reiterate, another provision of title 9 addresses the role of the
Director of Central Intelligence in the process of collecting foreign
intelligence under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It
recognizes the need to target limited resources--e.g. translators--
against the highest priority targets.
In order to ensure that scarce resources are effectively used, the
DCI--in his role as head of the Intelligence community, not as CIA
Director--will set overall strategic goals for FISA collection.

[[Page 19513]]

He will work with the Attorney General to ensure that FISA
information is distributed to the intelligence operators and analysts
who need it government-wide.
Of course, the operational targeting and collection using wiretaps
will be conducted by the FBI, as it has in the past; the DCI will
perform no role in those decisions.
One of the scarce resources that has plagued the Intelligence
Community, as well as law enforcement, is translation capability.
Section 907 of this bill requires the FBI and CIA to work together to
create a ``National Virtual Translation Center.''
Such a center would seek to remedy the chronic problem of developing
critical language abilities, and matching those resources to
intelligence collected by the wide range of techniques available.
It is not enough to be able to listen to the conversations of
terrorists and their supporters.
Those conversations must be translated, often from difficult
languages such as Urdu, and analyzed, all in a timely fashion.
Our intelligence services collect vast amounts of data every day. It
is possible that we may find that a critical clue to the September 11
attacks may have been available, but untranslated, days, weeks, or even
months before the hijackings.
We must address this problem before another specific threat is
overlooked.
Finally, I would like to mention a problem that has received a great
deal of attention in recent weeks. There has been criticism of the
intelligence agencies for placing too great a reliance on technical
intelligence collection--laws dropping, satelite photograph--in recent
years at the expense of human sources, or spies.
A corollary of this criticism is that CIA officers are to risk-averse
and that they do not aggressively recruit sources overseas that may
have access to terrorist groups because the sources may have engaged in
human rights violations or violent crimes.
As to the first problem, the Intelligence authorization bill for
fiscal year 2002, which may come to the floor next week, provides
greater resources for human source recruitment--and it is part of a 5-
year plan to beef up this method of collection.
With respect to the second problem, we in the Congress simply must
accept some of the responsibility for creating a risk-averse reaction
at CIA, if needed there is one.
The internal CIA regulations addressing the so-called ``dirty asset''
problem grew out of the criticisms by Congress in the mid-1990s about
the recruitment of sources in Guatemala with sordid pasts.
We address this issue in S. 1510, section 903, by sending a strong
message to CIA Headquarters and CIA officers overseas that recruitment
of any person who has access to terrorists or terrorist groups should
be of the highest priority.
There is no place in times like these for timidity in seeking every
method available to learn the capabilities, plans, and intentions of
terrorists.
Congress needs to send a strong message that we value such efforts to
recruit sources on terrorism, even those with pasts we would not
applaud.
Section 903 sends that message.
I urge passage of S. 1510.
I again commend the Members of the Senate who have played such an
effective role.
I also thank the staff: Al Cumming, Bob Filippone, Vicki Divoll,
Steven Cash, Bill Duhnke, Paula DeSutter, Jim Hensler, and Jim Barnett.
They have been working for the past many months to bring us to the
point of this legislation being available for adoption by the Senate
tonight and for the safety of the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask the distinguished Senator from Utah--I see the
distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania is here--perhaps after
the senior Senator from Utah, and then after the senior Senator from
Pennsylvania speaks, whether it might be possible to go to the Senator
from Wisconsin for the purpose of bringing up his amendments, and we
can then debate and vote on them. Will that be agreeable to everybody?
Mr. HATCH. It is agreeable.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Utah,
and the Senator from Pennsylvania, we go to the Senator from Wisconsin
for the purpose of bringing up his amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in my opening remarks, I was remiss in not
mentioning the tremendous work of the distinguished chairman and vice
chairman of the Intelligence Committee. They have done a tremendous
amount of work on the intelligence aspect of this bill. As a member of
the Intelligence Committee, I express my high regard for the both of
them and the work they have done.
I also express my regard for my friend from Maryland, Senator
Sarbanes, who came to the Senate with me, for the work he has done on
the money-laundering section of this bill. He and Senator Gramm and the
Banking Committee have done yeoman's service on this, and I hope we are
able to have that as part of the final bill.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the great work that has
been done--also, Senator Kyl and so many others. I felt I needed to say
that. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, that I have 30
minutes under the unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield myself 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition and asked for
this reservation of time to express my concerns about the record which
the Senate is creating so that whatever legislation we pass will pass
constitutional muster.
The Supreme Court of the United States has handed down a series of
decisions in the past decade which question the constitutionality and,
in fact, invalidate acts of Congress because there has been an
insufficient record compiled. So I make these statements and review the
record so far with a view to urging my colleagues to create a record in
this Chamber, in conference, or wherever that opportunity may present
itself.
In 1989, in the case of Sable v. FCC, the Supreme Court of the United
States struck down an act of Congress saying, ``no Congressman or
Senator purported to present a considered judgment.'' I thought it was
a remarkable statement by the Supreme Court since Congressman Tom
Bliley in the House of Representatives had established a very
comprehensive record.
The Supreme Court in 1997, in a case captioned Reno v. ACLU, again
invalidated an act of Congress noting, ``the lack of legislative
attention to the statute at issue in Sable suggests another parallel
with this case.''
It was surprising to me that the Supreme Court of the United States
would invalidate an act of Congress on the ground that no Senator or
Congressman had purported to present a considered judgment, when that
is the view of the Supreme Court which is contrary to Congress.
Under our doctrine of separation of powers, it seemed to me an act of
Congress should stand unless there is some specific provision in the
Constitution which warrants invalidating it or for vagueness under the
due process clause of the fifth amendment.
The Supreme Court of the United States, in January of last year, did
it again in a case captioned Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, a case
which involved the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. There the
Court said, ``our examination of the act's legislative record confirms
that Congress' 1974 extension of the Act to the States was an
unwarranted response to a perhaps inconsequential problem.'' Again,

[[Page 19514]]

a remarkable holding that the Congress had an unwarranted response and
that it was an inconsequential problem, totally contradicting the
judgment of the Congress of the United States.
Then the Court went on in the Kimel case to say, ``Congress had no
reason to believe that broad prophylactic legislation was necessary in
this field.''
Those are only a few of the cases where the Supreme Court of the
United States has invalidated acts of Congress. There is no doubt there
is a need for legislation to expand the powers of law enforcement to
enable us to act against terrorists. My own experience in 8 years on
the Intelligence Committee, 2 years of which was as chairman, and my
work as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism have
convinced me without a doubt of the scourge of terrorism which we have
seen many times but never with the intensity which we observed on
September 11 of this year.
The act of Congress in expanding law enforcement has to be very
carefully calibrated to protect civil liberties and be in accordance
with the Constitution of the United States. Attorney General Ashcroft
met with a number of us on Wednesday, September 19, just 8 days after
the incident of September 11, and asked that we enact legislation by
the end of the week. My response at that time was I thought it could
not be done in that time frame, but I thought we could hold hearings in
the remainder of that week, perhaps on Thursday the 20th, or Friday the
21st, or Saturday the 22nd, to move ahead, understanding the import of
the administration's bill, and legislate to give them what they needed,
consistent with civil rights.
The Judiciary Committee then held a hearing on September 25 where the
Attorney General testified for about an hour and 20 minutes. At that
time, as that record will show, only a few Senators were able to ask
questions. In fact, the questioning ended after my turn came, and most
of the Judiciary Committee did not have a chance to raise questions.
On September 26, the following day, I wrote to the chairman of the
committee saying:
I write to urge that our Judiciary Committee proceed promptly with
the Attorney General's terrorism package with a view to mark up the
bill early next week so the full Senate can consider it and hopefully
act upon it by the end of the week. I am concerned that some further
act of terrorism may occur which could be attributed to our failure to
act promptly.
I then found out on October 3 that the Subcommittee on the
Constitution was having a hearing. By chance, I heard about it in the
corridors. Although we were having a hearing with Health and Human
Services Secretary Thompson on bioterrorism, I absented myself from the
bioterrorism hearing and went down the hall to the Judiciary
subcommittee hearing and participated there and expressed many of the
reservations and concerns I am commenting about today.
On that date, I again wrote to Senator Leahy. I ask unanimous consent
that the full text of my letter to him and the full text of his reply
to me of October 9 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of these
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. I quote only from the first sentence of Senator Leahy's
response to me:
I thank you for your letters of September 26 and October 3 and for
your participation in the September 25 hearing regarding antiterrorism
legislation. On October 3, you wrote that you were concerned about the
lack of hearings. I share that concern and have tried to notice prompt
hearings on a number of aspects of the legislative proposals at the
earliest possible time.
On this state of the record, which I hope can yet be perfected, I am
concerned about our meeting the standards of the Supreme Court of the
United States for a sufficient deliberative process.
When Attorney General Ashcroft appeared before the Judiciary
Committee on September 25, he said the only detention he wanted on
aliens was those who were subject to deportation proceedings. I then
pointed out, as the record will show, that the legislation submitted by
the Attorney General was much broader and did not limit detention
simply or exclusively to those who were subject to deportation
proceedings. So my comment was that it was necessary to analyze the
bill very carefully, not do it hurriedly, and give the Attorney General
of the Department of Justice what he needed, consistent with
constitutional rights.
The other issue which I had an opportunity to raise in the very brief
period of time I had--some 5 minutes--involved modifications to the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, where the issue was to change
the law from ``the purpose,'' being the gathering of intelligence, to
``a purpose.'' Ultimately the legislation has been modified to read ``a
significant purpose.''
At that hearing, the Attorney General said he did not look to obtain
content from electronic surveillance unless probable cause was
established. But in the draft bill, which the Department of Justice had
submitted at that time, that was not what the bill provided. So that on
this state of the record, I think the Congress has some work to do,
tonight in conference or perhaps by other means, to see to it we have a
record which will withstand constitutional scrutiny.
On our Judiciary Committee, we have many Members who have expertise
in this field. This bill, as the Record will show, was negotiated by
the chairman and ranking member with the Department of Justice, with
the participation of the committee only to the extent of the hearing of
the full committee on September 25 and the subcommittee on October 3.
We have on our Judiciary Committee a number of Members who have had
experience as prosecuting attorneys. We have a number of lawyers who
are learned in law. We have other Members who have extensive experience
on the Judiciary Committee and a great deal of common sense which may
top some of us who have prosecutorial experience or extended experience
with probable cause and search warrants or surveillance of some sort or
another.
I express these concerns so whatever can be done by the Congress will
be done to meet the constitutional standards.
How much of the 15 minutes have I used?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 37 seconds
remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the
floor.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, September 26, 2001.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Pat: I write to urge that our Judiciary Committee
proceed promptly with the Attorney General's terrorism
package with the view to mark up the bill early next week so
the full Senate can consider it and hopefully act upon it by
the end of next week.
I am concerned that some further act of terrorism may occur
which could be attributed to our failure to act promptly.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
____

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, October 3, 2001.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I am very much concerned about the
delay in acting on the anti-terrorism legislation and also
about the absence of hearings to establish a record for the
legislative package.
In recent decisions, the Supreme Court of the United States
has declared acts of Congress unconstitutional when there has
been an insufficient record or deliberative process to
justify the legislation.
On the anti-terrorism legislation, perhaps more than any
other, the Court engages in balancing the needs of law
enforcement with the civil rights issues so that it is
necessary to have the specification of the problems to
warrant broadening police power.
In my judgment, there is no substitute for the hearings,
perhaps in closed session, to deal with these issues.
As you know, I have been pressing for hearings. I am now
informed that Senator Hatch has convened a meeting of all
Republican senators to, in effect, tell us what is in a
proposed bill where Judiciary Committee members have had no
input.

[[Page 19515]]

We could still have meaningful hearings this week and get
this bill ready for prompt floor action.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
____

U.S. Senate,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, October 9, 2001.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
711 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Arlen, I thank you for your letters of September 26,
2001 and October 3, 2001 and for your participation in the
September 25, 2001 hearing regarding anti-terrorism
legislation. On October 3, 2001, you wrote that you were
concerned about the lack of hearings. I share that concern
and have tried to notice prompt hearings on a number of
aspects of the legislation proposals at the earliest possible
time.
As you know, the Attorney General consented to appear at
our September 25, 2001 hearing for only an hour and we had to
prevail upon him to stay a few extra minutes so that Senator
Feinstein and you could have a brief opportunity to ask the
Attorney General a single question. I invited him to rejoin
us the following Tuesday to complete the hearing and I
continue to extend such invitations, but he has not accepted
any of my follow up invitations. In addition, although
Members of the Committee submitted questions in writing to
the Attorney General following the September 25, 2001
hearing, they have yet to be answered. I agree with you that
these are important matters that justify a more thorough
record than we have been able to establish.
Last week, Senator Feingold chaired an important hearing on
civil liberties concerns before the Constitution
Subcommittee. This week Senators Schumer, Feinstein and
Durbin each are working to organize hearings on these matters
and Senators Kennedy and Biden are working on possible
hearings next week.
At the same time, we have continued to work nonstop to
prepare for Senate action on legislative proposals. We
suffered a setback last week when after weeks of intensive
negotiations the White House reneged on agreements reached on
Sunday, September 30, 2001, and we had to spend much of last
week renegotiating a legislative package. Finally, last
Thursday S. 1510 was introduced by the Majority Leader, the
Republican Leader, the Chairmen of the Judiciary, Banking and
Select Intelligence Committees and by Senators Hatch and
Shelby as Ranking Members. I am seeking to work closely with
the Senate leadership to be prepared to proceed to that
legislation at the earliest opportunity. The House is on a
similar track and may well consider its version of
legislation later this week, as well.
You and I both know that no legislation can guarantee
against future terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, I have
expedited work on anti-terrorism legislation, within which
the Administration has insisted on including general criminal
law measures not limited to terrorism, in order to allow the
Senate to act promptly in response to the unprecedented
attacks of September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,
Patrick Leahy,
Chairman.

Mr. LEAHY. I understand the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin is
willing to have the distinguished Senator from Michigan recognized for
5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent she be allowed to proceed preceding
the Senator from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank our distinguished chairman and my friend from
Wisconsin for allowing me to proceed before he presents his amendments.
I rise this evening to congratulate all involved in this effort. As
has been said on so many occasions, it is not perfect but we have come
together with a very positive, important step forward that we can all
celebrate this evening on a bipartisan basis.
As the Senator from Michigan, along with my colleague, Senator Levin,
we certainly celebrate the efforts along the northern border and the
important authorizations for dollars that allow us to continue to
protect and strengthen the efforts at the border. I thank my chairman
of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, for his efforts to put into
this important bill language dealing with the critical issue of money
laundering which essentially allows us to follow the money.
My colleague, Senator Levin, has been extremely involved in helping
to lead efforts to lay out the case for this. Senator Kerry and Senator
Grassley have been involved in important work. I thank them.
The antiterrorism bill before the Senate takes a significant step
forward in cutting the flow of terrorist money. As the President has
repeatedly said, stopping the flow of money is key to stopping
terrorism. That is what we are doing this evening. In particular, we
are establishing important new responsibilities, both for our
Government and for our financial institutions. The bill authorizes the
Treasury Secretary to take special measures to stop suspected money-
laundering activities. This anti-money-laundering language is
significant because it requires financial institutions to set up their
own due diligence to combat money laundering, particularly for private
and corresponding banking situations. This is a key provision of which
I was proud to be a part. I am pleased we were able to come up with
language that allows that.
Another important provision I was pleased to offer in the Banking
Committee, which is now part of the bill, was clear authority for the
Treasury Secretary to issue regulations to crack down on abuses related
to concentration accounts. These accounts are administrative accounts
used by financial institutions to combine funds from multiple
customers, various transactions. They do not require any identification
or accountability of who is involved or how much money we are talking
about.
The amendment I advocated urges the Treasury Secretary to issue
regulations ensuring these concentration accounts identify by client
name all of the client funds moving through the account to prevent
anonymous movement of the funds that might facilitate money laundering.
This is a classic case of why this is so important: Raul Salinas,
brother of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, transferred almost
$100 million to Citibank administrative accounts in New York and London
without any documentation indicating the ownership of these funds. The
wire transfers sent the funds to Citibank and asked each transfer be
brought to the attention of a specific private banker. Later, the
private banker transferred the funds to private accounts controlled by
Mr. Salinas. The origin of this money--$100 million--was never
satisfactorily identified.
Allegations of drug money or other corporate sources persist to this
day. We know, through Senator Levin's exhaustive documentation at his
hearings, that other private banks use this practice as well. Although
financial regulators have cautioned against this practice over and over
again, they have not yet issued regulations to stop this loophole. That
is why the language in this bill is so important.
The use of these anonymous concentration accounts breaks the audit
trail associating specific funds with specific clients. Again, the
goal, as the President said, is to follow the money. We have to have
information if we are going to follow the money.
It should now be abundantly clear to Treasury that they have the
authority to stop this practice. I hope it is also abundantly clear it
is a serious problem. I am very concerned that the administration act
quickly on these anonymous accounts.
I congratulate everyone involved in this effort. I think the effort
regarding the anti-money-laundering language is a critical part of
making sure we have an effective antiterrorism bill. I thank my
colleagues for their work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Michigan has
expired. Who yields time?
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will give a brief statement before I
start my amendments, and I ask unanimous consent the time be equally
divided amongst the time I have on each of my four amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, 1 month ago, we all were viciously
attacked. I am pleased and grateful that both the domestic and
international effort to respond to these attacks is fully underway. As
we recall, almost as soon as the attacks of September 11 ended, our
public discussion turned to two issues: how the United States will
respond to these terrorist acts and how

[[Page 19516]]

we can protect ourselves against future attacks.
Almost immediately, discussion of that second issue raised the
question of how our efforts to prevent terrorism will affect the civil
liberties enjoyed by all Americans as part of our constitutional
birthright.
I was encouraged by many of the reactions that our leaders and
Members of this body had, but especially encouraged by the words of our
colleague, Senator George Allen of Virginia who represents one of the
States struck by terrorism. On the day after the attacks he said:

We must make sure that as we learn the facts, we do not
allow these attacks to succeed in tempting us in any way to
diminish what makes us a great nation. And what makes us a
great nation is that this is a country that understands that
people have God-given rights and liberties. And we cannot--in
our efforts to bring justice--diminish those liberties.

I agree with Senator Allen. I believe that one of the most important
duties of this Congress is in responding to the terrible events of
September 11, in order to protect our civil liberties, which, of
course, derive from our Constitution. That is why I am pleased that we
did not take the Attorney General's advice to enact an anti-terrorism
bill immediately without any deliberation or negotiation. I commend
Senator Leahy for all his efforts to improve this bill. It is certainly
a better and more comprehensive bill than the one the administration
originally proposed. I think even the administration recognizes that.
But I still believe we needed a more deliberative process on this
bill, and more careful consideration of the civil liberties implication
of it. I held a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee at which many
serious and substantive concerns about the bill were raised by
commentators and experts from both sides of the political spectrum.
As the chairman of the subcommittee, I took many of those concerns
very seriously. That is why I would not consent on Tuesday night to
bringing up this bill and passing it without any amendments being
considered. I am pleased that we were able to reach agreement on a
process that will allow some of my concerns with this bill to be
debated and voted on through the amendment process.
That is not to say that no measures to strengthen law enforcement
should be enacted. They should be. We need to do it. We need to do some
very serious updating of a number of these laws. This bill does many
things to assist the Department of Justice in its mission to catch
those who helped the terrorists and prevent future attacks. We can and
we will give the FBI new and better tools. But we must also make sure
that the new tools don't become instruments of abuse.
There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be
easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where the police
were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we
lived in a country where the government was entitled to open your mail,
eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email
communications; if we lived in a country where people could be held in
jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere
suspicion that they were up to no good, the government would probably
discover and arrest more terrorists, or would be terrorists, just as it
would find more lawbreakers generally. But that would not be a country
in which we would want to live, and it would not be a country for which
we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In
short, that country would not be America.
I think it is important to remember that the Constitution was written
in 1789 by men who had recently won the Revolutionary War. They did not
live in comfortable and easy times of hypothetical enemies. They wrote
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties
in times of war as well as in times of peace.
There have been periods in our nation's history when civil liberties
have taken a back seat to what appeared at the time to be the
legitimate exigencies of war. Our national consciousness still bears
the stain and the scars of those events: The Alien and Sedition Acts,
the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the internment of
Japanese-Americans during World War II and the injustices perpetrated
against German-Americans and Italian-Americans, the blacklisting of
supposed communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era, and the
surveillance and harassment of antiwar protesters, including Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., during the Vietnam war. We must not allow this piece
of our past to become prologue.
Preserving our freedom is the reason we are now engaged in this new
war on terrorism. We will lose that war without a shot being fired if
we sacrifice the liberties of the American people in the belief that by
doing so we will stop the terrorists.
That is why this exercise of considering the administration's
proposed legislation and fine tuning it to minimize the infringement of
civil liberties is so necessary and so important. And this is a job
that only the Congress can do. We cannot simply rely on the Supreme
Court to protect us from laws that sacrifice our freedoms. We took an
oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. In
these difficult times that oath becomes all the more significant.
There are quite a number of things in this bill that I am concerned
about, but my amendments focus on a small discreet number of items.
At this point, I would like to turn to one of the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

Amendment No. 1899

Mr. FEINGOLD. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 1899.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make amendments to the provisions relating to interception
of computer trespasser communications)

On page 42, line 25, insert ``or other'' after
``contractual''.
On page 43, line 2, strike ``for'' and insert
``permitting''.
On page 43, line 8, insert ``transmitted to, through, or
from the protected computer'' after ``computer trespasser''.
On page 43, line 20, insert ``does not last for more than
96 hours and'' after ``such interception''.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask this time now be charged to the first amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The time will be charged.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this amendment simply clarifies the
provision in the bill dealing with computer trespass, section 217, so
that it more accurately reflects the intent of the provision, as
frequently expressed by the administration. Section 217 is designed, we
have been told, to permit law enforcement to assist computer owners who
are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking.
As currently drafted, however, this provision could allow universities,
libraries, and employers to permit government surveillance of people
who are permitted to use the computer facilities of those entities.
Such surveillance would take place without a judicial order or probable
cause to believe that a crime is being committed. Under the bill,
anyone accessing a computer ``without authorization'' is deemed to have
no privacy rights whatsoever, with no time limit, for as long as they
are accessing the computer at issue. Basically, the way I read this,
this provision completely eliminates fourth amendment protection for a
potentially very large set of electronic communications.
The danger that this amendment tries to address is that ``accessing a
computer without authorization'' could be interpreted to mean a minor
transgression of an office or library computer use policy. Let's take
an example. A working mom uses an office

[[Page 19517]]

computer to purchase Christmas presents on the Internet. Company policy
prohibits personal use of office computers. This person has potentially
accessed a computer without authorization and her company could give
permission to law enforcement to review all of the e-mails that she
sends or receives at work, monitor all the instant messages she sends,
and record every website she visits: No warrant, no probable cause, no
fourth amendment rights at all. My amendment makes clear that a
computer trespasser is not someone who is permitted to use a computer
by the owner or operator of that computer.
This amendment also limits the length of this unreviewed surveillance
to 96 hours, which is a longer time frame than that placed on other
emergency wiretap authorities. Again, if this provision is aimed solely
at responding to cyber-attacks, there is no need to continue such
surveillance beyond 96 hours--which is the time we put in our
amendment--because that time is sufficient to allow the government to
obtain a warrant to continue the surveillance. It is not as if they
cannot continue it, they simply have to get a warrant after 4 days.
Warrants based on probable cause are still the constitutionally
preferred method for conducting surveillance in America. The need for
immediate and emergency assistance during a denial of service attack or
hacking episode, which I certainly think is a legitimate concern,
cannot justify continued surveillance without judicial supervision.
Finally, this amendment prevents law enforcement from abusing this
authority in investigations unrelated to the actual computer trespass.
The current provision potentially allows law enforcement to intercept
wire and electronic communications in many investigations where they
may not want, or be able, to secure a court order. If the government
suspects a person of committing a crime but does not have probable
cause to justify monitoring of the suspect's work computer, it could
pressure the owner or operator of the computer to find some
transgression in the suspect's computer use, allowing the government
carte blanche access to email and internet activity of the suspect. I
suspect that few small business owners will be anxious to stand up to
federal law enforcement requests for this information.
Now the administration was apparently willing to add language to deal
with employees using office computers, but it refused to recognize that
in our society many people use computers that they do not own, with
permission, but without a contractual relationship. People who don't
own their own home computers use computers at libraries. Students use
computers at school in computer labs or student centers. Without my
amendment, these innocent users could become subject to intrusive
government surveillance merely because they disobeyed a rule of the
owner of the computer concerning its use. I have been told that this is
not the administration's intent, but they would not fix this provision.
So I think it is fair to ask why. Why does the administration insist on
leaving open the possibility that this provision will be abused to
entirely eliminate the privacy of students' and library patrons'
computer communications? Is there a hidden agenda here? I sincerely
hope not, but I was very disappointed in the administration's
unwillingness to address this concern. I remain willing to negotiate on
this amendment, but if there is no further movement on it, I hope my
colleagues will recognize that this amendment will leave the publicly
expressed purpose of the computer trespass provision untouched and fix
a potentially disastrous case of overbreadth.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining on
my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen and one-half minutes on this
amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to support my colleague,
Senator Feingold, and his amendment to section 217. I think the Senator
has done a tremendous job in outlining the issues related to this bill
and the fact that haste can sometimes make waste. Haste in some
instances on very well crafted language to uphold our rights under the
Constitution can be infringed upon.
Section 217 is intended to allow computer system owners and operators
to fully engage Federal law enforcement where someone hacks or intrudes
into their system. As Senator Feingold mentioned, that could be a
business owner, or it could be a library system, or it could be a
university system.
Unfortunately, as drafted, there are few limits on what
communications the Government could intercept without showing probable
cause that a crime has been committed and without having the
opportunity for judicial review of those intercepts.
The provisions do not even limit the scope of the surveillance. Once
authorized, the Government could intercept all communications of a
person who is allegedly a trespasser. Again, let me be clear: Without
meeting the fourth amendment requirement to show probable cause.
Further, there is no time limit on the surveillance under the
provision of this legislation. For those who may be reviewing this
legislation for the first time, and understanding that as they go to
their workplace, or as they go to their educational institution, or as
they go to their library to enhance their education, they could be
under surveillance for a very long and indefinite period of time
without their knowledge.
Thus, once authorized by a computer system operator, the Government
could intercept all communications of a person forever without a proper
search warrant. Even a court order wiretap expires after 30 days.
This amendment would remedy some of the defects in this bill. It
would do that by requiring that the surveillance be only of
communications associated with the trespass and that the length of the
surveillance be limited to 96 hours, which, by the way, is twice as
long as the time limit placed on emergency wiretap authority. If the
problem continues, investigators could easily obtain additional warrant
time for the surveillance to continue.
This is a very important time in our country's history. It is a time
in which we want to act in unity and support the administration. It is
a time in which we want to act to give law enforcement the tools they
need to apprehend those who have been responsible and may be
responsible for future acts of terrorism. But we also must preserve the
right of citizens of this country when it comes to the fourth
amendment.
I encourage my colleagues to support the Feingold amendment. I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, first, I want to say how important it
is to have on the committee the Senator with expertise in this area as
well as her own background. I appreciate very much her help on this
matter.
Madam President, how much time do I have remaining on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, my colleague from Washington I think
speaks within a framework of expertise that she brings to this
particular amendment. I speak from the framework of a layperson who has
been trying to understand this bill's pluses and minuses.
I say to Senator Feingold and all colleagues, since I think there is
kind of a rush to table all of the Feingold

[[Page 19518]]

amendments, that this amendment is eminently reasonable. The Senator
from Wisconsin is saying: Let's put a time limit on this. That is good.
Let's have some judicial oversight. That is good as well.
There are international terrorists who have killed many Americans and
want to kill more Americans. There are a lot of provisions in this bill
which I think are right on the money, including northern border
protection which is relevant to the Chair, relevant to the Senator from
Washington, and certainly relevant to the people I represent. But I
also think there is no reason, in this rush to pass the bill, that we
can't make some changes. These are minor changes the Senator wants to
make. This just gives this piece of legislation more balance.
I will say this: There is a lot that is good in this bill and a lot
that is attractive to me as a Senator. When you add some of the
additional security provisions that help all the people we are asked to
represent in addition to the benefits--the financial help to all of the
rescue workers and all of the innocent people's families, people have
been murdered--there is much in this bill that is commendable. The
Senator from Wisconsin is just trying to give it more balance.
I say to my colleagues that I hope you will support this amendment. I
want to say one other thing as well. I really believe what is good
about this bill is the provisions that focus on the people whom the
terrorists are basically trying to kill--Americans. What is not as good
is when the reach of the bill goes too far beyond that and is too
broad.
The sunset provision that passed in the House is so important, so
that we can continue to monitor this legislation as we move forward.
I think this amendment that the Senator from Wisconsin has submitted
is a step to give this piece of legislation a little more balance, and
it will be more vigilant of people's civil liberties. I think it is the
right step.
I thank the Senator for his amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his help,
especially for making this point: All this amendment is about is making
sure that it is about the problem we face with the terrorism that is
threatening our country and our freedoms. That is all we are trying to
do--make sure it doesn't go broadly into people's rights, and into
their privacy, and into their own lives.
At this point, I am simply going to reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, let me talk a little bit about the
provision of today's legislation that has been referred to as the
``computer trespasser'' exception.
This provision is a perfect example of how our laws dealing with
electronic surveillance have become outdated, and nonsensical as
applied to modern technology.
Imagine the following scenario. A terrorist decides to wreak havoc in
a major U.S. city by shutting down an electrical power grid. He uses a
computer to hack into the mainframe computer of a regional utility
company, which he plans to use to bring down the power grid. Before the
terrorist can accomplish his goal, the utility company recognizes that
an intruder is attempting to access their computer. The company quickly
calls the FBI for assistance in repelling the intruder.
Guess what? Under current law, even with the permission from the
utility company, the FBI is not permitted to monitor the terrorist's
activity on the utility company's computer, because current law
perversely grants the terrorist privacy rights with respect to his
communications on the computer he has invaded.
It is as if police could not investigate a burglary, even when
invited into the house by the victim of the burglary, because the
burglar had established privacy rights inside the home he has invaded.
It is anomalies such as this, in our current laws regarding
electronic surveillance, that today's legislation is designed to fix.
As it stands, the computer trespasser provision is defined in such a
way that the owner or operator of a computer network cannot arbitrarily
declare the user of the network at trespasser, and then invite law
enforcement in to monitor that user's communications.
The provision, as written, provides that a person is not considered a
computer trespasser if the person has an ``existing contractual''
relationship for access to all or part of the computer network.
Senator Feingold's amendment would broadly amend the negotiated
exception, including within its scope anyone with a contractual or
``other'' relationship to the owner or operator of a computer network.
What is meant by ``other'' relationship? Any hacker could make the
argument that they have a relationship with a computer operator.
Indeed, were I a defense counsel, I would argue that the mere fact that
the hacker has accessed the computer has created some form of
relationship. Clearly, the proposed amendment would broadly and
unwisely give immunity from our cyber-crime laws. This amendment
creates an exception to the criminal laws and puts law enforcement back
in the same position they currently are--that is, powerless to
investigate hacking incidents where the owner of the computer network
wants the assistance of law enforcement.
Madam President, we should not tie the hands of our law enforcement
to assist the owners of our computer networks. We should not help
hackers and cyberterrorists to get away.
If you are a victim of a burglary, shouldn't you have the right to
ask the police to investigate your house, to come to your house and
investigate?
Why should the owners of the computer not have the right to ask the
police to investigate a commuter-hacking incident, especially where it
appears it is terrorist oriented?
This act applies, as written, only to people without authorization to
be on the computer. Why should the law protect people who have invaded
a computer they have no right to be on?
Let me say one last comment about this. The proponents of this
amendment argue it will apply to students using a university computer.
That is true, but only if such students use that university computer to
hack into a place where they do not belong.
Either we have to get serious in this modern society, with these
modern computers, about terrorism or we have to ignore it. I, for one,
am not for ignoring it. I believe we need to have this language in
here--so does the Justice Department; so does the White House and the
White House Counsel's Office--in order to do what cannot be done today
to protect people in our society, and to protect our powerplants, our
dams, and so many important facilities in our society that are
vulnerable to cyber-terrorists. This law, the way it is currently
written, will help to do that.
That is all I care to say about it. But I believe we should vote down
the Senator's amendment. I know it is well intentioned. I have great
respect for the Senator from Wisconsin. He is one of the very diligent
members of our committee, and I appreciate him very much, but on this
amendment I believe we have to keep the language of the bill the way it
is written in order to give our law enforcement people the tools to be
able to stop terrorist hacking into computers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my friend for his kind words.
Madam President, in response to the points he made, first, let me
respond that I accept the premise of this basic provision in terms of
updating the ability to get at computer hackers. That is an update. We
did not know what this was a few years ago. We did not know what risks
it posed. Nobody opposes that very important part of this bill.
But what the Senator claims is that the phrase ``contractual
relationship'' somehow makes sure that people are protected from being
subject to this who really should not be subject to this; but it does
it.
I can think of at least three categories of people who do not come
within the category of ``contractual relationship.'' One is in the
context employment. It is nice if you have a contract, but a lot of
employees do not.

[[Page 19519]]

They do not fall within the protection of a contractual relationship.
The same goes for people who would go and use a computer at a
library. They do not have a contractual relationship to protect them in
this situation.
And finally, as the Senator conceded here, in his last example, that
certainly students, students at all our universities across the
country, are not protected by that language. And that is all we want to
do, to make it clear that this amendment is related to the problem of
computer hackers, not moms who might be buying Christmas presents on a
computer at work, even though they are not supposed to, or students who
maybe are gambling on a university computer. Of course they should not
do that, but should that subject them to extraordinary, unprecedented
intrusion by Government law enforcement authority? Of course not.
The Senator attempts to suggest that the provision in here having to
do with our desire to have the language say ``contractual'' or
``other'' relationship would somehow allow a hacker to claim that he is
protected. The notion that a hacker would be considered as somebody who
has a relationship with the company under this amendment is an absurd
interpretation of the amendment's intent, so that clearly is not what
this amendment would do.
And finally, let me get back to the students, the example the Senator
from Utah mentioned. It is simply an unprecedented intrusion into
individual rights for a university to be able to allow--because of a
minor use that is not within university rules--that person to be
completely subject to this kind of intrusion.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. I have followed this debate closely. I commend the
Senator for the hearing he had on the constitutional rights part of
this debate. But I want to make sure I understand exactly what his
amendment sets out to do.
Is my understanding correct that under the Feingold amendment there
could be surveillance of a computer for 96 hours before there is any
court approval, so that in the example given by the Senator from Utah,
the law enforcement authorities could, in fact, monitor the
communications of someone using this computer for 96 hours before ever
going to a court and asking for a warrant for that search?
Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct. And that even troubles me for the
length of time that it is allowed--but it is far better than an
infinite position. Law Enforcement should be required to seek a warrant
as soon as possible, within reason, given the fact that what the
amendment tries to get at is emergency situations involving hackers. As
soon as possible, they should have to meet the standards that are
normally met.
But, yes, the amendment does permit that, in my view, rather
extraordinary period of time before the requirement would have to be
made.
Mr. DURBIN. And that period of time, I ask the Senator from
Wisconsin, is roughly twice the amount currently given under emergency
wiretap authority; is that correct?
Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. One last question. I want to try to understand. I ask the
Senator do you not say, in your amendment, that a trespasser does not
include someone who is permitted to use a computer by the owner or
operator of the computer?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Correct.
Mr. DURBIN. And the difference, of course, is whether it is a
contractual relationship or just a permission to use; you are including
permission to use as well as contractual relationship?
Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. The examples you have given are of people going to a
library, who may not have a contractual relationship with the library
but use the computer, who would be subjected to this warrantless search
of their computer communications for an indefinite period of time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. That is right, exactly. This is exactly the problem.
All we asked of the committee and of the administration yesterday was
to make it clear that they did not want to reach these people. That is
what we have been told. The purpose of this is to get at the threat of
computer hackers.
The Senator from Illinois has just illustrated, with those examples--
and he is, of course, correct--that this could be interpreted and could
be understood to include situations that not only have nothing to do
with the problem but represent a very serious departure from the
individual rights people should have in our country.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Illinois and reserve the
remainder of my time.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have been concerned about the scope of
the amendment carving an exception to the wiretap statute for so-called
``computer trespassers.'' This covers anyone who accesses a computer
``without authorization'' and could allow government eavesdropping,
without a court order or other safeguards in the wiretap statute, or
Internet users who violate workplace computer use rules or online
service rules.
I was unable to reach agreement with the administration on limiting
the scope of this amendment, and the Feingold amendment makes further
refinements. It is unfortunate that the administration did not accept
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 4 minutes 47
seconds; the managers have 9 minutes 14 seconds.
Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to yield back whatever time we have, if it
is all right with the distinguished Senator from Vermont, with the
understanding that we are just trying to stop unauthorized hacking that
could be done by terrorists and others who are criminals that currently
cannot be stopped. I am prepared to yield back the time, if the
distinguished Senator from Vermont is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask the chairman of the committee,
after listening to the presentation by the Senator from Wisconsin, what
is the chairman's view of the incursion on law enforcement by the
limitation of 96 hours?
Mr. LEAHY. The incursion of law enforcement by the 96 hours?
Mr. SPECTER. The principal thrust of what the Senator from Wisconsin
seeks to do is to broaden the definition of a contractual relationship
to someone who may otherwise have permission. What I am trying to do is
to understand the administration's position, the law enforcement
position as to how law enforcement is adversely impacted by what the
Senator from Wisconsin seeks to do.
My concern, as expressed earlier, is that, especially in the face of
the challenge by the amendment, this is a complicated bill.
The reality is, it is hard to know all of it without the normal
hearing process. Now we have a specific challenge. What I would like to
know is, how does it inhibit law enforcement? What about the broader
definition gives problems to law enforcement? And then, what is the
difficulty in having 96 hours, which is 4 days, to see what is going on
to find some basis for seeking a warrant with probable cause?
Mr. LEAHY. Frankly, I don't have a problem with the Feingold
amendment as it is written. I do have a problem, however, with keeping
a bill together. The initial administration request had no limitations
whatsoever. It was so wide open we were concerned that someone who
might be using a computer at work to add up their accounts for the
month would be trapped by this because the company said you couldn't
use the computer to add up your checking account, for example, to use a
farfetched example, because they would be accessing the computer
without authorization and the Government could just step in and go
forward.
The administration moved partly our way. We actually ended up with a
compromise on this. I suspect what they

[[Page 19520]]

would say to the Senator from Pennsylvania is that these attacks last
more than 96 hours and that they would be unable to go after them if
they were limited to the 96 hours.
We saw this recently 2 or 3 weeks ago where we had a continuous
roving attack on a number of Government computers. As I recall--I
didn't pay that much attention at the time--they were attacking them
one week and when we came back the following week, they were still
attacking them. So you had more than 96 hours.
Frankly, it is a case where we have reached a compromise. The
distinguished ranking member, speaking on behalf of the administration,
said this is not acceptable to them. Had this been part of the original
package, I wouldn't have found it acceptable.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Mr. HATCH. Basically, what the administration is after here is that
if a burglar is coming into your home and the police come to
investigate, they don't have to report to a judge within 96 hours. The
police have to act on these terrorist matters. If they find that a
terrorist has infiltrated a computer controlling an electrical grid
system, they want to get right on the ball and do something about it.
That is what they are trying to do with this provision.
There are no fourth amendment rights implicated because you have
people who have hacked into a computer that they don't have any right
to be in.
We want to give law enforcement the power to stop that. This
provision upsets that power and basically puts us back where we are
when we can't do anything in a modern digital age to stop terrorists
from stopping power grids and damaging dams and a whole raft of other
things.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if the Senator from Utah will yield for
a question?
Mr. HATCH. Surely.
Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Wisconsin makes the point that people
may have standing to use a computer even without a contractual
relationship. He uses the example of a student. Does the Senator from
Utah believe or does the administration represent that there are no
relationships other than contractual which give a person the legitimate
standing to use the computer?
Mr. HATCH. Under this provision, you do not have a right to hack into
another private computer, whether you are a university student or
anybody else. It only applies, the law we have written, to unauthorized
access. It does not apply to authorized access. But unauthorized
access, yes, it applies to that. If we don't put it in there, we will
be leaving a glaring error that currently exists in our laws that
prohibit us from solving some of these problems. It would be a terrible
thing to not correct at this particular time, knowing what we know
about how these terrorists are operating right now.
Mr. SPECTER. So is the Senator from Utah saying that if you have
permission, that is a form of a contractual relationship?
Mr. HATCH. I am saying that if you have permission, you are not
covered by this provision as written. In other words, you would not be
considered a hacker.
Mr. SPECTER. On its face you would seem to, unless there is a
contractual relationship?
Mr. HATCH. It comes down to authorized or unauthorized access. If it
is authorized, it is not covered under the computer trespasser
provision.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, did the Senator yield back his
remaining time?
Mr. HATCH. Yes, we are prepared to yield.
Mr. LEAHY. We are prepared if the Senator from Wisconsin is.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I want to clarify a couple points, then I will be
prepared to yield the remaining time.
These were helpful exchanges on a couple of points. First of all, it
became very clear from Senator Specter's excellent questioning that, of
course, there is no guarantee, under the way this language is set up,
under the words ``contractual relationship,'' that the provision would
not apply to students or to people who would use a computer at a
library. I can't understand why, if that is the intent of the
administration, the intent of the legislation, why they don't just
agree to language that would say so. That is all we asked for
yesterday. It could have resolved the problem. For some reason, they
won't agree to it.
Second, is this notion that a hacker could somehow get in under our
language. There is no way that a hacker has a relationship with the
computer owner that permits the use of the computer. The hacker is,
obviously, the antithesis, the opposite of an individual with a
relationship that permits use of the computer.
Finally, I am amazed at this notion that this amendment, even under
our version of it, would allow only 96 hours for surveillance when
under the example of the Senator from Utah, an ongoing hacker attack is
occurring.
Is it the Senator's contention that at the end of 96 hours, the FBI
would not have probable cause to get a warrant, when all it has been
dealing with for 4 days is this hacking of the computer? Of course, it
would. It would be the easiest thing in the world.
Section 217 is a very dramatic exception to the usual rule as derived
under our system, and expressed in the fourth amendment. Normally, you
have to come up with probable cause and a warrant. There are exceptions
because we have difficult problems sometimes. But 96 hours? At the end
of that time, with clear evidence of a hacking attempt, a warrant could
easily be obtained. Obviously, our amendment takes care of the need for
emergency authorization. In fact, I think it is too generous. I am
trying to put some kind of a time limit on this so we can have some
semblance of the normal rules that protect our citizens.
If the other side yields their time, I will yield my remaining time
as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have listened to this debate with
great interest, and I appreciate very much the arguments made by the
Senator from Wisconsin. As the Senator from Vermont and, I believe, the
Senator from Pennsylvania, have noted, there are circumstances where I
can easily see that we could be sympathetic to his amendment. He makes
an argument.
My difficulty tonight is not substantive as much as it is procedural.
There is no question, all 100 of us could go through this bill with a
fine-tooth comb and pinpoint those things which we could improve. There
is no doubt about that. I have looked at this bill, and there are a lot
of things, were I to write it alone, upon which I could improve. I know
the chairman of the committee believes that too.
I think we also have to recognize that this is the product of a lot
of work in concert with our Republican colleagues, in concert with the
administration, in concert with civil liberties groups, and in concert
with law enforcement. We have come up with what I would view as a
delicate but, yes, successful compromise.
Now, if we had opened the bill to amendment, I have no doubt there
are many colleagues who would offer amendments with which I would
vehemently disagree--in fact, so much so that I might want to
filibuster the bill. I would probably lose. I think there is a
realistic expectation that on a lot of these issues, my side would
lose. I think you could make the same case for the other side. So, we
made the best judgment we could, taking into account the very delicate
balance between civil liberties and law enforcement that we had to
achieve in bringing a bill of this complexity to the floor.
I have to say, I think our chair and ranking member and all of those
involved did a terrific job under the most difficult of circumstances.
What we did was to say: Let's take this product and work with it; let's
review it; if we have to make some changes, let's consider them; but
let's recognize that if we were to take this bill open-ended, there

[[Page 19521]]

would be no end to the amendments--that is the result that would most
likely occur in such a circumstance.
While I may be sympathetic to some amendments offered tonight, had it
been an open debate, there would have been a lot of amendments for
which I would not have been sympathetic.
Given those circumstances, my argument is not substantive, it is
procedural. We have a job to do. The clock is ticking. The work needs
to get done. We have to make our best judgment about what is possible,
and that process goes on.
I hope my colleagues will join me tonight in tabling this amendment
and tabling every other amendment that is offered, should he choose to
offer them tonight. Let's move on and finish this bill. Let's work with
the House and come up with the best product between the Houses. Then,
let's let law enforcement do its job, and let's use our power of
oversight to ensure that civil liberties are protected.
I make a motion to table.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator withhold that motion to table for a
moment?
Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have served with over 250 Senators
here, and I have been proud to serve with all of them. I know of no
Senator who has a stronger commitment to our individual rights and
personal liberties than the senior Senator from South Dakota, our
majority leader. But I also know that were it not for his commitment
and efforts, we would not be here with a far better bill than the one
originally proposed by the administration. It has been because of his
willingness to back us up as we try to improve that bill, to remove
unconstitutional aspects of it, because of his willingness, we were
able to get here.
As the Senator from South Dakota, the dearest friend I have in this
body, has said, he could find parts he would do differently, and he
knows there are parts I would do differently--even on this one. I have
high regard for the Senator from Wisconsin, and I would have loved to
have had his amendment. Actually, I would have done it probably
differently than that. But we had a whole lot of places where we won
and some where we lost.
I can tell you right now, if we start unraveling this bill, we are
going to lose all the parts we won and we will be back to a proposal
that was blatantly unconstitutional in many parts. So I join, with no
reluctance whatsoever, in the leader's motion.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I move to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, on this bill there was not a single
moment of markup or vote in the Judiciary Committee. I accepted that
because of the crisis our Nation faces. This is the first substantive
amendment in the Senate on this entire issue, one of the most important
civil liberties bills of our time, and the majority leader has asked
Senators to not vote on the merits of the issue. I understand the
difficult task he has, but I must object to the idea that not one
single amendment on this issue will be voted on the merits on the floor
of the Senate.
What have we come to when we don't have either committee or Senate
deliberation on amendments on an issue of this importance?
I yield the floor, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I move to table the amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from
South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Lott) are necessary absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 13, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 299 Leg.]

YEAS--83

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--13

Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Collins
Corzine
Dayton
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Levin
Specter
Stabenow
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--4

Domenici
Helms
Lott
Thurmond
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, so we understand where we are, there is
still a fair amount of time on the bill that the Senator from Utah and
I have and we have committed to Senators on both sides of the aisle who
need time. The remaining time is for the Senator from Wisconsin who has
three more amendments with the same time as he had in the last
amendment.
The Senator from Massachusetts has asked for 5 minutes. I understand
we have three more amendments that would take probably an hour or so
per amendment with the vote if the Senator from Wisconsin wishes to use
all his time, and he has a right to do that.
Once those are disposed of, the Senator from Utah and I are probably
prepared to yield back our time.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, it was depending entirely on what the
Senator from Wisconsin was doing. I reserve that now and see where we
are heading.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, it is my intention to offer two more
amendments, not the third amendment. I believe the time for each of
these amendments could be less than the full time allotted. We have a
fair amount of interest, but I didn't expect as much debate. I think
the last two could be expedited, and I am prepared to proceed, if that
is what my colleagues desire.

Amendment No. 1900

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 1900.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 21, line 14, insert ``except that, in such
circumstances, the order shall direct that the surveillance
shall be conducted only when the target's presence at the
place where, or use of the facility at which, the electronic
surveillance is to be directed has been ascertained by the
person implementing the order and that the electronic
surveillance must be directed only at the

[[Page 19522]]

communication of the target,'' after ``such other persons''.

Mr. KERRY. For the purpose of planning, could the Senator give us a
sense of both amendments and how long he thinks he will talk.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I have about 12 minutes on this amendment subject to
any response to that and approximately the same on the second
amendment.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this amendment has to do with what is
called roving wiretap, or multipoint surveillance authority. This is
one of the first things Attorney General Ashcroft asked for in the
first days after the September 11 attack and gave the example of a
terrorist using throwaway cell phones and the need for continued
roaming wiretap authority to allow the FBI to keep up with the ready
availability of this new technology.
First, let me say I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of updating
this area of the law. Obviously, it is needed in light of changes in
technology. It is vitally important for Members of the Senate to
understand that roving wiretap authority is already available for
criminal investigations under title III. It is in title 18, section
2518(11) and (12). The Attorney General doesn't need nor has he asked
for any new roving wiretap authority for criminal investigations. He
already has it.
What the bill does in Section 206 is provide similar authority in
investigations under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known
as FISA. I am not opposed to expanding existing roving wiretap
authority to include FISA investigations, but I am very concerned that
Section 206 does not include a key safeguard that was part of the
roving wiretap authority when it was added to title III in 1986. That
protection minimizes the possible misuse of the authority, whether
intentional or unintentional, to eavesdrop on the conversations of
individuals who are not the subject of the investigation.
Let me read from the Senate Judiciary Committee's report on the
legislation that granted roving wiretap authority:

Proposed subsection 2518(12) of title 18 provides, with
respect to both ``wire'' and ``oral'' communications, that
where the federal government has been successful in obtaining
a relaxed specificity order, it cannot begin the interception
until the facilities or place from which the communication is
to be intercepted is ascertained by the person implementing
the interception order.

In other words, the actual interception could not begin until the
suspect begins or evidences an intention to begin a conversation.
It further reads:

It would be improper to use this expanded specificity order
to tap a series of telephones, intercept all conversations
over such phones and then minimize the conversations
collected as a result. This provision puts the burden on the
investigation agency to ascertain when the interception is to
take place.

It seems to me that Congress struck the right balance in that
provision. It recognized the needs of law enforcement, but also
recognized that rights of innocent people were implicated and designed
a safeguard to protect them.
When Congress passed FISA in 1978 it granted to the executive branch
the power to conduct surveillance in certain types of investigations
without meeting the rigorous probable cause standard under the Fourth
Amendment that is required for criminal investigations. Investigations
of agents of foreign powers were different. There is a lower threshold
for obtaining an order from the FISA court. But I don't think that
roving wiretap authority under FISA should be less protective of the
constitutional rights of innocent people who are not the subject of the
investigation than the authority that Congress intended to grant in a
standard criminal investigation.
My amendment takes the safeguard from Title III--from current law--
and includes it in the FISA roving wiretap authority provision. The
amendment simply provides that before conducting surveillance, the
person implementing the order must ascertain that the target of the
surveillance is actually in the house that has been bugged, or using
the phone that has been tapped.
Let me give a few examples of how this would work, which should also
show why it is necessary. Indeed, it may be constitutionally required.
If the government receives information that the target of the FISA
investigation is making phone calls from a particular bank of pay
phones in a train station, it may set up wiretaps at all the phones in
that bank, but may only listen in on a particular phone that the
subject is using. Before beginning the actual surveillance it must know
that the suspect is using a particular phone. Otherwise, on the basis
of a report that a terrorist has been using a particular bank of pay
phones, the private conversations of innumerable innocent Americans
with absolutely no connection to the investigation would be subject to
government scrutiny. That violates their Fourth Amendment rights.
Similarly, the Government should not be able to conduct surveillance on
all payphones in a neighborhood frequented by a suspected terrorist or
on a particular payphone all day long while innocent people use it.
Another example. Suppose a target of a FISA investigation has the
practice of using a neighbor's or relative's phone. Under my amendment,
the Government would not be able to listen in on all calls from that
phone, but only those taking place when the target is in that person's
home. Likewise, if the government believes that the target uses
computers in a library, it can only monitor the one that the terrorist
is actually using, not all the computers in that facility even when the
terrorist is not there.
I don't believe this amendment should affect the Government's
authorization to monitor a new cell phone obtained by the target. If
the phone is in the possession of the target or is registered to the
target, then the person implementing the surveillance has ascertained
that the facility is being used by the target. They could do it, and I
support that.
Now, it has been pointed out to me that in 1999 this safeguard was
removed from Title III with respect to wiretaps but left in place with
respect to bugs. The change was made in the conference report of an
intelligence authorization bill, without consideration by the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
I remind my colleagues again that my amendment was part of the roving
wiretap authority that Congress granted federal law enforcement in
criminal investigations in 1986. It contains a standard that as far as
we know served law enforcement adequately in conducting effective
surveillance on very sophisticated criminal organizations, including
the mafia and drug importation and distribution organizations. I submit
that if this standard is not sufficient, we would have seen an open
effort to change it, but we didn't. Even after the change made in 1999
without discussion or debate, the standard remains in effect for bugs
placed in homes or businesses. Without this protection, Section 206
threatens the rights of innocent people.
If law enforcement has been significantly impaired in conducting
effective surveillance in criminal investigations under the roving
wiretap provision in current law, we should be shown specific evidence
of its shortcomings. But if it has not been impaired, then there is no
reason not to include a similar safeguard in the roving wiretap
authority under FISA.
I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this amendment. It is
reasonable, it appropriately reflects current law, but it also allows
for updating to face the reality of new technology and all the
technologies that are implicated here. And it protects the
constitutional rights of people who are not the subjects of an
investigation.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Again, I am not a lawyer. I do not think I understood
exactly all the argument you were making.
Are you saying there has to be some standard of proof? That before
conducting surveillance, law enforcement has to make sure? In other
words, before you actually wiretap a phone or bug a house or a home,
the target of the surveillance has to be in that home you are bugging?

[[Page 19523]]

Mr. FEINGOLD. No. Let's say somebody goes to their neighbor's house
to use their phone. They do that once or twice or whatever it might be.
Our amendment makes sure this new provision doesn't open up that house
and everybody in it and every phone call they have in the house to
unlimited Government surveillance. It requires what has been normally
required under the law, that the law enforcement people ascertain that
the person is in the house at the time so it is credible that they
would be using that phone again.
Mr. WELLSTONE. In other words, other people who are in the house who
have nothing to do with the target of surveillance, their conversations
could be--
Mr. FEINGOLD. Their conversations could and undoubtedly would be,
without some protection.
Mr. WELLSTONE. And the same thing for the bugging?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Exactly.
Mr. WELLSTONE. So you are trying to minimize the misuse of authority.
It might be unintentional?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Absolutely. There are standards, as I indicated in my
statement. There have been rules about how law enforcement has to
ascertain, whether it be at a phone bank or in somebody else's home,
that there is a reasonable belief that the individual is actually
there. Without that kind of rule, what we are doing is not just
extending this authority to the reality that people have cell phones
and move around and use different phones of their own, but it takes us
into an area that, frankly, prior to September 11 we would never have
dreamed of allowing.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, if I could take 2 minutes --I ask the
Senator from Wisconsin, might I have 2 minutes?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 2 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague is saying we have to be very careful
about not eavesdropping on the conversations of innocent individuals.
Again, we all are painfully aware of September 11. I personally think
there is much in this bill that is good, that we need to do. But I
think all the Senator from Wisconsin is trying to do is achieve some
balance and make sure we do not go above and beyond going after
terrorists who are trying to kill Americans and instead end up
eavesdropping on innocent people in our country.
I think the vast majority of the people in the country, if they
understood what this amendment was about, would support this amendment.
I do not think passing this amendment does any damage whatsoever to
much of what is in this bill, which is so important.
So, again, I hope Senators will support this amendment on the merits.
I think it is a very important amendment. I thank the Senator from
Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Minnesota very much for his
help, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, under current law, law enforcement has
so-called-roving or multi-point surveillance authority for criminal
investigations under title III, but FISA does not have comparable
provisions for agents investigating foreign intelligence. Roving
interceptions are tied to a named person rather than to any particular
communications facility or place. Today's bill adds this vital
authority to FISA.
This authority is critical for tracking suspected spies and
terrorists who are experts in counter-surveillance methods such as
frequently changing locations and communications devices such as phones
and computer accounts.
It simply makes no sense that our wire-tapping statute recognizes
this problem, and provides roving wiretap authority for surveillance of
common criminals, but makes no provision for roving authority to
monitor terrorists under the FISA statute.
The proposed amendment would not succeed in its stated goal of
harmonizing the standard between title III wiretaps and FISA wiretaps.
The proposed amendment would put a requirement on the interception of
wire or electronic communications under a FISA warrant that does not
exist in the title III context--a requirement that the law enforcement
officer implementing the wiretapping order personally ascertain that
the target of the order is using a telephone or computer, before the
monitoring could begin.
This requirement is operationally unworkable. The way that roving
orders are implemented, requires that law enforcement officers have the
ability to spot check several different telephones in order to
determine which one is being used by the target of the order. The
language proposed in this amendment does not give law enforcement
officers the ability to do so. In fact, they would be worse off under
this proposal than they are under current law.
The goal of the roving wiretap provision is to give counter-terrorism
investigators as much authority to conduct wiretaps as their
counterparts have in conducting criminal investigations. This amendment
defeats that goal by putting new, significant obstacles in the path of
investigators attempting to investigate and prevent terrorist
activities.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Senator Feingold provided invaluable
assistance to the committee during our consideration of this
legislation. He also held a hearing in his Constitution Subcommittee
last week on the critical civil liberties issues raised by the
Administration's anti-terrorism bill. I fully appreciate the depth of
his concern and his desire to improve this bill.
The Attorney General and I agreed in principal that the roving, or
multipoint, wiretap authority for criminal cases should be available
under FISA for foreign intelligence cases. The need for such authority
is especially acute to conduct surveillance of foreign spies trained in
the art of avoiding surveillance and detection.
Senator Feingold's amendment simply assures that when roving
surveillance is conducted, the Government makes efforts to ascertain
that the target is actually at the place or using the phone, being
tapped. This is required in the criminal context. It is unfortunate
that the Administration did not accept this amendment.
I hope all time could be yielded back on both sides.
Mr. FEINGOLD. It is my understanding the opponents have yielded all
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator is going to yield his.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will just use a minute of my leader
time to respond.
I have already made my argument on the first amendment. I, in the
interest of time, am not going to repeat it. As I said before, I am
sympathetic to many of these ideas, but I am much more sympathetic to
arriving at a product that will bring us to a point where we can pass
something into law. The record reflects the compromises that have been
put in place, the very delicate balance that we have achieved. It is
too late to open up the amendment process in a way that might destroy
that delicate balance. For that reason, I move to table this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the Senator
from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

[[Page 19524]]

The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 7, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 300 Leg.]

YEAS--90

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--7

Cantwell
Corzine
Feingold
Levin
Specter
Thompson
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--3

Domenici
Helms
Thurmond
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy on the USA Act.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Administration Policy

(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned
agencies)

S. 1510--Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act of 2001

The Administration commends the Senate leadership and the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
on reaching agreement on S. 1510. This bill contains, in some
form, virtually all of the proposals made by the
Administration in the wake of the terrorist attacks
perpetrated against the United States on September 11th. The
Administration strongly supports passage of this bill.
The Administration's initial proposals, on which S. 1510 is
based, were designed to provide Federal law enforcement and
national security officials with the tools and resources
necessary to disrupt, weaken, and counter the infrastructure
of terrorist organizations, to prevent terrorist attacks, and
to punish and defeat terrorists and those who harbor them. S.
1510 includes the provisions proposed by the Administration
in three main areas: (1) information gathering and sharing;
(2) substantive criminal law and criminal procedure; and (3)
immigration procedures. The Administration strongly supports
passage of these provisions. The Administration also supports
valuable provisions, introduced by the Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, aimed at improving the Nation's border
protection.
Information Gathering and Sharing
Existing laws fail to provide national security authorities
and law enforcement authorities with certain critical tools
they need to fight and win the war against terrorism. For
example, technology has dramatically outpaced the Nation's
statutes. Many of the most important intelligence gathering
laws were enacted decades ago, in and for an era of rotary
telephones. Meanwhile, the Nation's enemies use e-mail, the
Internet, mobile communications and voice mail.
S. 1510 contains numerous provisions that address this
problem by helping to make the intelligence gathering and
surveillance statutes more ``technology-neutral.''
Specifically, the bill updates the pen-register, trap-and-
trace, and Title III-wiretap statutes to cover computer and
mobile communications more effectively, while ensuring that
the scope of the authority remains the same.
The bill also provides for nationwide scope of orders and
search warrants, and other practical changes that will enable
law enforcement to work more efficiently and effectively. In
addition, the bill contains important updates of foreign
intelligence gathering-statutes, with the identical goal of
making the statutes technology-neutral. Even more important,
the bill contains provisions to reduce existing barriers to
the sharing of information among Federal agencies where
necessary to identify and respond to terrorist threats. The
ability of law enforcement and national security personnel to
share this type of information is a critical tool for
pursuing the war against terrorism on all fronts.
Substantive Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure
S. 1510 contains important reforms to the criminal statutes
designed to strengthen law enforcement's ability to
investigate, prosecute, prevent, and punish terrorism crimes.
The bill would remove existing barriers to effective
prosecution by extending the statute of limitations for
terrorist crimes that risk or result in death or serious
injury. The bill also creates and strengthens criminal
statutes, including a prohibition on harboring terrorists and
on providing material support to terrorists, and provides for
tougher penalties, including longer prison terms and higher
conspiracy penalties for those who commit terrorist acts.
These provisions will help to ensure that the fight against
terrorism is a national priority in our criminal justice
system.
Border Protection and Immigration Procedures
S. 1510 also contains a number of provisions that would
enhance the ability of immigration officials to exclude or
deport aliens who engage in terrorist activity and improve
the Federal government's ability to share information about
suspected terrorists. Under the bill, those who contribute to
or otherwise support terrorist organizations and terrorist
activities would be denied admission to or deported from this
country, and the Attorney General would be authorized to
detain deportable persons who are suspected of terrorist
activities pending their removal from the United States. In
addition, the bill provides for access by the Department of
State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
criminal history records and related information maintained
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Money Laundering
Title III of S. 1510 includes money laundering and other
financial infrastructure provisions, arising from a separate
legislative proposal from the Administration. These
provisions were added to this bill after unanimous approval
was reached on these provisions in the Senate Banking
Committee. The Administration supports the effort to
strengthen the money laundering statutes to help combat
terrorism, and supports virtually all of the proposals that
are now included in S. 1510.
Pay-As-You-Go Scoring
Any law that would increase direct spending is subject to
the pay-as-you-go requirements of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act. Accordingly, S. 1510, or any
substitute amendment in lieu thereof that would also increase
direct spending, will be subject to the pay-as-you-go
requirement. OMB's scoring estimates are under development.
The Administration will work with Congress to ensure that any
unintended sequester of spending does not occur under current
law or the enactment of any other proposals that meet the
President's objectives to reduce the debt, fund priority
initiatives, and grant tax relief to all income tax paying
Americans.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know the Senator from Wisconsin has
another amendment. I have had requests for time on our side of the
aisle from the distinguished Senator from Washington State, Ms.
Cantwell, for 7 minutes; the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts,
Mr. Kerry, for 5 minutes; the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr.
Wellstone, for 5 minutes; the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr.
Levin, for 2 minutes.
I mention that, not to lock that in, because the time is there, but
just to give people an idea of where we are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, is the Senator from Vermont proposing
a time agreement?
Mr. LEAHY. No. I am just saying what people are requesting for time.
I am trying to get some idea. A number of Senators have asked the
distinguished leader and myself how much longer we are going to be here
tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me just say, anybody who wishes to
speak on this bill is certainly welcome to do so, but we will be here
after the vote for anybody who wishes to accommodate any other Senator
who would like to go home.
The hour is late. We have one more amendment, and then we have final
passage. It is my hope that we can complete our work on the bill and
certainly leave open the opportunity for Senators to express
themselves. We

[[Page 19525]]

will stay just as long as that is required. I hope, though, we can
accommodate other Senators who may not feel the need to participate in
further debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I had spoken earlier this evening at
some length about my concerns as to the procedures on the bill. I want
to make a very few brief comments at this time.
I am concerned about the procedures on establishing a record which
will withstand constitutional scrutiny. I shall not repeat the
citations from decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States
which I cited earlier, except to say that the Supreme Court has
invalidated acts of Congress where there is not a considered judgment.
I understand the position of the majority leader in wanting to get
this bill finished. Earlier this evening, I went through an elaborate
chronology as to what has happened here. Nine days after September 11,
the Attorney General submitted a bill. I had suggested hearings that
week. The bill was submitted on September 20. We could have had
hearings on September 21 and even on September 22, a Saturday. The
Judiciary Committee had one hearing, a very brief one, on September 25.
I wrote the chairman of the committee two letters urging hearings,
and there was ample time to have hearings to find out about the details
of this bill. There was a Judiciary subcommittee hearing on October 3.
This bill was negotiated between the chairman and ranking member and
the White House. The Judiciary Committee did not take up the bill. We
have had ample time. This bill should have been before the Senate 2
weeks ago. If we had moved on it promptly after it was submitted on the
20th, we could have had hearings, perhaps some in closed session. We
could have had a markup. We could have had an understanding of the
bill.
When the Senator from Wisconsin has offered two amendments, which I
have supported, I am inquiring as to what is the specific concern about
law enforcement to preclude the adoption of the amendments of the
Senator from Wisconsin and on the possible invasions of privacy that
may result from the amendments not being adopted.
This is a very important bill. I intend to vote for it. I served 8
years on the Intelligence Committee, 2 years as chairman. I chaired the
Subcommittee of Judiciary on Terrorism. I have been through detailed
hearings and understand the problem we face, especially in light of the
warning which was put out today, and I understand, with the approval of
the President, that a terrorist act may happen in the United States or
overseas in the next several days.
We do need adequate law enforcement powers. We should have finished
this bill some time ago. But when the majority leader says he is
concerned about procedure and not about substance, we are regrettably
establishing a record where we have not only not shown the deliberative
process to uphold constitutionality, but we are putting on the record a
disregard for constitutionality and elevating procedure over substance,
which is not the way you legislate in a constitutional area where the
Supreme Court of the United States balances law enforcement's needs
with the incursion on privacy.
I feel constrained to make these comments. I hope yet that we can
create a record which will withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Again, I intend to vote for the bill, but say again that this body
ought to be proceeding in a way to establish the record. The worst
thing that would happen is if we try terrorists, having used these
procedures, and have the convictions invalidated. I have had
experiences as a prosecuting attorney and know exactly what that means.
I want my concerns noted for the record. I thank the Chair and yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I have 5 minutes, but I will not use it.
I want to make two very quick points.
One, as a former prosecutor, I am sympathetic to the comments of the
Senator from Pennsylvania. I think all of us ought to be respectful of
what the Senator from Wisconsin has been talking about this evening.
I will vote for the bill. I am particularly sensitive to what the
majority leader has said about the delicacy and the balance. Even
within that delicacy, there are some very legitimate concerns.
It is my hope that when this goes to conference, some of the
positions of the House will be thought about carefully and respected
and that the Senate may even be able to improve what we have by taking
those into account.
The second point is that there is within this legislation for the
first time a very significant effort on money laundering. I will say to
my colleagues that of all the weapons in this war and for all of our
might militarily, the most significant efforts to ferret out and stop
terrorists are going to come from the combination of information,
intelligence that we gather and process, and from our ability to take
unconventional steps, particularly those such as the money-laundering
measures.
Senator Levin has done an outstanding job of helping to frame that,
as has Senator Sarbanes. The truth is, there are banking interests that
even to this moment still resist living up to the standards of the
Basel convention and the international standards about knowing your
customer and being part of the law enforcement effort rather than a
blockade to it.
We are told there may be some effort through the House to try to
strip this out. It is my hope that the Senate will stand firm and hold
to the full measure of what President Bush has asked us to do.
This will be a long effort, a painstaking effort. If we are serious
about it, we have to have the law enforcement tools to make this
happen.
One of the most critical ones is empowering the Secretary of the
Treasury to do a reasonable, ratcheted, sort of geared process of
addressing the concerns of ferreting out money laundering and taking
the money away from these illicit interests around the globe. They are
not just in terrorism. They are linked to money laundering, to illegal
alien trafficking. They are all part of the same network which also
funds the terrorists themselves.
We recognize that three-quarters of the heroin that reaches the
United States comes from Afghanistan. The Taliban and al-Qaida were
both trafficking in that heroin. These networks and the
interconnectedness of them to the banking institutions, the financial
marketplace, are absolutely essential for us as we fight a war on
terrorism.
I hope this money-laundering component will be part of the final
terrorism bill.
I yield whatever remaining time I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank Chairman Leahy, Chairman
Sarbanes, and members of their committees, for including our very
strong anti-money-laundering provisions in the antiterrorism bill. The
antiterrorism bill is simply incomplete unless it has anti-money-
laundering provisions. Our provisions are strong provisions. They will
help prevent terrorists and other criminals from using our banks to get
their money into this country to fund their activities which are
terrorizing this country.
There apparently is going to be a continuing effort in the House of
Representatives to strip the anti-money-laundering provisions, which we
have worked so hard on, from the antiterrorism bill. It is my
understanding the White House will support keeping those provisions in
the bill. Our committees have worked very hard to keep our anti-money-
laundering provisions in the antiterrorism bill. Unless these
provisions are in there, we are providing the executive branch with
only half a tool box in the fight against terrorism.
Three years ago, the minority staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations which I now chair, began its investigation into money
laundering using U.S. banks. Three years,

[[Page 19526]]

three sets of hearings, two reports and a five-volume record on
correspondent banking and money laundering was the result.
We found, not surprisingly, that U.S. banks have accounts for foreign
banks and that the customers of those foreign banks can then use the
U.S. banks to move their money. But if foreign banks do a poor job of
screening their customers, criminals and terrorists can end up using
U.S. banks for their criminal purposes.
We found that U.S. banks do a poor job in screening the foreign banks
they accept as correspondent customers. Banks told us ``a bank is a
bank is a bank'' but that's not true. There are good banks and bad
banks. We found numerous banks where the bank was engaged in criminal
activity or had such poor banking practices any criminal could be a
customer. If a bad bank has a correspondent account with a U.S. bank,
customers of that bad bank have access to U.S. financial system. Then
criminals, including drug traffickers and terrorists, are able to use
our financial systems to carry out their crimes.
In response to what we learned, we developed a bill--S. 1371, the
Money Laundering Abatement Act introduced in early August.
It's a bipartisan bill, and I would like to recognize my cosponsors--
in particular, Senator Chuck Grassley who has helped to lead the fight
for including this money laundering legislation on this anti-terrorism
bill. The cosponsors in addition to Senator Grassley are: Senators
Sarbanes, Kyl, DeWine, Bill Nelson, Durbin, Kerry and Stabenow. The
provisions of this bill have been included in the legislation we are
now considering.
We now know that the September 11 terrorists used our financial
institutions and systems to help accomplish their ends. They used
checks, credit cards, and wire transfers involving U.S. banks in
Florida, New York, Pennsylvania. We've seen the photos of two of the
terrorists using an ATM machine. Osama bin Laden has bragged about it.
There are reports of large, unpaid credit card bills.
We know that current law is not tough enough in area of correspondent
banking--the mechanism used to transfer money around the globe. There
are too many holes that let in bad banks and bad actors, and we need to
close them.
Look at what we've learned just in the last few days about bin Laden
and al-Qaida. Several U.S. banks have had correspondent accounts for a
Sundanese bank called the al Shamal Islamic Bank.
A 1996 State Department fact sheet states that bin Laden helped
finance the bank in the amount of $50 million. A respected
international newsletter on intelligence matters, Indigo Publications
in March 16, 2000, said bin Laden remains a leading shareholder,
although the al Shamal Bank apparently denies that.
Testimony in the February 2001 criminal trial of the 1998 terrorist
bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, revealed that a bin
Laden associate who handled financial transactions for al-Qaida
testified al-Qaida had a half dozen accounts at al Shamal bank, one of
which was in bin Laden's name. The witness at that trial said in 1994 a
bin Laden associate took $100,000--in cash, U.S. Dollars--out of the
Shamal Bank gave it to the witness and told him to deliver it to an
individual in Jordan, which he did.
Another bin Ladin associate testified at the same trial that he
received $250,000 by a wire transfer from the Shamal Bank to his
account in a U.S. bank in Arlington, Texas, to purchase a plane in the
United States for bin Laden. He said he personally delivered the plane
to bin Laden.
Why did this bank have a correspondent account with a U.S. bank? Why
should we allow that to happen?
Even today, when you look at the al Shamal bank website, the bank is
still active and advertises an extensive correspondent bank network.
Three U.S. banks are listed. One of those banks has closed its account,
but the two other banks continue to have accounts, although the
accounts are frozen. Those accounts are now inactive because Sudan,
home country of al Shamal, is on the list of terrorist countries and
any business with the government of those countries has to be approved.
But the accounts were operational at one point in time. Moreover, al
Shamal bank has correspondent accounts with other foreign banks which
have accounts with U.S. banks.
That means al Shamal bank can still be using the U.S. financial
system through an account with a foreign bank that has a correspondent
account with a U.S. bank. We call this nesting and it's a serious
problem. It means the al Shamal bank and its customers can still use
the U.S. banking system.
The bill before us would require U.S. banks to do a lot more homework
on the banks they allow to have correspondent accounts. Under the anti-
terrorism bill, it is my belief and my hope that a bank like al Shamal
would never be granted a correspondent account at a U.S. bank.
The bill would also allow U.S. law enforcement to capture any illicit
funds in a U.S. correspondent account. Now, if a criminal or terrorist
has money in a foreign bank that has an account at U.S. bank and
illicit money is being held in a U.S. account, law enforcement can't
freeze that money unless the person is on the terrorist list or can
prove that the foreign bank with the correspondent account is part of a
criminal or terrorist act. That's an excessively hard threshold. This
legislation would allow law enforcement to freeze money in
correspondent accounts to the same extent they can freeze money in
regular, individual accounts.
We need all the tools possible in our arsenal to fight the financial
network of terrorism. The money laundering provisions in this bill
close the loopholes in existing law and provide additional tools for
law enforcement to use.
I thank Chairman Sarbanes and the other members of the Banking
Committee for including so much of the Levin-Grassley anti-money
laundering bill, S. 1371, in the Committee's bill. I also thank
Chairman Leahy and the other Judiciary Committee members for including
anti-money laundering provisions in title 3 of S. 1510, the anti-
terrorism bill. Strengthening our anti-money laundering laws will
strike a blow against terrorism by making it harder for terrorists to
get the funds they need into United States; an anti-terrorism bill
without these anti-money laundering provisions would be providing U.S.
law enforcement with only half a toolbox against terrorism.
I would like to take a few minutes to discuss a few key provisions
from the Levin-Grassley bill that have been incorporated into S. 1510.
These provisions are based on an extensive record of hearings and
reports issued in connection with investigations conducted over the
past few years by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I
chair, into money laundering in the correspondent and private banking
fields.
The four provisions I want to focus on are provisions that would ban
foreign shell banks from the U.S. financial system; require U.S.
financial institutions to exercise due diligence; add foreign
corruption offenses to the crimes that can trigger a U.S. money
laundering prosecution; and close a major forfeiture loophole involving
foreign banks.
First is the shell bank ban in Section 313 of S. 1510. This provision
is a very important one, because it attempts to eliminate from the U.S.
financial system one category of foreign banks that carry the highest
money laundering risks in the banking world today. Those are foreign
offshore shell banks which, as defined in the bill, are banks that have
no physical presence anywhere and no affiliation with any bank that has
a physical presence. Our Subcommittee investigation found that these
shell banks carry the highest money laundering risks in the banking
world, because they are inherently unavailable for effective oversight.
There is no office where a bank regulator or law enforcement official
can go to observe bank operations, review documents, talk to bank
officials, or freeze funds. Only a few countries now issue licenses for
unaffiliated shall banks;

