[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2111-2175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Reid, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 340. A bill to recruit and retain more qualified individuals to 
teach in Tribal Colleges or Universities; to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier this week I had the honor and 
pleasure of meeting with the presidents, faculty and student leaders 
from South Dakota's tribal colleges to talk about the educational needs 
of Native Americans and the crucial role tribal colleges play in 
strengthening tribal communities. It was a fascinating conversation.
  We sat around a table in my office in the United States Capitol 
building talking about the hopes and aspirations of the next generation 
of Native American leaders. Every one of those young people had good 
ideas and the poise and self-confidence to express them.
  As the participants spoke of the importance and the power of 
education as the key to unlock the promise of the future, the story I 
heard was not one of bricks and mortar, but rather one of enduring 
spirit, sense of community and hope for a better quality of life. 
Listening to the discussion and observing the people in the room, I had 
no doubt that the future of Indian Country is in good hands.
  Tribal colleges and universities play a critical role in educating 
Native Americans across the country, and I have come to believe they 
may well be the best kept secret in higher education. For more than 30 
years, these institutions have been instrumental in providing a quality 
education for Native American students, many of whom our mainstream 
educational system previously had failed.
  Before the tribal college movement began, only six or seven out of 
100 Native American students attended college. Of those few who did, 
only one or two would graduate with a degree.
  Then tribal colleges emerged, offering curricula that is culturally 
relevant and focused on a tribe's particular philosophy, culture, 
language and economic needs. With this focus and a clear mission, these 
institutions have had a high success rate in educating Native American 
and Alaska Native people, and tribal college enrollment has increased 
62 percent over the last six years.
  The track record of tribal colleges is impressive. Recent studies 
show that 91 percent of 1998 tribal college and university graduates 
are working or pursuing additional education one year after graduation. 
Over the last ten years, the unemployment rate of recently polled 
tribal college graduates was 15 percent, compared to 55 percent on many 
reservations overall.
  While tribal colleges and universities have been highly successful in 
helping Native Americans obtain a higher education, additional 
challenges remain before the future of these institutions is assured. 
These schools rely heavily on federal resources to provide educational 
opportunities for their students, and federal spending trends for these 
schools have been woefully inadequate. It is imperative that the 
bipartisan effort to provide additional core and facilities funding to 
tribal colleges continue.
  In addition to resource constraints, tribal college administrators 
and faculty have expressed to me a particular frustration over the 
difficulty they experience in attracting qualified teachers to Indian 
Country. Geographic isolation and low salaries have made recruitment 
and retention particularly difficult for many of these schools, and 
this problem has been exacerbated by rising enrollment.
  As a matter of public policy, it simply makes sense for Congress to 
help tribal college administrators overcome these serious barriers to 
the recruitment and retention of qualified faculty. Today, with the 
support of the South Dakota delegation of Tribal Colleges, the American 
Indian Higher Education Consortium, and the National Indian Education 
Association, and the co-sponsorship of my colleagues Senators Bingaman, 
Conrad, Baucus, Akaka, Reid, Kennedy, Leahy, Dodd, and Johonson, I am 
pleased to introduce the Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness 
Act, which will provide forgiveness on federal student loans to 
individuals who commit to teach for up to five years in one of the 32 
tribal colleges nationwide. Under this proposal, individuals who have 
Perkins, Direct or Guaranteed loans may qualify to receive up to 
$15,000 in loan forgiveness, which will help tribal colleges attract 
qualified teachers and encourage Native American students to fulfill 
their promise.
  The Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act will benefit 
individual students and their communities. By expanding opportunities 
for Native American students to develop valuable skills, it will not 
only allow individuals to maximize their human potential, but also spur 
economic growth and help facilitate self-sufficiency in communities 
that desperately need it.
  I believe our responsibility as legislators was perhaps best summed 
up by one of my state's historic leaders, Sitting Bull, who said: ``Let 
us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our 
children.'' This message still resonates loudly and applies today, and 
is reflected in the life's work of Sitting Bulls' great-great-great 
grandson, Ron McNeil, the president of Sitting Bull College, with whom 
I met on this very subject earlier in the week.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with Ron McNeil and his 
fellow educators across the country to familiarize the public with the 
accomplishments and the promise of the tribal college movement. And I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to pass the 
Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act as quickly as 
possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be 
printed in the Record.




  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 340

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

     SECTION 1. LOAN REPAYMENT OR CANCELLATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO 
                   TEACH IN TRIBAL COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tribal 
     College or University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act''.
       (b) Perkins Loans.--
       (1) Amendment.--Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (ii) in subparagraph (I), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(J) as a full-time teacher at a tribal College or 
     University as defined in section 316(b).''; and

[[Page 2112]]

       (B) in paragraph (3)(A)(i), by striking ``or (I)'' and 
     inserting ``(I), or (J)''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall be effective for service performed during academic year 
     1998-1999 and succeeding academic years, notwithstanding any 
     contrary provision of the promissory note under which a loan 
     under part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1087aa et seq.) was made.
       (c) FFEL and Direct Loans.--Part G of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 493C. LOAN REPAYMENT OR CANCELLATION FOR INDIVIDUALS 
                   WHO TEACH IN TRIBAL COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     program, through the holder of a loan, of assuming or 
     canceling the obligation to repay a qualified loan amount, in 
     accordance with subsection (b), for any new borrower on or 
     after the date of enactment of the Tribal College or 
     University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act, who--
       ``(1) has been employed as a full-time teacher at a Tribal 
     College or University as defined in section 316(b); and
       ``(2) is not in default on a loan for which the borrower 
     seeks repayment or cancellation.
       ``(b) Qualified Loan Amounts.--
       ``(1) Percentages.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall assume or cancel the obligation to repay under this 
     section--
       ``(A) 15 percent of the amount of all loans made, insured, 
     or guaranteed after the date of enactment of the Tribal 
     College or University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act to a 
     student under part B or D, for the first or second year of 
     employment described in subsection (a)(1);
       ``(B) 20 percent of such total amount, for the third or 
     fourth year of such employment; and
       ``(C) 30 percent of such total amount, for the fifth year 
     of such employment.
       ``(2) Maximum.--The Secretary shall not repay or cancel 
     under this section more than $15,000 in the aggregate of 
     loans made, insured, or guaranteed under parts B and D for 
     any student.
       ``(3) Treatment of consolidation loans.--A loan amount for 
     a loan made under section 428C may be a qualified loan amount 
     for the purposes of this subsection only to the extent that 
     such loan amount was used to repay a loan made, insured, or 
     guaranteed under part B or D for a borrower who meets the 
     requirements of subsection (a), as determined in accordance 
     with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to issue 
     such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize any refunding of any repayment of a 
     loan.
       ``(e) Prevention of Double Benefits.--No borrower may, for 
     the same service, receive a benefit under both this section 
     and subtitle D of title I of the National and Community 
     Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.).
       ``(f) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `year', when applied to employment as a teacher, means an 
     academic year as defined by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 2. AMOUNTS FORGIVEN NOT TREATED AS GROSS INCOME.

       The amount of any loan that is assumed or canceled under an 
     amendment made by this Act shall not, consistent with section 
     108(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, be treated as 
     gross income for Federal income tax purposes.
                                   ____
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 341. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require 
that violent video programming is limited to broadcast after the hours 
when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion 
of the audience, unless it is specifically rated on the basis of its 
violent content so that it is blockable by electronic means 
specifically on the basis of that content; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens, Senator 
Hutchison of Texas, Senator Inouye, Senator Kohl, Senator Dorgan, and 
myself, I send to the desk a bill, the Children's Protection From 
Violent Programming Act.
  Mr. President, it has been a 50-year learning process. I am reminded 
of Peter, Paul, and Mary, singing that song about, ``Where have all the 
flowers gone? When will they ever learn?'' The truth of the matter is 
that we have learned. We have had hearings starting back in the early 
1950s with Senator Kefauver. We have had Surgeon General reports, 
American Medical Association reports, American Psychological 
Association reports, National Cable Television Association reports, 
Kaiser Family Foundation reports--reports, reports, reports, again, 
again, and again; and only this yet to be introduced ``Youth Violence: 
A Report of the Surgeon General,'' which I quote, among other findings, 
from page 93:

       Research to date justifies sustained efforts to curb the 
     adverse effects of media violence on youth.

  We have had Attorney General Janet Reno, along with other legal 
scholars, attest to the constitutionality of the safe harbor approach. 
The truth of the matter is that everybody is talking about 
bipartisanship. We have had it with respect to TV violence and its 
effect on children. In the last three Congresses, safe harbor has been 
reported out of committee almost unanimously, with only one dissenting 
vote in each Congress, 16-1, 19-1, 17-1, after a series of hearings in 
the Commerce Committee. Then it gets to the full Senate's calendar and 
it stops.
  On Thursday, January 25, a thirteen year old boy was sentenced to 
life in prison for the killing of a six year old family friend. Why did 
he do it? To imitate pro wrestling he had watched on television. In 
this instance, the defendant punched, kicked, and threw a 48 pound 
little girl against a metal staircase after asking her ``Do you want to 
play wrestling?'' His defense attorney stated: ``He wanted to emulate 
them. . . . Like Batman and Superman, they were his heroes.'' He added, 
that the defendant ``didn't understand that he could hurt the 48-pound 
girl if he punched her and threw her because he had seen pro wrestlers 
do that hundreds of times without injuring each other.'' Apparently, 
the death was one of at least four cases in 1999 in which pro wrestling 
inspired the killing of one child by another.
  The day after this sentencing, another thirteen year old boy suffered 
second and third degree burns when he tried to imitate an MTV 
personality who set himself on fire as part of the show ``Jackass,'' 
which airs on that music network. The injured teen, who was from 
Torrington, CT, allowed his friend to douse his pants and shoes with 
gasoline and then light them on fire mistakenly assuming that he would 
not be injured. His burns, and required hospitalization tell another 
tale.
  Mr. President, enough is enough. And yet, we can never bring 
ourselves to act. Remember, it was over three years ago, in Paducah, 
Kentucky, when a fourteen year old savagely murdered three teenage 
girls and shot five others who had just completed their morning prayer 
meeting at school. Prosecutors alleged the defendant plotted his 
killings after watching ``The Basketball Diaries,'' a movie in which a 
tormented student dreams of brutally slaying his tormentors in the 
classroom. In the scene in which the killings take place, popular rock 
music resonates in the background and students high-five each other and 
laugh while their friend guns down multiple students and the classroom 
teacher.
  And we all are familiar with the incident in which a young boy burned 
down his home, thereby killing his sister, while imitating the 
ritualistic pyromaniac practices that were glorified on the popular 
cartoon show ``Beavis and Butthead.'' A few years before that, in 1991, 
a thirteen year old boy in Jerusalem accidentally killed himself when 
he imitated a TV hanging he had witnessed on one of his favorite 
action-adventure programs. His friends discovered him dead, hanging 
from the stairway bannister in his home.
  How much copycat violence will it take? How many violent acts have to 
be committed, how much vandalism, destruction, injury, and death has to 
occur, before we act here in Congress? As we have seen in Littleton, 
Colorado, and in Paducah, Kentucky, violence in our culture is 
begetting violence by our youths. Violence is everywhere, it is readily 
accessible, and it is a source of corporate profits. As a Washington 
Post article entitled ``When Death Imitates Art'' stated two years 
ago--``For young people, the culture at large is bathed in blood and 
violence . . . where the more extreme the message, the more over the 
top gruesomeness, the better.'' This assessment is based on

[[Page 2113]]

established evidence and facts. We know from the Congressional Research 
Service that before completing elementary school, the average child 
will witness 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on 
television alone. By the time he or she graduates from high school, the 
exposure will rise to 40,000 televised murders. Often accompanied by 
popular music, portrayed in a glorified light, and delivered without 
reference to the negative consequences of such dire actions, television 
violence has a direct, adverse impact on our children.
  The legislation I offer today provides an opportunity for us to act 
responsibly to lessen that impact, by limiting our children's exposure 
to the poisonous effects of televised, glorified, violence. We need to 
take advantage of that opportunity. The purveyors of violence in 
corporate America will no doubt criticize this effort and seek the 
mantle of the First Amendment while espousing the virtue of self-
regulation. What they won't say is that U.S. law already restricts the 
broadcasting of indecent programming on television, a restriction the 
federal courts have upheld as consistent with the First Amendment. A 
similar approach for violence is also likely to be upheld, as has been 
demonstrated in previous Congresses through the hearing testimony of 
the U.S. Attorney General, the Chairman of the Federal Communications 
Commission, and numerous constitutional scholars. As for self-
regulation, it has been proven unequivocally that such an approach will 
never work so long as it is pitted against the allure of the almighty 
dollar.
  Mr. President, this is an issue about accountability and 
responsibility. Those responsible for supplying and distributing video 
programming have been entrusted with public resources--through grants 
of government spectrum and public rights of way--that allow them to 
deliver their programming to America's children. Notwithstanding the 
responsibility that accompanies the grant of this public trust, we know 
from the studies that there is more violence on television during prime 
time, during ``sweeps weeks'' and even on weekend afternoons. Why? 
Because violence sells and money talks. And no amount of self- 
regulation, and no number of antitrust exemptions is going to change 
that profit incentive.
  Moreover, we know that no issue is more developed, more researched, 
and more debated than this one. Allow me to lay out the history.
  We were in the last days of the Truman Administration when a House 
Subcommittee first looked at the issue of violence on radio and 
television.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Estes Kefauver began to 
examine media and youth violence in hearings in 1954 and the Senate 
Commerce Committee began hearings in 1960. In the Senate Commerce 
Committee alone we have held twenty two hearings on the issue of media 
violence.
  In 1972, the Surgeon General's report concluded that there is a 
causal link between viewing violence as a child and subsequent violent 
or aggressive behavior.
  In 1982, the National Institute of Mental Health, after ten years of 
research, found that ``the consensus among most of the research 
community is that violence on television does lead to aggressive 
behavior by children and teenagers who watch the programs.''
  Congress finally responded to this overwhelming evidence in 1990, 
when we granted the industry an antitrust exemption to meet and develop 
ways to reduce violence on television. In response to that legislation, 
the TV networks issued standards for the depiction of violence on 
broadcast television. Let me quote from those standards:

       All depictions of violence should be relevant and necessary 
     to the development of character, or to the advancement of 
     theme or plot. Gratuitous or excessive depictions of 
     violence, (or redundant violence shown solely for its own 
     sake), are not acceptable. Programs should not depict 
     violence as glamorous, nor as an acceptable solution to human 
     conflict. . . . Realistic depictions of violence should also 
     portray, in human terms, the consequences of that violence to 
     its victims and its perpetrators.

  The goals articulated by these network standards are good ones--they 
are the same goals I hope to achieve with this legislation. 
Unfortunately, the standards developed pursuant to the 1990 antitrust 
exemption were never adhered to by the networks. Instead, the 
television industry ignored and violated those standards, thereby 
rendering the antitrust exemption meaningless. We know this because an 
industry commissioned study by the National Cable Television 
Association tells us as much. That NCTA study, issued in 1998, reported 
that:

       The way that most TV violence is portrayed continues to 
     pose risks to viewers . . . Much of TV violence is still 
     glamorized. . . . Most violence on television continues to be 
     sanitized. Television often ignores or underestimates what 
     happens to the victims of violence . . . Much of the serious 
     physical aggression on television is still trivialized.

  The NCTA report could not put it more plainly. The networks failed to 
heed their own standards. I hope we have learned our lesson: no 
antitrust exemption is going to protect children from the harms 
associated with television violence.
  With respect to the causal impact of exposure to televised violence, 
the NCTA report was equally illuminating. It stated:

       Prior to this study, it had already been well established 
     that television influences many kinds of attitudes and 
     behaviors by modeling them as appropriate and/or desirable. A 
     highly successful multi-billion dollar advertising industry 
     is built on that premise. More specifically, violence on 
     television has been shown in hundreds of studies to have an 
     influence on aggressive behavior. Over the past 20 years, 
     numerous respected academic and public health organizations 
     and agencies--including the American Psychological 
     Association, the American Medical Association, the U.S. 
     Surgeon General, and the National Institute of Mental 
     Health--have reviewed the existing body of evidence in this 
     area and have unanimously affirmed the validity of that 
     conclusion.

