[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20793-20799]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           AFGHANISTAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN RELIEF ACT OF 2001

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today 
to again raise the plight of women, girls and children in Afghanistan. 
I commend Senator Hutchison and Senator Mikulski for taking the 
initiative to introduce the Afghan Women and Children Relief Act of 
2001.
  Many of us have been working since the Taliban seized control in 
Afghanistan to give voice to women who have been silenced, beaten, 
harassed and even executed.
  Afghanistan has been in a cycle of war and conflict for more than 
twenty years. These two decades have been hard on the Afghani people 
but especially difficult for women, young girls and children. When the 
Taliban seized control in Afghanistan, the plight of women, girls and 
children went from a crisis existence to a catastrophic one.
  As noted in our bill and mentioned by my colleagues, women in Kabul, 
Afghanistan represented 70 percent of the teachers when the Taliban 
came to power. Women in Kabul represented 50 percent of the public 
employees and more than 40 percent of the medical professionals 
including doctors. Women students made up 50 percent of the student 
body at Kabul universities.
  Throughout Afghan society women served their country, their culture 
and their families as scientists and professors, as members of 
parliament, as leaders of their communities. The Taliban changed all of 
that quickly and cruelly with little consideration for the rights of 
women or the many roles played in Afghan society by women.
  The Taliban now bans women from working as teachers, doctors or for 
that matter, in any profession.
  The Taliban closed schools to women. Not just the teachers. But to 
all young girls. It is against the law for a young girl to attend a 
school in Afghanistan. To attend school, women and young girls in 
Afghanistan risk floggings, death by stoning, or single shot execution.
  Women cannot leave their homes without the heavy veil style clothing. 
They must be accompanied by a male. Women must not laugh or make noise 
in public. The punishment for violating Taliban law as we have now seen 
in several informative documentary pieces can be deadly. Many of my 
constituents have contacted me shocked and outraged at the video clip 
of the woman ushered into a soccer stadium to the jeers of a crowd. 
She's forced onto the playing field on her knees where she is quickly 
executed by a single shot from a rifle.
  Women in Afghanistan, every generation now living, is suffering under 
the Taliban rule. Some have been forced from meaningful lives to 
absolute poverty. Others now see no future in Afghanistan for 
themselves and their children. Still others, war widows and elderly 
women, are forced into prostitution or forced to sell all of their 
possessions to feed themselves.
  Yesterday, we passed the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. I 
served on this subcommittee for a long time and its many programs offer 
hope to women in Afghanistan. The Afghan Women and Children's Relief 
Act notes many of these programs.

[[Page 20794]]