[[Page 19527]]

they include Nauru, Vanuatu, and Montenegro. Nauru alone is believed to
maintain licenses for somewhere between 400 and 3,000 offshore shell
banks, none of which are being actively supervised, and some of which
are suspected of laundering funds for Russian organized crime. A staff
report that we issued in February of this year includes four detailed
case histories of offshore shell banks that were able to open
correspondent accounts at U.S. banks and used them to move funds
related to drug trafficking, bribe money and financial fraud money. The
possibility that terrorists are also using shell banks to conduct their
operations is real and cannot be ignored. That is why this provision
seeks to exclude shell banks from the U.S. financial system.
The provision flat-out prohibits U.S. financial institutions from
opening accounts for shell banks. Period. It also requires U.S.
financial institutions to take reasonable steps to make sure that other
foreign banks are not allowing shell banks to use their U.S. accounts
to gain entry to the U.S. financial system. The point is to prevent
shell banks from getting direct or indirect access to U.S. financial
accounts. The shell bank ban applies to both banks and securities firms
operating in the United States, so that it is as broad and as effective
as possible.
The provision directs the Treasury Secretary to provide regulatory
guidance to U.S. financial institutions on the reasonable steps they
have to take to guard against shell banks using accounts opened for
other foreign banks. One possible approach would be for U.S. financial
institutions to include a new section in the standard language they use
to open accounts for foreign banks asking the foreign bank to certify
that it will not allow any shell bank to use its U.S. accounts. The
U.S. financial institution could then rely on that certification,
unless it encountered evidence to the contrary indicating that a shell
bank was actually using the account, in which case the financial
institution would have to take reasonable steps to evaluate that
evidence and determine whether a shell bank was, in fact, using the
U.S. account.
The provision contains one exception to the shell bank ban, which
should be narrowly construed to protect the U.S. financial system to
the greatest extent possible. This exception allows U.S. financial
institutions to open an account for a shell bank that is both
affiliated with another bank that maintains a physical presence, and
subject to supervision by the banking regulatory of that affiliated
bank. This exception is intended to allow U.S. financial institutions
to do business with shell branches of large, established banks on the
ground that the regulator of the established bank can and does oversee
all of that bank's branches, including any shell branch.
This exception could, of course, be abused. It is possible that an
established bank in a jurisdiction with weak banking and anti-money
laundering controls could open a shell branch in another country with
equally weak controls and try to use that shell branch to launder funds
in ways that are unlikely to be detected or stopped by the bank
regulator in its home jurisdiction. In that case, while the shell bank
ban exception would not flat-out bar U.S. financial institutions from
opening an account for the shell branch, another provision would come
into play and require the U.S. financial institution to exercise
enhanced due diligence before opening an account for this shell bank. I
would hope that U.S. financial institutions would not open such an
account--that they would exercise common sense and restraint and
refrain from doing business with a shell operation that is affiliated
with a poorly regulated bank and inherently resistant to effective
oversight.
Many U.S. financial institutions already have a policy against doing
business with shell banks, but at least one major U.S. bank, Citibank,
has a history of taking on shell banks as clients. In order to keep
those clients, Citibank tried very hard to expand the exception in this
section to also allow U.S. accounts for shell banks affiliated with
financial service companies other than banks, such as securities firms
or financial holding companies. The broad exception was firmly and
explicitly rejected by both the Senate Banking Committee and the House
Financial Services Committee, because it would have opened a gaping
loophole in the shell bank ban and rendered the ban largely
ineffective. All a shell bank would have had to do to evade the ban was
establish an affiliated shell corporation and call it a financial
services company in order to be eligible to open a U.S. bank account.
The Citibank approach would, for example, have allowed a shell bank
established by bin Laden's financial holding company, Taba Investments,
to open accounts at U.S. banks and securities firms. That would
perpetuate the very problem that the Senate investigation identified in
two of its shell bank case histories involving M.A. Bank and Federal
Bank, each of which opened Citibank accounts in New York and used those
accounts to deposit suspect funds associated with drug trafficking and
bribery.
The exception to the shell bank ban is intended to be narrowly
construed, and U.S. financial institutions will hopefully use great
restraint in doing business with any shell bank that is not affiliated
with a well known, well regulated bank. The shell bank ban is intended
to close the U.S. financial marketplace to the money laundering risks
posed by these banks, and it is my hope that other countries and the
Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering will follow the U.S.
lead and take the same action in other jurisdictions.
The next provision is the due diligence requirement in Section 312 of
S. 1510. This is another critical provision that tightens up U.S. anti-
money laundering controls by requiring U.S. financial institutions to
exercise due diligence when opening and managing correspondent and
private banking accounts for foreign banks and wealthy foreign
individuals.
The provision targets correspondent and private banking accounts,
because these two areas have been identified by U.S. bank regulators as
high risk areas for money laundering, and because Congressional
investigations have documented money laundering abuses through them.
For example, two weeks ago, I testified before the Banking Committee
about a high risk foreign bank in Sudan that was able to open accounts
at major banks around the world, including in the United States and, in
1994, used these accounts to funnel money to a bin Laden operative then
living in Texas. On one occasion, he used a $250,000 wire transfer from
the Sudanese bank to buy an airplane capable of transporting Stinger
missiles, fly it to Sudan and deliver the keys to bin Laden. Six months
earlier, we released a staff report with ten case histories of high
risk foreign banks that used their U.S. accounts to transfer illicit
proceeds associated with drug trafficking, financial fraud and other
crimes. A year earlier, another staff report presented four case
histories of senior foreign government officials or their relatives
opening U.S. private banking accounts and using them to deposit
millions of dollars in suspect funds. The bottom line is that U.S.
banks need to do a much better job in screening the foreign banks and
wealthy foreign individuals they allow to open accounts in the United
States.
The due diligence provision would address that problem. It would
impose an ongoing, industry-wide legal obligation on all types of
financial institutions operating in the United States to exercise
greater care when opening accounts for foreign banks and wealthy
foreign individuals. Its due diligence requirements are intended to
function as preventative measures to stop dubious banks and as well as
terrorists or other criminals from using foreign banks' U.S. accounts
to gain access to the U.S. financial system.
The general obligation to exercise due diligence with respect to all
correspondent and private banking accounts is contained in paragraph
(1). Paragraphs (2) and (3) then provide minimum standards for the
enhanced

[[Page 19528]]

due diligence that U.S. banks must exercise with respect to certain
correspondent and private banking accounts. Paragraph (4)(B) gives the
Treasury Secretary discretionary authority to issue regulatory guidance
to further clarify the due diligence policies, procedures and controls
required by paragraph (1).
The regulatory authority granted in this section is intended to help
financial institutions understand what is expected of them. The
Secretary may want to issue regulations that help different types of
financial institutions to understand their obligations under the due
diligence provision. However, one caveat needs to be made with respect
to the Secretary's exercise of this regulatory authority, and that
involves how it is to be coordinated with Section 5318(a)(6), which
authorizes the Secretary to grant ``appropriate exemptions'' from any
particular money laundering requirement. There are going to be many
efforts made by various groups of financial institutions to win an
exemption from the due diligence requirements in this section--from
insurance companies, to money transmitters, to offshore affiliates of
large foreign banks. But the Committee's and the Senate's clear
intention is to cover all major financial institutions operating in the
United States. That is why Chairman Sarbanes changed the language in my
bill, S. 1371, so that the due diligence requirement did not apply just
to banks, but to all financial institutions as that term is defined in
Section 5312(a)(2) of title 31. That broad coverage is exactly what is
contemplated by this statute. The bottom line, then, is that the
Secretary is intended to apply the due diligence requirements broadly
to U.S. financial institutions, and not to grant an exemption without a
very compelling justification.
This same reasoning also applies to the shell bank ban. There will be
some that will seek one exemption or another from the ban, asking the
Treasury Secretary to use the authority available under Section
5318(a)(6). Again, the intent of the Committee and this Senate is to
enact as comprehensive a shell bank ban as possible to protect the
United States from the money laundering threat posed by shell banks.
That means that the Secretary should refrain from granting any
exemption to the shell bank ban without a very compelling
justification.
The third provision I want to discuss is the provision in Section 315
adding new foreign corruption offenses to the list of crimes that can
trigger a U.S. money laundering prosecution. This is another important
advance in U.S. anti-money laundering law. Right now, because foreign
corruption offenses are not currently on the list of crimes that can
trigger a U.S. money laundering prosecution, corrupt foreign leaders
may be targeting U.S. financial institutions as a safe haven for their
funds. This provision will make it clear to those who loot their
countries, or accept bribes, or steal from their people, that their
illicit money is not welcome here. Our banks do not want that money,
and if it is deposited in U.S. banks, it is subject to seizure and the
depositor may become subject to a money laundering prosecution.
The fourth provision would close a major forfeiture loophole in U.S.
law involving foreign banks. This provision is in Section 319(a) of S.
1510. It would make a depositor's funds in a foreign bank's U.S.
correspondent account subject to the same civil forfeiture rules that
apply to depositors funds in other U.S. bank accounts. Right now, due
to a quirk in the law, U.S. law enforcement faces a significant and
unusual legal barrier to seizing funds from a correspondent account.
Unlike a regular U.S. bank account, it is not enough for U.S. law
enforcement to show that criminal proceeds were deposited into the
correspondent account; instead, because funds in a correspondent
account are considered to be the funds of the foreign bank itself, the
government must also show that the foreign bank was somehow part of the
wrongdoing.
That's not only a tough job, that can be an impossible job. In many
cases, the foreign bank will not have been part of the wrongdoing, but
that's a strange reason for letting the foreign depositor who was
engaged in a wrongdoing escape forfeiture. And in those cases where the
foreign bank may have been involved, no prosecutor will be able to
allege it in a complaint without first getting the resources needed to
chase the foreign bank abroad.
Take, for example, the case of Barclays Bank which has frozen an
account because of suspicious activity suggesting it may be associated
with terrorism. If that account had been a correspondent account in the
United States opened for Barclays Bank, U.S. law enforcement could have
been unable to freeze the particular deposits suspected of being
associated with terrorism, because the funds were in the Barclays
correspondent account and Barclays itself was apparently unaware of any
wrongdoing. That doesn't make sense. U.S. law enforcement should be
able to freeze the funds.
Section 319(a) would eliminate that quirk by placing civil
forfeitures of funds in correspondent accounts on the same footing as
forfeitures of funds in all other U.S. accounts. There is just no
reason foreign banks should be shielded from forfeitures when U.S.
banks would not be.
Section 319 has many other important provisions as well, including
provisions dealing with Federal Receivers, legal service on foreign
banks and more.
I want to again thank Senator Sarbanes and Senator Leahy and their
staffs for their hard work and cooperative spirit in bringing this bill
to the floor and including the provisions of our bill in it.
I need to add that the hard work in passing this bill will be for
naught if some of the banks have their way in the House and in
Conference Committee. I'm very concerned with reports that there is an
effort in the House to separate the money laundering and anti-terrorism
bills, so money laundering will be considered separately. The banks
should be working with us to figure out even more ways in which the
money flow of terrorists can be shut down.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print letters of support
for this legislation and testimony from the FBI in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Dennis M. Lormel, Chief, Financial Crimes Section, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Before the House Committee on Financial
Services, Washington, DC, October 3, 2001

Correspondent banking is another potential vulnerability in
the financial services sector that can offer terrorist
organizations a gateway into U.S. banks just as it does for
money launderers. As this Committee well knows, the problem
stems from the relationships many U.S. Banks have with high
risk foreign banks. These foreign banks may be shell banks
with no physical presence in any country, offshore banks with
licenses limited to transacting business with persons outside
the licensing jurisdiction, or banks licensed and regulated
by jurisdictions with weak regulatory controls that invite
banking abuses and criminal misconduct. Attempts to trace
funds through these banks are met with overwhelming
obstacles. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that once a
correspondent account is opened in a U.S. Bank, not only the
foreign bank but its clients can transact business through
the U.S. bank. As Congress has noted in the past, requiring
U.S. banks to more thoroughly screen and monitor foreign
banks as clients could help prevent much of the abuse in
correspondent bank relationships.
____

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, September 18, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee
on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
Co-Chairman, Senate Drug Caucus, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Mr. Co-Chairman: We are writing in
response to your recent letter to Attorney General Ashcroft
concerning S. 1371, the Money Laundering Abatement Act. We
appreciate your continued commitment to addressing the
serious problem of money laundering in this country and
abroad, as demonstrated by your introduction of S. 1371. As
you indicated in your letter, the Attorney General has
expressed the need to strengthen our money laundering laws.
In his August 7th speech, the Attorney General stated: ``The
Department of Justice

[[Page 19529]]

has identified several areas in which our money laundering
laws need to be updated to more effectively combat organized
crime and to better serve the cause of justice.''
We were very pleased to see that one of the areas
highlighted in the Attorney General's speech--the need to add
to the list of foreign offenses that constitute predicate
crimes for money laundering prosecutions--is included in S.
1371. This and other provisions in your bill would greatly
improve our money laundering laws.
As the Attorney General also indicated in his speech, the
Department of Justice has been developing its own proposal to
update our money laundering laws and we hope to provide
Congress with our own recommendations in the near future. We
look forward to working with you in pursuing our mutual goal
of strengthening and modernizing our money laundering laws to
meet the challenges of this new century.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If we may be
of additional assistance, we trust that you will not hesitate
to call upon us. The Office of Management and Budget has
advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the
Administration's program to the presentation of this report.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Bryant,
Assistant Attorney General.
____

U.S. Department of Justice,

Drug Enforcement Administration,

Washington, DC, September 20, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee
on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for requesting our views on S.
1371, the ``Money Laundering Abatement Act,'' which is
designed to combat money laundering and protect the United
States financial system by strengthening safeguards in
private and correspondent banking.
We greatly appreciate your initiative in this important
area and believe that several provisions of S. 1371 would be
of particular benefit to DEA's efforts to combat money
laundering. In addition, as Assistant Attorney General Bryant
recently indicated in his letter to you, the Administration
has been working for some time on a package of additional
suggested money laundering amendments, which we hope to be
able to share with you shortly.
We look forward to working with you to strengthen and
improve the Nation's money laundering laws. If I can be of
any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is
no objection to the presentation of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Asa Hutchinson,
Administrator.
____

Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation,

Washington, DC, September 7, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment
on S. 1371, the Money Laundering Abatement Act. The Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation shares your concern about the
damage to the U.S. financial system that may result from
money laundering activities and we congratulate you for your
leadership in this area.
As deposit insurer, the FDIC is vitally interested in
preventing insured depository institutions from being used as
conduits for funds derived from illegal activity. As you may
know, in January of this year, the FDIC, together with the
Department of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the
Department of State, issued Guidance On Enhanced Scrutiny For
Transactions That May Involve The Proceeds Of Official
Corruption. The FDIC is also an active participant in other
working groups that seek more effective ways to combat money
laundering.
S. 1371 is an important step in trying to preclude foreign
entities from laundering money through U.S. financial
institutions. S. 1371 would, in several ways, require U.S.
financial institutions to identify foreign parties who open
or maintain accounts with U.S. banks, such as through
correspondent accounts or private banking accounts. The bill
would also prohibit customers from having direct access to
concentration accounts, and make it a crime to falsify the
identity of a participant in a transaction with or through
U.S. financial institutions. Correspondent and concentration
accounts have the potential to be misused so as to facilitate
money laundering, and the bill appropriately addresses these
concerns.
One point we would like to raise is in relation to Section
3 of the bill. Section 3 provides for consultation between
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the
Secretary of the Treasury, both in regard to devising
measures to combat money laundering and defining terms
relating to anti-money laundering measures. The FDIC believes
that such consultation requirements should include the FDIC
as well as the other Federal banking agencies.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide our views on
S. 1371. Please do not hesitate to contact Alice Goodman,
Director of our Office of Legislative Affairs, at (202) 898-
8730 if we can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Powell,
Chairman.
____

State of Michigan,

Department of Attorney General,

Lansing MI, September 25, 2001.
Hon: Carl Levin,
U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
U.S. Senator,
Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Levin and Grassley: I write to express my
strong support for S1371, the Money Laundering Abatement Act.
This is a prevalent problem that has allowed the criminal
element to secrete the proceeds of criminal activity and to
generate funds needed to facilitate and underwrite organized
crime.
The bill will make it harder for foreign criminals to use
United States banks to launder the proceeds of their illegal
activity and allow investigators to detect, prevent, and
prosecute money laundering. In particular, the bill
strengthens existing anti-money laundering laws by adding
foreign corruption offenses, barring U.S. banks from
providing banking services to foreign shell banks, requiring
U.S. banks to conduct enhanced due diligence, and making
foreign bank depositors' funds in U.S. correspondence banks
subject to the same forfeiture rules that apply to funds in
other U.S. bank accounts.
Recent events highlighting the activities of foreign
terrorists have demonstrated the necessity for his law. My
colleagues in the U.S. Justice Department indicate that this
and similar laws are essential if we are to succeed in our
fight against organized crime, drug dealers, and terrorism.
This bill is the result of lengthy hearings and congressional
fact-finding that concluded that the regulations set forth in
the bill are needed. The bill has my support, and I would
urge its passage as soon as possible.
Sincerely yours,
Jennifer M. Granholm,
Attorney General.
____

State of Arizona,

Office of the Attorney General,

Phoenix, AZ, August 2, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Russell Senate Office Building,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
Hart Senate Office Building,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Levin and Grassley: I write to express my
views on the Money Laundering Abatement Act you are planning
to introduce soon. This bill would provide much needed relief
from some of the most pressing problems in money laundering
enforcement in the international arena. The burdens it places
on the financial institutions are well considered, closely
tailored to the problems, and reasonable in light of the
public benefits involved.
The bill focuses on the structural arrangements that allow
major money launderers to operate. These include the use of
shell banks and foreign accounts, abuse of private banking,
evasion of law enforcement efforts to acquire necessary
records, and of safe foreign havens for criminal proceeds.
The approach is very encouraging, because efforts to limit
the abuse of these international money laundering tools and
techniques must come from Congress rather than the state
legislatures, and because such measures attack money
laundering at a deeper and more lasting level than simpler
measures.
The focus on structural matters means that this bill's
effects on cases actually prosecuted by state attorneys
general are a relatively small part of the substantial
effects its passage would have on money laundering as a
whole. Nevertheless, its effects on money laundering
affecting victims of crime and illegal drug trafficking would
be dramatic. I will use two examples from my Office's present
money laundering efforts.
My Office initiated a program to combat so-called ``prime
bank fraud'' in 1996, and continues to focus on these cases.
Some years ago, the International Chamber of Commerce
estimated that over $10 million per day is invested in this
wholly fraudulent investment scam. The ``PBI'' business has
grown substantially since then. To date, my Office has
recovered over $46 million in these cases, directly and in
concert with U.S. Attorneys and SEC. Prime bank fraudsters
rely heavily on the money movement and concealment techniques
that this bill would address, particularly foreign bank
accounts, shell banks, accounts in false identities, movement
of funds through ``concentration'' accounts, and impunity
from efforts to repatriate stolen funds. One of our targets
was sentenced recently in federal court to over eight years
in prison and ordered to make restitution of over $9 million,
but without the tools provided in this bill, there is little

[[Page 19530]]

hope that the victims will even see anything that was not
seized for forfeiture in the early stages of the
investigation.
My Office is now engaged in a program to control the
laundering of funds through the money transmitters in
Arizona, as part of the much larger problem of illegal money
movement to and through the Southwest border region. This
mechanism is a major facilitator of the drug smuggling
operations. Foreign bank accounts and correspondence
accounts, immunity from U.S. forfeitures, and false
ownerships are significant barriers to successful control of
money laundering in the Southwest.
Your bill is an example of the immense value of
institutions like the Permanent Subcommittee of
Investigations, because this type of bill requires a deeper
understanding of the issues that comes from long term
inquiries by professional staff. We who are involved in state
level money laundering control efforts should be particularly
supportive of such long term strategies because they are most
important to the quality of life of our citizens.
I commend your efforts for introducing this important
legislation and will assist you in anyway I can to gain its
passage.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano,
Attorney General.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I tell the distinguished Senator from
Michigan and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who made
such strong and valid points on money laundering, we just received from
the administration their statement of policy saying: This includes
money laundering, other financial infrastructure provisions arising
from separate legislative proposals. These provisions were added to
this bill after unanimous approval to have these provisions in the
Senate Banking Committee. The administration supports the effort to
strengthen this--
And so on. They are extremely important, and I can assure both
Senators that I will strongly support retention of this in conference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Amendment No. 1901

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1901, which is
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 1901.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the provisions relating to access to business
records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)

Strike section 215 and insert the following:

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO BUSINESS RECORD UNDER FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEIL-
LANCE ACT OF 1978.

(A) In General.--Section 502 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1862) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``authorizing a common
carrier'' and all that follows through ``to release records''
and inserting ``requiring a business to produce any tangible
things (including books, records, papers, documents, and
other items)'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting: ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) the records concerned are not protected by any
Federal or State law governing access to the records for
intelligence or law enforcement purposes.''; and
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``common carrier, public
accommodation facility, physical storage facility, or vehicle
rental facility'' each place it appears and inserting
``business''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The text of section 501 of that
Act (50 U.S.C. 1861) is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 501. In this title, the terms `agent of a foreign
power', `foreign intelligence information', `international
terrorism', and `Attorney General' have the meanings given
such terms in section 101.''.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with section
215 in the bill. It allows the Government, under FISA, to compel
businesses to turn over records to assist in an investigation of
terrorism or espionage. The provision makes two significant changes
from current law. Under current law, the FBI can seek records from only
a limited set of businesses--from public accommodations, such as hotels
and motels, car rental companies, storage facilities, and travel
records, such as those from airlines.
Current law also requires the FBI to demonstrate to the FISA court
that the records pertain to an agent of a foreign power. The FBI cannot
go on a fishing expedition of records of citizens of this country who
might have had incidental contact with a target of an investigation.
But under section 215 of this bill, all business records can be
compelled to be produced, including those containing sensitive personal
information such as medical records from hospitals or doctors, or
educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of
the library.
This is an enormous expansion of authority, compounded by the
elimination of the requirement that the records have to pertain to an
agent of a foreign power. Under this provision, the Government can
apparently go on a fishing expedition and collect information on
anyone--perhaps someone who has worked with, or lived next door to, or
has been seen in the company of, or went to school with, or whose phone
number was called by the target of an investigation.
So we are not talking here only about the targets of the
investigation; we are talking about people who have simply had some
incidental contact with the target. All the FBI has to do is to allege
in order to get the order that the information is sought for an
investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
gathering. That is all they have to do, assert that--not to just get at
the targets, but at people who have had any contact whatsoever with
them.
On that minimal showing in an ex parte application in a secret court,
the Government can lawfully compel a doctor or a hospital to release
medical records or a library to release circulation records. This is
truly a breathtaking expansion of the police power, one that I do not
think is warranted.
My amendment does not completely strike the provision. There are
elements of it that I think have legitimacy. First, my amendment
maintains the requirement that the records pertain to a target alleged
to be an agent of a foreign power. This provides some protection for
American citizens who might otherwise become the subject of
investigations for having some innocent contact with a suspected
terrorist.
Second, while the amendment maintains the expansion of the FISA
authority to all business records, it also requires the FBI to comply
with State and Federal laws that contain a higher standard for the
disclosure of certain private information. The amendment makes it clear
that existing Federal and State statutory protections for the privacy
of certain information are not diminished or superseded by section 215.
There are certain categories of records, such as medical records or
educational records, that Congress and State legislatures have deemed
worthy of a higher level of privacy protection. Let me quickly give you
a couple of examples. In California, there is a very detailed statutory
provision governing disclosure of medical information to law
enforcement authorities. Generally, the law requires either patient
consent, or a court order, or a subpoena. Before issuing an order for
the records to be produced, the court must, among other things, find
good cause based on a determination that there is a reasonable
likelihood that the records in question will disclose material
information or evidence of substantial value in connection with the
investigation or prosecution.
Montana is another State with strong statutory, and indeed
constitutional, protections for medical records. It provides that
medical records can only be obtained with an investigative subpoena
signed by a judge, and that subpoena may be issued only when it appears
upon the affidavit of the prosecutor that a compelling State interest

[[Page 19531]]

requires it to be issued. In order to establish a compelling State
interest, the prosecutor must state facts and circumstances sufficient
to support probable cause to believe that an offense has been
committed, and that the information relative to the commission of that
offense is in the possession of the person or institution to whom the
subpoena is directed.
My State of Wisconsin, along with many other States, has very strong
library confidentiality laws which requires a court order for
disclosure of public library system records.
Texas, for example, permits disclosure of library records ``to a law
enforcement agency or prosecutor under a court order or subpoena
obtained after a showing to a court that: (A) disclosure of the record
is necessary to protect the public safety; (B) the record is evidence
of an offense or constitutes evidence that a particular person
committed an offense.''
Missouri and Nevada library records confidentiality laws both require
that a court find ``that the disclosure of such record is necessary to
protect the public safety or to prosecute a crime.''
South Carolina's library records confidentiality law permits
disclosure ``in accordance with a proper judicial order upon finding
that disclosure of the records is necessary to protect public safety,
to prosecute a crime, or upon showing of good cause before a presiding
judge in a civil matter.''
In short, our States have made policy judgments about the protection
to which certain kinds of records are justified. We have Federal laws
that express similar judgments--Federal Educational Records Privacy
Act. Indeed, as I will mention, this bill provides new standards for
the production of educational records in connection with terrorism
investigations.
So my fear is that what section 215 does is effectively trump any and
all of these State and Federal privacy protections. I think that is a
result that most of our citizens and their State representatives would
not countenance. So my amendment simply provides that this new
authority to compel the production of business records through an order
of a FISA court does not apply if another State or Federal law governs
the law enforcement or intelligence access to the records.
To the extent that the records sought have no such statutory
protection, the only effect this amendment would have is to ensure that
the records actually pertain to the target. But I strongly believe that
merely alleging that the records are needed for an intelligence
investigation should not override other protections provided by State
and Federal law.
I will quickly highlight the problem by referring to section 508 of
this bill. That section, I think, would be rendered meaningless if
section 215 is not amended as I propose.
The original version of section 508 proposed by the administration
would have given the Attorney General the right to obtain the
educational records of virtually any student without a court order. I
and many other Senators had serious problems with that provision, and
it was significantly changed before S. 1510 was introduced. Section 508
now does require a court order and does provide a specific showing that
the Attorney General must make to obtain the order to get at these
educational records. But if section 215 is enacted without my amendment
a university could be ordered to turn over such records as ``tangible
things'' on a much lower showing.
The administration asserts that it is too great a burden for the
Government to abide by existing privacy protections and seek court
orders to obtain certain sensitive information specifically identified
by Congress and State legislators. I remind my colleagues that the
protections I seek to preserve were carefully drafted and debated and
enacted at a time when legislators could thoughtfully consider the full
weight of granting such protections. We are now asked to set these
protections aside with scant discussion of either the merits or the
consequences of such a proposal, during a time of incredible strain on
our democratic principles, and for an indeterminate length of time.
If my amendment is adopted, law enforcement will still have access to
all of the information it seeks. But my amendment simply maintains the
integrity of protections enacted by Congress and State legislatures for
certain kinds of sensitive information to ensure that access to this
information is given only where it is necessary. It makes sure that
this provision does not become the platform or an excuse for a fishing
expedition for damaging information on American citizens who are not
the subjects of FISA surveillance.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say, again, to colleagues that this
amendment the Senator from Wisconsin introduced makes sure that our
Federal and State laws regarding certain sensitive privacy areas are
not diminished or superseded by this provision.
The amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin goes to the heart of the
concerns that a lot of the people we represent have. I imagine that the
vote may be overwhelmingly in opposition to this amendment. That has
been the pattern.
Again, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for raising these
questions. This is what we should be doing.
I conclude this way: I really think, in part, because of the kind of
questions the Senator from Wisconsin has raised--again, I am not a
lawyer--in looking at this bill, Mr. President, I say to Senator Leahy,
it seems to me he and others have done a great job and are doing
everything possible to make this more balanced. There are so many good
provisions in this bill that we need. I believe that.
I hope we can keep the sunset provision, which is so essential to
oversight, because I think what is good is the provisions of this
legislation that focus on combating terrorism and what is not quite so
good is the parts of this bill that reach way beyond that.
Yes, there is a lot of good. I will support it. I will reserve final
judgment of what comes out of the conference committee. I think we can
make it better.
I thank my colleagues, Senator Hatch included, for their work.
Sometimes people can honestly disagree. I know this is important. I
know where we are as a nation, but the Senator from Wisconsin has
raised important concerns tonight, and others as well. I hope we do
better in conference.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. He
said it exactly right. Each of us who spoke on these amendments tonight
cares just as much as everybody in this room about the fight against
terrorism and stopping it. We just want to make sure we do not go
beyond that goal with unnecessary language that intrudes on our civil
liberties. That is it. That is all we are trying to do.
I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for
the time and his energies this evening. We all know that the hour is
late and that there are many things we must accomplish in our acts to
fight terrorism. This is probably one of the most significant pieces of
legislation that affects our home-front activities in fighting that
battle.
There are many good things in this bill. I am very proud of the
authorizing language to triple the resources for our northern borders.
I am very proud of the language in the bill that basically will set a
new technology standard for our visa program so we can better identify
people coming into this country. I am very proud of the many tools in
the bill for law enforcement. I ask unanimous consent that the column
in the Washington Post be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2001]

When Care Beats Haste

The complex antiterrorism legislation that the
administration sent Congress less than a

[[Page 19532]]

month ago could reach the floors of both houses this week.
The original proposal has been considerably improved since
its hasty submission, but civil liberties groups continue to
warn with cause that some of the detention and surveillance
provisions would give the government more power than is
either necessary or healthy.
Some of the members of both parties who helped construct
the current compromises are likewise uneasy about their own
handiwork, but reluctant to be seen as holding up a bill the
administration insists it needs right away. The reluctance
will be the greater now that the country is engaged in
military action in Afghanistan; there is fear--we have no
doubt well-founded--of retaliation. But dangerous moments are
precisely the ones when it is most important that civil
liberties be protected.
The House Judiciary Committee has dealt with the
conflicting pressures in part by putting a kind of asterisk
after the surveillance sections of the bill. It has
``sunset'' them, meaning the powers they confer will expire
after two years unless a subsequent Congress, having seen how
the powers work out, votes to extend them. The administration
opposes the sunset provision and succeeded in keeping it out
of the Senate version. But it's a reasonable compromise. A
bill such as this is a balancing of risks--the risk of
further attack versus the risk to civil liberties in seeking
to forestall the attack. If the bill is as benign as the
administration insists, it has nothing to fear from a sunset
provision, which ought to be retained.
Parts of the administration proposal were sensible and are
not in dispute: allowing the government in an age of cell
phones to seek court approval for placing a wiretap on a
person rather than a particular phone, for example. Others
were drawn too loosely, and some still need work. The
administration had sought authority to detain indefinitely
non-citizens whom the attorney general thought even might be
engaged in terrorism or other activities that endangered
national security. That power has been greatly circumscribed.
A person not charged with a crime after seven days can be
held only if the government is moving to deport him. The
question, which the bills don't clearly answer, is how long,
without judicial determination, can it hold him then?
Wiretap authority now is easier to get for foreign
intelligence than for law enforcement purposes. The
legislation would make it easier still. The question then
becomes how to make sure that the new authority isn't
abused--in fact used for law enforcement purposes or fishing
expeditions--in such a way as to make such surveillance far
more commonplace than now. Related issues have to do with the
sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information among
government officials. There are ways to provide the broader
authority the government says it needs while hedging against
its abuse; in our view, not all of those have been fully
explored.
So too with the power the bill would give law enforcement
officials to obtain records of an individual's Internet use,
including addresses of e-mail sent and received. Phone
records are now available to law enforcement agencies more or
less on request--when were calls made from phone A to phone
B? what should be the Internet analogy?
The administration was said yesterday to be pressing for
quick passage by both houses of the Senate measure; the more
careful work of the House Judiciary Committee would be set
aside. That's wrong, and an acquiescent step that in the long
run Congress likely would regret.

Ms. CANTWELL. This article said it best with the headline: ``When
Care Beats Haste'':

The question then becomes how to make sure that the new
authority isn't abused--in fact used for law enforcement
purposes or fishing expeditions--

Later it says that it would be wrong for us to take an acquiescent
step that in the long run would really hurt our country.
What Senator Feingold is simply trying to say is that we have already
painstakingly over many years crafted a careful balance in protecting
personal privacy. This language in section 215 changes that. It
basically says that the FBI can have access to other things, including
business records from U.S. citizens who may have had incidental contact
with someone who is defined as a terrorist.
Think about that for a second. If you are an employer and someone in
your company has now been accused of these terrorists acts and is under
investigation, your business records can also be attained if, as
Senator Feingold said, it was deemed part of this investigation, with
very minimal judicial review.
Take for another example, you happen to live across the hall from
someone who now has become a suspect. Maybe you have been over to their
house for dinner several times. Now, all of a sudden, you may be part
of that investigation, and your financial records, your medical
records, your personal records can now be part of that investigation,
again, with very minimal judicial review.
I have heard from many in my State, including my State librarian,
consumers, and businesses that are concerned, that this provision is
far too broad.
It takes little imagination, as I said, to think of all the tangible
items this would give the FBI carte blanche to examine some people's
most private and personal papers.
The bottom line is this legislation could circumvent or supersede
Federal and State privacy laws that protect student records, library
records, and health records not previously admissible under FISA.
What we are talking about in the Feingold amendment is trying to
preserve those State and Federal laws that already specify protection.
The amendment simply states where Congress or a State legislature has
enacted a law which requires an order to obtain records, that Federal
or State law stands.
That seems pretty simple. We have worked on these issues. We should
not work on them in haste.
This is a very complex time. It is no ordinary time for our country.
This process has to remember those fourth amendment rights that we have
so diligently fought for in the past. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am grateful for the remarks of the
Senator from Washington. I am afraid we are going to read them in a few
years and wish maybe we listened more closely to what we are doing on
this particular provision.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah wanted to say
something for the record.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
I oppose Senator Feingold's amendment to Section 215 of the bill.
Section 215 allows federal law enforcement to apply for a court order
to obtain records and other evidence in the course of an investigation
to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities. This provision has many safeguards built in to prevent its
misuse.
For instance, the application must be made by the Director of the FBI
or his designee, whose rank cannot be lower than an Assistant Special
Agent in Charge, and specify that the records concerned are sought for
an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism
or clandestine intelligence activities. Additionally, the investigation
must be conducted pursuant to approved Attorney General guidelines and
may not be conducted on a United States person solely upon the basis of
activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
As written, the provision balances the investigatory needs of the FBI
with privacy concerns and provides adequate protection, while not
allowing a host of state-law provisions to stand in the way of national
security needs. Senator Feingold's amendment would condition the
issuance of the court order on a myriad of federal and state-law
provisions. Such conditioning will have the effect of making
investigations to protect against international terrorism more
difficult than investigations of certain domestic criminal violations.
Senator Feingold's amendment purports to preserve privacy protections
in place for certain records. The amendment's effect, however, will be
to place foreign international and intelligence investigations at a
disadvantage to criminal investigations. For example, this amendment
would make it more difficult for the government to obtain business
records in a foreign-intelligence or foreign counter-intelligence
investigation through a court order than it is to obtain the same
records in a criminal health-care fraud or child pornography
investigation through a

[[Page 19533]]

grand jury subpoena or administrative subpoena. (see 18 U.S.C. 3486).
Federal law enforcement officers investigating the activities of a
terrorist organization or foreign intelligence target should not face a
greater burden than that imposed on investigators of health-care fraud
or child pornography.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the administration originally wanted
administrative subpoena authority in foreign intelligence cases for
government access to any business record. I was able to reach agreement
with the administration to subject this authority to judicial review
and to bar investigations based on the basis of activities protected by
the First Amendment.
The Feingold amendment would ensure that current laws providing
safeguards for certain types of records, such as medical and
educational records, be maintained. Again, it is unfortunate that the
administration did not accept this amendment.
Mr. President, we are prepared to yield back the remainder of our
time if the Senator from Wisconsin is prepared to yield back the
remainder of his time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. If the majority leader is going to speak, I would like
to respond. If not, I will simply yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield back the remainder of our time.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the Senator
from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 8, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 301 Leg.]

YEAS--89

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--8

Cantwell
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Feingold
Harkin
Levin
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--3

Domenici
Helms
Thurmond
Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

NORTHERN BORDER SECURITY

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the members of the Judiciary
Committee, especially Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch for their hard
work on this important legislation. This bill will give the
administration an increased ability to fight terrorism on many fronts.
One section of the bill that is extremely important to my state
addresses Northern Border Security. This bill will triple the number of
Border Patrol, Customs Service, and INS inspectors along America's
northern borders. It also authorizes $100 million to improve INS and
Customs technology and for additional equipment for monitoring the
northern borders. Alaska and Alaskans are in a unique position. One
section of our northern boarder stretches from Maine through, my good
friend's home state of, Vermont all the way to Washington State. A
second section is that of my home State. As you know we are the largest
State in the Nation with an enormous border with Canada that runs over
1,538 miles. We have one of the busiest international cargo airports in
the world, which has lost a number of carriers since the September 11
attacks due to grossly inadequate staffing at our secure, sterile
customs facility. We also have several major international ports
scattered throughout Alaska including the Port of Anchorage, which
handles the most container traffic in Alaska; Dutch Harbor, which is
America's busiest commercial fishing port; and Valdez, where millions
of barrels of North Slope crude oil are sent by pipeline to the ``South
48.'' The sections of the bill that address the Northern Border
Security do not mention Alaska specifically. I intended to offer an
amendment to insure that we are part of the definition. But as my good
friend the Senator from Vermont pointed out to me, other northern
border States are not mentioned specifically either. I understand that
it is the intent of this legislation that Alaska and all other states
that border Canada are ``Northern Border'' States and that INS, Border
Patrol, U.S. Customs service and others should look at all of these
states when addressing security issues. I would ask the manager of this
bill if my understanding is correct?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska is correct. Alaska
is definitely part of America's Northern Border and it was the intent
of the committee and the Senate that it be part of that definition.
The unfolding facts about how the terrorists who committed the
September 11 attack were able to enter this country without difficulty
are chilling. Since the attacks many have pointed to our northern
border as vulnerable to the entry of future terrorists. This is not
surprising when a simple review of the numbers shows that the northern
border has been routinely short-changed in personnel. While the number
of border patrol agents along the southern border has increased over
the last few years to over 8,000, the number at the northern border has
remained the same as a decade ago at 300. This remains true despite the
fact that Admad Ressam, the Algerian who planned to blow up the Los
Angeles International Airport in 1999, and who has been linked to those
involved in the September 11 attacks, chose to enter the United States
at our northern border. It will remain an inviting target until we
dramatically improve our security.
The USA Act includes my proposals to provide the substantial and long
overdue assistance for our law enforcement and border control efforts
along the Northern Border. My home State of Vermont has seen huge
increases in Customs and INS activity since the signing of NAFTA. The
number of people coming through our borders has risen steeply over the
years, but our staff and our resources have not.
I proposed--and this legislation authorizes in section 402--tripling
the number of Border Patrol, INS inspectors, and Customs Service
employees in each of the States along the Northern Border. Alaska is
certainly one of those States. I was gratified when 22 Senators--
Democrats and Republicans--wrote to the President supporting such an
increase, and I am pleased that the administration agreed that this
critical law enforcement improvement should be included in the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. With
this clear statement of of the legislation I will not offer an
amendment to specifically name Alaska as a Northern Border State.

[[Page 19534]]

alien terrorist removal court

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it had been my intention
to offer an amendment which would strengthen provisions in the bill to
deal with known terrorist aliens. As Senator Lott well remembers, we
worked in 1996, created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, to hear
cases against aliens who were known terrorist and to allow the Justice
Department to deport these aliens without divulging classified
information to the terrorist organization.
Mr. LOTT. I know the Senator from New Hampshire has been working a
long time on this issue. In fact, when he sponsored this legislation
back in 1995, I was a cosponsor of his bill. He has been a leader on
this issue, he passed his legislation, and the Court was created.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is correct. As the leader knows,
there are some changes that are needed to improve the law, which is
what my amendment was going to be about.
Mr. LOTT. I understand, and I agree that the law needs to be
strengthened.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would say to my
colleagues, all the tools we are giving to the Justice Department in
this bill are irrelevant if we cannot deport these terrorist who are
living in our country preparing to terrorize American citizens. Page
162 of the bill says the Attorney General shall place an alien in
removal proceedings within 7 days of catching him, or charge him with a
criminal act, or else the bill says ``the Attorney General shall
release the alien.'' Mr. President, the problem is that most of these
terrorist have not committed criminal acts until they are ready to
attack. Therefore, in most of these cases, the only option is to deport
them.
Mr. LOTT. It is my opinion, that if we can deport known terrorist, we
should do it. We cannot let the Justice Department be barred because
the evidence was too sensitive to use in Court.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is exactly the problem. Under
current law, the Justice Department would have to give a declassified
summary of all the secret evidence used in the deportation proceedings
to the terrorist. Now, why would we compromise our intelligence sources
and methods by revealing sensitive intelligence information to a known
terrorist? The intelligence community would never allow it, and with
good reason. But as a result, the Justice Department has never once
used the alien terrorist removal court to deport anyone.
Mr. LOTT. That is my understanding, and it is a serious problem. I am
in complete agreement with the Senator.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank the Leader. As I
said, it had been my intention to offer an amendment to resolve this
problem by eliminating the requirement for the Attorney General to give
this sensitive information to the alien terrorist before deporting him.
However, upon discussions with the Attorney General, who indicated to
me that he supports this provision, and after discussions with the
Leader, I have decided in the interest of moving this legislation to
withhold my amendment at this time, with the assurance of the Leader
and the Administration that we will work to solve this problem in
conference.
Mr. LOTT. Let me say to the Senator that he can count me as a
cosponsor of this amendment. It is an excellent amendment, it is
needed, and I commit to the Senator that I will do my best to see that
it is added in conference. I would further say to the Senator that I
have also talked about this issue with the Attorney General, and he
indicated to me that the Administration supports your amendment and
that he will also work to support it in conference when we get to that
point. So, I appreciate his withholding at this time so we can get this
bill to conference where we can work to get the Smith amendment added
to greatly improve this bill.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Leader for his strong
support, and I am pleased that the administration is also supportive. I
know how many long hours the Attorney General is putting in on this
issue, and how committed he is to winning this war on terrorism. I look
forward to passing this important provision which will be an invaluable
tool for the Attorney General and the President in this war.

deterring money laundering

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to clarify with Chairman
Sarbanes my understanding of the provision in Title III, the anti-money
laundering provisions in the antiterrorism package, entitled ``Section
314. Cooperative Efforts to Deter Money Laundering''.
As the Chairman is well aware, Section 314(b) is intended to address
concerns about regulatory barriers that stand in the way of developing
efficient mechanisms and services that financial institutions can use
to fulfill their regulatory compliance obligations. The regulations to
be issued by the Secretary, and potentially by bank and thrift
regulators as well, could further this purpose by reconciling rules
that could be interpreted in a way that places conflicting burdens on
financial institutions.
Does that comport with the Chairman's understanding of the intent of
the provision and how that intent could best be carried out by the
regulators?
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator for his question. Yes, that is also
my understanding of Section 314.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am going to support this legislation,
and I want to commend the leadership--Senators Daschle and Lott--and
Senators Leahy and Hatch, for their efforts in developing the bill.
Clearly, there is no higher priority than combating terrorism and
protecting our national security. At the same time, I do have real
concerns about the process by which this legislation has come to the
floor, and about the implications of some provisions for fundamental
civil liberties.
There are several provisions in this legislation that make a real,
positive contribution to the fight against terrorism. Other senators
have discussed some of the highlights in more depth, so let me just
focus on a few.
First, this bill includes legislation approved by the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, on which I sit, that
will help authorities crack down on money laundering. This is essential
if we are to deprive terrorists of resources. The bill will require
additional reporting of suspicious transactions, require identification
of the foreign owners of certain U.S. accounts, and impose other
requirements on financial institutions to give authorities a greater
ability to identify and prosecute money launderers. I also note that
the bill includes a provision I authored that calls for a study into
the possibility of expanding the legislation to include hedge funds and
other investment services that also can be used by terrorists to
launder money.
Beyond the money laundering provisions, I also am pleased that this
bill provides additional funding for the victims of terrorism. Coming
from New Jersey, where thousands of our residents have been victimized
by the tragedy at the World Trade Center, this is especially important
to me. In my view, we as a nation have a responsibility to ensure that
terrorism victims and their families are not left alone and
uncompensated. That is why I am pleased that the bill would replenish
the antiterrorism emergency reserve, replace the annual cap on the
Crime Victim Fund, authorize private contributions to the fund, and
strengthen services for victims in other ways. While this is not all
that we should be doing for victims and their families, I appreciate
the work of the leaders in focusing on their needs.
I also pleased that the bill would triple the number of Border
Patrol, Customs Service and immigration inspectors at our northern
border. This would significantly enhance security over an area that,
until now, has been seriously understaffed. The bill also authorizes
$100 million to improve INS and Customs technology and additional
equipment for monitoring the U.S.-Canada border.
In addition, I want to highlight language in this bill that would
establish two new crimes related to bioterrorism, including provisions
to prohibit

[[Page 19535]]

certain people from possessing a listed biological agent or toxin.
There are many other things we need to do to prepare for the threat of
a biological or chemical attack, and I have introduced related
legislation, S. 1508, that would require states to develop coordinated
plans, and that would provide additional resources for hospitals and
other health care providers. The threat of bioterrorism is real, and I
would hope that our leaders will bring related legislation to the
Senate floor as soon as possible.
While I support the provisions in this bill on money laundering,
victim services, border enforcement, and bioterrorism, I do have
serious concerns about the way this bill was put together, and about
other provisions that raise serious questions about the protection of
civil liberties.
It is deeply troubling to me that we would be taking up a bill that
deals with such sensitive civil liberties matters without comprehensive
hearings, and without even consideration by the relevant committee. We
are talking about a 243-page bill that was developed behind closed
doors by a handful of people operating under enormous time pressure.
This is a bill that raises fundamental questions that go to the very
essence of our democracy, and our freedoms. It's not something that
should be done in haste, with so little opportunity for input from
outside experts, the public, and all senators.
Perhaps because the legislation was developed so quickly, and in an
environment so dominated by great public anxiety about security, there
is a real risk that we will make serious mistakes.
I am especially concerned about the provisions in this bill that
require the detention of immigrants who are not terrorists, who are not
criminals, but are merely suspected of future wrongdoing. In fact,
these provisions go further than that. Lawful permanent residents who
are charged with being deportable on terrorism grounds could be held
indefinitely even if an immigration judge determines that the terrorism
charges are false.
I understand that we need to give the government sufficient authority
to protect Americans from those who pose a real threat to public
safety. But this provision goes too far. And I hope it can be corrected
in conference.
Similarly, there are other provisions of this legislation that seem
very loosely drafted, and that could, perhaps unintentionally, lead to
infringement on important civil liberties. For example, many have
raised serious questions about provisions relating to law enforcement
surveillance of Internet and telephone use, and about other provisions
that give the government extensive new powers to conduct secret
searches. These and other provisions do not seem to have received
adequate scrutiny. I am hopeful that they can be examined more closely
in conference, and any needed improvements can be made before the
legislation is sent to the President.
I also would urge our conferees to accept a provision, like one
included in the House version of this legislation, that would set a
time limit on the application of certain provisions that pose the
greatest threats to civil liberties. In my view, that's especially
important since we have rushed this legislation through the Senate so
quickly. As I said, I am hopeful that we can identify and correct any
mistakes in conference. But we still seem to be operating on a rush
basis, and I suspect that some mistakes are inevitable. Given the
stakes involved, I think it would be better to make many of these
provisions temporary, and then revisit these issues when we have more
time to thoroughly consider all their implications.
In the end, while I do have serious concerns about certain aspects of
this legislation, I have decided to support the effort to move it to
conference. Our nation has just suffered the most horrendous act of
terrorism in our history, and we are facing serious threats of other
terrorist attacks. A vast, well-organized and well-funded terrorist
network has gone to war against our nation. And while we should not
overreact, or erode basic freedoms, we do have to defend ourselves.
We must give our law enforcement officials the tools they need to
find and destroy these terrorist networks. And this legislation should
help. But we need to continue to review and improve its provision as we
go to conference. And we will need to continue to closely review the
implementation of the legislation after it is enacted.
I yield the floor.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I support this bill, but I do so only
with some reservations.
We are giving broad new powers to our law enforcement and
intelligence communities--without the traditional safeguards of
judicial review and congressional oversight.
I believe that many provisions of the bill, particularly those
sections dealing with electronic eavesdropping and computer trespass,
remain seriously flawed and may infringe on civil liberties.
I am voting for this bill today with the strong hope that it will be
improved in a conference with the House. As it currently stands, the
Senate bill breaks down the traditional separation of domestic criminal
matters governed by the fourth amendment right against unjustified
search and seizure--from the gathering of international intelligence
information traditionally gathered without the same concern for
constitutional rights.
I strongly believe that we should have included in this bill a sunset
provision that would give Congress the opportunity to reassess whether
these new tools are yielding the intended results in the war on terror,
and I am hopeful that the final bill will emerge with this and other
improvements.
If this bill is not improved through a conference process or other
negotiation, I reserve the right to vote against a conference report.
However, I also believe this bill contains many provisions that will
significantly advance our battle against terrorism. I thank the
Chairman for his hard work on these provisions and appreciate his
efforts particularly to strengthen security on our northern border.
Among the most important provisions in this bill is the authorization
to triple staffing across our northern border.
These increases in manpower are desperately needed. The northern
border is patrolled by only 300 border patrol agents in contrast to the
9,000 on the southern border. More critically, at points of entry where
suspect persons have repeatedly tried to enter or have entered, we
currently lack sufficient staffing to allow Customs and INS inspectors
and INS agents to do their job well. We place a tremendous
responsibility on the individuals charged with deciding whom to admit
and whom to turn away.
One additional new tool this bill provides is the establishment of a
visa technology standard to help secure our border. I personally worked
to get language included in this bill that requires the State
Department and the Department of Justice to develop a shared technology
standard--so that we can be certain each individual who seeks entry
into our country on a visa--is the person he or she claims to be.
American citizenship comes with deeply valued privileges and rights.
One of the most basic of those rights is privacy. To require a
fingerprint or a digital photograph of an alien seeking to enter our
country is a reasonable and effective way to improve our ability to
keep terrorists out of this country while still welcoming a vibrant
flow of legal immigrants.
Unfortunately, aspects of this bill that impose unreasonable and
unwarranted requirements on legal immigrants, greatly expand electronic
eavesdropping, and potentially provide law enforcement easy access to
some types of email communications--remain troubling.
I would like to believe that the expansion of the ability of the
government to place wiretaps on the lines of American citizens--done in
secret with insignificant reporting or opportunity for oversight by the
Congress--will not be abused.
I would like to believe that technologies like that technologies like

[[Page 19536]]

Carnivore will not be used to derive content from email communications.
But I am skeptical.
Several other aspects of this bill, when taken together, also have
the potential to interfere with Americans' enjoyment of their right to
privacy without providing value in the fight against terrorists.
Those of us who feel strongly about how new powers might chip away at
traditional privacy rights will closely watch how law enforcement uses
these tools.
The events of September 11 have changed us as a country forever. We
have been attacked on our own soil. Thousands have died, thousands more
have been injured. Very simply, we must do all that we can to stop
terrorism by finding and disrupting terrorist activities here and
abroad. The challenge we face is to do this without compromising the
value that make Americans unique and have allowed us to become great:
respect for personal autonomy and the rights of the individual; and
tolerance of all regardless of race or religion.
While I will vote for this bill, I also promise to engage in vigilant
oversight of these new powers, and I urge those in the law enforcement
and intelligence communities to use these powers wisely and with great
deliberation.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1510, the Uniting
and Strengthening America Act.
In the aftermath of September 11, we face two difficult and delicate
tasks: to strengthen our security in order to prevent future terrorist
attacks, and at the same time, to safeguard the individual liberties
that make America a beacon of freedom to all the world.
I believe that when the President signs this anti-terrorism
legislation into law, we will have achieved those two goals as best we
now can.
The act is a far-reaching bill. I will mention just a few key aspects
of that bill.
First, the legislation brings our surveillance laws into the 21st
century. Here are two of many examples. Under current law, the FBI can
use a basic search warrant to access answering machine messages, but
the FBI needs a different kind of warrant to get to voice mail. This
law says the FBI can use a traditional warrant for both. Another
example: Under current law, a Federal court can authorize many
electronic surveillance warrants only within the court's limited
jurisdiction. If the target of the investigation is in the judge's
jurisdiction, but the subject of the warrant is technically an internet
service provider located elsewhere, the warrant is no good as to that
ISP. This bill allows the court overseeing an investigation to issue
valid warrants nationwide.
Second, the act gives law enforcement officers and the foreign
intelligence community the ability to share intelligence information
with each other in defined contexts. For example, the act says that
under specified conditions, the FBI may share wiretap and grand jury
information related to foreign- and counter-intelligence. I appreciate
concerns that this information-sharing authority could be abused. Like
Chairman Leahy, I would have preferred to see greater judicial
oversight of these data exchanges. But I also believe we simply cannot
prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our
government has no idea what the left hand is doing.
Third, the act enhances intelligence authorities under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). When I met with FBI agents in
North Carolina shortly after September 11, they told me their number
one priority was to streamline the FISA process. We've done that. We've
said, for example, that the renewal periods of certain key FISA orders
may be longer than the initial periods. This makes sure the FBI can
focus on investigations, not duplicative court applications.
A more controversial change concerns the purpose of FISA
surveillance. Under current law, a FISA wiretap order may only enter if
the primary purpose of the surveillance is foreign intelligence
gathering. The administration initially proposed changing the ``primary
purpose'' requirement to a requirement of ``a purpose,'' any foreign
intelligence purpose. At a recent Intelligence Committee hearing, I was
one of several Senators to raise constitutional questions about the
Administration's initial proposal. The last thing we want is to see
FISA investigations lost, and convictions overturned, because the
surveillance is not constitutional. S. 1510 says that FISA surveillance
requires not just ``a purpose,'' but ``a significant purpose,'' of
foreign intelligence gathering. That new language is a substantial
improvement that I support. In applying this ``significant purpose''
requirement, the FISA court will still need to be careful to enter FISA
orders only when the requirements of the Constitution as well as the
statute are satisfied. As the Department of Justice has stated in its
letter regarding the proposed FISA change, the FISA court has ``an
obligation,'' whatever the statutory standard, ``to reject FISA
applications that do not truly qualify'' as constitutional. I
anticipate continued close congressional oversight and inquiry in this
area.
A forth step taken by this legislation is to triple the number of
Border Patrol, INS inspectors, and Customs Service agents along our
4,000-mile northern border. Today there are just 300 border patrol
agents to guard those 4,000 miles. Orange cones are too often our only
defenses against illegal entries. This bill will change that.
Fifth, the bill expedites the hiring of translators by the FBI. It is
unthinkable that our law enforcement agents could have critical raw
intelligence that they simply cannot understand because they do not
know the relevant language. This statute will help to change that state
of affairs.
Finally, the bill makes the criminal law tougher on terrorists. We
make it a crime to possess a biological agent or toxin in an amount
with no reasonable, peaceful purpose, a crime to harbor a terrorist, a
crime to provide material support to terrorism. And we say that when
you commit a crime of terrorism, you can be prosecuted for that crime
for the rest of your life, with no limitations period. Statutes of
limitations guarantee what lawyers call ``repose.'' Terrorists deserve
no repose.
As Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch have both said, this legislation
is not perfect, and the House-Senate Conference may yet make
improvements. For example, the Conference might clarify that, as to
aliens detained as national security threats, the law will secure the
due process protections and judicial review required by the
Constitution and by the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Zadvydas v.
Davis and INS v. St. Cyr. The Conference might also sensibly include a
sunset of the new surveillance authorities, ensuring that Congress will
reconsider this bill's provisions, which touch such cherished
liberties, in light of further experience and reflection.
The bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill, it is important for
the Nation, and I am pleased to support it.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the antiterrorism
bill, S. 1510. The bill would provide our nation's law enforcement with
important tools to more effectively investigate and prevent further
attacks against the people of the United States.
At the outset, in response to concerns that some have raised, I want
to make clear that we are not rushing to pass ill-conceived
legislation.
During the past two Congresses, when I chaired the Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on Technology and Terrorism, the Subcommittee
held 19 hearings on terrorism. I want to repeat that: 19. The witnesses
who appeared before the Subcommittee included the then-Director of the
FBI Louis Freeh and representatives of all three of the
congressionally-mandated commissions on terrorism that have issued
reports over the last two years. Additional hearings on terrorism were
held by the full Judiciary Committee and by other committees.
Many of the provisions contained in the Attorney General's proposed
legislation mirror the recommendations of one or more of the major
terrorism commissions and have already been examined by the committee
of jurisdiction. In fact, some of these provisions

[[Page 19537]]

have already been voted on and passed by the Senate.
Indeed, as I will discuss more fully in a minute, the language sent
forward by the Attorney General to establish nationwide trap and trace
authority was included in the Hatch-Feinstein-Kyl Amendment to the
recently passed Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. Much of
the remaining language in that amendment was included in the
Counterterrorism Act of 2000, which the Senate passed last fall, after
a terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole killed 17 American sailors and
injured another 39. That bill was based on recommendations of the
bipartisan, congressionally-mandated National Commission on Terrorism,
known as the Bremmer Commission, which was established in 1998 in
response to the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.
One particularly important provision, which was included in the both
the CJS bill and the current bill, updates the law to keep pace with
technology. The provision on pen register and trap and trace devices 1.
Would allow judges to enter pen/trap orders with nationwide scope and
2. Would codify current caselaw that holds that pen/trap orders apply
to modern communication technologies such as e-mail and the Internet,
in addition to traditional phone lines.
Nationwide jurisdiction for a court order will help law enforcement
to quickly identify other members of a criminal organization such as a
terrorist cell. Indeed, last year Director Freeh testified before the
Terrorism Subcommittee that one of the problems law enforcement faces
is ``the jurisdictional limitation of pen registers and trap-and-trace
orders issued by federal courts.'' [Source: Hearing before the
Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information of
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 106th Cong, 2nd Sess. (March 28,
2000), at 31.]
He continued: ``Today's electronic crimes, which occur at the speed
of light, cannot be effectively investigated with procedural devices
forged in the last millennium during the infancy of the information
technology age.'' [Source: Id. at 32.]
Currently, to track a communication that is purposely routed through
Internet Service Providers located in different states, law enforcement
must obtain multiple court orders. This is because, under current law,
a Federal court can order only those communications carriers within its
district to provide tracing information to law enforcement.
According to Director Freeh's testimony before the Terrorism
Subcommittee, ``As a result of the fact that investigators typically
have to apply for numerous court orders to trace a single
communication, there is a needless waste of time and resources, and a
number of important investigations are either hampered or derailed
entirely in those instances where law enforcement gets to a
communications carrier after that carrier has already discarded the
necessary information.'' [Source: Id. at 31.]
Section 216 of the Senate bill solves this problem.
I would also like to address another important provision.
Section 802 is intended more clearly to criminalize the possession of
biological and toxin agents by those who should not possess them. This
section amends the implementing legislation for the 1972 ``Convention
on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of
Bactiological, Biological, and Toxin Weapons and on their
Destruction'', BWC. Article I of the BWC prohibits the development,
production, stockpiling, acquisition, or retention of Microbial or
other biological agents, or toxins, whatever their origin or method of
production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for
prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes. It is not the
intent of the BWC, nor is it the intent of Section 802, to prevent the
legitimate application of biological agents or toxins for prophylactic,
protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes. These
purposes include, inter alia, medical and national health activities,
and such national security activities as may include the confiscation,
securing, and/or destruction of possible illegal biological substances.
Finally, let me address briefly the concern voiced by some that we
are in danger of ``trampling civil liberties.'' I reiterate that we are
not rushing, that we have had thorough, deliberative hearings, and that
many of the proposals have already been passed by the Senate. Nothing
in the current bill impinges on civil liberties. The bill would give
Federal agencies fighting terrorism the same tools we have given those
fighting illicit drugs, or even postal fraud. Many of the tools in the
bill are modernizations of the criminal laws, necessitated by the
advent of the Internet.
While some of these tools are extremely helpful in terrorism
investigations, it makes no sense to refuse to apply these common sense
changes to other crimes that are committed, like kidnapping, drug
dealing, and child pornography. It is unwise to limit these tools to
only terrorism offenses because often, at the outset of an
investigation of a particular person or crime, law enforcement does not
know what you are dealing with. A credit-card fraud case or a false
immigration documents case may turn out to be connected to funding or
facilitating the operations of a terrorist group. We should give law
enforcement the tools it needs to have the best chance of discovering
and disrupting these activities.
We have a responsibility to the people of this nation to ensure that
those who are charged with protecting us from future terrorist attacks
are empowered to do so. This is not a zero sum game. We can both ensure
our security and protect our liberties.
We cannot afford to lose this race against terror, and we cannot
afford to give the enemy in this war a full lap head-start. I support
this bill. I commend President Bush and General Ashcroft for submitting
a sound proposal to the Senate, and for their tremendous efforts during
the past month.
Mr. President, in addition to the all of the other provisions in this
antiterrorism legislation that will provide our law enforcement
communities with the tools to weed out and stop terrorism, I want to
express my support for the immigration provisions upon which the
administration, Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Leahy and I have reached
agreement, and which are included in this bill.
Even with the passage of these provisions, however, the United States
will continue to face overwhelming infrastructure and personnel needs
at our consular offices abroad, along both the southern and northern
border, and in our immigration offices throughout the United States. In
conjunction with increasing personnel and infrastructure, the U.S. must
deprive terrorists of the ability to present altered international
documents, and improve the dissemination of information about suspected
terrorists to all appropriate agencies. Senator Feinstein and I, in a
hearing of the Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee this
Friday, will continue to assess these needs by hearing from Justice and
State Department officials.
So, our actions on immigration reform as it is relates to terrorism
must go beyond the scope of this anti-terrorism package. With that
said, this bill will certainly provide a better legal framework for
keeping foreign terrorists out of the United States, and detaining them
should they enter.
First, this antiterrorism bill clarifies that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation is authorized to share data from its ``most wanted
list,'' and any other information contained in its national crime-
information system, with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and
the State Department. This will help the INS and State Department
identify suspected terrorists before they come to the United States,
and should they gain entry, will help track them down on our soil. It
also allows the State Department, during a U.S. criminal investigation,
to give foreign governments information on a case-by-case basis about
the issuance or refusal to issue a U.S. visa.

[[Page 19538]]

The bill will also clarify U.S. law prohibiting the entry of, and
requiring the removal of, individual alien terrorists. It will probably
surprise the Members of this body a great deal to know that, under
current law, a terrorist alien is not considered either inadmissible
to, or deportable from, the United States even if he or she has
``endorsed or espoused terrorist activity that undermines the efforts
of the United States to fight terrorism,'' or has provided ``material
support to a terrorist organization.'' Nor is an individual deportable
for being a ``representative of a terrorist organization.'' The anti-
terrorism bill makes it clear to U.S. officials considering whether to
allow someone to come to the country, that a person meeting any one of
these criteria is not welcome here.
In addition, the anti-terrorism package that we are debating today
further defines what is considered by the United States to be a
terrorist organization. Under current law, a terrorist organization
must be designated by the Secretary of State under Section 219 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. This process can take several months,
and has been criticized by some experts as potentially politically
corruptible. Under this Senate anti-terrorism package, Section 219
remains in effect. A separate designation process is added, whereby an
organization can be designated by the Secretary of State or the
Attorney General, in consultation with each other, with seven days'
notice to the leadership of the House and Senate and the congressional
committees of jurisdiction. Additionally, an organization, whether or
not it is formally designated by the Secretary of State or the Attorney
General, can be considered to be terrorist if it is made up of two or
more individuals who commit or plan to commit terrorist activities.
The Senate's antiterrorism package also has provisions regarding
temporary detention. It allows for the temporary detention of aliens
who the Attorney General certifies that he has ``reasonable grounds to
believe is inadmissible or deportable under the terrorism grounds.''
This compromise represents a bipartisan understanding that the Attorney
General of the United States needs the flexibility to detain suspected
terrorists. Under the compromise that Members have reached, the
Attorney General must charge an alien with a deportable violation or he
must release the alien. The underlying certification, and all
collateral matters, can be reviewed by the U.S. District Court of the
District of Columbia, and the Attorney General is required to report to
Congress every six months on the use of this detention provision.
Finally, the Senate package, as a result of amendments added by
Senator Byrd, will determine whether ``consular shopping''--i.e.,
someone has a visa application pending from his or her home country,
but goes to another country for adjudication--is a problem. If so, the
Secretary of State must recommend ways to remedy it. Another authorizes
$36.8 million for quick implementation of the INS foreign student
tracking system, a program that I have repeatedly urged be implemented.
As former chairman and now ranking Republican of the Judiciary
Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, I have long suggested, and strongly
supported, many of the anti-terrorism and immigration initiatives now
being advocated by Republicans and Democrats alike. In my sadness about
the overwhelming and tragic events that took thousands of precious
lives, I am resolved to push forward on all fronts to fight against
terrorism. That means delivering justice to those who are responsible
for the lives lost on September 11, and reorganizing the institutions
of government so that the law-abiding can continue to live their lives
in freedom.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
consensus terrorism bill now on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
The people of the United States awoke on September 12 to a whole new
world, one in which we can no longer feel safe within our borders. We
awoke to a world in which our very way of life is under attack, and we
have since resolved to fight back with every tool at our disposal.
This is an unprecedented state of affairs, and it demands
unprecedented action. We must seek out and defeat individuals and
groups who would build upon the September 11 attacks with more of their
own. We simply must give law enforcement officials the tools they need
to track, to hunt down, and to capture terrorists, both in this
country, and around the world as well. And that is what this bill would
do.
Let me just describe some of the key provisions of this legislation,
and how those provisions will make an impact, even in the current
investigation into the September 11 attacks.
First, this bill makes it easier to collect foreign intelligence
information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA.
Under current law, authorities can proceed with surveillance under FISA
only if the primary purpose of the investigation is to collect foreign
intelligence.
But in today's world things are not so simple. In many cases,
surveillance will have two key goals--the gathering of foreign
intelligence, and the gathering of evidence for a criminal prosecution.
Determining which purpose is the ``primary'' purpose of the
investigation can be difficult, and will only become more so as we
coordinate our intelligence and law enforcement efforts in the war
against terror.
Rather than forcing law enforcement to decide which purpose is
primary--law enforcement or foreign intelligence gathering, this bill
strikes a new balance. It will now require that a ``significant''
purpose of the investigation must be foreign intelligence gathering to
proceed with surveillance under FISA.
The effect of this provision will be to make it easier for law
enforcement to obtain a FISA search or surveillance warrant for those
cases where the subject of the surveillance is both a potential source
of valuable intelligence and the potential target of a criminal
prosecution. Many of the individuals involved in supporting the
September 11 attacks may well fall into both of these categories.
This language is a negotiated compromise between those who wished the
law to stay the same, and those who wished to virtually eliminate the
foreign intelligence standard entirely.
The administration originally proposed changing ``primary purpose''
to ``a purpose,'' but when I questioned Attorney General Ashcroft at
our Judiciary Committee hearing, he agreed that ``significant purpose''
would represent a good compromise.
Second, this legislation will provide multi-point authority, or so-
called ``roving wiretap authority'' in foreign intelligence
investigations. This provision is designed to defeat attempts to evade
law enforcement by simply switching cell phones or moving locations.
Under current law, law enforcement must get a wiretap order for each
individuals phone line. Criminals and terrorists know this, so they
often manage to defeat surveillance by simply moving locations or
exchanging countless disposable or even stolen cell phones.
This legislation will now allow the surveillance to follow the
person, wherever or however that person is communicating. So, no longer
will duplicative wiretap orders be necessary simply to listen to the
same, single target of an investigation. This is a powerful change to
the law that does not put innocent conversations in danger, but stops
the evasion of surveillance now possible under the law.
Third, this legislation allows nationwide service of so-called ``pen
register'' and ``trap and trace'' orders. Those orders allow law
enforcement to track incoming and outgoing phone calls, and now
Internet addressing, so that the authorities can make connections
between various criminals or terrorists.
The problem with current law is that it has not kept up with
technology. Modern communications travel through many jurisdictions
before reaching their final destinations, and current law requires
court orders from every jurisdiction through which the communication
travels.