  Finally, several weeks ago, the Surgeon General released a 
preliminary report that concludes--yet again--that there exists a 
scientific link between violent television programming and increased 
aggression in children. The report states: ``A diverse body of research 
provides strong evidence that exposure to violence in the media can 
increase children's aggressive behavior in the short term.'' The report 
notes further that a smaller body of reports demonstrates that ``long-
term effects exist, and there are strong theoretical reasons that this 
is the case.'' Finally, the report concludes that ``Research to date 
justifies sustained efforts to curb the adverse effects of media 
violence on youths.''
  So there you have it. We have come full circle with two significant 
surgeon general reports almost thirty years apart and scores of studies 
in between. In the interim, Congress and the Federal Communications 
Commission have tried to address this problem with a mix of regulation 
and self regulation. These attempts have been unsuccessful. In the 
1970s, FCC Chairman Dick Wiley attempted to cajole industry to adopt a 
family hour, but that ultimately was abandoned. Then, in addition to 
the failed 1990 antitrust exemption, we acted in 1996, as part of the 
Telecommunications Act, to require televisions to be equipped with a V-
Chip. We know today, however, almost five years since that provision 
was passed, that the V-chip is not working. For example, an April 2000 
survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation demonstrates that only 9 percent 
of parents of children aged 2-17 own a television with a V-Chip. 
Moreover, only one-third of these parents (3 percent of all parents) 
have programmed the chip to block unsuitable programming. Finally, the 
survey indicated that 39 percent of parents of children aged 2-17 had 
never heard of the V-Chip.
  As if that was not bad enough, we know further that the industry 
developed ratings system designed to work in conjunction with the V-
chip is failing as well. To be specific, although almost all broadcast 
and cable channels now encode their programs with ratings, many violent 
programs are in fact not specifically rated ``V'' for violence--thereby 
rendering the system ineffective. The most recent survey by the Kaiser 
Family Foundation on this subject found that 79 percent of shows

[[Page 2114]]

with violence did not receive the ``V'' rating. If the V-Chip and the 
ratings system do not provide enough protection, it is our 
responsibility to fill in the gap.
  Last year, the Senate Commerce Committee held two high profile 
hearings to examine an issue related to televised violence--that of 
marketing violence to children. At those hearings we reviewed industry 
practices as outlined in a Federal Trade Commission report that found 
that the entertainment industry as a whole routinely marketed violent 
fare to children that was in fact rated as inappropriate for those same 
children. I raise this subject because some members of industry 
responded to the FTC report and our hearings by choosing to limit the 
advertising of violent material on television to certain hours of the 
day. In other words, they too believe that it is better to shield 
children from exposure to violent images when they are likely to 
comprise a substantial portion of the audience. While I applaud those 
voluntary actions, they do not go far enough, and as a result, we in 
Congress have to do more. If it is good for children to limit violent 
advertisements, it follows that it should be good for children to limit 
violent programming.
  A recent study by Stanford University supports this conclusion. 
Released last month, the study determined that aggression by children 
can be reduced by limiting their exposure to media violence--exactly 
the approach advocated in our Safeharbor legislation.
  Mr. President, that is why I am introducing my legislation today. My 
bill takes a two track approach to television violence. First, it would 
require the FCC to study whether the V-Chip and the content-based 
ratings system can capably meet the compelling government interest in 
protecting children from the harms associated with their exposure to 
violence on television. The FCC is to complete this determination 
within 12 months of enactment and is directed to continue an ongoing 
annual assessment of this issue. If the FCC at any time determines that 
the V-Chip and the ratings do not constitute an effective means of 
satisfying the government's compelling interest in protecting children, 
then it must institute a Safeharbor to shield children from violent 
programs when they are likely to comprise a substantial portion of the 
audience. While this legislation would apply to broadcast television 
and basic satellite and cable programming, it would exempt pay-per-view 
and premium cable and satellite programming from the Safeharbor.
  Prior to the imposition of any safeharbor, the legislation directs 
the FCC to develop rules penalizing broadcasters and cable and 
satellite programmers for distributing violent programming on 
television that is not blockable by the V-Chip. These penalties will be 
triggered if violent shows are not in fact rated ``V'' for violence as 
required by the ratings system. This provision will increase the 
incentive for programmers to rate their shows accurately, and responds 
to evidence that most violent programming is in fact not specifically 
rated for violence, and therefore is not blockable by the V-Chip.
  This legislation was reported favorably by the Senate Commerce 
Committee last year by a 17-1 vote. I look forward to moving the bill 
out of Committee again this year, and I hope that we can secure 
enactment of this measure for the first time in this Congress.
  Mr. President, the evidence is in, we know the results, and we have a 
solution. Its time to enact a safeharbor for television violence.
  Mr. President, I refer to page 23 of volume 3 of ``A History of 
Broadcasting in the United States.'' It alludes to the year 1949 and 
the production of the program ``Man Against Crime,'' starring Ralph 
Bellamy. I begin right on page 23:
  ``Man Against Crime was sponsored by Camel Cigarettes. This affected 
both writing and direction. Mimeographed instructions told writers, 
``Do not have the heavy or any disreputable person smoking a cigarette. 
Do not associate the smoking of cigarettes with undesirable scenes or 
situations plot wise.''

       Cigarettes had to be smoked gracefully, never puffed 
     nervously. A cigarette was never given to a character to calm 
     his nerves, since this might suggest a narcotic effect. 
     Writers received numerous plot instructions.

  Listen carefully because this is the instruction that the writers 
were given 50 years ago:

       It has been found that we retain audience interest best 
     when our story is concerned with murder. Therefore, although 
     other crimes may be introduced, somebody must be murdered, 
     preferably early, with the threat of more violence to come.

  That is from the History of Broadcasting.
  The industry knows that violence is a moneymaker. Ten years ago, the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois said: No, no, wait a minute, don't 
rush into this thing; freedom of speech, freedom of speech. We don't 
want to damage the originality of the producers. So we gave an 
antitrust exemption so they could work together because Senator Simon 
said they could not work together and regulate because of antitrust 
provisions in the Federal statute. We gave them that protection.
  Then came a very interesting study from cable television. Every time 
I speak in the Chamber, they give me another study. That is why I wish 
I could sing: When will they ever learn?
  This study, done a few years ago, was financed by the National Cable 
Television Association, but it was done by the University of California 
at Santa Barbara, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the 
University of Texas at Austin and the University of Wisconsin at 
Madison. It included, amongst other council members, the American 
Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Producers Guild of 
America, the Writers Guild of America West, the Caucus for Producers, 
Writers and Directors, the American Bar Association, and the Directors 
Guild of America. Point: The very people who are doing the producing 
found that violence begets children's violence.
  Three weeks ago, a 13-year-old was sentenced to life in prison for 
bludgeoning to death a 48-pound 8 year old. He had seen this on a cable 
wrestling show. These wrestlers jumped on each other, they beat each 
others' heads against a post, and then flung opponents out of the ring. 
That was the undisputed record: That the 13-year-old saw wrestling 
matches where everybody got up and walked away unharmed and came back 
the next week.
  Just last month, someone else emulated a stunt on MTV showing how 
people could be set on fire and then walk away unharmed. The individual 
saw the MTV program, tried it, and got first- and second-degree burns 
all over his body.
  I will never forget years ago on the ``Johnny Carson Show,'' they had 
a fellow with a tie around his neck, and he dropped through a trap door 
and hung and, again, just walked away. The next day a couple found 
their young teenager hanging from the bedroom fan. He had tied himself 
up, got on the edge of the bed, and jumped off and hanged himself.
  We know monkey see-monkey do, and it begets violence. This country, 
the industrial country of the United States, has more violence than all 
other countries combined.
  What have the other countries done? For years on end they have had a 
safe harbor in Europe, in Australia, and in New Zealand, and other 
places. They have a time set aside when children dominate the audience 
and thou shalt not have violent shows during that time. It works. Their 
children do not shoot up classrooms, they do not emulate violence, or 
kill little girls. That does not go on in Europe, but it continues to 
increase in our country, according to the Surgeon General's report just 
about to be released. We see it on the increase.
  The Kaiser Family Foundation counters with: Oh, well, you have to get 
the V-chip. Under legal decisions, you have to use the least intrusive 
method of regulating so-called free speech. So we put the V-chip into 
the 1996 Telecommunications Act. That was supposed to allow parents to 
take charge. We constantly hear that when we know it is not the case.
  Sixty-two percent of young single women are in the workforce with

[[Page 2115]]

latchkey children at home. We have tried that V-chip. One, 40 percent 
of those interviewed under the Kaiser Family Foundation have never even 
heard of the V-chip--what are you talking about? Two, less than 10 
percent have ever had the V-chip, and, three, less than 3 percent have 
ever used it.
  It is impractical. You have to run around to the three or four TVs in 
the house and say: I have the program, and before I go to work this 
morning, I am going to put in the chip. Come on, that is unreal, but 
that is the political solution which has not worked.
  I do not want to be put aside. I have been put aside. I offered an 
amendment a couple of years ago to the juvenile justice bill. Some 
colleagues said: Fritz, I would vote for your amendment, but I don't 
want any amendments on the juvenile justice bill, or we have not tried 
the V-chip. They gave any putoff they could think of.
  We found out that we ought to just include it in a statute. In this 
bill, we direct the Federal Communications Commission to have hearings 
on this matter and determine whether or not the V-chip is effective 
and, if it is not, to promulgate a safe harbor.
  Constitutionally, the Federal Communications Commission has been 
given that authority on indecency. Why not on violence? These programs 
have not been properly rated. We prescribe in this measure that the 
industry start rating violence--V for violence--on these shows. If they 
do not, there is going to be a penalty.
  A Stanford University study has just been issued whereby they have 
tested the diminution of violence on television and there has been a 
diminution then in children's violence in that particular community. We 
will bring that to the floor. We are ready to debate this legislation. 
This is a bipartisan bill. We have had Republican and Democrats in the 
last three Congresses join in, but we have never had a fair hearing on 
the floor.
  We have done this in a deliberate, measured fashion so that we can 
get it considered in this Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Hollings' 
Children's Protection from Violent Television Programming Act. I thank 
Senator Hollings for his leadership and hard work on this important 
issue shielding our children from excessive violence in the media.
  This proposal is vital to ensure that the promise of the V-chip is 
fulfilled, that our public airwaves cannot be used and abused to the 
detriment of our families and our children. But today, in spite of the 
V-chip, our children are still being exposed to ultra-violent 
programming on television, even during the early prime time period 
known as ``family hour.''
  Since my first term in office, I have fought to limit the amount of 
violence that our children are exposed to on television, in video 
games, in the movies and in music. Although I have focused on the video 
game industry encouraging the manufacturers to create and implement a 
ratings system I was also a vocal supporter of the V-chip provision 
included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  The V-chip legislation required the installation of blocking 
technology in most televisions. That technology is used in conjunction 
with a television ratings system so that parents can restrict their 
children's access to violent programming at all times. We know that 
parents can't realistically look over their children's shoulders every 
minute they're in front of the television. But the V-Chip allows them 
to configure their television to do essentially that.
  Since January 2000, V-chip technology has been installed in every 
television measuring over 13''. More than 25 million televisions have a 
V-chip now. However, a recent study by the Annenberg Public Policy 
Center revealed that nine in ten parents do not know about the 
television ratings system, and of parents who own and know about their 
V-chip, only half actually use the blocking technology.
  Clearly, having a V-chip in a television is just not good enough. It 
has to be combined with a good, easily understood ratings system and a 
real commitment by manufacturers, retailers and broadcasters to educate 
parents. Without these elements, having a V-chip in your television is 
about as effective at protecting your child as requiring car seats but 
letting toddlers sit in the front seat without a seatbelt.
  Mr. President, my first preference is to have V-chip technology that 
works and that parents trust. But if it seems otherwise, we will not 
stand idly by. This legislation presents a step-by-step approach: it 
asks the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to gauge the success 
and public awareness of the V-chip. And if success is limited and 
public awareness is low, this measure vests the Commission with the 
power to remedy it.
  So let's pass this legislation, and let's find out if the V-chip is 
really helping parents shield their children from violence on 
television. And if not, let's give the FCC the power to do something 
about it. Our families and especially our children deserve nothing 
less.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CARNAHAN:
  S. 342. A bill to assist local educational agencies by providing 
grants for proven measures for increasing the quality of education, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak 
about an issue that is close to my heart and one that is essential to 
the Nation's future--the education of our children.
  Education was a priority for my husband, the late Mel Carnahan, 
throughout his career, and it was a driving force during his two terms 
as Governor of Missouri.
  I recall that one of the things he enjoyed most as he traveled around 
the State was visiting schools. He would come home excited about the 
good things that were happening in Missouri schools.
  His Outstanding Schools Act, passed during his first term as 
Governor, brought major improvements to classrooms throughout our 
State. He dreamed of doing even more. As he traveled across Missouri 
seeking election to this body, he called for a new national commitment 
to the education of America's children.
  Though he did not live to pursue that dream, I am proud to stand here 
in his place in the U.S. Senate to introduce my first bill--a bill 
imprinted with his hopes, a bill that fulfills his pledge to the 
citizens of Missouri, and a bill that reinforces the President's 
promise ``to leave no child behind.''
  Though teachers, students, and parents are trying harder than ever, 
schools are facing difficult times.
  My concern, and the focus of this legislation, is the classrooms of 
America: Classrooms that are severely crowded and housed in 
deteriorating facilities; classrooms where disorderly and sometimes 
violent students are disrupting learning; classrooms in need of math, 
science, and reading specialists.
  As a result of these conditions, far too many students are failing to 
learn and are falling behind in comparison with students in other 
developed nations.
  Increases in student population across the Nation further heighten 
the problems, as does the loss of teachers to retirement or other 
professions. According to the 1998 National Assessment of Education 
Progress, one-quarter of our students are still being taught in classes 
of more than 25 students.
  As we watch class sizes grow, we see the physical condition of our 
older classrooms fall into dangerous disrepair. In Missouri alone, we 
face the daunting prospect of $4 billion in construction needs for our 
public schools over the next decade.
  The threat and frequency of violence and disruptions in our 
classrooms remain at unacceptable levels. A recent study by the 
Educational Testing Service made this observation:

       School discipline * * * problems are critical factors in 
     student achievement. Without order in our classrooms, 
     teachers can't teach and students can't learn.

  Our national leaders have been bemoaning the condition of public 
schools for many years. Over 50 years ago, President Truman said:


[[Page 2116]]

       The schools in this country are crowded and teachers 
     underpaid. One of our greatest national needs is more and 
     better schools.

  Later, President Eisenhower noted:

       Millions of children were receiving substandard education 
     because of unsanitary, overcrowded, and unsafe classrooms. * 
     * * It was evident to many of us, but not all, that in view 
     of the financial positions of many states and school 
     districts, the federal government would have to help.