  We provide assistance to help educate and immunize young girls in the 
world. We provide assistance in the form of maternal health care and 
family planning in the most needy areas of the world. We support 
microcredit lending, particularly to women led households, in many 
impoverished areas of the world.
  We support international organizations from UNICEF and other UN 
entities to non-governmental organizations based here in the United 
States and throughout the world. Our bill would include Afghani women 
and girls in these vital programs.
  As we look to aid women, young girls and children in Afghanistan, we 
must not assume that simply ending the Taliban rule will cure the 
problem. We walked away from Afghanistan when the Cold War ended, we 
cannot do that again when the Taliban goes. We must ensure that women 
and children are fully protected in the Afghan government which will 
eventually follow the Taliban. Women in Afghanistan must be brought 
back--fully brought back--into Afghani society. All of Afghanistan will 
be better when women are allowed again to teach, to serve publicly, and 
to treat illness.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for raising this issue. I join 
them as an original cosponsor of this legislation and I urge its prompt 
passage. Further, I call on all of our colleagues to support the 
appropriate funding levels which will ultimately make a great 
difference in the lives of Afghani women, young girls and children.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill sponsored 
by Senators Hutchison and Mikulski that would authorize the use of 
Federal resources to increase the education, health and living 
standards for women and children in living in Afghanistan, and as 
refugees in neighboring countries. Importantly, it also specifies that 
this assistance is provided in a way that protects and promotes the 
human rights of all people in Afghanistan.
  Allow me to begin by praising the work and leadership of my colleague 
from Texas, Senator Hutchison, on behalf of women both at home and 
abroad. This legislation is entirely consistent with her strong beliefs 
and leadership to extend opportunities to women throughout the world, 
and I am proud to join her in support of this effort.
  It is simply unconscionable that we should even have to consider such 
a measure in this day and age. But there should be no mistake, the 
facts show that Congressional support for women in Afghanistan is 
nothing short of a moral imperative.
  This issue is not simply a matter of cultural differences, of 
imposing a particular viewpoint on another country or people. This is a 
core human rights issue, and to ignore the plight of Afghan women is to 
turn our backs on a terrible wrong that we have the power and I would 
say the obligation as fellow human beings to help right.
  This is a matter of basic justice, and it's basic justice denied 
under the current Taliban regime.
  Prior to the Taliban's assent to power, Afghani women enjoyed both 
stature and freedom. In fact, many Americans may be unaware that 
Afghani women were not only well educated, they constituted 70 percent 
of the nation's school teachers, half of the government's civilian 
workers, and 40 percent of the doctors in its capital.
  But that all changed, or, more accurately, came to a crashing and 
tragic halt, with the seizure of the Afghanistan capital in September 
of 1996, when the Taliban began a regime of gender-based apartheid. 
It's a regime, I'm sad to say, that's been enforced with the most 
extreme brutality.
  Talk about going backwards, what's happened in Afghanistan hasn't 
just turned back the clock, it's turned back the centuries. While the 
calendars tell us it's a new millennium, you'd never know it from the 
graphic and disturbing footage we see from the Taliban-occupied regions 
of Afghanistan, which paint a very different picture of Afghanistan 
than even five years ago.
  Today, women have been banished from the work force, flat out not 
allowed to work . . . to earn a living . . . or to support themselves 
or their family. And let's not forget that, according to an October 23 
article in the Chicago Tribune, and I quote, ``Tens of thousands of 
women were said to be widowed by Afghanistan's long-running battle 
against Soviet occupation in the 1980's. Many have had to turn to 
begging and prostitution.''
  Under the Taliban, girls aren't allowed to go to school. And women 
have been expelled from the universities. In fact, incredibly, women 
are prohibited from leaving their homes at all unless accompanied by a 
close male relative, even in the event of a medical emergency for 
themselves or their children. These women are under house arrest, they 
are prisoners of their own homes.
  And if that's not bad enough, they are prisoners within themselves, 
with the Taliban going to great and inhumane lengths to strip Afghani 
women's sense of self and personhood. As the world has seen over and 
over again in the past five years and even more so since the start of 
the military campaign on October 7th, Afghani women are forced to wear 
a burqa, leaving only a mesh hole from which they can view the world in 
which they cannot participate.
  And heaven help those who dare to tread upon or flout these laws. 
Penalties for violations of Taliban laws range from beatings to public 
floggings to killings, all state sanctioned. While these tragedies are 
not new, with the world's focus on the plight of the Afghani women, it 
is time for us to stand up and be counted.
  For myself, I have continually supported efforts to improve the lot 
of women in Afghanistan, cosponsoring a resolution in the last Congress 
to condemn the systemic human rights abuses that are being committed 
against women and girls in Afghanistan, and supported a similar 
resolution this year that passed unanimously.
  We've been a leader in assisting the people of Afghanistan, in fact, 
the U.S. is the largest single provider of assistance to the Afghan 
people, and we should continue our leadership, now more than ever, as 
the Taliban has brought even greater woe upon the Afghan people.
  It is imperative that we distinguish between the Afghan people and 
the oppressive ruling Taliban that harbors terrorists within their 
borders. This bill highlights the ongoing plight of the Afghani women.
  By authorizing the President to provide educational and health care 
assistance to women and children living in Afghanistan, and as refugees 
in neighboring countries, we recognize that women must have a future in 
Afghanistan. This potential for prosperity can only be realized if, as 
in the United States, both men and women have an opportunity to 
participate and contribute. That's what this bill is all about, and I 
hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 1574. A bill to ensure that hospitals that participate in the 
medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act are able 
to appropriately recognize and respond to epidemics resulting from 
natural causes and bioterrorism; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I do not have to tell my colleagues 
here in the Senate that bioterrorism has become a reality. Here, and 
throughout the Nation, we are frightened and frustrated by the lack of 
clear information on what the threats are, and how we are to find the 
resources to protect ourselves. With this need in mind, I proudly offer 
the ``Public Health Emergency Planning and Information Act of 2001,'' a 
bill which would provide grants to hospitals to prepare for public 
health emergencies, and that would fund programs to provide the public 
and medical providers with accurate information about potential 
biological attacks.
  As we have seen in the past few weeks, the first line of defense 
against the threat of bioterrorism relies upon swift action by local 
health care providers and public health officials. The quick response 
of doctors in Florida to

[[Page 20795]]