[[Page 19539]]

Under this new legislation, only one court order will be necessary,
eliminating the time-consuming and burdensome requirements now placed
on law enforcement simply because technology has changed the way
communications travel from one place to the other. Law enforcement
resources should be spent in the field, not filing unnecessarily
burdensome motions in courtroom after courtroom.
I should also mention one important point about this provision. The
standard necessary to get a court-ordered pen register or trap and
trace is lower than the standard necessary to get a wiretap, so it was
very important to make sure that this legislation makes it clear that
these orders do not allow law enforcement to eavesdrop on or read the
content of communication. Only the origin and destination of the
messages will be intercepted.
This legislation also authorizes the seizure of voice-mail messages
pursuant to a probable cause warrant, which is an easier standard for
law enforcement to meet than the standard required for a wiretap.
Current law treats a voice-mail like an ongoing oral communication,
and requires law enforcement to obtain a wiretap order to seize and
listen to those saved messages. E-mails, however, receive no similar
protection. In my opinion, if law enforcement can access e-mail
communications with probable cause, the same should be the case with
voice-mails. And so it will be once this legislation passes.
This legislation will also now allow for limited sharing of grand
jury and other criminal investigation information with the intelligence
community, to assist in the prevention of terrorist acts and the
apprehension of the terrorists themselves.
Under current law, law enforcement officials involved in a grand jury
investigation cannot share information gathered in the grand jury with
the intelligence community, even if that information would prevent a
future terrorist act.
Under this legislation, grand jury and other criminal investigative
information can be shared if one, the information can is foreign
intelligence and counterintelligence information, as defined by
statute; two, the information is given to an official with a need to
know in the performance of his or her official duties; and three,
limitations on public or other unauthorized disclosure would remain in
force.
This balance makes sense, I believe strongly that grand jury
information should not be leaked to the public or disclosed haphazardly
to anyone. But at the same time, it makes perfect sense to allow our
own law enforcement officials to talk to each other about ongoing
investigations, and to coordinate their efforts to capture terrorists
wherever they may be.
This legislation also contains a heavily negotiated provision
regarding the detention of aliens suspected of links to terrorism
without charging them. Agreement was reached to one, limit to 7 days
the length of time an alien may be held before being charged with
criminal or immigration violations, two, allow the Attorney General to
delegate the certification power only to the INS Commissioner, and
three, specify that the merits of the certification is subject to
judicial review.
This legislation also contains several key provisions from a bill I
introduced last month with the chairman of the Intelligence Committee,
Senator Graham. For instance, the bill: Clarifies the role of the CIA
director as the coordinator of strategies and priorities for how the
government uses its limited surveillance resources; requires that law
enforcement officers who discover foreign intelligence information in
the course of a criminal investigation share that information with the
intelligence community; includes ``international terrorist activities''
in the definition of ``foreign intelligence'' to clarify the
authorities of the CIA; includes a sense of Congress that the CIA
should make efforts to recruit informants in the fight against
terrorism, even if some of those informants may, as is likely the case,
not be ideal citizens; requires a report from the CIA on the
feasibility of establishing a virtual translation center for use by the
intelligence community, so that translators around the country can
assist in investigations taking place far, far away. For instance, this
center would allow a translator living in Los Angeles to assist law
enforcement in New York without even leaving California; and finally,
agreement was reached to require the Attorney General, in consultation
with the CIA Director, to provide training to federal, state and local
government officials to identify foreign intelligence information
obtained in the course of their duties.
In addition, this bill also: Triples the number of Border Patrol,
Customs Service, and INS inspectors at the northern border; authorizes
$50 million to improve INS and Customs technology for monitoring the
northern border and to add equipment on the border; lifts the statute
of limitations on terrorist acts as defined by law where those crimes
resulted in, or created a risk of, death or serious bodily injury.
These crimes include bio-terrorism, attacks against airports or
airplanes, arson or bombings of U.S. facilities, and other terrorist
acts; adds this same list of terrorist crimes certain as predicates for
RICO and money laundering; creates two new bio-terrorism crimes, the
first prohibits certain restricted persons, including nonresident
aliens from countries that support terrorism, from possessing a listed
biological agent or toxin; and the second prohibits any person from
possessing a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or
in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably
justified by a peaceful purpose.
The Attorney General and the President of the United States have
asked this Congress to give them legislation that will assist in the
war against terrorism, and I am one who believes very strongly that we
should do so, and we should do so quickly.
This bill is a product of intense negotiations, and I believe that a
good balance has been struck here. Compromises have been reached on the
most controversial provisions, roving wiretap authority; trap and trace
of computer routing information; sharing of grand jury information; and
mandatory detention of aliens suspected of terrorism.
Although I no longer believe it to be necessary now that these
compromises have been reached, I would support a five-year sunset on
the provisions I just mentioned as a valuable check on the potential
abuse of the new powers granted in the bill.
But a two-year sunset, such as the one contained in the House bill,
is simply too short to allow law enforcement to accomplish what it
needs to do to rout terrorists from this country.
The legislation before us contains provisions that could actually
help in the current investigation into Osama bin Laden and his network
in the United States and abroad.
I urge this Senate to pass this legislation and get it to the
President for his signature. We are in a sustained war against terror,
and we have waited long enough. I

FISA AND PEN REGISTER/TRAP AND TRACE

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to raise several concerns
regarding the provisions of this legislation, the USA Act of 2001, that
expand wiretapping authority under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, and amend Federal pen register and trap and
trace authorities.
Both of these changes purport to improve communication between law
enforcement and intelligence operatives. There is a difference,
however, between facilitating the sharing of information between the
law enforcement and intelligence communities, and blurring the line
between the missions of the two communities. Where information is
sought for the purpose of law enforcement, we must ensure that fourth
amendment protections apply. Much of the fear about the legislation is
based on legitimate concern that information gathered ostensibly for
intelligence and defense purposes could be used for law enforcement
purposes. The intelligence community does not prosecute and lock up its
targets; it uses information to intervene against foreign nationals
seeking to harm America. But

[[Page 19540]]

the law enforcement community has a different mission, to catch and
prosecute criminals in our courts of law. Because law enforcement acts
upon U.S. citizens, it must do so within the bounds of the
Constitution. The differences in these missions must be acknowledged,
and we must be vigilant to maintain the distinctions.
We can all agree that the events on September 11 have focused America
on the fight against terrorism, and we applaud the efforts of the
administration in the weeks since that tragic day. Clearly, there were
failures in our investigative network, and this legislation will
address some of those failures, allowing greater sharing of information
that could foil terrorists before they carry out their brutal schemes
against innocent civilians.
I appreciate Chairman Leahy's tireless efforts to facilitate our
intelligence gathering authorities while preserving our constitutional
rights. The negotiations have been intense, but these are difficult and
divisive issues. Given the time frame, Chairman Leahy's charge has not
been an easy one, but I appreciate the substantial progress he has
made.
I remain concerned that some of the legislative changes fail to
balance the increased powers to law enforcement against the need to
protect the civil liberties of Americans. With these changes to FISA,
it will be much more likely that the FBI will be able to obtain secret
FISA wiretaps on American citizens. That information may not only be
used for intelligence purposes, but also in a criminal prosecution,
without complying with the normal requirements of a title III wiretap
and the safeguards it provides to adhere to the fourth amendment. Some
have warned that this language leaves room for ``fishing expeditions''
rather than properly authorized law enforcement activities. I would
hope that this is not the case.
Although the language has been improved from the administration's
original proposal and now would require that ``a significant,'' rather
than simply ``a,'' purpose for the wiretap must be the gathering of
foreign intelligence, the possibility remains that the primary purpose
of the wiretap would be a criminal investigation, without the
safeguards of the title III wiretap law and the protections under the
fourth amendment that those fulfill.
I would like to ask the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee whether
he interprets this language in this same way.
Mr. LEAHY. Yes, the Senator from Washington is correct. While
improved, the USA Act would make it easier for the FBI to use a FISA
wiretap to obtain information where the Government's most important
motivation for the wiretap is for use in a criminal prosecution. This
is a disturbing and dangerous change in the law. The Justice Department
concedes that ``the few courts that have addressed the issue have
followed a primary purpose test'', October 1, 2001 Letter from Daniel
J. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, p. 13.
I appreciate the administration's agreement to move off its original
position of changing the law to only require the FISA surveillance to
``a'' purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information. Indeed,
the Justice Department's own constitutional analysis provided to the
Committee at the request of our Members does not even attempt to
justify the original proposal, but instead presents argument for why a
change to ``a significant" purpose would be constitutional.
I remain disappointed with the administration's insistence on forcing
any change on this important statutory requirement. FISA was enacted
for the express purpose of clarifying that different legal standards
apply to those gathering foreign intelligence than to those seeking
criminal evidence. This new provision will blur that distinction, and
it is indeed very problematic in my mind.
Federal courts have upheld FISA on the basis that what is reasonable
under the fourth amendment may vary when national security is at risk.
Thus, a FISA wiretap does not have to be based on probable cause to
believe a crime has been or is about to be committed, and no notice is
given unless the person is prosecuted. Further, while judges review
warrants on the merits when targets are U.S. persons, the primary
purpose for the wiretap must be the protection of our national
security. Upon satisfaction of that critical condition, the statute
authorized the use of evidence obtained under a FISA wiretap for
criminal prosecution.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, although much effort has gone into
narrowing this provision to fit within the bounds of the Constitution,
it would seem to me that this legislation may not stand up to this
test, and thus may fail judicial scrutiny. Regardless, we cannot await
court review. I believe Congress must keep watch over the use of this
provision. May I ask the Chairman, do you agree that, under these
circumstances, it is incumbent upon the committee, which has
jurisdiction over the Department of Justice, to maintain vigilant
oversight of the Department in its use of FISA authorities after
enactment of this legislation?
Mr. LEAHY. I agree with you completely, and you can rest assured that
the Judiciary Committee under my chairmanship will conduct meaningful
oversight, as we already have begun to do over the summer.
Although FISA requires oversight reporting to the Intelligence
Committees, the law makes clear that other Committees may also have
oversight jurisdiction. Section 108 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. 1808, states,
``Nothing in this title shall be deemed to limit the authority and
responsibility of the appropriate committees of each House of Congress
to obtain such information as they may need to carry out their
respective functions and duties.'' Section 306 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. 1826,
provides for semiannual reports from the Attorney General to the
Intelligence and Judiciary Committees on the number of applications for
physical search orders made, granted, modified, or denied, and the
number of physical searches which involved the property of United
States persons. The Judiciary Committee's responsibility will be
greater under the amendment to FISA, because of the greater authority
to use FISA for law enforcement purposes.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, similarly, I am concerned that revisions
to the laws regarding pen registers and trap and trace devices may have
fourth amendment implications. Although modified since we received the
original language from the Administration, the new language could
encourage greater use of technologies such as the FBI's ``Carnivore''
to access information that is protected by the fourth amendment.
The failure to properly define the term ``address'' in the e-mail
context to exclude information protected by the Fourth Amendment will
haunt us for a long time. And I regret this. Although it certainly can
be said that new technologies are emerging and the definition may need
be flexible, the term ``address'' presently is undefined and new in the
context of our Federal criminal statutes. Because of this ambiguity, we
may see law enforcement authorities take inconsistent approaches to
filtering information pursuant to this new law. There is risk that some
will obtain information, such as ``subject line'' information or URL
codes, that may otherwise be protected by the fourth amendment. There
is certain to be judicial scrutiny of this provision.
Mr. LEAHY. I agree with Senator Cantwell and thank her for bringing
these concerns to the attention of this body. I share these concerns.
Ms. CANTWELL. I would like to suggest to the chairman, and I would be
happy to work closely with the Chairman on this, that the General
Accounting Office provide to the Senate Judiciary Committee every six
months a report on the use of the FISA wiretap authorities, and the
expanded pen register and trap and trace authorities, by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation or other agencies within the Department of
Justice. I would certainly not suggest compromising the security of our
nation with such a report, so I would be content with closed-session
hearings on the findings of such reports. But only with such oversight
can we reasonably

[[Page 19541]]

assure our constituents that the use of these new authorities is not
impinging on our fourth amendment rights.
Mr. LEAHY. I agree with Senator Cantwell and I appreciate her efforts
to suggest restraint at the Department of Justice to avoid misusing the
new authorities we are contemplating using to address terrorism. I
share her view that the GAO should undertake this important assignment
and will work with her and other Senators to see it accomplished. We
all need to make certain that these new authorities are not abused.
Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the chairman for his diligence in working to
preserve our fundamental rights.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of S. 1510,
the ``Uniting and Strengthening America Act'' or ``USA Act.'' This bill
reflects a bipartisan effort to aid law enforcement, immigration, and
the intelligence community in investigating, detaining, and
apprehending suspected terrorists. This legislation follows lengthy
committee inquiry, debate, and revision of legislation Attorney General
Ashcroft proposed a few weeks ago and which sparked national debate
over whether civil rights would be violated.
During the past few weeks, Senate leaders have been working
tirelessly with Attorney General Ashcroft in order to create a bill
that strengthens our existing laws with respect to apprehending
terrorists, but still protects the civil rights of our citizens. This
is an important mission for Congress. Everyone in America understands
the need for enforcement, immigration and the intelligence community to
have the tools necessary to find terrorists, cut-off their financial
support, and bring them to Justice.
While I am committed to routing out terrorists here and abroad, I am
equally committed to making sure the rights of innocent U.S. citizens
are not violated. This includes the privacy and property rights our
constitution affords and that make this country so great. I believe
this bipartisan bill does both. This legislation strikes a balance
between protecting our civil rights and assisting Attorney General
Ashcroft and others to do their jobs. While the Senate and House may
later debate some of the provisions in this legislation, be assured
that every member of Congress is united in this mission. We are totally
committed to passing anti-terrorism legislation and apprehending the
bin Ladens of this world.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is one of the most important
pieces of legislation we will consider during this Congress. The
horrific loss of life and destruction that occurred on September 11,
the crime against humanity, changed us as a country. The Uniting and
Strengthening America Act is an opportunity to help ensure that such
terrorist attacks do not occur again. We need to improve all aspects of
our domestic security, including by enhancing our intelligence
capacities so that we can identify possible future attacks in their
planning stages and prevent them from happening. We must be vigilant
and willing to invest the resources and time required to gather the
information that we need to protect ourselves and our way of life.
I appreciate the enormous amount of time and energy that my colleague
from Vermont and others have put into this legislation. They have done
their best to balance the risk of further terrorist attacks with
possible risks to civil liberties. The bill updates and improves a
number of existing laws, it creates important new security statutes,
and it authorizes new money for programs that will bring much needed
relief to victims of terrorist attacks. I have reservations about
certain provisions of the bill as they might affect civil liberties. I
wish that it were more tightly targeted to address only actions
directly related to terrorism or suspected terrorism. And I hope that
by the time it passes as a conference report the bill will contain a
sunset provision. But I support the bill today as a step toward
conference, and as an important and needed strengthening of our
security from horrific attacks such as that of September 11.
The bill expands the Regional Information Sharing Systems Program to
promote information sharing among Federal, State and local law
enforcement agencies in their anti-terrorism efforts. State and local
law enforcement have a critical role to play in preventing and
investigating terrorism, and this bill provides them benefits
appropriate to such duty. The bill streamlines and expedites the Public
Safety Officers' Benefits application process for family members of
fire-fighters, police officers and other emergency personnel who are
killed or suffer a disabling injury in connection with a future
terrorist attack. And it raises the total amount of the Public Safety
Officers' Benefit Program payments from approximately $150,000 to
$250,000.
This bill will also make an immediate difference in the lives of
victims of terrorism and their families. It refines the Victims of
Crime Act and by doing so improves the way in which its crime fund is
managed and preserved. It replenishes the emergency reserve of the
Crime Victims Fund with up to $50 million and improves the mechanism to
replenish the fund in future years. The USA Act also increases security
on our Northern Border, including the border between Canada and my
State of Minnesota. It triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs
Service and INS inspectors at the Northern Border and authorizes $100
million to improve old equipment and provide new technology to INS and
the Customs Service at that border.
On the criminal justice side, the bill clarifies existing
``cybercrime'' law to cover computers outside the United States that
affect communications in this country and changes sentencing guidelines
in some of these cases. It provides prosecutors betters tools to go
after those involved in money-laundering schemes that are linked to
terrorism, and it adds certain terrorism-related crimes as predicates
for RICO and money-laundering. It creates a new criminal statute
targeting acts of terrorism on mass transportation systems, and it
strengthens our Federal laws relating to the threat of biological
weapons. The bill will enhance the Government's ability to prosecute
suspected terrorists in possession of biological agents. It will
prohibit certain persons, particularly those from countries that
support terrorism, from possessing biological agents. And it will
prohibit any person from possessing a biological agent of a type or
quantity that is not reasonably justified by a peaceful purpose.
The bill also broadens the authority of the President to impose
sanctions on the Taliban regime. Regarding criminal penalties for those
convicted of terrorist acts, it provides a fair definition of what
constitutes ``terrorism'' and ensures that penalties more closely
reflect the offenses committed by terrorists. Again, I'd like to thank
my colleague from Vermont and others who worked on these penalty
provisions. The administration's initial proposal was too broad in this
area, and the current bill provides a fair alternative.
I strongly support these needed provisions. Still, I do have concerns
about the possible effect on civil liberties of the bill's measures to
enhance electronic surveillance and information sharing of criminal
justice information, while at the same time reducing judicial review of
those actions. I also hope that the bill's provisions to expand the
Government's ability to conduct secret searches, as well as searches
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, will not be abused.
I believe we will need to monitor the use of new authorities provided
to law enforcement agents to conduct surveillance of internet
communications. The same is true of the bill's changes to laws allowing
the sharing of confidential criminal justice information with various
Federal agencies. I would prefer the requirement of judicial review
before disclosure, which is contained in the House version of this
bill. Likewise, I believe the House of Representatives' decision not to
include this bill's expansion of the Government's ability to conduct
secret, or so-called ``Sneak-n-Peek,'' searches, was correct. I hope
the safeguards against abuse we have added in our bill--such as the
prohibition against the Government seizing

[[Page 19542]]

any tangible property or stored electronic information unless it makes
a showing of reasonable necessity, as well as the requirement that
notice be given within a reasonable time of the execution of a sneak-n-
peak warrant--will prove sufficient.
The bill broadens the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, by
extending FISA surveillance authority to criminal investigations, even
when the primary purpose is not intelligence gathering. The bill limits
this ability by authorizing surveillance only if a significant purpose
of it is to gather intelligence information. I hope this new FISA
authority will be used for the purpose of investigating and preventing
terrorism or suspected terrorism, and not for other domestic purposes.
Mr. President, we have done our best in this bill to maximize our
security while minimizing the impact some of these changes may have on
our civil liberties. Nearly all of us have probably said since
September 11 that if that day's terror is allowed to undermine our
democratic principles and practices, then the terrorists will have won
a victory. We should pass this bill today. And we should also commit
ourselves to monitoring its impact on civil liberties in the coming
months and years.
I believe a sunset provision that ensures that review is essential.
The bill before us today is good, but there are provisions that are too
broad. There are parts that should be more narrowly focused on
combating terrorism. I hope these are the concerns that will be
addressed in conference. Mr. President, our challenge is to balance our
security with our liberties. While it is not perfect, I believe we are
doing that in this bill.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 1510, the anti-
terrorism bill.
To more effectively fight terrorism and those who perpetrate it, we
need to improve law enforcement's intelligence gathering capability and
enhance their ability to investigate and prosecute suspected
terrorists. This measure does both. But let's also be realistic about
the act. It will not solve all of law enforcement's problems in
combating terrorism nor will it severely compromise our civil
liberties. The truth lies somewhere in between.
The strongest proponents of the legislation argue that the bill
primarily consists of long overdue updates of current laws, updates
necessary because technology advances have allowed criminals and
terrorists to stay a step, or two, ahead of law enforcement. Updates
are necessary because the inability of Federal authorities to share
information on suspected terrorists hampers criminal investigations.
Updates are necessary because the penalties and limitations periods
governing many terrorist crimes have been woefully inadequate. All of
this is true. And for these reasons, I support the bill.
But, we shouldn't be lulled into thinking that this measure will
solve our problems. Indeed, I asked the Attorney General whether the
new powers granted in this bill could have prevented the events of
September 11. He answered me honestly, saying that he could not make
that guarantee. Yet, he added that these new tools would make it less
likely that terrorism could strike in the same way again.
Tougher laws and penalties are an important part of our strategy to
combat terrorism. That plan must also include more and better agents
dedicated to gathering intelligence, an aggressive approach to
preventing attacks, and patience from all Americans. Patience is
essential because we will need to understand that we might have to
temper our freedoms slightly in an effort to guarantee them.
Critics of this legislation caution us to be wary of compromising our
liberties in an effort to make our Nation safer. They comment that
sacrificing freedom gives the terrorists a victory. Those warnings do
have merit.
Some of this bill's provisions do risk our civil liberties and ask
Americans to sacrifice some privacy. This bill grants our prosecutors a
great deal of discretion in enforcing the law and asks Americans to
have faith that this power will not be abused. Most of us would rather
not have our civil liberties depend on someone else's discretion.
That's why I believe many of this bill's provisions should lapse in
two years and then be reconsidered by Congress. The House version of
this bill reconciles the need for tough law enforcement with the
concern for our civil liberties by sunsetting some of the most
objectionable portions of the bill in two years. That is a good idea.
Two years from now, we can take stock of where we are, how this bill
has affected us, and whether the trust we show in law enforcement is
warranted. I hope that the final version of this bill will adopt such a
sensible approach.
I have never doubted that our country's law enforcement is the best
in the world. They are dedicated, creative, committed, and decent. From
local beat officers to the Director of the FBI, every one of them has a
vital role to play in combating terrorism. We believe this bill will
help them prevent terrorism when possible. It will help them catch
wrongdoers. It will cut wrongdoers off from their support networks. It
will guarantee stiff punishment for their criminal acts. It will deter
others from following in the terrorists' footsteps. It is our
responsibility to give law enforcement the tools they need in an
increasingly complex world. It is their responsibility to use them
wisely.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
antiterrorism legislation we have before us.
First, let me say I am pleased to have also worked in conjunction
with Senator Bond and Senator Conrad in supporting their legislation
entitled ``The Visa Integrity and Security Act.'' This bill addresses
many of the concerns I have, such as the importance of information
sharing among Government law enforcement and intelligence agencies with
the State Department and tightening tracking controls on those entering
the United States on student visas, including those attending flight
schools. These are critical issues, and I commend both Senators for
their efforts.
Today, our men and women in uniform are on the frontlines in the war
against terrorism. We salute their willingness to put themselves in
harm's way in defense of freedom, and we pray for their safety and
well-being. Here at home, we are working to secure our nation, and that
is why I am pleased that we will pass this legislation in the Senate
that will take strong measures to help prevent further terrorist
attacks on American soil.
With this legislation, we will take reasonable, constitutional steps
to enhance electronic and other forms of surveillance, without
trampling on the rights of Americans. We will also institute critical
measures to increase information sharing by mandating access to the
FBI's National Crime Information Center, or NCIC, by the State
Department and INS.
In our war against terrorism, Americans stand as one behind our
President. It is equally critical that, in the all-out effort to
protect our homeland, Federal agencies be united in securing American
soil.
In that light, President Bush made exactly the right decision when he
created the Office of Homeland Security, a national imperative in the
wake of the horrific tragedies of September 11, and I commend him for
appointing my former colleague, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, as its
Director.
With a seat at the Cabinet table, Governor Ridge will literally be at
the President's side, giving him the standing that will be required to
remove jurisdictional hurdles among the 40-plus agencies he will be
responsible for coordinating. Now, we will assist in that coordination
by allowing INS and the State Department access to the information they
need to make informed decisions about who we will grant entrance into
this country.
I saw firsthand the consequences of serious inadequacies in
coordination and communication during my 12 years as ranking member of
the House Foreign Affairs International Operations Subcommittee and
Chair of the subcommittee's Senate counterpart. In fact, I recently
wrote an op-ed piece

[[Page 19543]]

concerning my findings during that time and I would like to submit the
entire text of that piece for the Record.
In conducting oversight of Embassy security as well as visa and
consular operations, I became extensively involved with the issue of
terrorism, co-drafting antiterrorism legislation with former
Representative Dan Mica in the wake of 1983 and 1984 terrorist attacks
against the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon--traveling to
Belgrade, Warsaw, and East Berlin to press government officials into
helping stem the flow of money to the terrorist Abu Nidal and his
organization--and investigating entry into the United States by radical
Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the 1993 World
Trade Center bombing.

As far back as our hearings on the 1985 Inman Report, commissioned by
then-Secretary of State George Shultz in response to the attacks in
Lebanon, it was abundantly clear that improved coordination and
consolidation of information from agencies such as the FBI, CIA, DEA,
Customs, INS and the State Department would be an essential step toward
removing a vulnerability in our national security. That point was
tragically underscored by our discovery that, astoundingly, in the
period since 1987 when Sheikh Rahman was placed on the State Department
lookout list, the Sheikh entered and exited the United States five
times totally unimpeded.
But it got even worse. Even after the State Department formally
issued a certification of visa revocation, he was granted permanent
residence status by the INS. When he was finally caught on July 31,
1991, reentering the United States, he was immediately released back
into U.S. society to allow him to pursue a multi-year appeal process.
As unbelievable as that may sound, just as unfathomable is the fact
that, even after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, membership
in a terrorist organization in and of itself--with the exception of the
PLO--was not sufficient grounds for visa denial. Rather, the
Immigration Act of 1990 required the Government to prove that an
individual either was personally involved in a terrorist act, or
planning one.
This absurd threshold made it almost impossible to block individuals,
such as Sheikh Rahman, from entering the country legally. Legislation I
introduced in 1993 removed that bureaucratic and legal obstacle--yet it
took nearly 3 more years to enact it as part of the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
However, provisions from my bill were enacted in 1994 to respond to
the trail of errors we uncovered requiring modernization in the State
Department's antiquated microfiche ``lookout'' system to keep dangerous
aliens from entering the United States.
This system required manual searches, was difficult to use, and was
subject to error. The language I crafted required the State Department
to replace the old systems with one of two forms of state-of-the-art
computerized systems. Visa fees were even increased for non-immigrants
to pay for the upgrades.
Recognizing the need to mate these new technologies with the need for
the most comprehensive, current and reliable information, we also
attempted to address the issue of access. This was all the more
pressing because, in 1990, the Justice Department had ruled that
because the State Department was not a ``law enforcement agency,'' it
no longer had free access to the FBI's National Crime Information
Center, NCIC.
This system, which maintains arrest and criminal information from a
wide variety of Federal, State, and local sources as well as from
Canada, was used by the State Department to deny visas. Tellingly,
after it lost access to the NCIC, the visa denial rate for past
criminal activities plunged a remarkable 45 percent--stark evidence
that we can't afford to tie the hands of America's overseas line of
defense against terrorism.
Incredibly, while intelligence is frequently exchanged, no law
requires agencies like the FBI and CIA to share information on
dangerous aliens with the State Department. To address this, my 1993
bill also designated the State Department a ``law enforcement agency''
for purposes of accessing the NCIC as well as other FBI criminal
records when processing any visa application, whether immigrant or non-
immigrant.
Unfortunately, a revised provision also enacted in 1994 only provided
the State Department with free access to these FBI resources for
purposes of processing immigrant visas--dropping my requirement for
non-immigrant visas eventually used by all 19 suspected hijackers.
Also of note, we discovered later in trying to understand some of
what's gone wrong that even that limited law was sunsetted in 1997 due
to a provision added by the House-Senate conference on the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act for FY 1994-1995--a conference of which I
was not a member. Subsequently, that law was extended to 1998 in the
Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998, and
then was allowed to expire. This happened despite my legislation
enacted in 1996 repealing the requirement that visa applicants be
informed of the reason for a denial--a provision that law enforcement
agencies legitimately believed could impede ongoing investigations, or
reveal sources and methods. Thus, today, information sharing remains
optional and ad hoc.
Currently, U.S. posts check the lookout database called the
``Consular Lookout and Support System--Enhanced,'' or CLASS-E, prior to
issuing any visa. CLASS-E contains approximately 5.7 million records,
most of which originate with U.S. Embassies and consulates abroad
through the visa application process. The INS, DEA, Department of
Justice, and other Federal agencies also contribute lookouts to the
system, however, this is voluntary.
To further fortify our front-line defenses against terrorism--to turn
back terrorists at their point of origin--information sharing should be
mandatory, not voluntary. That is why I introduced a bill that would
require that law enforcement and the intelligence community share
information with the State Department and INS for the purpose of
issuing visas and permitting entry into the United States. And while my
bill would have gone farther than the legislation before us--by
including the DEA, CIA, Customs and the Department of Defense in the
mandated information-sharing network--I am pleased that this bill we
are considering does mandate access to the NCIC by INS and the State
Department.
Clearly, the catastrophic events of September 11 have catapulted us
into a different era, and everything is forever changed. We must move
heaven and earth to remove the impediments that keep us from maximizing
our defense against terrorism. The bottom line is, if knowledge is
power, we are only as strong as the weakest link in our information
network--therefore, we must ensure that the only ``turf war'' will be
the one to protect American turf.
That is why we need a singular, Cabinet-level authority that can help
change the prevailing system and culture, and why we need legislation
to help them do it. Ironically, the most compelling reason for an
Office of Homeland Security is also its greatest challenge--the need to
focus on the ``three C's'' of coordination, communication and
cooperation so that all our resources are brought to bear in securing
our Nation.
Winston Churchill, in a 1941 radio broadcast, sent a message to
President Roosevelt saying, ``Give us the tools and we will finish the
job.'' I have no doubt that, given the tools, the men and women of our
Embassies throughout the world will get the job done and help us build
a more secure American homeland.
Finally, once a visa is issued at the point of origin, we should be
ensuring that it's the same person who shows up at the point of entry.
The fact is, we don't know how many--if any--of the 19 terrorists
implicated in the September 11 attacks entered the United States on
visas that were actually issued to someone else.
Currently, once a visa is issued by the State Department, it then
falls to INS officials at a port-of-entry to determine whether to grant
entry. The problem is, no automated system is

[[Page 19544]]

utilized to ensure that the person holding the visa is actually the
person who was issued the visa. In other words, the INS official has to
rely solely on the identification documents the person seeking entry is
carrying--making that officials job that much more difficult.
There is a better way, and legislation I introduced would require the
establishment of a fingerprint-based check system to be used by State
and INS to verify that the person who received the visa is the same
person at the border crossing station trying to enter the country.
Simply put, it requires the State Department and INS to jointly
create an electronic database which stores fingerprints--and that other
agencies may use as well. When a foreign national receives a visa, a
fingerprint is taken, which then is matched against the fingerprint
taken by INS upon entry to the United States. This is a common sense
approach that would take us one step closer to minimizing the threat
and maximizing our national security.
The fact of the matter is, fingerprint technology--one part of the
larger category of biological factors that can be used for
identification known as biometrics--is not new. In fact, the U.S.
Government has already employed biometrics to verify identities at
military and secret facilities, at ports-of-entry, and for airport
security, among many others.
The INS has already announced it was beginning to implement the new
biometric Mexican border crossing cards as required by 1996 Illegal
Immigrations Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. These cards have
the individual's fingerprint encoded on them and are matched to the
fingerprint of the person possessing the card at a U.S. port-of-entry.
This surely does not sound all that much different than the
legislation I have proposed. I am pleased the bill before us at least
starts us down the road toward implementing biometric technologies by
requiring a review of the feasibility of instituting such technologies,
and I hope this can be achieved as soon as possible.
Despite areas where I might have wished to strengthen this bill even
further, this legislation is vital to our national security, and I will
be proud to support it. The war on terrorism is a war on myriad fronts.
Some of the battles will be great in scale, many will be notable by
what is not seen and by what doesn't happen--namely, that individuals
who pose a serious threat to this Nation never see these shores and
never set foot on our soil.
Many of our greatest victories will be measured by the attacks that
never happen--in battles we win before they ever have a name--in
conflicts we prevent before they ever claim one American life. I hope
we will pass and enact legislation that will help make that possible. I
thank the Chair.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a month ago today, America was attacked
by vicious terrorists bent on doing all they can to undermine our
Nation, our freedoms, and our way of life. But they have failed. Our
country has never been more united behind the ideals that make us
strong, or more committed to protecting our security.
In recent weeks, we have sought international cooperation and
received it. We have asked our men and women in uniform to protect and
defend our Nation, and they are doing it superbly. We are equally
committed to preserving our freedoms and our democracy.
The goal of this antiterrorism legislation is to achieve greater
coordination between the law enforcement and intelligence communities,
while protecting the civil liberties of American citizens. We must give
the Secretary of State and the Attorney General the tools to stop
terrorists from entering our country, while guaranteeing America's
proud tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 make it an urgent priority to
act as soon as possible. The INS and the State Department must have the
technology and intelligence information they need to make quick and
accurate decisions on whether to admit anyone to the United States.
We must also take urgent steps to improve security at our borders
with Canada and Mexico, to keep terrorists from entering the country
illegally.
These improvements in the immigration laws can make a huge and
immediate difference. Immigration security is an indispensable part of
our national security.
As we protect our country, we must also protect the founding
principles that have made our nation great. We must respond to the
current crisis in ways that protect the basic rights and liberties of
our citizens and others residing legally in the United States.
Currently, the INS has broad authority to act against any foreign
national who supports terrorism. With respect to visitors, foreign
students, and other non-immigrants, as well as immigrants already in
this country, the Federal Government has a broad range of enforcement
tools. The INS may detain certain non-citizens if they pose a threat to
national security or are a flight risk, and they may do so on the basis
of secret evidence. The INS may also deport any alien who has engaged
in terrorist activity, or supported terrorist activity in any way. If
the INS has the resources to use its existing authority fully and
fairly, we will be far closer to ensuring our national security.
Nonetheless, loopholes may exist in our current laws, and we should
close them. In recent weeks, many of us in Congress have worked closely
with the administration to strengthen the law without creating serious
civil liberties concerns. Although we have made progress, more remains
to be done. I continue to be concerned that the Attorney General has
the authority to detain even permanent residents without adequate
cause, and with very few due process protections.
We must be cautious that new measures are not enacted in haste,
undermining current law in critical and constitutionally troubling
respects. We must avoid enacting legislation with vague and overly
broad definitions or legislation that punishes individuals exercising
constitutionally protected rights.
Consistent with these basic principles, it is essential for Congress
to strengthen the criminal code in response to the September 11
attacks. We must increase penalties for terrorists and those who
support terrorist activity. We must punish those who possess biological
weapons and commit acts of violence against mass transportation
systems. We must also ensure that victim assistance and victim
compensation programs are able to help all the victims of the September
11 attacks. In fact, the current bill makes several important reforms
to the Victim of Crimes Act to achieve that goal.
I am concerned, however, that by authorizing foreign-intelligence
searches where foreign-intelligence gathering is only ``a significant
purpose''--not the sole or primary purpose--of the search, the bill may
well make the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act unconstitutional
under the fourth amendment.
We must also ensure that, in acting to expand the powers of law
enforcement to obtain student educational records for the investigation
and prosecution of terrorism, we adequately safeguard the interests of
innocent students. We should not permit schools and colleges to
transfer student records to law enforcement agencies indiscriminately.
We have worked closely with the administration to develop measures that
strike a balance between the legitimate interests of law enforcement
and the privacy of students.
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, we have also seen a
disturbing increase in hate-motivated violence directed at Arab
Americans and Muslim Americans. The Department of Justice is currently
investigating over 90 such incidents, including several murders.
We need to do more to combat the acts of hate that cause many Arab
and Muslim Americans to live in fear. Under current law, the Department
of Justice cannot prosecute such cases as hate crimes unless it can
prove that the victim was engaged in one of six ``federally protected
activities''--such

[[Page 19545]]

as voting or attending a public university--when the crime occurred.
This requirement is an unwise and unnecessary constraint on effective
law enforcement and may hamper the Department's ability to prosecute
some of the cases it is now investigating.
The bipartisan hate crimes bill passed by the Senate last year and
approved again by the Judiciary Committee in July would remove the
``federally protected activity'' requirement from the law--making it
easier for the Justice Department to prosecute hate crimes--while still
ensuring that the Federal Government is only involved when necessary
and appropriate.
Congress and the President must send a strong and unequivocal message
to the American people that hate-motivated violence in any form will
not be tolerated in our nation.
There are provisions in the Uniting and Strengthening America Act
that do not strike the correct balance between law enforcement
authority and civil liberties protection. However, I am confident that
working with the House of Representatives and the administration, we
can enact a final bill that meets these important concerns.
We can send the President a tough, comprehensive, and balanced anti-
terrorism bill. The important work we do in the coming days will
strengthen America, and make America proud of its ideals as well.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to have the opportunity
to speak for a few minutes about the Uniting and Strengthening America,
USA, Act that is before the Senate today. This legislation reflects the
hard work of the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and I want to thank them for their commitment to ensuring
that Congress address this legislation as quickly as possible and for
paying great attention to the civil rights and liberties of the
American people.
Right now our Nation is strongly united. We are bound together by,
among other things, a desire to see justice brought to those who
planned the terrorist attacks and those who aided and abetted the
terrorists. And Americans are united by our desire to prevent future
terrorist attacks. At this time, more so than at any time in the past
40 years, the American people are standing firmly behind the Federal
Government and they trust government to do the right thing. The
American people support the idea that we must provide the FBI and the
Department of Justice will the tools necessary to punish the
perpetrators of the terrorist attacks and to prevent future attacks.
But as much as the American people seek a just resolution to the acts
of terror, they are adamant about protecting their rights and
liberties. We have heard it time and again since September 11: our
Nation must be secure, but must not become so at the expense of our
freedoms, our rights, and our liberties. We must not let the American
people down.
I want to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this legislation
and his concern with important Constitutional principles, such as due
process and unreasonable search and seizure. At Senator Leahy's urging,
the administration's anti-terrorism proposal was carefully and closely
analyzed and Senator Leahy did not yield to the political pressures
that threatened to push this legislation through the Congress without
its careful consideration. I believe that the bill before the Senate is
vastly improved from the proposal that the administration sent up, and
I appreciate that important changes were made.
Though I am grateful that important changes have been made to the
Senate bill, I am still troubled by certain provisions in the
legislation which fail to strike the proper balance between the need
for security and the need for civil liberties. Moving an anti-terrorism
bill through the Congress in a timely fashion is critically important,
particularly in light of the ongoing air strikes in Afghanistan. We all
know that a real threat exists for future terrorist attacks in this
country and passing legislation that helps the Federal Government
prevent those attacks is crucial. I support the process, I support
moving this legislation forward, and I will vote for it. But I also
believe that the bill that passed the House better balances our civil
liberties and the Federal Government's need for greater surveillance
powers, and I am hopeful that the bill that emerges from the conference
committee retains some of these provisions. I am disturbed by comments
made yesterday by the administration in which swift consideration by
both houses of Congress of the Senate bill was urged. This legislation
deserves the full measure of our attention and should not be hastily
dispensed with when the threat to our most cherished civil liberties is
so great.
The wide-ranging legislation before us would enhance domestic
surveillance powers, stiffen penalties for terrorism, increase the
penalties for money-laundering, and make it easier for law enforcement
and intelligence agencies to share information. There was broad
agreement on some elements of the administration's anti-terrorism
package, such as the need to update our anti-terrorism laws to take
account of new technologies--such as cell phones--and to ensure that
counter-terrorism investigators wield the same powers that apply to
drug trafficking and organized crime. But agreement was more difficult
to reach on other issues, like detaining foreign nationals, and I am
pleased that we are in a position to move forward on the legislation.
I am also pleased that this package includes a bill, which I
sponsored, that will provide the tools the U.S. needs to crack down on
international money laundering havens and protect the integrity of the
U.S. financial system from the influx of tainted money from abroad.
This legislation was part of a package of anti-money laundering
provisions that unanimously passed the Senate Banking Committee last
week.
Today, the global volume of laundered money is estimated to be 2 to 5
percent of global Gross Domestic Product, between $600 billion and $1.5
trillion. The effects of money laundering extend far beyond the
parameters of law enforcement, creating international political issues
and generating domestic political crises.
It is becoming more and more apparent that Osama bin Laden's
terrorist network, known as al Qaida, provided assistance to the
hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with
funding that was transported from the Middle East to the United States
through the global financial system. Al-Qaida has, for years, developed
a worldwide terrorist network by taking advantage of an open system of
international financial transactions.
The United States has declared a war on terrorism. This new war is
going to be unlike anything that we have ever engaged in previously. If
we are to lead the world in the fight against terror, we must insure
that our own laws are worthy of the difficult task ahead.
The International Counter-Money Laundering and Foreign Anti-
corruption Act of 2001, which I sponsored and which has been included
in this legislation, will stop the flow of assets through the
international financial system that have been used by bin Laden, the al
Qaeda terrorist network and other terrorist groups.
The United States has the largest and most accessible economic
marketplace in the world. Foreign financial institutions and
jurisdictions must have unfettered access to markets to effectively
work within the international economic system. The goal of this
legislation is to give the Treasury Secretary, in conjunction with our
allies in the European Union and the Financial Action Task Force, the
authority to leverage the power of our markets to force countries or
financial institutions with lax money laundering laws or standards to
reform them. If they refuse, the Secretary will have the authority to
deny foreign financial institutions or jurisdictions access to the
United States marketplace. This will help stop international criminals
from laundering the proceeds of their crimes into the United States
financial system or using the proceeds to commit terrorist acts.
Specifically, the bill will give the Secretary of the Treasury--
acting in

[[Page 19546]]

consultation with other senior government officials--the authority to
designate a specific foreign jurisdiction, foreign financial
institution, or class of international transactions as being of
``primary money laundering concern.'' Then, on a case-by-case basis,
the Secretary will have the option to use a series of new tools to
combat the specific type of foreign money laundering threat we face. In
some cases, the Secretary will have the option to require banks to
pierce the veil of secrecy behind which foreign criminals hide. In
other cases, the Secretary will have the option to require the
identification of those using a foreign bank's correspondent or
payable-through accounts. If these transparency provisions were deemed
to be inadequate to address the specific problem identified, the
Secretary will have the option to restrict or prohibit U.S. banks from
continuing correspondent or payable-through banking relationships with
money laundering havens and rogue foreign banks. Through these steps,
the Secretary will help prevent laundered money from slipping
undetected into the U.S. financial system and, as a result, increase
the pressure on foreign money laundering havens to bring their laws and
practices into line with international anti-money laundering standards.
The bill provides for actions that will be graduated, discretionary,
and targeted, in order to focus actions on international transactions
involving criminal proceeds, while allowing legitimate international
commerce to continue to flow unimpeded.
It provides a clear warning to those who have assisted or unwittingly
assisted those involved in the al Qaeda network or other terrorist
organizations in laundering money. The United States will take whatever
actions are necessary, including denying foreign banks and
jurisdictions access to the United States economy, in order to stop
terrorists and international criminal networks from continuing to
launder money through the international financial system.
Passage of this legislation will make it much more difficult for new
terrorist organizations to develop. During the 1980s, as Chairman of
the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I began an
investigation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI),
and uncovered a complex money laundering scheme involving billions of
dollars. Fortunately, BCCI was forced to close and we were able to
bring many of those involved in to justice. However, as we have learned
since the closing of BCCI, Osama bin Laden had a number of accounts at
BCCI and we had dealt him a very serious economic blow. So as we
consider this bill as a response to recent attacks, we must not lose
sight of the potential this legislation will have to stop the
development of terrorist organizations in the future.
With the support of the United States and the European Union, the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development has begun a
crackdown on tax havens by targeting 36 jurisdictions which it said
participate in unfair tax competition and undermine other nations' tax
bases. The OECD approach does not punish countries just for having low
tax rates, instead, it looks for tax systems that have a lack of
transparency, a lack of effective exchange of information and those
countries that have different tax rules for foreign customers than for
its own citizens. Countries with these types of tax systems assist
terrorists and international criminal organizations looking to hide
money that was derived from the sale of drugs, weapons and other
criminal enterprises that have already been laundered in the
international financial system.
Mr. President, earlier this evening my colleague Senator Feingold
offered an amendment to the section of the USA Act that deals with the
interception of computer trespass communications. This amendment, at
its core, was intended to prevent law enforcement from abusing their
authority to monitor computer activity. The Senator from Wisconsin's
amendment would have limited the amount of time that law enforcement
could monitor suspicious activity without a court order to 96 hours,
after which time investigators would have to obtain a warrant for
continued surveillance. I support the intent of this amendment, and
regret that I felt compelled vote to table the amendment. I voted to
table the amendment for two reasons: First, I was concerned that the
amendment was overly restrictive because it prevented law enforcement
from investigations unrelated to the computer trespass. My concern is
that law enforcement authorities would, for example, be able to monitor
activity which permitted a computer hacker to establish a ``dead drop''
zone for terrorists to post messages, but would not be able to monitor
the content of those messages.
I also voted to table Senator Feingold's amendment because I strongly
believe that we must move forward with this anti-terrorism legislation.
Just today the FBI issued a statement warning of terrorist attacks and
put law enforcement on the highest alert. I believe these serious
threats to our security justify our this legislation swiftly. But I
sincerely hope that an acceptable compromise can be reached--on this
and on other issues--in the final legislation.
This legislation is a crucial step toward limiting the scourge of
money laundering and to stop the development of international criminal
organizations. It is my hope that the Congress will be able to develop
anti-terrorism legislation that will provide needed protections of our
citizens without eliminating any of our cherished individual liberties.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in the war against terrorism, Americans
stand as one behind our President. Now, in the all-out effort to
protect our homeland, Federal agencies must be united in securing
American soil.
In that light, President Bush made exactly the right decision when he
created the Office of Homeland Security--a national imperative in the
wake of the horrific tragedies of September 11--and I commend him for
appointing my former colleague, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, as its
director. With a seat at the Cabinet table, Governor Ridge will
literally be at the President's side, giving him the standing that will
be required to remove jurisdictional hurdles among the forty-plus
agencies he will be responsible for coordinating.
I saw firsthand the consequences of serious inadequacies in
coordination and communication during my twelve years as ranking member
of the House Foreign Affairs International Operations Subcommittee and
Chair of the subcommittee's Senate counterpart. In conducting oversight
of embassy security as well as visa and consular operations, I became
extensively involved with the issue of terrorism, co-drafting anti-
terrorism legislation with former Representative Dan Mica, Florida, in
the wake of 1983 and 1984 terrorist attacks against the U.S. embassy
and Marine barracks in Lebanon; traveling to Belgrade, Warsaw, and East
Berlin to press government officials into helping stem the flow of
money to the terrorist Abu Nidal and his organization; and
investigating entry into the United States by radical Egyptian cleric
Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing
in 1993.
As far back as our hearings on the 1985 Inman Report, commissioned in
response to the attacks in Lebanon, it was abundantly clear that
improved coordination and consolidation of information from agencies
such as the FBI, CIA, DEA, Customs, INS and the State Department would
be an essential step toward removing a vulnerability in our national
security. That point was tragically underscored by our discovery that,
astoundingly, in the period since 1987 when Sheikh Rahman was placed on
the State Department lookout list, the Sheikh entered and exited the
U.S. five times totally unimpeded. Even after the State Department
formally issued a certification of visa revocation, he was granted
permanent residence status by the INS. When he was finally caught on
July 31, 1991, reentering the United States, he was immediately
released back into U.S. society to allow him to pursue a multi-year
appeal process.

[[Page 19547]]

Just as unbelievable is the fact that, even after the 1993 attack on
the World Trade Center, membership in a terrorist organization in and
of itself--with the exception of the PLO--was not sufficient grounds
for visa denial. Rather, the Immigration Act of 1990 required the
Government to prove that an individual either was personally involved
in a terrorist act, or planning one. This absurd threshold made it
almost impossible to block individuals, such as Sheikh Rahman, from
entering the country legally. Legislation I introduced in 1993 removed
that bureaucratic and legal obstacle--yet it took nearly 3 more years
to enact it as part of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996.
Further, to respond to the trail of errors we uncovered, provisions
from my bill were enacted in 1994 requiring modernization in the State
Department's antiquated microfiche ``lookout'' system to keep dangerous
aliens from entering the United States. This system required manual
searches, was difficult to use, and was subject to error. The language
I crafted required State to replace the old systems with one of two
forms of state-of-the-art computerized systems. Visa fees were even
increased for non-immigrants to pay for the upgrades.
Recognizing the need to mate these new technologies with the need for
the most comprehensive, current and reliable information, we also
attempted to address the issue of access. This was all the more
pressing because, in 1990, the Justice Department had ruled that
because the State Department was not a ``law enforcement agency'', it
no longer had free access to the FBI's National Crime Information
Center. This system, which maintains arrest and criminal information
from a wide variety of federal, state, and local sources as well as
from Canada, is used by the State Department to deny visas. Tellingly,
after it lost access to the NCIC, the visa denial rate for past
criminal activities plunged a remarkable 45 percent--stark evidence
that we can't afford to tie the hands of America's overseas line of
defense against terrorism.
Incredibly, while intelligence is frequently exchanged, no law
requires agencies like the FBI and CIA to share information on
dangerous aliens with the State Department. To address this, my 1993
bill also designated the State Department a ``law enforcement agency''
for purposes of accessing the NCIC as well as other FBI criminal
records when processing any visa application, whether immigrant or non-
immigrant.
Unfortunately, a revised provision also enacted in 1994 only provided
the State Department with free access to these FBI resources for
purposes of processing immigrant visas--dropping my requirement for
non-immigrant visas eventually used by at least 16 of the 19 suspected
hijackers. Even that limited law was allowed to expire, despite my
legislation enacted in 1996 repealing the requirement that visa
applicants be informed of the reason for a denial--a provision that law
enforcement agencies legitimately believed could impede ongoing
investigations, or reveal sources and methods. Thus, today, information
sharing remains optional and ad hoc.
To further fortify our front-line defenses against terrorism, I also
propose to assist our embassies in turning-back terrorists at their
point of origin by establishing Terrorist Lookout Committees, comprised
of the head of the political section of each embassy and senior
representatives of all U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
The committees would be required to meet on a monthly basis to review
and submit names to the State Department for inclusion in the visa
lookout system.
Clearly, the catastrophic events of September 11 have catapulted us
into a different era, and everything is forever changed. We must move
heaven and earth to remove the impediments that keep us from maximizing
our defense against terrorism, and that is why we need a singular,
Cabinet-level authority that can change the prevailing system and
culture. Ironically, the most compelling reason for an Office of
Homeland Security is also its greatest challenge: the need to focus on
the ``three C's'' of coordination, communication and cooperation so
that all our resources are brought to bear in securing our nation. The
bottom line is, if knowledge is power, we are only as strong as the
weakest link in our information network therefore, we must ensure that
the only ``turf war'' will be the one to protect American turf. In our
fight against terrorism, we can do no less.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the attention of the American
people has turned to the security of our national border system and how
these attackers were able to exploit that system to plot these
dastardly acts.
The September 11 attacks have highlighted numerous loopholes in our
immigration laws that have allowed terrorists to enter the United Stats
posing as students and tourists, and, in some cases, by simply walking
across an unpatrolled border. In reviewing our counter-terrorism
efforts within our intelligence community, it is also appropriate that
we look at the numerous immigration loopholes these terrorists were
able to slip through.
There are currently between 7 million and 13 million illegal aliens
living in the United States. Six out of 10 of these aliens crossed a
U.S. border illegally, and therefore were not subject to background
checks by the INS or the State Department to determine if they had a
terrorist or criminal history. In fact, exit/entry records are so
incomplete that the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, has no
record of 6 of the 19 suspected hijackers entering the United States.
Of the roughly 10,000 INS agents guarding our borders, only 3 percent
are stationed on our northern border with Canada. That's 334 agents
protecting a 4,000 mile border, or one agent for every 12 miles.
According to media reports, a number of the September 11 terrorists
crossed this border to enter the United States.
Of those foreign nationals who have legally entered the United
States, more than a half-a-million of them are registered as
international students at 15,000 universities, colleges, and vocational
schools across the United States. These are nuclear engineering
scholars, biochemistry students, and even pilot trainees who have
access to dangerous technology, training, and information.
The Congress passed legislation in 1996 requiring the INS to create a
database for tracking these students. The purpose was to more
efficiently monitor the immigration/visa status and whereabouts of
students from abroad. After 5 years, there is still no system in place
to monitor these 500,000 students. The current pilot program operating
at 21 schools is not expected to be fully operational for five more
years, and even that date could slip.
Without a monitoring system in place to audit schools that sponsor
these foreign students, there is nothing to prevent an alien from
entering the United States on a student visa and then just
disappearing. Consequently, one of the September 11 hijackers was able
to enter the United States on a student visa, dropped out, and remained
illegally thereafter.
Abuses of the visa system can also be found in the application
process overseas at our U.S. consulates. Foreign nationals must apply
for a visa at a U.S. consulate abroad and go through a series of
security checks before they can enter the United States. Some media
reports have raised the issue of consulate shopping, that is, foreign
nationals choosing to apply at a U.S. consulate that they believe is
most likely to grant them a visa. The ``New York Times'' reported in
September that Chinese nationals applying for visas at a U.S. consulate
in Beijing compare their experiences over the Internet--and even post
tips on how to act and what to say, to boost their chances of receiving
a visa.
Such an article raises the question of whether a terrorist could
travel from country to country in hopes of finding a U.S. consulate
which would be less familiar with his background and more likely to
award him a visa. One terrorist who was involved in the 1993 World
Trade Center bombing was denied a visa at the U.S. consulate in

[[Page 19548]]

Egypt, only to be awarded a visa by the U.S. consulate in Sudan.
And these are loopholes that exist only for those terrorists who
would risk a background check by seeking a visa at a U.S. consulate.
The United States allows 29 countries to participate in a visa-waiver
program, which effectively allows the citizens of many European
countries to bypass the initial screening process at a U.S. consulate
abroad by waiving the visa requirement. The Inspectors General for both
the State and Justice Departments have raised the possibility that a
foreign national could steal and counterfeit a visa-free passport to
bypass the visa background check altogether.
The October 8 Wall Street Journal reported that some 1,067 visa-free
passports have been stolen in recent months, presumably to be used for
entry into the United States. In fact, one of the terrorists who
plotted the bombing of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was caught
trying to slip through this loophole in 1992 when he tried to enter the
United States using a visa-free Swedish passport.
These are just some of the loopholes that terrorists are trying to
exploit. To its credit, the Senate Judiciary Committee recognizes this
fact.
The legislation drafted by the committee would triple the number of
INS agents on our northern border. This is a worthwhile investment, and
one that should be made. However, the security of our borders depends
on more than just INS agents. The first line of defense against
terrorists are our U.S. consulates abroad.
We must address the loopholes in the visa-waiver program that would
allow a potential terrorist to enter the United States on a stolen
passport. We must prevent consulate shopping. And, we must fully
implement a system that can monitor foreign students.
The State and Justice Departments confirm that these are real
security threats that must be addressed if we are to protect our
borders from terrorists.
I have offered three amendments to address these concerns, which were
accepted by the Judiciary Committee chairman and ranking member into
the manager's package.
My first amendment would authorize the necessary funding so that the
Justice Department could immediately put into place a tracking system
that would require every university, college, and vocational school to
submit a name, an address, an enrollment status, and disciplinary
action taken on each of the international students that these
educational institutions sponsor. Such a database would be invaluable
to law enforcement officials who may need to identify and locate a
potential terrorist immediately.
My second amendment would tighten the visa-waiver program by
requiring that any country that participates in that program issue to
its citizens within 2 years machine-readable passports that U.S.
officials could scan into a ``look out'' system. This moves forward the
original statutory deadline Congress agreed to last year by 4 years.
This amendment would also require the State Department to regularly
audit the passports of these visa-free countries to ensure that
countries that participate in this program have implemented sufficient
safety precautions to prevent the counterfeiting and the theft of their
passports.
My third amendment would require the State Department to review how
it issues its visas to determine if consulate shopping is a problem,
and then require the Secretary of State to take the necessary steps to
correct the problem. The State Department has the legislative authority
it needs to fix this problem. It is now imperative that it use that
authority.
My amendments are important steps toward closing down the loopholes
in our immigration laws, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues so that we may continue to tighten the security of national
borders.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, three weeks ago, the President of the
United States--with the undivided support of this Congress and the
American people--announced a war on terrorism. In that address, he
asked Congress to provide our law enforcement community with the tools
that they need to wage that war effectively.
After several weeks of negotiations with the Chairman and the
Administration, I am pleased we have come to the point where we can
pass a bipartisan, measured bill that does just that.
Mr. President, each of us has, in different ways, had our lives
touched by the awful events of September 11th. Each of us has, in the
days since the attack, been shocked and appalled by the terrible images
of destruction that have reached us, by television, by newspaper--and
in many cases by our own eyes--from the sites of the attacks in
Pennsylvania, at the World Trade Center, and at the Pentagon.
Paradoxically, each of us has also been uplifted by the stories of
heroism and self-sacrifice that have emerged from around the country in
the wake of these terrible events.
As the President made clear in his address to the nation, we did not
seek this war. This war was thrust upon us--thrust upon us by an
unprovoked attack upon our civilian population in the very midst of our
greatest cities.
Just one month ago, we could not have contemplated that today,
October 11th, 2001, we would be at war. It is true that, for years,
some of us in this Congress, and around the country, have warned that
there were powerful, well-financed individuals located throughout the
world who were dedicated to the destruction of our way of life. But,
few of us could predict the horrific methods that these men would
employ in an effort to destroy us and our democratic institutions.
On September 11th, all that changed.
In the last few weeks, we have all come to acknowledge that we live
in a different and more dangerous world than the world we thought we
knew when we woke up on the morning of September 11th . . .
. . . A different world--not only because thousands of our countrymen
are dead as a result of the September 11th attacks . . .
. . . A different world--not only because many of our neighbors now
hesitate to get on an airplane, or ride in an elevator, or engage in
any one of a number of activities that we took for granted before the
attacks . . .
. . . But a different world, also, because we must acknowledge that
there remains an ongoing and serious threat to our way of life and, in
fact, to our health and well-being as a society.
As has been reported in the national media, the investigation into
the September 11th attacks has revealed there are terrorist cells that
continue to operate actively among us. It is a chilling thought, but it
is true.
The war to which we have collectively committed is a war unlike any
war in the history of this country. It is different because a
substantial part of this war must be fought on our own soil. This is
not a circumstance of our choosing. The enemy has brought the war to
us.
But we must not flinch from acknowledging the fact that, because this
is a different kind of war, it is a war that will require different
kinds of weapons, and different kinds of tactics.
The Department of Justice, and its investigatory components including
the FBI, the INS, and the Border Patrol, will continue to have the
principal responsibility for identifying and eradicating terrorist
activity within our national borders. Our intelligence community must
have access to critical information available to our law enforcement
community.
Over the last several weeks, the Attorney General has made clear to
us, in no uncertain terms, that he does not currently have adequate
weapons to fight this war. Weeks ago, the Administration sent to
Congress a legislative proposal that would give the Department of
Justice and others in law enforcement the tools they need to be
effective in tracking down and eliminating terrorist activity in this
country.
Over the last several weeks, Senator Leahy, other members of the
Judiciary Committee, and I have undertaken a painstaking review of the
anti-terrorism proposal submitted by the Administration. There have
been several

[[Page 19549]]

hearings on this legislation in the Senate, and many briefings by
experts and advocates.
The legislation that we are about to vote upon is a product of
intense bipartisan negotiations. It is a proposal I am proud to
cosponsor with my other colleagues in the Senate and particularly the
distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy.
I would like to congratulate Senator Leahy, in particular, for his
thoroughness in reviewing this legislation and his many thoughtful
comments and suggestions in our joint effort to ensure that the
proposals adequately protect the constitutional liberties of all
Americans.
Now, after weeks of fine-tuning, we have reached a final product that
accommodates the concerns of each of the Senators who has examined this
bill. The bipartisan bill that we vote on today respects the
constitutional liberties of the American people and, at the same time,
does what people around America have been calling upon us in Congress
to do--that is, give our law enforcement community the tools they need
to keep us safe in our homes, in our travels, and in our places of
business.
I would like to make a few comments regarding the process for this
legislation. Although we have considered this in a more expedited
manner than other legislation, my colleagues can be assured that this
bill has received thorough consideration. First, the fact is that the
bulk of these proposals have been requested by the Department of
Justice for years, and have languished in Congress for years because we
have been unable to muster the collective political will to enact them
into law.
No one can say whether these tools could have prevented the attacks
of September 11th. But, as the Attorney General has said, it is certain
that without these tools, we did not stop the vicious acts of last
month. I say to my colleagues, Mr. President, that if these tools could
help us now to track down the perpetrators--if they will help us in our
continued pursuit of terrorist activities within our national borders--
then we should not hesitate any further to pass these reforms into law.
As long as these reforms are consistent with our Constitution--and they
are--it is difficult to see why anyone would oppose their passage.
Furthermore, I would like to clearly dispel the myth that the reforms
in this legislation somehow abridge the Constitutional freedoms enjoyed
by law-abiding American citizens. Some press reports have portrayed
this issue as a choice between individual liberties on the one hand,
and on the other hand, enhanced powers for our law enforcement
institutions. This is a false dichotomy. We should all take comfort
that the reforms in this bill are primarily directed at allowing law
enforcement agents to work smarter and more efficiently--in no case do
they curtail the precious civil liberties protected by our
Constitution. I want to assure my colleagues that we worked very hard
over the past several weeks to ensure that this legislation upholds all
of the constitutional freedoms our citizens cherish. It does.
I would like to take a minute to explain briefly a few of the most
important provisions of this critical legislation.
First, the legislation encourages information-sharing between various
arms of the federal government. I believe most of our citizens would be
shocked to learn that, even if certain government agents had prior
knowledge of the September 11th attacks, under many circumstances they
would have been prohibited by law from sharing that information with
the appropriate intelligence or national security authorities.
This legislation makes sure that, in the future, such information
flows freely within the Federal government, so tat it will be received
by those responsible for protecting against terrorist attacks.
By making these reforms, we are rejecting the outdated Cold War
paradigm that has prevented cooperation between our intelligence
community and our law enforcement agents. Current law does not
adequately allow for such cooperation, artificially hampering our
government's ability to identify and prevent acts of terrorism against
our citizens.
In this new war, Mr. President, terrorists are a hybrid between
domestic criminals and international agents. We must lower the barriers
that discourage our law enforcement and intelligence agencies from
working together to stop these terrorists. These hybrid criminals call
for new, hybrid tools.
Second, this bill updates the laws relating to electronic
surveillance. Electronic surveillance, conducted under the supervision
of a federal judge, is one of the most powerful tools at the disposal
of our law enforcement community. It is simply a disgrace that we have
not acted to modernize the laws currently on the books which govern
such surveillance, laws that were enacted before the fax machine came
into common usage, and well before the advent of cellular telephones,
e-mail, and instant messaging. The Department of Justice has asked us
for years to update these laws to reflect the new technologies, but
there has always been a call to go slow, to seek more information, to
order further studies.
This is no hypothetical problem. We now know that e-mail, cellular
telephones, and the Internet have been principal tools used by the
terrorists to coordinate their atrocious activities. We need to pursue
all solid investigatory leads that exist right now that our law
enforcement agents would be unable to pursue because they must continue
to work within these outdated laws. It is high time that we update our
laws so that our law enforcement agencies can deal with the world as it
is, rather than the world as it existed 20 years ago.
A good example of the way we are handicapping our law enforcement
agencies relates to devices called ``pen registers.'' Pen registers may
be employed by the FBI, after obtaining a court order, to determine
what telephone numbers are being dialed from a particular telephone.
These devices are essential investigatory tools, which allow law
enforcement agents to determine who is speaking to whom, within a
criminal conspiracy.
The Supreme Court has held, in Smith v. Maryland, that the
information obtained by pen register devices is not information that is
subject to ANY constitutional protection. Unlike the content of your
telephone conversation once your call is connected, the numbers you
dial into your telephone are not private. Because you have no
reasonable expectation that such numbers will be kept private, they are
not protected under the Constitution. The Smith holding was cited with
approval by the Supreme Court just earlier this year.
The legislation under consideration today would make clear what the
federal courts have already ruled--that federal judges may grant pen
register authority to the FBI to cover, not just telephones, but other
more modern modes of communication such as e-mail or instant messaging.
Let me make clear that the bill does not allow law enforcement to
receive the content of the communication, but they can receive the
addressing information to identify the computer or computers a suspect
is using to further his criminal activity.
Importantly, reform of the pen register law does not allow--as has
sometimes been misreported in the press--for law enforcement agents to
view the content of any e-mail messages--not even the subject line of
e-mails. In addition, this legislation we are about to vote upon makes
it explicit that content can not be collected through such pen register
orders.
This legislation also allows judges to enter pen register orders with
nationwide scope. Nationwide jurisdiction for pen register orders makes
common sense. It helps law enforcement agents efficiently identify
communications facilities throughout the country, which greatly
enhances the ability of law enforcement to identify quickly other
members of a criminal organization, such as a terrorist cell.
Moreover, this legislation provides our intelligence community with
the same authority to use pen register devices, under the auspices of
the Foreign

[[Page 19550]]

Intelligence Surveillance Act, that our law enforcement agents have
when investigating criminal offenses. It simply makes sense to provide
law enforcement with the same tools to catch terrorists that they
already possess in connection with other criminal investigations, such
as drug crimes or illegal gambling.
In addition to the pen register statute, this legislation updates
other aspects of our wiretapping statutes. It is amazing that law
enforcement agents do not currently have authority to seek wiretapping
authority from a federal judge when investigating a terrorist offense.
This legislation fixes that problem.
Moving on, I note that much has been made of the complex immigration
provisions of this bill. I know Senators Specter, Kohl and Kennedy had
questions about earlier provisions, particularly the detention
provision for suspected alien terrorists.
I want to assure my colleagues that we have worked hard to address
your concerns, and the concerns of the public. As with the other
immigration provisions of this bill, we have made painstaking efforts
to achieve this workable compromise.
Let me address some of the specific concerns. In response to the
concern that the INS might detain a suspected terrorist indefinitely,
Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, and I worked out a compromise that limits
the provision. It provides that the alien must be charged with an
immigration or criminal violation within seven days after the
commencement of detention or be released. In addition, contrary to what
has been alleged, the certification itself is subject to judicial
review. The Attorney General's power to detain a suspected terrorist
under this bill is, then, not unfettered.
Moreover, Senator Leahy and I have also worked diligently to craft
necessary language that provides for the deportation of those aliens
who are representatives of organizations that endorse terrorist
activity, those who use a position of prominence to endorse terrorist
activity or persuade others to support terrorist activity, or those who
provide material support to terrorist organizations. If we are to fight
terrorism, we can not allow those who support terrorists to remain in
our country. Also, I should note that we have worked hard to provide
the State Department and the INS the tools they need to ensure that no
applicant for admission who is a terrorist is able to secure entry into
the United States through legal channels.
Finally, the bill gives law enforcement agencies powerful tools to
attack the financial infrastructure of terrorism--giving our government
the ability to choke off the financing that these dangerous terrorist
organizations need to survive. It criminalizes the practice of
harboring terrorists, and puts teeth in the laws against providing
material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations. It gives
the President expanded authority to freeze the assets of terrorists and
terrorist organizations, and provides for the eventual seizure of such
assets. These tools are vital to our ability to effectively wage the
war against terrorism, and ultimately to win it.
Mr. President, before this debate comes to an end, I would be remiss
if I did not acknowledge the hard work put in by my staff, the staff of
Senator Leahy, and the representatives of the Administration who were
involved in the negotiation of this bill. These people have engaged in
discussions, literally around the clock over the last 3 weeks to
produce this excellent bill, that now enjoys such widespread bipartisan
support.
I would like to thank my Chief Counsel, Makim Delrahim, who has been
instrumental in putting this bill together. I also would like to thank
my criminal counsel, Jeff Taylor, Stuart Nash, and Leah Belaire, who
have brought invaluable expertise to this process. My immigration
counsel, Dustin Pead and my legislative assistant Brigham Cannon have
provided invaluable assistance.
I would like to thank the staff of Senator Leahy--his chief counsel
Bruce Cohen, and other members of his staff--Beryl Howell, Julie
Katzman, Ed Pagano, David James, and John Eliff.
The Department of Justice has been of great assistance to us in
putting this bill together. I would like to thank Attorney General
Ashcroft and his Deputy Larry Thompson for their wise counsel, and for
their quick response to our many questions and concerns. Michael
Chertoff, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division was
a frequent participant in our meetings, as well as Assistant Attorneys
General Dan Bryant and Viet Dinh. Jennifer Newstead, John Yew, John
Elwood and Pat O'Brien were all important participants in this process.
Finally, the White House staff provided essential contributions at
all stages of this process. Judge Al Gonzales, the White House counsel
provided key guidance, with the help of his wonderful staff, including
Tim Flanagan, Courtney Elwood, and Porad Berensen.
In addition, members of the White House Congressional Liaison Office
kept this process moving forward. I would like to thank Heather
Wingate, Candy Wolff and Nancy Dorn for all the assistance they have
given us.
There have been few, if any, times in our nation's great history
where an event has brought home to so many of our citizens, so quickly,
and in such a graphic fashion, a sense of our vulnerability to
unexpected attack.
I believe we all took some comfort when President Bush promised us
that our law enforcement institutions would have the tools necessary to
protect us from the danger that we are only just beginning to perceive.
The Attorney General has told us what tools he needs. We have taken
the time to review the problems with our current laws, and to reflect
on their solutions. The time to act is now. Let us please move forward
expeditiously, and give those who are in the business of protecting us
the tools that they need to do the job.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues' support for this important
legislation and yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 4 days ago, our military began strikes
against terrorist training camps and the Taliban's military
installations in Afghanistan. They are intended to disrupt the network
of terror that spreads across Afghanistan.
But these strikes are one part of a much larger battle. The network
that we seek to disrupt and ultimately destroy often operates without
borders or boundaries. Its tools are not simply the weapons it chooses
to employ. And its trails are more often electronic than physical.
This is a new kind of battle. Winning it will require a new set of
tools . . . And winning is the only acceptable outcome.
Just as we are committed to giving our men and women in uniform the
tools and training they need to do what is asked of them, we must now
make that same commitment to our justice and law enforcement officials.
After all, we are now asking them to do nothing less than protect the
American people by finding, tracking, monitoring--and ultimately
stopping--any terrorist elements that threaten our nation or our
citizens.
I believe that by passing this measure today, we are taking a swift
and significant step toward doing just that. We are also demonstrating,
once again, that the Senate can work both quickly and effectively when
we work cooperatively.
I want to thank Senator Lott, Chairmen Leahy, Graham and Sarbanes, as
well as Senators Hatch, Shelby, and Gramm for their leadership on this
bill.
I especially appreciate Chairman Leahy's management and handling of
this important and delicate process.
I also want to thank the many other Democratic and Republican
Senators whose insights and suggestions improved this legislation.
For example, Senator Kennedy's input on provisions regarding
immigration addressed concerns a number of us had about the detention
of legal permanent residents with only few due process protections.
And Senators Enzi, Leahy and Dorgan were able to improve a provision
regarding unilateral food and medical sanctions in a way that avoids
needlessly hurting American farmers.

[[Page 19551]]

I'll be honest, this bill is not perfect, and I hope that we will be
able to work with our House colleagues in the days ahead in order to
improve it.
Whenever we weigh civil liberties against national security, we need
to do so with the utmost care.
Among other things, I am concerned about the provisions within this
bill that allow the sharing of information gathered in grand juries and
through wiretaps without judicial check. And, as we give the
administration new legitimate powers to wiretap under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, I believe we should do more to protect
the rights of Americans who are not suspects or targets of
investigations.
These flaws are not insubstantial, but ultimately the need for this
bill outweighs them. When it comes to an issue as central to our
democracy as the protection of our people, we must act.
This bill does several important things:
First, it will enhance the ability of law enforcement and
intelligence agencies to conduct electronic surveillance and execute
searches in order to gather critical information to fight terrorism.
Second, it will permit broader information sharing between
traditional law enforcement and foreign intelligence officers.
Third, it will increase the Attorney General's ability to deport and
detain individuals who support terrorist activity. I should note,
though, that the Senate bill requires the Attorney General either to
bring criminal or immigration charges within seven days after taking
custody of an alien or relinquish custody.
Fourth, this bill also takes significant steps to increase law
enforcement personnel on our northern border. For example, it would
triple the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service, and INS inspectors
at the northern border, who would work in concert with their Canadian
counterparts in order to enhance security in this previously
understaffed area.
Fifth, thanks in large part to Senator Leahy's hard work, this bill
makes major revisions to the Victims of Crime Act--by strengthening the
Crime Victim Fund and expediting assistance to victims of domestic
terrorism.
Sixth and finally, the Banking Committee was able to agree on, and
add to this bill, several significant counter money laundering
measures. If we are to truly fight terrorism on all fronts, we must
fight it on the financial front as well.
As you can see, this is a complex piece of legislation. But its aim
is simple: to give law enforcement the tools it needs to fight
terrorism.
It was a month ago on this day that we suffered the worst terrorist
attack in our Nation's history. In the days since, we have honored the
memories of the more than 6,000 innocent men and women who lost their
lives on that terrible day.
Hours ago, for example, we passed a resolution that designates
September 11 as a national day of remembrance.
But I believe that to truly honor those whose lives were lost, we
must match our words with action, and do all that we can in order to
prevent future attacks.
This bill is a significant step towards keeping that commitment, and
keeping Americans safe.
Mr. DASCHLE. It is my understanding that the managers intend now to
yield back the remainder of the time on the bill and we will go
straight to final passage.
First, I thank all Senators for their cooperation tonight. This was a
very good day. We got a lot of work done, and I appreciate the work of
all Members. There will not be rollcall votes tomorrow. In fact, we
will not be in session. We will come in on Monday, midafternoon. There
will be a vote on the motion to proceed to the foreign operations bill
and a vote on the conference report on the Interior appropriations bill
at approximately 5:30 Monday afternoon. I thank all Senators.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are about to go to final passage. We
thought there would be a managers' package. We signed off on this side,
and apparently the other side has not, which is their right.
Mr. HATCH. We have a managers' package. It is done. It is just being
assembled and put together and will be here.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. I am glad there will be a managers' package. We cannot
vote on final passage until the managers' package is here. I thank the
majority leader for his help. As I said before, I don't think the bill
could have gotten as far as it did without that help. I wish the
administration had kept to the agreement they made September 30. We
would have a more balanced bill. I still am not sure why the
administration backed away from their agreement. I am the old style
Vermonter: When you make an agreement, you stick with it. But they
decided not to, and it slowed us up a bit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let's have order in the Senate Chamber so the
Senator can be heard.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the passage of the amendment, the managers' amendment
be considered subject to approval by both managers and both leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. What is the request?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will repeat the request. There is a
technical amendment having to do with some of the issues that have been
worked out, that have no substantive consequence. I ask unanimous
consent that this managers' amendment be approved, notwithstanding
passage of the bill, subject to approval by the two managers and the
two leaders.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield all time. I ask for the yeas and nays on final
passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the third
time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the status?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is ready for third reading.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the Chair if the managers' amendment has been
adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been none submitted.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the Senator
from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:

[[Page 19552]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 302 Leg.]

YEAS--96

NAYS--1

Feingold

NOT VOTING --- 3

Domenici
Helms
Thurmond
The bill (S. 1510) as passed as follows:

S. 1510

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Uniting
and Strengthening America Act'' or the ``USA Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.-- The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Construction; severability.

TITLE I--ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM

Sec. 101. Counterterrorism fund.
Sec. 102. Sense of Congress condemning discrimination against Arab and
Muslim Americans.
Sec. 103. Increased funding for the technical support center at the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Sec. 104. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in
certain emergencies.
Sec. 105. Expansion of national electronic crime task force initiative.
Sec. 106. Presidential authority.

TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES

Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic
communications relating to terrorism.
Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic
communications relating to computer fraud and abuse
offenses.
Sec. 203. Authority to share criminal investigative information.
Sec. 204. Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on
interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic
communications.
Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Sec. 206. Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sec. 207. Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons
who are agents of a foreign power.
Sec. 208. Designation of judges.
Sec. 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants.
Sec. 210. Scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications.
Sec. 211. Clarification of scope.
Sec. 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect
life and limb.
Sec. 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant.
Sec. 214. Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA.
Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Sec. 216. Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers
and trap and trace devices.
Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications.
Sec. 218. Foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 219. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism.
Sec. 220. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic
evidence.
Sec. 221. Trade sanctions.
Sec. 222. Assistance to law enforcement agencies.

TITLE III--INTERNATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING ABATEMENT AND ANTI-TERRORIST
FINANCING ACT OF 2001

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 303. 4-Year congressional review-expedited consideration.

Subtitle A--International Counter Money Laundering and Related Measures

Sec. 311. Special measures for jurisdictions, financial institutions,
or international transactions of primary money laundering
concern.
Sec. 312. Special due diligence for correspondent accounts and private
banking accounts.
Sec. 313. Prohibition on United States correspondent accounts with
foreign shell banks.
Sec. 314. Cooperative efforts to deter money laundering.
Sec. 315. Inclusion of foreign corruption offenses as money laundering
crimes.
Sec. 316. Anti-terrorist forfeiture protection.
Sec. 317. Long-arm jurisdiction over foreign money launderers.
Sec. 318. Laundering money through a foreign bank.
Sec. 319. Forfeiture of funds in United States interbank accounts.
Sec. 320. Proceeds of foreign crimes.
Sec. 321. Exclusion of aliens involved in money laundering.
Sec. 322. Corporation represented by a fugitive.
Sec. 323. Enforcement of foreign judgments.
Sec. 324. Increase in civil and criminal penalties for money
laundering.
Sec. 325. Report and recommendation.
Sec. 326. Report on effectiveness.
Sec. 327. Concentration accounts at financial institutions.

Subtitle B--Currency Transaction Reporting Amendments and Related
Improvements

Sec. 331. Amendments relating to reporting of suspicious activities.
Sec. 332. Anti-money laundering programs.
Sec. 333. Penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders and
certain recordkeeping requirements, and lengthening
effective period of geographic targeting orders.
Sec. 334. Anti-money laundering strategy.
Sec. 335. Authorization to include suspicions of illegal activity in
written employment references.
Sec. 336. Bank Secrecy Act advisory group.
Sec. 337. Agency reports on reconciling penalty amounts.
Sec. 338. Reporting of suspicious activities by securities brokers and
dealers.
Sec. 339. Special report on administration of Bank Secrecy provisions.
Sec. 340. Bank Secrecy provisions and anti-terrorist activities of
United States intelligence agencies.
Sec. 341. Reporting of suspicious activities by hawala and other
underground banking systems.
Sec. 342. Use of Authority of the United States Executive Directors.

Subtitle D--Currency Crimes

Sec. 351. Bulk cash smuggling.

Subtitle E--Anticorruption Measures

Sec. 361. Corruption of foreign governments and ruling elites.
Sec. 362. Support for the financial action task force on money
laundering.
Sec. 363. Terrorist funding through money laundering.

TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER

Subtitle A--Protecting the Northern Border

Sec. 401. Ensuring adequate personnel on the northern border.
Sec. 402. Northern border personnel.
Sec. 403. Access by the Department of State and the INS to certain
identifying information in the criminal history records
of visa applicants and applicants for admission to the
United States.
Sec. 404. Limited authority to pay overtime.
Sec. 405. Report on the integrated automated fingerprint identification
system for points of entry and overseas consular posts.

Subtitle B--Enhanced Immigration Provisions

Sec. 411. Definitions relating to terrorism.
Sec. 412. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus;
judicial review.
Sec. 413. Multilateral cooperation against terrorists.

TITLE V--REMOVING OBSTACLES TO INVESTIGATING TERRORISM

Sec. 501. Professional Standards for Government Attorneys Act of 2001.
Sec. 502. Attorney General's authority to pay rewards to combat
terrorism.
Sec. 503. Secretary of State's authority to pay rewards.
Sec. 504. DNA identification of terrorists and other violent offenders.
Sec. 505. Coordination with law enforcement.
Sec. 506. Miscellaneous national security authorities.
Sec. 507. Extension of Secret Service jurisdiction.
Sec. 508. Disclosure of educational records.
Sec. 509. Disclosure of information from NCES surveys.

[[Page 19553]]

TITLE VI--PROVIDING FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS,
AND THEIR FAMILIES

Subtitle A--Aid to Families of Public Safety Officers

Sec. 611. Expedited payment for public safety officers involved in the
prevention, investigation, rescue, or recovery efforts
related to a terrorist attack.
Sec. 612. Technical correction with respect to expedited payments for
heroic public safety officers.
Sec. 613. Public Safety Officers Benefit Program payment increase.
Sec. 614. Office of justice programs.

Subtitle B--Amendments to the Victims of Crime Act of 1984

Sec. 621. Crime Victims Fund.
Sec. 622. Crime victim compensation.
Sec. 623. Crime victim assistance.
Sec. 624. Victims of terrorism.

TITLE VII--INCREASED INFORMATION SHARING FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PROTECTION

Sec. 711. Expansion of regional information sharing system to
facilitate Federal-State-local law enforcement response
related to terrorist attacks.

TITLE VIII--STRENGTHENING THE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM

Sec. 801. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass
transportation systems.
Sec. 802. Expansion of the biological weapons statute.
Sec. 803. Definition of domestic terrorism.
Sec. 804. Prohibition against harboring terrorists.
Sec. 805. Jurisdiction over crimes committed at U.S. facilities abroad.
Sec. 806. Material support for terrorism.
Sec. 807. Assets of terrorist organizations.
Sec. 808. Technical clarification relating to provision of material
support to terrorism.
Sec. 809. Definition of Federal crime of terrorism.
Sec. 810. No statute of limitation for certain terrorism offenses.
Sec. 811. Alternate maximum penalties for terrorism offenses.
Sec. 812. Penalties for terrorist conspiracies.
Sec. 813. Post-release supervision of terrorists.
Sec. 814. Inclusion of acts of terrorism as racketeering activity.
Sec. 815. Deterrence and prevention of cyberterrorism.
Sec. 816. Additional defense to civil actions relating to preserving
records in response to government requests.
Sec. 817. Development and support of cybersecurity forensic
capabilities.

TITLE IX--IMPROVED INTELLIGENCE

Sec. 901. Responsibilities of Director of Central Intelligence
regarding foreign intelligence collected under Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sec. 902. Inclusion of international terrorist activities within scope
of foreign intelligence under National Security Act of
1947.
Sec. 903. Sense of Congress on the establishment and maintenance of
intelligence relationships to acquire information on
terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Sec. 904. Temporary authority to defer submittal to Congress of reports
on intelligence and intelligence-related matters.
Sec. 905. Disclosure to director of central intelligence of foreign
intelligence-related information with respect to criminal
investigations.
Sec. 906. Foreign terrorist asset tracking center.
Sec. 907. National virtual translation center.
Sec. 908. Training of government officials regarding identification and
use of foreign intelligence.

SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY.

Any provision of this Act held to be invalid or
unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or
circumstance, shall be construed so as to give it the maximum
effect permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of
utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event such
provision shall be deemed severable from this Act and shall
not affect the remainder thereof or the application of such
provision to other persons not similarly situated or to
other, dissimilar circumstances.

TITLE I--ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM

SEC. 101. COUNTERTERRORISM FUND.

(a) Establishment; Availability.--There is hereby
established in the Treasury of the United States a separate
fund to be known as the ``Counterterrorism Fund'', amounts in
which shall remain available without fiscal year limitation--
(1) to reimburse any Department of Justice component for
any costs incurred in connection with--
(A) reestablishing the operational capability of an office
or facility that has been damaged or destroyed as the result
of any domestic or international terrorism incident;
(B) providing support to counter, investigate, or prosecute
domestic or international terrorism, including, without
limitation, paying rewards in connection with these
activities; and
(C) conducting terrorism threat assessments of Federal
agencies and their facilities; and
(2) to reimburse any department or agency of the Federal
Government for any costs incurred in connection with
detaining in foreign countries individuals accused of acts of
terrorism that violate the laws of the United States.
(b) No Effect on Prior Appropriations.--Subsection (a)
shall not be construed to affect the amount or availability
of any appropriation to the Counterterrorism Fund made before
the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONDEMNING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
ARAB AND MUSLIM AMERICANS.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from
South Asia play a vital role in our Nation and are entitled
to nothing less than the full rights of every American.
(2) The acts of violence that have been taken against Arab
and Muslim Americans since the September 11, 2001, attacks
against the United States should be and are condemned by all
Americans who value freedom.
(3) The concept of individual responsibility for wrongdoing
is sacrosanct in American society, and applies equally to all
religious, racial, and ethnic groups.
(4) When American citizens commit acts of violence against
those who are, or are perceived to be, of Arab or Muslim
descent, they should be punished to the full extent of the
law.
(5) Muslim Americans have become so fearful of harassment
that many Muslim women are changing the way they dress to
avoid becoming targets.
(6) Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted
heroically during the attacks on the United States, including
Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of
Pakistani descent, who is believed to have gone to the World
Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now missing.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans,
including Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans
from South Asia, must be protected, and that every effort
must be taken to preserve their safety;
(2) any acts of violence or discrimination against any
Americans be condemned; and
(3) the Nation is called upon to recognize the patriotism
of fellow citizens from all ethnic, racial, and religious
backgrounds.

SEC. 103. INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT CENTER
AT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated for the Technical
Support Center established in section 811 of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-132) to help meet the demands for activities to
combat terrorism and support and enhance the technical
support and tactical operations of the FBI, $200,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.

SEC. 104. REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO ENFORCE
PROHIBITION IN CERTAIN EMERGENCIES.

Section 2332e of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``2332c'' and inserting ``2332a''; and
(2) by striking ``chemical''.

SEC. 105. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL ELECTRONIC CRIME TASK FORCE
INITIATIVE.

The Director of the United States Secret Service shall take
appropriate actions to develop a national network of
electronic crime task forces, based on the New York
Electronic Crimes Task Force model, throughout the United
States, for the purpose of preventing, detecting, and
investigating various forms of electronic crimes, including
potential terrorist attacks against critical infrastructure
and financial payment systems.

SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.

Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that
subparagraph), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a comma
and the following:
``by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States;'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting ``, block during the pendency of an
investigation'' after ``investigate''; and
(ii) by striking ``interest;'' and inserting ``interest by
any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States; and''; and
(C) by inserting at the end the following:
``(C) when the United States is engaged in armed
hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or
foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person,
foreign organization, or foreign country

[[Page 19554]]

that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged
in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and
all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated
shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the
President, in such agency or person as the President may
designate from time to time, and upon such terms and
conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or
property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold,
or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the
benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or
person may perform any and all acts incident to the
accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
``(c) Classified Information.--In any judicial review of a
determination made under this section, if the determination
was based on classified information (as defined in section
1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act) such
information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte
and in camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any
right to judicial review.''.

TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.

Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by
section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as
paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by
section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public
Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new
paragraph:
``(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to
chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d,
2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or''.

SEC. 202. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO COMPUTER FRAUD AND
ABUSE OFFENSES.

Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``and section 1341 (relating to mail
fraud),'' and inserting ``section 1341 (relating to mail
fraud), a felony violation of section 1030 (relating to
computer fraud and abuse),''.

SEC. 203. AUTHORITY TO SHARE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE
INFORMATION.

(a) Authority to Share Grand Jury Information.--
(1) In general.--Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure is amended--
(A) in clause (iii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by inserting at the end the following:
``(v) when the matters involve foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign
intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(ii))
to any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence,
protective, immigration, national defense, or national
security official in order to assist the official receiving
that information in the performance of his official duties.
Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to
clause (v) may use that information only as necessary in the
conduct of that person's official duties subject to any
limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such
information.''.
(2) Definition.--Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as amended by paragraph (1), is amended
by--
(A) inserting ``(i)'' after ``(C)'';
(B) redesignating clauses (i) through (v) as subclauses (I)
through (IV), respectively; and
(C) inserting at the end the following:
``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `foreign intelligence
information' means--
``(I) information, whether or not concerning a United
States person, that relates to the ability of the United
States to protect against--

``(aa) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile
acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
``(bb) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign
power or an agent of a foreign power; or
``(cc) clandestine intelligence activities by an
intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an
agent of a foreign power; or

``(II) information, whether or not concerning a United
States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign
territory that relates to--

``(aa) the national defense or the security of the United
States; or
``(bb) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United
States.''.

(b) Authority To Share Electronic, Wire, and Oral
Interception Information.--
(1) Law enforcement.--Section 2517 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the
following:
``(6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or
attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by
this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any
wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived
therefrom, may disclose such contents to any other Federal
law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration,
national defense, or national security official to the extent
that such contents include foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign
intelligence information (as defined in subsection (19) of
section 2510 of this title), to assist the official who is to
receive that information in the performance of his official
duties. Any Federal official who receives information
pursuant to this provision may use that information only as
necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties
subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of
such information.''.
(2) Definition.--Section 2510 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by--
(A) in paragraph (17), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (18), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by inserting at the end the following:
``(19) `foreign intelligence information' means--
``(A) information, whether or not concerning a United
States person, that relates to the ability of the United
States to protect against--
``(i) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile
acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
``(ii) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign
power or an agent of a foreign power; or
``(iii) clandestine intelligence activities by an
intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an
agent of a foreign power; or
``(B) information, whether or not concerning a United
States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign
territory that relates to--
``(i) the national defense or the security of the United
States; or
``(ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United
States.''.
(c) Procedures.--The Attorney General shall establish
procedures for the disclosure of information pursuant to
section 2517(6) and Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(v) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure that identifies a United States person,
as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801)).
(d) Foreign Intelligence Information.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, it shall be lawful for foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence (as defined section 3 of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)) or foreign
intelligence information obtained as part of a criminal
investigation to be disclosed to any Federal law enforcement,
intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or
national security official in order to assist the official
receiving that information in the performance of his official
duties. Any Federal official who receives information
pursuant to this provision may use that information only as
necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties
subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of
such information.
(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``foreign
intelligence information'' means--
(A) information, whether or not concerning a United States
person, that relates to the ability of the United States to
protect against--
(i) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts
of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(ii) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power
or an agent of a foreign power; or
(iii) clandestine intelligence activities by an
intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an
agent of a foreign power; or
(B) information, whether or not concerning a United States
person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory
that relates to--
(i) the national defense or the security of the United
States; or
(ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United
States.

SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF INTELLIGENCE EXCEPTIONS FROM
LIMITATIONS ON INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF
WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

Section 2511(2)(f) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``this chapter or chapter 121'' and
inserting ``this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this
title''; and
(2) by striking ``wire and oral'' and inserting ``wire,
oral, and electronic''.

SEC. 205. EMPLOYMENT OF TRANSLATORS BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION.

(a) Authority.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation is authorized to expedite the employment of
personnel as translators to support counterterrorism
investigations and operations without regard to applicable
Federal personnel requirements and limitations.
(b) Security Requirements.--The Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation shall

[[Page 19555]]

establish such security requirements as are necessary for the
personnel employed as translators under subsection (a).
(c) Report.--The Attorney General shall report to the
Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
and the Senate on--
(1) the number of translators employed by the FBI and other
components of the Department of Justice;
(2) any legal or practical impediments to using translators
employed by other Federal, State, or local agencies, on a
full, part-time, or shared basis; and
(3) the needs of the FBI for specific translation services
in certain languages, and recommendations for meeting those
needs.

SEC. 206. ROVING SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY UNDER THE FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended
by inserting ``, or in circumstances where the Court finds
that the actions of the target of the application may have
the effect of thwarting the identification of a specified
person, such other persons,'' after ``specified person''.

SEC. 207. DURATION OF FISA SURVEILLANCE OF NON-UNITED STATES
PERSONS WHO ARE AGENTS OF A FOREIGN POWER.

(a) Duration .--
(1) Surveillance.--Section 105(d)(1) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(d)(1))
is amended by--
(A) inserting ``(A)'' after ``except that''; and
(B) inserting before the period the following: ``, and (B)
an order under this Act for a surveillance targeted against
an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 101(b)(A)
may be for the period specified in the application or for 120
days, whichever is less''.
(2) Physical Search.--Section 304(d)(1) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1824(d)(1))
is amended by--
(A) striking ``forty-five'' and inserting ``90'';
(B) inserting ``(A)'' after ``except that''; and
(C) inserting before the period the following: ``, and (B)
an order under this section for a physical search targeted
against an agent of a foreign power as defined in section
101(b)(A) may be for the period specified in the application
or for 120 days, whichever is less''.
(b) Extension.--
(1) In general.--Section 105(d)(2) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(d)(2))
is amended by--
(A) inserting ``(A)'' after ``except that''; and
(B) inserting before the period the following: ``, and (B)
an extension of an order under this Act for a surveillance
targeted against an agent of a foreign power as defined in
section 101(b)(1)(A) may be for a period not to exceed 1
year''.
(2) Defined term.--Section 304(d)(2) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1824(d)(2)
is amended by inserting after ``not a United States person,''
the following: ``or against an agent of a foreign power as
defined in section 101(b)(1)(A)''.

SEC. 208. DESIGNATION OF JUDGES.

Section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) is amended by--
(1) striking ``seven district court judges'' and inserting
``11 district court judges''; and
(2) inserting ``of whom no less than 3 shall reside within
20 miles of the District of Columbia'' after ``circuits''.

SEC. 209. SEIZURE OF VOICE-MAIL MESSAGES PURSUANT TO
WARRANTS.

Title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 2510--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking beginning with ``and
such'' and all that follows through ``communication''; and
(B) in paragraph (14), by inserting ``wire or'' after
``transmission of''; and
(2) in subsections (a) and (b) of section 2703--
(A) by striking ``Contents of electronic'' and inserting
``Contents of wire or electronic'' each place it appears;
(B) by striking ``contents of an electronic'' and inserting
``contents of a wire or electronic'' each place it appears;
and
(C) by striking ``any electronic'' and inserting ``any wire
or electronic'' each place it appears.

SEC. 210. SCOPE OF SUBPOENAS FOR RECORDS OF ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS.

Section 2703(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as
redesignated by section 212, is amended--
(1) by striking ``entity the name, address, local and long
distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or
other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of
the subscriber'' and inserting the following: ``entity the--
``(A) name;
``(B) address;
``(C) local and long distance telephone connection records,
or records of session times and durations;
``(D) length of service (including start date) and types of
service utilized;
``(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber
number or identity, including any temporarily assigned
network address; and
``(F) means and source of payment (including any credit
card or bank account number),
of a subscriber''; and

(2) by striking ``and the types of services the subscriber
or customer utilized,''.

SEC. 211. CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE.

Section 631 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
551) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'';
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting''; or''; and
(C) by inserting at the end the following:
``(D) authorized under chapters 119, 121, or 206 of title
18, United States Code, except that such disclosure shall not
include records revealing customer cable television viewing
activity.''; and
(2) in subsection (h) by striking ``A governmental entity''
and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (c)(2)(D), a
governmental entity''.

SEC. 212. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
TO PROTECT LIFE AND LIMB.

(a) Disclosure of Contents.--
(1) In general.--Section 2702 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:

``Sec. 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications
or records'';

(B) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic
communication service to the public shall not knowingly
divulge a record or other information pertaining to a
subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the
contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2))
to any governmental entity.'';
(C) in subsection (b), by striking ``Exceptions.--A person
or entity'' and inserting ``Exceptions for disclosure of
communications.-- A provider described in subsection (a)'';
(D) in subsection (b)(6)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``or'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency
involving immediate danger of death or serious physical
injury to any person requires disclosure of the information
without delay.''; and
(E) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records.--A
provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or
other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer
of such service (not including the contents of communications
covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2))--
``(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
``(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or
subscriber;
``(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of
the service or to the protection of the rights or property of
the provider of that service;
``(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably
believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of
death or serious physical injury to any person justifies
disclosure of the information; or
``(5) to any person other than a governmental entity.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 2702 and
inserting the following:

``2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records.''.

(b) Requirements for Government Access.--
(1) In general.--Section 2703 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:

``Sec. 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications
or records'';

(B) in subsection (c) by redesignating paragraph (2) as
paragraph (3);
(C) in subsection (c)(1)--
(i) by striking ``(A) Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), a provider of electronic communication service or remote
computing service may'' and inserting ``A governmental entity
may require a provider of electronic communication service or
remote computing service to'';
(ii) by striking ``covered by subsection (a) or (b) of this
section) to any person other than a governmental entity.
``(B) A provider of electronic communication service or
remote computing service shall disclose a record or other
information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such
service (not including the contents of communications covered
by subsection (a) or (b) of this section) to a governmental
entity'' and inserting ``)'';

[[Page 19556]]

(iii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as paragraph (2);
(iv) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) as
subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), respectively;
(v) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) by striking the
period and inserting ``; or''; and
(vi) by inserting after subparagraph (D) (as redesignated)
the following:
``(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).''; and
(D) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated) by striking
``subparagraph (B)'' and insert ``paragraph (1)''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 2703 and
inserting the following:

``2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records.''.

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A
WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``In
addition''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Delay.--With respect to the issuance of any warrant
or court order under this section, or any other rule of law,
to search for and seize any property or material that
constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of
the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that
may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
``(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that
providing immediate notification of the execution of the
warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section
2705);
``(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible
property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in
section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter
121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where
the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
``(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice
within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may
thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.''.

SEC. 214. PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE AUTHORITY UNDER
FISA.

(a) Applications and Orders.--Section 402 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1842) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``for any
investigation to gather foreign intelligence information or
information concerning international terrorism'' and
inserting ``for any investigation to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities, provided that such investigation of a United
States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of
activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution'';
(2) by amending subsection (c)(2) to read as follows:
``(2) a certification by the applicant that the information
likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing investigation
to protect against international terrorism or clandestine
intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of
a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis
of activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution.'';
(3) by striking subsection (c)(3); and
(4) by amending subsection (d)(2)(A) to read as follows:
``(A) shall specify--
``(i) the identity, if known, of the person who is the
subject of the investigation;
``(ii) the identity, if known, of the person to whom is
leased or in whose name is listed the telephone line or other
facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device
is to be attached or applied;
``(iii) the attributes of the communications to which the
order applies, such as the number or other identifier, and,
if known, the location of the telephone line or other
facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device
is to be attached or applied and, in the case of a trap and
trace device, the geographic limits of the trap and trace
order.''.
(b) Authorization During Emergencies.--Section 403 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1843) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``foreign intelligence
information or information concerning international
terrorism'' and inserting ``information to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities, provided that such investigation of a United
States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of
activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``foreign
intelligence information or information concerning
international terrorism'' and inserting ``information to
protect against international terrorism or clandestine
intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of
a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis
of activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution''.

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections
501 through 503 and inserting the following:

``SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
INVESTIGATIONS.

``(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall
be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make
an application for an order requiring the production of any
tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents,
and other items) for an investigation to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities, provided that such investigation of a United
States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of
activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution.
``(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
``(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the
Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor
order); and
``(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely
upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
``(b) Each application under this section--
``(1) shall be made to--
``(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a);
or
``(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of
title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by
the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to
hear applications and grant orders for the production of
tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of
that court; and
``(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought
for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with
subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism
or clandestine intelligence activities.
``(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section,
the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as
modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds
that the application meets the requirements of this section.
``(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose
that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described
in subsection (a).
``(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other
than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things
under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
``(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things
under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable
to any other person for such production. Such production
shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege
in any other proceeding or context.

``SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

``(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall
fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the
production of tangible things under section 402.
``(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall
provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with
respect to the preceding 6-month period--
``(1) the total number of applications made for orders
approving requests for the production of tangible things
under section 402; and
``(2) the total number of such orders either granted,
modified, or denied.''.

SEC. 216. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO USE OF PEN
REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.

(a) General Limitations.--Section 3121(c) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or trap and trace device'' after ``pen
register'';
(2) by inserting ``, routing, addressing,'' after
``dialing''; and
(3) by striking ``call processing'' and inserting ``the
processing and transmitting of wire or electronic
communications so as not to include the contents of any wire
or electronic communications''.
(b) Issuance of Orders.--
(1) In general.--Section 3123(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Attorney for the government.--Upon an application
made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex
parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen
register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United
States, if the court finds that the attorney for the
Government has certified to the court that the information
likely to be obtained by such installation and use is
relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The order,
upon service of that order, shall apply to any person or
entity providing wire or electronic communication service in
the United States whose assistance may facilitate the
execution of the order. Whenever such an order is served on
any person or entity not specifically named in the order,
upon request of such person or

[[Page 19557]]

entity, the attorney for the Government or law enforcement or
investigative officer that is serving the order shall provide
written or electronic certification that the order applies to
the person or entity being served.
``(2) State investigative or law enforcement officer.--Upon
an application made under section 3122(a)(2), the court shall
enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use
of a pen register or trap and trace device within the
jurisdiction of the court, if the court finds that the State
law enforcement or investigative officer has certified to the
court that the information likely to be obtained by such
installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal
investigation.''.
(2) Contents of order.--Section 3123(b)(1) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``or other facility'' after ``telephone
line''; and
(ii) by inserting before the semicolon at the end ``or
applied''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) the attributes of the communications to which the
order applies, including the number or other identifier and,
if known, the location of the telephone line or other
facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device
is to be attached or applied, and, in the case of an order
authorizing installation and use of a trap and trace device
under subsection (a)(2), the geographic limits of the order;
and''.
(3) Nondisclosure requirements.--Section 3123(d)(2) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or other facility'' after ``the line'';
and
(B) by striking ``, or who has been ordered by the court''
and inserting ``or applied, or who is obligated by the
order''.
(c) Definitions.--
(1) Court of competent jurisdiction.--Section 3127(2) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking
subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(A) any district court of the United States (including a
magistrate judge of such a court) or any United States court
of appeals having jurisdiction over the offense being
investigated; or''.
(2) Pen register.--Section 3127(3) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``electronic or other impulses'' and all
that follows through ``is attached'' and inserting ``dialing,
routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by
an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic
communication is transmitted, provided, however, that such
information shall not include the contents of any
communication''; and
(B) by inserting ``or process'' after ``device'' each place
it appears.
(3) Trap and trace device.--Section 3127(4) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``of an instrument'' and all that follows
through the semicolon and inserting ``or other dialing,
routing, addressing, and signaling information reasonably
likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic
communication, provided, however, that such information shall
not include the contents of any communication;''; and
(B) by inserting ``or process'' after ``a device''.
(4) Conforming amendment.--Section 3127(1) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``and''; and
(B) by inserting ``, and `contents' '' after ``electronic
communication service''.
(5) Technical amendment.--Section 3124(d) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``the terms of''.

SEC. 217. INTERCEPTION OF COMPUTER TRESPASSER COMMUNICATIONS.

Chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 2510--
(A) in paragraph (17), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (18), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (18) the following:
``(19) `protected computer' has the meaning set forth in
section 1030; and
``(20) `computer trespasser'--
``(A) means a person who accesses a protected computer
without authorization and thus has no reasonable expectation
of privacy in any communication transmitted to, through, or
from the protected computer; and
``(B) does not include a person known by the owner or
operator of the protected computer to have an existing
contractual relationship with the owner or operator of the
protected computer for access to all or part of the protected
computer.''; and
(2) in section 2511(2), by inserting at the end the
following:
``(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a
person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or
electronic communications of a computer trespasser, if--
``(i) the owner or operator of the protected computer
authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser's
communications on the protected computer;
``(ii) the person acting under color of law is lawfully
engaged in an investigation;
``(iii) the person acting under color of law has reasonable
grounds to believe that the contents of the computer
trespasser's communications will be relevant to the
investigation; and
``(iv) such interception does not acquire communications
other than those transmitted to or from the computer
trespasser.''.

SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C.
1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 are each amended by striking ``the
purpose'' and inserting ``a significant purpose''.

SEC. 219. SINGLE-JURISDICTION SEARCH WARRANTS FOR TERRORISM.

Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is
amended by inserting after ``executed'' the following: ``and
(3) in an investigation of domestic terrorism or
international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of title
18, United States Code), by a Federal magistrate judge in any
district in which activities related to the terrorism may
have occurred, for a search of property or for a person
within or outside the district''.

SEC. 220. NATIONWIDE SERVICE OF SEARCH WARRANTS FOR
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE.

Chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 2703, by striking ``under the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure'' every place it appears and inserting
``using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the
offense under investigation''; and
(2) in section 2711--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by inserting at the end the following:
``(3) the term `court of competent jurisdiction' has the
meaning assigned by section 3127, and includes any Federal
court within that definition, without geographic
limitation.''.

SEC. 221. TRADE SANCTIONS.

(a) In general.--The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-
67) is amended--
(1) by amending section 904(2)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) used to facilitate the design, development, or
production of chemical or biological weapons, missiles, or
weapons of mass destruction.'';
(2) in section 906(a)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``, the Taliban or the territory of
Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban,'' after ``Cuba''; and
(B) by inserting ``, or in the territory of Afghanistan
controlled by the Taliban,'' after ``within such country'';
and
(3) in section 906(a)(2), by inserting ``, or to any other
entity in Syria or North Korea'' after ``Korea''.
(b) Application of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act.--Nothing in the Trade Sanctions Reform and
Export Enhancement Act of 2000 shall limit the application or
scope of any law establishing criminal or civil penalties,
including any executive order or regulation promulgated
pursuant to such laws (or similar or successor laws), for the
unlawful export of any agricultural commodity, medicine, or
medical device to--
(1) a foreign organization, group, or person designated
pursuant to Executive Order 12947 of June 25, 1995;
(2) a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant to the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-132);
(3) a foreign organization, group, or person designated
pursuant to Executive Order 13224 (September 23, 2001);
(4) any narcotics trafficking entity designated pursuant to
Executive Order 12978 (October 21, 1995) or the Foreign
Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Public Law 106-120); or
(5) any foreign organization, group, or persons subject to
any restriction for its involvement in weapons of mass
destruction or missile proliferation.

SEC. 222. ASSISTANCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

Nothing in this Act shall impose any additional technical
obligation or requirement on a provider of wire or electronic
communication service or other person to furnish facilities
or technical assistance. A provider of a wire or electronic
communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person
who furnishes facilities or technical assistance pursuant to
section 216 shall be reasonably compensated for such
reasonable expenditures incurred in providing such facilities
or assistance.

TITLE III--INTERNATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING ABATEMENT AND ANTI-TERRORIST
FINANCING ACT OF 2001.

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``International Money
Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of
2001''.

SEC. 302. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) money laundering, estimated by the International
Monetary Fund to amount to

[[Page 19558]]

between 2 and 5 percent of global gross domestic product,
which is at least $600,000,000,000 annually, provides the
financial fuel that permits transnational criminal
enterprises to conduct and expand their operations to the
detriment of the safety and security of American citizens;
(2) money laundering, and the defects in financial
transparency on which money launderers rely, are critical to
the financing of global terrorism and the provision of funds
for terrorist attacks;
(3) money launderers subvert legitimate financial
mechanisms and banking relationships by using them as
protective covering for the movement of criminal proceeds and
the financing of crime and terrorism, and, by so doing, can
threaten the safety of United States citizens and undermine
the integrity of United States financial institutions and of
the global financial and trading systems upon which
prosperity and growth depend;
(4) certain jurisdictions outside of the United States that
offer ``offshore'' banking and related facilities designed to
provide anonymity, coupled with special tax advantages and
weak financial supervisory and enforcement regimes, provide
essential tools to disguise ownership and movement of
criminal funds, derived from, or used to commit, offenses
ranging from narcotics trafficking, terrorism, arms
smuggling, and trafficking in human beings, to financial
frauds that prey on law-abiding citizens;
(5) transactions involving such offshore jurisdictions make
it difficult for law enforcement officials and regulators to
follow the trail of money earned by criminals, organized
international criminal enterprises, and global terrorist
organizations;
(6) correspondent banking facilities are one of the banking
mechanisms susceptible in some circumstances to manipulation
by foreign banks to permit the laundering of funds by hiding
the identity of real parties in interest to financial
transactions;
(7) private banking services can be susceptible to
manipulation by money launderers, for example corrupt foreign
government officials, particularly if those services include
the creation of offshore accounts and facilities for large
personal funds transfers to channel funds into accounts
around the globe;
(8) United States anti-money laundering efforts are impeded
by outmoded and inadequate statutory provisions that make
investigations, prosecutions, and forfeitures more difficult,
particularly in cases in which money laundering involves
foreign persons, foreign banks, or foreign countries;
(9) the ability to mount effective counter-measures to
international money launderers requires national, as well as
bilateral and multilateral action, using tools specially
designed for that effort; and
(10) the Basle Committee on Banking Regulation and
Supervisory Practices and the Financial Action Task Force on
Money Laundering, of both of which the United States is a
member, have each adopted international anti-money laundering
principles and recommendations.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to increase the strength of United States measures to
prevent, detect, and prosecute international money laundering
and the financing of terrorism;
(2) to ensure that--
(A) banking transactions and financial relationships and
the conduct of such transactions and relationships, do not
contravene the purposes of subchapter II of chapter 53 of
title 31, United States Code, section 21 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act, or chapter 2 of title I of Public Law
91-508 (84 Stat. 1116), or facilitate the evasion of any such
provision; and
(B) the purposes of such provisions of law continue to be
fulfilled, and that such provisions of law are effectively
and efficiently administered;
(3) to strengthen the provisions put into place by the
Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 981 note),
especially with respect to crimes by non-United States
nationals and foreign financial institutions;
(4) to provide a clear national mandate for subjecting to
special scrutiny those foreign jurisdictions, financial
institutions operating outside of the United States, and
classes of international transactions that pose particular,
identifiable opportunities for criminal abuse;
(5) to provide the Secretary of the Treasury (in this title
referred to as the ``Secretary'') with broad discretion,
subject to the safeguards provided by the Administrative
Procedures Act under title 5, United States Code, to take
measures tailored to the particular money laundering problems
presented by specific foreign jurisdictions, financial
institutions operating outside of the United States, and
classes of international transactions;
(6) to ensure that the employment of such measures by the
Secretary permits appropriate opportunity for comment by
affected financial institutions;
(7) to provide guidance to domestic financial institutions
on particular foreign jurisdictions, financial institutions
operating outside of the United States, and classes of
international transactions that are of primary money
laundering concern to the United States Government;
(8) to ensure that the forfeiture of any assets in
connection with the anti-terrorist efforts of the United
States permits for adequate challenge consistent with
providing due process rights;
(9) to clarify the terms of the safe harbor from civil
liability for filing suspicious activity reports;
(10) to strengthen the authority of the Secretary to issue
and administer geographic targeting orders, and to clarify
that violations of such orders or any other requirement
imposed under the authority contained in chapter 2 of title I
of Public Law 91-508 and subchapters II and III of chapter 53
of title 31, United States Code, may result in criminal and
civil penalties;
(11) to ensure that all appropriate elements of the
financial services industry are subject to appropriate
requirements to report potential money laundering
transactions to proper authorities, and that jurisdictional
disputes do not hinder examination of compliance by financial
institutions with relevant reporting requirements;
(12) to fix responsibility for high level coordination of
the anti-money laundering efforts of the Department of the
Treasury;
(13) to strengthen the ability of financial institutions to
maintain the integrity of their employee population; and
(14) to strengthen measures to prevent the use of the
United States financial system for personal gain by corrupt
foreign officials and to facilitate the repatriation of any
stolen assets to the citizens of countries to whom such
assets belong.

SEC. 303. 4-YEAR CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW-EXPEDITED
CONSIDERATION.

(a) In General.--Effective on and after the first day of
fiscal year 2005, the provisions of this title and the
amendments made by this title shall terminate if the Congress
enacts a joint resolution, the text after the resolving
clause of which is as follows: ``That provisions of the
International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist
Financing Act of 2001, and the amendments made thereby, shall
no longer have the force of law.''.
(b) Expedited Consideration.--Any joint resolution
submitted pursuant to this section shall be considered in the
Senate in accordance with the provisions of section 601(b) of
the International Security Assistance and Arms Control Act of
1976. For the purpose of expediting the consideration and
enactment of a joint resolution under this section, a motion
to proceed to the consideration of any such joint resolution
after it has been reported by the appropriate committee,
shall be treated as highly privileged in the House of
Representatives.

Subtitle A--International Counter Money Laundering and Related Measures

SEC. 311. SPECIAL MEASURES FOR JURISDICTIONS, FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, OR INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF
PRIMARY MONEY LAUNDERING CONCERN.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
5318 the following new section:

``SEC. 5318A. SPECIAL MEASURES FOR JURISDICTIONS, FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, OR INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF
PRIMARY MONEY LAUNDERING CONCERN.

``(a) International Counter-Money Laundering
Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may require domestic
financial institutions and domestic financial agencies to
take 1 or more of the special measures described in
subsection (b) if the Secretary finds that reasonable grounds
exist for concluding that a jurisdiction outside of the
United States, 1 or more financial institutions operating
outside of the United States, 1 or more classes of
transactions within, or involving, a jurisdiction outside of
the United States, or 1 or more types of accounts is of
primary money laundering concern, in accordance with
subsection (c).
``(2) Form of requirement.--The special measures described
in--
``(A) subsection (b) may be imposed in such sequence or
combination as the Secretary shall determine;
``(B) paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (b) may be
imposed by regulation, order, or otherwise as permitted by
law; and
``(C) subsection (b)(5) may be imposed only by regulation.
``(3) Duration of orders; rulemaking.--Any order by which a
special measure described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of
subsection (b) is imposed (other than an order described in
section 5326)--
``(A) shall be issued together with a notice of proposed
rulemaking relating to the imposition of such special
measure; and
``(B) may not remain in effect for more than 120 days,
except pursuant to a rule promulgated on or before the end of
the 120-day period beginning on the date of issuance of such
order.
``(4) Process for selecting special measures.--In selecting
which special measure or measures to take under this
subsection, the Secretary--
``(A) shall consult with the Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any other
appropriate Federal banking agency, as defined in section 3
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the National

[[Page 19559]]

Credit Union Administration Board, and in the sole discretion
of the Secretary such other agencies and interested parties
as the Secretary may find to be appropriate; and
``(B) shall consider--
``(i) whether similar action has been or is being taken by
other nations or multilateral groups;
``(ii) whether the imposition of any particular special
measure would create a significant competitive disadvantage,
including any undue cost or burden associated with
compliance, for financial institutions organized or licensed
in the United States; and
``(iii) the extent to which the action or the timing of the
action would have a significant adverse systemic impact on
the international payment, clearance, and settlement system,
or on legitimate business activities involving the particular
jurisdiction, institution, or class of transactions.
``(5) No limitation on other authority.--This section shall
not be construed as superseding or otherwise restricting any
other authority granted to the Secretary, or to any other
agency, by this subchapter or otherwise.
``(b) Special Measures.--The special measures referred to
in subsection (a), with respect to a jurisdiction outside of
the United States, financial institution operating outside of
the United States, class of transaction within, or involving,
a jurisdiction outside of the United States, or 1 or more
types of accounts are as follows:
``(1) Recordkeeping and reporting of certain financial
transactions.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may require any domestic
financial institution or domestic financial agency to
maintain records, file reports, or both, concerning the
aggregate amount of transactions, or concerning each
transaction, with respect to a jurisdiction outside of the
United States, 1 or more financial institutions operating
outside of the United States, 1 or more classes of
transactions within, or involving, a jurisdiction outside of
the United States, or 1 or more types of accounts if the
Secretary finds any such jurisdiction, institution, or class
of transactions to be of primary money laundering concern.
``(B) Form of records and reports.--Such records and
reports shall be made and retained at such time, in such
manner, and for such period of time, as the Secretary shall
determine, and shall include such information as the
Secretary may determine, including--
``(i) the identity and address of the participants in a
transaction or relationship, including the identity of the
originator of any funds transfer;
``(ii) the legal capacity in which a participant in any
transaction is acting;
``(iii) the identity of the beneficial owner of the funds
involved in any transaction, in accordance with such
procedures as the Secretary determines to be reasonable and
practicable to obtain and retain the information; and
``(iv) a description of any transaction.
``(2) Information relating to beneficial ownership.--In
addition to any other requirement under any other provision
of law, the Secretary may require any domestic financial
institution or domestic financial agency to take such steps
as the Secretary may determine to be reasonable and
practicable to obtain and retain information concerning the
beneficial ownership of any account opened or maintained in
the United States by a foreign person (other than a foreign
entity whose shares are subject to public reporting
requirements or are listed and traded on a regulated exchange
or trading market), or a representative of such a foreign
person, that involves a jurisdiction outside of the United
States, 1 or more financial institutions operating outside of
the United States, 1 or more classes of transactions within,
or involving, a jurisdiction outside of the United States, or
1 or more types of accounts if the Secretary finds any such
jurisdiction, institution, or transaction to be of primary
money laundering concern.
``(3) Information relating to certain payable-through
accounts.--If the Secretary finds a jurisdiction outside of
the United States, 1 or more financial institutions operating
outside of the United States, or 1 or more classes of
transactions within, or involving, a jurisdiction outside of
the United States to be of primary money laundering concern,
the Secretary may require any domestic financial institution
or domestic financial agency that opens or maintains a
payable-through account in the United States for a foreign
financial institution involving any such jurisdiction or any
such financial institution operating outside of the United
States, or a payable through account through which any such
transaction may be conducted, as a condition of opening or
maintaining such account--
``(A) to identify each customer (and representative of such
customer) of such financial institution who is permitted to
use, or whose transactions are routed through, such payable-
through account; and
``(B) to obtain, with respect to each such customer (and
each such representative), information that is substantially
comparable to that which the depository institution obtains
in the ordinary course of business with respect to its
customers residing in the United States.
``(4) Information relating to certain correspondent
accounts.--If the Secretary finds a jurisdiction outside of
the United States, 1 or more financial institutions operating
outside of the United States, or 1 or more classes of
transactions within, or involving, a jurisdiction outside of
the United States to be of primary money laundering concern,
the Secretary may require any domestic financial institution
or domestic financial agency that opens or maintains a
correspondent account in the United States for a foreign
financial institution involving any such jurisdiction or any
such financial institution operating outside of the United
States, or a correspondent account through which any such
transaction may be conducted, as a condition of opening or
maintaining such account--
``(A) to identify each customer (and representative of such
customer) of any such financial institution who is permitted
to use, or whose transactions are routed through, such
correspondent account; and
``(B) to obtain, with respect to each such customer (and
each such representative), information that is substantially
comparable to that which the depository institution obtains
in the ordinary course of business with respect to its
customers residing in the United States.
``(5) Prohibitions or conditions on opening or maintaining
certain correspondent or payable-through accounts.--If the
Secretary finds a jurisdiction outside of the United States,
1 or more financial institutions operating outside of the
United States, or 1 or more classes of transactions within,
or involving, a jurisdiction outside of the United States to
be of primary money laundering concern, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney
General, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, may prohibit, or impose conditions
upon, the opening or maintaining in the United States of a
correspondent account or payable- through account by any
domestic financial institution or domestic financial agency
for or on behalf of a foreign banking institution, if such
correspondent account or payable-through account involves any
such jurisdiction or institution, or if any such transaction
may be conducted through such correspondent account or
payable-through account.
``(c) Consultations and Information To Be Considered in
Finding Jurisdictions, Institutions, Types of Accounts, or
Transactions To Be of Primary Money Laundering Concern.--
``(1) In general.--In making a finding that reasonable
grounds exist for concluding that a jurisdiction outside of
the United States, 1 or more financial institutions operating
outside of the United States, 1 or more classes of
transactions within, or involving, a jurisdiction outside of
the United States, or 1 or more types of accounts is of
primary money laundering concern so as to authorize the
Secretary to take 1 or more of the special measures described
in subsection (b), the Secretary shall consult with the
Secretary of State, and the Attorney General.
``(2) Additional considerations.--In making a finding
described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consider in
addition such information as the Secretary determines to be
relevant, including the following potentially relevant
factors:
``(A) Jurisdictional factors.--In the case of a particular
jurisdiction--
``(i) evidence that organized criminal groups,
international terrorists, or both, have transacted business
in that jurisdiction;
(ii) the extent to which that jurisdiction or financial
institutions operating in that jurisdiction offer bank
secrecy or special tax or regulatory advantages to
nonresidents or nondomiciliaries of that jurisdiction;
``(iii) the substance and quality of administration of the
bank supervisory and counter-money laundering laws of that
jurisdiction;
``(iv) the relationship between the volume of financial
transactions occurring in that jurisdiction and the size of
the economy of the jurisdiction;
``(v) the extent to which that jurisdiction is
characterized as a tax haven or offshore banking or secrecy
haven by credible international organizations or multilateral
expert groups;
``(vi) whether the United States has a mutual legal
assistance treaty with that jurisdiction, and the experience
of United States law enforcement officials, regulatory
officials, and tax administrators in obtaining information
about transactions originating in or routed through or to
such jurisdiction; and
``(vii) the extent to which that jurisdiction is
characterized by high levels of official or institutional
corruption.
``(B) Institutional factors.--In the case of a decision to
apply 1 or more of the special measures described in
subsection (b) only to a financial institution or
institutions, or to a transaction or class of transactions,
or to a type of account, or to all 3, within or involving a
particular jurisdiction--
``(i) the extent to which such financial institutions,
transactions, or types of accounts are used to facilitate or
promote money laundering in or through the jurisdiction;

[[Page 19560]]

``(ii) the extent to which such institutions, transactions,
or types of accounts are used for legitimate business
purposes in the jurisdiction; and
``(iii) the extent to which such action is sufficient to
ensure, with respect to transactions involving the
jurisdiction and institutions operating in the jurisdiction,
that the purposes of this subchapter continue to be
fulfilled, and to guard against international money
laundering and other financial crimes.
``(d) Notification of Special Measures Invoked by the
Secretary.--Not later than 10 days after the date of any
action taken by the Secretary under subsection (a)(1), the
Secretary shall notify, in writing, the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate of any such action.
``(e) Study and Report on Foreign Nationals.--
``(1) Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
appropriate Federal agencies, including the Federal banking
agencies (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act), shall conduct a study to--
``(A) determine the most timely and effective way to
require foreign nationals to provide domestic financial
institutions and agencies with appropriate and accurate
information, comparable to that which is required of United
States nationals, concerning their identity, address, and
other related information necessary to enable such
institutions and agencies to comply with the reporting,
information gathering, and other requirements of this
section; and
``(B) consider the need for requiring foreign nationals to
apply for and obtain an identification number, similar to
what is required for United States citizens through a social
security number or tax identification number, prior to
opening an account with a domestic financial institution.
``(2) Report.--The Secretary shall report to Congress not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
section with recommendations for implementing such action
referred to in paragraph (1) in a timely and effective
manner.
``(f) Definitions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subchapter, for purposes of this section, the following
definitions shall apply:
``(1) Bank definitions.--The following definitions shall
apply with respect to a bank:
``(A) Account.--The term `account'--
``(i) means a formal banking or business relationship
established to provide regular services, dealings, and other
financial transactions; and
``(ii) includes a demand deposit, savings deposit, or other
transaction or asset account and a credit account or other
extension of credit.
``(B) Correspondent account.--The term `correspondent
account' means an account established to receive deposits
from, make payments on behalf of a foreign financial
institution, or handle other financial transactions related
to such institution.
``(C) Payable-through account.--The term `payable-through
account' means an account, including a transaction account
(as defined in section 19(b)(1)(C) of the Federal Reserve
Act), opened at a depository institution by a foreign
financial institution by means of which the foreign financial
institution permits its customers to engage, either directly
or through a subaccount, in banking activities usual in
connection with the business of banking in the United States.
``(2) Definitions applicable to institutions other than
banks.--With respect to any financial institution other than
a bank, the Secretary shall, after consultation with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, define by regulation the
term `account', and shall include within the meaning of that
term, to the extent, if any, that the Secretary deems
appropriate, arrangements similar to payable-through and
correspondent accounts.
``(3) Regulatory definition.--The Secretary shall
promulgate regulations defining beneficial ownership of an
account for purposes of this section. Such regulations shall
address issues related to an individual's authority to fund,
direct, or manage the account (including, without limitation,
the power to direct payments into or out of the account), and
an individual's material interest in the income or corpus of
the account, and shall ensure that the identification of
individuals under this section does not extend to any
individual whose beneficial interest in the income or corpus
of the account is immaterial.''.
``(4) Other terms.--The Secretary may, by regulation,
further define the terms in paragraphs (1) and (2) and define
other terms for the purposes of this section, as the
Secretary deems appropriate.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
5318 the following new item:

``5318A. Special measures for jurisdictions, financial institutions, or
international transactions of primary money laundering
concern.''.

SEC. 312. SPECIAL DUE DILIGENCE FOR CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNTS
AND PRIVATE BANKING ACCOUNTS.

(a) In General.--Section 5318 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Due Diligence for United States Private Banking and
Correspondent Bank Accounts Involving Foreign Persons.--
``(1) In general.--Each financial institution that
establishes, maintains, administers, or manages a private
banking account or a correspondent account in the United
States for a non-United States person, including a foreign
individual visiting the United States, or a representative of
a non-United States person shall establish appropriate,
specific, and, where necessary, enhanced, due diligence
policies, procedures, and controls to detect and report
instances of money laundering through those accounts.
``(2) Minimum standards for correspondent accounts.--
``(A) In general.--Subparagraph (B) shall apply if a
correspondent account is requested or maintained by, or on
behalf of, a foreign bank operating--
``(i) under an offshore banking license; or
``(ii) under a banking license issued by a foreign country
that has been designated--

``(I) as noncooperative with international anti-money
laundering principles or procedures by an intergovernmental
group or organization of which the United States is a member;
or
``(II) by the Secretary as warranting special measures due
to money laundering concerns.

``(B) Policies, procedures, and controls.--The enhanced due
diligence policies, procedures, and controls required under
paragraph (1) shall, at a minimum, ensure that the financial
institution in the United States takes reasonable steps--
``(i) to ascertain for any such foreign bank, the shares of
which are not publicly traded, the identity of each of the
owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the
ownership interest of each such owner;
``(ii) to conduct enhanced scrutiny of such account to
guard against money laundering and report any suspicious
transactions under section 5318(g); and
``(iii) to ascertain whether such foreign bank provides
correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the
identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence
information, as appropriate under paragraph (1).
``(3) Minimum standards for private banking accounts.--If a
private banking account is requested or maintained by, or on
behalf of, a non-United States person, then the due diligence
policies, procedures, and controls required under paragraph
(1) shall, at a minimum, ensure that the financial
institution takes reasonable steps--
``(A) to ascertain the identity of the nominal and
beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into,
such account as needed to guard against money laundering and
report any suspicious transactions under section 5318(g); and
``(B) to conduct enhanced scrutiny of any such account that
is requested or maintained by, or on behalf of, a senior
foreign political figure, or any immediate family member or
close associate of a senior foreign political figure, to
prevent, detect, and report transactions that may involve the
proceeds of foreign corruption.
``(4) Definitions and regulatory authority.--
``(A) Offshore banking license.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `offshore banking license' means a
license to conduct banking activities which, as a condition
of the license, prohibits the licensed entity from conducting
banking activities with the citizens of, or with the local
currency of, the country which issued the license.
``(B) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the appropriate functional regulators of the affected
financial institutions, may further delineate, by regulation
the due diligence policies, procedures, and controls required
under paragraph (1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect beginning 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act with respect to accounts covered by
section 5318(i) of title 31, United States Code, as added by
this section, that are opened before, on, or after the date
of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 313. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNTS
WITH FOREIGN SHELL BANKS.

(a) In General.--Section 5318 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 5318(i), as added
by section 312 of this title, the following:
``(j) Prohibition on United States Correspondent Accounts
With Foreign Shell Banks.--
``(1) In general.--A financial institution described in
subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 5312(a)(2) (in this
subsection referred to as a `covered financial institution')
shall not establish, maintain, administer, or manage a
correspondent account in the United States for, or on behalf
of, a foreign bank that does not have a physical presence in
any country.
``(2) Prevention of indirect service to foreign shell
banks.--A covered financial

[[Page 19561]]

institution shall take reasonable steps to ensure that any
correspondent account established, maintained, administered,
or managed by that covered financial institution in the
United States for a foreign bank is not being used by that
foreign bank to indirectly provide banking services to
another foreign bank that does not have a physical presence
in any country. The Secretary shall, by regulation, delineate
the reasonable steps necessary to comply with this paragraph.
``(3) Exception.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not prohibit a
covered financial institution from providing a correspondent
account to a foreign bank, if the foreign bank--
``(A) is an affiliate of a depository institution, credit
union, or foreign bank that maintains a physical presence in
the United States or a foreign country, as applicable; and
``(B) is subject to supervision by a banking authority in
the country regulating the affiliated depository institution,
credit union, or foreign bank described in subparagraph (A),
as applicable.
``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `affiliate' means a foreign bank that is
controlled by or is under common control with a depository
institution, credit union, or foreign bank; and
``(B) the term `physical presence' means a place of
business that--
``(i) is maintained by a foreign bank;
``(ii) is located at a fixed address (other than solely an
electronic address) in a country in which the foreign bank is
authorized to conduct banking activities, at which location
the foreign bank--

``(I) employs 1 or more individuals on a full-time basis;
and
``(II) maintains operating records related to its banking
activities; and

``(iii) is subject to inspection by the banking authority
which licensed the foreign bank to conduct banking
activities.''.

SEC. 314. COOPERATIVE EFFORTS TO DETER MONEY LAUNDERING.

(a) Cooperation Among Financial Institutions, Regulatory
Authorities, and Law Enforcement Authorities.--
(1) Regulations.--The Secretary shall, within 120 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, adopt regulations to
encourage further cooperation among financial institutions,
their regulatory authorities, and law enforcement
authorities, with the specific purpose of encouraging
regulatory authorities and law enforcement authorities to
share with financial institutions information regarding
individuals, entities, and organizations engaged in or
reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging
in terrorist acts or money laundering activities.
(2) Contents.--The regulations promulgated pursuant to
paragraph (1) may--
(A) require that each financial institution designate 1 or
more persons to receive information concerning, and to
monitor accounts of individuals, entities, and organizations
identified, pursuant to paragraph (1); and
(B) further establish procedures for the protection of the
shared information, consistent with the capacity, size, and
nature of the institution to which the particular procedures
apply.
(3) Rule of construction.--The receipt of information by a
financial institution pursuant to this section shall not
relieve or otherwise modify the obligations of the financial
institution with respect to any other person or account.
(4) Use of information.--Information received by a
financial institution pursuant to this section shall not be
used for any purpose other than identifying and reporting on
activities that may involve terrorist acts or money
laundering activities.
(b) Cooperation Among Financial Institutions.--Upon notice
provided to the Secretary, 2 or more financial institutions
and any association of financial institutions may share
information with one another regarding individuals, entities,
organizations, and countries suspected of possible terrorist
or money laundering activities. A financial institution or
association that transmits, receives, or shares such
information for the purposes of identifying and reporting
activities that may involve terrorist acts or money
laundering activities shall not be liable to any person under
any law or regulation of the United States, any constitution,
law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision
thereof, or under any contract or other legally enforceable
agreement (including any arbitration agreement), for such
disclosure or for any failure to provide notice of such
disclosure to the person who is the subject of such
disclosure, or any other person identified in the disclosure,
except where such transmission, receipt, or sharing violates
this section or regulations promulgated pursuant to this
section.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Compliance with the provisions
of this title requiring or allowing financial institutions
and any association of financial institutions to disclose or
share information regarding individuals, entities, and
organizations engaged in or suspected of engaging in
terrorist acts or money laundering activities shall not
constitute a violation of the provisions of title V of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Public Law 106-102).

SEC. 315. INCLUSION OF FOREIGN CORRUPTION OFFENSES AS MONEY
LAUNDERING CRIMES.

Section 1956(c)(7)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``or destruction of
property by means of explosive or fire'' and inserting
``destruction of property by means of explosive or fire, or a
crime of violence (as defined in section 16)'';
(2) in clause (iii), by striking ``1978'' and inserting
``1978)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) bribery of a public official, or the
misappropriation, theft, or embezzlement of public funds by
or for the benefit of a public official;
``(v) smuggling or export control violations involving--

``(I) an item controlled on the United States Munitions
List established under section 38 of the Arms Export Control
Act (22 U.S.C. 2778); or
``(II) an item controlled under regulations under the
Export Administration Act of 1977 (15 C.F.R. Parts 730-774);

``(vi) an offense with respect to which the United States
would be obligated by a multilateral treaty, either to
extradite the alleged offender or to submit the case for
prosecution, if the offender were found within the territory
of the United States; or
``(vii) the misuse of funds of, or provided by, the
International Monetary Fund in contravention of the Articles
of Agreement of the Fund or the misuse of funds of, or
provided by, any other international financial institution
(as defined in section 1701(c)(2) of the International
Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2)) in
contravention of any treaty or other international agreement
to which the United States is a party, including any articles
of agreement of the members of the international financial
institution;''.

SEC. 316. ANTI-TERRORIST FORFEITURE PROTECTION.

(a) Right to Contest.--An owner of property that is
confiscated under any provision of law relating to the
confiscation of assets of suspected international terrorists,
may contest that confiscation by filing a claim in the manner
set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime
Claims), and asserting as an affirmative defense that--
(1) the property is not subject to confiscation under such
provision of law; or
(2) the innocent owner provisions of section 983(d) of
title 18, United States Code, apply to the case.
(b) Evidence.--In considering a claim filed under this
section, the Government may rely on evidence that is
otherwise inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence,
if a court determines that such reliance is necessary to
protect the national security interests of the United States.
(c) Other Remedies.--Nothing in this section shall limit or
otherwise affect any other remedies that may be available to
an owner of property under section 983 of title 18, United
States Code, or any other provision of law.

SEC. 317. LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN MONEY
LAUNDERERS.

Section 1956(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and moving the
margins 2 ems to the right;
(2) by inserting after ``(b)'' the following:
``Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--'';
(3) by inserting ``, or section 1957'' after ``or (a)(3)'';
and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Jurisdiction over foreign persons.--For purposes of
adjudicating an action filed or enforcing a penalty ordered
under this section, the district courts shall have
jurisdiction over any foreign person, including any financial
institution authorized under the laws of a foreign country,
against whom the action is brought, if service of process
upon the foreign person is made under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or the laws of the country in which the
foreign person is found, and--
``(A) the foreign person commits an offense under
subsection (a) involving a financial transaction that occurs
in whole or in part in the United States;
``(B) the foreign person converts, to his or her own use,
property in which the United States has an ownership interest
by virtue of the entry of an order of forfeiture by a court
of the United States; or
``(C) the foreign person is a financial institution that
maintains a bank account at a financial institution in the
United States.
``(3) Court authority over assets.--A court described in
paragraph (2) may issue a pretrial restraining order or take
any other action necessary to ensure that any bank account or
other property held by the defendant in the United States is
available to satisfy a judgment under this section.
``(4) Federal receiver.--
``(A) In general.--A court described in paragraph (2) may
appoint a Federal Receiver, in accordance with subparagraph
(B) of this paragraph, to collect, marshal, and take custody,
control, and possession of all assets of the defendant,
wherever located, to satisfy a judgment under this section or
section 981, 982, or 1957, including an order of restitution
to any victim of a specified unlawful activity.

[[Page 19562]]

``(B) Appointment and authority.--A Federal Receiver
described in subparagraph (A)--
``(i) may be appointed upon application of a Federal
prosecutor or a Federal or State regulator, by the court
having jurisdiction over the defendant in the case;
``(ii) shall be an officer of the court, and the powers of
the Federal Receiver shall include the powers set out in
section 754 of title 28, United States Code; and
``(iii) shall have standing equivalent to that of a Federal
prosecutor for the purpose of submitting requests to obtain
information regarding the assets of the defendant--

``(I) from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the
Department of the Treasury; or
``(II) from a foreign country pursuant to a mutual legal
assistance treaty, multilateral agreement, or other
arrangement for international law enforcement assistance,
provided that such requests are in accordance with the
policies and procedures of the Attorney General.''.

SEC. 318. LAUNDERING MONEY THROUGH A FOREIGN BANK.

Section 1956(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
``(6) the term `financial institution' includes--
``(A) any financial institution, as defined in section
5312(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, or the
regulations promulgated thereunder; and
``(B) any foreign bank, as defined in section 1 of the
International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101).''.

SEC. 319. FORFEITURE OF FUNDS IN UNITED STATES INTERBANK
ACCOUNTS.

(a) Forfeiture From United States Interbank Account.--
Section 981 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(k) Interbank Accounts.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) In general.--For the purpose of a forfeiture under
this section or under the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), if funds are deposited into an account
at a foreign bank, and that foreign bank has an interbank
account in the United States with a covered financial
institution (as defined in section 5318A of title 31), the
funds shall be deemed to have been deposited into the
interbank account in the United States, and any restraining
order, seizure warrant, or arrest warrant in rem regarding
the funds may be served on the covered financial institution,
and funds in the interbank account, up to the value of the
funds deposited into the account at the foreign bank, may be
restrained, seized, or arrested.
``(B) Authority to suspend.--The Attorney General, in
consultation with the Secretary, may suspend or terminate a
forfeiture under this section if the Attorney General
determines that a conflict of law exists between the laws of
the jurisdiction in which the foreign bank is located and the
laws of the United States with respect to liabilities arising
from the restraint, seizure, or arrest of such funds, and
that such suspension or termination would be in the interest
of justice and would not harm the national interests of the
United States.
``(2) No requirement for government to trace funds.--If a
forfeiture action is brought against funds that are
restrained, seized, or arrested under paragraph (1), it shall
not be necessary for the Government to establish that the
funds are directly traceable to the funds that were deposited
into the foreign bank, nor shall it be necessary for the
Government to rely on the application of section 984.
``(3) Claims brought by owner of the funds.--If a
forfeiture action is instituted against funds restrained,
seized, or arrested under paragraph (1), the owner of the
funds deposited into the account at the foreign bank may
contest the forfeiture by filing a claim under section 983.
``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(A) Interbank account.--The term `interbank account' has
the same meaning as in section 984(c)(2)(B).
``(B) Owner.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
term `owner'--

``(I) means the person who was the owner, as that term is
defined in section 983(d)(6), of the funds that were
deposited into the foreign bank at the time such funds were
deposited; and
``(II) does not include either the foreign bank or any
financial institution acting as an intermediary in the
transfer of the funds into the interbank account.

``(ii) Exception.--The foreign bank may be considered the
`owner' of the funds (and no other person shall qualify as
the owner of such funds) only if--

``(I) the basis for the forfeiture action is wrongdoing
committed by the foreign bank; or
``(II) the foreign bank establishes, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that prior to the restraint, seizure, or arrest
of the funds, the foreign bank had discharged all or part of
its obligation to the prior owner of the funds, in which case
the foreign bank shall be deemed the owner of the funds to
the extent of such discharged obligation.''.

(b) Bank Records.--Section 5318 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Bank Records Related to Anti-Money Laundering
Programs.--
``(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(A) Appropriate federal banking agency.--The term
`appropriate Federal banking agency' has the same meaning as
in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1813).
``(B) Incorporated terms.--The terms `correspondent
account', `covered financial institution', and `foreign bank'
have the same meanings as in section 5318A.
``(2) 120-hour rule.--Not later than 120 hours after
receiving a request by an appropriate Federal banking agency
for information related to anti-money laundering compliance
by a covered financial institution or a customer of such
institution, a covered financial institution shall provide to
the appropriate Federal banking agency, or make available at
a location specified by the representative of the appropriate
Federal banking agency, information and account documentation
for any account opened, maintained, administered or managed
in the United States by the covered financial institution.
``(3) Foreign bank records.--
``(A) Summons or subpoena of records.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary or the Attorney General
may issue a summons or subpoena to any foreign bank that
maintains a correspondent account in the United States and
request records related to such correspondent account,
including records maintained outside of the United States
relating to the deposit of funds into the foreign bank.
``(ii) Service of summons or subpoena.--A summons or
subpoena referred to in clause (i) may be served on the
foreign bank in the United States if the foreign bank has a
representative in the United States, or in a foreign country
pursuant to any mutual legal assistance treaty, multilateral
agreement, or other request for international law enforcement
assistance.
``(B) Acceptance of service.--
``(i) Maintaining records in the united states.--Any
covered financial institution which maintains a correspondent
account in the United States for a foreign bank shall
maintain records in the United States identifying the owners
of such foreign bank and the name and address of a person who
resides in the United States and is authorized to accept
service of legal process for records regarding the
correspondent account.
``(ii) Law enforcement request.--Upon receipt of a written
request from a Federal law enforcement officer for
information required to be maintained under this paragraph,
the covered financial institution shall provide the
information to the requesting officer not later than 7 days
after receipt of the request.
``(C) Termination of correspondent relationship.--
``(i) Termination upon receipt of notice.--A covered
financial institution shall terminate any correspondent
relationship with a foreign bank not later than 10 business
days after receipt of written notice from the Secretary or
the Attorney General that the foreign bank has failed--

``(I) to comply with a summons or subpoena issued under
subparagraph (A); or
``(II) to initiate proceedings in a United States court
contesting such summons or subpoena.

``(ii) Limitation on liability.--A covered financial
institution shall not be liable to any person in any court or
arbitration proceeding for terminating a correspondent
relationship in accordance with this subsection.
``(iii) Failure to terminate relationship.--Failure to
terminate a correspondent relationship in accordance with
this subsection shall render the covered financial
institution liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per
day until the correspondent relationship is so terminated.''.
(c) Grace Period.--Financial institutions affected by
section 5333 of title 31 United States Code, as amended by
this title, shall have 60 days from the date of enactment of
this Act to comply with the provisions of that section.
(d) Requests for Records.--Section 3486(a)(1) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``, or (II) a
Federal offense involving the sexual exploitation or abuse of
children'' and inserting ``, (II) a Federal offense involving
the sexual exploitation or abuse of children, or (III) money
laundering, in violation of section 1956, 1957, or 1960 of
this title''.
(e) Authority To Order Convicted Criminal To Return
Property Located Abroad.--
(1) Forfeiture of substitute property.--Section 413(p) of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853) is amended to
read as follows:
``(p) Forfeiture of Substitute Property.--
``(1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of this subsection shall
apply, if any property described in subsection (a), as a
result of any act or omission of the defendant--
``(A) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
``(B) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a
third party;

[[Page 19563]]

``(C) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
``(D) has been substantially diminished in value; or
``(E) has been commingled with other property which cannot
be divided without difficulty.
``(2) Substitute property.--In any case described in any of
subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1), the court
shall order the forfeiture of any other property of the
defendant, up to the value of any property described in
subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1), as
applicable.
``(3) Return of property to jurisdiction.--In the case of
property described in paragraph (1)(C), the court may, in
addition to any other action authorized by this subsection,
order the defendant to return the property to the
jurisdiction of the court so that the property may be seized
and forfeited.''.
(2) Protective orders.--Section 413(e) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853(e)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(4) Order to repatriate and deposit.--
``(A) In general.--Pursuant to its authority to enter a
pretrial restraining order under this section, including its
authority to restrain any property forfeitable as substitute
assets, the court may order a defendant to repatriate any
property that may be seized and forfeited, and to deposit
that property pending trial in the registry of the court, or
with the United States Marshals Service or the Secretary of
the Treasury, in an interest-bearing account, if appropriate.
``(B) Failure to comply.--Failure to comply with an order
under this subsection, or an order to repatriate property
under subsection (p), shall be punishable as a civil or
criminal contempt of court, and may also result in an
enhancement of the sentence of the defendant under the
obstruction of justice provision of the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines.''.

SEC. 320. PROCEEDS OF FOREIGN CRIMES.

Section 981(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) Any property, real or personal, within the
jurisdiction of the United States, constituting, derived
from, or traceable to, any proceeds obtained directly or
indirectly from an offense against a foreign nation, or any
property used to facilitate such an offense, if the offense--
``(i) involves the manufacture, importation, sale, or
distribution of a controlled substance (as that term is
defined for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act), or
any other conduct described in section 1956(c)(7)(B);
``(ii) would be punishable within the jurisdiction of the
foreign nation by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding
1 year; and
``(iii) would be punishable under the laws of the United
States by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, if the
act or activity constituting the offense had occurred within
the jurisdiction of the United States.''.

SEC. 321. EXCLUSION OF ALIENS INVOLVED IN MONEY LAUNDERING.

Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(I) Money laundering activities.--Any alien who the
consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason
to believe is or has been engaged in activities which, if
engaged in within the United States would constitute a
violation of section 1956 or 1957 of title 18, United States
Code, or has been a knowing assister, abettor, conspirator,
or colluder with others in any such illicit activity is
inadmissible.''.

SEC. 322. CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY A FUGITIVE.

Section 2466 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
designating the present matter as subsection (a), and adding
at the end the following:
``(b) Subsection (a) may be applied to a claim filed by a
corporation if any majority shareholder, or individual filing
the claim on behalf of the corporation is a person to whom
subsection (a) applies.''.

SEC. 323. ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS.

Section 2467 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by adding the following after
paragraph (2):
``(3) Preservation of property.--To preserve the
availability of property subject to a foreign forfeiture or
confiscation judgment, the Government may apply for, and the
court may issue, a restraining order pursuant to section
983(j) of title 18, United States Code, at any time before or
after an application is filed pursuant to subsection (c)(1).
The court, in issuing the restraining order--
``(A) may rely on information set forth in an affidavit
describing the nature of the proceeding investigation
underway in the foreign country, and setting forth a
reasonable basis to believe that the property to be
restrained will be named in a judgment of forfeiture at the
conclusion of such proceeding; or
``(B) may register and enforce a restraining order has been
issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in the foreign
country and certified by the Attorney General pursuant to
subsection (b)(2).
No person may object to the restraining order on any ground
that is the subject to parallel litigation involving the same
property that is pending in a foreign court.'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(C), by striking ``establishing
that the defendant received notice of the proceedings in
sufficient time to enable the defendant'' and inserting
``establishing that the foreign nation took steps, in
accordance with the principles of due process, to give notice
of the proceedings to all persons with an interest in the
property in sufficient time to enable such persons'';
(3) in subsection (d)(1)(D), by striking ``the defendant in
the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice''
and inserting ``the foreign nation did not take steps, in
accordance with the principles of due process, to give notice
of the proceedings to a person with an interest in the
property''; and
(4) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by inserting ``, any violation
of foreign law that would constitute a violation of an
offense for which property could be forfeited under Federal
law if the offense were committed in the United States''
after ``United Nations Convention''.

SEC. 324. INCREASE IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR MONEY
LAUNDERING.

(a) Civil Penalties.--Section 5321(a) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Penalties for international counter money laundering
violations.--The Secretary may impose a civil money penalty
in an amount equal to not less than 2 times the amount of the
transaction, but not more than $1,000,000, on any financial
institution or agency that violates any provision of
subsection (i) or (j) of section 5318 or any special measures
imposed under section 5318A.''.
(b) Criminal Penalties.--Section 5322 of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) A financial institution or agency that violates any
provision of subsection (i) or (j) of section 5318, or any
special measures imposed under section 5318A, or any
regulation prescribed under subsection (i) or (j) of section
5318 or section 5318A, shall be fined in an amount equal to
not less than 2 times the amount of the transaction, but not
more than $1,000,000.''.

SEC. 325. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.

Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney
General, the Federal banking agencies (as defined at section
3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act), the Securities and
Exchange Commission, and such other agencies as the Secretary
may determine, at the discretion of the Secretary, shall
evaluate the operations of the provisions of this subtitle
and make recommendations to Congress as to any legislative
action with respect to this subtitle as the Secretary may
determine to be necessary or advisable.

SEC. 326. REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS.

The Secretary shall report annually on measures taken
pursuant to this subtitle, and shall submit the report to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate and to the Committee on Financial Services of the
House of Representatives.

SEC. 327. CONCENTRATION ACCOUNTS AT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

Section 5318(h) of title 31, United States Code, as amended
by section 202 of this title, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(3) Concentration accounts.--The Secretary may issue
regulations under this subsection that govern maintenance of
concentration accounts by financial institutions, in order to
ensure that such accounts are not used to prevent association
of the identity of an individual customer with the movement
of funds of which the customer is the direct or beneficial
owner, which regulations shall, at a minimum--
``(A) prohibit financial institutions from allowing clients
to direct transactions that move their funds into, out of, or
through the concentration accounts of the financial
institution;
``(B) prohibit financial institutions and their employees
from informing customers of the existence of, or the means of
identifying, the concentration accounts of the institution;
and
``(C) require each financial institution to establish
written procedures governing the documentation of all
transactions involving a concentration account, which
procedures shall ensure that, any time a transaction
involving a concentration account commingles funds belonging
to 1 or more customers, the identity of, and specific amount
belonging to, each customer is documented.''.

Subtitle B--Currency Transaction Reporting Amendments and Related
Improvements

SEC. 331. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS
ACTIVITIES.

(a) Amendment Relating to Civil Liability Immunity for
Disclosures.--Section 5318(g)(3) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Liability for disclosures.--
``(A) In general.--Any financial institution that makes a
voluntary disclosure of any possible violation of law or
regulation to a government agency or makes a disclosure

[[Page 19564]]

pursuant to this subsection or any other authority, and any
director, officer, employee, or agent of such institution who
makes, or requires another to make any such disclosure, shall
not be liable to any person under any law or regulation of
the United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of
any State or political subdivision of any State, or under any
contract or other legally enforceable agreement (including
any arbitration agreement), for such disclosure or for any
failure to provide notice of such disclosure to the person
who is the subject of such disclosure or any other person
identified in the disclosure.
``(B) Rule of construction.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be
construed as creating--
``(i) any inference that the term `person', as used in such
subparagraph, may be construed more broadly than its ordinary
usage so as to include any government or agency of
government; or
``(ii) any immunity against, or otherwise affecting, any
civil or criminal action brought by any government or agency
of government to enforce any constitution, law, or regulation
of such government or agency.''.
(b) Prohibition on Notification of Disclosures.--Section
5318(g)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Notification prohibited.--
``(A) In general.--If a financial institution or any
director, officer, employee, or agent of any financial
institution, voluntarily or pursuant to this section or any
other authority, reports a suspicious transaction to a
government agency--
``(i) the financial institution, director, officer,
employee, or agent may not notify any person involved in the
transaction that the transaction has been reported; and
``(ii) no officer or employee of the Federal Government or
of any State, local, tribal, or territorial government within
the United States, who has any knowledge that such report was
made may disclose to any person involved in the transaction
that the transaction has been reported, other than as
necessary to fulfill the official duties of such officer or
employee.
``(B) Disclosures in certain employment references.--
``(i) Rule of construction.--Notwithstanding the
application of subparagraph (A) in any other context,
subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as prohibiting any
financial institution, or any director, officer, employee, or
agent of such institution, from including information that
was included in a report to which subparagraph (A) applies--

``(I) in a written employment reference that is provided in
accordance with section 18(v) of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act in response to a request from another financial
institution, except that such written reference may not
disclose that such information was also included in any such
report or that such report was made; or
``(II) in a written termination notice or employment
reference that is provided in accordance with the rules of
the self-regulatory organizations registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, except that such written
notice or reference may not disclose that such information
was also included in any such report or that such report was
made.

``(ii) Information not required.--Clause (i) shall not be
construed, by itself, to create any affirmative duty to
include any information described in clause (i) in any
employment reference or termination notice referred to in
clause (i).''.

SEC. 332. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROGRAMS.

Section 5318(h) of title 31, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(h) Anti-money Laundering Programs.--
``(1) In general.--In order to guard against money
laundering through financial institutions, each financial
institution shall establish anti-money laundering programs,
including, at a minimum--
``(A) the development of internal policies, procedures, and
controls;
``(B) the designation of a compliance officer;
``(C) an ongoing employee training program; and
``(D) an independent audit function to test programs.
``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe minimum
standards for programs established under paragraph (1), and
may exempt from the application of those standards any
financial institution that is not subject to the provisions
of the rules contained in part 103 of title 31, of the Code
of Federal Regulations, or any successor rule thereto, for so
long as such financial institution is not subject to the
provisions of such rules.''.

SEC. 333. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
ORDERS AND CERTAIN RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS,
AND LENGTHENING EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF GEOGRAPHIC
TARGETING ORDERS.

(a) Civil Penalty for Violation of Targeting Order.--
Section 5321(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``or order issued'' after ``subchapter or
a regulation prescribed''; and
(2) by inserting ``, or willfully violating a regulation
prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act or section 123 of Public Law 91-508,'' after ``sections
5314 and 5315)''.
(b) Criminal Penalties for Violation of Targeting Order.--
Section 5322 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``or order issued'' after ``willfully
violating this subchapter or a regulation prescribed''; and
(B) by inserting ``, or willfully violating a regulation
prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act or section 123 of Public Law 91-508,'' after ``under
section 5315 or 5324)''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``or order issued'' after ``willfully
violating this subchapter or a regulation prescribed''; and
(B) by inserting ``or willfully violating a regulation
prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act or section 123 of Public Law 91-508,'' after ``under
section 5315 or 5324),''.
(c) Structuring Transactions To Evade Targeting Order or
Certain Recordkeeping Requirements.--Section 5324(a) of title
31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting a comma after ``shall'';
(2) by striking ``section--'' and inserting ``section, the
reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any order
issued under section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements
imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law
91-508--'';
(3) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, to file a report or
to maintain a record required by an order issued under
section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to
any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91-508''
after ``regulation prescribed under any such section''; and
(4) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, to file a report or
to maintain a record required by any order issued under
section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to
any regulation prescribed under section 5326, or to maintain
a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under
section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section
123 of Public Law 91-508,'' after ``regulation prescribed
under any such section''.
(d) Lengthening Effective Period of Geographic Targeting
Orders.--Section 5326(d) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``more than 60'' and inserting ``more
than 180''.

SEC. 334. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING STRATEGY.

(b) Strategy.--Section 5341(b) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Data regarding funding of terrorism.--Data
concerning money laundering efforts related to the funding of
acts of international terrorism, and efforts directed at the
prevention, detection, and prosecution of such funding.''.

SEC. 335. AUTHORIZATION TO INCLUDE SUSPICIONS OF ILLEGAL
ACTIVITY IN WRITTEN EMPLOYMENT REFERENCES.

Section 18 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1828) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(v) Written Employment References May Contain Suspicions
of Involvement in Illegal Activity.--
``(1) Authority to disclose information.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, any insured depository
institution, and any director, officer, employee, or agent of
such institution, may disclose in any written employment
reference relating to a current or former institution-
affiliated party of such institution which is provided to
another insured depository institution in response to a
request from such other institution, information concerning
the possible involvement of such institution-affiliated party
in potentially unlawful activity.
``(2) Information not required.--Nothing in paragraph (1)
shall be construed, by itself, to create any affirmative duty
to include any information described in paragraph (1) in any
employment reference referred to in paragraph (1).
``(3) Malicious intent.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection, voluntary disclosure made by an
insured depository institution, and any director, officer,
employee, or agent of such institution under this subsection
concerning potentially unlawful activity that is made with
malicious intent, shall not be shielded from liability from
the person identified in the disclosure.
``(4) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `insured depository institution' includes any uninsured
branch or agency of a foreign bank.''.

SEC. 336. BANK SECRECY ACT ADVISORY GROUP.

Section 1564 of the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering
Act (31 U.S.C. 5311 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, of nongovernmental
organizations advocating financial privacy,'' after ``Drug
Control Policy''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``, other than
subsections (a) and (d) of such Act which shall apply''
before the period at the end.

SEC. 337. AGENCY REPORTS ON RECONCILING PENALTY AMOUNTS.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal banking
agencies

[[Page 19565]]

(as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
(12 U.S.C. 1813)) shall each submit their respective reports
to the Congress containing recommendations on possible
legislation to conform the penalties imposed on depository
institutions (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act) for violations of subchapter II of chapter 53
of title 31, United States Code, to the penalties imposed on
such institutions under section 8 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818).

SEC. 338. REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES BY SECURITIES
BROKERS AND DEALERS; INVESTMENT COMPANY STUDY.

(a) 270-Day Regulation Deadline.--Not later than 270 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Treasury, after consultation with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, shall issue final regulations requiring registered
brokers and dealers to file reports of suspicious financial
transactions, consistent with the requirements applicable to
financial institutions, and directors, officers, employees,
and agents of financial institutions under section 5318(g) of
title 31, United States Code.
(b) Report on Investment Companies.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, Secretary of the Treasury, the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission shall jointly submit a
report to Congress on recommendations for effective
regulations to apply the requirements of subchapter II of
chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, to investment
companies, pursuant to section 5312(a)(2)(I) of title 31,
United States Code.
(2) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``investment company''--
(A) has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3); and
(B) any person that, but for the exceptions provided for in
paragraph (1) or (7) of section 3(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)), would be an
investment company.
(3) Additional recommendations.--In its report, the
Securities and Exchange Commission may make different
recommendations for different types of entities covered by
this section.
(4) Beneficial ownership of personal holding companies.--
The report described in paragraph (1) shall also include
recommendations as to whether the Secretary should promulgate
regulations to treat any corporation or business or other
grantor trust whose assets are predominantly securities, bank
certificates of deposit, or other securities or investment
instruments (other than such as relate to operating
subsidiaries of such corporation or trust) and that has 5 or
fewer common shareholders or holders of beneficial or other
equity interest, as a financial institution within the
meaning of that phrase in section 5312(a)(2)(I) and whether
to require such corporations or trusts to disclose their
beneficial owners when opening accounts or initiating funds
transfers at any domestic financial institution.

SEC. 339. SPECIAL REPORT ON ADMINISTRATION OF BANK SECRECY
PROVISIONS.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a
report to the Congress relating to the role of the Internal
Revenue Service in the administration of subchapter II of
chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known as
the ``Bank Secrecy Act'').
(b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a)--
(1) shall specifically address, and contain recommendations
concerning--
(A) whether it is advisable to shift the processing of
information reporting to the Department of the Treasury under
the Bank Secrecy Act provisions to facilities other than
those managed by the Internal Revenue Service; and
(B) whether it remains reasonable and efficient, in light
of the objective of both anti-money-laundering programs and
Federal tax administration, for the Internal Revenue Service
to retain authority and responsibility for audit and
examination of the compliance of money services businesses
and gaming institutions with those Bank Secrecy Act
provisions; and
(2) shall, if the Secretary determines that the information
processing responsibility or the audit and examination
responsibility of the Internal Revenue Service, or both, with
respect to those Bank Secrecy Act provisions should be
transferred to other agencies, include the specific
recommendations of the Secretary regarding the agency or
agencies to which any such function should be transferred,
complete with a budgetary and resources plan for
expeditiously accomplishing the transfer.

SEC. 340. BANK SECRECY PROVISIONS AND ANTI-TERRORIST
ACTIVITIES OF UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE
AGENCIES.

(a) Amendment relating to the Purposes of the Bank Secrecy
Act.--Section 5311 of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, or in the conduct of intelligence or
counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to
protect against international terrorism''.
(b) Amendment Relating to Reporting of Suspicious
Activities.--Section 5318(g)(4)(B) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``or supervisory agency'' and
inserting ``, supervisory agency, or United States
intelligence agency for use in the conduct of intelligence or
counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to
protect against international terrorism''.
(c) Amendment Relating to Availability of Reports.--Section
5319 of title 31, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:

``Sec. 5319. Availability of reports

``The Secretary of the Treasury shall make information in a
report filed under this subchapter available to an agency,
including any State financial institutions supervisory agency
or United States intelligence agency, upon request of the
head of the agency. The report shall be available for a
purpose that is consistent with this subchapter. The
Secretary may only require reports on the use of such
information by any State financial institutions supervisory
agency for other than supervisory purposes or by United
States intelligence agencies. However, a report and records
of reports are exempt from disclosure under section 552 of
title 5.''.
(d) Amendment Relating to the Purposes of the Bank Secrecy
Act Provisions.--Section 21(a) of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b(a)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(a) Congressional Findings and Declaration of Purpose.--
``(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(A) adequate records maintained by insured depository
institutions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal,
tax, and regulatory investigations or proceedings, and that,
given the threat posed to the security of the Nation on and
after the terrorist attacks against the United States on
September 11, 2001, such records may also have a high degree
of usefulness in the conduct of intelligence or
counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to
protect against domestic and international terrorism; and
``(B) microfilm or other reproductions and other records
made by insured depository institutions of checks, as well as
records kept by such institutions, of the identity of persons
maintaining or authorized to act with respect to accounts
therein, have been of particular value in proceedings
described in subparagraph (A).
``(2) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
require the maintenance of appropriate types of records by
insured depository institutions in the United States where
such records have a high degree of usefulness in criminal,
tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings, recognizes
that, given the threat posed to the security of the Nation on
and after the terrorist attacks against the United States on
September 11, 2001, such records may also have a high degree
of usefulness in the conduct of intelligence or
counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to
protect against international terrorism.''.
(e) Amendment Relating to the Purposes of the Bank Secrecy
Act.--Section 123(a) of Public Law 91-508 (12 U.S.C. 1953(a))
is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Regulations.--If the Secretary determines that the
maintenance of appropriate records and procedures by any
uninsured bank or uninsured institution, or any person
engaging in the business of carrying on in the United States
any of the functions referred to in subsection (b), has a
high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory
investigations or proceedings, and that, given the threat
posed to the security of the Nation on and after the
terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11,
2001, such records may also have a high degree of usefulness
in the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence
activities, including analysis, to protect against
international terrorism, he may by regulation require such
bank, institution, or person.''.
(f) Amendments to the Right to Financial Privacy Act.--The
Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 is amended--
(1) in section 1112(a) (12 U.S.C. 3412(a)), by inserting
``, or intelligence or counterintelligence activity,
investigation or analysis related to international
terrorism'' after ``legitimate law enforcement inquiry''; and
(2) in section 1114(a)(1) (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(1))--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) a Government authority authorized to conduct
investigations of, or intelligence or counterintelligence
analyses related to, international terrorism for the purpose
of conducting such investigations or analyses.''.
(g) Amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.--The Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

[[Page 19566]]

``SEC. 626. DISCLOSURES TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES FOR
COUNTERTERRORISM PURPOSES.

``(a) Disclosure.--Notwithstanding section 604 or any other
provision of this title, a consumer reporting agency shall
furnish a consumer report of a consumer and all other
information in a consumer's file to a government agency
authorized to conduct investigations of, or intelligence or
counterintelligence activities or analysis related to,
international terrorism when presented with a written
certification by such government agency that such information
is necessary for the agency's conduct or such investigation,
activity or analysis.
``(b) Form of Certification.--The certification described
in subsection (a) shall be signed by the Secretary of the
Treasury.
``(c) Confidentiality.--No consumer reporting agency, or
officer, employee, or agent of such consumer reporting
agency, shall disclose to any person, or specify in any
consumer report, that a government agency has sought or
obtained access to information under subsection (a).
``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in section 625 shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation under this section.
``(e) Safe Harbor.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subchapter, any consumer reporting agency or agent or
employee thereof making disclosure of consumer reports or
other information pursuant to this section in good-faith
reliance upon a certification of a governmental agency
pursuant to the provisions of this section shall not be
liable to any person for such disclosure under this
subchapter, the constitution of any State, or any law or
regulation of any State or any political subdivision of any
State.''.