  Yet decades after these remarks, the Federal Government still 
provides a mere 7 percent of the national education budget.
  I understand there are many who are weary of increased Federal 
education funding because they fear that with such funds comes Federal 
control of local schools. While this is a legitimate concern, it need 
not be a paralyzing fear that prevents us from moving ahead with much 
needed classroom improvements.
  There is a way for us to fund public schools without adding redtape, 
burdening our school districts, or enabling Federal bureaucrats to 
dictate local education policy.
  The legislation I introduce today--the Quality Classrooms Act--will 
do just that. It calls for a new commitment of $50 billion over the 
next decade to our local schools.
  These funds would flow directly from the Federal Government to local 
schools districts and would be dedicated exclusively to helping schools 
provide what parents, teachers, and students most desire--more 
intensive, individualized, face-to-face instruction in the classroom.
  It recognizes that different school districts have different needs. 
Some may need to reduce class size, others to improve classroom 
conditions. In an attempt to provide more flexibility to each school 
district and to keep decisionmaking at the local level, this bill 
allows school districts to use the funding for one, or a combination of 
purposes. Each of the five options addresses class size or conditions--
a formula that has led to improved student performance in the past.
  Funds under the Quality Classrooms Act would be used to do one or 
more of the following: Hire new classroom teachers to reduce student-
teacher ratios; build or renovate classrooms to relieve overcrowding; 
hire experienced teaching specialists, focusing on basics such as 
reading, science, and math; establish alternative discipline programs 
for the education of chronically violent and disruptive students; and 
provide a year-round schedule.
  This menu of choices allows schools to retain flexibility, yet leaves 
parents and taxpayers with the comfort of knowing that resources are 
being spent on measures with proven success.
  The bill provides added flexibility and innovation by setting aside 
10 percent of the available funding for a competitive grant program. 
These ``Innovation Grants'' would encourage schools to develop creative 
approaches to quality instruction.
  Grant recipients are required to evaluate these newly developed 
programs to determine what approaches enhance student performance. 
Aside from this evaluation, however, school districts will not be 
required to file burdensome reports or abide by new Federal mandates.
  This proposed legislation makes sure that money goes to schools, 
teachers, and students, not the education bureaucracy. It requires the 
Department of Education to spend only the bare minimum necessary to 
operate the grant program. Funds flow directly from the Federal 
Government to local school districts.
  I present this legislation knowing that education improvement is 
going to be one of the predominant themes in the 107th Congress. An 
important part of this theme is the discussion about how to make our 
schools more accountable. These discussions are centered around 
proposals by the President, my colleagues, Senators Bayh and Lieberman, 
and others. Accountability must be a part of our education debate, and 
I look forward to participating in those efforts.
  But even as we pursue that goal, we must make sure that all our 
public school students are learning in modern facilities, with skilled 
teachers, in classrooms with an appropriate number of well disciplined 
students.
  To achieve these goals, we need a greater Federal investment in 
education. Families wanting to provide a better future for themselves 
and their children know the wisdom of investing in a home, a savings 
account, or a pension plan. It is a lesson worth noting as we ponder 
the future of public education. To shortchange America's children not 
only disheartens educators, parents, and communities, it violates our 
national interests and the vision that has marked us as a people.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to consider this legislation designed 
to strengthen student achievement by promoting quality classrooms all 
across America.
  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. 342

       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 ``Quality Classrooms Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to support local educational 
     agencies by awarding grants for--
       (1) the implementation of specific measures, as selected by 
     local educational agencies from a local accountability menu, 
     that have been proven to increase the quality of education; 
     and
       (2) the conduct of other activities that local educational 
     agencies demonstrate will provide enhanced individual 
     instruction for the students served by the agencies.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the same meaning given that term under section 
     14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.

     SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Local Accountability Menu Grants.--
       (1) Program authorized.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     to local educational agencies to be used for the activities 
     described in paragraph (3).
       (2) Application.--
       (A) In general.--A local educational agency desiring a 
     grant under this subsection shall submit an application to 
     the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       (B) Contents.--Each application submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include--
       (i) a description of the local educational agency's plan of 
     activities for which grant funds under this subsection are 
     sought;
       (ii) a detailed budget of anticipated grant fund 
     expenditures;
       (iii) a detailed description of the methodology that the 
     local educational agency will use to evaluate the 
     effectiveness of grants received by such agency under this 
     subsection; and
       (iv) such assurances as the Secretary determines to be 
     essential to ensure compliance with the requirements of this 
     Act.
       (3) Authorized activities.--Grant funds awarded under this 
     subsection may be used for one or more of the following 
     measures, collectively established as the local 
     accountability menu:
       (A) Reduction of student-teacher ratios through the hiring 
     of new classroom teachers.
       (B) School construction assistance for the purpose of 
     relieving overcrowded classrooms and reducing the use of 
     portable classrooms.
       (C) Hiring of additional experienced teachers who 
     specialize in teaching core subjects such as reading, math, 
     and science, and who will provide increased individualized 
     instruction to students served by the local educational 
     agency.
       (D) Alternative programs for the education and discipline 
     of chronically violent and disruptive students.
       (E) Assistance to facilitate the local educational agency's 
     establishment of a year-round school schedule that will allow 
     the agency to increase pay for veteran teachers and reduce 
     the agency's need to hire additional teachers or construct 
     new facilities.
       (4) Administrative cap.--A local educational agency that 
     receives a grant under this subsection shall not use more 
     than 3 percent of the funds received for administrative 
     expenses.
       (b) Innovation Grants.--
       (1) Program authorized.--The Secretary shall reserve 10 
     percent of the amount made available to carry out this Act in 
     each fiscal year to award grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     local educational agencies for the local educational agencies 
     to carry out the activities described in paragraph (3).

[[Page 2117]]

       (2) Application.--
       (A) In general.--A local educational agency desiring a 
     grant under this subsection shall submit an application to 
     the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       (B) Contents.--Each application submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include--
       (i) a description of the local educational agency's plan of 
     activities for which grant funds under this subsection are 
     sought;
       (ii) a detailed budget of anticipated grant fund 
     expenditures;
       (iii) a detailed description of the methodology that the 
     local educational agency will use to evaluate the 
     effectiveness of grants received by such agency under this 
     subsection; and
       (iv) such assurances as the Secretary determines to be 
     essential to ensure compliance with the requirements of this 
     Act.
       (3) Authorized activities.--Each local educational agency 
     receiving a grant under this subsection shall use the amounts 
     received under the grant for one or more activities that the 
     local educational agency sufficiently demonstrates, as 
     determined by the Secretary, will provide enhanced individual 
     instruction for students served by the agency, but that are 
     not part of the local accountability menu described in 
     subsection (a)(3).
       (4) Limitation.--No funds awarded under this subsection 
     shall be used for tuition payments for students at private 
     schools or for public school choice programs.
       (5) Administrative cap.--A local educational agency that 
     receives a grant under this subsection shall not use more 
     than 3 percent of the funds received for administrative 
     expenses.

     SEC. 5. ALLOCATION.

       (a) Administrative Cap.--The Secretary shall expend not 
     more than 0.25 percent of the funds made available to carry 
     out this Act on administrative costs.
       (b) Funding to Indian Tribes.--From the amount made 
     available to carry out this Act for any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reserve 0.75 percent to awards grants to 
     Indian tribes to carry out the purposes of this Act.
       (c) Formula.--From the amount made available to carry out 
     this Act for any fiscal year, and remaining after the 
     reservations under subsections (a) and (b) and under section 
     4(b)(1), the Secretary shall distribute such remaining 
     amounts among the local education agencies as follows:
       (1) 80 percent of such amount shall be allocated among such 
     eligible, local educational agencies in proportion to the 
     number of children, aged 5 to 17, who reside in the school 
     district served by such local educational agency from 
     families with incomes below 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 for the most recent fiscal year for which 
     satisfactory data are available as compared to the number of 
     such children who reside in the school districts served by 
     all eligible, local educational agencies for the fiscal year 
     involved.
       (2) 20 percent of such amount shall be allocated among such 
     eligible local educational agencies in proportion to the 
     relative enrollments of children, aged 5 to 17, in public and 
     private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools within the 
     boundaries of such agencies.
       (d) Limitation on Carryover.--Not more than 20 percent of 
     the funds allocated to a local educational agency for any 
     fiscal year under this Act may remain available for 
     obligation by such agency for 1 additional fiscal year.

     SEC. 6. SANCTIONS.

       If the Secretary determines that the local educational 
     agency has used funds in violation of the provisions of this 
     Act or the regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant 
     to section 8, the Secretary may impose an appropriate 
     sanction that may include reimbursement or ineligibility for 
     additional funds for a period of years, depending upon the 
     severity of the misuse of funds.

     SEC. 7. REPORT AND DOCUMENTATION.

       (a) Report to the Secretary.--At such time as the Secretary 
     deems appropriate, and not less than once each year 
     thereafter, each recipient of a grant under this Act shall 
     submit to the Secretary a report that includes, for the year 
     to which the report relates--
       (1) a description of how the funds made available under 
     this Act were expended in correlation with the plan and 
     budget submitted under sections 4(a)(2) and 4(b)(2), as 
     applicable; and
       (2) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant 
     received under this Act, as required by sections 4(a)(2)(B) 
     and 4(b)(2)(B), as applicable.
       (b) Documents and Information.--Each recipient of a grant 
     under this Act shall provide the Secretary with all documents 
     and information that the Secretary reasonably determines to 
     be necessary to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of 
     programs funded under this Act.

     SEC. 8. REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

       The Secretary shall issue such regulations and guidelines 
     as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 9. NOTICE.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall provide specific notification 
     concerning the availability of grants authorized by this Act 
     to each local educational agency.

     SEC. 10. ANTIDISCRIMINATION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify or affect 
     any Federal or State law prohibiting discrimination on the 
     basis of race, religion, color, ethnicity, national origin, 
     gender, age, or disability, or to modify or affect any right 
     to enforcement of this Act that may exist under other Federal 
     laws, except as expressly provided by this Act.

     SEC. 11. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.

       Funds made available under this Act shall be used to 
     supplement, not supplant, any other Federal, State, or local 
     funds that would otherwise be available to carry out the 
     activities assisted under this Act.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act, $50,000,000,000 for the 10-fiscal year period beginning 
     on October 1, 2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 343. A bill to establish a demonstration project to authorize the 
integration and coordination of Federal funding dedicated to the 
community, business, and economic development of Native American 
communities; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, though there are glimmers of hope in 
Native communities, most Native Americans remain racked by 
unemployment, mired in poverty, and rank at or near the bottom of 
nearly every social and economic indicator of well-being that is 
tallied.
  For years the Committee on Indian Affairs has made strengthening 
Indian economies a top priority. Healthy tribal economies and lower 
unemployment rates are imperative if tribes are to achieve the goals of 
self-sufficiency and true self-determination.
  Although federal economic development assistance has been available 
for years, poverty, ill-health, and unemployment remain rampant on most 
Indian reservations.
  One reason for the lack of success, despite spending billions of 
dollars promoting Indian economic development, is the absence of a 
consistent and consolidated federal mechanism that targets development 
resources to the areas and projects that are most promising. Indian 
business, economic, and community development programs span the entire 
federal government and for any given project undertaken by a tribe 
there may be 6 to 8 or more agencies involved. This fragmentation and 
lack of coordination is not producing the kind of results Indian 
country so badly needs.
  To begin to remedy this problem, today I am pleased to introduce 
legislation that builds on the most successful federal Indian policy to 
date, Indian self-determination, and seeks to expand the principles of 
self-determination, and seeks to expand the principles of self-
determination to the economic development realm.
  The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 
authorizes Indian tribes and tribal consortia to ``step into the 
shoes'' of the federal government to administer programs and services 
historically provided by the United States.
  This act has worked as it was intended and has resulted in improved 
efficiency of program delivery and service quality; increased tribal 
administrative acumen; better managed tribal institutions; stronger 
tribal economies; and a positive and healthy shift away from federal 
control over Indian lives to more flexible decision making and local 
control.
  What began as a demonstration project in 1975 has blossomed into an 
every-increasing number of tribal governments that have come to realize 
the benefits of self-governance.
  As of 1999, nearly 48 percent of all Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, 
and 50 percent of all Indian Health Service, IHS, programs and services 
have been assumed by tribes pursuant to Indian Self-Determination Act 
contracts and compacts.
  The legislation I introduce today will launch the second phase of the 
self-determination experiment by assisting

[[Page 2118]]

Indian tribes in their use and maximization of existing resources for 
purposes of economic development.
  By authorizing tribes and tribal consortia to consolidate and target 
existing funds for development purposes, this bill will promote a more 
efficient use of those resources. Perhaps more importantly, this 
legislation will lay the foundation for a coordinated development 
strategy that looks to employment creation, investment and improved 
standards of living in Indian country rather than how much money is 
spent by the federal government as the real measure of a successful 
development policy.
  One goal of this bill is to eliminate inconsistencies and duplication 
in federal policies that continue to be a barrier to Indian development 
through the issuance of uniform regulations and policies governing the 
use of funds across agencies.
  Similar to the demonstration project that will be authorized by this 
bill is the 477 Program which was created by Public Law 102-477. Under 
the 477 Program, tribes are eligible to consolidate all federally 
funded employment training and related services into a single, fully 
integrated program. This integration promotes tribal flexibility and 
efficiency, and has been one of the few successes in federal Indian 
economic development.
  By authorizing federal-tribal arrangements to combine and coordinate 
resources, this bill will make the best use of existing programs to 
assist tribes in attracting private investment and capital into Indian 
reservations.
  In the 106th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing 
on an almost identical version of this bill. At the hearing, the 
committee received testimony strongly supporting the type of 
consolidation and coordination of federal resources represented in this 
legislation.
  I am hopeful that the legislation introduced today will signal a new 
day for how the federal government assists Native communities in 
creating jobs and building a better future for their members.
  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. 343

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

     SECTION 1. TITLE.

       The Act may be cited as the ``Indian Tribal Development 
     Consolidated Funding Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) A unique legal and political relationship exists 
     between the United States and Indian tribes that is reflected 
     in article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution, 
     various treaties, Federal statutes, Supreme Court decisions, 
     executive agreements, and course of dealing.
       (2) Despite the infusion of substantial Federal dollars 
     into Native American communities over several decades, the 
     majority of Native Americans remain mired in poverty, 
     unemployment, and despair.
       (3) The efforts of the United States to foster community, 
     economic, and business development in Native American 
     communities have been hampered by fragmentation of authority, 
     responsibility, and performance, and by lack of timeliness 
     and coordination in resources and decision-making.
       (4) The effectiveness of Federal and tribal efforts to 
     generate employment opportunities and bring value-added 
     activities and economic growth to Native American communities 
     depends on cooperative arrangements among the various Federal 
     agencies and Indian tribes.
       (b) Purposes.--The purpose of this Act are to--
       (1) enable Indian tribes and tribal organizations to use 
     available Federal assistance more effectively and 
     efficiently;
       (2) adapt and target such assistance more readily to 
     particular needs through wider use of projects that are 
     supported by more than 1 executive agency, assistance 
     program, or appropriation of the Federal Government;
       (3) encourage Federal-tribal arrangements under which 
     Indian tribes and tribal organizations may more effectively 
     and efficiently combine Federal and tribal resources to 
     support economic development projects;
       (4) promote the coordination of Native American economic 
     programs to maximize the benefits of these programs to 
     encourage a more consolidated, national policy for economic 
     development; and
       (5) establish a demonstration project to aid Indian tribes 
     in obtaining Federal resources and in more efficiently 
     administering those resources for the furtherance of tribal 
     self-governance and self-determination.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Applicant.--The term ``applicant'' means an Indian 
     tribe or tribal organization, or a consortium of Indian 
     tribes or tribal organizations, that submits an application 
     under this Act for assistance for a community, economic, or 
     business development project, including a project designed to 
     improve the environment, housing facilities, community 
     facilities, business or industrial facilities, or 
     transportation, roads, or highways with respect to the Indian 
     tribe, tribal organization, or consortium.
       (2) Assistance.--The term ``assistance'' means the transfer 
     of anything of value for a public purpose, support, or 
     stimulation that is--
       (A) authorized by a law of the United States;
       (B) provided by the Federal Government through grant or 
     contractual arrangements, including technical assistance 
     programs providing assistance by loan, loan guarantee, or 
     insurance; and
       (C) authorized to include an Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization, or a consortium of Indian tribes or tribal 
     organizations, as eligible for receipt of funds under a 
     statutory or administrative formula for the purposes of 
     community, economic, or business development.
       (3) Assistance program.--The term ``assistance program'' 
     means any program of the Federal Government that provides 
     assistance for which Indian tribes or tribal organizations 
     are eligible.
       (4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       (5) Project.--The term ``project'' means an undertaking 
     that includes components that contribute materially to 
     carrying out a purpose or closely-related purposes that are 
     proposed or approved for assistance under more than 1 Federal 
     Government program.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (7) Tribal organization.--The term ``tribal organization'' 
     has the meaning given such term in section 4(l) of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(l)).