that first case of anthrax on October 4th gave the medical community 
and the public a warning of what was to come. Despite this recognition, 
and despite a small number of additional actual anthrax cases, we are 
currently struggling with how to respond, who to treat, what to expect 
next, and what information we can trust. We cannot simply wait to see 
what happens next, we must face this new and terrifying threat 
immediately.
  Epidemics, whether natural or the result of deliberate attacks, 
unfold in communities, and may happen without warning. Our hospitals, 
and our physicians and nurses, must be prepared to detect outbreaks, 
diagnose diseases, treat patients, and activate state and federal 
response systems. They must be able to care for the public without 
becoming ill themselves.
  These tasks will be made more challenging by the sadly diminished 
public health care infrastructure. The legacy of this chronic 
underfunding of state and local health departments has become all too 
obvious in the past few days. Last year, Congress passed legislation 
authored by my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Frist, to begin 
supplying the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and our State 
and local health departments with the funding that they so desperately 
need. I applaud this goal, and trust that we can continue to build on 
those efforts.
  I remain concerned, however, about the resources available to local 
hospitals. Under pressures to contain the costs of health care, 
providers have shifted emphasis from hospital-based care to outpatient 
treatment over the last decade. This change, accompanied by ever 
shrinking staffing levels, has eroded our ability to care for a large 
number of patients at once. Annual epidemics of influenza already 
overwhelm the capacity of local health care systems, and now hospitals 
struggle to care for the ill while preparing for the unthinkable. 
Providers in small communities, particularly, have been less involved 
in Federal disaster training, and are most likely to lack the resources 
to accommodate a surge of patients during a deliberate or natural 
epidemic. Many caregivers from my own State of West Virginia have 
contacted me in recent weeks, desperate for resources to aid their 
preparations.
  Current standards established by accrediting organizations and the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outline basic steps in 
emergency preparedness that should, or must, for accreditation 
purposes, be undertaken by all hospitals and health care facilities. 
However, almost all Federal funding for medical disasters has been 
released in response to emergencies, rather than to prepare for them. 
Hospitals have seen little financial incentive for purchasing equipment 
or supplies that might never be used, especially in the climate of 
managed care.
  The legislation that I introduce today would provide funding to aid 
these hospitals in preparing for emergencies, and to equip and train 
medical professionals to protect themselves and their patients during a 
public health crisis. My bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to award grants directly to Medicare-eligible hospitals to 
meet emergency preparedness standards. These funds could be used to 
train personnel, increase communications between hospitals and local 
emergency response systems, and purchase necessary supplies or 
equipment. This bill would also protect hospitals that meet the 
public's need in a designated disaster area by covering the costs of 
replacing safety equipment and caring for the uninsured, so hospitals 
are not bankrupted by supporting public health.
  In addition to preparing our medical professionals for the 
possibility of an epidemic, we must prepare ourselves. The past week 
has revealed a glaring flaw in our public health response: the failure 
to provide essential facts about the symptoms and best responses to 
suspected bioterrorist attacks. Even here, in the United States Senate, 
staff who might have been exposed to a biological threat have wrestled 
with a lack of information and with misinformation. Poor information 
about basic personal safety, and about symptoms and risk, has made a 
bad situation worse, and the panic has spread from the Capitol 
throughout the Nation.
  During a public health crisis, such as a deliberate act of 
bioterrorism or a natural epidemic, qualified professionals should be 
able to deliver accurate and timely information to the public. We 
cannot ask individuals to make good decisions about protecting 
themselves and their families without helping them to understand the 
risks and the realities of potential outbreaks. We must act to ensure 
that American citizens can turn to a reliable, understandable source of 
information on agents such as anthrax.
  My legislation would provide funding for public health crisis 
education and information, and would require publication of educational 
materials for use by medical professionals and the general public. 
These materials would be designed to prepare the public for the most 
likely foreseeable events in order to avert panic, and to promote good 
public health.
  These programs will help hospitals and the public prepare not only 
for the threat of bioterrorism, but for the equally demanding tasks of 
controlling now-familiar epidemics of influenza and food-borne 
illnesses. We have been forced to confront our vulnerability to attacks 
that were until recently unthinkable, and to seek new ways to prepare 
and to protect ourselves, not only for the anthrax attack unfolding 
before us, but for the possible threats of the future. We must act now 
to prepare for whatever challenges lie ahead, as well as react to the 
fear at hand. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, so that 
we may begin the steps necessary to protect the health of our Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Bond):
  S. 1575. A bill to provide new discretionary spending limits for 
fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to 
the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee 
reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be 
discharged.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce budget 
legislation to increase the discretionary spending limits for fiscal 
year 2002 and eliminate the current balances on the pay-go scorecard. 
While it is likely that this or similar language will be included in 
one of the remaining appropriations bills, I believe it is important to 
introduce this bill and have it referred to the Committee on the Budget 
in order to assert the committee's jurisdiction over such matters.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief summary 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1575

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

     SECTION 1. FY 2002 BUDGETARY PROVISIONS.

       (a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--
       (1) New discretionary caps for 2002.--Section 251(c)(6) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     (2 U.S.C. 901(c)) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $681,441,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $670,447,000,000 in outlays;''.
       (2) New allocation to the appropriations committees.--
     Notwithstanding the provisions of H. Con. Res. 83, as agreed 
     to on May 10, 2001 (107th Congress) and the joint statement 
     of managers accompanying the conference report for the 
     resolution, the budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 
     2002 allocated under section 302 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633) to the Committees on 
     Appropriations shall be as follows:
       
                              (In millions)                                                 Budget
                                                Authority      OutlaysGeneral purpose discretionary..............         683,201      702,806
Memo:
  On-budget................................         679,622      699,281
  Off-budget...............................           3,579        3,525
       (3) Enforcement of budget aggregates.--Notwithstanding the 
     provisions of H. Con. Res. 83, as agreed to on May 10, 2001 
     (107th Congress) and the joint statement of managers 
     accompanying the conference report

[[Page 20796]]

     for the resolution, for the purpose of enforcing the 
     provisions of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, the recommended levels and amounts set out in sections 
     101(2) and 101(3) with respect to fiscal year 2002 of that 
     resolution shall be--
       (A) $1,653,193,000,000 in new budget authority; and
       (B) $1,615,308,000,000 in outlays.
       (4) Adjustments for emergencies.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in 
     making any adjustments required by section 314(b)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and in preparing the report 
     as required by section 254(f)(2) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 904(f)(2)) 
     with respect to fiscal year 2002, the adjustments required by 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not exceed $2,200,000,000 
     in budget authority and $1,030,000,000 in outlays.
       (B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with 
     respect to legislation that is designated by the President 
     and Congress as providing emergency funding in response to 
     the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
       (b) Treatment of Pay-Go Spending.--In preparing the final 
     sequestration report required by section 254(f)(3) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for 
     fiscal year 2002, in addition to the information required by 
     that section, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall change any balance of direct spending and 
     receipts legislation for fiscal year 2002 under section 253 
     of that Act so as to eliminate any balances resulting from 
     legislation enacted prior to the date of enactment of this 
     Act. All legislation enacted subsequently shall be recorded 
     in accordance with section 253 of that Act.
       (c) Repeal.--Section 203 of H. Con. Res. 83, agreed to May 
     10, 2001 (107th Congress) is repealed.
                                  ____