SEC. 341. REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES BY HAWALA AND
OTHER UNDERGROUND BANKING SYSTEMS.

(a) Definition for Subchapter.--Section 5312(a)(2)(R) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(R) a licensed sender of money or any other person who
engages as a business in the transmission of funds, including
through an informal value transfer banking system or network
of people facilitating the transfer of value domestically or
internationally outside of the conventional financial
institutions system;''.
(b) Money Transmitting Business.--Section 5330(d)(1)(A) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting before
the semicolon the following: ``or any other person who
engages as a business in the transmission of funds, including
through an informal value transfer banking system or network
of people facilitating the transfer of value domestically or
internationally outside of the conventional financial
institutions system;''.
(d) Applicability of Rules.--Section 5318 of title 31,
United States Code, as amended by this title, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(l) Applicability of Rules.--Any rules promulgated
pursuant to the authority contained in section 21 of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b) shall apply,
in addition to any other financial institution to which such
rules apply, to any person that engages as a business in the
transmission of funds, including through an informal value
transfer banking system or network of people facilitating the
transfer of value domestically or internationally outside of
the conventional financial institutions system.''.
(e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
report to Congress on the need for any additional legislation
relating to informal value transfer banking systems or
networks of people facilitating the transfer of value
domestically or internationally outside of the conventional
financial institutions system, counter money laundering and
regulatory controls relating to underground money movement
and banking systems, such as the system referred to as
`hawala', including whether the threshold for the filing of
suspicious activity reports under section 5318(g) of title
31, United States Code should be lowered in the case of such
systems.

SEC. 342. USE OF AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS.

(a) Action by the President.--If the President determines
that a particular foreign country has taken or has committed
to take actions that contribute to efforts of the United
States to respond to, deter, or prevent acts of international
terrorism, the Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with
other applicable provisions of law, instruct the United
States Executive Director of each international financial
institution to use the voice and vote of the Executive
Director to support any loan or other utilization of the
funds of respective institutions for such country, or any
public or private entity within such country.
(b) Use of Voice and Vote.--The Secretary of the Treasury
may instruct the United States Executive Director of each
international financial institution to aggressively use the
voice and vote of the Executive Director to require an
auditing of disbursements at such institutions to ensure that
no funds are paid to persons who commit, threaten to commit,
or support terrorism.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``international financial institution'' means an institution
described in section 1701(c)(2) of the International
Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2)).

Subtitle C--Currency Crimes

SEC. 351. BULK CASH SMUGGLING.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) effective enforcement of the currency reporting
requirements of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code
(commonly referred to as the Bank Secrecy Act), and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, has forced drug dealers
and other criminals engaged in cash-based businesses to avoid
using traditional financial institutions;
(2) in their effort to avoid using traditional financial
institutions, drug dealers, and other criminals are forced to
move large quantities of currency in bulk form to and through
the airports, border crossings, and other ports of entry
where it can be smuggled out of the United States and placed
in a foreign financial institution or sold on the black
market;
(3) the transportation and smuggling of cash in bulk form
may, at the time of enactment of this Act, be the most common
form of money laundering, and the movement of large sums of
cash is one of the most reliable warning signs of drug
trafficking, terrorism, money laundering, racketeering, tax
evasion, and similar crimes;
(4) the intentional transportation into or out of the
United States of large amounts of currency or monetary
instruments, in a manner designed to circumvent the mandatory
reporting provisions of chapter 53 of title 31, United States
Code, is the equivalent of, and creates the same harm as, the
smuggling of goods;
(5) the arrest and prosecution of bulk cash smugglers is an
important part of law enforcement's effort to stop the
laundering of criminal proceeds, but the couriers who attempt
to smuggle the cash out of the United States are typically
low-level employees of large criminal organizations, and are
easily replaced, and therefore only the confiscation of the
smuggled bulk cash can effectively break the cycle of
criminal activity of which the laundering of bulk cash is a
critical part;
(6) the penalties for violations of the currency reporting
requirements of the chapter 53 of title 31, United States
Code, are insufficient to provide a deterrent to the
laundering of criminal proceeds;
(7) because the only criminal violation under Federal law
before the date of enactment of this Act was a reporting
offense, the law does not adequately provide for the
confiscation of smuggled currency; and
(8) if the smuggling of bulk cash were itself an offense,
the cash could be confiscated as the corpus delicti of the
smuggling offense.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to make the act of smuggling bulk cash itself a
criminal offense;
(2) to authorize forfeiture of any cash or instruments of
the smuggling offense;
(3) to emphasize the seriousness of the act of bulk cash
smuggling; and
(4) to prescribe guidelines for determining the amount of
property subject to such forfeiture in various situations.
(c) Bulk Cash Smuggling Offense.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 5331. Bulk cash smuggling

``(a) Criminal Offense.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever, with the intent to evade a
currency reporting requirement under section 5316, knowingly
conceals more than $10,000 in currency or other monetary
instruments on his or her person or in any conveyance,
article of luggage, merchandise, or other container, and
transports or transfers or attempts to transport or transfer
the currency or monetary instruments from a place within the
United States to a place outside of the United States, or
from a place outside of the United States to a place within
the United States, shall be guilty of a currency smuggling
offense and subject to punishment under subsection (b).
``(b) Penalties.--
``(1) Prison term.--A person convicted of a currency
smuggling offense under subsection (a), or a conspiracy to
commit such an offense, shall be imprisoned for not more than
5 years.
``(2) Forfeiture.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to a prison term under
paragraph (1), the court, in imposing sentence, shall order
that the defendant forfeit to the United States any property,
real or personal, involved in the offense, and any property
traceable to such property, subject to subsection (d).
``(B) Applicability of other laws.--The seizure, restraint,
and forfeiture of property under this section shall be
governed by section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 853). If the property subject to forfeiture is
unavailable, and the defendant has no substitute property
that may be forfeited pursuant to section 413(p) of that Act,
the court shall enter a personal money judgment against the
defendant in an amount equal to the value of the unavailable
property.
``(c) Seizure of Smuggling Cash.--
``(1) In general.--Any property involved in a violation of
subsection (a), or a conspiracy to commit such violation, and
any property traceable thereto, may be seized and, subject

[[Page 19567]]

to subsection (d), forfeited to the United States.
``(2) Applicable procedures.--A seizure and forfeiture
under this subsection shall be governed by the procedures
governing civil forfeitures under section 981(a)(1)(A) of
title 18, United States Code.
``(d) Proportionality of Forfeiture.--
``(1) Mitigation.--Upon a showing by the property owner by
a preponderance of the evidence that the currency or monetary
instruments involved in the offense giving rise to the
forfeiture were derived from a legitimate source and were
intended for a lawful purpose, the court shall reduce the
forfeiture to the maximum amount that is not grossly
disproportional to the gravity of the offense.
``(2) Considerations.--In determining the amount of the
forfeiture under paragraph (1), the court shall consider all
aggravating and mitigating facts and circumstances that have
a bearing on the gravity of the offense, including--
``(A) the value of the currency or other monetary
instruments involved in the offense;
``(B) efforts by the person committing the offense to
structure currency transactions, conceal property, or
otherwise obstruct justice; and
``(C) whether the offense is part of a pattern of repeated
violations of Federal law.
``(e) Rule of Construction.--For purposes of subsections
(b) and (c), any currency or other monetary instrument that
is concealed or intended to be concealed in violation of
subsection (a) or a conspiracy to commit such violation, any
article, container, or conveyance used or intended to be used
to conceal or transport the currency or other monetary
instrument, and any other property used or intended to be
used to facilitate the offense, shall be considered property
involved in the offense.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 5330 the following new
item:

``5331. Bulk cash smuggling.''.
(d) Currency Reporting Violations.--Section 5317(c) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Forfeiture of Property.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Criminal forfeiture.--The court, in imposing sentence
for any violation of section 5313, 5316, or 5324, or any
conspiracy to commit such violation, shall order the
defendant to forfeit all property, real or personal, involved
in the offense and any property traceable thereto.
``(B) Applicable procedures.--Forfeitures under this
paragraph shall be governed by the procedures set forth in
section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853),
and the guidelines set forth in paragraph (3) of this
subsection.
``(2) Civil forfeiture.--Any property involved in a
violation of section 5313, 5316, or 5324, or any conspiracy
to commit such violation, and any property traceable thereto,
may be seized and, subject to paragraph (3), forfeited to the
United States in accordance with the procedures governing
civil forfeitures in money laundering cases pursuant to
section 981(a)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code.
``(3) Mitigation.--In a forfeiture case under this
subsection, upon a showing by the property owner by a
preponderance of the evidence that any currency or monetary
instruments involved in the offense giving rise to the
forfeiture were derived from a legitimate source, and were
intended for a lawful purpose, the court shall reduce the
forfeiture to the maximum amount that is not grossly
disproportional to the gravity of the offense. In determining
the amount of the forfeiture, the court shall consider all
aggravating and mitigating facts and circumstances that have
a bearing on the gravity of the offense. Such circumstances
include, but are not limited to, the following: the value of
the currency or other monetary instruments involved in the
offense; efforts by the person committing the offense to
structure currency transactions, conceal property, or
otherwise obstruct justice; and whether the offense is part
of a pattern of repeated violations.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--Title 18, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in section 981(a)(1)(A) by striking ``of section
5313(a) or 5324(a) of title 31, or''; and
(2) in section 982(a)(1), striking ``of section 5313(a),
5316, or 5324 of title 31, or''.

Subtitle E--Anticorruption Measures

SEC. 361. CORRUPTION OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND RULING
ELITES.

It is the sense of Congress that, in deliberations between
the United States Government and any other country on money
laundering and corruption issues, the United States
Government should--
(1) emphasize an approach that addresses not only the
laundering of the proceeds of traditional criminal activity
but also the increasingly endemic problem of governmental
corruption and the corruption of ruling elites;
(2) encourage the enactment and enforcement of laws in such
country to prevent money laundering and systemic corruption;
(3) make clear that the United States will take all steps
necessary to identify the proceeds of foreign government
corruption which have been deposited in United States
financial institutions and return such proceeds to the
citizens of the country to whom such assets belong; and
(4) advance policies and measures to promote good
government and to prevent and reduce corruption and money
laundering, including through instructions to the United
States Executive Director of each international financial
institution (as defined in section 1701(c) of the
International Financial Institutions Act) to advocate such
policies as a systematic element of economic reform programs
and advice to member governments.

SEC. 362. SUPPORT FOR THE FINANCIAL ACTION TASK FORCE ON
MONEY LAUNDERING.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the United States should continue to actively and
publicly support the objectives of the Financial Action Task
Force on Money Laundering (hereafter in this section referred
to as the ``FATF'') with regard to combating international
money laundering;
(2) the FATF should identify noncooperative jurisdictions
in as expeditious a manner as possible and publicly release a
list directly naming those jurisdictions identified;
(3) the United States should support the public release of
the list naming noncooperative jurisdictions identified by
the FATF;
(4) the United States should encourage the adoption of the
necessary international action to encourage compliance by the
identified noncooperative jurisdictions; and
(5) the United States should take the necessary
countermeasures to protect the United States economy against
money of unlawful origin and encourage other nations to do
the same.

SEC. 363. TERRORIST FUNDING THROUGH MONEY LAUNDERING.

It is the sense of the Congress that, in deliberations and
negotiations between the United States Government and any
other country regarding financial, economic, assistance, or
defense issues, the United States should encourage such other
country--
(1) to take actions which would identify and prevent the
transmittal of funds to and from terrorists and terrorist
organizations; and
(2) to engage in bilateral and multilateral cooperation
with the United States and other countries to identify
suspected terrorists, terrorist organizations, and persons
supplying funds to and receiving funds from terrorists and
terrorist organizations.

TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER

Subtitle A--Protecting the Northern Border

SEC. 401. ENSURING ADEQUATE PERSONNEL ON THE NORTHERN BORDER.

The Attorney General is authorized to waive any FTE cap on
personnel assigned to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to address the national security needs of the United
States on the Northern border.

SEC. 402. NORTHERN BORDER PERSONNEL.

There are authorized to be appropriated--
(1) such sums as may be necessary to triple the number of
Border Patrol personnel (from the number authorized under
current law), and the necessary personnel and facilities to
support such personnel, in each State along the Northern
Border;
(2) such sums as may be necessary to triple the number of
Customs Service personnel (from the number authorized under
current law), and the necessary personnel and facilities to
support such personnel, at ports of entry in each State along
the Northern Border;
(3) such sums as may be necessary to triple the number of
INS inspectors (from the number authorized on the date of
enactment of this Act), and the necessary personnel and
facilities to support such personnel, at ports of entry in
each State along the Northern Border; and
(4) an additional $50,000,000 each to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the United States Customs Service
for purposes of making improvements in technology for
monitoring the Northern Border and acquiring additional
equipment at the Northern Border.

SEC. 403. ACCESS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE INS TO
CERTAIN IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IN THE CRIMINAL
HISTORY RECORDS OF VISA APPLICANTS AND
APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
Section 105 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1105) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``; data
exchange'' after ``security officers'';
(2) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 105.'';
(3) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and border'' after
``internal'' the second place it appears; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(b)(1) The Attorney General and the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide the Department
of State and the Service access to the criminal history
record information contained in the National Crime
Information Center's Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-
III), Wanted Persons File, and to any other files maintained
by the National Crime Information Center that

[[Page 19568]]

may be mutually agreed upon by the Attorney General and the
agency receiving the access, for the purpose of determining
whether or not a visa applicant or applicant for admission
has a criminal history record indexed in any such file.
``(2) Such access shall be provided by means of extracts of
the records for placement in the automated visa lookout or
other appropriate database, and shall be provided without any
fee or charge.
``(3) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide
periodic updates of the extracts at intervals mutually agreed
upon with the agency receiving the access. Upon receipt of
such updated extracts, the receiving agency shall make
corresponding updates to its database and destroy previously
provided extracts.
``(4) Access to an extract does not entitle the Department
of State to obtain the full content of the corresponding
automated criminal history record. To obtain the full content
of a criminal history record, the Department of State shall
submit the applicant's fingerprints and any appropriate
fingerprint processing fee authorized by law to the Criminal
Justice Information Services Division of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
``(c) The provision of the extracts described in subsection
(b) may be reconsidered by the Attorney General and the
receiving agency upon the development and deployment of a
more cost-effective and efficient means of sharing the
information.
``(d) For purposes of administering this section, the
Department of State shall, prior to receiving access to NCIC
data but not later than 4 months after the date of enactment
of this subsection, promulgate final regulations--
``(1) to implement procedures for the taking of
fingerprints; and
``(2) to establish the conditions for the use of the
information received from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in order--
``(A) to limit the redissemination of such information;
``(B) to ensure that such information is used solely to
determine whether or not to issue a visa to an alien or to
admit an alien to the United States;
``(C) to ensure the security, confidentiality, and
destruction of such information; and
``(D) to protect any privacy rights of individuals who are
subjects of such information.''.
(b) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General and
the Secretary of State jointly shall report to Congress on
the implementation of the amendments made by this section.
(c) Technology Standard to Confirm Identity.--
(1) In General.--The Attorney General and the Secretary of
State jointly, through the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), and in consultation with the Secretary
of the Treasury and other Federal law enforcement and
intelligence agencies the Attorney General or Secretary of
State deems appropriate, shall within 2 years after the date
of enactment of this section, develop and certify a
technology standard that can confirm the identity of a person
applying for a United States visa or such person seeking to
enter the United States pursuant to a visa.
(2) Integrated.--The technology standard developed pursuant
to paragraph (1), shall be the technological basis for a
cross-agency, cross-platform electronic system that is a
cost-effective, efficient, fully integrated means to share
law enforcement and intelligence information necessary to
confirm the identity of such persons applying for a United
States visa or such person seeking to enter the United States
pursuant to a visa.
(3) Accessible.--The electronic system described in
paragraph (2), once implemented, shall be readily and easily
accessible to--
(A) all consular officers responsible for the issuance of
visas;
(B) all Federal inspection agents at all United States
border inspection points; and
(C) all law enforcement and intelligence officers as
determined by regulation to be responsible for investigation
or identification of aliens admitted to the United States
pursuant to a visa.
(4) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the
Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall jointly, in
consultation with the Secretary of Treasury, report to
Congress describing the development, implementation and
efficacy of the technology standard and electronic database
system described in this subsection.
(d) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section, or in
any other law, shall be construed to limit the authority of
the Attorney General or the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to provide access to the criminal history
record information contained in the National Crime
Information Center's (NCIC) Interstate Identification Index
(NCIC-III), or to any other information maintained by the
NCIC, to any Federal agency or officer authorized to enforce
or administer the immigration laws of the United States, for
the purpose of such enforcement or administration, upon terms
that are consistent with the National Crime Prevention and
Privacy Compact Act of 1998 (subtitle A of title II of Public
Law 105-251; 42 U.S.C. 14611-16) and section 552a of title 5,
United States Code.

SEC. 404. LIMITED AUTHORITY TO PAY OVERTIME.

The matter under the headings ``Immigration And
Naturalization Service: Salaries and Expenses, Enforcement
And Border Affairs'' and ``Immigration And Naturalization
Service: Salaries and Expenses, Citizenship And Benefits,
Immigration And Program Direction'' in the Department of
Justice Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by
Appendix B (H.R. 5548) of Public Law 106-553 (114 Stat.
2762A-58 to 2762A-59)) is amended by striking the following
each place it occurs: ``Provided, That none of the funds
available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall
be available to pay any employee overtime pay in an amount in
excess of $30,000 during the calendar year beginning January
1, 2001:''.

SEC. 405. REPORT ON THE INTEGRATED AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT
IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR POINTS OF ENTRY AND
OVERSEAS CONSULAR POSTS.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the appropriate heads of other Federal agencies, including
the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, and the
Secretary of Transportation, shall report to Congress on the
feasibility of enhancing the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS) of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and other identification systems in order to
better identify a person who holds a foreign passport or a
visa and may be wanted in connection with a criminal
investigation in the United States or abroad, before the
issuance of a visa to that person or the entry or exit by
that person from the United States.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated not less than $2,000,000 to carry out this
section.

Subtitle B--Enhanced Immigration Provisions

SEC. 411. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.

(a) Grounds of Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by amending subclause (IV) to read as follows:

``(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of--

``(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by
the Secretary of State under section 219, or
``(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose
public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the
Secretary of State has determined undermines United States
efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,'';
(ii) in subclause (V), by inserting ``or'' after ``section
219,''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subclauses:

``(VI) has used the alien's position of prominence within
any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to
persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist
organization, in a way that the Secretary of State has
determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or
eliminate terrorist activities, or
``(VII) is the spouse or child of an alien who is
inadmissible under this section, if the activity causing the
alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5
years,'';

(B) by redesignating clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) as
clauses (iii), (iv), and (v), respectively;
(C) in clause (i)(II), by striking ``clause (iii)'' and
inserting ``clause (iv)'';
(D) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
``(ii) Exception.--Subclause (VII) of clause (i) does not
apply to a spouse or child--

``(I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known
of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible
under this section; or
``(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has
reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity
causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this
section.'';

(E) in clause (iii) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B))--
(i) by inserting ``it had been'' before ``committed in the
United States''; and
(ii) in subclause (V)(b), by striking ``or firearm'' and
inserting ``, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device'';
(F) by amending clause (iv) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (B)) to read as follows:
``(iv) Engage in terrorist activity defined.--As used in
this chapter, the term `engage in terrorist activity' means,
in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization--

``(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances
indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily
injury, a terrorist activity;
``(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
``(III) to gather information on potential targets for
terrorist activity;
``(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--

``(aa) a terrorist activity;

[[Page 19569]]

``(bb) a terrorist organization described in clauses
(vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
``(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause
(vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did
not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the
solicitation would further the organization's terrorist
activity;

``(V) to solicit any individual--

``(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this
clause;
``(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described
in clauses (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
``(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described
in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate
that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known,
that the solicitation would further the organization's
terrorist activity; or

``(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably
should know, affords material support, including a safe
house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of
funds or other material financial benefit, false
documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical,
biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or
training--

``(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
``(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably
should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist
activity;
``(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clauses
(vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
``(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause
(vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not
know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act
would further the organization's terrorist activity.

This clause shall not apply to any material support the alien
afforded to an organization or individual that has committed
terrorist activity, if the Secretary of State, after
consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney
General, after consultation with the Secretary of State,
concludes in his sole unreviewable discretion, that this
clause should not apply.''; and

(D) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(vi) Terrorist organization defined.--As used in clause
(i)(VI) and clause (iv), the term `terrorist organization'
means an organization--

``(I) designated under section 219;
``(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the
Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation
with or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a
terrorist organization, after finding that it engages in the
activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of
clause (iv), or that it provides material support to further
terrorist activity; or
``(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether
organized or not, which engages in the activities described
in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv).''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) Association with terrorist organizations.--Any alien
who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the
Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation
with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated
with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United
States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in
activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or
security of the United States is inadmissible.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 237(a)(4)(B) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)) is
amended by striking ``section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii)'' and
inserting ``section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)''.
(c) Retroactive Application of Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply
to--
(A) actions taken by an alien before, on, or after such
date; and
(B) all aliens, without regard to the date of entry or
attempted entry into the United States--
(i) in removal proceedings on or after such date (except
for proceedings in which there has been a final
administrative decision before such date); or
(ii) seeking admission to the United States on or after
such date.
(2) Special rule for aliens in exclusion or deportation
proceedings.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
amendments made by this section shall apply to all aliens in
exclusion or deportation proceedings on or after the date of
enactment of this Act (except for proceedings in which there
has been a final administrative decision before such date) as
if such proceedings were removal proceedings.
(3) Special rule for section 219 organizations and
organizations designated under section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II).--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), no
alien shall be considered inadmissible under section
212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(3)), or deportable under section 237(a)(4)(B) of such
Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)), by reason of the amendments
made by subsection (a), on the ground that the alien engaged
in a terrorist activity described in subclause (IV)(bb),
(V)(bb), or (VI)(cc) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act
(as so amended) with respect to a group at any time when the
group was not a terrorist organization designated by the
Secretary of State under section 219 of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1189) or otherwise designated under section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II).
(B) Statutory construction.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be
construed to prevent an alien from being considered
inadmissible or deportable for having engaged in a terrorist
activity--
(i) described in subclause (IV)(bb), (V)(bb), or (VI)(cc)
of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with
respect to a terrorist organization at any time when such
organization was designated by the Secretary of State under
section 219 of such Act or otherwise designated under section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II); or
(ii) described in subclause (IV)(cc), (V)(cc), or (VI)(dd)
of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with
respect to a terrorist organization described in section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III).
(4) Exception.--The Secretary of State, in consultation
with the Attorney General, may determine that the amendments
made by this section shall not apply with respect to actions
by an alien taken outside the United States before the date
of enactment of this Act upon the recommendation of a
consular officer who has concluded that there is not
reasonable ground to believe that the alien knew or
reasonably should have known that the actions would further a
terrorist activity.
(c) Designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.--
Section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1189(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``or terrorism (as
defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C.
2656f(d)(2)) or retains the capability and intent to engage
in terrorist activity or terrorism)'' after
``212(a)(3)(B))'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ``or terrorism''
after ``terrorist activity'';
(3) by amending paragraph (2)(A) to read as follows:
``(A) Notice.--
``(i) To congressional leaders.--Seven days before making a
designation under this subsection, the Secretary shall, by
classified communication, notify the Speaker and Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives, the President pro
tempore, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader of the Senate,
and the members of the relevant committees, in writing, of
the intent to designate an organization under this
subsection, together with the findings made under paragraph
(1) with respect to that organization, and the factual basis
therefor.
``(ii) Publication in federal register.--The Secretary
shall publish the designation in the Federal Register seven
days after providing the notification under clause (i).'';
(4) in paragraph (2)(B)(i), by striking ``subparagraph
(A)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A)(ii)'';
(5) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (2)(A)(i)'';
(6) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``subsection (c)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b)'';
(7) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting after the first
sentence the following: ``The Secretary also may redesignate
such organization at the end of any 2-year redesignation
period (but not sooner than 60 days prior to the termination
of such period) for an additional 2-year period upon a
finding that the relevant circumstances described in
paragraph (1) still exist. Any redesignation shall be
effective immediately following the end of the prior 2-year
designation or redesignation period unless a different
effective date is provided in such redesignation.'';
(8) in paragraph (6)(A)--
(A) by inserting ``or a redesignation made under paragraph
(4)(B)'' after ``paragraph (1)'';
(B) in clause (i)--
(i) by inserting ``or redesignation'' after ``designation''
the first place it appears; and
(ii) by striking ``of the designation''; and
(C) in clause (ii), by striking ``of the designation'';
(9) in paragraph (6)(B)--
(A) by striking ``through (4)'' and inserting ``and (3)'';
and
(B) by inserting at the end the following new sentence:
``Any revocation shall take effect on the date specified in
the revocation or upon publication in the Federal Register if
no effective date is specified.'';
(10) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``, or the revocation
of a redesignation under paragraph (6),'' after ``paragraph
(5) or (6)''; and
(11) in paragraph (8)--
(A) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting
``paragraph (2)(B), or if a redesignation under this
subsection has become effective under paragraph (4)(B)'';
(B) by inserting ``or an alien in a removal proceeding''
after ``criminal action''; and
(C) by inserting ``or redesignation'' before ``as a
defense''.

[[Page 19570]]

SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS
CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
236 the following:

``MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS;
JUDICIAL REVIEW

``Sec. 236A. (a) Detention of Terrorist Aliens.--
``(1) Custody.--The Attorney General shall take into
custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).
``(2) Release.--Except as provided in paragraph (5), the
Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien
until the alien is removed from the United States. Such
custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from
removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief
from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General
determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be
certified under paragraph (3).
``(3) Certification.--The Attorney General may certify an
alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has
reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
``(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i),
212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i),
237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
``(B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the
national security of the United States.
``(4) Nondelegation.--The Attorney General may delegate the
authority provided under paragraph (3) only to the
Commissioner. The Commissioner may not delegate such
authority.
``(5) Commencement of proceedings.--The Attorney General
shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal
proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal
offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such
detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is
not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien.
``(b) Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review.--Judicial review
of any action or decision relating to this section (including
judicial review of the merits of a determination made under
subsection (a)(3)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus
proceedings in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code,
except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall
have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or
otherwise, any such action or decision.
``(c) Statutory Construction.--The provisions of this
section shall not be applicable to any other provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 236 the following:

``Sec. 236A. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorist; habeas corpus;
judicial review.''.
(c) Reports.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the
Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee on
the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, with respect to the
reporting period, on--
(1) the number of aliens certified under section 236A(a)(3)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by
subsection (a);
(2) the grounds for such certifications;
(3) the nationalities of the aliens so certified;
(4) the length of the detention for each alien so
certified; and
(5) the number of aliens so certified who--
(A) were granted any form of relief from removal;
(B) were removed;
(C) the Attorney General has determined are no longer
aliens who may be so certified; or
(D) were released from detention.

SEC. 413. MULTILATERAL COOPERATION AGAINST TERRORISTS.

Section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1202(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``except that in the discretion of'' and
inserting the following: ``except that--
``(1) in the discretion of''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) the Secretary of State, in the Secretary's discretion
and on the basis of reciprocity, may provide to a foreign
government information in the Department of State's
computerized visa lookout database and, when necessary and
appropriate, other records covered by this section related to
information in the database--
``(A) with regard to individual aliens, at any time on a
case-by-case basis for the purpose of preventing,
investigating, or punishing acts that would constitute a
crime in the United States, including, but not limited to,
terrorism or trafficking in controlled substances, persons,
or illicit weapons; or
``(B) with regard to any or all aliens in the database,
pursuant to such conditions as the Secretary of State shall
establish in an agreement with the foreign government in
which that government agrees to use such information and
records for the purposes described in subparagraph (A) or to
deny visas to persons who would be inadmissible to the United
States.''.

TITLE V--REMOVING OBSTACLES TO INVESTIGATING TERRORISM

SEC. 501. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS ACT
OF 2001.

(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the
``Professional Standards for Government Attorneys Act of
2001''.
(b) Professional Standards for Government Attorneys.--
Section 530B of title 28, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 530B. Professional Standards for Government Attorneys

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Government attorney.--The term `Government
attorney'--
``(A) means the Attorney General; the Deputy Attorney
General; the Solicitor General; the Associate Attorney
General; the head of, and any attorney employed in, any
division, office, board, bureau, component, or agency of the
Department of Justice; any United States Attorney; any
Assistant United States Attorney; any Special Assistant to
the Attorney General or Special Attorney appointed under
section 515; any Special Assistant United States Attorney
appointed under section 543 who is authorized to conduct
criminal or civil law enforcement investigations or
proceedings on behalf of the United States; any other
attorney employed by the Department of Justice who is
authorized to conduct criminal or civil law enforcement
proceedings on behalf of the United States; any independent
counsel, or employee of such counsel, appointed under chapter
40; and any outside special counsel, or employee of such
counsel, as may be duly appointed by the Attorney General;
and
``(B) does not include any attorney employed as an
investigator or other law enforcement agent by the Department
of Justice who is not authorized to represent the United
States in criminal or civil law enforcement litigation or to
supervise such proceedings.
``(2) State.--The term `State' includes a Territory and the
District of Columbia.
``(b) Choice of Law.--Subject to any uniform national rule
prescribed by the Supreme Court under chapter 131, the
standards of professional responsibility that apply to a
Government attorney with respect to the attorney's work for
the Government shall be--
``(1) for conduct in connection with a proceeding in or
before a court, or conduct reasonably intended to lead to a
proceeding in or before a court, the standards of
professional responsibility established by the rules and
decisions of the court in or before which the proceeding is
brought or is intended to be brought;
``(2) for conduct in connection with a grand jury
proceeding, or conduct reasonably intended to lead to a grand
jury proceeding, the standards of professional responsibility
established by the rules and decisions of the court under
whose authority the grand jury was or will be impaneled; and
``(3) for all other conduct, the standards of professional
responsibility established by the rules and decisions of the
Federal district court for the judicial district in which the
attorney principally performs his or her official duties.
``(c) Licensure.--A Government attorney (except foreign
counsel employed in special cases)--
``(1) shall be duly licensed and authorized to practice as
an attorney under the laws of a State; and
``(2) shall not be required to be a member of the bar of
any particular State.
``(d) Undercover Activities.--Notwithstanding any provision
of State law, including disciplinary rules, statutes,
regulations, constitutional provisions, or case law, a
Government attorney may, for the purpose of enforcing Federal
law, provide legal advice, authorization, concurrence,
direction, or supervision on conducting undercover
activities, and any attorney employed as an investigator or
other law enforcement agent by the Department of Justice who
is not authorized to represent the United States in criminal
or civil law enforcement litigation or to supervise such
proceedings may participate in such activities, even though
such activities may require the use of deceit or
misrepresentation, where such activities are consistent with
Federal law.
``(e) Admissibility of Evidence.--No violation of any
disciplinary, ethical, or professional conduct rule shall be
construed to permit the exclusion of otherwise admissible
evidence in any Federal criminal proceedings.
``(f) Rulemaking Authority.--The Attorney General shall
make and amend rules of the Department of Justice to ensure
compliance with this section.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code, is amended, in
the item relating to section 530B, by striking ``Ethical
standards for attorneys for the Government'' and inserting
``Professional standards for Government attorneys''.
(d) Reports.--
(1) Uniform rule.--In order to encourage the Supreme Court
to prescribe, under chapter 131 of title 28, United States
Code, a uniform national rule for Government attorneys

[[Page 19571]]

with respect to communications with represented persons and
parties, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Judicial Conference of the United States shall
submit to the Chief Justice of the United States a report,
which shall include recommendations with respect to amending
the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure to provide for
such a uniform national rule.
(2) Actual or potential conflicts.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Judicial
Conference of the United States shall submit to the Chairmen
and Ranking Members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Senate a report, which shall
include--
(A) a review of any areas of actual or potential conflict
between specific Federal duties related to the investigation
and prosecution of violations of Federal law and the
regulation of Government attorneys (as that term is defined
in section 530B of title 28, United States Code, as amended
by this Act) by existing standards of professional
responsibility; and
(B) recommendations with respect to amending the Federal
Rules of Practice and Procedure to provide for additional
rules governing attorney conduct to address any areas of
actual or potential conflict identified pursuant to the
review under subparagraph (A).
(3) Report considerations.--In carrying out paragraphs (1)
and (2), the Judicial Conference of the United States shall
take into consideration--
(A) the needs and circumstances of multiforum and
multijurisdictional litigation;
(B) the special needs and interests of the United States in
investigating and prosecuting violations of Federal criminal
and civil law; and
(C) practices that are approved under Federal statutory or
case law or that are otherwise consistent with traditional
Federal law enforcement techniques.

SEC. 502. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AUTHORITY TO PAY REWARDS TO
COMBAT TERRORISM.

(a) Payment of Rewards To Combat Terrorism.--Funds
available to the Attorney General may be used for the payment
of rewards pursuant to public advertisements for assistance
to the Department of Justice to combat terrorism and defend
the Nation against terrorist acts, in accordance with
procedures and regulations established or issued by the
Attorney General.
(b) Conditions.--In making rewards under this section--
(1) no such reward of $250,000 or more may be made or
offered without the personal approval of either the Attorney
General or the President;
(2) the Attorney General shall give written notice to the
Chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the Senate and of the
House of Representatives not later than 30 days after the
approval of a reward under paragraph (1);
(3) any executive agency or military department (as
defined, respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 5,
United States Code) may provide the Attorney General with
funds for the payment of rewards;
(4) neither the failure of the Attorney General to
authorize a payment nor the amount authorized shall be
subject to judicial review; and
(5) no such reward shall be subject to any per- or
aggregate reward spending limitation established by law,
unless that law expressly refers to this section, and no
reward paid pursuant to any such offer shall count toward any
such aggregate reward spending limitation.

SEC. 503. SECRETARY OF STATE'S AUTHORITY TO PAY REWARDS.

Section 36 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of
1956 (Public Law 885, August 1, 1956; 22 U.S.C. 2708) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``, including by dismantling an organization in
whole or significant part; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) the identification or location of an individual who
holds a key leadership position in a terrorist
organization.'';
(2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3)
and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2); and
(3) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting ``, except as
personally authorized by the Secretary of State if he
determines that offer or payment of an award of a larger
amount is necessary to combat terrorism or defend the Nation
against terrorist acts.'' after ``$5,000,000''.

SEC. 504. DNA IDENTIFICATION OF TERRORISTS AND OTHER VIOLENT
OFFENDERS.

Section 3(d)(2) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act
of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a(d)(2)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) In additional to the offenses described in paragraph
(1), the following offenses shall be treated for purposes of
this section as qualifying Federal offenses, as determined by
the Attorney General:
``(A) Any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title
18, United States Code.
``(B) Any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of
title 18, United States Code).
``(C) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above
offenses.''.

SEC. 505. COORDINATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Information Acquired From an Electronic Surveillance.--
Section 106 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1806), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(k)(1) Federal officers who conduct electronic
surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information
under this title may consult with Federal law enforcement
officers to coordinate efforts to investigate or protect
against--
``(A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile
acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
``(B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign
power or an agent of a foreign power; or
``(C) clandestine intelligence activities by an
intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an
agent of a foreign power.
``(2) Coordination authorized under paragraph (1) shall not
preclude the certification required by section 104(a)(7)(B)
or the entry of an order under section 105.''.
(b) Information Acquired From a Physical Search.--Section
305 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1825) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k)(1) Federal officers who conduct physical searches to
acquire foreign intelligence information under this title may
consult with Federal law enforcement officers to coordinate
efforts to investigate or protect against--
``(A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile
acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
``(B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign
power or an agent of a foreign power; or
``(C) clandestine intelligence activities by an
intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an
agent of a foreign power.
``(2) Coordination authorized under paragraph (1) shall not
preclude the certification required by section 303(a)(7) or
the entry of an order under section 304.''.

SEC. 506. MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORITIES.

(a) Telephone Toll and Transactional Records.--Section
2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a
Bureau field office designated by the Director'' after
``Assistant Director'';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``in a position not lower than Deputy
Assistant Director''; and
(B) by striking ``made that'' and all that follows and
inserting the following: ``made that the name, address,
length of service, and toll billing records sought are
relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities, provided that such an investigation of a United
States person is not conducted solely on the basis of
activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution of the United States; and''; and
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``in a position not lower than Deputy
Assistant Director''; and
(B) by striking ``made that'' and all that follows and
inserting the following: ``made that the information sought
is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities, provided that such an investigation of a United
States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of
activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.''.
(b) Financial Records.--Section 1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right
to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)(A)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``in a position not lower than Deputy
Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent
in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the
Director'' after ``designee''; and
(2) by striking ``sought'' and all that follows and
inserting ``sought for foreign counter intelligence purposes
to protect against international terrorism or clandestine
intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation
of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the
basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.''.
(c) Consumer Reports.--Section 624 of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``in a position not lower than Deputy
Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent
in Charge of a Bureau field office designated by the
Director'' after ``designee'' the first place it appears; and
(B) by striking ``in writing that'' and all that follows
through the end and inserting the following: ``in writing,
that such information is sought for the conduct of an
authorized investigation to protect against

[[Page 19572]]

international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities, provided that such an investigation of a United
States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of
activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``in a position not lower than Deputy
Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent
in Charge of a Bureau field office designated by the
Director'' after ``designee'' the first place it appears; and
(B) by striking ``in writing that'' and all that follows
through the end and inserting the following: ``in writing
that such information is sought for the conduct of an
authorized investigation to protect against international
terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided
that such an investigation of a United States person is not
conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by
the first amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.''; and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by inserting ``in a position not lower than Deputy
Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent
in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the
Director'' after ``designee of the Director''; and
(B) by striking ``in camera that'' and all that follows
through ``States.'' and inserting the following: ``in camera
that the consumer report is sought for the conduct of an
authorized investigation to protect against international
terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided
that such an investigation of a United States person is not
conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by
the first amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.''.

SEC. 507. EXTENSION OF SECRET SERVICE JURISDICTION.

(a) Concurrent Jurisdiction Under 18 U.S.C. 1030.--Section
1030(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read
as follows:
``(d)(1) The United States Secret Service shall, in
addition to any other agency having such authority, have the
authority to investigate offenses under this section.
``(2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall have
primary authority to investigate offenses under subsection
(a)(1) for any cases involving espionage, foreign
counterintelligence, information protected against
unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or
foreign relations, or Restricted Data (as that term is
defined in section 11y of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2014(y)), except for offenses affecting the duties of
the United States Secret Service pursuant to section 3056(a)
of this title.
``(3) Such authority shall be exercised in accordance with
an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of
the Treasury and the Attorney General.''.
(b) Reauthorization of Jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1344.--
Section 3056(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``credit and debit card frauds, and false
identification documents or devices'' and inserting ``access
device frauds, false identification documents or devices, and
any fraud or other criminal or unlawful activity in or
against any federally insured financial institution''.

SEC. 508. DISCLOSURE OF EDUCATIONAL RECORDS.

Section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20
U.S.C. 1232g), is amended by adding after subsection (i) a
new subsection (j) to read as follows:
``(j) Investigation and Prosecution of Terrorism.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) through
(i) or any provision of State law, the Attorney General (or
any Federal officer or employee, in a position not lower than
an Assistant Attorney General, designated by the Attorney
General) may submit a written application to a court of
competent jurisdiction for an ex parte order requiring an
educational agency or institution to permit the Attorney
General (or his designee) to--
``(A) collect education records in the possession of the
educational agency or institution that are relevant to an
authorized investigation or prosecution of an offense listed
in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 United States Code, or
an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in
section 2331 of that title; and
``(B) for official purposes related to the investigation or
prosecution of an offense described in paragraph (1)(A),
retain, disseminate, and use (including as evidence at trial
or in other administrative or judicial proceedings) such
records, consistent with such guidelines as the Attorney
General, after consultation with the Secretary, shall issue
to protect confidentiality.
``(2) Application and approval.--
``(A) In general.--An application under paragraph (1) shall
certify that there are specific and articulable facts giving
reason to believe that the education records are likely to
contain information described in paragraph (1)(A).
``(B) The court shall issue an order described in paragraph
(1) if the court finds that the application for the order
includes the certification described in subparagraph (A).
``(3) Protection of educational agency or institution.--An
educational agency or institution that, in good faith,
produces education records in accordance with an order issued
under this subsection shall not be liable to any person for
that production.
``(4) Record-keeping.--Subsection (b)(4) does not apply to
education records subject to a court order under this
subsection.''.

SEC. 509. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FROM NCES SURVEYS.

Section 408 of the National Education Statistics Act of
1994 (20 U.S.C. 9007), is amended by adding after subsection
(b) a new subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Investigation and Prosecution of Terrorism.--
``(1) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b),
the Attorney General (or any Federal officer or employee, in
a position not lower than an Assistant Attorney General,
designated by the Attorney General) may submit a written
application to a court of competent jurisdiction for an ex
parte order requiring the Secretary to permit the Attorney
General (or his designee) to--
``(A) collect reports, records, and information (including
individually identifiable information) in the possession of
the center that are relevant to an authorized investigation
or prosecution of an offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B)
of title 18, United States Code, or an act of domestic or
international terrorism as defined in section 2331 of that
title; and
``(B) for official purposes related to the investigation or
prosecution of an offense described in paragraph (1)(A),
retain, disseminate, and use (including as evidence at trial
or in other administrative or judicial proceedings) such
information, consistent with such guidelines as the Attorney
General, after consultation with the Secretary, shall issue
to protect confidentiality.
``(2) Application and approval.--
``(A) In general.--An application under paragraph (1) shall
certify that there are specific and articulable facts giving
reason to believe that the information sought is described in
paragraph (1)(A).
``(B) The court shall issue an order described in paragraph
(1) if the court finds that the application for the order
includes the certification described in subparagraph (A).
``(3) Protection.--An officer or employee of the Department
who, in good faith, produces information in accordance with
an order issued under this subsection does not violate
subsection (b)(2) and shall not be liable to any person for
that production.''.

TITLE VI--PROVIDING FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS,
AND THEIR FAMILIES

Subtitle A--Aid to Families of Public Safety Officers

SEC. 611. EXPEDITED PAYMENT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
INVOLVED IN THE PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION,
RESCUE, OR RECOVERY EFFORTS RELATED TO A
TERRORIST ATTACK.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the limitations of
subsection (b) of section 1201 or the provisions of
subsections (c), (d), and (e) of such section or section 1202
of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796, 3796a), upon certification
(containing identification of all eligible payees of benefits
pursuant to section 1201 of such Act) by a public agency that
a public safety officer employed by such agency was killed or
suffered a catastrophic injury producing permanent and total
disability as a direct and proximate result of a personal
injury sustained in the line of duty as described in section
1201 of such Act in connection with prevention,
investigation, rescue, or recovery efforts related to a
terrorist attack, the Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance shall authorize payment to qualified
beneficiaries, said payment to be made not later than 30 days
after receipt of such certification, benefits described under
subpart 1 of part L of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.).
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms
``catastrophic injury'', ``public agency'', and ``public
safety officer'' have the same meanings given such terms in
section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b).

SEC. 612. TECHNICAL CORRECTION WITH RESPECT TO EXPEDITED
PAYMENTS FOR HEROIC PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS.

Section 1 of Public Law 107-37 (an Act to provide for the
expedited payment of certain benefits for a public safety
officer who was killed or suffered a catastrophic injury as a
direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in
the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001) is amended by--
(1) inserting before ``by a'' the following: ``(containing
identification of all eligible payees of benefits pursuant to
section 1201)'';
(2) inserting ``producing permanent and total disability''
after ``suffered a catastrophic injury''; and
(2) striking ``1201(a)'' and inserting ``1201''.

SEC. 613. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS BENEFIT PROGRAM PAYMENT
INCREASE.

(a) Payments.--Section 1201(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796) is amended by
striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$250,000''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any death or

[[Page 19573]]

disability occurring on or after January 1, 2001.

SEC. 614. OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS.

Section 112 of title I of section 101(b) of division A of
Public Law 105-277 and section 108(a) of appendix A of Public
Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-20) are amended--
(1) after ``that Office'', each place it occurs, by
inserting ``(including, notwithstanding any contrary
provision of law (unless the same should expressly refer to
this section), any organization that administers any program
established in title 1 of Public Law 90-351)''; and
(2) by inserting ``functions, including any'' after
``all''.

Subtitle B--Amendments to the Victims of Crime Act of 1984

SEC. 621. CRIME VICTIMS FUND.

(a) Deposit of Gifts in the Fund.--Section 1402(b) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) any gifts, bequests, or donations to the Fund from
private entities or individuals.''.
(b) Formula for Fund Distributions.--Section 1402(c) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(c)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(c) Fund Distribution; Retention of Sums in Fund;
Availability for Expenditure Without Fiscal Year
Limitation.--
``(1) Subject to the availability of money in the Fund, in
each fiscal year, beginning with fiscal year 2003, the
Director shall distribute not less than 90 percent nor more
than 110 percent of the amount distributed from the Fund in
the previous fiscal year, except the Director may distribute
up to 120 percent of the amount distributed in the previous
fiscal year in any fiscal year that the total amount
available in the Fund is more than 2 times the amount
distributed in the previous fiscal year.
``(2) In each fiscal year, the Director shall distribute
amounts from the Fund in accordance with subsection (d). All
sums not distributed during a fiscal year shall remain in
reserve in the Fund to be distributed during a subsequent
fiscal year. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all
sums deposited in the Fund that are not distributed shall
remain in reserve in the Fund for obligation in future fiscal
years, without fiscal year limitation.''.
(c) Allocation of Funds for Costs and Grants.--Section
1402(d)(4) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C.
10601(d)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``deposited in'' and inserting ``to be
distributed from'';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``48.5'' and inserting
``47.5'';
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``48.5'' and inserting
``47.5''; and
(4) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``3'' and inserting
``5''.
(d) Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve.--Section 1402(d)(5) of
the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(d)(5)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(5)(A) In addition to the amounts distributed under
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), the Director may set aside up
to $50,000,000 from the amounts transferred to the Fund for
use in responding to the airplane hijackings and terrorist
acts that occurred on September 11, 2001, as an antiterrorism
emergency reserve. The Director may replenish any amounts
expended from such reserve in subsequent fiscal years by
setting aside up to 5 percent of the amounts remaining in the
Fund in any fiscal year after distributing amounts under
paragraphs (2), (3) and (4). Such reserve shall not exceed
$50,000,000.
``(B) The antiterrorism emergency reserve referred to in
subparagraph (A) may be used for supplemental grants under
section 1404B and to provide compensation to victims of
international terrorism under section 1404C.
``(C) Amounts in the antiterrorism emergency reserve
established pursuant to subparagraph (A) may be carried over
from fiscal year to fiscal year. Notwithstanding subsection
(c) and section 619 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (and any similar limitation on Fund obligations in
any future Act, unless the same should expressly refer to
this section), any such amounts carried over shall not be
subject to any limitation on obligations from amounts
deposited to or available in the Fund.''.
(e) Victims of September 11, 2001.--Amounts transferred to
the Crime Victims Fund for use in responding to the airplane
hijackings and terrorist acts (including any related search,
rescue, relief, assistance, or other similar activities) that
occurred on September 11, 2001, shall not be subject to any
limitation on obligations from amounts deposited to or
available in the Fund, notwithstanding--
(1) section 619 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001, and any similar limitation on Fund obligations in
such Act for Fiscal Year 2002; and
(2) subsections (c) and (d) of section 1402 of the Victims
of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601).

SEC. 622. CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION.

(a) Allocation of Funds for Compensation and Assistance.--
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1403(a) of the Victims of
Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10602(a)) are amended by
inserting ``in fiscal year 2002 and of 60 percent in
subsequent fiscal years'' after ``40 percent''.
(b) Location of Compensable Crime.--Section 1403(b)(6)(B)
of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C.
10602(b)(6)(B)) is amended by striking ``are outside the
United States (if the compensable crime is terrorism, as
defined in section 2331 of title 18), or''.
(c) Relationship of Crime Victim Compensation to Means-
Tested Federal Benefit Programs.--Section 1403 of the Victims
of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10602) is amended by striking
subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Exclusion From Income, Resources, and Assets for
Purposes of Means Tests.--Notwithstanding any other law
(other than title IV of Public Law 107-42), for the purpose
of any maximum allowed income, resource, or asset eligibility
requirement in any Federal, State, or local government
program using Federal funds that provides medical or other
assistance (or payment or reimbursement of the cost of such
assistance), any amount of crime victim compensation that the
applicant receives through a crime victim compensation
program under this section shall not be included in the
income, resources, or assets of the applicant, nor shall that
amount reduce the amount of the assistance available to the
applicant from Federal, State, or local government programs
using Federal funds, unless the total amount of assistance
that the applicant receives from all such programs is
sufficient to fully compensate the applicant for losses
suffered as a result of the crime.''.
(d) Definitions of ``Compensable Crime'' and ``State''.--
Section 1403(d) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10602(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``crimes involving
terrorism,''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``the United States
Virgin Islands,'' after ``the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,''.
(e) Relationship of Eligible Crime Victim Compensation
Programs to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.--
(1) In general.--Section 1403(e) of the Victims of Crime
Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10602(e)) is amended by inserting
``including the program established under title IV of Public
Law 107-42,'' after ``Federal program,''.
(2) Compensation.--With respect to any compensation payable
under title IV of Public Law 107-42, the failure of a crime
victim compensation program, after the effective date of
final regulations issued pursuant to section 407 of Public
Law 107-42, to provide compensation otherwise required
pursuant to section 1403 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984
(42 U.S.C. 10602) shall not render that program ineligible
for future grants under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.

SEC. 623. CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE.

(a) Assistance for Victims in the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and Other Territories and Possessions.--Section
1404(a) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C.
10603(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) An agency of the Federal Government performing local
law enforcement functions in and on behalf of the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States
Virgin Islands, or any other territory or possession of the
United States may qualify as an eligible crime victim
assistance program for the purpose of grants under this
subsection, or for the purpose of grants under subsection
(c)(1).''.
(b) Prohibition on Discrimination Against Certain
Victims.--Section 1404(b)(1) of the Victims of Crime Act of
1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) does not discriminate against victims because they
disagree with the way the State is prosecuting the criminal
case.''.
(c) Grants for Program Evaluation and Compliance Efforts.--
Section 1404(c)(1)(A) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10603(c)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting ``, program
evaluation, compliance efforts,'' after ``demonstration
projects''.
(d) Allocation of Discretionary Grants.--Section 1404(c)(2)
of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603(c)(2))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``not more than'' and
inserting ``not less than''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``not less than'' and
inserting ``not more than''.
(e) Fellowships and Clinical Internships.--Section
1404(c)(3) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C.
10603(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) use funds made available to the Director under this
subsection--
``(i) for fellowships and clinical internships; and

[[Page 19574]]

``(ii) to carry out programs of training and special
workshops for the presentation and dissemination of
information resulting from demonstrations, surveys, and
special projects.''.

SEC. 624. VICTIMS OF TERRORISM.

(a) Compensation and Assistance to Victims of Domestic
Terrorism.--Section 1404B(b) of the Victims of Crime Act of
1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603b(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Victims of Terrorism Within the United States.--The
Director may make supplemental grants as provided in section
1402(d)(5) to States for eligible crime victim compensation
and assistance programs, and to victim service organizations,
public agencies (including Federal, State, or local
governments) and nongovernmental organizations that provide
assistance to victims of crime, which shall be used to
provide emergency relief, including crisis response efforts,
assistance, compensation, training and technical assistance,
and ongoing assistance, including during any investigation or
prosecution, to victims of terrorist acts or mass violence
occurring within the United States.''.
(b) Assistance to Victims of International Terrorism.--
Section 1404B(a)(1) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10603b(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``who are not
persons eligible for compensation under title VIII of the
Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986''.
(c) Compensation to Victims of International Terrorism.--
Section 1404C(b) of the Victims of Crime of 1984 (42 U.S.C.
10603c(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The amount of compensation awarded to a victim under this
subsection shall be reduced by any amount that the victim
received in connection with the same act of international
terrorism under title VIII of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security
and Antiterrorism Act of 1986.''.

TITLE VII--INCREASED INFORMATION SHARING FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PROTECTION

SEC. 711. EXPANSION OF REGIONAL INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEM TO
FACILITATE FEDERAL-STATE-LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
RESPONSE RELATED TO TERRORIST ATTACKS.

Section 1301 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and terrorist
conspiracies and activities'' after ``activities'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5);
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) establishing and operating secure information sharing
systems to enhance the investigation and prosecution
abilities of participating enforcement agencies in addressing
multi-jurisdictional terrorist conspiracies and activities;
and (5)''; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following:
``(d) Authorization of Appropriation to the Bureau of
Justice Assistance.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Bureau of Justice Assistance to carry out this section
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and $100,000,000 for fiscal
year 2003.''.

TITLE VIII--STRENGTHENING THE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM

SEC. 801. TERRORIST ATTACKS AND OTHER ACTS OF VIOLENCE
AGAINST MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.

Chapter 97 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1993. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence
against mass transportation systems

``(a) General Prohibitions.--Whoever willfully--
``(1) wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables a mass
transportation vehicle or ferry;
``(2) places or causes to be placed any biological agent or
toxin for use as a weapon, destructive substance, or
destructive device in, upon, or near a mass transportation
vehicle or ferry, without previously obtaining the permission
of the mass transportation provider, and with intent to
endanger the safety of any passenger or employee of the mass
transportation provider, or with a reckless disregard for the
safety of human life;
``(3) sets fire to, or places any biological agent or toxin
for use as a weapon, destructive substance, or destructive
device in, upon, or near any garage, terminal, structure,
supply, or facility used in the operation of, or in support
of the operation of, a mass transportation vehicle or ferry,
without previously obtaining the permission of the mass
transportation provider, and knowing or having reason to know
such activity would likely derail, disable, or wreck a mass
transportation vehicle or ferry used, operated, or employed
by the mass transportation provider;
``(4) removes appurtenances from, damages, or otherwise
impairs the operation of a mass transportation signal system,
including a train control system, centralized dispatching
system, or rail grade crossing warning signal;
``(5) interferes with, disables, or incapacitates any
dispatcher, driver, captain, or person while they are
employed in dispatching, operating, or maintaining a mass
transportation vehicle or ferry, with intent to endanger the
safety of any passenger or employee of the mass
transportation provider, or with a reckless disregard for the
safety of human life;
``(6) commits an act, including the use of a dangerous
weapon, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily
injury to an employee or passenger of a mass transportation
provider or any other person while any of the foregoing are
on the property of a mass transportation provider;
``(7) conveys or causes to be conveyed false information,
knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or
alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which
would be a crime prohibited by this subsection; or
``(8) attempts, threatens, or conspires to do any of the
aforesaid acts,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, if such act is committed, or in the
case of a threat or conspiracy such act would be committed,
on, against, or affecting a mass transportation provider
engaged in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or if
in the course of committing such act, that person travels or
communicates across a State line in order to commit such act,
or transports materials across a State line in aid of the
commission of such act.
``(b) Aggravated Offense.--Whoever commits an offense under
subsection (a) in a circumstance in which--
``(1) the mass transportation vehicle or ferry was carrying
a passenger at the time of the offense; or
``(2) the offense has resulted in the death of any person,
shall be guilty of an aggravated form of the offense and
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for a term of
years or for life, or both.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `biological agent' has the meaning given to
that term in section 178(1) of this title;
``(2) the term `dangerous weapon' has the meaning given to
that term in section 930 of this title;
``(3) the term `destructive device' has the meaning given
to that term in section 921(a)(4) of this title;
``(4) the term `destructive substance' has the meaning
given to that term in section 31 of this title;
``(5) the term `mass transportation' has the meaning given
to that term in section 5302(a)(7) of title 49, United States
Code, except that the term shall include schoolbus, charter,
and sightseeing transportation;
``(6) the term `serious bodily injury' has the meaning
given to that term in section 1365 of this title;
``(7) the term `State' has the meaning given to that term
in section 2266 of this title; and
``(8) the term `toxin' has the meaning given to that term
in section 178(2) of this title.''.
(f) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis of chapter 97 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end:

``1993. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass
transportation systems.''.

SEC. 802. EXPANSION OF THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS STATUTE.

Chapter 10 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 175--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``does not include'' and inserting
``includes'';
(ii) by inserting ``other than'' after ``system for''; and
(iii) by inserting ``bona fide research'' after
``protective'';
(B) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(C) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Additional Offense.--Whoever knowingly possesses any
biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a
quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably
justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research,
or other peaceful purpose, shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. In this
subsection, the terms `biological agent' and `toxin' do not
encompass any biological agent or toxin that is in its
naturally occurring environment, if the biological agent or
toxin has not been cultivated, collected, or otherwise
extracted from its natural source.'';
(2) by inserting after section 175a the following:

``SEC. 175B. POSSESSION BY RESTRICTED PERSONS.

``(a) No restricted person described in subsection (b)
shall ship or transport interstate or foreign commerce, or
possess in or affecting commerce, any biological agent or
toxin, or receive any biological agent or toxin that has been
shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, if
the biological agent or toxin is listed as a select agent in
subsection (j) of section 72.6 of title 42, Code of

[[Page 19575]]

Federal Regulations, pursuant to section 511(d)(l) of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-132), and is not exempted under subsection (h) of
such section 72.6, or appendix A of part 72 of the Code of
Regulations.
``(b) In this section:
``(1) The term `select agent' does not include any such
biological agent or toxin that is in its naturally-occurring
environment, if the biological agent or toxin has not been
cultivated, collected, or otherwise extracted from its
natural source.
``(2) The term `restricted person' means an individual
who--
``(A) is under indictment for a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
``(B) has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable
by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
``(C) is a fugitive from justice;
``(D) is an unlawful user of any controlled substance (as
defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 802));
``(E) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United
States;
``(F) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has
been committed to any mental institution;
``(G) is an alien (other than an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence) who is a national of a country as to
which the Secretary of State, pursuant to section 6(j) of the
Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)),
section 620A of chapter 1 of part M of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), or section 40(d) of chapter 3
of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780(d)), has made
a determination (that remains in effect) that such country
has repeatedly provided support for acts of international
terrorism; or
``(H) has been discharged from the Armed Services of the
United States under dishonorable conditions.
``(3) The term `alien' has the same meaning as in section
1010(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(3)).
``(4) The term `lawfully admitted for permanent residence'
has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(20) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)).
``(c) Whoever knowingly violates this section shall be
fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10
years, or both, but the prohibition contained in this section
shall not apply with respect to any duly authorized United
States governmental activity.''; and
(3) in the chapter analysis, by inserting after the item
relating to section 175a the following:

``175b. Possession by restricted persons.''.

SEC. 803. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) Domestic Terrorism Defined.--Section 2331 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking ``by
assassination or kidnapping'' and inserting ``by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
``(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any
State;
``(B) appear to be intended--
``(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
``(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
``(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
``(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction
of the United States.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3077(1) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or
international terrorism as defined in section 2331;''.

SEC. 804. PROHIBITION AGAINST HARBORING TERRORISTS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding after section 2338 the following
new section:

``Sec. 2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists

``(a) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows,
or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is
about to commit, an offense under section 32 (relating to
destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), section 175
(relating to biological weapons), section 229 (relating to
chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear
materials), paragraph (2) or (3) of section 844(f) (relating
to arson and bombing of government property risking or
causing injury or death), section 1366(a) (relating to the
destruction of an energy facility), section 2280 (relating to
violence against maritime navigation), section 2332a
(relating to weapons of mass destruction), or section 2332b
(relating to acts of terrorism transcending national
boundaries) of this title, section 236(a) (relating to
sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284(a)), or section 46502 (relating
to aircraft piracy) of title 49, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.''.
``(b) A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any
Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was
committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as
provided by law.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item for section 2338 the following:

``2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists.''.

SEC. 805. JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED AT U.S.
FACILITIES ABROAD.

Section 7 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(9) With respect to offenses committed by or against a
United States national, as defined in section 1203(c) of this
title--
``(A) the premises of United States diplomatic, consular,
military or other United States Government missions or
entities in foreign States, including the buildings, parts of
buildings, and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used
for purposes of those missions or entities, irrespective of
ownership; and
``(B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant
or ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for
purposes of those missions or entities or used by United
States personnel assigned to those missions or entities.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to supersede any
treaty or international agreement in force on the date of
enactment of this paragraph with which this paragraph
conflicts. This paragraph does not apply with respect to an
offense committed by a person described in section 3261(a) of
this title.''.

SEC. 806. MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM.

(a) In General.--Section 2339A of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``, within the United States,'';
(B) by inserting ``229,'' after ``175,'';
(C) by inserting ``1993,'' after ``1992,'';
(D) by inserting ``, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284),'' after ``of this title'';
(E) by inserting ``or 60123(b)'' after ``46502''; and
(F) by inserting at the end the following: ``A violation of
this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial
district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in
any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.'';
and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``or other financial securities'' and
inserting ``or monetary instruments or financial
securities''; and
(B) by inserting ``expert advice or assistance,'' after
``training,''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title
18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or 2339B''
after ``2339A''.

SEC. 807. ASSETS OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 981(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting at the end the following:
``(G) All assets, foreign or domestic--
``(i) of any person, entity, or organization engaged in
planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international
terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against the United
States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their
property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any
person a source of influence over any such entity or
organization;
``(ii) acquired or maintained by any person for the purpose
of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of
domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section
2331) against the United States, citizens or residents of the
United States, or their property; or
``(iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to
be used to commit any act of domestic or international
terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against the United
States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their
property.''.

SEC. 808. TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION RELATING TO PROVISION OF
MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISM.

No provision of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (title IX of Public Law 106-387)
shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect section 2339A
or 2339B of title 18, United States Code.

SEC. 809. DEFINITION OF FEDERAL CRIME OF TERRORISM.

Section 2332b of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (f), by inserting after ``terrorism'' the
following: ``and any violation of section 351(e), 844(e),
844(f)(1), 956(b), 1361, 1366(b), 1366(c), 1751(e), 2152, or
2156 of this title,'' before ``and the Secretary''; and
(2) in subsection (g)(5)(B), by striking clauses (i)
through (iii) and inserting the following:
``(i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or
aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at
international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 or 175b (relating
to biological weapons), 229 (relating to chemical weapons),
351 (a) through (d) (relating to congressional, cabinet, and
Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 831 (relating to
nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) (relating to

[[Page 19576]]

plastic explosives), 844(f) (2) through (3) (relating to
arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing
death), 844(i) (relating to arson and bombing of property
used in interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating to killing or
attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with
a dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to
murder, kidnap, or maim within special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1030(a)(1)
(relating to protection of computers), 1030(a)(5)(A)(i)
resulting in damage as defined in 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii) through
(v) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to
killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the
United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of
foreign officials, official guests, or internationally
protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1362
(relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or
systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property
within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction of an energy
facility), 1751 (a) through (d) (relating to Presidential and
Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992
(relating to wrecking trains), 1993 (relating to terrorist
attacks and other acts of violence against mass
transportation systems), 2155 (relating to destruction of
national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2280
(relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2281
(relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332
(relating to certain homicides and other violence against
United States nationals occurring outside of the United
States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass
destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism
transcending national boundaries), 2339 (relating to
harboring terrorists), 2339A (relating to providing material
support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material
support to terrorist organizations), or 2340A (relating to
torture) of this title;
``(ii) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear
facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2284); or
``(iii) section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the
second sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a
flight crew with a dangerous weapon), section 46505(b)(3) or
(c) (relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or
endangerment of human life by means of weapons, on aircraft),
section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved
(relating to application of certain criminal laws to acts on
aircraft), or section 60123(b) (relating to destruction of
interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of
title 49.''.

SEC. 810. NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN TERRORISM
OFFENSES.

(a) In General.--Section 3286 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 3286. Extension of statute of limitation for certain
terrorism offenses.

``(a) Eight-Year Limitation.--Notwithstanding section 3282,
no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any
noncapital offense involving a violation of any provision
listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) other than a provision
listed in section 3295, or a violation of section 112,
351(e), 1361, or 1751(e) of this title, or section 46504,
46505, or 46506 of title 49, unless the indictment is found
or the information is instituted within 8 years after the
offense was committed.
``(b) No Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other law, an
indictment may be found or an information instituted at any
time without limitation for any offense listed in section
2332b(g)(5)(B), if the commission of such offense resulted
in, or created a forseeable risk of, death or serious bodily
injury to another person.''.
(b) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on,
or after the date of enactment of this section.

SEC. 811. ALTERNATE MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR TERRORISM OFFENSES.

(a) Arson.--Section 81 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended in the second undesignated paragraph by striking
``not more than twenty years'' and inserting ``for any term
of years or for life''.
(b) Destruction of an Energy Facility.--Section 1366 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``ten'' and inserting
``20''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Whoever is convicted of a violation of subsection (a)
or (b) that has resulted in the death of any person shall be
subject to imprisonment for any term of years or life.''.
(c) Material Support to Terrorists.--Section 2339A(a) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``10'' and inserting ``15''; and
(2) by striking the period and inserting ``and, if the
death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term
of years or for life.''.
(d) Material Support to Designated Foreign Terrorist
Organizations.--Section 2339B(a)(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``10'' and inserting ``15''; and
(2) by striking the period after ``or both'' and inserting
``and, if the death of any person results, shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.''.
(e) Destruction of National-Defense Materials.--Section
2155(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``ten'' and inserting ``20''; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``,
and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for
any term of years or for life.''.
(f) Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel.--Section 236 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), is amended--
(1) by striking ``ten'' each place it appears and inserting
``20'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``, and, if death results to any person, shall
be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.''; and
(3) in subsection (b), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``, and, if death results to any person, shall
be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.''.
(g) Special Aircraft Jurisdiction of the United States.--
Section 46505(c) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``15'' and inserting ``20''; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``,
and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for
any term of years or for life.''.
(h) Damaging or Destroying an Interstate Gas or Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Facility.--Section 60123(b) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``15'' and inserting ``20''; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``,
and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for
any term of years or for life.''.

SEC. 812. PENALTIES FOR TERRORIST CONSPIRACIES.

(a) Arson.--Section 81 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended in the first undesignated paragraph--
(1) by striking ``, or attempts to set fire to or burn'';
and
(2) by inserting ``or attempts or conspires to do such an
act,'' before ``shall be imprisoned''.
(b) Killings in Federal Facilities.--
(1) Section 930(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) by striking ``or attempts to kill'';
(B) by inserting ``or attempts or conspires to do such an
act,'' before ``shall be punished''; and
(C) by striking ``and 1113'' and inserting ``1113, and
1117''.
(2) Section 1117 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``930(c),'' after ``section''.
(c) Communications Lines, Stations, or Systems.--Section
1362 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the first
undesignated paragraph--
(1) by striking ``or attempts willfully or maliciously to
injure or destroy''; and
(2) by inserting ``or attempts or conspires to do such an
act,'' before ``shall be fined''.
(d) Buildings or Property Within Special Maritime and
Territorial Jurisdiction.--Section 1363 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or attempts to destroy or injure''; and
(2) by inserting ``or attempts or conspires to do such an
act,'' before ``shall be fined'' the first place it appears.
(e) Wrecking Trains.--Section 1992 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) A person who conspires to commit any offense defined
in this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for
the offense, the commission of which was the object of the
conspiracy.''.
(f) Material Support to Terrorists.--Section 2339A of title
18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or attempts
or conspires to do such an act,'' before ``shall be fined''.
(g) Torture.--Section 2340A of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Conspiracy.--A person who conspires to commit an
offense under this section shall be subject to the same
penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties
prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the
object of the conspiracy.''.
(h) Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel.--Section 236 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``, or who intentionally and willfully
attempts to destroy or cause physical damage to'';
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a comma; and
(C) by inserting ``or attempts or conspires to do such an
act,'' before ``shall be fined''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``or attempts to cause''; and
(B) by inserting ``or attempts or conspires to do such an
act,'' before ``shall be fined''.
(i) Interference with Flight Crew Members and Attendants.--
Section 46504 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``or attempts or conspires to do such an act,''
before ``shall be fined''.
(j) Special Aircraft Jurisdiction of the United States.--
Section 46505 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Conspiracy.--If two or more persons conspire to
violate subsection (b) or (c), and

[[Page 19577]]

one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object
of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy
shall be punished as provided in such subsection.''.
(k) Damaging or Destroying an Interstate Gas or Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Facility.--Section 60123(b) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``, or attempting to damage or destroy,'';
and
(2) by inserting ``, or attempting or conspiring to do such
an act,'' before ``shall be fined''.

SEC. 813. POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION OF TERRORISTS.

Section 3583 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(j) Supervised Release Terms for Terrorism Predicates.--
Notwithstanding subsection (b), the authorized term of
supervised release for any offense listed in section
2332b(g)(5)(B), the commission of which resulted in, or
created a foreseeable risk of, death or serious bodily injury
to another person, is any term of years or life.''.

SEC. 814. INCLUSION OF ACTS OF TERRORISM AS RACKETEERING
ACTIVITY.

Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or (F)'' and inserting ``(F)''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, or (G) any act that is indictable as an
offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B)''.

SEC. 815. DETERRENCE AND PREVENTION OF CYBERTERRORISM.

(a) Clarification of Protection of Protected Computers.--
Section 1030(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(i)'' after (A)'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as clauses
(ii) and (iii), respectively;
(3) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (iii), as so
redesignated; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense,
would, if completed, have caused) conduct described in clause
(i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A) that resulted in--
``(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period
(including loss resulting from a related course of conduct
affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at
least $5,000 in value;
``(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential
modification or impairment, of the medical examination,
diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
``(iii) physical injury to any person;
``(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
``(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a
Government entity in furtherance of the administration of
justice, national defense, or national security;''.
(b) Penalties.--Section 1030(c) of title 18, United States
Code is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A) --
(i) by inserting ``except as provided in subparagraph
(B),'' before ``a fine'';
(ii) by striking ``(a)(5)(C)'' and inserting
``(a)(5)(A)(iii)''; and
(iii) by striking ``and' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or an attempt to
commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph,'' after
``subsection (a)(2),'' in the matter preceding clause (i);
and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``, (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B),'' both places it
appears; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(3) by striking ``(a)(5)(C)'' and inserting
``(a)(5)(A)(iii)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(4)(A) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more
than 10 years, or both, in the case of an offense under
subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), or an attempt to commit an offense
punishable under that subsection;
``(B) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more
than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under
subsection (a)(5)(A)(ii), or an attempt to commit an offense
punishable under that subsection;
``(C) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more
than 20 years, or both, in the case of an offense under
subsection (a)(5)(A)(i) or (a)(5)(A)(ii), or an attempt to
commit an offense punishable under either subsection, that
occurs after a conviction for another offense under this
section.''.
(c) Definitions.--Subsection (e) of section 1030 of title
18, United States Code is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``, including a
computer located outside the United States'' before the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following
new paragraph (8):
``(8) the term `damage' means any impairment to the
integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or
information;'';
(4) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(10) the term `conviction' shall include a conviction
under the law of any State for a crime punishable by
imprisonment for more than 1 year, an element of which is
unauthorized access, or exceeding authorized access, to a
computer;
``(11) the term `loss' includes any reasonable cost to any
victim, including the cost of responding to an offense,
conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data,
program, system, or information to its condition prior to the
offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other
consequential damages incurred because of interruption of
service;
``(12) the term `person' means any individual, firm,
corporation, educational institution, financial institution,
governmental entity, or legal or other entity;''.
(d) Damages in Civil Actions.--Subsection (g) of section
1030 of title 18, United States Code is amended--
(1) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following new sentences: ``A suit for a violation of
subsection (a)(5) may be brought only if the conduct involves
one of the factors enumerated in subsection (a)(5)(B).
Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in
subsection (a)(5)(B)(i) are limited to economic damages.'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``No action may be
brought under this subsection for the negligent design or
manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or
firmware.''.
(e) Amendment of Sentencing Guidelines Relating to Certain
Computer Fraud and Abuse.--Pursuant to its authority under
section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United
States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal
sentencing guidelines to ensure that any individual convicted
of a violation of section 1030 of title 18, United States
Code, can be subjected to appropriate penalties, without
regard to any mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.

SEC. 816. ADDITIONAL DEFENSE TO CIVIL ACTIONS RELATING TO
PRESERVING RECORDS IN RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT
REQUESTS.

Section 2707(e)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after ``or statutory authorization'' the
following: ``(including a request of a governmental entity
under section 2703(f) of this title)''.

SEC. 817. DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT OF CYBERSECURITY FORENSIC
CAPABILITIES.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish such
regional computer forensic laboratories as the Attorney
General considers appropriate, and provide support to
existing computer forensic laboratories, in order that all
such computer forensic laboratories have the capability--
(1) to provide forensic examinations with respect to seized
or intercepted computer evidence relating to criminal
activity (including cyberterrorism);
(2) to provide training and education for Federal, State,
and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors regarding
investigations, forensic analyses, and prosecutions of
computer-related crime (including cyberterrorism);
(3) to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in
enforcing Federal, State, and local criminal laws relating to
computer-related crime;
(4) to facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer-related
crime with State and local law enforcement personnel and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces; and
(5) to carry out such other activities as the Attorney
General considers appropriate.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Authorization.--There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated in each fiscal year $50,000,000 for purposes of
carrying out this section.
(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in paragraph (1) shall remain
available until expended.

TITLE IX--IMPROVED INTELLIGENCE

SEC. 901. RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE REGARDING FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
COLLECTED UNDER FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

Section 103(c) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 403-3(c)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs
(7) and (8), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new
paragraph (6):
``(6) establish requirements and priorities for foreign
intelligence information to be collected under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.), and provide assistance to the Attorney General to
ensure that information derived from electronic surveillance
or physical searches under that Act is disseminated so it may
be used efficiently and effectively for foreign intelligence
purposes, except that the Director shall have no authority to
direct, manage, or undertake electronic surveillance
operations pursuant to that Act unless otherwise authorized
by statute or executive order;''.

[[Page 19578]]

SEC. 902. INCLUSION OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST ACTIVITIES
WITHIN SCOPE OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE UNDER
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947.

Section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
401a) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the period the
following: ``, or international terrorist activities''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and activities
conducted'' and inserting ``, and activities conducted,''.

SEC. 903. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
MAINTENANCE OF INTELLIGENCE RELATIONSHIPS TO
ACQUIRE INFORMATION ON TERRORISTS AND TERRORIST
ORGANIZATIONS.

It is the sense of Congress that officers and employees of
the intelligence community of the Federal Government, acting
within the course of their official duties, should be
encouraged, and should make every effort, to establish and
maintain intelligence relationships with any person, entity,
or group for the purpose of engaging in lawful intelligence
activities, including the acquisition of information on the
identity, location, finances, affiliations, capabilities,
plans, or intentions of a terrorist or terrorist
organization, or information on any other person, entity, or
group (including a foreign government) engaged in harboring,
comforting, financing, aiding, or assisting a terrorist or
terrorist organization.

SEC. 904. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY TO DEFER SUBMITTAL TO CONGRESS
OF REPORTS ON INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENCE-
RELATED MATTERS.

(a) Authority To Defer.--The Secretary of Defense, Attorney
General, and Director of Central Intelligence each may,
during the effective period of this section, defer the date
of submittal to Congress of any covered intelligence report
under the jurisdiction of such official until February 1,
2002.
(b) Covered Intelligence Report.--Except as provided in
subsection (c), for purposes of subsection (a), a covered
intelligence report is as follows:
(1) Any report on intelligence or intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government that is required
to be submitted to Congress by an element of the intelligence
community during the effective period of this section.
(2) Any report or other matter that is required to be
submitted to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the
Senate and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives by the Department of Defense or the
Department of Justice during the effective period of this
section.
(c) Exception for Certain Reports.--For purposes of
subsection (a), any report required by section 502 or 503 of
the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413a, 413b) is
not a covered intelligence report.
(d) Notice to Congress.--Upon deferring the date of
submittal to Congress of a covered intelligence report under
subsection (a), the official deferring the date of submittal
of the covered intelligence report shall submit to Congress
notice of the deferral. Notice of deferral of a report shall
specify the provision of law, if any, under which the report
would otherwise be submitted to Congress.
(e) Extension of Deferral.--(1) Each official specified in
subsection (a) may defer the date of submittal to Congress of
a covered intelligence report under the jurisdiction of such
official to a date after February 1, 2002, if such official
submits to the committees of Congress specified in subsection
(b)(2) before February 1, 2002, a certification that
preparation and submittal of the covered intelligence report
on February 1, 2002, will impede the work of officers or
employees who are engaged in counterterrorism activities.
(2) A certification under paragraph (1) with respect to a
covered intelligence report shall specify the date on which
the covered intelligence report will be submitted to
Congress.
(f) Effective Period.--The effective period of this section
is the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act and ending on February 1, 2002.
(g) Element of the Intelligence Community Defined.--In this
section, the term ``element of the intelligence community''
means any element of the intelligence community specified or
designated under section 3(4) of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).