     SEC. 4. LEAD AGENCY.

       The lead agency for purposes of carrying out this Act shall 
     be the Department of the Interior.

     SEC. 5. SELECTION OF PARTICIPATING TRIBES.

       (a) Participants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may select from the 
     applicant pool described in subsection (b) Indian tribes or 
     tribal organizations, not to exceed 24 in each fiscal year, 
     to submit an application to carry out a project under this 
     Act.
       (2) Consortia.--Two or more Indian tribes or tribal 
     organizations that are otherwise eligible to participate in a 
     program or activity to which this Act applies may form a 
     consortium to participate as an applicant under paragraph 
     (1).
       (b) Applicant Pool.--The applicant pool described in this 
     subsection shall consist of each Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization that--
       (1) successfully completes the planning phase described in 
     subsection (c);
       (2) has requested participation in a project under this Act 
     through a resolution or other official action of the tribal 
     governing body; and
       (3) has demonstrated, for the 3 fiscal years immediately 
     preceding the fiscal year for which the requested 
     participation is being made, financial stability and 
     financial management capability as demonstrated by the Indian 
     tribe or tribal organization, or each member of a consortium 
     of tribes or tribal organizations, having no material audit 
     exceptions in the required annual audit of the self-
     determination contracts of the tribe or tribal organization.
       (c) Planning Phase.--Each applicant seeking to participate 
     in a project under this Act shall complete a planning phase 
     that shall include legal and budgetary research and internal 
     tribal government and organizational preparation. The 
     applicant shall be eligible for a grant under this section to 
     plan and negotiate participation in a project under this Act.

     SEC. 6. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL.

       (a) Requirements.--Each applicant seeking to participate in 
     a project under this Act shall submit an application to the 
     head of the Federal executive agency responsible for 
     administering the primary Federal program to be affected by 
     the project that--
       (1) identifies the programs to be integrated;
       (2) is consistent with the purposes set forth in section 
     2(b);
       (3) describes a comprehensive strategy that identifies the 
     way in which Federal funds are to be integrated and delivered 
     under the project and the results expected from the project;
       (4) identifies the projected expenditures under the project 
     in a single budget;

[[Page 2119]]

       (5) identifies the agency or agencies of the tribal 
     government that are to be involved in the implementation of 
     the project;
       (6) identifies any Federal statutory provisions, 
     regulations, policies, or procedures that the applicant 
     believes need to be waived in order to implement the project; 
     and
       (7) is approved by the governing body of the applicant, 
     including in the case of an applicant that is a consortium or 
     tribes or tribal organizations, the governing body of each 
     affected member tribe or tribal organization.
       (b) Review.--Upon receipt of an application that meets the 
     requirements of subsection (a), the head of the Federal 
     executive agency receiving the application shall--
       (1) consult with the head of each Federal executive agency 
     that is proposed to provide funds to implement the project 
     and with the applicant submitting the application; and
       (2) consult and coordinate with the Department of the 
     Interior as the lead agency under this Act for the purposes 
     of processing the application.
       (c) Approval.--
       (1) Waivers.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to any Federal statutory 
     provisions, regulations, policies, or procedures that the 
     applicant believes need to be waived in order to implement 
     the project that are identified in the application in 
     accordance with subsection (a)(6) or as a result of the 
     consultation required under subsection (b), the head of the 
     Federal executive agency responsible for administering such 
     provision, regulation, policy, or procedure shall, subject to 
     subparagraph (B), waive the requirement so identified, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law.
       (B) Limitation.--A statutory provision, regulation, policy, 
     or procedure identified for waiver under subparagraph (A) may 
     not be waived by the head of the Federal executive agency 
     responsible for administering the provision, regulation, 
     policy, or procedure if such head determines that a waiver 
     would be inconsistent with--
       (i) the purposes set forth in section 2(b); or
       (ii) the provisions of the statute from which the program 
     involved derives its authority that are specifically 
     applicable to Indian programs.
       (2) Project.--Not later than 90 days after the receipt of 
     an application that meets the requirements of subsection (a), 
     the head of the Federal executive agency receiving the 
     application shall inform the applicant submitting the 
     application, in writing, of the approval or disapproval of 
     the application, including the approval or disapproval of a 
     waiver sought in accordance with paragraph (1). If an 
     application or a waiver is disapproved, the written notice 
     shall identify the reasons for the disapproval and the 
     applicant submitting the application shall be given an 
     opportunity to amend the application or to petition the head 
     of the Federal executive agency sending the notice to 
     reconsider the disapproval of the application or the waiver.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORITY OF HEADS OF FEDERAL EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--The President, acting through the heads of 
     the appropriate Federal executive agencies, shall promulgate 
     regulations necessary to carry out this Act and to ensure 
     that this Act is applied and implemented by all Federal 
     executive agencies.
       (b) Scope of Coverage.--The Federal executive agencies that 
     are included within the scope of this Act shall include--
       (1) the Department of Agriculture;
       (2) the Department of Commerce;
       (3) the Department of Defense;
       (4) the Department of Education;
       (5) the Department of Energy;
       (6) the Department of Health and Human Services;
       (7) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
       (8) the Department of the Interior;
       (9) the Department of Justice;
       (10) the Department of Labor;
       (11) the Department of Transportation;
       (12) the Department of the Treasury;
       (13) the Department of Veterans Affairs;
       (14) the Environmental Protection Agency; and
       (15) the Small Business Administration.
       (c) Activities.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the head of each Federal executive agency, acting alone 
     or jointly through an agreement with another Federal 
     executive agency, may--
       (1) identify related Federal programs that are likely to be 
     particularly suitable in providing for the joint financing of 
     specific kinds of projects with respect to Indian tribes or 
     tribal organizations;
       (2) assist in planning and developing such projects to be 
     financed through different Federal programs;
       (3) with respect to Federal programs or projects that are 
     identified or developed under paragraphs (1) or (2), develop 
     and prescribe--
       (A) guidelines;
       (B) model or illustrative projects;
       (C) joint or common application forms; and
       (D) other materials or guidance;
       (4) review administrative program requirements to identify 
     those requirements that may impede the joint financing of 
     such projects and modify such requirements when appropriate;
       (5) establish common technical and administrative 
     regulations for related Federal programs to assist in 
     providing joint financing to support a specific project or 
     class of projects; and
       (6) establish joint or common application processing and 
     project supervision procedures, including procedures for 
     designating--
       (A) an agency responsible for processing applications; and
       (B) a managing agency responsible for project supervision.
       (d) Requirements.--In carrying out this Act, the head of 
     each Federal executive agency shall--
       (1) take all appropriate actions to carry out this Act when 
     administering a Federal assistance program; and
       (2) consult and cooperate with the heads of other Federal 
     executive agencies to carry out this Act in assisting in the 
     administration of Federal assistance programs of other 
     Federal executive agencies that may be used to jointly 
     finance projects undertaken by Indian tribes or tribal 
     organizations.

     SEC. 8. PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING REQUESTS FOR JOINT 
                   FINANCING.

       In processing an application or request for assistance for 
     a project to be financed in accordance with this Act by at 
     least 2 assistance programs, the head of a Federal executive 
     agency shall take all appropriate actions to ensure that--
       (1) required reviews and approvals are handled 
     expeditiously;
       (2) complete account is taken of special considerations of 
     timing that are made known to the head of the Federal agency 
     involved by the applicant that would affect the feasibility 
     of a jointly financed project;
       (3) an applicant is required to deal with a minimum number 
     of representatives of the Federal Government;
       (4) an applicant is promptly informed of a decision or 
     special problem that could affect the feasibility of 
     providing joint assistance under the application; and
       (5) an applicant is not required to get information or 
     assurances from 1 Federal executive agency for a requesting 
     Federal executive agency when the requesting agency makes the 
     information or assurances directly.

     SEC. 9. UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--To make participation in a project simpler 
     than would otherwise be possible because of the application 
     of varying or conflicting technical or administrative 
     regulations or procedures that are not specifically required 
     by the statute that authorizes the Federal program under 
     which such project is funded, the head of a Federal executive 
     agency may promulgate uniform regulations concerning 
     inconsistent or conflicting requirements with respect to--
       (1) the financial administration of the project including 
     with respect to accounting, reporting, and auditing, and 
     maintaining a separate bank account, to the extent consistent 
     with this Act;
       (2) the timing of payments by the Federal Government for 
     the project when 1 payment schedule or a combined payment 
     schedule is to be established for the project;
       (3) the provision of assistance by grant rather than 
     procurement contract; and
       (4) the accountability for, or the disposition of, records, 
     property, or structures acquired or constructed with 
     assistance from the Federal Government under the project.
       (b) Review.--In making the processing of applications for 
     assistance under a project simpler under this Act, the head 
     of a Federal executive agency may provide for review of 
     proposals for a project by a single panel, board, or 
     committee where reviews by separate panels, boards, or 
     committees are not specifically required by the statute that 
     authorizes the Federal program under which the project is 
     funded.

     SEC. 10. DELEGATION OF SUPERVISION OF ASSISTANCE.

       Pursuant to regulations established to implement this Act, 
     the head of a Federal executive agency may delegate or 
     otherwise enter into an arrangement to have another Federal 
     executive agency carry out or supervise a project or class or 
     projects jointly financed in accordance with this Act. Such a 
     delegation--
       (1) shall be made under conditions ensuring that the duties 
     and powers delegated are exercised consistent with Federal 
     law; and
       (2) may not be made in a manner that relieves the head of a 
     Federal executive agency of responsibility for the proper and 
     efficient management of a project for which the agency 
     provides assistance.

     SEC. 11. JOINT ASSISTANCE FUNDS AND PROJECT FACILITATION.

       (a) Joint Assistance Fund.--In providing support for a 
     project in accordance with this Act, the head of a Federal 
     executive agency may provide for the establishment by the 
     applicant of a joint assistance fund to ensure that amounts 
     received from more than 1 Federal assistance program or 
     appropriation are more effectively administered.
       (b) Agreement.--A joint assistance fund may only be 
     established under subsection (a) in accordance with an 
     agreement by the Federal executive agencies involved 
     concerning the responsibilities of each such agency. Such an 
     agreement shall--
       (1) ensure the availability of necessary information to the 
     executive agencies and Congress; and

[[Page 2120]]

       (2) provide that the agency administering the fund is 
     responsible and accountable by program and appropriation for 
     the amounts provided for the purposes of each account in the 
     fund.
       (c) Use of Excess Funds.--In any demonstration project 
     conducted under this Act under which a joint assistance fund 
     has been established under subsection (a) and the actual 
     costs of the project are less than the estimated costs, use 
     of the resulting excess funds shall be determined by the head 
     of the Federal executive agency administering the joint 
     assistance fund, after consultation with the applicant.

     SEC. 12. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND AUDITS.

       (a) Single Audit Act.--Recipients of funding provided in 
     accordance with this Act shall be subject to the provisions 
     of chapter 75 of title 31, United States Code.
       (b) Records.--With respect to each project financed through 
     an account in a joint management fund established under 
     section 11, the recipient of amounts from the fund shall 
     maintain records as required by the head of the Federal 
     executive agency responsible for administering the fund. Such 
     records shall include--
       (1) the amount and disposition by the recipient of 
     assistance received under each Federal assistance program and 
     appropriation;
       (2) the total cost of the project for which such assistance 
     was given or used;
       (3) that part of the cost of the project provided from 
     other sources; and
       (4) other records that will make it easier to conduct an 
     audit of the project.
       (c) Availability.--Records of a recipient related to an 
     amount received from a joint management fund under this Act 
     shall be made available to the head of the Federal executive 
     agency responsible for administering the fund and the 
     Comptroller General for inspection and audit.

     SEC. 13. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND PERSONNEL TRAINING.

       Amounts available for technical assistance and personnel 
     training under any Federal assistance program shall be 
     available for technical assistance and training under a 
     project approved for joint financing under this Act where a 
     portion of such financing involves such Federal assistance 
     program and another assistance program.

     SEC. 14. JOINT STATE FINANCING FOR FEDERAL-TRIBAL ASSISTED 
                   PROJECTS.

       Under regulations promulgated under this Act, the head of a 
     Federal executive agency may enter into an agreement with a 
     State to extend the benefits of this Act to a project that 
     involves assistance from at least 1 Federal executive agency, 
     the State, and at least 1 tribal agency or instrumentality. 
     The agreement may include arrangements to process requests or 
     administer assistance on a joint basis.

     SEC. 15. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the President shall prepare and submit to Congress a 
     report concerning the actions taken under this Act together 
     with recommendations for the continuation of this Act or 
     proposed amendments thereto. Such report shall include a 
     detailed evaluation of the operation of this Act, including 
     information on the benefits and costs of jointly financed 
     projects that accrue to participating Indian tribes and 
     tribal organizations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        McCain, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 344. A bill to amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century to make certain amendments with respect to Indian tribes; to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing a bill 
that provides needed clarifications in the law to improve the 
administration of both the Indian Reservation Roads Program and the 
Indian Reservation Road Bridge Program to better meet the 
transportation needs in native communities.
  There is still an enormous need for physical infrastructure on Indian 
lands throughout the country. This infrastructure is necessary for 
Indian tribes and their citizens to carry out emergency services, law 
enforcement, and the transportation of goods and services.
  Good transportation is fundamental to attracting private investment 
and enterprise into Native communities. When entrepreneurs or investors 
are calculating whether to invest in a community they first look to see 
if the basic building blocks exist within the community. Roads, 
highways, electricity, potable water, and other amenities are critical 
factors that investors look to before making their investment 
decisions.
  For Indian communities, efficient and effective federal road 
financing and construction are one factor leading to healthy economies 
and higher standards of living.
  In 1998 Congress enacted the Transportation Equity Act of the twenty-
first century, ``TEA-21,'' to authorize federal surface transportation 
programs with the goals of improved highways, increased safety, 
protecting the environment, and increased economic growth.
  In passing TEA-21, Congress approved several Indian provisions that I 
was proud to have sponsored. One important provision required 
negotiated rule-making to develop an allocation formula that is both 
flexible and fair in addressing the needs of all Indian communities 
throughout the country. Another provision provided that all Indian 
reservation road monies under TEA-21 are eligible for tribes to 
contract and compact under the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act of 1975, P.L. 93-638, as amended.
  In the 106th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs held two 
hearings on the Indian reservation roads program and TEA-21. From 
testimony and other evidence presented, it is evident that there remain 
serious obstacles to a more efficient functioning of TEA-21 in Indian 
communities. I am sorry to say that one of the obstacles appears to be 
the administration of the program by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, 
itself.
  Although reservation roads comprise 2.63 percent of the federal 
highway system, less than 1 percent of federal aid has been allocated 
to Indian roads. This bill would remove the so-called ``obligation 
limitation'' contained within TEA-21 and would allow the already-
authorized funds for Indians to reach the intended beneficiaries. In 
fiscal year 2001, imposition of the obligation limitation diverted $34 
million from the Indian Reservation Road program.
  This bill also authorizes the Federal Lands Highway Program, FLHP, to 
establish a pilot program in which up to 12 tribes may, in their 
discretion, contract directly with the FLHP for the administration of 
their roads programs. The dual goals of this pilot program are to 
promote a more efficient use of existing resources, and to further the 
policy of Indian self-determination.
  Under current law, the BIA is authorized to use ``up to 6 percent'' 
of roads funding for oversight and administration of the Indian roads 
program. If it was not clear in 1998, it should be clear now that these 
funds are not intended to be available to subsidize other BIA roads 
operations nor are they intended to be used for other BIA purposes.
  The bill I am introducing today contains a provision that clarifies 
the ``up to 6 percent'' language by reiterating Congress' intent that 
the figure was and is intended as a maximum, not a minimum, funding 
level with regard to the BIA's administrative costs.
  This bill also clarifies that tribes who are administering their 
Indian reservation roads program under Public Law 93-638 are authorized 
to receive the monies that the BIA would have used to administer these 
tribes' roads programs. Because tribes that are either ``638'' 
contractors or compactors have assumed the BIA's administrative 
functions, it is unnecessary for the BIA to withhold either 
administrative or project related funding from these tribes.
  Finally, this bill seeks to eliminate the redundancy that is 
currently required in the health and safety certification process by 
allowing tribes to meet statutorily required health and safety 
standards without the need for a second, duplicative effort by the BIA. 
It is important to note that the standards themselves will not change, 
nor will the need for tribal compliance with those standards change.
  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. 344

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Tribal Surface 
     Transportation Act of 2001''.