                            S. 1575--Summary

       Amends section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 to provide discretionary spending 
     limits for fiscal year 2002 consistent with those negotiated 
     by the Administration and Leaders of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       Provides a new section 302(a) allocation to the Senate 
     Committee on Appropriations consistent with the amended 
     statutory limits.
       Both the statutory limits and the allocation to the 
     Committee on Appropriations in this bill are consistent with 
     those set forth in the legislation reported on a bipartisan 
     basis from the House Committee on the Budget, see H.R. 3084.
       Provides new budget resolution aggregates with respect to 
     new budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2002, for 
     enforcement of section 311 of the Budget Act.
       Limits the congressional scorekeeping and statutory 
     adjustments for emergency spending to $2.2 billion in keeping 
     with the agreement between the Administration and the 
     Appropriations Committees. Provides an exception for 
     emergency spending related to the attacks of September 11, 
     2001.
       Eliminates the balance on OMB's pay-go scorecard as of the 
     date of enactment. Consequently requires any additional 
     mandatory spending or revenue reductions to be either offset 
     or designated as an emergency.
       Repeals section 203 of the fiscal year 2002 budget 
     resolution which created a mechanism for congressional 
     implementation of a change in the statutory spending limits 
     and a ``firewall'' between defense and non-defense 
     discretionary spending.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 1576. A bill to amend section 1710 of title 38, United States 
Code, to extend the eligibility for health care of veterans who served 
in Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf War; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce 
legislation that would ensure that Gulf War veterans suffering from 
unexplained illnesses continue to get the care that they need. If we do 
not act quickly, these veterans will soon lose their priority 
eligibility for health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
despite the sad fact that we still do not understand the causes of 
their symptoms.
  As many of my colleagues know, servicemembers returning from the Gulf 
War in 1991 began to report a range of unexplained illnesses that many 
believed might have resulted from their service. Investigations by 
Congress, the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, and the 
Institute of Medicine showed that the men and women who served in 
Operation Desert Storm might have been exposed to many battlefield 
hazards, including smoke from oil-well fires, pesticides, organic 
solvents, the drug pyridostigmine bromide, numerous vaccinations, and 
sarin nerve gas.
  Unfortunately, our efforts to determine whether any or all of these 
hazards might be linked to specific symptoms have been limited by poor 
data, a lack of research into the long-term effects of low-dose 
exposures, and incomplete military recordkeeping. In response to 
concerns about the health of Gulf War veterans, Congress passed Public 
Law 102-585, authorizing health examinations, tasking the National 
Academy of Sciences to evaluate scientific evidence regarding potential 
Gulf War exposures, and establishing the Gulf War Veterans Health 
Registry, and Public Law 102-310, authorizing VA to provide health care 
services on a priority basis to Gulf War veterans through December 31, 
2001.
  Now, more than a decade after the war, scientific research has 
determined neither the causes of veterans' symptoms, nor the long-term 
health consequences of Gulf War-era exposures. In addition, the 
Department of Defense recently released new estimates of the number and 
locations of service personnel exposed to nerve agents. To meet the 
medical needs of these Gulf War veterans, now and as they continue to 
unfold, we must extend this period for providing health care services 
on a priority basis. The legislation that I have introduced would 
extend this period for 10 more years.
  I ask my colleagues in joining me to extend this critical service for 
the men and women who served this Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 1577. A bill to amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources 
Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to authorize additional 
projects under that Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1577