SEC. 905. DISCLOSURE TO DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE OF
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE-RELATED INFORMATION WITH
RESPECT TO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) In General.--Title I of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 402 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection 105B as section 105C; and
(2) by inserting after section 105A the following new
section 105B:

``disclosure of foreign intelligence acquired in criminal
investigations; notice of criminal investigations of foreign
intelligence sources

``Sec. 105B. (a) Disclosure of Foreign Intelligence.--(1)
Except as otherwise provided by law and subject to paragraph
(2), the Attorney General, or the head of any other
department or agency of the Federal Government with law
enforcement responsibilities, shall expeditiously disclose to
the Director of Central Intelligence, pursuant to guidelines
developed by the Attorney General in consultation with the
Director, foreign intelligence acquired by an element of the
Department of Justice or an element of such department or
agency, as the case may be, in the course of a criminal
investigation.
``(2) The Attorney General by regulation and in
consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence may
provide for exceptions to the applicability of paragraph (1)
for one or more classes of foreign intelligence, or foreign
intelligence with respect to one or more targets or matters,
if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of such
foreign intelligence under that paragraph would jeopardize an
ongoing law enforcement investigation or impair other
significant law enforcement interests.
``(b) Procedures for Notice of Criminal Investigations.--
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
section, the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Director of Central Intelligence, shall develop guidelines to
ensure that after receipt of a report from an element of the
intelligence community of activity of a foreign intelligence
source or potential foreign intelligence source that may
warrant investigation as criminal activity, the Attorney
General provides notice to the Director of Central
Intelligence, within a reasonable period of time, of his
intention to commence, or decline to commence, a criminal
investigation of such activity.
``(c) Procedures.--The Attorney General shall develop
procedures for the administration of this section, including
the disclosure of foreign intelligence by elements of the
Department of Justice, and elements of other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government, under subsection (a) and
the provision of notice with respect to criminal
investigations under subsection (b).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first
section of that Act is amended by striking the item relating
to section 105B and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 105B. Disclosure of foreign intelligence acquired in criminal
investigations; notice of criminal investigations of
foreign intelligence sources.
``Sec. 105C. Protection of the operational files of the National
Imagery and Mapping Agency.''.

SEC. 906. FOREIGN TERRORIST ASSET TRACKING CENTER.

(a) Report on Reconfiguration.--Not later than February 1,
2002, the Attorney General, the Director of Central
Intelligence, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall jointly
submit to Congress a report on the feasibility and
desirability of reconfiguring the Foreign Terrorist Asset
Tracking Center and the Office of Foreign Assets Control of
the Department of the Treasury in order to establish a
capability to provide for the effective and efficient
analysis and dissemination of foreign intelligence relating
to the financial capabilities and resources of international
terrorist organizations.
(b) Report Requirements.--(1) In preparing the report under
subsection (a), the Attorney General, the Secretary, and the
Director shall consider whether, and to what extent, the
capacities and resources of the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Center of the Department of the Treasury may be integrated
into the capability contemplated by the report.
(2) If the Attorney General, Secretary, and the Director
determine that it is feasible and desirable to undertake the
reconfiguration described in subsection (a) in order to
establish the capability described in that subsection, the
Attorney General, the Secretary, and the Director shall
include with the report under that subsection a detailed
proposal for legislation to achieve the reconfiguration.

SEC. 907. NATIONAL VIRTUAL TRANSLATION CENTER.

(a) Report on Establishment.--(1) Not later than February
1, 2002, the Director of Central Intelligence shall, in
consultation with the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report on the establishment and maintenance within
the intelligence community of an element for purposes of
providing timely and accurate translations of foreign
intelligence for all other elements of the intelligence
community. In the report, the element shall be referred to as
the ``National Virtual Translation Center''.
(2) The report on the element described in paragraph (1)
shall discuss the use of state-of-the-art communications
technology, the integration of existing translation
capabilities in the intelligence community, and the
utilization of remote-connection capacities so as to minimize
the need for a central physical facility for the element.
(b) Resources.--The report on the element required by
subsection (a) shall address the following:
(1) The assignment to the element of a staff of individuals
possessing a broad range of linguistic and translation skills
appropriate for the purposes of the element.
(2) The provision to the element of communications
capabilities and systems that are

[[Page 19579]]

commensurate with the most current and sophisticated
communications capabilities and systems available to other
elements of intelligence community.
(3) The assurance, to the maximum extent practicable, that
the communications capabilities and systems provided to the
element will be compatible with communications capabilities
and systems utilized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
in securing timely and accurate translations of foreign
language materials for law enforcement investigations.
(4) The development of a communications infrastructure to
ensure the efficient and secure use of the translation
capabilities of the element.
(c) Secure Communications.--The report shall include a
discussion of the creation of secure electronic
communications between the element described by subsection
(a) and the other elements of the intelligence community.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Foreign intelligence.--The term ``foreign
intelligence'' has the meaning given that term in section
3(2) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
401a(2)).
(2) Element of the intelligence community.--The term
``element of the intelligence community'' means any element
of the intelligence community specified or designated under
section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
401a(4)).

SEC. 908. TRAINING OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS REGARDING
IDENTIFICATION AND USE OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE.

(a) Program Required.--The Attorney General shall, in
consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, carry
out a program to provide appropriate training to officials
described in subsection (b) in order to assist such officials
in--
(1) identifying foreign intelligence information in the
course of their duties; and
(2) utilizing foreign intelligence information in the
course of their duties, to the extent that the utilization of
such information is appropriate for such duties.
(b) Officials.--The officials provided training under
subsection (a) are, at the discretion of the Attorney General
and the Director, the following:
(1) Officials of the Federal Government who are not
ordinarily engaged in the collection, dissemination, and use
of foreign intelligence in the performance of their duties.
(2) Officials of State and local governments who encounter,
or may encounter in the course of a terrorist event, foreign
intelligence in the performance of their duties.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Justice
such sums as may be necessary for purposes of carrying out
the program required by subsection (a).

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go
into a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak
therein for a period not to exceed 10 minutes.
Mr. KYL. I object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I withdraw the objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

THE PENTAGON MEMORIAL SERVICE

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on this solemn day, one month since the
horrific terrorist attacks on American citizens, our institutions, and
our way of life, memorial services were held today in New York City and
Arlington, VA. President Bush, whom I commend for his leadership and
strong efforts to unify our Nation at this difficult time in our
history, spoke today at the Pentagon ceremony honoring the victims of
these attacks. His remarks were eloquent and very moving to the
families and members of our armed forces who attended the service. I
was asked to submit the President's remarks for the Record, and I am
privileged to do so.
I have also included the remarks of the Secretary of Defense, the
Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Richard B. Meyers, USAF.
Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the remarks of the
President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff be printed in the Record,
following my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

President Pays Tribute at Pentagon Memorial

(Remarks by the President at the Department of Defense Service of
Remembrance)

The PRESIDENT. Please be seated. President and Senator
Clinton, thank you all for being here. We have come here to
pay our respects to 125 men and women who died in the service
of America. We also remember 64 passengers on a hijacked
plane; those men and women, boys and girls who fell into the
hands of evildoers, and also died here exactly one month ago.
On September 11th, great sorrow came to our country. And
from that sorrow has come great resolve. Today, we are a
nation awakened to the evil of terrorism, and determined to
destroy it. That work began the moment we were attacked; and
it will continue until justice is delivered.
Americans are returning, as we must, to the normal pursuits
of life. Americans are returning, as we must, to the normal
pursuits of life. But we know that if you lost a son or
daughter here, or a husband, or a wife, or a mom or dad, life
will never again be as it was. The loss was sudden, and hard,
and permanent. So difficult to explain. So difficult to
accept.
Three schoolchildren traveling with their teacher. An Army
general. A budget analyst who reported to work here for 30
years. A lieutenant commander in the Naval Reserve who left
behind a wife, a four-year son, and another child on the way.
One life touches so many others. One death can leave sorrow
that seems almost unbearable. But to all of you who lost
someone here, I want to say: You are not alone. The American
people will never forget the cruelty that was done here and
in New York, and in the sky over Pennsylvania.
We will never forget all the innocent people killed by the
hatred of a few. We know the loneliness you feel in your
loss. The entire nation, entire nation shares in your
sadness. And we pray for you and your loved ones. And we will
always honor their memory.
The hijackers were instruments of evil who died in vain.
Behind them is a cult of evil which seeks to harm the
innocent and thrives on human suffering. Theirs is the worst
kind of cruelty, the cruelty that is fed, not weakened, by
tears. Theirs is the worst kind of violence, pure malice,
while daring to claim the authority of God. We cannot fully
understand the designs and power of evil. It is enough to
know that evil, like goodness, exists. And in the terrorists,
evil has found a willing servant.
In New York the terrorists chose as their target a symbol
of America's freedom and confidence. Here, they struck a
symbol of our strength in the world. And the attack on the
Pentagon, on that day, was more symbolic than they knew. It
was on another September 11th, September 11th, 1941, that
construction on this building first began. America was just
then awakening to another menace; The Nazi terror in Europe.
And on that very night, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke
to the nation. The danger, he warned, has long ceased to be a
mere possibility. The danger is here now. Not only from a
military enemy, but from an enemy of all law, all liberty,
all morality, all region.
For us too, in the year 2001, an enemy has emerged that
rejects every limit of law, morality, and religion. The
terrorists have no true home in any country, or culture, or
faith. They dwell in dark corners of earth. And there, we
will find them.
This week, I have called, this week, I have called the
Armed Forces into action. One by one, we are eliminating
power centers of a regime that harbors al Qaeda terrorists.
We gave that regime a choice: Turn over the terrorists, or
face your ruin. They close unwisely.
The Taliban regime has brought nothing but fear and misery
to the people of Afghanistan. These rulers call themselves
holy men, even with their record of drawing money from heroin
trafficking. They consider themselves pious and devout, while
subjecting women to fierce brutality.
The Taliban has allied itself with murderers and gave them
shelter. But today, for al Qaeda and the Taliban, there is no
shelter. As Americans did 60 years ago, we have entered a
struggle of uncertain duration. But now, as then, we can be
certain of the outcome, because we have a number of decisive
assets.
We have a unified country. We have the patience to fight
and win on many fronts: Blocking terrorist plans, seizing
their funds, arresting their networks, disrupting their
communications, opposing their sponsors. And we have one more
great asset in this cause: The brave men and women of the
United States military.
From my first days in this office, I have felt and seen the
strong spirit of the Armed Forces. I saw it Fort Stewart,
Georgia, when I first reviewed our troops as Commander-in-
Chief, and looked into the faces of proud and determined
soldiers. I saw it in Annapolis on a graduation day, at Camp
Pendleton in California, Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. And I

[[Page 19580]]

have seen this spirit at the Pentagon, before and after the
attack on this building.
You've responded to a great emergency with calm and
courage. And for that, your country honors you. A Commander-
in-Chief must know, must know that he can count on the skill
and readiness of servicemen and women at every point in the
chain of command. You have given me that confidence.
And I give you these commitments. The wound to this
building will not be forgotten, but it will be repaired.
Brick by brick, we will quickly rebuild the Pentagon. In the
missions ahead for the military, you will have everything you
need, every resource, every weapon, every means to assure
full victory for the United States and the cause of freedom.
And I pledge to you that America will never relent on this
war against terror. There will be times of swift, dramatic
action. There will be times of steady, quiet progress. Over
time, with patience, and precision, the terrorists will be
pursued. They will be isolated, surrounded, cornered, until
there is no place to run, or hide, or rest.
As military and civilian personnel in the Pentagon, you are
an important part of the struggle we have entered. You know
the risks of your calling, and you have willingly accepted
them. You believe in our country, and our country believes in
you.
Within sight of this building is Arlington Cemetery, the
final resting place of many thousands who died for our
country over the generations. Enemies of America have now
added to these graves, and they wish to add more. Unlike our
enemies, we value every life, and we mourn every loss.
Yet we're not afraid. Our cause is just, and worthy of
sacrifice. Our nation is strong of heart, firm of purpose.
Inspired by all the courage that has come before, we will
meet our moment and we will prevail.
May God bless you all, and may God bless America.
____

Memorial Service in Remembrance of Those Lost on September 11

(Remarks Prepared for Delivery by Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld, The Pentagon, Arlington, VA, Thursday, October 11, 2001)

We are gathered here because of what happened here on
September 11th. Events that bring to mind tragedy--but also
our gratitude to those who came to assist that day and
afterwards, those we saw at the Pentagon site everyday--the
guards, police, fire and rescue workers, the Defense
Protective service, hospitals, Red Cross, family center
professionals and volunteers and many others.
And yet our reason for being here today is something else.
We are gathered here to remember, to console and to pray.
To remember comrades and colleagues, friends and family
members, those lost to us on Sept. 11th.
We remember them as heroes. And we are right to do so. They
died because, in words of justification offered by their
attackers, they were Americans. They died, then, because of
how they lived--as free men and women, proud of their
freedom, proud of their country and proud of their country's
cause--the cause of human freedom.
And they died for another reason--the simple fact they
worked here in this building--the Pentagon.
It is seen as a place of power, the locus of command for
what has been called the greatest accumulation of military
might in history. And yet a might used far differently than
the long course of history has usually known.
In the last century, this building existed to oppose two
totalitarian regimes that sought to oppress and to rule other
nations. And it is no exaggeration of historical judgment to
say that without this building, and those who worked here,
those two regimes would not have been stopped or thwarted in
their oppression of countless millions.
But just as those regimes sought to rule and oppress,
others in this century seek to do the same by corrupting a
noble religion. Our President has been right to see the
similarity--and to say that the fault, the evil is the same.
It is the will to power, the urge to dominion over others, to
the point of oppressing them, even to taking thousands of
innocent lives--or more. And that this oppression makes the
terrorist a believer--not in the theology of God, but the
theology of self--and in the whispered words of temptation:
``Ye shall be as Gods.''
In targeting this place, then, and those who worked here,
the attackers, the evildoers correctly sensed that the
opposite of all they were, and stood for, resided here.
Those who worked here--those who on Sept. 11 died here--
whether civilians or in uniform--side by side they sought not
to rule, but to serve. They sought not to oppress, but to
liberate. They worked not to take lives, but to protect them.
And they tried not to preempt God, but see to it His
creatures lived as He intended--in the light and dignity of
human freedom.
Our first task then is to remember the fallen as they
were--as they would have wanted to be remembered--living in
freedom, blessed by it, proud of it and willing--like so many
others before them, and like so many today, to die for it.
And to remember them as believers in the heroic ideal for
which this nation stands and for which this building exists--
the ideal of service to country and to others.
Beyond all this, their deaths remind us of a new kind of
evil, the evil of a threat and menace to which this nation
and the world has now fully awakened, because of them.
In causing this awakening, then, the terrorists have
assured their own destruction. And those we mourn today,
have, in the moment of their death, assured their own triumph
over hate and fear. For out of this act of terror--and the
awakening it brings--here and across the globe--will surely
come a victory over terrorism. A victory that one day may
save millions from the harm of weapons of mass destruction.
And this victory--their victory--we pledge today.
But if we gather here to remember them--we are also here to
console those who shared their lives, those who loved them.
And yet, the irony is that those whom we have come to console
have given us the best of all consolations, by reminding us
not only of the meaning of the deaths, but of the lives of
their loved ones.
``He was a hero long before the eleventh of September,''
said a friend of one of those we have lost--``a hero every
single day, a hero to his family, to his friends and to his
professional peers.''
A veteran of the Gulf War--hardworking, who showed up at
the Pentagon at 3:30 in the morning, and then headed home in
the afternoon to be with his children--all of whom he loved
dearly, but one of whom he gave very special care, because
she needs very special care and love.
About him and those who served with him, his wife said:
``It's not just when a plane hits their building. They are
heroes every day.''
``Heroes every day.'' We are here to affirm that. And to do
this on behalf of America.
And also to say to those who mourn, who have lost loved
ones: Know that the heart of America is here today, and that
it speaks to each one of you words of sympathy, consolation,
compassion and love. All the love that the heart of America--
and a great heart it is--can muster.
Watching and listening today, Americans everywhere are
saying: I wish I could be there to tell them how sorry we
are, how much we grieve for them. And to tell them too, how
thankful we are for those they loved, and that we will
remember them, and recall always the meaning of their deaths
and their lives.
A Marine chaplain, in trying to explain why there could be
no human explanation for a tragedy such as this, said once:
``You would think it would break the heart of God.''
We stand today in the midst of tragedy--the mystery of
tragedy. Yet a mystery that is part of that larger awe and
wonder that causes us to bow our heads in faith and say of
those we mourn, those we have lost, the words of scripture:
``Lord now let Thy servants go in peace, Thy word has been
fulfilled.''
To the families and friends of our fallen colleagues and
comrades we extend today our deepest sympathy and
condolences--and those of the American people.
We pray that God will give some share of the peace that now
belongs to those we lost, to those who knew and loved them in
this life.
But as we grieve together we are also thankful--for their
lives, thankful for the time we had with them. And proud
too--as proud as they were--that they lived their lives as
Americans.
We are mindful too--and resolute that their deaths, like
their lives, shall have meaning. And that the birthright of
human freedom--a birthright that was theirs as Americans and
for which they died--will always be ours and our children's.
And through our efforts and example, one day, the birthright
of every man, woman, and child on earth.
____

Remarks of General Richard B. Myers, USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Pentagon Memorial Service

Ladies and gentlemen, Today we remember family members,
friends, and colleagues lost in the barbaric attack on the
Pentagon--civilian and military Pentagon employees, the
contractors who support us, and the passengers and crew of
Flight 77. We also grieve with the rest of America and the
world for those killed in New York City and Pennsylvania. We
gather to comfort each other and to honor the dead.
Our DOD colleagues working in the Pentagon that day would
insist that they were only doing their jobs. But we know
better. We know, and they knew, that they were serving their
country. And suddenly, on 11 September they were called to
make the ultimate sacrifice. For that, we call them heroes.
We honor the heroism of defending our Nation. We honor the
heroism and taking an oath to support the Constitution. We
honor the heroism of standing ready to serve the greater good
of our society.
That same heroism was on display at the Pentagon in the
aftermath of the attack. Co-workers, firefighters, police
officers, medics--even private citizens driving past on the
highway--all rushed to help and put themselves in grave
danger to rescue survivors and treat the injured.

[[Page 19581]]

One of them, who I had a chance to meet recently, was Army
Sergeant Adis Goodwill, a young emergency medical technician.
She drove the first ambulance from Walter Reed Army Hospital
to arrive at the scene.
Sergeant Goodwill spent long hours treating the wounded--
simply doing her duty--all the while not knowing, and
worrying about, the fate of her sister, Lia, who worked in
the World Trade Center. She would eventually learn that Lia
was OK.
Prior to 11 September, Sergeant Goodwill hadn't decided
whether to reenlist in the Army or not. After the tragic
events of that day, her course was clear. And three weeks
ago, I had the privilege of reenlisting her. With tears of
pride in their eyes, her family, including her sister Lia,
watched her take the oath of office. Sergeant Goodwill is
with us today.
The heroes kept coming in the days following the 11th--
individual volunteers, both civilian and military;
firefighters; police officers; and civil and military rescue
units working on the site. Other Americans helped too, as
General Van Alstyne said, with donations of equipment
supplies, and food; letters and posters from school children;
and American flags everywhere.
Today, we mourn our losses, but we should also celebrate
the spirit of the heroes of 11 September, both living and
dead, and the heroic spirit that remains at the core of our
great Nation. This is what our enemies do not understand.
They can knock us off stride for a moment or two. But then,
we will gather ourselves with an unmatched unity of purpose
and will rise to defend the ideals that make this country a
beacon of hope around the world.
In speaking of those ideals, John Quincy Adams once said,
``I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it
will cost to . . . support and defend these states; yet,
through all the gloom I can see the rays of light and
glory.'' The light and glory of our ideals remain within our
grasp. That's what our heroes died for.
Some of them--the uniformed military members--made the
commitment to fight for, and if necessary, to die for our
country from the beginnings of their careers. Our civilian
DOD employees had chosen to serve in a different way but are
now bound to their uniformed comrades in the same sacrifice.
Other victims, employees of contractors and the passengers
and crew of the airliner, were innocents--casualties of a war
not of their choosing.
But if by some miracle, we were able to ask all of them
today whether a Nation and government such as ours is worth
their sacrifices; if we were able to ask them today whether
that light and glory is worth future sacrifices; the answer,
surely, would be a resounding ``yes.'' The terrorists who
perpetrated this violence should know that there are millions
more American patriots who echo that resounding yes.
We who defend this Nation say to those who threaten us--
here we stand--resolute in our allegiance to the
Constitution; united in our service to the American people
and the preservation of our way of life; undaunted in our
devotion to duty and honor.
We remember the dead. We call them heroes, not because they
died, but because they lived in service to the greater good.
We know that's small comfort to those who have lost family
members and dear friends. To you, this tragedy is very
personal, and our thoughts and our prayers are with you. We
will never forget the sacrifices of your loved ones.
We ask God to bless and keep them. We pray for their
families, and we also pray for wisdom and courage as we face
the many challenges to come. And may God bless America.

____________________

HONORING MIKE MANSFIELD

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, much has been said and much has been
written about the gentleman from Montana, Mike Mansfield. Books about
him have been written, and countless speeches about him have been
presented. For many years to come, more books will be written, and more
speeches will be made about him. This is to be expected because he was
a person worthy of emulating. He was a person we all looked upon
without hesitation as our leader. He was a person whose word was always
good, reasoned, logical, and fair. He was a rare person, deeply
religious, humble to a fault, and flawlessly honest.
It is certain that he will be more than a footnote in the history of
our great Nation. He helped to lead us out of the quagmire of the
Vietnam conflict. His leadership assured the enactment of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and the following year, he led the fight for the
passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a former school teacher,
he became the education leader in the Senate. Medicare became a
possibility under his leadership. His contributions are too many to
recount.
Like many, I was especially intrigued and impressed by Senator
Mansfield's military service record. At the age of 14, he became a
sailor. When the authorities discovered the age discrepancy, he left
and enlisted in the Army. After the Army, he became a Marine. He was
especially proud of his title PFC Mike Mansfield. He once remarked that
he preferred that title to Senator or Ambassador.
Many of us have anecdotes and stories about Mike Mansfield. I, too,
have some, but I would prefer to keep them as part of my warm and happy
personal memories of my acquaintance with my Leader. Like all who have
known him, I will miss him. I know I am a better American for having
known Mike Mansfield. It is difficult to say goodbye to a good friend,
but in saying goodbye, I wish to assure him that his lessons will never
be forgotten.
I ask unanimous consent that an editorial piece that appeared in the
Honolulu Advertiser on October 6, 2001, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Mike Mansfield Made His Mark Here, in Japan

It's a tossup whether the passing of Mike Mansfield, who
died yesterday at 98, will be noted more prominently in Japan
or the United States. He was widely respected and admired in
both countries.
The Montana Democrat was both the longest-serving U.S.
Senate majority leader and the longest-serving U.S.
ambassador to Japan.
Named ambassador in 1977 by President Carter, Mansfield was
reappointed by President Reagan in 1981.
When he returned home after 11 years in Tokyo, the
Washington Post reported, Japan's ambassador to the United
States said Mansfield ``could have run for prime minister and
won.''
Expressing condolences yesterday, Japanese Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi called Mansfield a great contributor to
friendship between the nations.
Mansfield's service as Senate majority leader, from 1961 to
1976, gave him a central role in debates on civil rights, the
Vietnam War, which he strongly opposed, and the Watergate
crisis.
Mansfield exercised that role with a leadership style that
drew bipartisan praise.
``It's no coincidence that the Mansfield years remain among
the most civil, and the most productive, in the Senate's
history,'' Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said yesterday.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, said, ``We have had few
like him, but then with the good Lord's help, it takes only a
few.''

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, with the passing of Mike Mansfield, this
Chamber lost a man who embodied the true meaning of public service. And
while he will no longer be with us, his spirit and his commitment to
serving our Nation survives him and guides us. I rise today to pay my
respects for his service as well as to ask that we honor his life by
following his example.
Mike Mansfield's patriotism and commitment to public service resided
in the very core of who he was. At the ripe old age of 14, when most
boys are signing up for freshman football, Mike Mansfield was signing
up for his first tour with the Navy. After the Navy discharged him due
to his age, Mike Mansfield would reenlist and serve in the Army and
Marine Corps. For a young man from Montana, those experiences led him
to develop an interest and passion for defining America's role in this
world. Back in 1921, when the word ``globalization'' was not exactly in
vogue, Mike Mansfield was taking his first trip to Asia. His commitment
to United States-Asia relations was unprecedented, while his leadership
in this area was unparalleled. It is with awe that in an age of hyper-
partisanship, we look back at a life of service that always put
principles above partisanship. One can only look back with awe and
respect at a man who not only served as the longest serving Senate
majority leader but also the longest serving U.S. Ambassador to Japan.
While this Nation said goodbye this weekend to our modern day
ironman, Cal Ripken, it's only appropriate that the nation recognizes
the Senate's own ironman. Mike Mansfield's legacy will be found not
only in the accomplishments of his service, but equally in the vision
he left for his colleagues and the manner in which he demonstrated his
leadership.
Senator Mansfield once said that ``by exploring the cultural,
religious, and

[[Page 19582]]

social forces that have molded a nation, we can begin to better
understand each other and contribute to the knowledge and understanding
that will strengthen our ties of friendship and lead to a better
world.'' As we lead this Nation into a more globally interdependent
future, it will serve us well to keep Mike Mansfield's words, and his
legacy, close to us.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO STANLEY BLAKE HARRIS, CHIEF COUNSEL AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and wish a fond
farewell to a longtime staff member, Stanley Blake Harris, who is
departing my personal office staff and returning to the State of
Mississippi after more than fifteen years of exemplary service here in
Washington. Throughout his career, Stan has served with distinction. It
is my privilege to recognize his accomplishments and commend him for
the superb service he has provided to me and to our home state.
A native of Hattiesburg, MS, Stan graduated from William Carey
College in 1982, ranked first academically in his class. During his
tenure at William Carey, Stan earned the degrees of Bachelor of Arts
and Bachelor of Science summa cum laude, with a triple major in
English, History, and Social Science as well as a double minor in
Business Administration and Political Science. In addition, Stan's
classmates bestowed upon him the honor and privilege of serving as
Student Government Association President while at William Carey.
Upon his graduation, Stan enrolled in the University of Mississippi
School of Law, from which he received a Juris Doctorate in 1985. His
endeavors and accomplishments on behalf of the law school and his
classmates were recognized as he was awarded the Dean's Outstanding
Service Award, the Edward R. Finch Award, and the Stephen Gorove Award.
Immediately following his graduation from law school, Stan continued
his educational pursuits at Mississippi State University, where he
enrolled in the Public Policy and Administration Program. However,
before he could complete the program, duty in Washington called. At the
beginning of 1986, Stan came to work for me in Washington as a Whip
Assistant in the House of Representatives Republican Whip Office. From
there, Stan went on to serve as Counsel in my personal office while I
was a member of the House of Representatives.
Upon my election to the United States Senate in 1989, Stan was named
Counsel and Director of Projects in my office, and was charged with
responsibility for establishing my Projects Department. In this role,
Stan has directed efforts in my office to pursue public projects for
the State of Mississippi. Along these lines, he has handled cases and
projects involving virtually every Federal department and agency,
including the Department of Agriculture, NASA, the Department of State,
the Department of Justice, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the
Appalachian Regional Commission and the White House. In addition, he
has worked closely with officials in virtually every city, county, and
state agency in Mississippi, while looking after Mississippi's needs.
Further, Mississippi has benefited from the close working relationships
Stan has developed with Congressional staff members in both the House
and Senate.
Although Stan has worked diligently for the nation throughout his
tenure on Capitol Hill, he has always put Mississippi first. The thing
I will always remember the most about Stan is his unflinching ability
to ``out-bureaucrat the bureaucrats.'' His tenacity and refusal to
yield on matters of importance to Mississippi have produced great
results for our state. For instance, Stan has been instrumental in my
efforts to secure a new Federal courthouse for Harrison County,
Mississippi. He has worked tirelessly for me for the past decade to
ensure that a new bridge over the Pascagoula River is built for the
people of Jackson County. And just last year on my behalf, he opened
doors in Washington for officials from his hometown of Hattiesburg, who
are endeavoring to construct a new intermodal center for the City of
Hattiesburg. He also has worked closely with Mississippi's universities
to improve educational opportunities in our State and to make these
facilities the finest in the Nation.
But Stan's work on Capitol Hill has not been limited to Mississippi
projects alone. Over the past fifteen years, he also has maintained a
special focus on Federal ethics. During this time, Stan has served as
my counsel through such prominent cases as the Durenberger and
``Keating Five'' hearings, as well as other notable ethics inquiries.
In fact, because of his work, Stan was selected to serve on the Senate
Ethics Reform Task Force. As an outgrowth of his Federal ethics work,
Stan has also developed a special commitment to law enforcement
organizations nationwide. Because of his work on behalf of law
enforcement groups everywhere and our nation's parks, Stan has been
named an honorary member of the U.S. Park Police.
Several years ago, as if his plate wasn't already full enough, Stan
fulfilled a lifelong dream of joining the Mississippi Army National
Guard. For a number of years now, he has regularly communted between
Washington, D.C. and Jackson, Mississippi to fulfill his duty
requirements. During that time, he has risen to the rank of Major in
the Judge Advocate General Corps where he now serves as Deputy Staff
Judge Advocate for Headquarters, 66th Troop Command.
On Wednesday, October 17, 2001, Stan will conclude over fifteen years
of faithful and loyal service in my office. And while it is difficult
to lose a staff member with such dedication and institutional
knowledge, I know that he and his family are excited about returning
home to Mississippi where Stan and his wife, Lauren, can begin raising
their four children with an appropriate southern accent.
In the weeks ahead, Stan will begin a new journey in his professional
and legal career as the Chief Deputy Assistant United States Attorney
in the U.S. Attorney's Southern District office in Mississippi. I have
no doubt that Stan will serve the Department of Justice, the State of
Mississippi, and the people of our Nation, in this role with
distinction and integrity. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, I want to wish Stan all of the best in his new career. Stan,
may this new chapter in your life and career be rewarding, fulfilling,
and bring you all that you hope for in your future endeavors. Thank
you, again, for your service and my warmest congratulations on a job
well done.

____________________

HONORING MASTER SERGEANT EVANDER EARL ANDREWS

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today in sadness over the first
announced American casualty in Operation Enduring Freedom. Master
Sergeant Evander Earl Andrews, who was stationed in my home State of
Idaho at the Mountain Home Air Force Base, was killed in service to his
country in the Arabian Peninsula. He was part of the 366th Civil
Engineer Squadron stationed there. Although Master Sergeant Andrews was
originally from a small town in Maine, Idaho feels this loss along with
the rest of the Nation.
Master Sergeant Andrews went to the Middle East to fight for our
freedom with valor and courage in this time of national crisis and made
the ultimate sacrifice in defense of his country. There are no words
for such an incredible loss, but we are a great Nation because of brave
men and women like Master Sgt. Andrews.
Flags are flying all over our country now, a visible display of the
support our military troops and our President have over Operation
Enduring Freedom. With the news of the first American casualty, it
becomes even more evident that American lives will be lost in this
fight against terrorism. Our hearts and prayers are not only with the
family of Master Sergeant Andrews in Idaho and Maine, but also with the
families of all our military troops, who are serving their country so
far away,
This will be a long war, one that will be won over a period of months
or

[[Page 19583]]

years through several strategic actions; there is no one operation that
will rid the world of the evils of terrorism. But one thing is certain:
freedom will prevail and we will not forget Master Sergeant Andrews and
others like him to whom we owe our liberties.

____________________

VISION 2020 WORLD SIGHT DAY 2001

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Vision 2020 World Sight Day 2001 is
observed today, Thursday October 11, 2001, in cooperation with the
World Health Organization, WHO, the 2020 Foundation of Tulsa, Oklahoma,
Christian Blind Mission International, CBMI, and a partnership of 26
international organizations concerned with world blindness working
together to eliminate avoidable blindness by the year 2020.
Forty-five million people living in our world today are totally
blind. Eighty percent of this blindness could be prevented or cured
with simple cost-effective nutrition, medicines and medical care. A
child in our world goes blind every minute, most often due to a simple
lack of Vitamin A. More than half of these precious children will die
within 2 years of losing their sight.
The primary causes of blindness, malnutrition, disease, lack of
medicines and medical care, are always linked to the grinding poverty
so characteristic of developing nations around the globe. Millions of
men, women and children needlessly live in a prison of darkness 24
hours a day. They desperately need the help of privileged nations to be
set free.
The Vision 2020 program plans to eliminate most of the world's
blindness by the year 2020. But with no intervention, the number of
blind in this world will reach an estimated 100 million by the year
2020.
World Sight Day 2001 raises awareness that most blindness, associated
misery, and several billion dollars in related costs can be prevented
if we as a nation and a world intervene in time.
I commend the 2020 Foundation, Christian Blind Mission International
and the other members of the 2020 Task Force for helping bring the gift
of sight to the less fortunate around the world.

____________________

SIX SIMPLE STEPS

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, an organization called Common Sense about
Kids and Guns has developed a list of six gun safety tips that have
been endorsed by a wide range of organizations from the National SAFE
KIDS Campaign to the National Shooting Sport Foundation. Regardless of
our differences of opinion on how to regulate firearms, I think we can
all agree that these simple steps make a lot of sense.
All gun owners should unload and lock up their guns, lock and store
ammunition separately and keep keys where kids are unable to find them.
In addition, parents should ask if guns are safely stored at places
their kids visit or play, regularly talk with their kids about guns,
and teach young children both not to touch guns and tell an adult if
they find one.
The Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Health
Statistics reports that firearm deaths of children and teens is
dropping. However, ignoring firearms related child homicides, there
were still 1,300 kids killed in gun-related accidents and suicides in
1999. That number remains far too high. Remembering the six simple
steps proposed by Common Sense about Kids and Guns can help cut that
number even more.

____________________

PREPARING FOR BIOTERRORISM IN SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues,
Senator John Edwards, and Senator Chuck Hagel, in supporting
legislation to help South Dakotans prepare for possible bioterrorist
attacks. The recent example of anthrax being reported in Florida has
highlighted the importance of being prepared to combat bioterrorism in
our communities.
Now this doesn't mean that everyone should run out and buy a gas
mask. Successful attacks using germs and chemicals are relatively
difficult to accomplish and rarely attempted.
However, the nature of such an attack makes just one successful act
of bioterrorism unique and incredibly damaging. For example, most of
the germs involved in bioterrorism, anthrax and smallpox to name a few,
are so rare that many medical professionals haven't treated them
before. Symptoms may not be visible for days or weeks, and these
diseases can be spread easily among people.
In addition to threatening people, bioterrorism can also cripple our
State's agriculture economy. We all saw this summer how the threat of
foot-and-mouth disease in the United States can directly impact South
Dakota's ag business.
The risk of an agriculture terrorist attack poses a serious threat to
our economy as well as our abundant food supply. An agricultural
terrorist could introduce a pathogen to a certain crop and decimate
that crop's yield. A quickly-spreading animal disease intentionally
introduced could cause economic ruin to States that depend on revenues
from the livestock industry.
Earlier this week, the nonpartisan General Accounting Office, GAO,
reported that coordination is fragmented between 40 Federal departments
and agencies responsible for responding to a bioterrorist attack.
The GAO report also noted insufficient State and local planning for
response to terrorist attacks. In addition, while spending on domestic
preparedness for terrorist attacks has risen 310 percent since 1998,
only a portion of these funds were used to conduct research on and
prepare for the public health and medical consequences of a
bioterrorist attack.
To better address the needs of State and local communities in dealing
with the threat of bioterrorism, I recently joined Senators Edwards and
Hagel on legislation called the Biological and Chemical Weapons
Preparedness Act.
Our legislation provides $1.6 billion in new resources for Federal,
State, and local efforts, including $450 million specifically for
agricultural counter-terrorism and food safety measures.
Too often, bioterrorism funding has been tied up in the bureaucracy
of Washington, and I'm pleased that our legislation sends over one-
third of these funds, $555 million, directly to States and local
governments through new block grants. Our legislation gives States and
local communities the resources to study the problems unique to them
and implement appropriate solutions.
Our legislation would accomplish six goals. First, we would provide
training and equipment to State and local ``first responders,'' such as
emergency medical personnel, law enforcement officials, fire fighters,
physicians, and nurses, to recognize and respond to biological and
chemical attacks
Second, our bill strengthens the local public health network through
increased training, coordination, and additional specialized equipment.
Third, we protect food safety and the agricultural economy by
providing assistance to States to better coordinate with law
enforcement and public health officials, increase training and
awareness among farmers and other agricultural stakeholders. Our
measure would also give States the resources they need to establish
emergency diagnostic facilities to work in conjunction with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's facility to quickly diagnose animal
diseases. Along with this assistance to States, the measure would
provide additional funds for the USDA's counterterrorism efforts.
Fourth, the legislation assists local hospital emergency rooms with
response training and biocontainment and decontamination capabilities.
Fifth, we address the need to develop and stockpile vaccines and
antibiotics.
Finally, our Biological and Chemical Weapons Preparedness Act
enhances disease surveillance between the Centers for Disease Control,
CDC, and State and local public health services to provide electronic
nationwide access to critical data, treatment guidelines, and alerts.
Our legislation has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, and there have already been a handful
of hearings held so far. I anticipate a number of

[[Page 19584]]

proposals, similar to ours, being discussed and a compromise ultimately
being sent to the President this year.
I will continue to work to ensure that the provisions in our
legislation dealing with rural communities and agriculture remain in a
final version that is signed into law by the President.

____________________

ONE-MONTH ANNIVERSARY OF TERRORIST ATTACKS

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, grief has changed the face of America.
We are a tear-stained Nation. But today, one month after the September
11 attacks, we are one America, united as seldom before.
Patriotism prevails throughout the country. The pins on our jackets,
the flags taped to cars and hanging from windows, the millions of
dollars in donations to the victims, this is the American response to
tragedy.
We are united in support of our troops flying dangerous missions over
Afghanistan. This is the first step in a prolonged campaign against the
terrorists. It is a necessary step and it is directed at the right
targets, the Taliban government that has given safe harbor to terrorist
organizations for far too long.
Americans are also united in sympathy with the Afghan people. While
our bombers are flying over Taliban strongholds, our C-17s are dropping
food to the refugees.
Today, our thoughts are with those who lost their lives one month
ago, and with the families who said goodbye to their loved ones for the
last time.
But in the past month, we have seen the great spirit of Americans.
The hatred and utter disregard for human life shown by the terrorists
stands in stark contrast to the outpouring of sympathy and compassion
by millions of Americans, in acts great and small. We gave what we
could: Money, water, shelter, blood, and sometimes just a shoulder to
lean on. Entertainers came together for an unprecedented benefit,
athletes donated their salaries, and children even donated their piggy
banks.
Among the most inspiring stories of September 11 were the rescue
workers. Sadly, many of the heroes of September 11 are now among the
victims. Their valor has inspired the Nation. Their sacrifice will not
go unnoted or their deeds unsung. If those rescue workers could muster
the strength to do what was needed then, surely our Nation can find the
strength to do what is needed now.
We must prepare our military, strengthen our intelligence operations,
and tighten our security. And we must rally behind our President.
Let those who practice terrorism or harbor terrorists have no doubt
about America's intent. We will find you. We will strike you
militarily, economically, and politically. And you will pay a heavy
price for your acts against mankind.
We have overcome the enemies of freedom before. We conquered the evil
of fascism in Europe and Asia, rescued democracy, and built a better
world. We defied communism for decades powered by the certainty that
freedom would ultimately triumph over oppression. You will not take
these gains from us.
Though we mourn the loss of our fellow Americans, our eyes are
undimmed by tears. Our dreams are undiminished by fear. From the ashes
of terrorism, we will build a new tower to freedom that will cast its
light around the world.
And, with God's help, we will prove again what the poet Carl Sandburg
once said: ``We are Americans. Nothing like us ever was.''

____________________

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, statistics show that a woman is raped
every five minutes in the United States and that one in every three
adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner
during adulthood. In fact, more women are injured by domestic violence
each year than by automobile accidents and cancer deaths combined.
October, as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, is a good time to take
a serious look at the progress we've made in addressing the problem of
abuse against women in our communities. In 1983, I introduced
legislation in the South Dakota State Legislature to use marriage
license fees to help fund domestic abuse shelters. At that time,
thousands of South Dakota women and children were in need of shelters
and programs to help them. However, few people wanted to acknowledge
that domestic abuse occurred in their communities, or even in their
homes.
During the last 7 years, I have led efforts in the United States
Congress to authorize the original Violence Against Women Act, VAWA,
and, most recently, expand and improve the program to assist rural
communities. South Dakota has received over $8 million in VAWA funds
for women's' shelters and family violence prevention services. In
addition the law has doubled prison time for repeat sex offenders,
established mandatory restitution to victims of violence against women,
and strengthened interstate enforcement of violent crimes against
women. South Dakotans can also call a nationwide toll-free hotline for
immediate crisis intervention help and free referrals to local
services. The number for women to call for help is 1-800-799-SAFE.
In South Dakota last year, over 5,500 women were provided assistance
in domestic violence shelters and outreach centers thanks, in part, to
VAWA funds. While I am pleased that we have made significant progress
in getting resources to thousands of South Dakota women in need, it is
important to look beyond the numbers. Fifty-five hundred neighbors,
sisters, daughters, and wives in South Dakota were victimized by abuse
last year. Thousands of other women are abused and don't seek help. We
must also recognize that the problem is multiplied on the reservations
where Native American women are abused at two and a half times the
national rate and are more than twice as likely to be rape victims as
any other race of women.
The words of a domestic abuse survivor may best illustrate the need
to remain vigilant in Congress and in our communities on preventing
domestic abuse. A woman from my State wrote me and explained that she
was abused as a child, raped as a teenager, and emotionally abused as a
wife. Her grandchildren were also abused. In her letter, she pleaded:
``Don't let another woman go through what I went through, and please
don't let another child go through what my grandchildren have gone
through. You can make a difference.'' We all can make a difference by
protecting women from violence and abuse.

____________________

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate
crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of this
year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to
current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any
kind is unacceptable in our society.
I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred July 6, 2001
in Monmouth County, NJ. Seven people were sentenced on multiple counts,
including aggravated assault and harassment by bias intimidation under
the state law, for assaulting a 23-year-old learning disabled man with
hearing and speech impediments. The victim was lured to a party, bound,
and physically and verbally assaulted for three hours. Later, he was
taken to a wooded area where the torture continued until he was able to
escape.
I believe that government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to
defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 is now a symbol that can become
substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change
hearts and minds as well.

____________________

[[Page 19585]]

NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS FOR PHYSICS

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize the
accomplishments of two Boulder, Colorado scientists. On October 10,
2001 Carl E. Wieman, a professor of physics at the University of
Colorado at Boulder and Eric A. Cornell, the senior scientist at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, (NIST), received the
Nobel Prize for Physics. The two shared the award with Wolfgang
Ketterle of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
All three received this award for their work that created the world's
first Bose-Einstein Condensate which occurs when a group of atoms
overlap and their individual wavelengths behave in identical fashion
creating a ``superatom''. The condensate allows scientists to study the
extremely small world of quantum physics as if they are looking through
a giant magnifying glass. Its creation established a new branch of
atomic physics that has provided a number of scientific discoveries.
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, NIST, the
Office of Naval Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Weiman and Cornell are both fellows of JILA which is formerly known as
the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics where much of the
research was done. It is a joint institute of the University of
Colorado at Boulder and NIST and it exists for research and graduate
education in the physical sciences.
Both Wieman and Cornell have won several prestigious awards in the
past including the Benjamin Franklin Medal in Physics from the Franklin
Institute in 2000, the Lorentz Medal from the Royal Netherlands Academy
of Arts and Sciences in 1998, the King Faisal International Prize in
Science in 1997 and the Fritz London Award for low-temperature physics
in 1996.
Carl Wieman and Eric Cornell became the second and third Nobel Prize
winners at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Cornell is the
second for NIST. Thomas Cech, a CU-Boulder professor of Chemistry and
biochemistry, was a co winner of the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with
Sydney Altman of Yale University for research on RNA. William Phillips,
A NIST fellow, shared the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics.
I want to personally congratulate Carl Wieman and Eric Cornell for
this truly prestigious award of excellence in scientific research.

____________________

REWARDS FOR JUSTICE FUND

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, since the brutal assault on our Nation
almost 3 weeks ago, Americans of all walks of life have asked the
question: How can I help in the fight against terrorism? One option is
the Rewards for Justice Fund, a nonprofit organization that was created
in the days following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon. The fund was announced on the Today Show on October
1, 2001.
Since 1984, the Rewards for Justice Program has quietly but
effectively thwarted terrorism by using reward payments to obtain
information on terrorists' locations and plans. The Rewards for Justice
Program enables individual citizens to unite and make financial
contributions to the Department of State Rewards for Justice Program.
Money raised by individual citizens responding to the Fund's call to
action, will be turned over directly to the State Department's anti-
terrorism program. The Rewards for Justice Fund represents the first
broad based fund of individual citizen contributions to be accepted by
the Department of State to enhance the anti-terrorism program.
Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security David Carpenter,
says: ``It's clear to us that the Rewards for Justice Program saves
lives, in that those who have perpetrated crimes against us in the past
often intend to perpetrate additional crimes. The information we
receive by offering rewards has saved countless lives and we are
confident it will save additional lives in the future.''
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, Americans have shown
tremendous resolve in raising money to help the victims and their
families. Now, the same involvement and spirit that is the trademark of
our great country will be focused on the very important quest of
tracking and apprehending terrorists, both at home and abroad.
Information on the Rewards for Justice Fund can be found on the
Internet at www.rewardsfund.com. For more information on the State
Department's Rewards for Justice Program see their website at
www.dssrewards.net/index.htm.

____________________

ENERGY LEGISLATION

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to make a short comment regarding
energy legislation. I have heard a few of my colleagues question how
Majority Leader Daschle is handling the Senate schedule. I want to take
exception to those complaints.
I believe the Majority Leader has done an outstanding job moving
legislation this Congress. We started the year with a new
Administration and then the Senate changed hands, that is difficult
enough. And since September 11 we are in truly extraordinary times.
Yet, under his leadership, and with the leadership of President Bush
and Minority Leader Lott, we have moved quickly and decisively to
approve the use of force, to appropriate emergency funding and assist
the airline industry. That progress stalled this week with objections
over the airline security proposal, but that is hardly the fault of the
Majority Leader. It's ironic that members came to the floor to protest
the schedule for an energy bill on a day that their leadership delayed
the airline security bill. Majority Leader Daschle is not the problem.
As for the Majority Leader's decision to move an energy bill directly
to the floor, that's his prerogative as our majority leader. It's been
done before and it will very likely be done again. Chairman Bingaman
has asked that we support the Majority Leader's decision, and I do. The
Majority Leader's decision recognizes the reality that energy policy
reaches beyond the Energy Committee in an important ways. It impacts
issues in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, Commerce
Committee, the Environment and Public works Committee, among others.
As for his managing of the Senate schedule for the remainder of this
session, I trust that he will use his best judgement, and will, as he
always has, confer with the minority, to decide the order of
legislation. We have spent more than a week on airline security, a
priority issue I believe. We then must address the terrorism prevention
bill. We have several appropriation bills to take up and pass. We may
consider an economic stimulus package. We may consider a Farm Bill. And
we really don't know what else will be necessary of us in the coming
weeks. The past month has demonstrated the unpredictability of our
work. So, I would urge the Majority Leader to listen to all Senators'
concerns but to be wary of demands from members that we consider
legislation in their preferred order. We have a lot of work to do,
little time to do it, and don't know what the coming weeks may hold.
Very briefly, I'd like to comment on two statements made regarding
energy security on the floor yesterday. First, one of my colleagues
noted that America imports more than 50 percent of our oil, and then
implied that should we find ourselves in a military conflict those
imports, half the oil we consume, might be lost. I want to say, to
assure my colleagues and the public, that that dire scenario is not at
all plausible. Today, America depends less on the Middle Eastern oil
than we did during the oil embargo of the 1970s. We import almost 30
percent of our oil from Mexico, Canada, Great Britain, Colombia, Norway
and Venezuela. It's wrong to suggest that these nations would abandon
the United States during a military conflict.
Secondly, I have heard statements referring to the energy needs of
the U.S. military, suggesting, I guess, that if we don't pass an energy
bill immediately the military might run short of fuel. The military
doesn't lack the oil

[[Page 19586]]

it needs to operate. Even if this fictitious worldwide embargo of U.S.
oil imports that my colleagues contemplate ever took place, this
Nation's military would have all the oil it needs. I don't want any
suggestion that our military is unprepared because of a shortage for
oil to stand.
There are real energy security issues this Nation must address, but
we do not need to exaggerate the threat. We need to be reasonable, in
the process and the substance of this bill. I support the Majority
Leader's decision and look forward to participating in the broader
effort to craft a sound bill.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

THE OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE SLOVAK CONSULATE IN KANSAS CITY, MO

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the
official opening in Kansas City, MO, of the Consulate of the Slovak
Republic.
Slovakia is a country full of rich history and tradition. It became a
free and independent republic in 1993 and opened their new embassy in
Washington, D.C. in June of 2001. Ross P. Marine, DHL, who is the
Honorary Consul of the Slovak Republic to the States of Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, and Nebraska was appointed by Eduard Kukan, Minister of
Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic, in September of 2000 and with
approval by the United States Department of State established a
Consulate of the Slovak Republic in Kansas City, Missouri. Currently
there are consulates of the Slovak Republic in Colorado, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, California, Florida, and Michigan.
The Honorable H.E. Martin Butora, PhD, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Republic to the United States and his
wife, Zora Butorova, PhD, will be visiting the Kansas City area the
week of October 16-19, for the purpose of officially opening the
Consulate of the Slovak Republic. There are a number of outstanding
events planned to mark this exciting opening and the visit by
Ambassador Butora. On behalf of the citizens I represent, I am pleased
to welcome them to the great state of Missouri. Kansas City is a city
that continues to experience tremendous growth and advances toward the
future, while still recognizing and celebrating its proud history and
vibrant culture. The added presence of the Slovak Republic will only
serve to enhance Kansas City's history and culture. Once again, welcome
and please accept my very best wishes on this special occasion.

____________________

HONORING THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MINNESOTA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the
Minnesota Taxpayers Association, for its long and proud history of
working to disseminate accurate, nonpartisan fiscal information to the
citizens of Minnesota. The Minnesota Taxpayers Association celebrates
its 75th anniversary this year, as one of the Nation's most acclaimed
taxpayer organizations.
Its membership has been comprised of thousands of Minnesota's
business leaders, government officials and concerned citizens. Its
stellar leadership, on both its Board and its staff, has consistently
been populated by Minnesota's most able and intelligent citizens.
The Minnesota Taxpayers Association, MTA, was founded in 1926 when
America was in the middle of a strong recovery from World War I, and we
were on a ``return to normalcy'' path in both foreign relations and
domestic policies.
The Association started as part of a larger government research
movement in the country aimed at bringing more professionalism to
government, particularly local government. The first steps toward
launching the Minnesota Taxpayers Association were taken at a meeting
in Minneapolis on February 25, 1926. It was planned that the
Association's core would consist of representatives of 15 local
taxpayers groups. The first objective of the new nonpartisan
association was to reduce taxes. Three other objectives were to
eliminate extravagance, reduce public debt, and stop misuse of public
funds.
On November 22, 1926, the Association became a permanent organization
at a meeting at the Nicollet Hotel in Minneapolis. In short order,
representatives of 28 counties formed the South Central, Southeast, and
Southwest Taxpayers Associations at meetings in Mankato, Rochester, and
Worthington, MN, respectively. They were so successful that by April of
1927 there were 45 county taxpayer groups across the State. By World
War II, the MTA had grown to be an association of 81 county taxpayer
groups.
In August of 1956, the MTA merged with the Minnesota Institute of
Governmental Research, MIGR, another nonpartisan government research
organization. The institute's research bulletins covered such topics as
property tax issues; the merits of a sales taxation, more than 30 years
before the State's first sales tax in 1967; and an analysis of the new
Social Security Act and its implications for Minnesota.
Because government itself did little research in those days, MIGR had
a tremendous impact on Minnesota State government. MIGR's work inspired
the creation of the 1939 Reorganization Act under Governor Harold
Stassen. This act received national attention as it produced major
improvements in the administration of State government, saving millions
of dollars in the first 10 years after enactment.
It was through the Reorganization Act and the work of MIGR that the
Departments of Taxation and Administration were created and the spoils
system was replaced with civil service. As a follow-up to the
Reorganization Act, MIGR staff was loaned to the ``Little Hoover''
Commission of the early 1950s to study areas for further reform in
State government.
Within two years of the merger, in August of 1958, MTA became
incorporated. At that time, it moved away from being an umbrella
organization for county-level taxpayer groups to being an organization
with its own board of directors and a statewide membership of
individuals and companies. Its focus also changed to monitoring State
fiscal matters and advocating for sound fiscal policy.
In 1957, MTA started publishing ``Fiscal Facts for Minnesotans,'' a
popular handbook of State and local fiscal data that continues to be
published today. A widely read and discussed publication series was
begun in 1969 with the first release of ``How Does Minnesota Compare?''
a State-by-State comparison of key tax and spending aggregates.
The Minnesota Taxpayers Association has steadfastly stressed the
importance of good information and citizen involvement in government.
As evidence of its commitment to these goals, the Association continues
to focus on research publications aimed at educating the public,
publications like its award-winning ``Understanding Your Property
Taxes'' and its ``Guide to State Government Spending,'' as well as on
countless public presentations and frequent legislative consultations.
As State and local governments take on more responsibility for
designing, funding, and delivering public services, and as taxpayers
look for greater value for their tax dollars, the need for
organizations like the Minnesota Taxpayers Association increases. The
Association's work over the past 75 years has been a great asset to the
people of Minnesota, and its reputation for excellence and integrity
assures a prominent and vital role for this outstanding organization in
the improvement of Minnesota State and local government in the years
ahead.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO FRAN FLANIGAN

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and
honor an extraordinary Marylander and steward of the Chesapeake Bay,
Fran Flanigan. Fran is stepping down from a long and distinguished
career as executive director of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and
I want to express my personal

[[Page 19587]]

congratulations and thanks for her outstanding and dedicated service.
When the history of the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort is finally
written there are many people who will be recognized for the role they
played in helping to ``Save the Bay.'' But Fran's hard work and
creativity over the past three decades will distinguish her as one of
the true leaders in this important endeavor. Fran has been a determined
advocate for the Chesapeake Bay from virtually the inception of the Bay
program. In December 1983, she organized a 3-day conference which
brought together the Governors of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania,
the EPA Administrator, members of the State legislatures and many other
individuals and organization. That conference resulted in the signing
of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement which formally bound the Federal and
State governments to work together to restore the Bay and effectively
initiated the cooperative Chesapeake Bay Program.
I became acquainted with Fran during that historic summit and have
had the opportunity to work closely with her and her non-profit
organization, the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, later the
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, for many years. I can personally
attest to the tremendous energy and creativity which she consistently
brought to her work. Fran has an amazing ability to pull people
together and has been called upon time and time again to convene
stakeholder roundtables on key issues and expand public involvement.
Whether the subject was agriculture, toxic pollution or land use, Fran
would try to find common ground and a way to ensure that different
States and interest groups moved forward together for the betterment of
the Chesapeake Bay.
Fran Flanigan and Alliance have been very forward thinking and helped
move the Bay cleanup program upstream into the rivers that flow into
the Chesapeake. She reoriented the Alliance to work at a more local
level and promote local restoration activities, all in an effort to
better acquaint the public with the resources they were working to
protect and restore. She knew that public participation in the efforts
to clean up the Bay were essential and the key to keeping the Bay
cleanup effort on course and worked hard to keep the public informed
about key Chesapeake issues through the Alliance's outstanding white
papers, fact sheets, newsletters and the Bay Journal. She also helped
organize everything from small watershed groups to huge public outreach
efforts such as those needed before the signing of the 1987 and 2000
Bay Agreements.
Fran has been there on the front line from the very start of the Bay
program and, even in retirement, I know will continue to be involved in
the Bay efforts. Her dedication and efforts over the years have earned
her the respect and admiration of everyone with whom she has worked.
She has been instrumental in bringing to so many people an enjoyment
and sense of ownership of the Chesapeake Bay. I join with her many
colleagues and friends in extending my best wishes and thanks for her
leadership and commitment.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF PETER HENRY'S SERVICE TO SOUTH DAKOTA VETERANS

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the
extraordinary work done by Peter Henry as Director of the VA Black
Hills Health Care System in Fort Meade and Hot Springs, SD. I also wish
him all the best in his new position as Chief Executive Officer of the
Extended Care and Rehabilitation Patient Service Line for Veterans
Integrated Service Network, VISN, 13.
Peter has been a valuable asset in working the myriad of issues
affecting the VA over the years, especially his efforts to keep
services going to Category C veterans when others could not. Peter, his
wife Sharon, and their five children, have also been important members
of the Black Hills community. Peter serves on the Board of the Sturgis
Area Chamber of Commerce and the Sturgis United Way.
Peter's service in the VA dates back to 1970, when he was a
Management Intern at VA Central Office in Washington, DC. He later
served as Chief of Personnel Service at Vancouver, Martinez, and Palo
Alto VAMCs. He completed the Associate Director Training Program in
1982 at the VAMC in San Francisco, CA. Peter then served as Associate
Director at the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital in Tampa, FL and as
Assistant Medical Center Director at the VAMC Long Beach, CA.
Peter came to South Dakota in 1993 as the Director of the Medical
Center at Fort Meade, SD. Three years later, he became Director of the
VA Black Hills Health Care System. Peter is a third generation VA
employee and currently serves as president of the VA Chapter of the
Senior Executives Association and on the National Board of that
organization.
I have had the pleasure of working with Peter through my career in
the United States House of Representatives and now in the United States
Senate. Peter has helped to educate me and other South Dakota officials
on a variety of veterans issues, and his caring for the individual
veterans in the Black Hills has been a great asset to our efforts to
improve health care services for our Nation's heroes. Peter's
commitment to expanding VA services into rural regions of South Dakota
includes the use of outreach clinics which have allowed veterans in
rural areas to receive needed care closer to their homes.
As I travel South Dakota and meet with veterans, I am reminded of the
very core of what the Founding Fathers meant when they talked about
America's citizen soldiers who serve as the bulwark of defending our
democracy and freedom. The sacrifices of the men and women who served
this Nation in time of war are a dramatic story that we need to tell to
future generations.
We need to remind younger generations of the sacrifice of the quiet
heroes who have served our Nation in the military service. We need to
remind them that freedom isn't really free. Throughout our Nation's
proud history, people have made profound sacrifices to preserve liberty
and democracy.
I am pleased that with the help of dedicated people like Peter Henry,
we have finally begun to honor additional commitments made to veterans
nationwide. Peter and his staff at the VA Black Hills Health Care
System know that veterans health care is this Nation's priority and not
just an afterthought. I look forward to working with Peter, in his new
role with VISN 13, to continue to improve veterans health care
services.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

At 7:35 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 1992. An act to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to expand the opportunities for higher education via
telecommunications.
____

At 7:45 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following joint resolution, in which it requests the
concurrence of the Senate:

H.J. Res. 68. Joint resolution making further
appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for other
purposes.

____________________

MEASURES REFERRED

The following bill was read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

H.R. 1992. An act to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to expand the opportunities for higher education via
telecommunications; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.

____________________

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred
as indicated:

[[Page 19588]]

EC-4390. A communication from the Director of Defense
Procurement, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Customary Progress
Payment Rate for Large Business Concerns'' (Case 2001-D012)
received on October 4, 2001; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
EC-4391. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, transmitting, the report of a retirement; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
EC-4392. A communication from the Secretary of Defense,
transmitting, the report of a retirement; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-4393. A communication from the Principal Deputy General
Counsel, Department of Defense, transmitting, a draft of
proposed legislation relative to the annual survey of racial,
ethnic, and gender issues; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
EC-4394. A communication from the Principal Deputy General
Counsel, Department of Defense, transmitting, a draft of
purposed legislation relative to the awards of the medal of
honor; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-4395. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species Fisheries; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries;
General Category Adjustment of Daily Retention Limit; Harpoon
Category Closure'' (I.D. 091201C) received on October 4,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4396. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a nomination confirmed for the position of
Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
received on October 4, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4397. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Sharpchin and Northern
Rockfish in the Aleutian Islands Subarea of the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Area'' received on October 4, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4398. A communication from the Secretary of the Bureau
of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption
and Water Use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products
Required Under The Energy Policy And Conservation Act
(``Appliance Labeling Rule'') (16 CFR Part 305) ``This Notice
Amends Dishwasher And Central Air Conditioner Provisions of
the Rule'' (RIN3084-AA74) received on October 4, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4399. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal
Maritime Commission, transmitting, the report of a study
concerning the impact of the Ocean Reform Act of 1988; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science , and Transportation.
EC-4400. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier Model
DHC 8 301 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0496))
received on October 5, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4401. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Eurocopter
Deutschland GmbH Model EC135P1 and EC 135T1 Helicopters''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0494)) received on October 5, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4402. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 747-
400 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0493)) received
on October 5, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4403. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas
Model MD-11 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0495))
received on October 5, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4404. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 767-
200, 300, 200F and 400ER Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0497)) received on October 5, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4405. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments; Amdt. No. 2068'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(2001-0052)) received on October 5, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4406. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas
Model 717 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0498))
received on October 5, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4407. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airspace Actions Amendment to Class E
Airspace; Seneca Falls, NY; Correction'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(2001-0155)) received on October 5, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4408. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (83); Amdt No. 2069'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(2001-0053)) received on October 5, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4409. A communication from the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Interim
Progress Report; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
EC-4410. A communication from the Acting Executive
Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``17 CFR Part
39--A New Regulatory Framework for Clearing Organizations''
(RIN3038-AB66) received on October 10, 2001; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-4411. A communication from the Acting Executive
Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``17 CFR Parts
41 and 140--Designated Contract Markets in Security Futures
Products: Notice-Designation Requirements, Continuing
Obligations, Applications for Exemptive Orders, and Exempt
Provisions'' (RIN3038-AB82) received on October 10, 2001; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-4412. A communication from the General Counsel of the
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Changes in Flood Elevation Determination'' (Doc.
No. FEMA-D-7513) received on October 10, 2001; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4413. A communication from the General Counsel of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Supplemental Property
Acquisition and Elevation Assistance; Correction'' (RIN3067-
AD06) received on October 10, 2001; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4414. A communication from the General Counsel of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Flood Elevation
Determination'' (66 FR 49552) received on October 10, 2001;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4415. A communication from the General Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Changes in Flood Elevation
Determinations'' (66 FR 49547) received on October 10, 2001;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4416. A communication from the Acting Executive Director
of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Notice of
Statement of Commission Policy Regarding Temporary Relief
From Certain Provisions of the Commission's Regulations'' (66
FR 49356) received on October 10, 2001; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4417. A communication from the Senior Attorney, Fiscal
Service, Financial Management Service, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Administrative Wage Garnishment'' (RIN1510-AA87)
received on October 5, 2001; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-4418. A communication from the Chief of the Regulations
Unit, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Therese Hahn v. Commissioner'' received on October 9, 2001;
to the Committee on Finance.
EC-4419. A communication from the Chairman of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the Commissions report under the Government in the
Sunshine Act for calendar year 2000; to the Committee on
Finance.

[[Page 19589]]

EC-4420. A communication from the Director of the National
Gallery of Art, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Annual
Management Report and Commercial Activities Inventory of
civil service positions for 2001; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. BYRD, from the Committee on Appropriations:
Special Report entitled ``Further Revised Allocation to
Subcommittees of Budget Totals for Fiscal Year 2002.'' (Rept.
No. 107-81).
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER, from the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 739: A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve programs for homeless veterans, and for other
purposes. (Rept. No. 107-82).
By Mr. KENNEDY, from the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, without amendment:
S. 1533: An original bill to amend the Public Health
Service Act to reauthorize and strengthen the health centers
program and the National Health Service Corps, and to
establish the Healthy Communities Access Program, which will
help coordinate services for the uninsured and underinsured,
and for other purposes. (Rept. No. 107-83).
By Mr. HARKIN, from the Committee on Appropriations,
without amendment:
S. 1536: An original bill making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. (Rept. No. 107-
84).

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Breaux,
Mr. Cleland, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Rockefeller,
Mr. Carper, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 1530. A bill to provide improved safety and security
measures for rail transportation, provide for improved
passenger rail service, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:
S. 1531. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide a waiver of the early withdrawal penalty for
distributions from qualified retirement plans to individuals
called to active duty during the national emergency declared
by the President on September 14, 2001, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Lott, Mr.
Nickles, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Bond, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Sessions,
Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Voinovich, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Campbell, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Allard):
S. 1532. A bill to provide for the payment of emergency
extended unemployment compensation; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 1533. An original bill to amend the Public Health
Service Act to reauthorize and strengthen the health centers
program and the National Health Service Corps, and to
establish the Healthy Communities Access Program, which will
help coordinate services for the uninsured and underinsured,
and for other purposes; from the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions; placed on the calendar.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 1534. A bill to establish the Department of National
Homeland Security; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Fitzgerald):
S. 1535. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for research on, and services for individuals with,
postpartum depression and psychosis; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 1536. An original bill making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes; from the
Committee on Appropriations; placed on the calendar.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mr.
Inhofe):
S. 1537. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a hydrogeologic mapping, modeling and monitoring
program for the High Plains Aquifer and to establish the High
Plains Aquifer Coordination council to facilitate groundwater
conservation in the High Plains; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mr.
Inhofe):
S. 1538. A bill to further continued economic viability in
the communities on the High Plains by promoting sustainable
groundwater management of the Ogallala Aquifer; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Murray,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr.
Corzine):
S. 1539. A bill to protect children from terrorism; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. FITZGERALD:
S. 1540. A bill to extend and improve the emergency food
assistance program; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr.
Smith of Oregon):
S. 1541. A bill to provide for a program of temporary
enhanced unemployment benefits; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ENZI:
S. 1542. A bill to foster innovation and technological
advancement in the development of the Internet and electronic
commerce, and to assist the States in simplifying their sales
and use taxes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Lott, Ms. Landrieu,
and Mr. Allen):
S.J. Res. 25. A joint resolution designating September 11
as ``National Day of Remembrance''; considered and passed.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Warner, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Murkowski, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Bond, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Burns, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Santorum,
Mr. Allard, Ms. Collins, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hutchinson,
Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Chafee,
Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Domenici):
S. Res. 171. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate concerning the provision of funding for bioterrorism
preparedness and response; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 484

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Ms. Cantwell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 484, a bill to amend part
B of title IV of the Social Security Act to create a grant program to
promote joint activities among Federal, State, and local public child
welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment agencies.

S. 505

At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 505, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate certain 50 caliber
sniper weapons in the same manner as machine guns and other firearms,
and for other purposes.

S. 518

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 518, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to provide for the training of health
professions students with respect to the identification and referral of
victims of domestic violence.

S. 706

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 706, a bill to amend the
Social Security Act to establish programs to alleviate the nursing
profession shortage, and for other purposes.

S. 724

At the request of Mr. Cochran, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 724, a bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to provide
for coverage of pregnancy-related assistance for targeted low-income
pregnant women.

S. 1201

At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1201, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for

[[Page 19590]]

S corporation reform, and for other purposes.

S. 1278

At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1278, a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a United States
independent film and television production wage credit.

S. 1410

At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1410, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the excise tax exemptions for
aerial applicators of fertilizers or other substances.

S. 1430

At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Carper) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1430, a bill to authorize
the issuance of Unity Bonds in response to the acts of terrorism
perpetrated against the United States on September 11, 2001, and for
other purposes.

S. 1434

At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Bennett) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1434, a bill to authorize the
President to award posthumously the Congressional Gold Medal to the
passengers and crew of United Airlines flight 93 in the aftermath of
the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001.

S. 1486

At the request of Mr. Edwards, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1486, a bill to ensure that
the United States is prepared for an attack using biological or
chemical weapons.

S. 1499

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Carper) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) were added
as cosponsors of S. 1499, a bill to provide assistance to small
business concerns adversely impacted by the terrorist attacks
perpetrated against the United States on September 11, 2001, and for
other purposes.

S. 1510

At the request of Mr. Johnson, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1510, a bill to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States
and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools,
and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Daschle, the names of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. Cleland), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from New York (Mrs.
Clinton), and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1510, supra.
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Fitzgerald), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from
Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
McConnell), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr.
Sessions) were added as cosponsors of S. 1510, supra.

S. CON. RES. 74

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 74, a
concurrent resolution condemning bigotry and violence against Sikh-
Americans in the wake of terrorist attacks in New York City and
Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001.

AMENDMENT NO. 1855

At the request of Mr. Durbin, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 1855 proposed to S. 1447, a bill to improve aviation
security, and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Johnson, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 1855 proposed to S. 1447, supra.
At the request of Mrs. Carnahan, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No.
1855 proposed to S. 1447, supra.

AMENDMENT NO. 1858

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 1858 proposed to S. 1447, a bill to improve aviation
security, and for other purposes.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Cleland,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Carper, Mr.
Jeffords, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 1530. A bill to provide improved safety and security measures for
rail transportation, provide for improved passenger rail service, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, one month ago today, the United States
was attacked by terrorists who hijacked airplanes and used them as
weapons against the World Trade Center, Pentagon and another unknown
target which was crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. After the
Federal Aviation Administration grounded the airlines following the
terrorist attacks, travelers flocked to Amtrak. Whether people had to
travel for business, to help with rescue efforts, or just to get home,
Amtrak kept our American citizens moving during a time of national
emergency.
The situation not only proved that Amtrak works, but that Amtrak is a
critical part of our transportation infrastructure during a national
emergency. Now that airlines have reduced their flights on the East
Coast and throughout the country, more of the passenger burden has
fallen on Amtrak, which carries 35,000 passengers along the Northeast
Corridor everyday. Even the U.S. Postal Office carried 237 extra
carloads of mail in the days following the terrorist attacks.
Today I am introducing the Railroad Advancement and Infrastructure
Law of the 21st Century, or RAIL-21. In the short run, this bill will
provide emergency security assistance to Amtrak, a key part of our
national transportation infrastructure. In the long run, this bill will
spark the building of important high-speed rail infrastructure in high-
volume corridors across the United States, reducing our dependence on
air and highway travel.
In light of the events of September 11, it is important to look at
the entire transportation system. Transportation security requires a
balanced and competitive system of transportation alternatives. Three
weeks ago we found out that our dependence on the aviation system
almost crippled us. We cannot be overly reliant on any single mode of
transportation; we need to ensure that we have a balanced system.
Today we are trying to pass the airline security bill to make airline
passengers feel safe so they will fly again. We need to make passengers
feel just as safe when they travel by train. And we need to make sure
we have transportation alternatives.
To address Amtrak's immediate concerns, the bill would authorize $3.2
billion in emergency spending for Amtrak's security and capacity needs.
The money will pay for more police, surveillance, fencing and lighting
at the train stations and train yards; life-safety improvements and
more fire-fighting capacity for tunnels in New York, Baltimore and
Washington, D.C.; and more passenger cars and capacity improvements to
meet the growing demand for train service.
RAIL-21 would reauthorize Amtrak for one year with $1.2 billion for
capital and operating expenses. The bill would allow Amtrak to continue
its GSA vehicle lease agreements and would suspend Amtrak's redemption
requirements for common stock until the end of FY2004.
Additionally, the bill would remove the operational self-sufficiency
requirement passed three years ago. Let me talk about that for a
moment. There is no truly national passenger

[[Page 19591]]

train service in the world that makes a profit. Requiring Amtrak to do
so has forced the railroad to short-change critical infrastructure
investments in order to meet a questionable economic model. We must
free Amtrak from this requirement so they can go back to running a
passenger railroad with modern and safe equipment, not juggling bond
payments and taking out mortgages on Penn Station just to meet an
impossible self-sufficiency deadline.
Nations invest in passenger rail service because it increases the
opportunities to travel and thus a Nation's quality of life. Rail
service also reduces car congestion and pollution. And we saw last
month that, during a national emergency, having a viable, operating
national train system can be a strategic asset.
Kenneth Mead, the Inspector General for the Department of
Transportation, has said the drive for self-sufficiency has forced
Amtrak to spend money on quick projects that improve the short-term
bottom line while cutting back on maintenance and investments.
Those who want Amtrak to operate without Federal assistance,
ultimately forcing the railroad's passengers onto cars, buses and
airplanes, always cry that we should not ``subsidize'' Amtrak. But we
subsidize the building of roads and highways with tax dollars. We
subsidize the building of airports and pay flight controllers with tax
dollars. We consider those subsidies to be worthwhile investments in
our economy and our quality of life. We must make the same investment
that other countries make it passenger rail service.
While that argument should stand on its own, here's something the
highway and airplane crowd can take to the bank: moving more short-haul
travelers to rail service reduces congestion on our already overcrowded
highways and eases congestion at airports, allowing airlines to focus
on more-profitable, long-distance routes. Investing in passenger rail
improves conditions for highway and airport users at a fraction of the
cost per mile traveled.
According to some experts, Amtrak has reduced air traffic congestion
out of Philadelphia's airport by 50 flights a day. Rail service between
New York and Washington carries enough passengers to fill 121 airline
flights per day. Now, with reduced flights out of East Coast airports,
it makes more sense to look at Amtrak not only as a transportation
alternative, but as a transportation mainstay for regional corridors
all over the U.S.
Amtrak has been severely under-capitalized since its inception in
1971. We would not be talking about many of these problems with Amtrak
if it had been given the proper seed money for capital and annual
funding from the very beginning.
And that leads me to the second part of this bill, in which we look
to passenger rail's long-term future. The passenger railroad system
that has worked on the Northeast Coast can work in other high-
congestion areas of the country: the South, the Midwest, California and
the Northwest.
Thirty years ago, those areas did not have the population to support
high-speed intercity rail. But today those areas are growing by leaps
and bounds. As the highways in those areas clog up and the planes run
three hours late, their governors, many of them Republicans, are asking
us for help to build high speed rail.
RAIL-21 authorizes $35 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees
for passenger rail, freight rail, and rail security enhancements. The
criteria for these loans will replace language contained three years
ago in TEA-21.
TEA-21 directed the Department of Transportation to establish a
program to replace the old Title V loan guarantee program which was
used to build, rehabilitate or upgrade primarily short line railroads.
On September 5, 2000, the DOT issued a final rule on the Railroad
Rehabilitation and improvement Financing Program (RRIF) to provide
direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments,
government sponsored authorities and corporations, railroads, and joint
ventures that include at least one railroad.
Eligible projects for RRIF include: 1. acquisition, improvement or
rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment of facilities (including
tracks, components of tracks, bridges, yards, buildings, and shops), 2.
the refinancing of outstanding debt incurred for these purposes; 3.
development or establishment of new intermodal or railroad facilities,
4. and security purposes.
RAIL-21 eliminates much of the bureaucratic red tape that has delayed
any TEA-21 loans or loan guarantees from being issued.
Under RAIL-21, Class 1 railroads, regional railroads, short lines,
and passenger projects would be eligible for loans and loan guarantees.
The bill would set aside $7 billion of the loans and loan guarantees
for short lines.
RAIL-21 also establishes a $350 million grant program for
rehabilitating, preserving or improving railroad tracks for regional
and short line railroads. Short line railroads have saved tens of
thousands of miles of light density rail line from abandonment. In
1980, there were 220 short line railroads in the U.S. Today there are
over 500 short line railroads, due in part to the mergers and
streamlining of Class I operations which encouraged the larger
companies to sell off their little-used or abandoned branch lines.
Short line and regional railroads are an important and growing
component of the railroad industry. Today they operate and maintain 29
percent of the American railroad industry's route mileage and account
for 9 percent of the rail industry's freight revenue and 11 percent of
railroad employment.
These line railroads employ approximately 25,000 workers, serve
thousands of local and rural shippers, and are often the only
connection these shippers have to the national rail network. To
survive, this infrastructure needs to be upgraded in order to move the
heavier cars that are currently being moved by the Class I railroads.
The revenues of the smaller railroads are not sufficient to get the job
done.
Since 1982, the short lines and regional railroads have maintained
the track in rural areas where rail service would have been abandoned
by the Class I railroads. Because of their relatively low traffic
levels, the Class I railroads could not afford to invest in this
infrastructure and, as a result, allowed these lines to slowly
deteriorate. With a lower cost structure and more flexible service,
short line companies that bought the track have been able to keep them
going. However, the revenue is still not high enough to make up for
past years of neglect.
Today, two factors have combined to bring this situation to a head.
First, the advent of the heavier 286,000-pound cars that are becoming
the standard of the Class I industry require substantially higher
investment in the track. Second, as the Class I industry puts a greater
premium on speed and precisely scheduled operations, the short line
railroads must meet these higher standards or be cut off from the
national system.
This legislation does not create a long-term program to fix this
problem, but instead it creates a one-time fix for this problem. While
these small railroads have enough traffic to operate profitably on an
ongoing basis, they do not earn enough to make the large capital
investment required by the advent of the 286,000-pound cars or the need
to significantly increase speed. This legislation would authorize a
program that could provide grants to the nation's smaller railroads to
help them make the improvements needed to stay in business and continue
to serve small shippers.
RAIL-21 also would authorize $50 million in matching grants annually
during FY02 through FY04: $25 million would be available for security
and technology research and development; $25 million would be available
for corridor planning and acquisition of rolling stock, with preference
given to designated corridors.
RAIL-21 identifies existing high-speed corridors for priority
consideration. Many of these corridors are in the South, Midwest and
California where people are now driving cars or taking airplanes on
trips of 200 miles or less. In these areas, like the East Coast,
travelers could take a high-speed train instead, and arrive about the
same time.