[[Page 2121]]



     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO INDIAN TRIBES.

       (a) Obligation Limitation.--Section 1102(c)(1) of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 104 
     note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Code, and'' and inserting ``Code,''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, 
     and for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, amounts 
     authorized for Indian reservation roads under section 204 of 
     title 23, United States Code''.
       (b) Pilot Program.--Section 202(d)(3) of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Federal lands highway program demonstration 
     project.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     demonstration project under which all funds made available 
     under this title for Indian reservation roads and for highway 
     bridges located on Indian reservation roads as provided for 
     in subparagraph (A), shall be made available, upon request of 
     the Indian tribal government involved, to the Indian tribal 
     government for contracts and agreements for the planning, 
     research, engineering, and construction described in such 
     subparagraph in accordance with the Indian Self-Determination 
     and Education Assistance Act.
       ``(ii) Exclusion of agency participation.--In accordance 
     with subparagraph (B), all funds for Indian reservation roads 
     and for highway bridges located on Indian reservation roads 
     to which clause (i) applies, shall be paid without regard to 
     the organizational level at which the Federal lands highway 
     program has previously carried out the programs, functions, 
     services, or activities involved.
       ``(iii) Selection of participating tribes.--

       ``(I) Participants.--

       ``(aa) In general.--The Secretary shall select 12 
     geographically diverse Indian tribes in each fiscal year from 
     the applicant pool described in subclause (II) to participate 
     in the demonstration project carried out under clause (i).
       ``(bb) Consortia.--Two or more Indian tribes that are 
     otherwise eligible to participate in a program or activity to 
     which this title applies may form a consortium to be 
     considered as a single tribe for purposes of becoming part of 
     the applicant pool under subclause (II).
       ``(cc) Funding.--An Indian tribe participating in the pilot 
     program under this subparagraph shall receive funding in an 
     amount equivalent to the funding that such tribe would 
     otherwise receive pursuant to the funding formula established 
     under section 1115(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century, plus an additional percentage of such 
     amount, such additional percentage to be equivalent to the 
     percentage of funds withheld during the fiscal year involved 
     for the road program management costs of the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs under section 202(f)(1) of title 23, United States 
     Code.

       ``(II) Applicant pool.--The applicant pool described in 
     this subclause shall consist of each Indian tribe (or 
     consortium) that--

       ``(aa) has successfully completed the planning phase 
     described in subclause (III);
       ``(bb) has requested participation in the demonstration 
     project under this subparagraph through the adoption of a 
     resolution or other official action by the tribal governing 
     body; and
       ``(cc) has, during the 3-fiscal year period immediately 
     preceding the fiscal year for which participation under this 
     subparagraph is being requested, demonstrated financial 
     stability and financial management capability through a 
     showing of no material audit exceptions by the Indian tribe 
     during such period.

       ``(III) Criteria for determining financial stability and 
     financial management capacity.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, evidence that, during the 3-year period 
     referred to in subclause (II)(cc), an Indian tribe had no 
     uncorrected significant and material audit exceptions in the 
     required annual audit of the Indian tribe's self-
     determination contracts or self-governance funding agreements 
     with any Federal agency shall be conclusive evidence of the 
     required stability and capability.

       ``(IV) Planning phase.--An Indian tribe (or consortium) 
     requesting participation in the project under this 
     subparagraph shall complete a planning phase that shall 
     include legal and budgetary research and internal tribal 
     government and organization preparation. The tribe (or 
     consortium) shall be eligible to receive a grant under this 
     subclause to plan and negotiate participation in such 
     project.''.

       (c) Administration.--Section 202 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(f) Indian Reservation Roads, Administration.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, not to exceed 6 percent of the contract authority 
     amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund to the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs shall be used to pay the 
     administrative expenses of the Bureau for the Indian 
     reservation roads program and the administrative expenses 
     related to individual projects that are associated with such 
     program. Such administrative funds shall be made available to 
     an Indian tribal government, upon the request of the 
     government, to be used for the associated administrative 
     functions assumed by the Indian tribe under contracts and 
     agreements entered into pursuant to the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act.
       ``(2) Health and safety assurances.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, an Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization may commence road and bridge construction under 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (25 U.S.C. 
     104) that is funded through a contract or agreement under the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act so 
     long as the Indian tribe or tribal organization has--
       ``(A) provided assurances in the contract or agreement that 
     the construction will meet or exceed proper health and safety 
     standards;
       ``(B) obtained the advance review of the plans and 
     specifications from a licensed professional who has certified 
     that the plans and specifications meet or exceed the proper 
     health and safety standards; and
       ``(C) provided a copy of the certification under 
     subparagraph (B) to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       ``(g) Indian Reservation Roads Program, Safety Incentive 
     Grants.--
       ``(1) Seat belt safety incentive grant eligibility.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Indian tribe 
     that is eligible to participate in the Indian reservation 
     roads program under subsection (d) shall be deemed to be a 
     State for purposes of being eligible for safety incentive 
     allocations under section 157 to assist Indian communities in 
     developing innovative programs to promote increased seat belt 
     use rates.
       ``(2) Intoxicated driver safety incentive grant 
     eligibility.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
     Indian tribe that is eligible to participate in the Indian 
     reservation roads program under subsection (d) shall be 
     deemed to be a State for purposes of being eligible for 
     safety incentive grant funding under section 163 to assist 
     Indian communities in the prevention of the operation of 
     motor vehicles by intoxicated persons.
       ``(3) Grant funding procedures and eligibility criteria.--
     The Secretary, in consultation with Indian tribal 
     governments, may develop funding procedures and eligibility 
     criteria applicable to Indian tribes with respect to 
     allocations or grants described in paragraphs (1) and (2). 
     The Secretary shall ensure that any such procedures or 
     criteria are published annually in the Federal Register.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burns, Mr. Craig, 
        Mr. Crapo, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 346. A bill to amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to 
divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into two 
circuits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Stevens, Burns, Craig, Crapo, Inhofe, and Gordon Smith in introducing 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2001. While 
this bill is not the first attempt to solve the crisis of the Ninth 
Circuit, I believe the need for change has never been greater. The 
Ninth Circuit has grown so large, and has drifted so far from prudent 
legal reasoning, that sweeping change is in order.
  Congress has already recognized that change is needed. In 1997, we 
commissioned a report on structural alternatives for the federal courts 
of appeals. The Commission, chaired by former Supreme Court Justice 
Byron R. White, found numerous faults within the Ninth Circuit. In its 
conclusion, the Commission recommended major reforms and a drastic 
reorganization of the Circuit.
  This bill will divide the Ninth Circuit into two independent 
circuits. The new Ninth Circuit would contain Arizona, California, and 
Nevada. A new Twelfth Circuit would be composed of Alaska, Hawaii, 
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana 
Islands. Immediately upon enactment, the concerns of the White 
Commission will be addressed. A more cohesive, efficient, and 
predictable judiciary will emerge.
  In this debate, let us not forget why change is in order. The Ninth 
Circuit extends from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican border, spans the 
tropics of Hawaii and across the International Dateline to Guam and the 
Mariana Islands. Encompassing some 14 million square miles, the Ninth 
Circuit, by any means of measure, is the largest of all U.S. Circuit 
Courts of Appeal. It is larger than the First, Second, Third,

[[Page 2122]]

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits combined!
  The Circuit serves a population of more than 50 million people, 
almost 60 percent more than are served by the next largest circuit. By 
2010, the Census Bureau estimates that the Ninth Circuit's population 
will be more than 63 million. That's an increase of 13 million people 
in just 10 years! How many people does this court have to serve before 
Congress will realize that the Ninth Circuit is overwhelmed by its 
population?
  As I noted before, legislation to split the Ninth Circuit is 
certainly not novel. Since the day the Ninth Circuit was founded over a 
century ago, Congress has tinkered with the structure of the Circuit 
and has debated its split.
  In 1866, Congress established a newly numbered Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals consisting of California, Nevada, and Oregon. Congress included 
Montana, Washington, and Idaho in the Circuit at the time each gained 
statehood. The present Ninth Circuit was completed by including Hawaii 
in 1911, Alaska in 1925, Arizona in 1929, Guam in 1951 and the Northern 
Mariana Islands in 1977. During this period of geographic expansion, 
Congress determined a split of the Ninth Circuit to be inevitable; 
numerous proposals to divide the Ninth Circuit were debated in Congress 
since before World War II.
  Congressional members were not alone in advocating a split. In 1973, 
the Congressional Commission on the Revision of the Federal Court of 
Appellate System Commission, commonly known as the Hruska Commission, 
recommended that the Ninth Circuit be divided. Also that year, the 
American Bar Association adopted a resolution in support of dividing 
the Ninth Circuit. The Hruska recommendation sparked controversy 
because it called for a Circuit division that split the state of 
California in half. Instead of that radical approach, Congress, in 
1978, created the en banc proceedings as an effort to streamline the 
Ninth Circuit's docket. In 1990, the United States Department of 
Justice endorsed legislation to split the Ninth Circuit in a surprising 
reversal of the official ``no position'' approach it had previously 
assumed.
  In 1995, a bill was reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee in 
which Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah declared in his Committee's report 
that the time for a split had arrived:

       The legislative history, in conjunction with available 
     statistics and research concerning the Ninth Circuit, 
     provides an ample record for an informed decision at this 
     point as to whether to divide the Ninth Circuit . . . Upon 
     careful consideration the time has indeed come.

  Even more recently, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy had 
stated his concerns regarding the size of the Ninth Circuit. Justice 
Kennedy, a former member of the Ninth Circuit for twelve years, 
testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, and stated that 
he has ``increasing doubts about the wisdom of retaining, the Circuit's 
current size.'' During a House subcommittee hearing, Justice Kennedy 
had earlier voiced his reservations about the Circuit's size, saying 
that it ``is larger than it ought to be,'' and he recommended ``looking 
very hard'' at dividing the Circuit.
  Arguments in support of dividing the Ninth Circuit are both 
qualitative and quantitative. The magnitude of case filings in the 
Ninth Circuit creates a slow and cumbersome docket. Once a final brief 
is filed, it takes longer to receive a hearing or submission in the 
Ninth Circuit than any other Circuit. And, from the time of a lower 
court filing to final disposition, the Ninth Circuit is the second 
slowest Circuit in the nation.
  The Ninth Circuit's travel expenses are the largest in the federal 
system, and operating costs of the Ninth Circuit surpass the costs of 
all other Circuits. In 1990, Congress allocated to the Ninth Circuit 28 
active judges, which surpasses by twelve the second largest appellate 
court. This increase means that judicial travel expenses in 1996 were 
over double the amount of any other circuit. Additionally, support 
staff of the Circuit is so large and unwieldy that one appellate judge 
facetiously complained that it was ``impossible to determine who 
actually was assigned to clerk.''
  The ever-expanding docket in the Ninth Circuit creates an inherent 
difficulty in keeping abreast of legal developments within its own 
jurisdiction, rendering inconsistency in Constitutional interpretation 
within the Court. Interestingly, the statistical opportunities for 
inconsistency on a 28 panel court calculates out to be 3,276 
combinations of panels that could resolve any given issue. Former 
Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield expressed much concern about the growing 
inconsistency of the Ninth Circuit, stating that the ``increased 
likelihood of intra- 
circuit conflicts is an important justification for splitting the 
court.''
  One only needs to review the appallingly high reversal rate of Ninth 
Circuit cases to appreciate the severity of the problem. For example, 
between the years 1990 and 1995, the Ninth Circuit's average rate of 
reversal was higher than any other circuit. During its 1995-1996 
session, the Supreme Court overturned an astounding 83% of the cases 
heard from the Ninth Circuit, a figure which is 30 percent higher than 
the national average reversal rate. In the 1996-1997 session alone, an 
astounding 95% of its cases reviewed by the Supreme Court were 
overturned. This number should raise more than a few eyebrows. A split 
of the Circuit would enable a more complete and sound review, thereby 
reducing the Circuit's rate of reversal before the Supreme Court.
  Many who oppose legislation to bifurcate the Ninth Circuit, contend 
that all the Circuit needs is the appropriation of more federal dollars 
for more federal judges. However, history reveals this contention to be 
false. In fact, Congressional increases in the number of judges have 
yielded few improvements. Studies on omnibus judgeships legislation 
concluded that adding ``judges only delayed what appeared to be a 
nearly inexorable climb in appeals taken to the court'' and only served 
to further tax the judicial confirmation process.
  As early as 1954, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter warned that 
the courts' growing business could not ``be met by a steady increase in 
the number of federal judges'' because this increase was ``bound to 
depreciate the quality of the federal judiciary and thereby adversely 
affect the whole system.'' Soon after Congress divided the former Fifth 
Circuit, former Senator and Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, Howell 
Heflin, a Democrat from Alabama, remarked that ``Congress recognized 
that a point is reached where the addition of judges decreases the 
effectiveness of the court, complicates the administration of uniform 
law, and potentially diminishes the quality of justice within a 
Circuit.''
  Former Oregon Senator Bob Packwood believed that a circuit split 
would enable judges to achieve a greater mastery of applicable, but 
unique, state law and state issues. He believed such a mastery was 
necessary because ``burgeoning conflicts in the area of natural 
resources and the continuing expansion of international trade efforts 
will all expand the demand for judicial excellence . . . By reforming 
our courts now, they will be better able to dispense justice in a fair 
and expeditious manner.''
  I concur. The uniqueness of the Northwest, and in particular, Alaska, 
cannot be overstated. An effective appellate process demands mastery of 
state law and state issues relative to the geographic land mass, 
population and native cultures that are unique to the relevant region. 
Presently, California is responsible for almost 50 percent of the 
appellate court's filings, which means that California judges and 
California judicial philosophy dominate judicial decision on issues 
that are fundamentally unique to the Pacific Northwest. This need for 
greater regional representation is demonstrated by the fact that the 
East Coast is comprised of five federal circuits. A division of the 
Ninth Circuit will enable judges, lawyers and parties to master a more 
manageable and predictable universe of relevant caselaw.
  Further, a division of the Ninth Circuit would honor Congress' 
original intent in establishing appellate court

[[Page 2123]]

boundaries that respect and reflect a regional identity. In spite of 
efforts to modernize the administration of the Ninth Circuit, its size 
works against the original purpose of its creation: the uniform, 
coherent and efficient development and application of federal law in 
the region. Establishing a circuit comprised solely of states in the 
Northwest region would adhere to Congressional intent. Alaska, 
Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana share similar land 
bases, populations and economies. Each state contains a high percentage 
of public lands, fairly comparable populations, is financially 
dependent upon tourism, and is blessed with an abundance of natural 
resources. A new Twelfth Circuit, comprised of states of the Pacific 
Northwest, would respect the economic, historical, cultural and legal 
ties which philosophically unite this region.
  No one Court can effectively exercise its power in an area that 
extends from the Arctic Circle to the tropics. Legislation dividing the 
Ninth Circuit will create a regional commonality which will lead to 
greater uniformity and consistency in the development of federal law, 
and will ultimately strengthen the constitutional guarantee of justice 
to all.
  While I may believe even more sweeping change is in order, I strongly 
urge that this body address the crisis in our judiciary system. It is 
the 50 million residents of the Ninth Circuit that suffer from our 
inaction. These Americans wait years before their cases are heard. And 
after these unreasonable delays, justice may not even be served by an 
over-stretched and out of touch judiciary.
  Congress has known about the problem in the Ninth Circuit for a long 
time. Justice has been delayed too long. The time for reform has come, 
and I urge action on this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 346

       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 ``Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals Reorganization Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. NUMBER AND COMPOSITION OF CIRCUITS.