       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 ``Lower Rio Grande Valley 
     Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       Section 4(a) of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources 
     Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-576; 
     114 Stat. 3067) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) In the United Irrigation District of Hidalgo County, 
     Texas, a pipeline and pumping system, as identified in the 
     study conducted by Sigler, Winston, Greenwood, and 
     Associates, Inc., dated January 2001.
       ``(6) In the Cameron County, Texas, Irrigation District No. 
     2, proposed improvements to Canal C, as identified in the 
     engineering report completed by Martin, Brown, and Perez, 
     dated February 8, 2001.
       ``(7) In the Cameron County, Texas, Irrigation District No. 
     2, a proposed Canal C and Canal 13 Inner Connect, as 
     identified in the engineering report completed by Martin, 
     Brown, and Perez, dated February 12, 2001.
       ``(8) In Delta Lake Irrigation District of Hidalgo and 
     Willacy Counties, Texas, proposed water conservation 
     projects, as identified in the engineering report completed 
     by AW Blair Engineering, dated February 13, 2001.
       ``(9) In the Hidalgo and Cameron County, Texas, Irrigation 
     District No. 9, a proposed project to salvage spill water 
     using automatic control of canal gates, as identified in the 
     engineering report completed by AW Blair Engineering, dated 
     February 14, 2001.
       ``(10) In the Brownsville Irrigation District of Cameron 
     County, Texas, a proposed main canal replacement, as 
     identified in the engineering report completed by Holdar-
     Garcia & Associates, dated February 14, 2001.
       ``(11) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District 
     No. 16, a proposed off-district pump station project, as 
     identified in the engineering report completed by Melden & 
     Hunt, Inc., dated February 14, 2001.
       ``(12) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District 
     No. 1, a proposed canal replacement of the North Branch East 
     Main, as identified in the engineering analysis completed by 
     Melden & Hunt, Inc., dated February 2001.
       ``(13) In the Donna (Texas) Irrigation District, a proposed 
     improvement project, as identified in the engineering 
     analysis completed by Melden & Hunt, Inc., dated February 13, 
     2001.
       ``(14) In the Hudspeth County, Texas, Conservation and 
     Reclamation District No. 1--
       ``(A) the Alamo Arroyo Pumping Plant water quality project, 
     as identified in the engineering report and drawings 
     completed by Gebliard-Sarma and Associates, dated July 1996; 
     and

[[Page 20797]]

       ``(B) the construction of a 1,000 acre-foot off-channel 
     regulating reservoir for the capture and conservation of 
     irrigation water, as identified in the engineering report by 
     completed by AW Blair Engineering, dated March 2001.
       ``(15) In the El Paso County, Texas, Water Improvement 
     District No. 1, the Riverside Canal Improvement Project Phase 
     I, Reach A, a canal lining and water conservation project, as 
     identified in the engineering report and drawings completed 
     by AW Blair Engineering, dated November 1999.
       ``(16) In the Maverick County, Texas, Water Improvement and 
     Control District No. 1, the concrete lining project of 12 
     miles of the Maverick Main Canal, as identified in the 
     engineering report completed by AW Blair Engineering, dated 
     March 2001.
       ``(17) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District 
     No. 6, rehabilitation of 10.2 miles of concrete lining in the 
     main canal between Lift Stations Nos. 2 and 3, as identified 
     in the engineering report completed by AW Blair Engineering, 
     dated March 2001.
       ``(18) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District 
     No. 2, Wisconsin Canal Improvements, as identified in the 
     engineering report completed by Sigler, Winston, Greenwood 
     and Associates, Inc., dated February 2001.
       ``(19) In the Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2, 
     Lateral `A' Canal Improvements, as identified in the 
     engineering report completed by Sigler, Winston, Greenwood 
     and Associates, Inc., dated July 25, 2001.''.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Lower Rio Grande Water Conservation and Improvement 
     Program.--Section 3 of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water 
     Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 (Public 
     Law 106-576; 114 Stat. 3065) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``The Secretary'' and all that follows through ``in 
     cooperation'' and inserting ``The Secretary, acting through 
     the Commissioner of Reclamation, shall carry out a program 
     under cooperative agreements'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Review and Evaluation.--The Secretary shall review 
     and evaluate project proposals in accordance with the 
     guidelines described in the document published by the Bureau 
     of Reclamation entitled `Guidelines for Preparing and 
     Reviewing Proposals for Water Conservation and Improvement 
     Projects Under Public Law 106-576', dated June 2000.'';
       (3) in subsection (d), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, including operation, maintenance, 
     repair, and replacement'';
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking ``the criteria 
     established pursuant to this section'' and inserting ``the 
     guidelines referred to in subsection (b)'';
       (5) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Report Preparation; Reimbursement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), project 
     sponsors may choose to enter into 1 or more contracts with 