[[Page 19592]]

But right now they don't have that option. Therefore, we have a
problem here: They can't use it if we don't build it.
We built high speed rail on the East Coast, and the people have used
it. If we build rail corridors around Chicago and the Midwestern
cities, they will use it. If we build rail lines in the South from
Washington, D.C. through the Carolinas to Atlanta and Florida, they
will ride it. If we build a corridor in California from San Diego to
Sacramento, they will ride it.
This bill does not only support Amtrak. It is intended for commuter
rail, freight railroads, and short line operators. That's what many
Senators, governors and constituents have asked for.
In the long term, travel in the United States will outpace the
ability of airports and highways to handle the volume. With the tighter
security checks at the airports, it will be faster to make trips of
200-300 miles by train than by air. More train travel will reduce
congestion at our most crowded airports and our most gridlocked
Interstate highways.
I am pleased my colleagues have joined with me to introduce this
bill, which we hope to move quickly. Modernizing Amtrak now will create
jobs in the short run to stimulate our economy. And by modernizing our
transportation infrastructure, high-speed rail corridors will play a
key role in our long-term prosperity.
I would ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill and a summary
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1530

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 ``Railroad Advancement and
Infrastructure Law for the 21st Century''.

SEC. 2. 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION.

(a) In General.--Section 24104(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' in paragraph (4);
(2) by striking ``2002,'' in paragraph (5) and inserting
``2002; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) $1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2003,''.
(b) Repeal of Self-sufficiency Requirements.
(1) Title 49 amendments.--Chapter 241 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking the last sentence of section 24101(d); and
(B) by striking the last sentence of section 24104(a).
(2) Amtrak reform and accountability act amendments.--Title
II of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (49
U.S.C. 24101 nt) is amended by striking sections 204 and 205.
(3) Common stock redemption date.--Section 415 of the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (49 U.S.C. 24304
nt) is amended by striking subsection (b).
(c) Lease arrangements.--Amtrak may obtain services from
the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator
may provide services to Amtrak, under section 201(b) and
211(b) of the Federal Property and Administrative Service Act
of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481(b) and 491(b)) for fiscal year 2002
and each fiscal year thereafter until the fiscal year that
Amtrak operates without Federal operating grant funds
appropriated for its benefit, as required by sections
24101(d) and 24104(a) of title 49, United States Code.

SEC. 3. EMERGENCY AMTRAK ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of Transportation for the use of Amtrak for the
2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act--
(1) $471,000,000 for systemwide security upgrades,
including hiring and training additional police officers,
canine-assisted security units, and surveillance equipment;
(2) $998,000,000 to be used to complete New York tunnel
life safety projects and rehabilitate tunnels in Washington,
D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland;
(3) $949,000,000 for bridges, track, power, and station
improvements to increase capacity and improve reliability of
rail passenger transportation in the Northeast Corridor;
(4) $656,000,000 for equipment, including--
(A) the overhauling and returning of 45 passenger cars and
5 locomotives to service,
(B) the upgrading and overhauling of 231 passenger cars and
33 locomotives, and
(C) the purchase of 10 new trainsets,
of which sum at least 25 percent shall be used for operations
outside the Northeast Corridor (unless the Secretary
determines that demand for such operations outside the
Northeast Corridor is less than 25 percent); and
(5) $77,000,000 for incremental operating costs, including
reservation centers, overtime compensation, and mechanical
terminals (net of incremental revenues).
(b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.
(c) Coordination with Existing Law.--Amounts made available
to Amtrak under this section shall not be considered to be
Federal assistance for purposes of part C of subtitle V of
title 49, United States Code.

SEC. 4. REHABILITATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND SECURITY FINANCING.

(a) Definitions.--Section 102(7) of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C.
802(7)) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) `railroad' has the meaning given that term in section
20102 of title 49, United States Code; and''.
(b) General Authority.--Section 502 of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C.
822) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary may provide direct loans and
loan guarantees to State and local governments,'' in
subsection (a) and inserting ``Secretary shall provide direct
loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments,
interstate compacts entered into under section 410 of the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (49 U.S.C 24101
nt),'';
(2) by striking ``or'' in subsection (b)(1)(B);
(3) by redesignating subparagraph (C) of subsection (b)(1)
as subparagraph (D); and
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) of subsection
(b)(1) the following:
``(C) to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate rail safety and
security equipment and facilities; or''.
(c) Extent of Authority.--Section 502(d) of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C.
822(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$3,500,000,000'' and inserting
``$35,000,000,000'';
(2) by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and inserting
``$7,000,000,000''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The
Secretary shall not establish any limit on the proportion of
the unused amount authorized under this subsection that may
be used for 1 loan or loan guarantee.''.
(d) Cohorts of Loans.--Section 502(f) of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C.
822(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F);
and
(C) by adding after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) the size and characteristics of the cohort of which
the loan or loan guarantee is a member; and''; and
(2) by adding at the end of paragraph (4) the following:
``A cohort may include loans and loan guarantees. The
Secretary shall not establish any limit on the proportion of
a cohort that may be used for 1 loan or loan guarantee.''.
(e) Conditions of Assistance.--Section 502 of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C.
822) is amended--
(1) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by inserting ``, if any''
after ``collateral offered''; and
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (h) the following:

``The Secretary shall not require an applicant for a direct
loan or loan guarantee under this section to provide
collateral. The Secretary shall not require that an applicant
for a direct loan or loan guarantee under this section have
previously sought the financial assistance requested from
another source. The Secretary shall require recipients of
direct loans or loan guarantees under this section to apply
the standards of section 22301(f) and (g) of title 49, United
States Code, to their projects.''.
(f) Time Limit for Approval or Disapproval.--Section 502 of
the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976
(45 U.S.C. 822) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(i) Time Limit for Approval or Disapproval.--Not later
than 180 days after receiving a complete application for a
direct loan or loan guarantee under this section, the
Secretary shall approve or disapprove the application.''.
(g) Fees and Charges.--Section 503 of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C.
823) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (k) the following:
``Funds received by the Secretary under the preceding
sentence shall be credited to the appropriation from which
the expenses of making such apprasals, determinations, and
findings were incurred.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(l) Fees and Charges.--Except as provided in this title,
the Secretary may not assess any fees, including user fees,
or charges in connection with a direct loan or loan guarantee
provided under section 502.''.
(h) Substantive Criteria and Standards.--Not later than 30
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary

[[Page 19593]]

of Transportation shall publish in the Federal Register and
post on the Department of Transportation web site the
substantive criteria and standards used by the Secretary to
determine whether to approve or disapprove applications
submitted under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization
and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822).

SEC. 5. CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK.

(a) Amendment.--Chapter 223 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``CHAPTER 223--CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK

``Sec.
``22301. Capital grants for railroad track.

``Sec. 22301. Capital grants for railroad track

``(a) Establishment of Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
establish a program of capital grants for the rehabilitation,
preservation, or improvement of railroad track (including
roadbed, bridges, and related track structures) of class II
and class III railroads. Such grants shall be for
rehabilitating, preserving, or improving track used primarily
for freight transportation to a standard ensuring that the
track can be operated safely and efficiently, including
grants for rehabilitating, preserving, or improving track to
handle 286,000 pound rail cars. Grants may be provided under
this chapter--
``(A) directly to the class II or class III railroad; or
``(B) with the concurrence of the class II or class III
railroad, to a State or local government.
``(2) State cooperation.--Class II and class III railroad
applicants for a grant under this chapter are encouraged to
utilize the expertise and assistance of State transportation
agencies in applying for and administering such grants. State
transportation agencies are encouraged to provide such
expertise and assistance to such railroads.
``(3) Interim regulations.--Not later than December 31,
2001, the Secretary shall issue temporary regulations to
implement the program under this section. Subchapter II of
chapter 5 of title 5 does not apply to a temporary regulation
issued under this paragraph or to an amendment to such a
temporary regulation.
``(4) Final regulations.--Not later than October 1, 2002,
the Secretary shall issue final regulations to implement the
program under this section.
``(b) Maximum Federal Share.--The maximum Federal share for
carrying out a project under this section shall be 80 percent
of the project cost. The non-Federal share may be provided by
any non-Federal source in cash, equipment, or supplies. Other
in-kind contributions may be approved by the Secretary on a
case by case basis consistent with this chapter.
``(c) Project Eligibility.--For a project to be eligible
for assistance under this section the track must have been
operated or owned by a class II or class III railroad as of
the date of the enactment of the Railroad Advancement and
Infrastructure Law for the 21st Century.
``(d) Use of Funds.--Grants provided under this section
shall be used to implement track capital projects as soon as
possible. In no event shall grant funds be contractually
obligated for a project later than the end of the third
Federal fiscal year following the year in which the grant was
awarded. Any funds not so obligated by the end of such fiscal
year shall be returned to the Secretary for reallocation.
``(e) Additional Purpose.--In addition to making grants for
projects as provided in subsection (a), the Secretary may
also make grants to supplement direct loans or loan
guarantees made under title V of the Railroad Revitalization
and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822(d)), for
projects described in the last sentence of section 502(d) of
such title. Grants made under this subsection may be used, in
whole or in part, for paying credit risk premiums, lowering
rates of interest, or providing for a holiday on principal
payments.
``(f) Employee Protection.--The Secretary shall require as
a condition of any grant made under this section that the
recipient railroad provide a fair arrangement at least as
protective of the interests of employees who are affected by
the project to be funded with the grant as the terms imposed
under section 11326(a), as in effect on the date of the
enactment of the Railroad Advancement and Infrastructure Law
for the 21st Century.
``(g) Labor Standards.--
``(1) Prevailing wages.--The Secretary shall ensure that
laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and
subcontractors in construction work financed by a grant made
under this section will be paid wages not less than those
prevailing on similar construction in the locality, as
determined by the Secretary of Labor under the Act of March
3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act; 40 U.S.C. 276a et
seq.). The Secretary shall make a grant under this section
only after being assured that required labor standards will
be maintained on the construction work.
``(2) Wage rates.--Wage rates in a collective bargaining
agreement negotiated under the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.
151 et seq.) are deemed for purposes of this subsection to
comply with the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-
Bacon Act; 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.).
``(h) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
projects carried out with grant assistance under this section
to determine the public interest benefits associated with the
light density railroad networks in the States and their
contribution to a multimodal transportation system. Not later
than March 31, 2003, the Secretary shall report to Congress
any recommendations the Secretary considers appropriate
regarding the eligibility of light density rail networks for
Federal infrastructure financing.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Transportation $350,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002
through 2004 for carrying out this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to chapter 223
in the table of chapters of subtitle V of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``223. CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK.......................22301''.

SEC. 3. HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

(a) Corridor Planning and Development.--
(1) Amendments.--Section 26101 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in the section heading, by inserting ``and
development'' after ``planning'';
(B) by inserting ``and Development'' in the heading of
subsection (a) after ``Planning'';
(C) by inserting ``and development'' after ``corridor
planning'' each place it appears'';
(D) by striking ``improvements.'' in subsection (b)(1) and
inserting ``improvements, or if it is an activity described
in subparagraph (M) or (N)'';
(E) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (K) of
subsection (b)(1);
(F) by striking ``partnerships.'' in subparagraph (L) of
subsection (b)(1) and inserting ``partnerships;''; and
(G) by adding at the end of subsection (b)(1) the
following:
``(M) the acquisition of locomotives, rolling stock, track,
and signal equipment; and
``(N) security planning and the acquisition of security and
emergency response equipment.''; and
(H) by inserting ``and development'' after ``planning''in
subsection (c)(2).
(2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating to section
26101 in the table of sections of chapter 261 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``and
development'' after ``planning''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 26104 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 26104. Authorization of appropriations

``(a) Fiscal Years 2002 Through 2009.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary--
``(1) $25,000,000 for carrying out section 26101; and
``(2) $25,000,000 for carrying out section 26102,
for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2009.
``(b) Funds To Remain Available.--Funds made available
under this section shall remain available until expended.''.
(c) Designated High-speed Rail Corridors.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall give priority in allocating funds
authorized by section 26104 of title 49, United States Code,
to the following High-Speed Rail Corridors:
(1) California Corridor connecting the San Francisco Bay
area and Sacramento to Los Angeles and San Diego.
(2) Chicago Hub Corridor Network with the following spokes:
(A) Chicago to Detroit.
(B) Chicago to Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN., via Milwaukee,
WI.
(C) Chicago to Kansas City, MO., via Springfield, IL., and
St Louis, MO.
(D) Chicago to Louisville, KY., via Indianapolis, IN., and
Cincinnati, OH.
(E) Chicago to Cleveland, OH., via Toledo, OH.
(F) Cleveland, OH., to Cincinnati, OH., via Columbus, OH.
(3) Empire State Corridor from New York City, NY., through
Albany, N.Y. to Buffalo, N.Y.
(4) Florida High-Speed Rail Corridor from Tampa through
Orlando to Miami.
(5) Gulf Coast Corridor from Houston TX., through New
Orleans, LA., to Mobile, AL., with a branch from New Orleans,
through Meridian, MS., and Birmingham, AL., to Atlanta, GA.
(6) Keystone Corridor from Philadelphia, PA., through
Harrisburg, PA., to Pittsburgh, PA.
(7) Northeast Corridor from Washington, D.C., through New
York City, N.Y., New Haven, CT., and Providence, R.I., to
Boston, MA.
(8) New England Corridor from Boston, MA., to Portland and
Auburn, ME., and from Boston, MA., through Concord, N.H., and
Montpelier, VT., to Montreal, P.Q.
(9) Pacific Northwest Corridor from Eugene, OR., through
Portland, OR., and Seattle, WA., to Vancouver, B.C.
(10) South Central Corridor from San Antonio, TX., through
Dallas/ Fort Worth to Little Rock, AK., with a branch from
Dallas/Fort Worth through Oklahoma City, OK., to Tulsa, OK.

[[Page 19594]]

(11) Southeast Corridor from Washington, D.C., through
Richmond, VA., Raleigh, N.C., Columbia, S.C., Savannah, GA.,
and Jesup, GA., to Jacksonville, FL., with a branch from
Raleigh, N.C., through Charlotte, N.C., and Greenville, S.C.,
to Atlanta, GA., a branch from Richmond, to Hampton Roads/
Norfolk, VA., and a connecting route between Atlanta, GA., to
Jesup, GA.
____

Summary of Railroad Advancement and Infrastructure Law of the 21st
Century, RAIL-21

RAIL-21 does the following:

Extends Amtrak's Authorization for One Year

Reauthorizes Amtrak for one additional year (through FY
2003);
Allows Amtrak to continue lease arrangements with GSA (See
amendment No. 3958 to FY 2001 Ag Approps in support 72-24);
Eliminates Amtrak's operating self sufficiency requirement;
Suspends Amtrak's redemption requirements for common stock
until the end of FY 2003; and
Authorizes Amtrak to be funded at $1.2 billion for capital
and operating expenses annually during FY 2003.

Provides Emergency Security Spending for Amtrak

Authorizes $3.2 billion in emergency spending for Amtrak's
security and capacity needs to be used for:
Added police, surveillance, fencing and lighting;
Accelerated life-safety improvements of tunnels in New
York, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., will provide emergency
access and egress and enhance fire fighting capacities; and
Added passenger cars and capacity improvements to meet
greater demand (Amtrak is required to make 25% of such
equipment available to corridors outside of the Northeast
Corridor).

Authorizes $35 B in direct loans and loan guarantees

Authoizes $35 billion for freight rail, passenger rail and
rail security enhancement projects;
Class I railroads, regional railroads, short lines and
passenger projects are eligible; and
$7 billion would be set aside for short lines.

Establishes a capital grant program for Short Line Railroads

Authorizes $350 million for rehabilitating, preserving or
improving railroad track for regional and short line
railroads.

Reauthorizes the Swift High Speed Rail Act

Authorizes $50 million in matching grants annually during
FY 02 through FY 04;
$25 million is available for corridor planning and
acquisition of rolling stock, with preference given to
designated corridors (see attached information); and
$25 million is available for security and technology
research and development.

Designated High-Speed Rail Corridors

California Corridor connecting the San Francisco Bay area
and Sacramento to Los Angeles and San Diego.
Chicago Hub Corridor Network with the following spokes:
Chicago to Detroit.
Chicago to Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, via Milwaukee, WI.
Chicago to Kansas City, MO, via Springfield, Il, and St.
Louis, MO.
Chicago to Louisville, KY, via Indianapolis, IN, and
Cincinnati, OH.
Chicago to Cleveland, OH, via Toledo, OH.
Cleveland, OH, to Cincinnati, OH, via Columbus, OH.
Empire State Corridor from New York City, NY, through
Albany, NY to Buffalo, NY.
Florida High-Speed Rail Corridor from Tampa through Orlando
to Miami.
Gulf Coast Corridor from Houston TX, through New Orleans,
LA, to Mobile, AL, with a branch from New Orleans, through
Meridian, MS, and Birmingham, AL, to Atlanta, GA.
Keystone Corridor from Philadelphia, PA, through
Harrisburg, PA, to Pittsburgh, PA.
Northeast Corridor from Washington, DC, through New York
City, NY, New Haven, CT, and Providence, RI, to Boston, MA.
New England Corridor from Boston, MA, to Portland and
Auburn, ME, and from Boston, MA, through Concord, NH, and
Montpelier, VT, to Montreal, PQ.
Pacific Northwest Corridor from Eugene, OR, through
Portland, OR, and Seattle, WA, to Vancouver, BC.
South Central Corridor from San Antonio, TX, through
Dallas/Fort Worth to Little Rock, AK, with a branch from
Dallas/Fort Worth through Oklahoma City, OK, to Tulsa, OK.
Southeast Corridor from Washington, DC through Richmond,
VA, Raleigh, NC, Columbia, SC, Savannah, GA, and Jesup, GA,
to Jacksonville, FL, with a branch from Raleigh, NC, through
Charlotte, NC, and Greenville, SC, to Atlanta, GA, a branch
from Richmond, to Hampton Roads/Norfolk, VA, and a connecting
route between Atlanta, GA, to Jesup, GA.
______

By Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles, Mr.
Gregg, Mr. Bond, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Campbell, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Craig, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Santorum,
and Mr. Allard):
S. 1532. A bill to provide for the payment of emergency extended
unemployment compensation; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the President's
Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act.
The Senator from California was talking about her concerns, help on
the way. I think we all share those concerns. While the actions of
Americans have shown that we are trying to get open for business again,
we are obviously united in our resolve that a long fight awaits us
because of these vile terrorist acts of September 11, 2001.
This flag is from the Pentagon. The President just gave a wonderful
speech, as did Secretary Rumsfeld. Everyone was united in tears and in
love for those families who lost loved ones and, also, a resolve that
freedom and justice will prevail.
Indeed, we are working to rebuild and recover. The President talked
about rebuilding the Pentagon. Others have talked about rebuilding in
New York. The rescue, recovery, cleanup, and rebuilding efforts will be
enormous.
Congress has responded with $40 billion in aid. The airline industry,
which is responsible for 10 percent of the Nation's gross domestic
product, as well as being a key element of our reserve military airlift
fleet, needs to remain solvent. We recognize that.
We understood that the FAA closed our skies after the terrorist
attacks. We have responded with $5 billion in cash for lost revenue,
due to the skies being closed, to help get our airlines back in the sky
as quickly as possible.
The perception of safety while flying has been shaken to the core. I
have participated in hearings in the Commerce Committee working to help
craft legislation aimed at improving aviation safety both on the ground
at airports, and on our aircraft as well. Senators Hollings, McCain,
Rockefeller, and Hutchison have worked hard in bringing this bill to
the floor to do just that. We will pass this legislation to ensure that
no commercial airliner or any aircraft in this country ever again is
commandeered and used as a weapon.

Ronald Reagan National Airport, which is a symbol of the Nation's
Capital and our transportation system, remained closed for nearly 3
weeks due to Federal order. After nearly 3 weeks of consideration of
ideas for safety and special precautions for Reagan National Airport,
last week President Bush very wisely announced a plan with a phased-in
approach so that flights at Ronald Reagan National Airport could start.
I was fortunate to be on the first flight out of Reagan since that
fateful day last Thursday.
For the first 3 weeks of the reopening of Reagan National Airport, it
is restricted to operating at 24-percent capacity. After that, in phase
2, it will be at 57-percent capacity for as long as 7 weeks. We still
have a lot of work to do. While our general aviation pilots are
fortunately back in the skies, there are still limitations on airspace
all around the country.
Airline carriers and manufacturers have laid off over 100,000
employees. Airport employees and workers for businesses located in and
around airport facilities are losing jobs by the thousands. Reagan
National Airport is again open for business, but many of its 10,200
employees are out of work since they are restricted to operating at
one-quarter capacity. Vendors, business owners, and concessionaires at
the airport have lost revenues and jobs because of this direct Federal
action. The shock waves are being felt throughout our economy--from
retail establishments to high-tech businesses.
Now that we have addressed some of the recovery and rebuilding
efforts, we are finally able to turn our attention to these hard-
working Americans who unfortunately have lost their jobs through no
fault of their own. Today,

[[Page 19595]]

on behalf of the President, I am introducing legislation to provide
that necessary assistance for the backbone of our economy--the free
people of the greatest and strongest nation on Earth.
The President's plan will provide health coverage, unemployment
benefits, and job training assistance to hard-working Americans who
have lost their jobs as a result of the economic downturn since the
September 11 attacks.
Specifically, it will extend unemployment benefits for up to 13 weeks
beyond what individual States cover. It will provide COBRA health
insurance premiums, which are substantially covered by the Federal
Government, for up to 10 months.
It will also more easily allow affected workers to avail themselves
of more than $6 billion in Federal programs that provide job search,
training, placement, and other services.
It makes $11 billion available to States to help low-income workers
and families who have lost their jobs to maintain health insurance
through either the S-CHIP or Medicaid Programs.
It will also provide $3 billion to States in the form of national
emergency grants that Governors can fashion to best address the needs
of their States to help workers maintain health care coverage,
supplement their income, and receive job training. Also, the Governors
can use it to compensate employees who have lost their jobs due to this
direct Federal intervention.
In addition, the White House, my office, and the Republican Senate
leadership offices, have been working through the night addressing some
of the specific concerns I have for Reagan National Airport. That is
why I will add an amendment to the President's package to address those
specific concerns, because although actions such as the Reagan National
shutdown are sometimes necessary for national security reasons, those
actions that will directly impact the ability of hard-working Americans
and business owners to make a living. We should respond in realization
that limited Federal benefits are little comfort to those thrown out of
work due to a Federal action.
That is why my supplemental amendment will also allow the Governors
of the States where major disasters have been declared to use their
national emergency grants to supplement the incomes of those unemployed
or underemployed because of direct Federal action, or for the lost
revenues of those businesses that were similarly affected. These are
not mandated, direct Federal grants but allowable uses under the
national emergency grant programs at the discretion of Governors.
Again, it makes sense. If the Federal Government has an action that
harms someone, whether it is their property or their livelihood, the
Federal Government ought to help them. It is indeed the same logic we
used in helping the airline industry.
The White House, of course, has seen the need to act. They understand
that direct Federal action is necessary. Unfortunately, it was
necessary to keep Reagan National closed for a while. The leadership at
the White House and the Senate Republicans have been very helpful in
analyzing this supplemental amendment, and I believe we can make it
work out in the end.
Most of all, I know all Americans have significant concerns about
jobs--jobs for people in all of our States. These job losses are not
unique to New York, or Virginia, where those terrorist attacks have the
greatest impact; the job losses are felt in every corner of our
country. We see smaller airports worrying about whether or not they are
going to have service.
Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this measure today for this
needed aid to help our hard-working citizens all over America recover
from the extended effects of this horrific disaster. In times like
this, I believe the entire Nation has a role to play in keeping
American businesses and entrepreneurs running, and especially in
keeping Americans at work.
Once again, I believe America will triumph over tyrants and we will
stand strong with our people; unwavering in the face of terrorism. We
will show that not only is America open for business but also that
America means business.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 1534. A bill to establish the Department of National Homeland
Security; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, Senator Specter and I are
introducing legislation to create a Department of National Homeland
Security. One month ago, America suffered devastating attacks at the
hands of terrorists with whom we are now at war. Our Nation has
struggled to adjust to the realization that our citizens are vulnerable
to hostile acts on the part of adversaries whose methods are as
fanatical as their goals. The legislation we are introducing is
intended to provide Americans with the assurance they need to return to
their daily routines without fear of further attack, and so confound
the terrorists, whose aim was to disrupt our lives and break our
spirit.
Shortly after the attacks, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
held a hearing to explore how government could better organize itself
to defend against such threats. Former Senators Gary Hart and Warren
Rudman, co-chairs of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st
Century, offered compelling testimony in favor of creating a homeland
security agency.
The legislation we are introducing today is based largely on the
Commission's recommendation. It will create a cabinet-level Department
of National Homeland Security. This Department would bring the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the Customs Service, the Border Patrol,
the Coast Guard, and certain offices responsible for critical
infrastructure protection under a single administrative umbrella.
The Department will be headed by a Secretary, who will be appointed
by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and who will be a
statutory member of the National Security Council. The Secretary will
be accountable to the Congress and the American people. Like other
cabinet members, the Secretary for Homeland Security would enjoy
executive control over personnel and programs, and have all-important
budget authority over his department's spending priorities. The
Secretary for Homeland Security would have the rank and power to ensure
that the security of our homeland remains high on our national agenda,
and that all necessary resources are made available toward that end.
The new Department would be organized into three functional
directorates that would be responsible for ``3 Ps": prevention,
protection, and preparation for response.
The Coast Guard, Customs Service, and Border Patrol would comprise
the ``prevention'' directorate, responsible for securing our borders
and making sure that potentially harmful persons or materials never
make it onto American soil. Each of these organizations is now on the
front line of our nation's efforts to prevent future acts of terrorism;
however, they are not working together as well as they should, a
problem exacerbated by the fact that homeland security is not among
their parent agencies' primary missions. They require additional
resources, but they also need to be under a single Secretary, who can
direct their efforts jointly to fulfill a shared homeland defense
mission.
The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office and the Information
Infrastructure Protection Institute, both of the Commerce Department,
and the National Infrastructure Protection Center, now located in the
FBI, would serve as the nucleus of the ``protection'' directorate, with
the difficult task of working to help safeguard our transportation
networks, power grids, water supply, cybersystems and other essential
systems from attacks or other threats. These offices share essentially
the same mission, and it makes sense that they are placed under a
single Department and Secretary, so that they operate in unison.
Finally, FEMA and the FBI's National Domestic Preparedness Office
would form the core of the ``preparation'' directorate, which would
conduct

[[Page 19596]]

the planning and mitigation measures necessary to prepare for disasters
as well as to operate the crisis and recovery response machinery when
emergencies do occur. Importantly, by building this directorate around
FEMA, we will ensure that much of the Homeland Defense Department's
organizational infrastructure will be focused towards working
effectively with State and local governments, which are clearly key
players in homeland defense.
In short, this legislation is meant to structure homeland defense in
a way that makes sense operationally, but also in terms of maximizing
funding priorities, interagency cooperation, and bureaucratic clout.
In proposing this legislation, we know well that there are other
ideas and proposals under consideration, and we look forward to working
with our House and Senate colleagues, as well as the President, to
arrive at what is best for the American people. The President has
appointed Governor Tom Ridge to head a the new Office of Homeland
Security in the White House, to coordinate strategy across the 40-plus
government agencies that now have important roles to play in the fight
against terrorism. This is clearly a critical function. I absolutely
agree that there must be better coordination across the agencies,
including intelligence and law-enforcement functions, which are central
to preventing acts of terror at home. My fear is that it is not enough
to improve coordination and cooperation across the existing array of
federal agencies and programs.
I am convinced that protecting our homeland requires nothing less
than the establishment of a robust, cabinet-level Department, and led
by a Secretary who has executive control over key agencies, full
authority over his organization's budget, the ability to deploy
personnel and resources, and the capacity to make and implement
decisions immediately.
I am proud to have Senator Specter as a principal cosponsor of this
legislation. I am pleased to note that similar legislation has been
offered in the House by Rep. Mac Thornberry, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, and
others, who deserve our thanks for drafting this legislation well
before the events of September 11, 2001. We look forward to working
with them and other interested Members of Congress, as well as the
Administration, to ensure that our government is effectively organized
to defend the American people at home.
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. 1534

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 ``Department of National
Homeland Security Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of National Homeland Security established under
this Act.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of National Homeland Security.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HOMELAND
SECURITY.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the Department of
National Homeland Security.
(b) Secretary of National Homeland Security.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of National Homeland
Security shall be the head of the Department. The Secretary
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate.
(2) Cabinet level position.--Section 5312 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Secretary of National Homeland Security.''.
(3) Membership on the national security council.--Section
101(a) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
402(a)) is amended in the fourth sentence by striking
paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) and inserting the following:
``(5) the Secretary of National Homeland Security; and
``(6) each Secretary or Under Secretary of such other
executive department, or of a military department, as the
President shall designate.''.
(c) Duties.--The duties of the Secretary shall be the
following:
(1) To plan, coordinate, and integrate those United States
Government activities relating to homeland security,
including border security and emergency preparedness, and to
act as a focal point regarding natural and manmade crises and
emergency planning.
(2) To work with State and local governments and executive
agencies in protecting United States homeland security, and
to support State officials through the use of regional
offices around the Nation.
(3) To provide overall planning guidance to executive
agencies regarding United States homeland security.
(4) To conduct exercise and training programs for employees
of the Department and establish effective command and control
procedures for the full range of potential contingencies
regarding United States homeland security, including
contingencies that require the substantial support of
military assets.
(5) To annually develop a Federal response plan for
homeland security and emergency preparedness.

SEC. 4. TRANSFER OF AUTHORITIES, FUNCTIONS, PERSONNEL, AND
ASSETS TO THE DEPARTMENT.

The authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the
following entities are transferred to the Department:
(1) The Federal Emergency Management Agency, the ten
regional offices of which shall be maintained and
strengthened by the Department.
(2) The United States Customs Service, which shall be
maintained as a distinct entity within the Department.
(3) The Border Patrol of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, which shall be maintained as a distinct entity
within the Department.
(4) The United States Coast Guard, which shall be
maintained as a distinct entity within the Department.
(5) The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office and the
Institute of Information Infrastructure Protection of the
Department of Commerce.
(6) The National Infrastructure Protection Center and the
National Domestic Preparedness Office of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF DIRECTORATES AND OFFICE.

(a) Establishment of Directorates.--The following staff
directorates are established within the Department:
(1) Directorate of prevention.--The Directorate of
Prevention, which shall be responsible for the following:
(A) Overseeing and coordinating all United States border
security activities.
(B) Developing border and maritime security policy for the
United States.
(C) Developing and implementing international standards for
enhanced security in transportation nodes.
(2) Directorate of critical infrastructure protection.--The
Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection, which
shall be responsible for the following:
(A) Acting as the Critical Information Technology,
Assurance, and Security Officer of the Department to
coordinate efforts to address the vulnerability of the United
States to electronic or physical attacks on critical
infrastructure of the United States, including utilities,
transportation nodes, and energy resources.
(B) Overseeing the protection of such infrastructure and
the physical assets and information networks that make up
such infrastructure.
(C) Ensuring the maintenance of a nucleus of cyber security
experts within the United States Government.
(D) Enhancing sharing of information regarding cyber
security and physical security of the United States, tracking
vulnerabilities and proposing improved risk management
policies, and delineating the roles of various government
agencies in preventing, defending, and recovering from
attacks.
(E) Coordinating with the Federal Communications Commission
in helping to establish cyber security policy, standards, and
enforcement mechanisms, and working closely with the Federal
Communications Commission on cyber security issues with
respect to international bodies.
(F) Coordinating the activities of Information Sharing and
Analysis Centers to share information on threats,
vulnerabilities, individual incidents, and privacy issues
regarding United States homeland security.
(G) Assuming the responsibilities carried out by the
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office before the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(H) Assuming the responsibilities carried out by the
National Infrastructure Protection Center before the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(I) Supporting and overseeing the management of the
Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection.
(3) Directorate for emergency preparedness and response.--
The Directorate for Emergency Preparedness and Response,
which shall be responsible for the following:
(A) Carrying out all emergency preparedness and response
activities carried out by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency before the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 19597]]

(B) Assuming the responsibilities carried out by the
National Domestic Preparedness Office before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(C) Organizing and training local entities to respond to
emergencies and providing State and local authorities with
equipment for detection, protection, and decontamination in
an emergency involving weapons of mass destruction.
(D) Overseeing Federal, State, and local emergency
preparedness training and exercise programs in keeping with
current intelligence estimates and providing a single staff
for Federal assistance for any emergency (including
emergencies caused by flood, earthquake, hurricane, disease,
or terrorist bomb).
(E) Creating a National Crisis Action Center to act as the
focal point for monitoring emergencies and for coordinating
Federal support for State and local governments and the
private sector in crises.
(F) Establishing training and equipment standards,
providing resource grants, and encouraging intelligence and
information sharing among the Department of Defense, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence
Agency, State emergency management officials, and local first
responders.
(G) Coordinating and integrating activities of the
Department of Defense, the National Guard, and other Federal
agencies into a Federal response plan.
(H) Coordinating activities among private sector entities,
including entities within the medical community, with respect
to recovery, consequence management, and planning for
continuity of services.
(I) Developing and managing a single response system for
national incidents in coordination with the Department of
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department
of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease
Control.
(J) Maintaining Federal asset databases and supporting up-
to-date State and local databases.
(b) Establishment of Office of Science and Technology.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Department an
Office of Science and Technology.
(2) Purpose.--The Office of Science and Technology shall
advise the Secretary regarding research and development
efforts and priorities for the directorates established in
subsection (a).

SEC. 6. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Biennial Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to
Congress on a biennial basis--
(1) a report assessing the resources and requirements of
executive agencies relating to border security and emergency
preparedness issues; and
(2) a report certifying the preparedness of the United
States to prevent, protect against, and respond to natural
disasters, cyber attacks, and incidents involving weapons of
mass destruction.
(b) Additional Report.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to Congress a report--
(1) assessing the progress of the Department in--
(A) implementing the provisions of this Act; and
(B) ensuring the core functions of each entity transferred
to the Department are maintained and strengthened; and
(2) recommending any conforming changes in law necessary as
a result of the enactment and implementation of this Act.

SEC. 7. COORDINATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.

The Secretary shall establish and maintain strong
mechanisms for the sharing of information and intelligence
with United States and international intelligence entities.

SEC. 8. PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, AND BUDGETING PROCESS.

The Secretary shall establish procedures to ensure that the
planning, programming, budgeting, and financial activities of
the Department comport with sound financial and fiscal
management principles. At a minimum, those procedures shall
provide for the planning, programming, and budgeting of
activities of the Department using funds that are available
for obligation for a limited number of years.

SEC. 9. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND HEALTH
REQUIREMENTS.

The Secretary shall--
(1) ensure that the Department complies with all applicable
environmental, safety, and health statutes and substantive
requirements; and
(2) develop procedures for meeting such requirements.

SEC. 10. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

(a) Continuing Effect of Legal Documents.--All orders,
determinations, rules, regulations, permits, agreements,
grants, contracts, certificates, licenses, registrations,
privileges, and other administrative actions--
(1) which have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to
become effective by the President, any Federal agency or
official thereof, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, in
the performance of functions which are transferred under this
Act, and
(2) which are in effect at the time this Act takes effect,
or were final before the effective date of this Act and are
to become effective on or after the effective date of this
Act,
shall continue in effect according to their terms until
modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in
accordance with law by the President, the Secretary of
National Homeland Security or other authorized official, a
court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
(b) Proceedings Not Affected.--The provisions of this Act
shall not affect any proceedings, including notices of
proposed rulemaking, or any application for any license,
permit, certificate, or financial assistance pending before
an agency at the time this Act takes effect, with respect to
functions transferred by this Act but such proceedings and
applications shall continue. Orders shall be issued in such
proceedings, appeals shall be taken therefrom, and payments
shall be made pursuant to such orders, as if this Act had not
been enacted, and orders issued in any such proceedings shall
continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or
revoked by a duly authorized official, by a court of
competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law. Nothing in
this subsection shall be deemed to prohibit the
discontinuance or modification of any such proceeding under
the same terms and conditions and to the same extent that
such proceeding could have been discontinued or modified if
this Act had not been enacted.
(c) Suits Not Affected.--The provisions of this Act shall
not affect suits commenced before the effective date of this
Act, and in all such suits, proceedings shall be had, appeals
taken, and judgments rendered in the same manner and with the
same effect as if this Act had not been enacted.
(d) Nonabatement of Actions.--No suit, action, or other
proceeding commenced by or against an agency, or by or
against any individual in the official capacity of such
individual as an officer of an agency, shall abate by reason
of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Administrative Actions Relating to Promulgation of
Regulations.--Any administrative action relating to the
preparation or promulgation of a regulation by an agency
relating to a function transferred under this Act may be
continued by the National Homeland Security with the same
effect as if this Act had not been enacted.
(f) References.--Any reference in any other Federal law,
Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of
authority, or any document of or pertaining to a department,
agency, or office from which a function is transferred by
this Act--
(1) to the head of such department, agency, or office is
deemed to refer to the Secretary of National Homeland
Security; or
(2) to such department, agency, or office is deemed to
refer to the Department of National Homeland Security.

SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Fitzgerald):
S. 1535. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
research on, and services for individuals with, postpartum depression
and psychosis; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Melanie
Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act with my colleague
from Illinois, Senator Fitzgerald. This legislation develops a
coordinated approach for understanding and treating the devastating
mental health disorder of postpartum depression.
This act is named for Chicago native Melanie Stokes, a successful
pharmaceutical sales manager and loving wife of Dr. Sam Stokes, who
gave birth on February 23, 2001 to her daughter, Sommer Skyy.
Unfortunately, with the birth of her daughter, Melanie entered into a
battle for her life with a devastating mood disorder known as
postpartum psychosis. Mrs. Stokes was in and out of hospitals three
times, each for a week to 10 days. She stopped eating and drinking and
refused to swallow pills. Her weight dropped rapidly. Despite medical
assistance and the support of her family and friends, Mrs. Stokes lost
her battle with postpartum psychosis. Melanie jumped to her death from
a 12-story window ledge on June 11, 2001. In addition to Melanie
Stokes, in my own home State of Illinois, three other women suffering
from postpartum depression or psychosis have committed suicide since
June 11.
These women were not alone. Studies indicate that 50 to 75 percent of
all new mothers undergo the ``baby blues,'' a feeling of let-down after
the emotional experience of childbirth. Serious postpartum depression
affects 10 to 20

[[Page 19598]]

percent of women who manifest symptoms including excessive worry or
exhaustion, sadness, feelings of guilt, apathy, phobias, sleep
problems, physical complaints and marked fear of criticism of mothering
skills. These symptoms may last from 3 to 14 months. The most severe
form of postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, is characterized
by hallucinations, hearing voices, paranoia, severe insomnia, extreme
anxiety and depression, and deluded thinking in addition to many of the
other symptoms of postpartum depression. Postpartum psychosis often
requires hospitalization. While this severe form occurs fairly
infrequently, affecting an estimated one in 1,000 new mothers, it may
have the most grievous consequences including attempts at self-harm,
suicide, or harm to others. Clearly postpartum depression is a
significant problem with major societal costs.
While postpartum depression is a widespread problem, there are
currently few research studies looking into its causes and there is
currently no standard treatment for women suffering from this disorder.
Given the lack of coordination amongst those interested in
understanding and treating such a widespread problem, science and
medicine have made few inroads into helping the many women and their
families carrying the burden of postpartum depression. This legislation
seeks to rectify this situation.
This bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
organize a series of national meetings, with the goal of developing a
research and treatment plan for postpartum depression and psychosis.
Further, this legislation encourages the Secretary to implement the
research and treatment plan in a timely fashion. The bill also creates
a new grants program, administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Administration, to provide women and their families with
treatment and services.
In Illinois alone there are at least 175,000 births a year. Even
using the conservative estimate that 10 percent of mothers will suffer
from postpartum depression, this suggests that over 17,000 women, in
the State of Illinois alone, and 400,000 women nationwide will
experience the devastating symptoms of this disorder each year.
Developing new treatments for this disorder should be a top priority.
I am pleased that Senator Fitzgerald has joined me in cosponsoring
this bill. In the House of Representatives, Representative Rush has
already introduced this legislation and it enjoys wide bipartisan
support with 90 cosponsors at this time.
In remembrance of Melanie Stokes and all the women who have suffered
from postpartum depression and psychosis, as well as their families and
friend who have stood by their side, I am introducing the Melanie
Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 1537. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
a hydrogeologic mapping, modeling and monitoring program for the High
Plains Aquifer and to establish the High Plains Aquifer Coordination
council to facilitate groundwater conservation in the High Plains; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 1538. A bill to further continued economic viability in the
communities on the High Plains by promoting sustainable groundwater
management of the Ogallala Aquifer; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two important
pieces of legislation that have great significance for New Mexico, but
also are crucial to the entire Great Plains region of our Nation. The
bills address the alarming decline in portions of the Ogallala Aquifer,
which extends under eight States: Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and South Dakota.
A reliable source of groundwater is esential to the well-being and
livelihoods of people in the great Plains region. Local towns and rural
areas are dependent on the use of groundwater for drinking water,
ranching, farming, and other commercial uses. Yet many areas overlying
the Ogallala Aquifer have experienced a dramatic depletion of this
groundwater resource. Some areas have seen a decline of over 100 feet
in aquifer levels during the last half of the twentieth century.
The first bill that I am introducing today, the ``High Plains Aquifer
Conservation, Monitoring, and Coordination Act,'' would direct the
Secretary of the Interior to develop and carry out a comprehensive
hydrogeologic mapping, modeling and monitoring program for the High
Plains Aquifer, which is comprised in large part by the Ogallala
Aquifer. The Secretary is directed to work in conjunction with the
eight High Plains Aquifer States in carrying out this program. The U.S.
Geological Survey and the States will work in cooperation to further
the goals of this program, with half of the available funds directed to
the States for their participation in the program.
The bill would also charge the Secretary of the Interior, working in
cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, with establishing a High
Plains Aquifer Coordination Council. This Council would coordinate
mapping, modeling, and monitoring efforts; facilitate coordination of
federal, state and local programs relating to the groundwater resources
of the High Plains Aquifer; facilitate coordination of programs and
policies among the High Plains Aquifer States; and provide
recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
Agriculture, and the Governors regarding programs and policies to
address the groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer. The
Council will be comprised of State and Federal representatives, as well
as individuals from irrigation production agriculture, nonagricultural
water users, the conservation community, and Indian Tribes.
Finally, the legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to
provide funding to each of the High Plains Aquifer States to further
groundwater education programs, working with land grant universities
and other educational institutions and cooperating entities.
The second bill that I am introducing today is the ``High Plains
Groundwater Resource Conservation Act.'' This bill would establish a
voluntary 10-year groundwater conservation incentives program for the
High Plains Aquifer region. Incentive payments would be made for
voluntary land management practices, which may include changes from
irrigated to dryland agriculture, changes in cropping patterns to
utilize water conserving crops, and other conservation measures that
result in quantifiable and significant savings in groundwater use.
Cost-share payments will be made for structural practices that will
conserve groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer, which may
include improvement of irrigation systems and purchase of new
equipment. Priority will be given to areas experiencing significant
aquifer level declines. In order to be eligible, producers must be in
an area covered by a groundwater conservation plan.
The legislation would also require the Secretary of Agriculture to
provide financial and technical assistance on a cost-share basis to
States, tribes, counties, conservation districts and other political
subdivisions. Upon approval by the Secretary, a State can carry out
these activities in lieu of the Secretary. The Secretary is also
required to set up a process to certify groundwater conservation plans.
In addition, the bill would enhance eligibility for participation in
the Conservation Reserve Program for lands drawing water from the High
Plains Aquifer.
These two bills bring focus to an issue that concerns the long-term
economic viability of communities in much of America's heartland. This
is farm country, and the cornerstone of its economy is its groundwater
supply, the Ogallala Aquifer, which allows for irrigated agriculture.
The Department of Agriculture estimates that there are

[[Page 19599]]

over six million acres of irrigated agriculture overlying just the
southern portion of the Ogallala. These farms use between six and nine
million acre feet of water per year. The problem we are confronting is
that the aquifer is not sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly,
This threatens the way of life of all who live on the High Plains.
These bills would take significant steps to address this serious
problem. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this
legislation.
______

By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Murray, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Corzine):
S. 1539. A bill to protect children from terrorism; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on this, the one month anniversary of
the horrifying terrorist attacks of September 11, I rise to introduce a
bill that I believe will provide protection from future terrorist
attacks for the most vulnerable members of our society: children.
In preparing for threats ahead, we must also examine what happened to
our children on September 11--we must consider the impact of the
attacks on children in New York and Virginia, and all of the affected
states and regions, as well as the impact on children throughout the
Nation. We must do all we can to support and assist these children in
their recovery, as well as protect children in the future who, God
forbid, may face similarly horrifying attacks.
People in New York, and around the country, are looking for
information and assurance that their children's needs are being taken
into account as we prepare for future terrorist threats.
Parents have been coming up to me in New York and asking important
questions about how to protect their children in the case of a threat.
And, students have been writing to me asking to protect them as we
move ahead into a more uncertain world. Sheryl De Los Santos, a student
at I.S. 383, a middle school in Brooklyn, writes:

During the tragic loss of the Twin Towers my reaction to
this loss was why? Why would someone do this to our country?
When I saw them come down, I totally lost it. I cried. I
cried even more when I heard how many people died. I feel
angry, hurt, sad, mad, scared and horrified all at the same
time. I even feel confused. I feel scared because if anything
else happened I would go crazy. I feel angry for what they
did because I have never been to the Twin Towers. I feel sad
and hurt because of so many lost lives. Though I am not
saying it is your fault because it is not. I am writing to
you to tell you that America's safety has been sleeping on
the job. Maybe you can have more security.

I think it's important that we provide parents and their children
with the assurance that we are working to protect them and we must
replace fear with facts.
As we consider potential terrorist threats, the threat of bioterrorsm
has felt all too real particularly as a criminal investigation goes on
in Florida on the three individuals who were exposed to anthrax.
My bill, Protecting Children Against Terrorism Act, will ensure that
as we take steps to prepare for the threat of bioterrorism, we take
into account children's health needs.
I am extremely concerned that we are not paying a sufficient amount
of attention to the unique needs of children in our efforts to plan and
prepare for future attacks.
Children have special needs relating to bioterrorism. First, they are
particularly susceptible to biological and chemical attacks. Some dense
nerve gas agents, like Sarin, concentrate lower to the ground, near the
breathing zone of children. Also, because children have more rapid
respiratory rates and larger surface to mass ratios, they anatomically
are more vulnerable to exposures.
And yet, the tools of our response to bioterrorism are less effective
for children's needs.
My legislation, the Protecting America's Children Against Terrorism
Act, would create a national task force comprised of: children health
experts on infectious disease, environmental health and toxicology;
members of esteemed organizations like the American Academy of
Pediatrics and the National Association of Children's Hospitals; and
representatives of relevant federal agencies.
These national children's health experts would look at our health
system to ensure that, as we're stepping up our response efforts, the
medicine and treatments fit the health needs of children.
For instance, as we're making sure we have antidotes to threatening
diseases, we need to ensure that these have been tested not just on
adults, but on children too.
As my colleagues, Senators Dodd, DeWine, Kennedy, and others with
whom I have worked closely on the pediatric testing issue know, many
pharmaceutical manufacturers have not tested, or properly dosed
antidotes, antibiotics, or other agents for use on children. My
legislation would insist that we do this testing.
And CDC ``push packs'' and other emergency response supply systems do
not take into account the special medical needs of children. I am
calling for CDC to revise their emergency response supply to take into
account the needs of kids.
My legislation would also ensure that the expert doctors and health
professionals, who would be on the frontlines in responding to an
attack, are trained and equipped to treat children too. These doctors
need to know whether a certain disease or chemical agent will affect a
child differently than an adult and which treatment is most effective
for children.
The final step is providing parents with information so that they can
rest assured that there are doctors and medicine that are specially
trained and developed to help their children.
We must also ensure that the place in which children spend much of
their days are protected, our schools. On September 11, New York's
teachers, school personnel and child care providers acted with great
bravery and skill as they safely evacuated school children from the
schools and child care centers in and around the World Trade Center. As
a result, no students were physically harmed during the attacks.
Are all schools prepared to safely evacuate students? Did New York do
it perfectly? The answers are, of course, ``no.''
Lisa Swovick, a mother from Rochester, wrote the following email to
me:

Having grown up during the Cold War, I remember practicing
drills in school should we become victims of a nuclear
attack. I also remember learning about the nearest shelter to
go to should the attack happen. It was the neighborhood
school and library. We were instructed to go there and there
would be food and shelter provided in an emergency. I would
like to know, if during the present time of much dialog of
possible biological terrorist attacks on America, if it would
be a good idea for these shelters to return. There are scary
thoughts to have, however, I had to deal with the thought of
a nuclear attack from Russia as a child. I only fear that we
won't be as prepared as we might have been in the 1960s for
the present-day dangers of our very uncertain world.

In my bill, I ask that the Secretary of Education develop
recommendations and models to help communities develop school
evacuation plans, safe places for children to go in case of an attack,
partnerships with the medical community to ensure that children get the
immediate care they need, and recommendations for notifying parents of
evacuation plans and information on how and where to find their child
or children in the wake of an attack.
As we prepare for threats ahead, we cannot forget the many, many
children who have already been severely affected by the terrorism of
September 11.
Children are especially susceptible to the terrible emotional and
mental anguish that terrorist attacks cause, whether they have a parent
who was called into military duty, lost a parent in the attack or
actually witnessed the violence themselves.
My legislation would help address this immense need by providing
grants to community groups, and schools to make sure that children's
mental health needs are met.
And we need to make sure that our disaster relief assistance is
tailored to

[[Page 19600]]

help children who have been orphaned or lost a parent in an attack. We
do not yet know the numbers of children who lost a parent in the
September 11 attacks, but some have speculated that it could be as high
as 10,000 children.
My legislation would create an office of children's services within
FEMA for helping children who lose a parent in a disaster by offering
them many different types of support, such as counseling and legal
services for adoption.
And, finally, I believe we must shore-up our social services
infrastructure.
In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, over 400 hotline
numbers were established in order to provide help and information for
families and victims of the terrorist attacks. These numbers were on
top of the thousands of existing non-profit organizations and Federal,
State and city governmental agencies that provide human and social
services to help children and families in crisis.
My legislation would also include funding to implement 2-1-1, a
universal hotline designed by the United Way and approved by the
Federal Communication Commission to be used to connect children and
families with the help they need.
I appreciate the support I have already received for this legislation
and I am proud to have co-sponsorships from: Senators Dodd, Murray,
Mikulski, Schumer, Bingaman, and Corzine. Today, I ask my colleagues to
consider the needs of children and co-sponsor my Protecting America's
Children Against Terrorism Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill on ``Protecting
Children Against Terrorism'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1539

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 ``Protecting America's
Children Against Terrorism Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

(a) Public Health Measures to Protect Against Terrorism.--
Part B of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 243 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
319G, the following:

``SEC. 319H. PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES TO PROTECT AGAINST
TERRORISM.

``(a) National Task Force on Children and Bioterrorism.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
National Task Force on Children and Bioterrorism (referred to
in this subsection as the `Task Force').
``(2) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of--
``(A) the Secretary and other officials of the Department
determined appropriate by the Secretary;
``(B) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency;
``(C) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
``(D) the Secretary of Education;
``(E) child health experts on infectious disease,
environmental health, and toxicology, who shall be appointed
by the Secretary;
``(F) representatives of national children's health
organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics
and the National Association of Children's Hospitals, who
shall be appointed by the Secretary; and
``(G) representatives of other relevant organizations
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
``(3) Recommendations.--Not later that 60 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Task Force shall make
recommendations to the Secretary concerning--
``(A) an assessment of the preparedness of the health care
system of the United States to respond to bioterrorism aimed
at children and youth, including the readiness of public
health institutions, providers of health care, and other
emergency service personnel to detect, diagnose and respond
to bioterrorist attacks affecting large numbers of children
and youth;
``(B) needed changes to the health care and emergency
medical services systems, including recommendations on
research, training of health personnel, and changes to the
National Pharmaceutical Stockpile Program to include the
medical needs of children; and
``(C) national, regional, and local health care and
emergency medical services protocols for dealing with mass
casualties of children and youth resulting from bioterrorism.
``(b) Children and Terrorism Information Network.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall establish a
Children and Terrorism Information Network to collect and
disseminate to health providers (including children's
hospitals and pediatric units of hospitals), community
centers (including poison control centers), and schools
(including school-based health clinics) up-to-date
information on how to prepare for a biological or chemical
terrorist attack and the steps that should be taken to ensure
that children get the health care they need in the event of
such an attack.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, $10,000,000
for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for
each subsequent fiscal year. Amounts appropriated under the
preceding sentence shall remain available to carry out this
section until expended.
``(c) National Pharmaceutical Stockpile Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall provide for
the inclusion of supplies, equipment, and instructions as are
appropriate for use with respect to children in push packs
and Vendor Management Inventories under the National
Pharmaceutical Stockpile Program.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, $50,000,000
for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for
each subsequent fiscal year. Amounts appropriated under the
preceding sentence shall remain available to carry out this
section until expended.
``(d) Securing our Social Services Infrastructure to
Support Children and Families.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants to
eligible entities to enable such entities to implement,
develop, expand or increase the capacity of 2-1-1 call
centers, or other universal hotlines, in order to connect the
public to all available information hotlines, or call
centers, developed in response to disaster and recovery
efforts, as well as to connect the public to existing social
services to provide needed help and support to children and
families in crisis.
``(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall--
``(A) be a non-profit organization working to implement,
develop, expand, or increase the capacity of 2-1-1 call
centers, or other universal hotlines in their State, region
or locality; and
``(B) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may require.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, $10,000,000
for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for
each subsequent fiscal year. Amounts appropriated under the
preceding sentence shall remain available to carry out this
section until expended.''.
(b) Pediatric Studies.--Part B of title IV of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating the second section 409C (relating to
clinical research) and the second section 409D (relating to
enhancement awards) as sections 409G and 409H, respectively;
and
(2) by inserting after section 409H (as so redesignated),
the following:

``SEC. 409I. PEDIATRIC STUDIES OF DRUGS AND BIOLOGICS,
INCLUDING VACCINES, USED TO PREVENT AND TREAT
ILLNESSES AND INJURY CAUSED BY BIOLOGICAL OR
CHEMICAL AGENTS USED IN WARFARE AND TERRORISM.

``(a) Publication of List.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this section, and annually thereafter,
the Secretary shall develop and maintain a secure and
confidential list of drugs and biologics, including vaccines,
that may be used to prevent and treat illnesses and injury
caused by biological or chemical agents used in acts of
warfare or terrorism and which require pediatric testing.
``(b) Testing Plan.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall develop a plan to--
``(1) provide for the timely pediatric testing and labeling
of the agents on the list developed under subsection (a) for
the year involved; and
``(2) coordinate such testing and labeling program with
activities conducted under existing laws and regulations
concerning pediatric testing of drugs and biologics.
``(c) Contracts.--The Secretary may award contracts to
entities that have the expertise to conduct pediatric
clinical trials (including qualified universities, hospitals,
laboratories, contract research organizations, federally
funded programs such as pediatric pharmacology research
units, other public or private institutions or, individuals)
to enable such entities to conduct pediatric studies
concerning drugs and biologics, including vaccines, that are
used to prevent and treat illnesses and injuries caused by
biological or chemical agents used in acts of warfare or
terrorism.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $20,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary

[[Page 19601]]

for each subsequent fiscal year. Amounts appropriated under
the preceding sentence shall remain available to carry out
this section until expended.''.
(c) Training.--Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 770(a), by inserting ``other than section
770A,'' after ``subpart,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 770A. TRAINING FOR PEDIATRIC ISSUES SURROUNDING
BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL AGENTS USED IN WARFARE
AND TERRORISM.

``(a) Grants.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of Health Resources and Services Administration, shall award
grants to eligible entities to enable such entities to--
``(1) provide for the education and training of clinicians
(including nurses) in the pediatric consequences, systems,
and treatment of biological and chemical agents; and
``(2) assist in the development and distribution of
accurate educational materials on the pediatric consequences,
symptoms and treatment of biological or chemical agents.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall--
``(1) be a children hospital, a pediatric unit of a
hospital, a professional organization, or any other entity
that the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
``(2) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may require.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $50,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each
subsequent fiscal year. Amounts appropriated under the
preceding sentence shall remain available to carry out this
section until expended.''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
ACT OF 1965.

Subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7131 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 4124. SCHOOL EVACUATIONS, SAFE PLACES AND PARENTAL
NOTIFICATIONS.

``(a) Recommendations and Models.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary
shall develop recommendations and models to assist
communities in developing--
``(1) school evacuation plans;
``(2) safe places for children to go in case of an attack
on a school or individuals in the school;
``(3) partnerships with the medical community to ensure
that children get the immediate care they need in the event
of such an attack; and
``(4) procedures for notifying parents of evacuation plans
and providing information on how and where to find their
child or children in the event of such an attack.
``(b) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
recommendations and models developed under subsection (a) are
disseminated to local school districts throughout the United
States, and, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, to the health provider and public health
communities.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $1,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each
subsequent fiscal year. Amounts appropriated under the
preceding sentence shall remain available to carry out this
section until expended.

``SEC. 4125. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR
CAREGIVERS.

``(a) Grants.--The Secretary, jointly with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, shall award grants to eligible
entities to enable such entities to develop and implement a
plan for the provision of comprehensive mental health
services for children, school faculty, and child care
providers who are affected by terrorist attacks, times of
war, or other major crisis.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall--
``(1) be a local educational agency, a community-based
organization, a community mental health organization, a
professional organization, or a partnerships of such
entities; and
``(2) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may require.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $20,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each
subsequent fiscal year. Amounts appropriated under the
preceding sentence shall remain available to carry out this
section until expended.''.

SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO THE ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF
AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT.

Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq.) is amended
by inserting after section 410, the following:

``SEC. 411. CHILDREN'S ASSISTANCE.

``(a) Children's Coordinating Officer.--Upon a
determination by the President that children have lost their
custodial parent or parents in an area declared a disaster
area by the President under this Act, the President shall
appoint an individual to serve as a Children's Coordinating
Officer for the area. Such Officer shall provide necessary
support and assistance for such children to ensure their
immediate care and transition to a permanent and loving
family.
``(b) Functions.--A Children's Coordinating Officer
appointed under subsection (a) shall partner with relevant
Federal, State and local governmental agencies, and
coordinate all efforts by community-based organizations,
foundations, funds, or other organizations, to direct and
coordinate the provision of assistance to children described
in subsection (a).
``(c) Services.--A Children's Coordinating Officer
appointed under subsection (a) shall ensure that children and
their caregivers are provided with--
``(1) immediate temporary care services;
``(2) counseling on long-term permanency planning;
``(3) legal services for guardianships and adoptions;
``(4) information on available services and assistance for
the victims of the disaster; and
``(5) mental health services.''.
______

By Mr. FITZGERALD:
S. 1540. A bill to extend and improve the emergency food assistance
program; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to help food banks, soup kitchens, and other emergency feeding
organizations meet the needs of our hungry citizens.
According to the most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture
estimates, 10.1 percent of U.S. households, 31 million Americans are
considered food insecure. Under current law, the Emergency Food
Assistance Program, TEFAP, purchases agricultural commodities for use
by food banks and soup kitchens. Needy American citizens rely on this
program to get them over the hump when they lose their jobs or fall on
unexpected hard times. Yet, a recent report of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors concluded that 13 percent of these families who requested
emergency food assistance were turned away due to a lack of food
resources.
The bill I introduce today simply increases funding for TEFAP by $40
million, a 40 percent increase. As well, the bill allows $10 million of
this new funding to be used for state and local food processing,
distribution, transportation, and storage costs. This $10 million
enhances the $45 million already appropriated annually for these costs.
Additionally, this bill has secondary benefits to our rural
communities. TEFAP provides a boost to the agriculture economy by
purchasing surplus commodities from the market.
I commend Congressman Goodlatte of Virginia for championing a similar
bill on the House side. I look forward to working closely with my
colleagues on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry to ensure that this legislation is included in the Nutrition
Title of the Farm Bill.
The legislation is supported by America's Second Harvest and food
banks and soup kitchens throughout the nation. This bill entitled the
``Emergency Food Assistance Program Enhancement Act'' should enjoy
bipartisan support, and I encourage my colleagues to co-sponsor this
piece of legislation.
______

By Mr. ENZI:
S. 1542. A bill to foster innovation and technological advancement in
the development of the Internet and electronic commerce, and to assist
the States in simplifying their sales and use taxes; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Internet Tax
Moratorium and Equity Act. I encourage each of my colleagues to join me
as a cosponsor of this bill. With the extension of the current
moratorium of the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 expiring soon on
October 21, 2001, there are several bills that are currently being
discussed in the Senate in order to address this issue. I had to take a
look at the Internet sales tax issue for people who might be using
legislative vehicles to develop huge loopholes in our current system.
We are federally mandating States into a sales tax exemption. We

[[Page 19602]]

need to preserve the system for those cities, towns, counties, and
States that rely on the ability to collect the sales tax they are
currently getting. I believe that the current moratorium on Internet
access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on the Internet
should not be extended without addressing the larger issue of sales and
use tax collection on electronic commerce.
There are some critical issues here that have to be solved to keep
the stability of State and local government, just the stability of it,
not to increase sales tax, just protect what is there right now. I
believe the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act is a monumental step
forward in protecting, yet enhancing, the current system.
Certainly, no Senator wants to take steps that will unreasonably
burden the development and growth of the Internet. At the same time, we
must also be sensitive to issues of basic competitive fairness and the
negative effect our action or inaction can have on brick-and-mortar
retailers, a critical economic sector and employment force in all
American society, especially in rural States like Wyoming. In addition,
we must consider the legitimate need of State and local governments to
have the flexibility they need to generate resources to adequately fund
their programs and operations.
As the only accountant in the Senate, I have a unique perspective on
the dozens of tax proposals that are introduced in Congress each year.
In addition, my service on the State and local levels and my
experiences as a small business owner enable me to consider these bills
from more than one viewpoint.
I understand the importance of protecting and promoting the growth of
Internet commerce because of its potential economic benefits. It is a
valuable resource because it provides access on demand. In addition, it
is estimated that the growth of online businesses will create millions
of new jobs nationwide in the coming years. Therefore, I do not support
a tax on the use of Internet itself.
I do, however, have concerns about using the Internet as a sales tax
loophole. Sales taxes go directly to State and local governments and I
am very leery of any Federal legislation that bypasses their
traditional ability to raise revenue to perform needed services such as
school funding, road repair and law enforcement. I will not force
States into a huge new exemption. While those who advocate a permanent
loophole on the collection of a sales tax over the Internet claim to
represent the principles of tax reduction, they are actually advocating
a tax increase. Simply put, if Congress continues to allow sales over
the Internet to go untaxed and electronic commerce continues to grow as
predicted, revenues to State and local governments will fall and
property taxes will have to be increased to offset lost revenue or
States who do not have or believe in State income taxes will be forced
to start one.
Furthermore, State and local revenues and budgets are especially
critical now as these governments are responding to protect the
security of all of our citizens and businesses. Any action to extend
the current moratorium without creating a level playing field would
perpetuate a fundamental inequity and ignore a growing problem that
will gravely affect the readiness of the nation.
After months of hard work, negotiations, and compromise, the Internet
Tax Moratorium and Equity Act has been introduced. I would like to
commend several of my colleagues for their commitment to finding a
solution and working with all parties to find that solution. I know
this bill is the solution. The bill makes permanent the existing
moratorium on Internet access taxes, but extends the current moratorium
on multiple and discriminatory taxes for an additional four years
through December 31, 2005.
Throughout the past several years, we have heard that catalog and
Internet companies say they are willing to allow and collect sales tax
on interstate sales, regardless of traditional or Internet sales, if
States will simplify collections to one rate per State sent to one
location in that State. I think that is a reasonable request. I have
heard the argument that computers make it possible to handle several
thousand tax entities, but from an auditing standpoint as well as
simplicity for small business, I support one rate per State. I think
the States should have some responsibility for redistribution not a
business forced to do work for government. Therefore, the bill would
put Congress on record as urging States and localities to develop a
streamlined sales and use tax system, which would include a single,
blended tax rate with which all remote sellers can comply. You need to
be aware that States are prohibited from gaining benefit from the
authority extended in the bill to require sellers to collect and remit
sales and use taxes on remote sales if the States have not adopted the
simplified sales and use tax system.
Further, the bill would authorize States to enter into an Interstate
Sales and Use Tax Compact through which members would adopt the
streamlined sales and use tax system. Congressional authority and
consent to enter into such a compact would expire if it has not
occurred by January 1, 2006. The bill also authorizes States to require
all other sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote
sales unless Congress has acted to disapprove the compact by law within
a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it.
The bill also calls for a sense of the Congress that before the end
of the 107th Congress, legislation should be enacted to determine the
appropriate factors to be considered in establishing whether nexus
exists for State business activity tax purposes.
I am introducing this bill today because I do not think there is
adequate protection now. It is very important we do not build
electronic loopholes on the Internet, an ever-changing Internet, one
that is growing by leaps and bounds, one that is finding new technology
virtually every day.
I recognize this body has a constitutional responsibility to regulate
interstate commerce. Furthermore, I understand the desire of several
senators to protect and promote the growth of Internet commerce.
Internet commerce is an exciting field. It has a lot of growth
potential. The new business will continue to create millions of new
jobs in the coming years.
The exciting thing about that for Wyomingites is that our merchants
do not have to go where the people are. For people in my State, that
means their products are no longer confined to a local market. They do
not have to rely on expensive catalogs to sell merchandise to the big
city folks. They do not have to travel all the way to Asia to display
their goods. The customer can come to us on the Internet. It is a
remarkable development, and it will push more growth for small
manufacturers in rural America, especially in my State. We have seen
some of the economic potential in the Internet and will continue this
progress. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on
demand. It brings information to your fingertips when you want it and
how you want it.
I am very concerned, however, with any piece of legislation that
mandates or restricts State and local governments' ability to meet the
needs of its citizens. This has the potential to provide electronic
loopholes that will take away all of their revenue. The Internet Tax
Moratorium and Equity Act would designate a level playing field for all
involved--business, government, and the consumer.
The States, and not the Federal Government, should have the right to
impose, or not to impose, consumption taxes as they see fit. The
reality is that emergency response personnel, law enforcement
officials, and other essential services are funded largely by States
and local governments, especially through sales taxes. Passing an
extension of the current moratorium without taking steps toward a
comprehensive solution would leave many States and local communities
unable to fund their services. I urge my colleagues to support it.
______

By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Lott, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr.
Allen):

[[Page 19603]]

S.J. Res. 25. A joint resolution designating September 11 as
``National Day of Remembrance''; considered and passed.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the joint resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 25

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Day of Remembrance
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL DAY OF REMEMBRANCE.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 171--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING
THE PROVISION OF FUNDING FOR BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Breaux, Mr.
Warner, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bond, Mr. Cleland,
Mr. Burns, Mr. Reed, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Thompson, Mr.
Santorum, Mr. Allard, Ms. Collins, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Domenici)
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

S. Res. 171

Whereas additional steps must be taken to better prepare
the United States to respond to potential bioterrorism
attacks;
Whereas the threat of a bioterrorist attack is still
remote, but is increasing for a variety of reasons,
including--
(1) public pronouncements by Osama bin Laden that it is his
religious duty to acquire weapons of mass destruction,
including chemical and biological weapons;
(2) the callous disregard for innocent human life as
demonstrated by the terrorists' attacks of September 11,
2001;
(3) the resources and motivation of known terrorists and
their sponsors and supporters to use biological warfare;
(4) recent scientific and technological advances in agent
delivery technology such as aerosolization that have made
weaponization of certain germs much easier; and
(5) the increasing access to the technologies and expertise
necessary to construct and deploy chemical and biological
weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas coordination of Federal, State, and local terrorism
research, preparedness, and response programs must be
improved;
Whereas States, local areas, and public health officials
must have enhanced resources and expertise in order to
respond to a potential bioterrorist attack;
Whereas national, State, and local communication capacities
must be enhanced to combat the spread of chemical and
biological illness;
Whereas greater resources must be provided to increase the
capacity of hospitals and local health care workers to
respond to public health threats;
Whereas health care professionals must be better trained to
recognize, diagnose, and treat illnesses arising from
biochemical attacks;
Whereas additional supplies may be essential to increase
the readiness of the United States to respond to a bio-
attack;
Whereas improvements must be made in assuring the safety of
the food supply;
Whereas new vaccines and treatments are needed to assure
that we have an adequate response to a biochemical attack;
Whereas government research, preparedness, and response
programs need to utilize private sector expertise and
resources; and
Whereas now is the time to strengthen our public health
system and ensure that the United States is adequately
prepared to respond to potential bioterrorist attacks,
natural infectious disease outbreaks, and other challenges
and potential threats to the public health: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the
United States should make a substantial new investment this
year toward the following:
(1) Improving State and local preparedness capabilities by
upgrading State and local surveillance epidemiology,
assisting in the development of response plans, assuring
adequate staffing and training of health professionals to
diagnose and care for victims of bioterrorism, extending the
electronics communications networks and training personnel,
and improving public health laboratories.
(2) Improving hospital response capabilities by assisting
hospitals in developing plans for a bioterrorist attack and
improving the surge capacity of hospitals.
(3) Upgrading the bioterrorism capabilities of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention through improving rapid
identification and health early warning systems.
(4) Improving disaster response medical systems, such as
the National Disaster Medical System and the Metropolitan
Medical Response System and Epidemic Intelligence Service.
(5) Targeting research to assist with the development of
appropriate therapeutics and vaccines for likely bioterrorist
agents and assisting with expedited drug and device review
through the Food and Drug Administration.
(6) Improving the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile program
by increasing the amount of necessary therapies (including
smallpox vaccines and other post-exposure vaccines) and
ensuring the appropriate deployment of stockpiles.
(7) Targeting activities to increase food safety at the
Food and Drug Administration.
(8) Increasing international cooperation to secure
dangerous biological agents, increase surveillance, and
retrain biological warfare specialists.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution on
behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, and 23 of our colleagues that will
put the Senate on record in strong support of substantial new
investment toward strengthening our Nation's preparedness to respond to
any potential bioterrorist threat.
Last year, Congress passed the bipartisan Frist-Kennedy Public Health
Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000. That law provides a coherent
framework for responding to health threats resulting from bioterrorism.
It authorizes a series of important initiatives to strengthen the
nation's public health system; to improve hospital response
capabilities; to upgrade the Centers for Disease Control's rapid
identification and early warning systems; to assure adequate staffing
and training of health professionals to diagnose and care for victims
of bioterrorism; to enhance our research and development capabilities;
to expand our reserve of vaccines and antibiotics; and to pursue
additional measures necessary to prevent, prepare, and respond to the
threat of biological or chemical attacks. The framework exists, so now
it is time to fund these critical initiatives.
The threat of a bioterrorist attack is remote, so we must not
overreact or give into irrational fears. But remote as the threat may
be, it is real. For a variety of reasons, the threat is higher today
than it was one month ago, and it is growing. Osama bin Laden has said
it is his religious duty to acquire weapons of mass destruction,
including chemical and biological weapons. He and his followers have
shown an utter disregard for human life. They, and other known
terrorists, have the resources and motivation to acquire and use germ
warfare. Recent advances in agent delivery technology, such as
aerosolization, have made weaponiza- tion of germs easier. Finally,
with the fall of the Soviet Union, the expertise of thousands of
scientists knowledgeable in germ warfare may be available to the
highest bidder.
We have made important strides during the past few years in preparing
our Nation to meet this threat. There is much to be proud of in our
response to the attacks of September 11, as well as the response to the
recent anthrax outbreaks in Florida. But additional steps

[[Page 19604]]

are needed, and they are needed now. To better prepare our Nation, the
Administration, local and State officials, public health departments,
and our front line medical response teams must have additional
resources and support. I believe the best way to accomplish this is to
provide additional funds toward the priorities outlined in the Public
Health Threats and Emergencies Act and to better arm America to fight
against bioterrorism.
Senator Kennedy and I, and our colleagues, look forward to working
with the Administration and those who serve on the Appropriations
Committees to provide the funds necessary to fill the gaps in our
current biodefense and surveillance systems and to take additional
steps to prevent the use of bioweapons and fully prepare our
communities to respond. So that the Senate is strongly on record in
favor of these efforts, I look forward to working with all of my
colleagues to have this Sense of the Senate Resolution considered on an
appropriate vehicle in the very near future.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I join my distinguished colleague,
Senator Bill Frist, and many other colleagues in the Senate to
introduce a resolution stating our strong support for strengthening
America's defenses against bioterrorism.
As our forces continue their actions over Afghanistan, we can expect
that our enemies will try to strike against our country again. We must
close the gaps in our ability to deal with the possibility of
bioterrorism on American soil. Just as we support our armed forces
overseas, we should support our front line defenses against
bioterrorism--our public health and medical professionals.
We want to reassure all Americans that much has already been done to
assure their safety from such an attack, and to minimize the spread of
biological agents if an attack does occur. The kind of heroism we
witnessed from average Americans on September 11 with Americans caring
for and protecting their fellow citizens would take place once again in
responding to a bioterrorist threat.
But every day we delay in expanding our capabilities exposes innocent
Americans to needless danger. We cannot afford to wait.
Our first priority must be to prevent an attack from ever occurring.
That means moving quickly to enhance our intelligence capacity and our
ability to infiltrate terrorist cells, wherever they may exist. It also
means using the renewed partnership between the United States and
Russia to make sure that dangerous biological agents do not fall into
the hands of terrorists. We've worked with Russia to prevent the spread
of nuclear weapons, and we must work together now to prevent the spread
of biological weapons.
We must also enhance America's preparedness for a bioterrorist
attack. Our citizens need not live their lives in fear of a biological
attack, but building strong defenses is the right thing to do.
Unlike the assaults on New York and Washington, a biological attack
would not be accompanied by explosions and police sirens. In the days
that followed, victims of the attack would visit their family doctor or
the local emergency room, complaining of fevers, aches in the joints or
perhaps a sore throat. The actions taken in those first few days will
do much to determine how severe the consequences of the attack will be.
The keys to responding effectively to a bioterrorist attack lie in
three key concepts: immediate detection, immediate treatment and
immediate containment.
To improve detection, we should improve the training of doctors to
recognize the symptoms of a bioterrorist attack, so that precious hours
will not be lost as doctors try to diagnose their patients. As we've
seen in recent days, patients with anthrax and other rarely encountered
diseases are often initially diagnosed incorrectly. In addition, public
health laboratories need the training, the equipment and the personnel
to identify biological weapons as quickly as possible.
In Boston, a recently installed electronic communication system will
enable physicians to report unusual symptoms rapidly to local health
officials, so that an attack could be identified quickly. Too often,
however, as a CDC report has stated: ``Global travel and commerce can
move microbes around the world at jet speed, yet our public health
surveillance systems still rely on a `Pony Express' system of paper-
based reporting and telephone calls.''
To improve the treatment of victims of a bioterrorist attack, we must
strengthen our hospitals and emergency medical plans. Boston, New York
and a few other communities have plans to convert National Guard
armories and other public buildings into temporary medical facilities,
and other communities need to be well prepared too. Even cities with
extensive plans need more resources to ensure that those plans will be
effective when they are needed.
To improve containment, we must make certain that federal supplies of
vaccines and antibiotics are available quickly to assist local public
health officials in preventing the disease from spreading.
Developing new medical resources for the future is also essential.
Scientists recently reported that they had determined the complete DNA
sequence of the microbe that causes plague. This breakthrough may allow
new treatments and vaccines to be developed against this ancient
disease scourge. We should use the remarkable skills of our
universities and biotechnology companies to give us new and better
treatments in the battle against bioterrorism.
September 11 was a turning point in America's history. Our challenge
now is to do everything we can to learn from that tragic day, and
prepare effectively for the future.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

SA 1861. Mr. BREAUX proposed an amendment to the bill S.
1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes.
SA 1862. Mr. TORRICELLI submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 1855 submitted by Mr. Daschle and
intended to be proposed to the bill (S. 1447) supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1863. Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Grassley)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1864. Mr. MURKOWSKI submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 1447, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1865. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Inouye) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1866. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Rockefeller) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1867. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Rockefeller) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1868. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Rockefeller) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1869. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the bill S. 1447, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1870. Mr. DOMENICI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1447, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1871. Mr. JEFFORDS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1447, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1872. Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Durbin)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1447, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1873. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Kohl) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1874. Mr. SMITH, of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr.
Murkowski, Mr. Burns, Mr. Thurmond, and Mr. Crapo) proposed
an amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1875. Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. DeWine,
and Mrs. Boxer) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1447,
supra.
SA 1876. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Domenici) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1877. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Cleland) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1878. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Thompson) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1879. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Lieberman (for himself and Mr.
Durbin)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.