       Section 41 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter before the table, by striking 
     ``thirteen'' and inserting ``fourteen''; and
       (2) in the table--
       (A) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and 
     inserting the following:

Arizona, California, Nevada.'';........................................

     and
       (B) by inserting between the last 2 items the following:

Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, 
  Washington.''.

     SEC. 3. NUMBER OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

       The table in section 44(a) of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and 
     inserting the following:

``Ninth.......................................................20'';....

     and
       (2) by inserting between the last 2 items the following:

``Twelfth......................................................8''.....

     SEC. 4. PLACES OF CIRCUIT COURT.

       The table in section 48(a) of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and 
     inserting the following:

San Francisco, Los Angeles.'';.........................................

     and
       (2) by inserting between the last 2 items at the end the 
     following:

Portland, Seattle.''...................................................

     SEC. 5. ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

       Each circuit judge in regular active service of the former 
     ninth circuit whose official station on the day before the 
     effective date of this Act--
       (1) is in Arizona, California, or Nevada is assigned as a 
     circuit judge of the new ninth circuit; and
       (2) is in Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Northern 
     Mariana Islands, Oregon, or Washington is assigned as a 
     circuit judge of the twelfth circuit.

     SEC. 6. ELECTION OF ASSIGNMENT BY SENIOR JUDGES.

       Each judge who is a senior judge of the former ninth 
     circuit on the day before the effective date of this Act may 
     elect to be assigned to the new ninth circuit or to the 
     twelfth circuit and shall notify the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts of such 
     election.

     SEC. 7. SENIORITY OF JUDGES.

       The seniority of each judge--
       (1) who is assigned under section 5 of this Act; or
       (2) who elects to be assigned under section 6 of this Act;

     shall run from the date of commission of such judge as a 
     judge of the former ninth circuit.

     SEC. 8. APPLICATION TO CASES.

       The provisions of the following paragraphs of this section 
     apply to any case in which, on the day before the effective 
     date of this Act, an appeal or other proceeding has been 
     filed with the former ninth circuit:
       (1) If the matter has been submitted for decision, further 
     proceedings in respect of the matter shall be had in the same 
     manner and with the same effect as if this Act had not been 
     enacted.
       (2) If the matter has not been submitted for decision, the 
     appeal or proceeding, together with the original papers, 
     printed records, and record entries duly certified, shall, by 
     appropriate orders, be transferred to the court to which the 
     matter would have been submitted had this Act been in full 
     force and effect at the time such appeal was taken or other 
     proceeding commenced, and further proceedings in respect of 
     the case shall be had in the same manner and with the same 
     effect as if the appeal or other proceeding had been filed in 
     such court.
       (3) A petition for rehearing or a petition for rehearing en 
     banc in a matter decided before the effective date of this 
     Act, or submitted before the effective date of this Act and 
     decided on or after the effective date as provided in 
     paragraph (1), shall be treated in the same manner and with 
     the same effect as though this Act had not been enacted. If a 
     petition for rehearing en banc is granted, the matter shall 
     be reheard by a court comprised as though this Act had not 
     been enacted.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the term--
       (1) ``former ninth circuit'' means the ninth judicial 
     circuit of the United States as in existence on the day 
     before the effective date of this Act;
       (2) ``new ninth circuit'' means the ninth judicial circuit 
     of the United States established by the amendment made by 
     section 2(2); and
       (3) ``twelfth circuit'' means the twelfth judicial circuit 
     of the United States established by the amendment made by 
     section 2(3).

     SEC. 10. ADMINISTRATION.

       The court of appeals for the ninth circuit as constituted 
     on the day before the effective date of this Act may take 
     such administrative action as may be required to carry out 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act. Such court 
     shall cease to exist for administrative purposes on July 1, 
     2003.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become 
     effective on October 1, 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS.
  S. 347. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to improve 
the processes for listing, recovery planning, and delisting, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Listing and 
Delisting Reform Act of 2001. The Endangered Species Act has become one 
of the best examples of good intentions gone astray, and so today I am 
taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has 
become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the 
law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, 
communities and state governments who truly hold the key to any 
successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve 
the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that 
recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve.
  In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing 
and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should 
be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible 
data that has been peer-reviewed. Not long ago, the Prebles Meadow 
Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process 
for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire devoid of 
good science. One of the more significant shortcomings of the Preble's 
Rule relates to confusion about claims regarding the ``known range'' of 
as opposed to the alleged ``historical range.'' Historical data and 
current knowledge do not support the

[[Page 2124]]

high, short-grass, semi-arid plains for southeastern Wyoming as part of 
the mouse's historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic 
distinctions and ranges. Further, the state was not properly notified 
causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off 
guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that 
are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, 
changes are desperately needed to the Endangered Species Act.
  Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie 
dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were being filed with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service. I've lived in Wyoming most of my life, and 
I've logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my state over 
the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of 
prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that 
opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the 
country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on 
completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the 
cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for 
economic survival.
  My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use 
scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-
reviewed. Right now, it's basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any 
person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with 
little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd 
practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition 
that includes an analyses of the status of the species, its range, 
population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. 
In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient 
biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery 
plan. Under my proposal, states are made active participants in the 
process and the general public is provided a more substantial role.
  This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with 
regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. 
Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question 
the basic premise that some species require the protection of the 
Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship 
on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only 
reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should 
be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our 
communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.
  In the past in my State of Wyoming, I have found that with several 
listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what 
measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could 
not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a 
consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully 
apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary 
cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so 
that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, 
in fact, threatened?
  This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of 
Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching 
practices, or the diversion of a certain amount of water, or a private 
citizen's development of one's own property, is the cause for a 
listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have 
to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough 
information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why 
list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-
zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve 
the goal of recovering the species?
  This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of 
information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to 
list a species, he should know enough to tell us what will be required 
for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is 
all that this provision would require.
  Just as the beginning of the process needs changes, we need to revise 
the end of the process the de-listing procedure. Recovery and delisting 
are quite simply, the goals of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is 
virtually impossible to currently de-list a species. There is no 
certainty in the process and the states the folks who have all the 
responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not 
true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the 
species should be de-listed.
  Wyoming's experience with the grizzly bear pinpoints some of the 
problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly 
Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone 
ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been 
removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service for years over this one to no avail, despite tremendous effort 
and financial resources to meet recovery objectives. Despite rebounded 
populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.
  The point is something needs to be done. My constituents, rightly so, 
are angry and upset about this current law and the trickling effects of 
countless listings. Real lives are being impacted. It is time for some 
real changes. These are small changes but I believe they will make big 
impacts. The changes I've suggested will have a significant affect on 
the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed 
in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly 
need protection will be protected, but let's not lost sight of the real 
goal recovery and delisting. I ask unamious 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. 347

       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 ``Endangered Species Listing 
     and Delisting Process Reform Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. LISTING PROCESS REFORMS.

       (a) Best Scientific and Commercial Data Available.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is amended--
       (A) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:


                ``DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS'';

       (B) by striking ``For the purposes of this Act--'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Definitions.--In this Act:''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) General Provisions.--In any case in which this Act 
     requires the Secretary to use the best scientific and 
     commercial data available, the Secretary shall obtain and use 
     scientific or commercial data that are empirical or have been 
     field-tested or peer-reviewed.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents in the 
     first section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. prec. 1531) is amended by striking the item relating 
     to section 3 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 3. Definitions and general provisions.''.

       (b) Finding of Sufficient Biological Information To Support 
     Recovery Planning.--Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``shall make'' and inserting the following: 
     ``shall--
       ``(i) make'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) determine that a species is an endangered species or 
     a threatened species only if the Secretary finds that there 
     is sufficient biological information to support recovery 
     planning for the species under subsection (f).''; and
       (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (3)(A), by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``and as to 
     whether the petition presents sufficient biological 
     information to support recovery planning for the species 
     under subsection (f)''.
       (c) Petition Process.--Section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Listing petition information.--In the case of a 
     petition to add a species to a list published under 
     subsection (c), a finding that

[[Page 2125]]

     the petition presents the information described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be made unless the petition 
     provides--
       ``(i) documentation from a published scientific source that 
     the fish, wildlife, or plant that is the subject of the 
     petition is a species;
       ``(ii)(I) a description of the available data on the 
     historical and current range and distribution of the species;
       ``(II) an explanation of the methodology used to collect 
     the data; and
       ``(III) identification of the location where the data can 
     be reviewed;
       ``(iii) an appraisal of the available data on the status 
     and trends of all extant populations of the species;
       ``(iv) an appraisal of the available data on the threats to 
     the species;
       ``(v) an identification of the information contained or 
     referred to in the petition that has been peer-reviewed or 
     field-tested; and
       ``(vi) a description of at least 1 study or credible expert 
     opinion, from a person not affiliated with the petitioner, to 
     support the action requested in the petition.
       ``(F) Notification to states.--
       ``(i) Petitioned actions.--If a petition is found to 
     present information described in subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall--

       ``(I) notify and provide a copy of the petition to the 
     State agency of each State in which the species is believed 
     to occur; and
       ``(II) solicit the assessment of the agency as to whether 
     the petitioned action is warranted, which assessment shall be 
     submitted to the Secretary during a comment period ending 90 
     days after the date of the notification.

       ``(ii) Other actions.--If the Secretary has not received a 
     petition to add a species to a list published under 
     subsection (c) and the Secretary is considering proposing to 
     list the species as an endangered species or a threatened 
     species under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--

       ``(I) notify the State agency of each State in which the 
     species is believed to occur; and
       ``(II) solicit the assessment of the agency as to whether 
     the listing would be in accordance with subsection (a), which 
     assessment shall be submitted to the Secretary during a 
     comment period ending 90 days after the date of the 
     notification.

       ``(iii) Consideration of state assessments.--Before 
     publication of a finding described in subparagraph (A) that a 
     petitioned action is warranted, the Secretary shall consider 
     any assessments submitted with respect to the species within 
     the comment period established under clause (i) or (ii).''.
       (d) Improvement of Public Hearings in the Listing 
     Process.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4(b)(5) of the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)) is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (E) and inserting the following:
       ``(E) promptly hold at least 2 hearings in each State in 
     which the species proposed for determination as an endangered 
     species or a threatened species is located (including at 
     least 1 hearing in an affected rural area if 1 or more rural 
     areas within the State are affected by the determination), 
     except that the Secretary may not be required to hold more 
     than 10 hearings under this subparagraph with respect to the 
     proposed regulation.''.
       (2) Definition of rural area.--Section 3(a) of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532(a)) (as 
     amended by subsection (a)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (14) as 
     paragraphs (11) through (13), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting before paragraph (15) the following:
       ``(14) Rural area.--The term `rural area' means a county or 
     unincorporated area that has no city or town with a 
     population of more than 10,000 individuals.''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 7(n) of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(n)) is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``, as defined by section 3(13) of 
     this Act,''.
       (e) Emergency Listing.--Section 4(b)(7) of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7)) is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``posing a significant risk to the 
     well-being'' and inserting ``that poses an imminent threat to 
     the continued existence''.
       (f) Other Listing Reforms.--Section 4(b) of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(9) Availability of listing data.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), upon 
     publication of a proposed regulation determining that a 
     species is an endangered species or a threatened species, the 
     Secretary shall make publicly available--
       ``(i) all information on which the determination is based, 
     including all scientific studies and data underlying the 
     studies; and
       ``(ii) all information relating to the species that the 
     Secretary possesses and that does not support the 
     determination.
       ``(B) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) does not require 
     disclosure of any information that--
       ``(i) is not required to be made available under section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     `Freedom of Information Act'); or
       ``(ii) is prohibited from being disclosed under section 
     552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     `Privacy Act').
       ``(10) Establishment of criteria for scientific studies to 
     support listing.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations that establish criteria that must be met for 
     scientific and commercial data to be used as the basis of a 
     determination under this section that a species is an 
     endangered species or a threatened species.
       ``(11) Field data.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--The Secretary may not determine that a 
     species is an endangered species or a threatened species 
     unless the determination is supported by data obtained by 
     observation of the species in the field.
       ``(B) Data from landowners.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) accept and acknowledge receipt of data regarding the 
     status of a species that is collected by an owner of land 
     through observation of the species on the land; and
       ``(ii) include the data in the rulemaking record compiled 
     for any determination that the species is an endangered 
     species or a threatened species.''.

     SEC. 3. DEADLINE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RECOVERY PLANS.

       Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533(f)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Deadline for development of recovery plans.--The 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) begin developing a recovery plan required for a 
     species under paragraph (1) on the date of promulgation of 
     the proposed regulation to implement a determination under 
     subsection (a)(1) with respect to the species; and
       ``(B) issue a recovery plan in final form not later than 
     the date of promulgation of the final regulation to implement 
     the determination.''.

     SEC. 4. DELISTING.

       Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533(f)) (as amended by section 3) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Effect of fulfillment of recovery plan criteria.--
       ``(A) Change in status.--If the Secretary finds that the 
     criteria of a recovery plan have been met for a change in 
     status of the species covered by the recovery plan from an 
     endangered species to a threatened species, or from a 
     threatened species to an endangered species, the Secretary 
     shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
     the change in status of the species.
       ``(B) Removal from listing.--If the Secretary finds that 
     the criteria of a recovery plan have been met for the removal 
     of the species covered by the recovery plan from a list 
     published under subsection (c), the Secretary shall promptly 
     publish in the Federal Register a notice of an intent to 
     remove the species from the list.''.
                                   ____
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 348. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to extend the 
authorization for the drug-free workplace program; to the Committee on 
Small Business.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drug-
Free Workplace Program Extension Act of 2001. This important 
legislation will reduce the number of employees who engage in substance 
abuse while on the job and will thus directly improve worker safety. As 
employee substance abuse declines, there will be a corresponding 
decline in the number of drug-related fatalities, injuries, and lost 
workdays. Workers who abuse substances not only hurt themselves, but 
their coworkers as well.
  Approximately 1,000 workers are currently being injured and killed 
each year as a direct result of their own and their coworkers' 
substance abuse. Prior to 1993, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, 
reported that toxicological reports for occupational fatalities 
indicated that one-sixth of the nation's workers who died on the job 
were under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. 
Unfortunately, the true extent of this problem is not definitively 
known as a result of the Department of Labor's decision to order the 
BLS to discontinue the tracking of this statistic. In the meantime, we 
can commit to providing additional funding to enhance drug-free 
workplace programs.
  The Drug-Free Workplace Program Extension Act of 2001 would simply 
amend the Small Business Act, SBA, to authorize another $10 million, $5 
million each, in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for grants to states and 
non-profit organizations working with small businesses to promote drug-
free workplaces. I ask my colleagues to join me in this simple, non-
partisan attempt to enhance the safety of American workers and I ask 
unanimous consent that

[[Page 2126]]

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. 348

       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 ``Drug-Free Workplace Program 
     Extension Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. PROGRAM EXTENSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 27(g)(1) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 654(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``2003'' and 
     inserting ``2005''.
       (b) Small Business Development Centers.--Section 
     21(c)(3)(T) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     648(c)(3)(T)) is amended by striking ``2003'' and inserting 
     ``2005''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Smith of Oregon, 
        Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 349. A bill to provide funds to the National Center for Rural Law 
Enforcement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues 
Senator Harkin, Senator Gordon Smith, and Senator Thomas to introduce 
the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2001. This important 
legislation will authorize the funding necessary to ensure that rural 
law enforcement agencies are able to secure the technical assistance, 
education, and training they need.
  As in my home state of Arkansas, many rural law enforcement agencies 
are comprised of a handful of officers and don't have the financial 
resources to provide them with crucial technical assistance, education, 
and training. However, the need for these services is greater than ever 
as these officers are increasingly facing violent crimes that were once 
confined to urban settings. When one considers the fact that ten 
officers in 100,000 die in the line of duty each year in rural counties 
and communities with a population less than 25,000, as contrasted with 
seven in 100,000 in the largest cities, this legislation becomes 
necessary.
  I am very proud that, under the leadership of Dr. Lee Colwell, the 
former Associate Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Little Rock, Arkansas has 
taken the lead in addressing this problem. Since 1985, the Center has 
been providing the technical assistance, education, and training that 
rural law enforcement agencies so critically need. For instance, the 
Center is currently providing Internet access, forensic science 
education and training, and model management and investigative policies 
to rural law enforcement agencies throughout the nation. Its 
effectiveness is readily apparent as it is strongly supported by law 
enforcement agencies located in the following 40 states: Alabama; 
Alaska; Arizona; Arkansas; California; Connecticut; Delaware; Florida; 
Georgia; Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kentucky; Louisiana; Maine; Maryland; 
Michigan; Minnesota; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; Nevada; 
New Jersey; New York; North Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma; 
Oregon; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; 
Utah; Vermont; Virginia; Wisconsin; and Wyoming.
  The Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2001 will establish eight 
regional centers to compliment the Center and thereby expand the 
technical assistance, education, and training available to local law 
enforcement agencies throughout our nation. Thus, I ask my colleagues 
to join with me as I work to see that this important measure is enacted 
into law and 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. 349

       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 ``Rural Law Enforcement 
     Assistance Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the members of the 
     Board of the Center elected in accordance with the bylaws of 
     the Center.
       (2) Center.--The term ``Center'' means the National Center 
     for Rural Law Enforcement, a nonprofit corporation located in 
     Little Rock, Arkansas.
       (3) Executive director.--The term ``Executive Director'' 
     means the Executive Director of the Center as appointed in 
     accordance with the bylaws of the Center.
       (4) Institutions of higher education.--The term 
     ``institutions of higher education'' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
       (5) Metropolitan statistical area.--The term ``metropolitan 
     statistical area'' has the same meaning given the term by the 
     Bureau of the Census of the Department of Commerce.
       (6) Rural area.--The term ``rural area'' means an area that 
     is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area.
       (7) Rural law enforcement agency.--The term ``rural law 
     enforcement agency'' means a criminal justice or law 
     enforcement agency that serves a county, parish, city, town, 
     township, borough, or village that is located in a rural 
     area.