     the Secretary under which the Secretary shall prepare the 
     reports required under this section.
       ``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     report preparation by the Secretary described in paragraph 
     (1) shall not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of that 
     preparation.''; and
       (6) in subsection (g), by striking ``$2,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$8,000,000''.
       (b) Lower Rio Grande Construction Authorization.--Section 4 
     of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation 
     and Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-576; 114 Stat. 
     3067) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``costs of any 
     construction'' and inserting ``total project cost of any 
     project''; and
       (B) in the last sentence, by striking ``spent'' and 
     inserting ``expended''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$47,000,000, as adjusted to reflect the change, 
     relative to September 30, 2001, in the Consumer Price Index 
     for all urban consumers published by the Department of 
     Labor''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Inouye, 
        and Mr. Reid):
  S. 1578. A bill to preserve the continued viability of the United 
States travel industry; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the ``Freedom to Travel'' is a basic 
freedom. And since September 11 we have given a great deal of focus, 
and rightfully so, to the airline industry. But I rise today to direct 
my colleague's attention to the rest of the travel industry which has 
also been deeply affected by the events of September 11.
  In the part of the country I come from, we're familiar with 
disasters. We know what it's like when, through no fault of your own, 
the world falls out from under you as a result of natural disaster. 
There was nothing natural about the cowardly and deadly acts of 
September 11, but they were certainly unpredictable, unexpected and 
clearly beyond the control of anyone who was affected by them.
  Just as America has generously responded to natural disasters, we 
must now respond to this new disaster and help our fellow countrymen 
and women rebuild their lives and livelihood. In the aftermath of the 
tragedy we acted quickly, and responsibly, to stabilize the airlines 
with a financial package of grants and loan guarantees. And we were 
right to pass the aviation security bill to dramatically increase the 
number of sky marshals, strengthen cockpit doors and federalize the 
screening of passengers and luggage at our airports because we need to 
make sure people feel it is safe to fly.
  While I supported both of those measures, we now must address the 
devastating impact September 11 has had on the U.S. travel and tourism 
industry. The network of hotels, travel agents, car rental companies, 
restaurants, and attractions that make up the tourism industry, has 
also been hard hit, and needs our support. A huge segment of our 
economy, the travel and tourism industry is the third largest retail 
industry. It generates more than $582 billion in revenue each year, and 
directly and indirectly employed more than 19 million people.
  North Dakota is a long way from Ground Zero in New York City, from 
the Pentagon in Virginia, and from that lonely farm field in 
Pennsylvania. But the violence that took place at each of those 
locations continues to be felt half a continent away in my home State, 
in our hearts and yes, in our State's tourism industry.
  Let me share just two reports from North Dakota.
  Randy Hatzenbuhler, executive director of the Theodore Roosevelt 
Medora Foundation, writes me to say this: his ``organization has great 
concerns about our 2002 season. We are preparing our business plans to 
anticipate significant decreases in visitation--10-25 percent.''
  Katherine Satrom, of Satrom Travel and Tour in Bismarck, ND tells the 
story even more starkley. She writes that ``The week of September 11 
and the week of September 17, our company's revenue was about 25 
percent of normal at best. Following weeks have been about 50 percent 
of average revenue for the period.'' ``On September 26,'' she 
continues, ``our company cut all employee salaries by 10 percent and 
management salaries 20 percent in an effort to avoid a reduction in 
workforce.'' ``We have been a viable business for 23 years, providing 
jobs and contributing to the economy,'' she concludes. ``We now need 
some assistance to bridge this disaster-related downturn and regroup 
for the future.''
  That's a measure of just how far-reaching, broad and deep the 
economic disaster now ripping through the tourism industry has grown. 
It reaches every State. And while what's going on in my State is 
serious and grave, what is happening closer to the scene of the attacks 
is much, much worse. So today, along with Senators Specter, Conrad, 
Inouye, and Reid, I introduce the American Tourism Stabilization Act. 
Our bill follows through on a suggestion that came out of a hearing 
that we held in the Commerce Committee on how the travel industry is 
dealing with the impact of September 11. What we learned was not good. 
Almost uniformly we heard from rental car companies, hoteliers, travel 
agencies, who are struggling to stay in business as they try to cope 
with the sudden drop-off in business since September 11. We also heard 
from individual hotel workers from across the country that are part of 
the \1/3\d of the hospitality industry that is now struggling to pay 
their bills since being laid-off after September 11.
  Out of that hearing came the suggestion, that as we did with the 
airline industry, we provide loan guarantees to help the U.S. tourism 
industry function until business returns.
  So, the American Tourism Stabilization Act would provide $5 billion 
worth of loan guarantees for eligible travel-related businesses. 
Building on the airline stabilization bill the American Tourism 
Stabilization Act would simply have the already created, Air