[[Page 19605]]

SA 1880. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mrs. Murray (for himself, Mr.
Byrd, and Mr. Shelby)) proposed an amendment to the bill S.
1447, supra.
SA 1881. Mr. McCAIN proposed an amendment to the bill S.
1447, supra.
SA 1882. Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1447, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1883. Mr. SCHUMER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1447, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1884. Mr. KERRY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1447, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1885. Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Inhofe) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
1447, supra ; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1886. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Enzi (for himself and Mr.
Dorgan)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1887. Mr. McCAIN (for Mrs. Hutchison) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1888. Mr. McCAIN (for Mrs. Hutchison) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1889. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Inhofe) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1890. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Inhofe) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by Mr. McCain to the bill S. 1447,
supra.
SA 1891. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Feingold) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1892. Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. McCain) proposed
an amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1893. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Inhofe) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1894. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Leahy) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1895. Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. McCain) proposed
an amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1896. Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, supra.
SA 1897. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Jeffords) proposed an
amendment to amendment SA 1858 submitted by Mr. Hollings and
intended to be proposed to the bill (S. 1447) supra.
SA 1898. Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. Warner) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
1532, to provide for the payment of emergency extended
unemployment compensation; which was referred to the
Committee on Finance.
SA 1899. Mr. FEINGOLD proposed an amendment to the bill S.
1510, to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States
and around the world, to enhance law enforcement
investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
SA 1900. Mr. FEINGOLD proposed an amendment to the bill S.
1510, supra.
SA 1901. Mr. FEINGOLD proposed an amendment to the bill S.
1510, supra.

____________________

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

SA 1861. Mr. BREAUX proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1447, to
improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . LESS-THAN-LETHAL WEAPONRY FOR FLIGHT DECK CREWS.

(a) National Institute of Justice Study.--The National
Institute of Justice shall assess the range of less-than-
lethal weaponry available for use by a flight deck crewmember
temporarily to incapacitate an individual who presents a
clear and present danger to the safety of the aircraft, its
passengers, or individuals on the ground and report its
findings and recommendations to the Secretary of
Transportation within 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.
Section 44903 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Authority To Arm Flight Deck Crew With Less-Than-
Lethal Weapons.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary, after receiving the
recommendations of the National Institute of Justice,
determines, with the approval of the Attorney General and the
Secretary of State, that it is appropriate and necessary and
would effectively serve the public interest in avoiding air
piracy, the Secretary may authorize members of the flight
deck crew on any aircraft providing air transportation or
intrastate air transportation to carry a less-than-lethal
weapon while the aircraft is engaged in providing such
transportation.
``(2) Usage.--If the Secretary grants authority under
paragraph (1) for flight deck crew members to carry a less-
than-lethal weapon while engaged in providing air
transportation or intrastate air transportation, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) prescribe rules requiring that any such crew member
to trained in the proper use of the weapon; and
``(B) prescribe guidelines setting forth the circumstances
under which such weapons may be used.''.
____

SA 1862. Mr. TORRICELLI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 1855 submitted by Mr. Daschle and intended to
be proposed to the bill (S. 1447) to improve aviation security, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 2, line 20 of the amendment, insert ``employment
that involves the provision of transportation to or from an
airport,'' after ``an airport,''.
____

SA 1863. Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Grassley) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1447, to
improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . AGE AND OTHER LIMITATIONS.

(a) General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
beginning on the date that is 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act--
(1) section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, shall not apply;
(2) no certificate holder may use the services of any
person as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under
part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, if that
person is 63 years of age or older; and
(3) no person may serve as a pilot on an airplane engaged
in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, if that person is 63 years of age or older.
(b) Certificate Holder.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``certificate holder'' means a holder of a certificate
to operate as an air carrier or commercial operator issued by
the Federal Aviation Administration.
(c) Reseervation of Safety Authority.--Nothing in this
section is intended to change the authority of the Federal
Aviation Administration to take steps to ensure the safety of
air transportation operations involving a pilot who has
reached the age of 60, including its authority--
(1) to require such a pilot to under go additional or more
stringent medical, cognitive, or proficiency testing in order
to retain certification; or
(2) to establish crew pairing standards for crews with such
a pilot.
____

SA 1864. Mr. MURKOWSKI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. __. POSSESSION OF HANDGUNS AND OTHER WEAPONS BY COCKPIT
CREW OF COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 449 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end of subchapter I the
following new section:

``Sec. 44917. Aircraft cockpit protection

``(a) Firearms.--A pilot, co-pilot, or navigator of a
commercial aircraft may carry a handgun aboard the aircraft
if the pilot, co-pilot, or navigator, respectively, has
passed the background investigation required under subsection
(b) and has been trained and certified under subsection (c).
``(b) Background Investigations.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall, in consultation with other appropriate
Federal agencies, prescribe standards for training and
conducting background investigations of pilots, co-pilots,
and navigators of aircraft to ensure they are qualified and
adequately prepared to use a handgun or other weapon they are
authorized to carry aboard a commercial aircraft.
``(c) Training.--
``(1) Initial training.--Before carrying a handgun or other
weapon aboard a commercial aircraft, the pilot, co-pilot, or
navigator of the aircraft shall complete a weapons training
program approved by the Secretary of Transportation and be
certified as having successfully completed the program.
``(2) Refresher training.--To ensure continued proficiency
in the weapons-related skills on which trained in a program
approved under paragraph (1), a pilot, co-pilot, or navigator
shall annually complete refresher training in such skills at
a training facility designated by the Secretary and be
certified as having completed the refresher training.
``(3) Particular weapons training.--To be approved under
paragraph (1), a program shall include training in the use
and maintenance of each particular weapon authorized to be
carried aboard an aircraft under this section. The
certification of completion of training shall include a
statement certifying the completion of training on each such
weapon.
``(4) Instructors and facilities.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall require that, to the maximum extent
practicable, the training under this section be provided by
instructors approved by the Secretary in facilities
throughout the United States that are

[[Page 19606]]

designated by the Secretary for the purposes of this section.
``(d) Deputation of pilots.--
``(1) In general.--For any action taken by a pilot, co-
pilot, or navigator of a commercial aircraft in the
protection of the security of the cockpit of the aircraft,
the pilot, co-pilot, or navigator, as the case may be, shall
be treated as having taken that action as a law enforcement
officer of the United States.
``(2) Applicability only to trained crew members.--
Paragraph (1) applies only to a pilot, co-pilot, or navigator
of an aircraft who has been trained and certified under
subsection (c).
``(e) Consultation Requirement.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the heads of other
departments and agencies of the United States in prescribing
standards under subsection (b) and carrying out the
Secretary's responsibilities under subsection (c). The
Secretary shall determine which officials are appropriate for
consultation under this subsection.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 44915 the following new item:

``44917. Aircraft cockpit protection.''.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions of section 44916 of title 19, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a).
____

SA 1865. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Inouye) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as
follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . MAIL AND FREIGHT WAIVERS.

During a national emergency affecting air transportation or
intrastate air transportation, the Secretary of
Transportation, the Secretary of Transportation, after
consultation with the Aviation Security Coordination Council,
may grant a complete or partial waiver of any restrictions on
the carriage by aircraft of freight, mail, emergency medical
supplies, personnel, or patients on aircraft, imposed by the
Department of Transportation (or other Federal agency or
department) that would permit such carriage of freight, mail,
emergency medical supplies, personnel, or patients on
flights, to, from, or within States with extraordinary air
transportation needs or concerns if the Secretary determines
that the waiver is in the public interest, taking into
consideration the isolation of and dependence on air
transportation of such States. the Secretary may impose
reasonable limitations on any such waivers.
____

SA 1866. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Rockefeller) proposed an amendment to
the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes;
as follows:

SA 1867. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Rockefeller) proposed an amendment to
the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes;
as follows:

On page 17, line 23, insert ``AND PROPERTY'' after
''PASSENGER''.
On page 18, line 5, after ``mail,'' insert ``cargo, carry-
on and checked baggage and other articles,''.
____

SA 1868. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Rockefeller) proposed an amendment to
the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes;
as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . SAFETY AND SECURITY OF ON-BOARD SUPPLIES.

(a) In General.-- The Secretary of Transportation shall
establish procedures to ensure the safety and integrity of
all supplies, including catering and passenger amenities,
placed aboard aircraft providing passenger air transportation
or intrastate air transportation.
(b) Measures.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary may require--
(1) security procedures for suppliers and their facilities;
(2) the sealing of supplies to ensure easy visual detection
of tampering; and
(3) the screening of personnel, vehicles, and supplies
entering secured areas of the airport or used in servicing
aircraft.
____

SA 1869. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Section 48114(b) of title 49, United States Code, as added
by section 20 of the bill, is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Amount of Fee.--Air carriers shall remit $2.50 for
each passenger enplanement. The Secretary may authorize air
carriers to collect and remit up to $5.00 for each passenger
enplanement to offset the costs of providing aviation
security services, including providing air marshals.''.
____

SA 1870. Mr. DOMENICI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

SA 1871. Mr. JEFFORDS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 1447, to improve

[[Page 19607]]

aviation security, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. AVAILABILITY OF PASSENGER FACILITY FEES AND AIRPORT
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDS FOR SECURITY COSTS
AND OTHER COSTS.

(a) Availability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any public agency that controls a commercial service
airport may, during the one-year period beginning on the date
of the enactment of this Act, use amounts referred to in
subsection (b) as follows:
(1) For costs in connection with security at the airport.
(2) For the service of outstanding debt obligations of the
public agency with respect to the airport.
(b) Covered Amounts.--The amounts referred to in this
subsection for a public agency are as follows:
(1) Amounts collected by the public agency as passenger
facility fees under section 40117 of title 49, United States
Code.
(2) Amounts available to the public agency from the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund.
____

SA 1872. Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, and Mr. Durbin) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1447, to
improve aviation security, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of the bill, insert the following:

TITLE __--DEPLOYMENT AND USE OF SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES

Subtitle A--Expanded Deployment and Utilization of Current Security
Technologies and Procedures

SEC. __01. EXPANDED DEPLOYMENT AND UTILIZATION OF CURRENT
SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCEDURES.

(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall require that employment investigations,
including criminal history record checks, for all individuals
described in section 44936(a) of title 49, United States Code
who are existing employees, at airports regularly serving an
air carrier holding a certificate issued by the Secretary of
Transportation, should be completed within 6 months. The
Administrator shall devise an alternative method for
background checks for a person applying for any airport
security position who has lived in the United States less
than 5 years and shall have such alternative background check
in place within 6 months of the date of enactment of this
Act.
(b) Explosive Detection.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall deploy and oversee the usage of existing
bulk explosives detection technology already at airports for
checked baggage. Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish
confidential goals for--
(A) deploying by a specific date all existing bulk
explosives detection scanners purchased but not yet deployed
by the Federal Aviation Administration;
(B) a specific percentage of checked baggage to be scanned
by bulk explosives detection machines within 6 months, and
annual goals thereafter with an eventual goal of scanning 100
percent of checked baggage; and
(C) the number of new bulk explosives detection machines
that will be purchased by the Federal Aviation Administration
for deployment at the Federal Aviation Administration-
identified midsized airports within 6 months.
(2) Use of funds.--For purposes of carrying out this
subtitle, airport operators may use funds available under the
Airport Improvement Program described in chapter 471 of title
49, United States Code, to reconfigure airport baggage
handling areas to accommodate the equipment described in
paragraph (1), if necessary. Not later than 12 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter,
the Administrator shall report, on a confidential basis, to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives, the Government Accounting
Office, and the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation, regarding the goals and progress the
Administration is making in achieving those goals described
in paragraph (1).
(3) Airport development.--Section 47102(3)(B) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (viii);
(B) by striking the period at the end of clause (ix) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by inserting after clause (ix) the following new
clause:
``(x) replacement of baggage conveyor systems, and
reconfiguration of terminal luggage areas, that the Secretary
determines are necessary to install bulk explosive detection
devices.''.
(c) Bag Matching System.--The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall require air carriers to improve
the passenger bag matching system. Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator
shall establish goals for upgrading the Passenger Bag
Matching System, including interim measures to match a higher
percentage of bags until Explosives Detection Systems are
used to scan 100 percent of checked baggage. The
Administrator shall report, on a confidential basis, to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives, the Government Accounting
Office, and the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation, regarding the goals and the progress made in
achieving those goals within 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(d) Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall require air carriers to expand the
application of the current Computer-Assisted Passenger
Prescreening System (CAPPS) to all passengers, regardless of
baggage. Passengers selected under this system shall be
subject to additional security measures, including checks of
carry-on baggage and person, before boarding.
(2) Report.--The Administrator shall report back to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives within 3
months of the date of enactment of this Act on the
implementation of the expanded CAPPS system.

Subtitle B--Short-Term Assessment and Deployment of Emerging Security
Technologies and Procedures

SEC. __11. SHORT-TERM ASSESSMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF EMERGING
SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCEDURES.

Section 44903 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Short-Term Assessment and Deployment of Emerging
Security Technologies and Procedures.
(1) In general.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security shall recommend to airport operators, within 6
months after the date of enactment of this Act, commercially
available measures or procedures to prevent access to secure
airport areas by unauthorized persons. As part of the 6-month
assessment, the Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security
shall--
(A) review the effectiveness of biometrics systems
currently in use at several United States airports, including
San Francisco International;
(B) review the effectiveness of increased surveillance at
access points;
(C) review the effectiveness of card- or keypad-based
access systems;
(D) review the effectiveness of airport emergency exit
systems and determine whether those that lead to secure areas
of the airport should be monitored or how breaches can be
swiftly responded to; and
(E) specifically target the elimination of the ``piggy-
backing'' phenomenon, where another person follows an
authorized person through the access point.

The 6-month assessment shall include a 12-month deployment
strategy for currently available technology at all category X
airports, as defined in the Federal Aviation Administration
approved air carrier security programs required under part
108 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. Not later than
18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a review of
reductions in unauthorized access at these airports.
(2) 90-day review.--
(A) In general.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security, as part of the Aviation Security Coordination
Council, shall conduct a 90-day review of--
(i) currently available or short-term deployable upgrades
to the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System
(CAPPS); and
(ii) deployable upgrades to the coordinated distribution of
information regarding persons listed on the ``watch list''
for any Federal law enforcement agencies who could present an
aviation security threat.
(B) Deployment of upgrades.--The Deputy Secretary for
Transportation Security shall commence deployment of
recommended short-term upgrades to CAPPS and to the
coordinated distribution of ``watch list'' information within
6 months after the date of enactment of this Act. Within 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security shall report to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the
Government Accounting Office, and the Inspector General of
the Department of Transportation, on progress being made in
deploying recommended upgrades.
(3) Study.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security shall conduct a study of options for improving
positive identification of passengers at check-in counters

[[Page 19608]]

and boarding areas, including the use of biometrics and
``smart'' cards. Within 6 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Deputy Secretary shall report to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on the
feasibility and costs of implementing each identification
method and a schedule for requiring air carriers to deploy
identification methods determined to be effective.

Subtitle C--Research and Development of Aviation Security Technology

SEC. __21. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF AVIATION SECURITY
TECHNOLOGY.

(a) Funding.--To augment the programs authorized in section
44912(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, there is
authorized to be appropriated an additional $50,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006 and such sums as are
necessary for each fiscal year thereafter to the Federal
Aviation Administration, for research, development, testing,
and evaluation of the following technologies which may
enhance aviation security in the future. Grants to industry,
academia, and Government entities to carry out the provisions
of this section shall be available for fiscal years 2002 and
2003 for--
(1) the acceleration of research, development, testing, and
evaluation of explosives detection technology for checked
baggage, specifically, technology that is--
(A) more cost-effective for deployment for explosives
detection in checked baggage at small- to medium-sized
airports, and is currently under development as part of the
Argus research program at the Federal Aviation
Administration;
(B) faster, to facilitate screening of all checked baggage
at larger airports; or
(C) more accurate, to reduce the number of false positives
requiring additional security measures;
(2) acceleration of research, development, testing, and
evaluation of new screening technology for carry-on items to
provide more effective means of detecting and identifying
weapons, explosives, and components of weapons of mass
destruction, including advanced x-ray technology;
(3) acceleration of research, development, testing, and
evaluation of threat screening technology for other
categories of items being loaded onto aircraft, including
cargo, catering, and duty-free items;
(4) acceleration of research, development, testing, and
evaluation of threats carried on persons boarding aircraft or
entering secure areas, including detection of weapons,
explosives, and components of weapons of mass destruction;
(5) acceleration of research, development, testing and
evaluation of integrated systems of airport security
enhancement, including quantitative methods of assessing
security factors at airports selected for testing such
systems;
(6) expansion of the existing program of research,
development, testing, and evaluation of improved methods of
education, training, and testing of key airport security
personnel; and
(7) acceleration of research, development, testing, and
evaluation of aircraft hardening materials, and techniques to
reduce the vulnerability of aircraft to terrorist attack.
(b) Grants.--Grants awarded under this subtitle shall
identify potential outcomes of the research, and propose a
method for quantitatively assessing effective increases in
security upon completion of the research program. At the
conclusion of each grant, the grant recipient shall submit a
final report to the Federal Aviation Administration that
shall include sufficient information to permit the
Administrator to prepare a cost-benefit analysis of potential
improvements to airport security based upon deployment of the
proposed technology. The Administrator shall begin awarding
grants under this subtitle within 90 days of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) Budget Submission.--A budget submission and detailed
strategy for deploying the identified security upgrades
recommended upon completion of the grants awarded under
subsection (b), shall be submitted to Congress as part of the
Department of Transportation's annual budget submission.
(d) Defense Research.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $20,000,000 to the Federal Aviation
Administration to issue research grants in conjunction with
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Grants may be
awarded under this section for--
(1) research and development of longer-term improvements to
airport security, including advanced weapons detection;
(2) secure networking and sharing of threat information
between Federal agencies, law enforcement entities, and other
appropriate parties;
(3) advances in biometrics for identification and threat
assessment; or
(4) other technologies for preventing acts of terrorism in
aviation.
____

SA 1873. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Kohl) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security,
and for other purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert:

SEC. __. ENHANCED SECURITY FOR AIRCRAFT.

(a) Security for Larger Aircraft.--
(1) Program required.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall commence implementation
of a program to provide security screening for all aircraft
operations conducted with respect to any aircraft having a
maximum certified takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds
that is not operating as of the date of the implementation of
the program under security procedures prescribed by the
Administrator.
(2) Waiver.--
(A) Authority to waive.--The Administrator may waive the
applicability of the program under this section with respect
to any aircraft or class of aircraft otherwise described by
this section if the Administrator determines that aircraft
described in this section can be operated safely without the
applicability of the program to such aircraft or class of
aircraft, as the case may be.
(B) Limitations.--A waiver under subparagraph (A) may not
go into effect--
(i) unless approved by the Secretary of Transportation; and
(ii) until 10 days after the date on which notice of the
waiver has been submitted to the appropriate committees of
Congress.
(3) Program elements.--The program under paragraph (1)
shall require the following:
(A) The search of any aircraft covered by the program
before takeoff.
(B) The screening of all crew members, passengers, and
other persons boarding any aircraft covered by the program,
and their property to be brought on board such aircraft,
before boarding.
(4) Procedures for searches and screening.--The
Administrator shall develop procedures for searches and
screenings under the program under paragraph (1). Such
procedures may not be implemented until approved by the
Secretary.
(b) Security for Smaller Aircraft.--
(1) Program required.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
commence implementation of a program to provide security for
all aircraft operations conducted with respect to any
aircraft having a maximum certified takeoff weight of 12,500
pounds or less that is not operating as of the date of the
implementation of the program under security procedures
prescribed by the Administrator. The program shall address
security with respect to crew members, passengers, baggage
handlers, maintenance workers, and other individuals with
access to aircraft covered by the program, and to baggage.
(2) Report on program.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report containing
a proposal for the program to be implemented under paragraph
(1).
(c) Background Checks for Aliens Engaged in Certain
Transactions Regarding Aircraft.--
(1) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and subject to paragraph (2), no person or entity may
sell, lease, or charter any aircraft to an alien, or any
other individual specified by the Secretary for purposes of
this subsection, within the United States unless the Attorney
General issues a certification of the completion of a
background investigation of the alien, or other individual,
as the case may be, that meets the requirements of section
44939(b) of title 49, United States Code, as added by section
13 of this Act.
(2) Expiration.--The prohibition in paragraph (1) shall
expire as follows:
(A) In the case of an aircraft having a maximum certified
takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds, upon
implementation of the program required by subsection (a).
(B) In the case of an aircraft having a maximum certified
takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, upon implementation
of the program required by subsection (b).
(3) Alien defined.--In this subsection, the term ``alien''
has the meaning given that term in section 44939(f) of title
49, United States Code, as so added.
(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Commerce of the House of
Representatives.
____

SA 1874. Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Thurmond, and Mr. Crapo) proposed an amendment to the bill
S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as
follows:

At the appropriate place, add the following:

SEC. . FLIGHT DECK SECURITY.

[[Page 19609]]

Trade Center in New York, New York, and a third into the
Pentagon outside Washington, District of Columbia.
(2) Thousands of innocent Americans and citizens of other
countries were killed or injured as a result of these
attacks, including the passengers and crew of the four
aircraft, workers in the World Trade Center and in the
Pentagon, rescue workers, and bystanders.
(3) These attacks destroyed both towers of the World Trade
Center, as well as adjacent buildings, and seriously damaged
the Pentagon.
(4) These attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist
attacks ever launched against the United States and, by
targeting symbols of America, clearly were intended to
intimidate our Nation and weaken its resolve.
(5) Armed pilots, co-pilots, and flight engineers with
proper training will be the last line of defense against
terrorists by providing cockpit security and aircraft
security.
(6) Secured doors separating the flight deck from the
passenger cabin have been effective in deterring hijackings
in other nations and will serve as a deterrent to future
contemplated acts of terrorism in the United States.
(c) Aviation Safety and the Suppression of Terrorism by
Commercial Aircraft.--
(1) Possession of firearms on commercial flights.--The FAA
is authorized to permit a pilot, co-pilot, or flight engineer
of a commercial aircraft who has successfully completed the
requirements of section (c)(2) of this Act, or who is not
otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, from
possessing or carrying a firearm approved by the FAA for the
protection of the aircraft under procedures or regulations as
necessary, to ensure the safety and integrity of flight.
(2) Federal pilot officers.--
(A) In addition to the protections provided by the section
(c)(1) of this Act, the FAA shall also establish a voluntary
program to train and supervise commercial airline pilots.
(B) Under the program, the FAA shall make available
appropriate training and supervision for all such pilots,
which may include training by private entities.
(C) The power granted to such persons shall be limited to
enforcing Federal law in the cockpit of commercial aircraft
and, under reasonable circumstances the passenger compartment
to protect the integrity of the commercial aircraft and the
lives of the passengers.
(D) The FAA shall make available appropriate training to
any qualified pilot who requests such training pursuant to
this Act.
(E) The FAA may prescribe regulations for purposes of this
section.
(d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than six months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and every six months
thereafter, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to
Congress a report on the effectiveness of the requirements in
this section in facilitating commercial aviation safety and
the suppression of terrorism by commercial aircraft.''.
____

SA 1875. Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. DeWine, and Mrs.
Boxer) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation
security, and for other purposes, as follows:

On Page 4, strike lines 10, 11, and 12.
On Page 4, line 13, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(A)''.
On Page 4, line 18, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
On Page 4, line 22, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
On Page 4, beginning with line 23, strike through line 5 on
page 5.
On Page 5, line 6, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On Page 5, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
(b) Attorney General Responsibilities.--The Attorney
General of the United States--
(1) is responsible for day-to-day Federal security
screening operations for passenger air transportation or
intrastate air transportation under sections 44901 and 44935
of title 49, United States Code;
(2) shall work in conjunction with the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration with respect to any actions
or activities that may affect aviation safety or air carrier
operations;
(3) is responsible for hiring and training personnel to
provide security screening at all United States airports
involved in passenger air transportation or intrastate air
transportation, in conjunction with the Secretary of
Transportation, Secretary of Defense, and the heads of other
appropriate Federal agencies and departments; and
(4) shall actively cooperate and coordinate with the
Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Defense, and
the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies and
departments with responsibilities for national security and
criminal justice enforcement activities that are related to
aviation security through the Aviation Security Coordination
Council. On page 5, line 14, strike ``(b)'' and insert
``(c)''.
On page 6, line 4, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
On page 10, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
(a) Air Marshals Under Attorney General Guidelines.--The
Attorney General shall prescribe guidelines for the training
and deployment of individuals authorized, with the approval
of the Attorney General, to carry firearms and make arrests
under section 44903(d) of title 49, United States Code. The
Secretary of Transportation shall administer the air marshal
program under that section in accordance with the guidelines
prescribed by the Attorney General.
On page 10, line 7, strike ``(a)In General.--'' and insert
``(b) Deployment.--''.
On page 10, line 23, strike ``(b) Deployment.--'' and
insert ``(c)Training, Supervision, and Flight Assignment.--
''.
On page 11, line 14, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
On page 11, line 20, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
On page 12, line 3, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
On page 12, line 4, before ``Secretary'' insert ``Attorney
General and the)''.
On page 12, line 22, before ``Secretary'' insert ``Attorney
General and the''.
On page 12, line 24, strike ``the Secretary'' and insert
``they''.
On page 13, line 3, strike ``(f)'' and inset ``(g)''.
On page 18, beginning in line 2, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General,''
and insert ``Attorney General, in consultation with the
secretary of Transportation,''.
On page 18, line 11, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 18, beginning in line 17, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 18, line 25, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 19, line 4, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 19, line 7, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 19, beginning in line 12, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, with the approval of the Attorney General,''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 20, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 20, beginning in line 12, strike ``Secretary, in
consultation with the Attorney General,'' and insert
``Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation,''.
On page 20, beginning in line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 21, beginning in line 3, strike ``Secretary and''.
On page 21, line 12, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 21, line 19, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 21, line 23, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General or the Secretary of Transportation''.
On page 22, line 4, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 22, beginning in line 7, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 22, line 9, strike ``the Attorney General or''.
On page 22, strike lines 13 through 22.
On page 22, line 23, strike ``(c) Transition.--the
Secretary of transportation'' and insert ``(b) Transition.--
the Attorney General''.
On page 23, line 3, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 23, line 6, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 23, beginning in line 18, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General,''
and insert ``Attorney General, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
On page 23, line 23, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 24, line 20, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 24,, beginning in line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 25, line 3, Strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 25, line 11, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 25, beginning in line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 26, line 3, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 26, line 15 strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 29, beginning in line 1, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 29, line 20, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 29, beginning in line 23, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 29, beginning in line 25, strike ``the Attorney
General, or''.
On page 30, line 6, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 30, line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 30, beginning in line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 31, beginning in line 5, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 31, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 31, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.

[[Page 19610]]

On page 32, line 1, strike ``Secretary of Transportation''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 32, beginning in line 4, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 32, line 7, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 32, line 11, strike ``Secretary of Transportation''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 3, strike ``Secretary of Transportation''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 33, beginning in line 5, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 13, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 16, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 19, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 34, line 15, strike ``Transportation'' and insert
``Justice''.
On page 34, line 17, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 34, line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 35, line 4, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Section''.
On page 35, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
(b) Coordination With Attorney General.--Section 44912(b)
of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Beginning on the date of enactment of the Aviation
Security Act, the Administrator shall conduct all research
related to screening technology and procedures in conjunction
with the Attorney General.''.
____

SA 1876. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Domenici) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as
follows:

SA 1877. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Cleland) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as
follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. AMENDMENTS TO AIRMEN REGISTRY AUTHORITY.

Section 44703(g) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``pilots'' and inserting ``airmen''; and
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``and related to
combating acts of terrorism.''; and
(2) by adding at the end, the following new paragraphs:
``(3) For purposes of this section, the term `acts of
terrorism' means an activity that involves a violent act or
an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the
criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that
would be a criminal violation if committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States or of any State, and
appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a
government by assassination or kidnaping.
``(4) The Administrator is authorized and directed to work
with State and local authorities, and other Federal agencies,
to assist in the identification of individuals applying for
or holding airmen certificates.''.
____

SA 1878. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Thompson) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as
follows:

Insert at the appropriate place the following:

SEC. . RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 449 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the
following:

Sec. Performance Goals and Objectives

[[Page 19611]]

Transportation Security may prepare a non-public appendix
covering performance goals and indicators that, if revealed
to the public, would likely impede achievement of those goals
and indicators.
(B) Performance report.--
(i) Each year, consistent with the requirements of GPRA,
the Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security shall
prepare and submit to Congress an annual report including an
evaluation of the extent goals and objectives were met. The
report shall include the results achieved during the year
relative to the goals established in the performance plan.
(ii) The performance report shall be available to the
public. The Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security may
prepare a nonpublic appendix covering performance goals and
indicators that, if revealed to the public, would likely
impede achievement of those goals and indicators.

Sec. Performance Management System

(a) Establishing a Fair and Equitable System for Measuring
Staff Performance.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security shall establish a performance management system
which strengthens the organization's effectiveness by
providing for the establishment of goals and objectives for
managers, employees, and organizational performance
consistent with the performance plan.
(b) Establishing Management Accountability for Meeting
Performance Goals.--
(i) Each year, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary for
Transportation Security shall enter into an annual
performance agreement that shall set forth organizational and
individual performance goals for the Deputy Secretary.
(ii) Each year, the Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security and each senior manager who reports to the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security shall enter into an
annual performance agreement that sets forth organization and
individual goals for those managers. All other employees
hired under the authority of the Deputy Secretary for
Transportation Security shall enter into an annual
performance agreement that sets forth organization and
individual goals for those employees.
(c) Compensation for the Deputy Secretary for
Transportation Security.--
(i) In general.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security is authorized to be paid at an annual rate of pay
payable to level II of the Executive Schedule.
(ii) Bonuses or other incentives.--In addition, the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security may receive bonuses or
other incentives, based upon the Secretary's evaluation of
the Deputy Secretary's performance in relation to the goals
set forth in the agreement. Total compensation cannot exceed
the Secretary's salary.
(d) Compensation for Managers and Other Employees.--
(i) In general.--A senior manager reporting directly to the
Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security may be paid at
an annual rate of basic pay of not more than the maximum rate
of basic pay for the Senior Executive Service under section
5382 of title 5, United States Code.
(ii) Bonuses or other incentives.--In addition, senior
managers can receive bonuses or other incentives based on the
Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security's evaluation of
their performance in relation to goals in agreements. Total
compensation cannot exceed 125 percent of the maximum rate of
base pay for the Senior Executive Service. Further, the
Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security shall establish,
within the performance management system, a program allowing
for the payment of bonuses or other incentives to other
managers and employees. Such a program shall provide for
bonuses or other incentives based on their performance.
(e) Performance-Based Service Contracting.--To the extent
contracts, if any, are used to implement this act, the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security shall, to the extent
practical, maximize the use of performance-based service
contracts. These contracts should be consistent with
guidelines published by the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy.
____

SA 1879. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Lieberman (for himself and Mr. Durbin))
proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation
security, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of the bill, insert the following:

TITLE --DEPLOYMENT AND USE OF SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES

Subtitle A--Expanded Deployment and Utilization of Current Security
Technologies and Procedures

SEC. 01. EXPANDED DEPLOYMENT AND UTILIZATION OF CURRENT
SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCEDURES.

(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall require that employment investigations,
including criminal history record checks, for all individuals
described in Section 44936(a) of title 49, United States Code
who are existing employees, at airports regularly serving an
air carrier holding a certificate issued by the Secretary of
Transportation, should be completed within 9 months unless
such individuals have had such investigation and check within
5 years of date of enactment of this Act. The Administrator
shall devise an alternative method for background checks for
a person applying for any airport security position who has
lived in the United States less than 5 years and shall have
such alternative background check in place as soon as
possible. The Administrator shall work with the International
Civil Aviation Organization and with appropriate authorities
of foreign governments in devising such alternative method.
(b) Explosive Detection.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall deploy and oversee the usage of existing
bulk explosives detection technology already at airports for
checked baggage. Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish
confidential goals for--
(A) deploying by a specific date all existing bulk
explosives detection scanners purchased but not yet deployed
by the Federal Aviation Administration;
(B) a specific percentage of checked baggage to be scanned
by bulk explosives detection machines within 6 months, and
annual goals thereafter with an eventual goal of scanning 100
percent of checked baggage; and
(C) the number of new bulk explosives detection machines
that will be purchased by the Federal Aviation Administration
for deployment at the Federal Aviation Administration-
identified midsized airports within 6 months.
(2) Use of funds.--For purposes of carrying out this
subtitle, airport operators may use funds available under the
Airport Improvement Program described in chapter 471 of title
49, United States Code, to reconfigure airport baggage
handling areas to accommodate the equipment described in
paragraph (1), if necessary. Not later than 12 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter,
the Administrator shall report, on a confidential basis, to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives, the Government Accounting
Office, and the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation, regarding the goals and progress the
Administration is making in achieving those goals described
in paragraph (1).
(3) Airport development.--Section 47102(3)(B) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (viii);
(B) by striking the period at the end of clause (ix) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by inserting after clause (ix) the following new
clause:
``(x) replacement of baggage conveyor systems, and
reconfiguration of terminal luggage areas, that the Secretary
determines are necessary to install bulk explosive detection
devices.''.
(c) Bag Matching System.--The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall require air carriers to improve
the passenger bag matching system. Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator
shall establish goals for upgrading the Passenger Bag
Matching System, including interim measures to match a higher
percentage of bags until Explosives Detection Systems are
used to scan 100 percent of checked baggage. The
Administrator shall report, on a confidential basis, to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives, the Government Accounting
Office, and the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation, regarding the goals and the progress made in
achieving those goals within 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(d) Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall require air carriers to expand the
application of the current Computer-Assisted Passenger
Prescreening System (CAPPS) to all passengers, regardless of
baggage. Passengers selected under this system shall be
subject to additional security measures, including checks of
carry-on baggage and person, before boarding.
(2) Report.--The Administrator shall report back to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives within 3
months of the date of enactment of this Act on the
implementation of the expanded CAPPS system.

Subtitle B--Short-Term Assessment and Deployment of Emerging Security
Technologies and Procedures

SEC. __11. SHORT-TERM ASSESSMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF EMERGING
SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCEDURES.

Section 44903 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
(i) Short-Term asssessment and Deployment of Emerging
Security. Technologies and Procedures.

[[Page 19612]]

(1) In General.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security shall recommend to airport operators, within 6
months after the date of enactment of this Act, commercially
available measures or procedures to prevent access to secure
airport areas by unauthorized persons. As part of the 6-month
assessment, the Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security
shall--
(A) review the effectiveness of biometrics systems
currently in use at several United States airports, including
San Francisco International;
(B) review the effectiveness of increased surveillance at
access points;
(C) review the effectiveness of card- or keypad-based
access systems;
(D) review the effectiveness of airport emergency exit
systems and determine whether those that lead to secure areas
of the airport should be monitored or how breaches can be
swiftly responded to; and
(E) specifically target the elimination of the ``piggy-
backing'' phenomenon, where another person follows an
authorized person through the access point.

The 6-month assessment shall include a 12-month deployment
strategy for currently available technology at all category X
airports, as defined in the Federal Aviation Administration
approved air carrier security programs required under part
108 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. Not later than
18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a review of
reductions in unauthorized access at these airports.
(2) 90-Day Review.--
(A) In general.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security, as part of the Aviation Security Coordination
Council, shall conduct a 90-day review of--
(i) currently available or short-term deployable upgrades
to the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System
(CAPPS); and
(ii) deployable upgrades to the coordinated distribution of
information regarding persons listed on the ``watch list''
for any Federal law enforcement agencies who could present an
aviation security threat.
(B) Deployment of upgrades.--The Deputy Secretary for
Transportation Security shall commence deployment of
recommended short-term upgrades to CAPPS and to the
coordinated distribution of ``watch list'' information within
6 months after the date of enactment of this Act. Within 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security shall report to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the
Government Accounting Office, and the Inspector General of
the Department of Transportation, on progress being made in
deploying recommended upgrades.
(3) Study.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security shall conduct a study of options for improving
positive identification of passengers at check-in counters
and boarding areas, including the use of biometrics and
``smart'' cards. Within 6 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Deputy Secretary shall report to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on the
feasibility and costs of implementing each identification
method and a schedule for requiring air carriers to deploy
identification methods determined to be effective.''

Subtitle C--Research and Development of Aviation Security Technology

SEC. __21. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF AVIATION SECURITY
TECHNOLOGY.

SA 1880. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mrs. Murray (for herself, Mr. Byrd, and
Mr. Shelby)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1447, to improve
aviation security, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 43, line 19, add the words ``annual appropriations
for'' after the words ``offset'';
On page 43, line 20, strike the sentence beginning with the
word ``The'' and ending with the word ``expended.'' on line
23;
On page 43, at the end of line 25, insert the following new
subsection:
(c) Use of Fees.--A fee collected under this section shall
be used solely for the costs associated with providing
aviation security services and may be used only to the extent
provided in advance in an appropriation law.
____

SA 1881. Mr. McCAIN proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1447, to
improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as follows:

SA 1882. Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

In section 21, strike the heading and insert the following:

SEC. 19. REIMBURSEMENT OF STATES FOR THE COSTS OF STATE USE
OF THE NATIONAL GUARD TO PROVIDE AIRPORT
SECURITY SERVICES.

(a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Army or the Secretary
of the Air Force shall

[[Page 19613]]

reimburse a State for the cost incurred by the State in the
use of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard,
respectively, of the State, not in Federal service, in
support of activities to protect persons or property at any
airport in the State from an act of terrorism or a threat of
attack by a hostile force during the period of the national
emergency declared by the President on September 14, 2001.
(b) Covered Activities.--This section applies with respect
to activities at an airport referred to in subsection (a) as
follows:
(1) Security patrol of the perimeter of airport property.
(2) Protection of the security of airport aprons.
(3) Screening and clearing of delivery vehicles.
(4) Screening and clearing of passengers and property for
transportation on aircraft.
(5) Monitoring and reinforcing security personnel provided
by air carriers at the airport security checkpoints.
(6) Any other activities described in subsection (a).

SEC. 20. DEFINITIONS.
____

SA 1883. Mr. SCHUMER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY.

(a) Definitions.--Section 402 of the September 11th Victim
Compensation Fund of 2001 (Public Law 107-42) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Property Owner.--The term `property owner' means the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and any other
person with a property interest in the World Trade Center,
whether fee simple, leasehold, or easement, direct or
indirect.''.
(b) Limit of Property Owners Liability.--Section 408 of the
September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting:
``(1) Air carrier liability.--Notwithstanding''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Other limitations of liability.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, liability for all claims, whether for
compensatory or punitive damages or for contribution of
indemnity, arising from the terrorist-related aircraft
crashes of September 11, 2001, against any property owner
shall not be in an amount greater than the limits of
liability insurance coverage available to the property
owner.''; and
(2) in the heading, by striking ``AIR CARRIER''.
(c) Subrogation.--Section 409 of the September 11th Victim
Compensation Fund of 2001 is amended by inserting before the
end period the following: ``, subject to the limitations
described in section 408.
____

SA 1884. Mr. KERRY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 23, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. __. INCREASED SCREENING OF CHECKED BAGGAGE.

(a) Expansion of the Computer Assisted Passenger
Prescreening System (CAPPS).--
(1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 449 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
44901 the following new section:

``Sec. 44901a. Expansion of CAPPS

``(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of the Aviation Security Act, the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration shall promulgate
guidelines to increase the selection of passengers through
the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS)
and shall incorporate the database described in section
44911(g)(1) into the CAPPS. The guidelines shall not include
race or national origin as criteria.
``(b) Requirements.--
``(1) Positive matching.--Passengers selected through the
CAPPS shall be required to provide positive passenger-bag
match and their property shall be screened by an explosive
detection system or, in the case of an airport where an
explosive detection system is unavailable, by an equivalent
system, a trace explosive detection system, or by a hand-
search.
``(2) Screening of checked baggage through explosive
detection systems.--
``(A) Deployment.--The Secretary of Transportation, in
coordination with the Attorney General of the United States,
shall be responsible for the deployment and maintenance of
certified explosive detection systems at small, medium, and
large hub airports.
``(B) Preference for American-made systems.--In selecting
explosive detection systems, the Secretary shall give
preference to systems produced by United States companies.
``(C) Deadlines for implementation.--
``(i) Not later than January 1, 2005, the Secretary shall
ensure that at the 100 largest airports all property to be
transported in the hold of commercial passenger aircraft is
scanned by an explosive detection system.
``(ii) Not later than January 1, 2008, the Secretary shall
ensure that at small, medium, and large hub airports all
property to be transported in the hold of commercial
passenger aircraft is scanned by an explosive detection
system or a trace explosive detection system.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 44901 the following new item:

``44901a. Expansion of CAPPS.''.

(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary of Transportation shall submit to Congress a report
regarding the screening of checked baggage through explosive
detection systems. The initial report shall contain the
following:
(1) A date by which the Department of Transportation shall
ensure that all checked baggage is screened through an
explosive detection system or a trace explosive detection
system.
(2) An estimate of the costs that will be incurred in
ensuring the screening of all checked baggage.
(3) A plan for deploying all explosive detection systems
purchased by the Federal Aviation Administration before the
date of enactment of this Act that are not in use on such
date.
____

SA 1885. Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Inhofe) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1447, to
improve aviation security, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. GENERAL AVIATION SMALL BUSINESS GRANTS.

(a) In General.--Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended by inserting immediately after
paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) General aviation small business grants.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Administration shall, upon application, make grants
to general aviation small business concerns for direct and
incremental losses incurred by such small business concerns
as a result of the Federal ground stop order issued by the
Secretary of Transportation on September 11, 2001, or any
such subsequent order issued by the Department of
Transportation that adversely affects General Aviation Small
Business.
``(B) Grant amounts.--
``(i) In general.--A grant under subparagraph (A) shall be
made in an amount equal to the amount of direct and
incremental losses incurred by a general aviation small
business concern during the period beginning on September 11,
2001, and ending on December 31, 2001, to the extent that
such losses are not compensated for by insurance or
otherwise.
``(ii) Maximum grant.--The amount of a grant under this
paragraph shall not exceed $6,000,000.
``(iii) Waiver authority.--The Administrator may, at the
discretion of the Administrator, waive the aggregate grant
amounts established under clause (ii).
``(iv) Documentation.--The amount of the grant payable may
not exceed the incremental loss that the business
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator, using
sworn financial statements or other appropriate data.
``(C) No disaster declaration required.--For purposes of
assistance under this paragraph, no declaration of a disaster
area shall be required.
``(D) Extended application period.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Administrator shall accept
applications of assistance under this program until September
10, 2002, with respect to small business concerns adversely
affected by the terrorist attacks perpetrated against the
United States on September 11, 2001.
``(E) Audits.--The Small Business Administration may audit
financial statements or other appropriate data of any
business receiving assistance under this paragraph for not
more than 3 years after the grant has been finalized. The
business shall provide any requests for information that the
Administration may request while conducting such audit.
``(F) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph--
``(i) the term `general aviation small business concern'
means a small business concern that is a regular provider of
general aviation services, such as aircraft rentals, crop
dusting, flight training instruction, repair, and other fixed
based services; and

[[Page 19614]]

``(ii) the term `incremental loss' does not include any
loss that the Administration determines would have been
incurred if the terrorist attacks on the United States that
occurred on September 11, 2001, had not occurred.''.
(b) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated, and
there is appropriated, $400,000,000 to carry out section
7(b)(4) of the Small Business Act, as added by this Act.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--Section 7(b) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended in the
undesignated matter at the end--
(1) by striking ``, (2), and (4)'' and inserting ``and
(2)''; and
(2) by striking ``, (2), or (4)'' and inserting ``(2)''.
____

SA 1886. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Enzi (for himself and Mr. Dorgan))
proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation
security, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 15, line 2, after the period insert the following:
``The Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with
the appropriate State or local government law enforcement
authorities, shall reexamine the safety requirements for
small community airports to reflect reasonable level of
threat to those individual small community airports,
including the parking of passenger vehicles within 300 feet
of the airport terminal building with respect to that
airport.''
____

SA 1887. Mr. McCAIN (for Mrs. Hutchison) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as
follows:

On page 35, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(e) Background Checks for Existing Employees.--
(1) In general.--Section 44936 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting ``is or'' before ``will'' in subsection
(a)(1)(B)(i); and
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
apply with respect to individuals employed on or after the
date of enactment of the Aviation Security Act in a position
described in sub-paragraph (A) or (B) of section 44936(a)(1)
of title 49, United States Code. The Secretary of
Transportation may provide by order for a phased-in
implementation of the requirements of section 44936 of that
title made applicable to individuals employed in such
positions at airports on the date of enactment of this Act.
____

SA 1888. Mr. McCAIN (for Mrs. Hutchison) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as
follows:

On page 18, line 1, strike ``passengers'' and insert
``passengers, individuals with access to secure areas,''.
On page 18, line 10, after the period, insert ``The
Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall
provide for the screening of all persons, including airport,
air carrier, foreign air carrier, and airport concessionaire
employees, before they are allowed into sterile or secure
area of the airport, as determined by the Secretary.
``The screening of airport, air carrier, foreign air-
carrier, and airport concessionaire employees, and other
nonpassengers with access to secure areas, shall be conducted
in the same manner as passenger screenings are conducted,
except that the Secretary may authorize alternative screening
procedures for personnel engaged in providing airport or
aviation security at an airport.''.
____

SA 1889. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Inhofe) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as
follows:

At the end of the bill, insert following:

SEC. . USE OF FACILITIES.

SA 1890. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Inhofe) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by Mr. McCain to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation
security, and for other purposes; as follows:

Strike the section heading for section 14 and insert the
following:

SEC. 14. REPORT ON NATIONAL AIR SPACE RESTRICTIONS PUT IN
PLACE AFTER TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT REMAIN IN
PLACE.

SA 1891. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Feingold) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as
follows:

Strike the section heading for section 14 and insert the
following:

SEC. 14. VOLUNTARY PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DURING
COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS.

(a) Program for Provision of Voluntary Services.--
(1) Program.--The Secretary of Transportation shall carry
out a program to permit qualified law enforcement officers,
firefighters, and emergency medical technicians to provide
emergency services on commercial air flights during
emergencies.
(2) Requirements.--The Secretary shall establish such
requirements for qualifications of providers of voluntary
services under the program under paragraph (1), including
training requirements, as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(3) Confidentiality of registry.--If as part of the program
under paragraph (1) the Secretary requires or permits
registration of law enforcement officers, firefighters, or
emergency medical technicians who are willing to provide
emergency services on commercial flights during emergencies,
the Secretary shall take appropriate actions to ensure that
the registry is available only to appropriate airline
personnel and otherwise remains confidential.
(4) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with
appropriate representatives of the commercial airline
industry, and organizations representing community-based law
enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians,
in carrying out the program under paragraph (1), including
the actions taken under paragraph (3).
(b) Protection from Liability.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 449 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``Sec. 44939. Exemption of volunteers from liability

``44939. Exemption of volunteers from liability.''.

SEC. 15. DEFINITIONS.
____

SA 1892. Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. McCain) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for
other purposes; as follows:

On page 1, in the matter appearing after line 5, strike the
item relating to section 1 and insert the following:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

[[Page 19615]]

(B) requiring the strengthening of the flight deck door and
locks on any such aircraft operating in air transportation or
intrastate air transportation that has a rigid door in the
bulkhead between the flight deck and the passenger area to
ensure that the door cannot be forced open from the passenger
compartment;
(C) requiring that such flight deck doors remain locked
while any such aircraft is in flight except when necessary to
permit the flight deck crew access sand egress; and
(D) prohibiting the possession of a key to any such flight
door by any member of the flight crew who is not assigned to
the flight deck; and
(2) take such other action, including modification of
safety and security procedures, as may be necessary to ensure
the safety and security of the aircraft.
On page 10, line 9, insert closing quotation marks after
``(1)'' the second place it appears.
On page 10, line 20, insert opening quotation marks before
``(3)''.
On page 15, line 17, insert a semicolon before the closing
quotation marks.
On page 16, beginning in line 18, strike ``Employment
Investigations and Restrictions.--'' and insert ``Airport
Security Pilot Program.--''
On page 18, line 9, strike ``an'' and insert ``a''.
On page 18, line 10, strike ``215'' and insert ``2105''.
On page 21, beginning in line 22, strike through line 7 on
page 22 and insert the following:
(b) Deputizing of State and Local Law Enforcement
Officers.--Section 512 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century is amended--
(1) by striking ``purposes of'' in subsection (b)(1)(A) and
inserting ``pupsoses of (i)'';
(2) by striking ``transportation'' in subsection (b)(1)(A)
and inserting ``transportation, and (ii) regulate the
provisions of security screening services under section
44901(c) of title 49, United States Code;'';
(3) by striking ``not federal responsibility'' in the
heading of subsection (b)(3)b);
(4) by striking ``shall not be responsible for providing''
in subsection (b)(3)(B) and inserting ``may provide'';
(5) by striking ``flight.'' in subsection (c)(2) and
inserting ``flight and security screening functions under
section 44901(c) of title 49, United States Code.'';
(6) by striking ``General'' in subsection (e) and inserting
``General, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation,''; and
(7) by striking subsection (f).
On page 31, line 20, strike ``(2)Section'' and ``(2)
Section''.
On page 31, after line 25, insert the following:
(3) Section 44936(a)(1)(E) is amended by striking clause
(iv).
On page 32, line 20, insert ``under section 44901 of title
49, United States Code,'' after ``screener''.
On page 32, strike line 23, and insert ``5, United States
Code.''.
On page 33, line 2, insert ``any other'' before
``provision''.
On page 36, line 8, ``alien'' insert ``or other
individual''.
On page 38, line 25, strike ``Congress'' and insert
``Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure''.
On page 39, line 6, strike ``Congress'' and insert ``Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure''.
On page 41, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
(5) The use of technology that will permit enhanced instant
communications and information between airborne passenger
aircraft and appropriate individuals or facilities on the
ground.
On page 43, line 3, insert ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' before ``the best'..
On page 43, line 9, strike ``to certify'' and insert
``on''.
In amendment No. 1881, on page 1, line 5, insert ``Federal
service for'' after ``of''.
____

SA 1893. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Inhofe) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as
follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. . IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES.

SA 1894. Mr. HOLLINGS (for Mr. Leahy) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other purposes; as
follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . REPORT.

SA 1895. Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. McCain) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for
other purposes; as follows:

On page 1, in the matter appearing after line 5, strike the
item relating to section 1 and insert the following:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

On page 4, line 23, strike ``hiring and training'' and
insert ``hiring, training, and evaluating''.
On page 8, beginning with line 18, strike through line 20
on page 9 and insert the following:
(a) In General.--As soon as possible after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall--
(1) issue an order (without regard to the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code)--
(A) prohibiting access to the flight deck of aircraft
engaged in passenger air transportation or intrastate air
transportation except to authorized personnel;
(B) requiring the strengthening of the flight deck door and
locks on any such aircraft operating in air transportation or
intrastate air transportation that has a rigid door in a
bulk-head between the flight deck and the passenger area to
ensure that the door cannot be forced open from the passenger
compartment;
(C) requiring that such flight deck doors remain locked
while any such aircraft is in flight except when necessary to
permit the flight deck crew access and egress; and
(D) prohibiting the possession of a key to any such flight
deck door by any member of the flight crew who is not
assigned to the flight deck; and
(2) take such other action, including modification of
safety and security procedures, as may be necessary to ensure
the safety and security of the aircraft.
On page 10, line 9, insert closing quotation marks after
``(1)'' the second place it appears.
On page 10, line 20, insert opening quotation marks before
``(3)'',
On page 15, line 17, insert a semicolon before the closing
quotation marks.
On page 16, beginning in line 18, strike ``Employment
Investigations and Restrictions.--'' and insert ``Airport
Security Pilot Program.----''
On page 18, line 9, strike ``an'' and insert ``a''.
On page 18, line 10, strike ``215'' and insert ``2105''.
On page 21, beginning with line 22, strike through line 6
on page 22 and insert the following:
(b) Deputizing of State and Local Law Enforcement
Officers.--Section 512 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century is amended--
(1) by striking ``purpose of'' in subsection (b)(1)(A) and
inserting ``purpose of (i)'';
(2) by striking ``transportation;'' in subsection (b)(1)(A)
and inserting ``transportation, and (ii) regulate the
provisions of security screening services under section
44901(c) of title 49, United States Code;'';
(3) by striking ``not federal responsibility'' in the
heading of subsection (b)(3)(b);
(4) by striking ``shall not be responsible for providing''
in subsection (b)(3)(B) and inserting ``may provide'';
(5) by striking ``flight.'' in subsection (c)(2) and
inserting ``flight and security screening functions under
section 44901(c) of title 49, United States Code.'';
(6) by striking ``General'' in subsection (e) and inserting
``General, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation,''; and
(7) by striking subsection (f).
On page 31, after line 25, insert the following:
(3) Section 44936(a)(1)(E) is amended by striking clause
(iv).
On page 32, line 20, insert ``under section 44901 of title
49, United States Code,'' after ``screener''.
On page 32, strike line 23, and insert ``5, United States
Code.''.
On page 33, line 2, insert ``any other'' before
``provision''.
On page 36, line 8, after ``alien'' insert ``or other
individual''.
On page 38, line 25, strike ``congress'' and insert
``Senate Committee on Commerce,

[[Page 19616]]

Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure''.
On page 39, line 6, strike ``Congress'' and insert ``Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure''.
On page 41, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
(5) the use of technology that will permit enhanced instant
communications and information between airborne passenger
aircraft and appropriate individuals or facilities on the
ground.
On page 43, line 3, insert ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' before ``the best''.
On page 43, line 9, strike ``to certify'' and insert
``on''.
In amendment No. 1881, on page 1, line 5, insert ``Federal
service for'' after ``of''.
____

SA 1896. Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 1447, to improve aviation security, and for other
purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PAYMENT FOR LOSSES RESULTING FROM LIMITATIONS ON USE
OF RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
FOLLOWING TERRORIST ATTACKS.

SA 1897. Mr. McCAIN (for Mr. Jeffords) proposed an amendment to
amendment SA 1858 submitted by Mr. Hollings and intended to be proposed
to the bill (S. 1447) to improve aviation security, and for other
purposes; as follows:

In amendment No. 1858 on page 1, line 8, insert ``or an
individual discharged or furloughed from commercial airline
cockpit crew position'' after ``age,''.
____

SA 1898. Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. Warner) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1532, to
provide for the payment of emergency extended unemployment
compensation; which was referred to the Committee on Finance; as
follows:

In section 173(a)(4) of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(a)(4)), as added by section 8(a), strike
``subsection (f)'' and insert ``subsections (f) and (g)''.
In section 173(a)(4) of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 (29 U.S.C. 1918(a)(4)), as added by section 8(a), strike
the period and insert ``, and to independently owned
businesses and proprietorships.''.
In section 173 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2918), as amended by section 8(b), add after
subsection (f) the following:
``(g) Government Intervention Supplements.--
``(1) Personal income.--Using funds made available under
subsection (a)(4), a State may provide personal income
compensation to a dislocated worker described in such
subsection if--
``(A) the worker is unable to work due to direct Federal
Government intervention leading to--
``(i) closure of the facility at which the worker was
employed, prior to the intervention; or
``(ii) a restriction on how business may be conducted at
the facility; and
``(B) the facility is located within an area is which a
major disaster or emergency was declared as described in
section 7(3)(A)(i) of the Emergency Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2001.
``(2) Business income.--Using funds made available under
subsection (a)(4), a State may provide business income
compensation to an independently owned business or
proprietorship if--
``(A) the business or proprietorship is unable to earn
revenue due to direct Federal intervention leading to--
``(i) closure of the facility at which the business or
proprietorship was located, prior to the intervention; or
``(ii) a restriction on how customers may access the
facility; and
``(B) the facility is located within an area is which a
major disaster or emergency was declared as described in
section 7(3)(A)(i) of the Emergency Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2001.''.
____

SA 1899. Mr. FEINGOLD proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1510, to
deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the
world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other
purposes; as follows:

SA 1900. Mr. FEINGOLD proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1510, to
deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the
world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other
purposes; as follows:

SA. 1901. Mr. FEINGOLD proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1510, to
deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the
world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other
purposes; as follows:

Strike section 215 and insert the following:

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO BUSINESS RECORDS UNDER FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

(a) In General.--Section 502 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1862) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``authorizing a common
carrier'' and all that follows through ``to release records''
and inserting ``requiring a business to produce any tangible
things (including books, records, papers, documents, and
other items)'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) the records concerned are not protected by any
Federal or State law governing access to the records for
intelligence or law enforcement purposes.''; and
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``common carrier, public
accommodation facility, physical storage facility, or vehicle
rental facility'' each place it appears and inserting
``business''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The text of section 501 of that
Act (50 U.S.C. 1861) is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 501. In this title, the terms `agent of a foreign
power', `foreign intelligence information', `international
terrorism', and `Attorney General' have the meanings given
such terms in section 101.''.
____

____________________

NOTICES OF HEARINGS/MEETINGS

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

[[Page 19617]]

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the
investigative report of the Thirtymile Fire and the prevention of
future fire fatalities.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their
testimony to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.
For further information, please contact John Watts of the Committee
staff at (202) 224-5488.

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has
been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will take place on Wednesday, October 24, beginning at
2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in
Washington, D.C.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the science and
implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan including its effect on
species restoration and timber availability.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their
testimony to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.
For further information, please contact Kira Finkler of the Committee
staff at (202) 224-8164.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

Committee on Armed Services

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Thursday, October 11, 2001, at 2:30 P.M., in open session
to consider the nominations of Linton F. Brooks to be Deputy
Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear
Security Administration; Marvin R. Sambur to be Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Acquisition; William Winkenwerder, Jr. to be
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; Everett Beckner to
be Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security
Administration; and Mary L. Walker to be General Counsel of the Air
Force.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on finance

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, October 11, 2001 at 2:30 pm to hear testimony on S.
685, ``Strengthening Working Families Act of 2001.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on governmental affairs

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday,
October 11, 2001 at 9:30 am to consider the nomination of Mark W.
Everson to be Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management,
Office of Management and Budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on oceans, atmosphere, and fisheries

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries of the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on
Thursday, October 11, 2001, at 9:30 am, on role of the Coast Guard and
NOAA in strengthening security against maritime threats.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on science, technology, and space

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space of the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on
Thursday, October 11, 2001, at 2:30 pm, on needs of fire services in
responding to terrorism.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent Janelle Sagness, an intern in
my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during today's
deliberations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

FOREIGN OPERATIONS EXPORT FINANCING AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2002--MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to Calendar No. 147, H.R. 2506, the foreign operations
appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Daschle, and in light
of the objection, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 147, H.R. 2506,
and I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 147, H.R. 2506, the foreign
operations appropriations bill, 2002:
Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, Ron Wyden,
Barbara A. Mikulski, Daniel K. Akaka, Russell D.
Feingold, Jack Reed, Zell Miller, Tim Johnson, Paul S.
Sarbanes, Jean Carnahan, Daniel K. Inouye, Barbara
Boxer, Ernest F. Hollings, Patty Murray, Edward M.
Kennedy.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that cloture vote on
the motion to proceed occur at 5:30 p.m., Monday, October 15, and that
the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations:
Calendar Nos. 433 and 438 through 451; that the nominations be
confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any
statements thereon be printed in the Record, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

department of state

Patrick Francis Kennedy, of Illinois, a Career Member of
the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be
Alternate Representative of the United States of America to
the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations
during his tenure of service as Representative of the United
States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management
and Reform.

[[Page 19618]]

department of justice

John L. Brownlee, of Virginia, to be United States Attorney
for the Western District of Virginia for the term of four
years.
Timothy Mark Burgess, of Alaska, to be United States
Attorney for the District of Alaska for the term of four
years.
Harry Sandlin Mattice, Jr., of Tennessee, to be United
States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee for the
term of four years.
Robert Garner McCampbell, of Oklahoma, to be United States
Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma for the term of
four years.
Matthew Hansen Mead, of Wyoming, to be United States
Attorney for the District of Wyoming for the term of four
years.
Michael W. Mosman, of Oregon, to be United States Attorney
for the District of Oregon for the term of four years.
John W. Suthers, of Colorado, to be United States Attorney
for the District of Colorado for the term of four years.
Susan W. Brooks, of Indiana, to be United States Attorney
for the Southern District of Indiana for the term of four
years.
Todd Peterson Graves, of Missouri, to be United States
Attorney for the Western District of Missouri for the term of
four years.
Terrell Lee Harris, of Tennessee, to be United States
Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee for the term
of four years.
David Claudio Iglesias, of New Mexico, to be United States
Attorney for the District of New Mexico for the term of four
years.
Charles W. Larson, Sr., of Iowa, to be United States
Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa for the term of
four years.
Steven M. Colloton, of Iowa, to be United States Attorney
for the Southern District of Iowa for the term of four years.
Gregory Gordon Lockhart, of Ohio, to be United States
Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio for the term of
four years.

nomination of john l. brownlee

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to take the
opportunity today to say a few words about an outstanding young
American who the President has nominated and the Senate has confirmed
to be the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
John Brownlee is exceptionally well-qualified to serve in this
position. He is a graduate of Washington and Lee University and the Law
School of the College of William and Mary. Following his graduation
from law school, John served for two years as a law clerk for the
Honorable Sam Wilson, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Western
District of Virginia. He served four years as an Assistant U.S.
Attorney here in the District of Columbia where he gained extensive
experience as a federal prosecutor. John also has experience in the
private sector as an attorney with the law firm of Woods, Rogers and
Hazlegrove in Roanoke, Virginia.
I have known this outstanding young man for almost eighteen years and
have followed his career development with great interest. John is very
capable and dedicated, with extraordinary character and high moral
standards. A graduate of the ROTC program at Washington & Lee
University, where he also lettered in varsity football each year, John
entered the U.S. Army upon graduation as an infantry officer. He also
volunteered for and graduated from the Army's Airborne and Ranger
training programs.
John's 4-year military career was primarily as an officer in the
Army's 3rd Infantry, the ``Old Guard'', where he served initially as a
Rifle Platoon Leader and later commanded the prestigious Army Drill
Team. While on duty at Ft. Myer, Virginia, John also served as a
military social aide to President George H.W. Bush and, through night
courses, earned a Masters Degree in Business Administration. John
continues to serve his country as a Major in the Army Reserve.
John and his lovely wife, Lee Ann along with their two year old
daughter, Thompson Ann, currently live in Roanoke. Lee Ann is a news
anchor for Channel 10 and one of the most popular personalities in
southwest Virginia.
John was appointed Acting U.S. Attorney on August 30, 2001. He is
already hard at work as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the
Western District. John has already tried and won his first case as the
U.S. Attorney.
I am particularly proud of this young man, having watched him develop
over many years. As many of my colleagues know, John is the son of Les
Brownlee, the Republican Staff Director of the Armed Services
Committee, who has worked for me and the Armed Services Committee for
almost 18 years. So, it is with a great deal of pride and personal
pleasure that I have urged my colleagues to support unanimously the
confirmation of John L. Brownlee as the U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

NOMINATION OF GREGORY LOCKHART

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today we have confirmed
Greg Lockhart to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. I
am in full and strong support of this nomination.
I have known Greg Lockhart for over 25 years. I know from my personal
experiences working with Greg that he is an extremely well qualified
nominee, who possesses great integrity and personal virtue.
Greg's experience is extensive. He served in the U.S. Air Force for
three years from 1966 to 1969, including service in Vietnam. Following
his military service, he attended Wright State University, where he
graduated in 1973. He then earned a law degree from Ohio State
University in 1976. He's been a career prosecutor ever since.
I worked with Greg first in Xenia, when he was the legal advisor to
the Xenia and Fairborn police departments and I was serving as Greene
County prosecutor. I hired him to be assistant county prosecutor in
1978. He became an assistant U.S. attorney in 1987. While in this
position, Greg served as Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force
(OCDETF) prosecutor for two years, with duties including the
prosecution of all violations of federal law, such as contract fraud,
murder, firearms, drugs, money laundering, and organized crime.
Additionally, Greg has handled the civil defense of all manner of
lawsuits brought against the United States, including medical and tort
claims, discrimination, the training of agents and appellate practice.
There is no doubt in my mind that Greg Lockhart has the
qualifications and skills necessary to serve in this post. With 25
years of experience as a prosecutor, Greg will fill this position in a
pragmatic, tempered, and thoughtful way. I thank my colleagues for
joining me in supporting this nomination.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
return to legislative session.

____________________

MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2002

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 68, a 1-week continuing
resolution, just received from the House, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for other
purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint
resolution be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) was read the third time and
passed.

____________________

NATIONAL CHARACTER COUNTS WEEK

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 204
and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 204) expressing the
sense of Congress regarding

[[Page 19619]]

the establishment of National Character Counts Week.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution
introduced by myself and my friend and colleague from New Mexico,
Senator Domenici, to establish National Character Counts Week. This
resolution has passed during each of the last four Congresses with
broad, bi-partisan support. This year, in addition to Senator Domenici
and myself, the resolution has 45 co-sponsors, divided almost equally
between Democrats and Republicans. This resolution passed the House on
September 24, 2001, and we hope that it will pass the Senate today by
unanimous consent.
Our schools may be built with the bricks of reading and math, and
science and history, but bricks need mortar, and character is that
mortar in our children's education. Dr. Martin Luther King exhorted us
to judge each other not by the color of our skin, but by the content of
our character. We must do all that we can to help families and schools
ensure that the character of which Dr. King spoke is sound.
That is why Senator Domenici and I supported grants for character
education partnerships in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in
1994, and again this year. That is why we have been so pleased by the
President's support for character education. And, that is why we urge
our colleagues in the Senate to support this resolution today.
Character education provides students a context within which to
learn. If we view education simply as imparting cold facts to our
children, then we will miss a critical opportunity to develop the
character of future generations. Character education must be part of a
seamless garment of learning.
For example, at Waterford High School, in Connecticut, math students
designed an access ramp for children and others who use wheelchairs.
The students learned about math, but also about caring and inclusion.
At Butler Elementary School, in Groton, CT, principals and teachers
developed the Respect Every Day program. The program is not an
additional required subject. Rather, it is a part of every subject.
And, in Enfield, Connecticut, at Prudence Crandall Elementary School,
teachers use the Teaching Children to Get Along program, which teaches
students to treat others with courtesy, and to be assertive, but not
angry, when dealing with problems such as bullying and teasing.
The Connecticut Department of Education, on behalf of many state
organizations, has issued a Call to Action letter, outlining a program
to improve the school climate in Connecticut schools. And, the
Connecticut Education Association has developed its own character
education program that teaches kids about not bullying and other
behaviors that can disrupt schools and make it difficult for children
to learn.
Just last week, there was a wonderful article in the Washington Post,
about Mt. Rainier Elementary School, in Maryland, only a few miles from
the Capitol. At Mt. Rainier, the theme of peace is woven throughout the
curriculum, and is central to the school's effort to teach children to
be responsible for their actions and to respect themselves, fellow
students, and adults.
A banner over the school entrance reads ``Mt. Rainier: A Peaceful
School.'' Each week, students learn a different word for peace, often
it is the word for peace in a foreign language, teaching students that
peace must be universal. And, students are rewarded for good behavior.
Last year, the school celebrated 160 consecutive Peace Days--a Peace
Day is a day without a fight--with a parade, complete with a marching
band, banners, and a cheering crowd. There's an old line that football
coaches get paid more than teachers, because people don't come to watch
teachers teach--but, apparently, that's not true at Mt. Rainier.
Mt. Rainier's message, and the message of character education
generally, is more important now, than ever. Mt. Rainier's principal,
Phil Catania, said that he and his staff want to make sure that
whatever is happening on the outside, Mt. Rainier is a place where
children can be safe and happy, and learn that anger and violence need
not win out in the end.
A month ago, that would have been about the difference between what
happens in school and what happens in some of the children's
neighborhoods. Tragically, today, it also is about the terrible attacks
on New York, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania. Principal Catania also has
said that he thinks that Mt. Rainier's program is helping students cope
with those events.
So, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, to encourage
parents, schools, and communities to make character education a part of
their children's daily lives, so that their children, like those in
Connecticut, and Mt. Rainier, MD, and around our country, can serve as
beacons of hope in troubled times, and act to end troubled times, as
well.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend, Senator
Dodd, to applaud the passage of a concurrent resolution regarding
National Character Counts Week, H. Con. Res. 204.
I would also like to thank Congressmen Lamar Smith and Bobby Scott
for all of their hard work and leadership on this issue.
The resolution says the week of October 15 through 21 of this year,
and October 14 through 20 of next year, will be known across the
country as ``National Character Counts Week.''
I am pleased with our timing because just this past January, I
listened with great pleasure to President Bush's inaugural address, as
he basically ticked off the tenants of good character underscoring
American life. The President's speech was clearly a message about
character and its importance in American life.
In his speech, the President touched on many of the elements of good
character. I found it especially telling when the President emphasized
the necessity of teaching every child these principles and the duty of
every citizen to uphold these very same principles.
Ironically, nearly a century ago another President, Theodore
Roosevelt, said the following about character: ``Character, in the long
run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations
alike.''
I would submit that character truly does transcend time as well as
religious, cultural, political, and socio-economic barriers.
I believe President Bush's renewed focus on character sends a
wonderful message to Americans, and will help those of us involved in
character education reinvigorate our efforts to get communities and
schools involved.
I say that because a number of years ago we started this approach to
character education called ``Character Counts.'' Senators Nunn, Dodd
and I first introduced the resolution that has now passed the Senate on
innumerable occasions. The resolution simply declares that for all of
America, one week during the year will be known as ``National Character
Counts Week.''
Frankly, we hear a lot about how we should help our young people
growing up in this often difficult society, However, I believe the key
is finding those ideas and programs that work.
We all understand that there are certain people who have the primary
responsibility to care for our children like mothers, fathers,
siblings, and grandparents. We are not in any way talking about
negating that responsibility of raising a child with good values.
However, we have found the teachers in our schools have been yearning
for something they could teach our children that for some reason had
been eliminated from both the public and private school agenda
curriculum. It is sometimes referred to as character education.
I choose to speak about the ``Character Counts'' program that is
being used in many public schools in our country, and certainly in my
State of New Mexico where teachers embrace six pillars of character.
The values comprising the Six Pillars are everyday concepts that
Americans across this land wish their children

[[Page 19620]]

would have and hope America will keep. They are simply:
trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and
citizenship. They transcend political and social barriers and are
central to the ideals on which this Nation was built.
As a matter of fact, I think they are central and basic to any nation
that survives for any long period of history. As Plato once said:

A country without character is a country that's doomed and
the only way a country can have character is if the
individual citizens in the country have character.

I could speak for all of my allotted time on the 200,000 New Mexico
schoolchildren in public, private and parochial schools learning about
good character. About 90 percent of the grade school children, and a
significant portion of the others, are now participating in character
education programs that simply and profoundly bring them into contact
with each of these Pillars one month at a time.
So if you walk the halls of a grade school in Albuquerque, you might
see a sign outside that says, ``This Is Responsibility Month.'' And all
the young people will be discussing the concept of responsibility in
their classrooms, and they will put up posters saying, ``Responsibility
Counts.''
At the end of that month they may have an assembly where
responsibility will be discussed by all the kids, and awards will be
given to those demonstrating the most responsibility. The next month it
might be ``respect.'' The month after that it might be ``caring.''
I would submit the concept is working wherever it is being tried. A
good example can be seen in the changes that occurred at the Garfield
Middle School in Albuquerque. The 570 students at Garfield received
their first lessons on the Six Pillars in October of 1994.
During the first 20 days of that school year, there were 91 recorded
incidents of physical violence. One year later, during the same period,
there were 26 such incidents. I believe this remarkable difference is
evidence that students do respond to Character Counts.
In New Mexico, the Character Counts movement has spread from the
classroom to the boardroom. Recently, a group of business professionals
resolved to explore ways to implement the Six Pillars in all their
business relationships in an effort to spread these values throughout
the community.
Through their efforts, parents have an opportunity to participate in
Character Counts along side their kids, thereby reinforcing lessons
learned in school. Promoting the Six Pillars at work also improves
productivity and morale on the job, and it pays incalculable dividends
in job and customer satisfaction.
I could go on for quite some time talking about Character Counts in
New Mexico. The bottom line is that I believe it is working in New
Mexico and other parts of the country.
Consequently, I think we need to salute the efforts already underway
and encourage even more character education across our country.
So today, Senator Dodd and I are here to applaud the passage of the
resolution and hopefully our renewed effort will bring together even
more communities to ensure that character education is a part of every
child's life.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent
resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 204) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.

____________________

ORDERS FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2001

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 3:30 p.m.,
Monday, October 15; that on Monday, immediately following the prayer
and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date,
the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be
reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of
morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10
minutes each, and that at 4:30 p.m., the Senate resume consideration on
the motion to proceed to the foreign operations appropriations bill,
with the time until 5:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled in the
usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 3:30 P.M. MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2001

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate this morning, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in adjournment under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:09 a.m., adjourned until
Monday, October 15, 2001, at 3:30 p.m.

____________________

CONFIRMATIONS

Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate October 11, 2001:

THE JUDICIARY

BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR., OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
MICHAEL P. MILLS, OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI.

THE FOLLOWING CONFIRMATIONS OCCURRED AFTER 12:00 A.M.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

PATRICK FRANCIS KENNEDY, OF ILLINOIS, A CAREER MEMBER OF
THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF CAREER MINISTER, TO BE
ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO
THE SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS
DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS FOR U.N. MANAGEMENT
AND REFORM.

THE ABOVE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE NOMINEE'S
COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY
BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

JOHN L. BROWNLEE, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA FOR THE TERM OF FOUR
YEARS.
TIMOTHY MARK BURGESS, OF ALASKA, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA FOR THE TERM OF FOUR
YEARS.
HARRY SANDLIN MATTICE, JR., OF TENNESSEE, TO BE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE FOR THE
TERM OF FOUR YEARS.
ROBERT GARNER MCCAMPBELL, OF OKLAHOMA, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA FOR THE TERM OF
FOUR YEARS.
MATTHEW HANSEN MEAD, OF WYOMING, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING FOR THE TERM OF FOUR
YEARS.
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, OF OREGON, TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON FOR THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS.
JOHN W. SUTHERS, OF COLORADO, TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO FOR THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS.
SUSAN W. BROOKS, OF INDIANA, TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FOR THE TERM OF FOUR
YEARS.
TODD PETERSON GRAVES, OF MISSOURI, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI FOR THE TERM OF
FOUR YEARS.
TERRELL LEE HARRIS, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE FOR THE TERM
OF FOUR YEARS.
DAVID CLAUDIO IGLESIAS, OF NEW MEXICO, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO FOR THE TERM OF FOUR
YEARS.
CHARLES W. LARSON, SR., OF IOWA, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA FOR THE TERM OF
FOUR YEARS.
STEVEN M. COLLOTON, OF IOWA, TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA FOR THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS.
GREGORY GORDON LOCKHART, OF OHIO, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO FOR THE TERM OF
FOUR YEARS.