     SEC. 3. EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM GRANTS.

       (a) Grant Authority.--The Attorney General shall annually 
     make a grant to the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement 
     through the Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 
     Affairs, if the Executive Director certifies in writing to 
     the Attorney General that the Center--
       (1) is incorporated in accordance with applicable State 
     law;
       (2) is in compliance with the bylaws of the Center;
       (3) will use amounts made available under this section in 
     accordance with subsection (b); and
       (4) will not support any political party or candidate for 
     elected or appointed office.
       (b) Uses of Funds.--
       (1) Required uses of funds.--The Center shall use amounts 
     made available under this section to develop an education and 
     training program for criminal justice or law enforcement 
     agencies in rural areas and the employees of those agencies, 
     which shall include--
       (A) the development and delivery of management, forensic 
     and computer education and training, technical assistance, 
     and practical research and evaluation for employees of rural 
     law enforcement agencies (including tribal law enforcement 
     agencies and railroad law enforcement agencies), including 
     supervisory and executive managers of those agencies;
       (B) conducting research into the causes and prevention of 
     criminal activity in rural areas, including the causes, 
     assessment, evaluation, analysis, and prevention of criminal 
     activity;
       (C) the development and dissemination of information 
     designed to assist States and units of local government in 
     rural areas throughout the United States;
       (D) the establishment and maintenance of a resource and 
     information center for the collection, preparation, and 
     dissemination of information regarding criminal justice and 
     law enforcement in rural areas, including programs for the 
     prevention of crime and recidivism; and
       (E) the delivery of assistance, in a consulting capacity, 
     to criminal justice agencies in the development, 
     establishment, maintenance, and coordination of programs, 
     facilities and services, education, training, and research 
     relating to crime in rural areas.
       (2) Permissive uses of funds.--The Center may use amounts 
     made available under a grant under this section to enhance 
     the education and training program developed under paragraph 
     (1), through--
       (A) educational opportunities for rural law enforcement 
     agencies;
       (B) the development, promotion, and voluntary adoption of 
     educational and training standards and accreditation 
     certification programs for rural law enforcement agencies and 
     the employees of those agencies;
       (C) grants to, and contracts with, State, and local 
     governments, law enforcement agencies, public and private 
     agencies, educational institutions, and other organizations 
     and individuals to carry out this paragraph;
       (D) the formulation and recommendation of law enforcement 
     policy, goals, and standards in rural areas applicable to 
     criminal justice agencies, organizations, institutions, and 
     personnel; and
       (E) coordination with institutions of higher education for 
     the purpose of encouraging and delivering programs of study 
     with those institutions for employees of rural law 
     enforcement agencies.
       (c) Powers.--In carrying out subsection (b), the Executive 
     Director may--
       (1) request the head of any Federal department or agency to 
     detail, on a reimbursable basis, 1 or more employees of the 
     Federal department or agency to the Center to assist the 
     Center in carrying out subsection (b), and any such detail 
     shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status 
     or privilege;
       (2) request the Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration to provide the

[[Page 2127]]

     Center, on a reimbursable basis, the administrative support 
     services necessary for the Center to carry out subsection 
     (b); and
       (3) procure temporary and intermittent services under 
     section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates of 
     compensation established by the Board, but not to exceed the 
     daily equivalent of the maximum rate of pay payable for a 
     position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (d) Reporting Requirements.--The Executive Director shall 
     annually submit to the Attorney General a report, which shall 
     include--
       (1) a description of the education and training program 
     developed under subsection (b);
       (2) the number and demographic representation of 
     individuals who attended programs sponsored by the Center;
       (3) a description of the extent to which resources of other 
     governmental agencies or private entities were used in 
     carrying out subsection (b); and
       (4) a description of the extent to which contracts with 
     other public and private entities were used in carrying out 
     subsection (b).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       (2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2007.

     SEC. 4. REGIONAL CENTERS.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Center shall establish 8 regional 
     centers, 1 in each geographic region listed in subsection (b) 
     that will be under the supervision, direction, and control of 
     the Center.
       (2) Requirement.--The 8 regional centers shall be 
     established 2 per year during 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
       (b) Regions.--For purposes of subsection (a), the regions 
     shall be as follows:
       (1) Region 1.--Region 1 shall be comprised of the following 
     States--
       (A) Connecticut;
       (B) Maine;
       (C) Massachusetts;
       (D) New Hampshire;
       (E) New York;
       (F) Rhode Island; and
       (G) Vermont.
       (2) Region 2.--Region 2 shall be comprised of the following 
     States--
       (A) Delaware;
       (B) Maryland;
       (C) New Jersey;
       (D) Ohio;
       (E) Pennsylvania;
       (F) West Virginia; and
       (G) Virginia.
       (3) Region 3.--Region 3 shall be comprised of the following 
     States--
       (A) Alabama;
       (B) Florida;
       (C) Georgia;
       (D) Mississippi;
       (E) North Carolina; and
       (F) South Carolina.
       (4) Region 4.--Region 4 shall be comprised of the following 
     States--
       (A) Iowa;
       (B) Minnesota;
       (C) Nebraska;
       (D) North Dakota;
       (E) South Dakota; and
       (F) Wisconsin.
       (5) Region 5.--Region 5 shall be comprised of the following 
     States--
       (A) Arkansas;
       (B) Illinois;
       (C) Indiana;
       (D) Kentucky;
       (E) Louisiana;
       (F) Michigan;
       (G) Missouri; and
       (H) Tennessee.
       (6) Region 6.--Region 6 shall be comprised of the following 
     States--
       (A) Colorado;
       (B) Kansas;
       (C) New Mexico;
       (D) Oklahoma; and
       (E) Texas.
       (7) Region 7.--Region 7 shall be comprised of the following 
     States--
       (A) Arizona;
       (B) California;
       (C) Nevada; and
       (D) Utah.
       (8) Region 8.--Region 8 shall be comprised of the following 
     States--
       (A) Alaska;
       (B) Hawaii;
       (C) Idaho;
       (D) Montana;
       (E) Oregon;
       (F) Washington; and
       (G) Wyoming.
       (c) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--All funds for the regional centers shall 
     be distributed by the Center which shall determine the budget 
     base of each regional center based upon the budget request 
     required to be submitted by each regional center under 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Budget request.--Each regional center shall submit a 
     budget request to the Center at such time and in such manner 
     as the Executive Director may reasonably require.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       (2) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       (3) $24,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (4) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (5) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2006 and 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Reid, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Warner, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Specter, Mr. Graham, 
        Mr. Campbell, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Carper, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 350. A bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to promote the cleanup and 
reuse of brownfields, to provide financial assistance for brownfields 
revitalization, to enhance State response programs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Brownfields 
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. Together with 
Chairman Bob Smith, Senators Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer, and other 
members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am 
reintroducing the popular bipartisan legislation that I co-authored in 
the 106th Congress. That bill eventually amassed sixty-six co-sponsors 
and I look forward to the bill enjoying the same strong bipartisan 
support it did last year.
  As the chairman of the Senate Superfund Subcommittee, I have made 
brownfields reform my top environmental priority. As one of six former 
mayors in the Senate, I understand the environmental, economic, and 
social benefits that can be realized in our communities from 
revitalizing brownfields. Estimates show there to be between 450,000 
and 600,000 brownfield sites in the United States. Why do we have so 
many of these abandoned sites? The shift away from an industrialized 
economy, the migration of land use from urban areas to suburban and 
rural areas, and our nation's strict liability contamination statutes 
have all contributed. By enacting this legislation, we can recycle our 
nation's contaminated land, reinvigorate our urban cores, stimulate 
economic development, revitalize blighted communities, abate 
environmental health risks, and reduce the pressure to develop pristine 
land.
  People may legitimately question the necessity of enacting federal 
brownfields legislation. Given the frequent touting of brownfield 
success stories, is federal legislation necessary? The short answer is 
``yes''. While many states have implemented innovative and effective 
brownfield programs, they cannot remove the federal barriers to 
brownfield redevelopment. By providing federal funding, eliminating 
federal liability for developers, and reducing the role of the federal 
government at brownfield sites, we will allow state and local 
governments to improve upon what they are already doing well.
  I would like to briefly describe the highlights of our legislation. 
The bill authorizes $150 million per year to state and local 
governments to perform assessments and cleanup at brownfield sites. In 
addition, that money will allow EPA to issue grants for cleanup of 
sites to be converted into parks or open space. It also authorizes $50 
million per year to establish and enhance state brownfield programs. 
The bill clarifies that prospective purchasers, innocent landowners, 
and contiguous property owners, that act appropriately, are not 
responsible for paying cleanup costs. Finally, this legislation offers 
finality by precluding EPA from taking an action at a site being 
addressed under a state cleanup program unless there is an ``imminent 
and substantial endangerment'' to public health or the environment, and 
additional work needs to be done.
  Enactment of this legislation and the accompanying redevelopment will 
provide a building block for the revitalization of our communities. 
Communities whose fortunes sank along with the decline of mills and 
factories will once again attract new residents and well-paying jobs. 
We will bring vibrant industry back to the brownfield sites that 
currently host crime, mischief and

[[Page 2128]]

contamination. There will be parks at sites that now contain more 
rubble than grass. City tax rolls will burgeon; schools will be 
invigorated; new homes will be built, and community character will be 
restored. This vision for our communities can be realized with 
enactment of this legislation.
  As with all legislation, we must reach across the aisle and work with 
bipartisan cooperation to be successful. The legislation we are 
introducing today garnered sixty-six bipartisan co-sponsors in the 
106th Congress. It also enjoyed broad support from the real estate 
community, local government officials, state officials, business 
groups, and environmental groups. I hope that the bill will continue to 
attract such broad support in the 107th Congress. I would like to thank 
Chairman Bob Smith, and Senators Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer for their 
leadership on this issue and their steadfast commitment to moving this 
legislation forward. I look forward to working with all my colleagues 
and with the Administration on this very important measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of 
support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 350

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration 
     Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

              TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING

Sec. 101. Brownfields revitalization funding.

             TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS

Sec. 201. Contiguous properties.
Sec. 202. Prospective purchasers and windfall liens.
Sec. 203. Innocent landowners.

                   TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS

Sec. 301. State response programs.
Sec. 302. Additions to National Priorities List.

              TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING

     SEC. 101. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.

       (a) Definition of Brownfield Site.--Section 101 of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(39) Brownfield site.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `brownfield site' means real 
     property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may 
     be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a 
     hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `brownfield site' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) a facility that is the subject of a planned or 
     ongoing removal action under this title;
       ``(ii) a facility that is listed on the National Priorities 
     List or is proposed for listing;
       ``(iii) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral 
     administrative order, a court order, an administrative order 
     on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to 
     or entered into by the parties under this Act;
       ``(iv) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral 
     administrative order, a court order, an administrative order 
     on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to 
     or entered into by the parties, or a facility to which a 
     permit has been issued by the United States or an authorized 
     State under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1321), the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et 
     seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 
     seq.);
       ``(v) a facility that--

       ``(I) is subject to corrective action under section 3004(u) 
     or 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6924(u), 6928(h)); and
       ``(II) to which a corrective action permit or order has 
     been issued or modified to require the implementation of 
     corrective measures;

       ``(vi) a land disposal unit with respect to which--

       ``(I) a closure notification under subtitle C of the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) has been 
     submitted; and
       ``(II) closure requirements have been specified in a 
     closure plan or permit;

       ``(vii) a facility that is subject to the jurisdiction, 
     custody, or control of a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States, except for land held in 
     trust by the United States for an Indian tribe;
       ``(viii) a portion of a facility--

       ``(I) at which there has been a release of polychlorinated 
     biphenyls; and
       ``(II) that is subject to remediation under the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.); or

       ``(ix) a portion of a facility, for which portion, 
     assistance for response activity has been obtained under 
     subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et 
     seq.) from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
     established under section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.
       ``(C) Site-by-site determinations.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (B) and on a site-by-site basis, the President 
     may authorize financial assistance under section 128 to an 
     eligible entity at a site included in clause (i), (iv), (v), 
     (vi), (viii), or (ix) of subparagraph (B) if the President 
     finds that financial assistance will protect human health and 
     the environment, and either promote economic development or 
     enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition to 
     parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational 
     property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.
       ``(D) Additional areas.--For the purposes of section 128, 
     the term `brownfield site' includes--
       ``(i) a site that is contaminated by a controlled substance 
     (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 802)); and
       ``(ii) mine-scarred land.''.
       (b) Brownfields Revitalization Funding.--Title I of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 128. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.