[[Page 20798]]

Transportation Stabilization Board, process loan guarantees for 
eligible travel-related businesses that have been adversely affected by 
the government shutdown of the airline industry. Specifically the bill 
is intended to make loans available to travel agencies, rental car 
companies, airport concessionaires, and others with contractual 
relationships with the airlines that have been directly affected by the 
tragedies of September 11.
  The purpose of the bill is to provide liquidity to businesses that 
have been hurt because of their direct ties to an air carrier such as 
travel agencies, and airline vendors or an airport concessionaires. It 
would do so by making loan guarantees available, based on the ability 
to repay, to help tide these businesses over until air traffic and 
pleasure travel returns to normal. I urge my colleagues to support our 
effort to help the 19 million people who work in the travel industry.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI:
  S. 1579. A bill to expand the applicability of daylight saving time; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Halloween 
Safety Act of 2001. The purpose of this act is to extend the end date 
of Daylight Saving Time from the last Sunday in October to the first 
Sunday in November to include the night of Halloween.
  The idea of extending Daylight Saving Time was introduced to me by 
Sharon Rasmussen, a second grade teacher from Sheridan, WY, and her 
students. Ten years ago Mrs. Rasmussen's class began writing to 
Wyoming's representatives expressing their wish to have an extra hour 
of daylight on Halloween to increase the safety of small children. Each 
year I receive a packet of letters from Mrs. Rasmussen's class 
encouraging support for this reasonable proposal. Halloween is a time 
of great importance and excitement for youngsters throughout the United 
States and many celebrate by trick-or-treating door to door.
  Legislation has been introduced in the past to extend Daylight Saving 
Time. Although many of the bills sought to change both the starting 
date and the ending date, the legislation I introduced today would 
simply extend it for one week.
  The need to protect our children is apparent. According to the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, nearly five thousand 
pedestrians died in 1999, that is an average of 13 deaths per day. 
Fatal pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions occur most often between 6 
and 9 pm. Unfortunately, these general trends are highly magnified on 
Halloween given the considerable increase in pedestrians, most of whom 
are children. A study by the National Center for Injury Prevention and 
Control concluded that the occurrence of pedestrian deaths for children 
ages 5 to 14 is four times higher on Halloween than any other night of 
the year. School and communities encourage children and parents to use 
safety measures when children venture out on Halloween and the 
Halloween Safety Act can further help protect our Nation's youth.
  When students take an interest in improving our Nation's laws, 
especially when it would serve to protect other children, I believe it 
is our duty to pay close attention. If children are concerned about 
their own safety and create a reasonable approach to make their world a 
little bit safer, I believe that accommodating their request is not too 
much to ask. The fact that second and third grade students in Sheridan, 
WY, have been working on this legislation shows that protecting the 
children of our country is a primary concern of these students, and it 
should be for all of us as lawmakers. If one life can be saved or one 
accident averted by extending Daylight Saving Time, it would be 
worthwhile. I encourage all my colleagues to support this act for the 
important benefits the Halloween Safety Act of 2001 would have for 
children and their parents.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1581. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
business deduction for the purchase and installation of qualifying 
security enhancement property; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that 
reflects the changed societal dynamic that we have witnessed since the 
attacks of September 11. This legislation, the American Security 
Enhancement Act of 2001, will allow every business in America to 
immediately write off the cost of security enhancements needed to keep 
their business operating in a safe and secure manner.
  All one has to do is take a walk around the Capitol to see how much 
extra the Congress is spending to secure our facilities. Concrete 
barriers, higher security visibility, closer monitoring of cars, are 
just a few of the many security enhancements that have become an 
ordinary part of life on Capitol Hill now. The Postal Service will be 
spending millions to enhance the security of the mail. And the same 
will hold true for many businesses in this country.
  It is not just the extras that airlines will have to spend. Every 
business in America knows that it can potentially confront threats of 
unknown proportions. They need to protect their employees and they need 
to protect their customers. In order to achieve greater security, 
American business is going to have to spend billions in the next 
several years.
  My legislation attempts to alleviate some of the financial costs 
companies will inevitably incur whether they purchase high tech 
electronic monitoring equipment or low tech concrete barriers. 
Currently, such equipment must be depreciated over periods ranging from 
5 to 15 years. Under my bill all security enhancement equipment 
purchased after September 11 can be expensed, written off immediately.
  While investments in such equipment has become a fundamental cost of 
doing business; such equipment does absolutely nothing to enhance a 
company's profitability. Quite the contrary, it represents a cost that 
will have to be absorbed in the ultimate product or service the company 
provides.
  It seems to this Senator that allowing companies to write off these 
costs when they purchase them is the fairest thing we can do to 
encourage companies to secure their employees and facilities.
  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. 1581

       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 ``American Security 
     Enhancement Investment Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. BUSINESS DEDUCTION FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF 
                   QUALIFYING SECURITY ENHANCEMENT PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to itemized 
     deductions for individuals and corporations) is amended by 
     inserting after section 179A the following new section:

     ``SEC. 179B. SECURITY ENHANCEMENT PROPERTY.

       ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--A taxpayer may elect to 
     treat the cost of any qualifying security enhancement 
     property as an expense which is not chargeable to capital 
     account. Any cost so treated shall be allowed as a deduction 
     for the taxable year in which such device is placed in 
     service.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualifying security enhancement property.--The term 
     `qualifying security enhancement property' means security 
     enhancement property--
       ``(A) to which section 168 applies,
       ``(B) which is acquired by purchase (as defined in section 
     179(d)(2)), and
       ``(C) which is installed or placed in service in or outside 
     of a building which is owned or occupied by the taxpayer and 
     which is located in the United States.
       ``(2) Security enhancement property.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `security enhancement property' 
     means property which is specifically and primarily designed 
     when installed in or outside of a building--
       ``(i) to detect or prevent the unlawful access by 
     individuals into the building or onto its grounds,

[[Page 20799]]

       ``(ii) to detect or prevent the unlawful bringing into the 
     building or onto its grounds of weapons, explosives, 
     hazardous materials, or other property capable of harming the 
     occupants of the building or damaging the building, or
       ``(iii) to protect occupants of the building or the 
     building from the effects of property described in clause 
     (ii).
       ``(B) Certain property included.--The term `security 
     enhancement property' includes--
       ``(i) any security device, or
       ``(ii) any barrier to access to the building grounds.
       ``(3) Security device.--The term `security device' means 
     any of the following:
       ``(A) An electronic access control device or system.
       ``(B) Biometric identification or verification device or 
     system.
       ``(C) Closed-circuit television or other surveillance and 
     security cameras and equipment.
       ``(D) Locks for doors and windows, including tumbler, key, 
     and numerical or other coded devices.
       ``(E) Computers and software used to combat cyberterrorism.
       ``(F) Electronic alarm systems to provide detection 
     notification and off-premises transmission of an unauthorized 
     entry, attack, or fire.
       ``(G) Components, wiring, system displays, terminals, 
     auxiliary power supplies, and other equipment necessary or 
     incidental to the operation of any item described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F).
       ``(4) Building.--The term `building' includes any structure 
     or part of a structure used for commercial, retail, or 
     business purposes.
       ``(c) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Basis reduction.--For purposes of this subtitle, if a 
     deduction is allowed under this section with respect to the 
     purchase of a qualifying security device, the basis of such 
     device shall be reduced by the amount of the deduction so 
     allowed.
       ``(2) Only incremental cost included.--If qualifying 
     security enhancement property has a use or function other 
     than that described in subsection (b)(2), only the 
     incremental cost of the use or function so described shall be 
     taken into account.
       ``(3) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules 
     of paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 179(b), section 179(c), 
     and paragraphs (3), (4), (8), and (10) of section 179(d), 
     shall apply for purposes of this section.''
       (b) Conforming and Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Section 263(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (G), 
     by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H) and 
     inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after subparagraph (H) 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(I) expenditures for which a deduction is allowed under 
     section 179B.''
       (2) Section 312(k)(3)(B) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or 179A'' and inserting ``, 179A, or 
     179B'', and
       (B) by striking ``or 179a'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``, 179a, or 179b''.
       (3) Section 1016(a) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (27), by striking the period 
     at the end of paragraph (28) and inserting ``, and'', and by 
     inserting after paragraph (28) the following new paragraph:
       ``(29) to the extent provided in section 179B(c)(1),''.
       (4) Section 1245(a) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``179B,'' after ``179A,'' both places it appears in 
     paragraphs (2)(C) and (3)(C).
       (5) The table of sections for part VI of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 179A the following new item:

``Sec. 179B. Security enhancement property.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after September 10, 
     2001, in taxable years ending after September 10, 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 1584. A bill to provide for review in the Court of International 
Trade of certain determinations of binational panels under the North 
American Free Trade Agreement; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce important legislation 
designed to correct a fundamental flaw within the North American Free 
Trade Agreement, NAFTA, dispute resolution mechanism, known as Chapter 
19. As many of my colleagues are aware, Chapter 19 has revealed itself 
to be unacceptable in its current form. The Integrity of the U.S. 
Courts Act, that I introduce today with my colleague Mr. Baucus, is 
necessary to make certain bilateral dispute resolution decisions from 
the NAFTA are made pursuant to U.S. trade laws.
  At present, antidumping and countervailing duty determinations made 
by NAFTA members are appealed to ad hoc panels of private individuals, 
instead of impartial courts created under national constitutions. These 
panels are supposed to apply the same standard of review as a U.S. 
court in order to determine whether a decision is supported by 
substantial evidence on the agency record, and is otherwise in 
accordance with the law. This standard requires that the agency's 
factual findings and legal interpretations be given significant 
deference. Unfortunately, in spite of the panels' mandate, they all too 
often depart from their directive and fail to ensure that the correct 
standard of review is applied.
  The Integrity of the U.S. Courts Act would permit any party to a 
NAFTA dispute involving a U.S. agency decision to remove appellate 
jurisdiction from the Extraordinary Challenge Committee, ECC, to the 
U.S. Court of International Trade. Doing so would resolve some of the 
constitutional issues raised by the Chapter 19 system, expedite 
resolution of cases, and ensure conformity with U.S. law.
  The infirmities of Chapter 19 are real, and have been problematic 
from the beginning. The Justice Department, the Senate Finance 
Committee, and other authorities are on record of having expressed 
serious concern about giving private panelists, sometimes a majority of 
whom are foreign nationals, the authority to issue decisions about U.S. 
domestic law that have the binding force of law. These appointed 
panelists, coming from different legal and cultural disciplines and 
serving on an ad hoc basis, do not necessarily have the interest that 
unbiased U.S. courts have in maintaining the efficacy of the laws, as 
Congress wrote them.
  One of the most egregious examples of the flaws of Chapter 19 is 
reflected in a case from early in this process, reviewing a 
countervailing duty finding that Canadian lumber imports benefit from 
enormous subsidies. Three Canadian panelists outvoted two leading U.S. 
legal experts to eliminate the countervailing duty based on patently 
erroneous interpretations of U.S. law--interpretations that Congress 
had expressly rejected only two months before. Two of the Canadian 
panelists served despite undisclosed conflicts of interest. The matter 
was then argued before a Chapter 19 appeals committee, and the two 
committee members outvoted the one U.S. member to once again insulate 
the Canadian subsidies from U.S. law.
  The U.S. committee member was Malcolm Wilkey, the former Chief Judge 
of the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and one of the 
United States' most distinguished jurists. In his opinion, Judge Wilkey 
wrote that the lumber panel decision ``may violate more principles of 
appellate review of agency action than any opinion by a reviewing body 
which I have ever read.'' Judge Wilkey and former Judge Charles 
Renfrew, also a Chapter 19 appeals committee member, have since 
expressed serious constitutional reservations about the system. While 
some have claimed that Chapter 19 decides many cases well, its 
inability to resolve appropriately large disputes, and its 
constitutional infirmity, demand a remedy.
  It is clear that the time is long past due to remedy Chapter 19. From 
the outset, the NAFTA agreement contemplated that given the sensitive 
and unusual subject matter, signatories might have to alter their 
obligations under Chapter 19. The Integrity of the U.S. Courts Act is a 
reasonable solution to a serious problem.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senators Baucus and Cochran and me in 
our effort to fix this problem that is unfairly harming American 
industry, and more important, the U.S. Constitution.

                          ____________________