       ``(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the 
     term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(1) a general purpose unit of local government;
       ``(2) a land clearance authority or other quasi-
     governmental entity that operates under the supervision and 
     control of or as an agent of a general purpose unit of local 
     government;
       ``(3) a government entity created by a State legislature;
       ``(4) a regional council or group of general purpose units 
     of local government;
       ``(5) a redevelopment agency that is chartered or otherwise 
     sanctioned by a State;
       ``(6) a State; or
       ``(7) an Indian Tribe.
       ``(b) Brownfield Site Characterization and Assessment Grant 
     Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator shall 
     establish a program to--
       ``(A) provide grants to inventory, characterize, assess, 
     and conduct planning related to brownfield sites under 
     paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) perform targeted site assessments at brownfield 
     sites.
       ``(2) Assistance for site characterization and 
     assessment.--
       ``(A) In general.--On approval of an application made by an 
     eligible entity, the Administrator may make a grant to the 
     eligible entity to be used for programs to inventory, 
     characterize, assess, and conduct planning related to 1 or 
     more brownfield sites.
       ``(B) Site characterization and assessment.--A site 
     characterization and assessment carried out with the use of a 
     grant under subparagraph (A) shall be performed in accordance 
     with section 101(35)(B).
       ``(c) Grants and Loans for Brownfield Remediation.--
       ``(1) Grants provided by the president.--Subject to 
     subsections (d) and (e), the President shall establish a 
     program to provide grants to--
       ``(A) eligible entities, to be used for capitalization of 
     revolving loan funds; and
       ``(B) eligible entities or nonprofit organizations, where 
     warranted, as determined by the President based on 
     considerations under paragraph (3), to be used directly for 
     remediation of 1 or more brownfield sites that is owned by 
     the entity or organization that receives the grant and in 
     amounts not to exceed $200,000 for each site to be 
     remediated.
       ``(2) Loans and grants provided by eligible entities.--An 
     eligible entity that receives a grant under paragraph (1)(A) 
     shall use the grant funds to provide assistance for the 
     remediation of brownfield sites in the form of--
       ``(A) 1 or more loans to an eligible entity, a site owner, 
     a site developer, or another person; or
       ``(B) 1 or more grants to an eligible entity or other 
     nonprofit organization, where warranted, as determined by the 
     eligible entity that is providing the assistance, based on 
     considerations under paragraph (3), to remediate sites owned 
     by the eligible entity or nonprofit organization that 
     receives the grant.
       ``(3) Considerations.--In determining whether a grant under 
     paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B) is warranted, the President or the 
     eligible entity, as the case may be, shall take into 
     consideration--
       ``(A) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the 
     creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a 
     greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or 
     other property used for nonprofit purposes;

[[Page 2129]]

       ``(B) the extent to which a grant will meet the needs of a 
     community that has an inability to draw on other sources of 
     funding for environmental remediation and subsequent 
     redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is 
     located because of the small population or low income of the 
     community;
       ``(C) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the use 
     or reuse of existing infrastructure;
       ``(D) the benefit of promoting the long-term availability 
     of funds from a revolving loan fund for brownfield 
     remediation; and
       ``(E) such other factors as the Administrator considers 
     appropriate to consider for the purposes of this section.
       ``(4) Compliance with applicable laws.--An eligible entity 
     that provides assistance under paragraph (2) shall include in 
     all loan and grant agreements a requirement that the loan or 
     grant recipient shall comply with all laws applicable to the 
     cleanup for which grant funds will be used and ensure that 
     the cleanup protects human health and the environment.
       ``(5) Transition.--Revolving loan funds that have been 
     established before the date of enactment of this section may 
     be used in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(d) General Provisions.--
       ``(1) Maximum grant amount.--
       ``(A) Brownfield site characterization and assessment.--
       ``(i) In general.--A grant under subsection (b)--

       ``(I) may be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-
     wide or site-by-site basis; and
       ``(II) shall not exceed, for any individual brownfield site 
     covered by the grant, $200,000.

       ``(ii) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the $200,000 
     limitation under clause (i)(II) to permit the brownfield site 
     to receive a grant of not to exceed $350,000, based on the 
     anticipated level of contamination, size, or status of 
     ownership of the site.
       ``(B) Brownfield remediation.--
       ``(i) Grant amount.--A grant under subsection (c)(1)(A) may 
     be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-wide or site-
     by-site basis, not to exceed $1,000,000 per eligible entity.
       ``(ii) Additional grant amount.--The Administrator may make 
     an additional grant to an eligible entity described in clause 
     (i) for any year after the year for which the initial grant 
     is made, taking into consideration--

       ``(I) the number of sites and number of communities that 
     are addressed by the revolving loan fund;
       ``(II) the demand for funding by eligible entities that 
     have not previously received a grant under this section;
       ``(III) the demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to 
     use the revolving loan fund to enhance remediation and 
     provide funds on a continuing basis; and
       ``(IV) any other factors that the Administrator considers 
     appropriate to carry out this section.

       ``(2) Prohibition.--
       ``(A) In general.--No part of a grant or loan under this 
     section may be used for the payment of--
       ``(i) a penalty or fine;
       ``(ii) a Federal cost-share requirement;
       ``(iii) an administrative cost;
       ``(iv) a response cost at a brownfield site for which the 
     recipient of the grant or loan is potentially liable under 
     section 107; or
       ``(v) a cost of compliance with any Federal law (including 
     a Federal law specified in section 101(39)(B)).
       ``(B) Exclusions.--For the purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(iii), the term `administrative cost' does not include the 
     cost of--
       ``(i) investigation and identification of the extent of 
     contamination;
       ``(ii) design and performance of a response action; or
       ``(iii) monitoring of a natural resource.
       ``(3) Assistance for development of local government site 
     remediation programs.--A local government that receives a 
     grant under this section may use not to exceed 10 percent of 
     the grant funds to develop and implement a brownfields 
     program that may include--
       ``(A) monitoring the health of populations exposed to 1 or 
     more hazardous substances from a brownfield site; and
       ``(B) monitoring and enforcement of any institutional 
     control used to prevent human exposure to any hazardous 
     substance from a brownfield site.
       ``(e) Grant Applications.--
       ``(1) Submission.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Application.--An eligible entity may submit to the 
     Administrator, through a regional office of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and in such form as the Administrator may 
     require, an application for a grant under this section for 1 
     or more brownfield sites (including information on the 
     criteria used by the Administrator to rank applications under 
     paragraph (3), to the extent that the information is 
     available).
       ``(ii) NCP requirements.--The Administrator may include in 
     any requirement for submission of an application under clause 
     (i) a requirement of the National Contingency Plan only to 
     the extent that the requirement is relevant and appropriate 
     to the program under this section.
       ``(B) Coordination.--The Administrator shall coordinate 
     with other Federal agencies to assist in making eligible 
     entities aware of other available Federal resources.
       ``(C) Guidance.--The Administrator shall publish guidance 
     to assist eligible entities in applying for grants under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Approval.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(A) complete an annual review of applications for grants 
     that are received from eligible entities under this section; 
     and
       ``(B) award grants under this section to eligible entities 
     that the Administrator determines have the highest rankings 
     under the ranking criteria established under paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Ranking criteria.--The Administrator shall establish 
     a system for ranking grant applications received under this 
     subsection that includes the following criteria:
       ``(A) The extent to which a grant will stimulate the 
     availability of other funds for environmental assessment or 
     remediation, and subsequent reuse, of an area in which 1 or 
     more brownfield sites are located.
       ``(B) The potential of the proposed project or the 
     development plan for an area in which 1 or more brownfield 
     sites are located to stimulate economic development of the 
     area on completion of the cleanup.
       ``(C) The extent to which a grant would address or 
     facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to 
     human health and the environment.
       ``(D) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the use 
     or reuse of existing infrastructure.
       ``(E) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the 
     creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a 
     greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or 
     other property used for nonprofit purposes.
       ``(F) The extent to which a grant would meet the needs of a 
     community that has an inability to draw on other sources of 
     funding for environmental remediation and subsequent 
     redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is 
     located because of the small population or low income of the 
     community.
       ``(G) The extent to which the applicant is eligible for 
     funding from other sources.
       ``(H) The extent to which a grant will further the fair 
     distribution of funding between urban and nonurban areas.
       ``(I) The extent to which the grant provides for 
     involvement of the local community in the process of making 
     decisions relating to cleanup and future use of a brownfield 
     site.
       ``(f) Implementation of Brownfields Programs.--
       ``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator may 
     provide, or fund eligible entities to provide, training, 
     research, and technical assistance to individuals and 
     organizations, as appropriate, to facilitate the inventory of 
     brownfield sites, site assessments, remediation of brownfield 
     sites, community involvement, or site preparation.
       ``(2) Funding restrictions.--The total Federal funds to be 
     expended by the Administrator under this subsection shall not 
     exceed 15 percent of the total amount appropriated to carry 
     out this section in any fiscal year.
       ``(g) Audits.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct such reviews or 
     audits of grants and loans under this section as the 
     Inspector General considers necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(2) Procedure.--An audit under this paragraph shall be 
     conducted in accordance with the auditing procedures of the 
     General Accounting Office, including chapter 75 of title 31, 
     United States Code.
       ``(3) Violations.--If the Administrator determines that a 
     person that receives a grant or loan under this section has 
     violated or is in violation of a condition of the grant, 
     loan, or applicable Federal law, the Administrator may--
       ``(A) terminate the grant or loan;
       ``(B) require the person to repay any funds received; and
       ``(C) seek any other legal remedies available to the 
     Administrator.
       ``(h) Leveraging.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this section may use the grant funds for a portion of a 
     project at a brownfield site for which funding is received 
     from other sources if the grant funds are used only for the 
     purposes described in subsection (b) or (c).
       ``(i) Agreements.--Each grant or loan made under this 
     section shall be subject to an agreement that--
       ``(1) requires the recipient to comply with all applicable 
     Federal and State laws;
       ``(2) requires that the recipient use the grant or loan 
     exclusively for purposes specified in subsection (b) or (c), 
     as applicable;
       ``(3) in the case of an application by an eligible entity 
     under subsection (c)(1), requires the eligible entity to pay 
     a matching share (which may be in the form of a contribution 
     of labor, material, or services) of at least 20 percent, from 
     non-Federal sources of funding, unless the Administrator 
     determines that the matching share would place an undue 
     hardship on the eligible entity; and
       ``(4) contains such other terms and conditions as the 
     Administrator determines to be necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(j) Facility Other Than Brownfield Site.--The fact that a 
     facility may not be a

[[Page 2130]]

     brownfield site within the meaning of section 101(39)(A) has 
     no effect on the eligibility of the facility for assistance 
     under any other provision of Federal law.
       ``(k) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2006.''.

             TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS

     SEC. 201. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.

       Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Contiguous Properties.--
       ``(1) Not considered to be an owner or operator.--
       ``(A) In general.--A person that owns real property that is 
     contiguous to or otherwise similarly situated with respect 
     to, and that is or may be contaminated by a release or 
     threatened release of a hazardous substance from, real 
     property that is not owned by that person shall not be 
     considered to be an owner or operator of a vessel or facility 
     under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) solely by reason 
     of the contamination if--
       ``(i) the person did not cause, contribute, or consent to 
     the release or threatened release;
       ``(ii) the person is not--

       ``(I) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other 
     person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a 
     facility through any direct or indirect familial relationship 
     or any contractual, corporate, or financial relationship 
     (other than a contractual, corporate, or financial 
     relationship that is created by a contract for the sale of 
     goods or services); or
       ``(II) the result of a reorganization of a business entity 
     that was potentially liable;

       ``(iii) the person takes reasonable steps to--

       ``(I) stop any continuing release;
       ``(II) prevent any threatened future release; and
       ``(III) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural 
     resource exposure to any hazardous substance released on or 
     from property owned by that person;

       ``(iv) the person provides full cooperation, assistance, 
     and access to persons that are authorized to conduct response 
     actions or natural resource restoration at the vessel or 
     facility from which there has been a release or threatened 
     release (including the cooperation and access necessary for 
     the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance of 
     any complete or partial response action at the vessel or 
     facility);
       ``(v) the person--

       ``(I) is in compliance with any land use restrictions 
     established or relied on in connection with the response 
     action at a facility; and
       ``(II) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of 
     any institutional control employed in connection with a 
     response action;

       ``(vi) the person is in compliance with any request for 
     information or administrative subpoena issued by the 
     President under this Act;
       ``(vii) the person provides all legally required notices 
     with respect to the discovery or release of any hazardous 
     substances at the facility; and
       ``(viii) at the time at which the person acquired the 
     property, the person--

       ``(I) conducted all appropriate inquiry within the meaning 
     of section 101(35)(B) with respect to the property; and
       ``(II) did not know or have reason to know that the 
     property was or could be contaminated by a release or 
     threatened release of 1 or more hazardous substances from 
     other real property not owned or operated by the person.

       ``(B) Demonstration.--To qualify as a person described in 
     subparagraph (A), a person must establish by a preponderance 
     of the evidence that the conditions in clauses (i) through 
     (viii) of subparagraph (A) have been met.
       ``(C) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--Any person that 
     does not qualify as a person described in this paragraph 
     because the person had knowledge specified in subparagraph 
     (A)(viii) at the time of acquisition of the real property may 
     qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser under section 
     101(40) if the person is otherwise described in that section.
       ``(D) Ground water.--If a hazardous substance from 1 or 
     more sources that are not on the property of a person enters 
     ground water beneath the property of the person solely as a 
     result of subsurface migration in an aquifer, subparagraph 
     (A)(iii) shall not require the person to conduct ground water 
     investigations or to install ground water remediation 
     systems, except in accordance with the policy of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency concerning owners of property 
     containing contaminated aquifers, dated May 24, 1995.
       ``(2) Effect of law.--With respect to a person described in 
     this subsection, nothing in this subsection--
       ``(A) limits any defense to liability that may be available 
     to the person under any other provision of law; or
       ``(B) imposes liability on the person that is not otherwise 
     imposed by subsection (a).
       ``(3) Assurances.--The Administrator may--
       ``(A) issue an assurance that no enforcement action under 
     this Act will be initiated against a person described in 
     paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) grant a person described in paragraph (1) protection 
     against a cost recovery or contribution action under section 
     113(f).''.

     SEC. 202. PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS AND WINDFALL LIENS.

       (a) Definition of Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser.--Section 
     101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as 
     amended by section 101(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(40) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--The term `bona 
     fide prospective purchaser' means a person (or a tenant of a 
     person) that acquires ownership of a facility after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph and that establishes each of 
     the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
       ``(A) Disposal prior to acquisition.--All disposal of 
     hazardous substances at the facility occurred before the 
     person acquired the facility.
       ``(B) Inquiries.--
       ``(i) In general.--The person made all appropriate 
     inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the 
     facility in accordance with generally accepted good 
     commercial and customary standards and practices in 
     accordance with clauses (ii) and (iii).
       ``(ii) Standards and practices.--The standards and 
     practices referred to in clauses (ii) and (iv) of paragraph 
     (35)(B) shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of 
     this subparagraph.
       ``(iii) Residential use.--In the case of property in 
     residential or other similar use at the time of purchase by a 
     nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility 
     inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further 
     investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements 
     of this subparagraph.
       ``(C) Notices.--The person provides all legally required 
     notices with respect to the discovery or release of any 
     hazardous substances at the facility.
       ``(D) Care.--The person exercises appropriate care with 
     respect to hazardous substances found at the facility by 
     taking reasonable steps to--
       ``(i) stop any continuing release;
       ``(ii) prevent any threatened future release; and
       ``(iii) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural 
     resource exposure to any previously released hazardous 
     substance.
       ``(E) Cooperation, assistance, and access.--The person 
     provides full cooperation, assistance, and access to persons 
     that are authorized to conduct response actions at a vessel 
     or facility (including the cooperation and access necessary 
     for the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance 
     of any complete or partial response actions at the vessel or 
     facility).
       ``(F) Institutional control.--The person--
       ``(i) is in compliance with any land use restrictions 
     established or relied on in connection with the response 
     action at a vessel or facility; and
       ``(ii) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of 
     any institutional control employed at the vessel or facility 
     in connection with a response action.
       ``(G) Requests; subpoenas.--The person complies with any 
     request for information or administrative subpoena issued by 
     the President under this Act.
       ``(H) No affiliation.--The person is not--
       ``(i) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other 
     person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a 
     facility through--

       ``(I) any direct or indirect familial relationship; or
       ``(II) any contractual, corporate, or financial 
     relationship (other than a contractual, corporate, or 
     financial relationship that is created by the instruments by 
     which title to the facility is conveyed or financed or by a 
     contract for the sale of goods or services); or

       ``(ii) the result of a reorganization of a business entity 
     that was potentially liable.''.
       (b) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--Section 107 
     of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
     and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) (as amended by 
     section 201) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--
       ``(1) Limitation on liability.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (a)(1), a bona fide prospective purchaser whose potential 
     liability for a release or threatened release is based solely 
     on the purchaser's being considered to be an owner or 
     operator of a facility shall not be liable as long as the 
     bona fide prospective purchaser does not impede the 
     performance of a response action or natural resource 
     restoration.
       ``(2) Lien.--If there are unrecovered response costs 
     incurred by the United States at a facility for which an 
     owner of the facility is not liable by reason of paragraph 
     (1), and if each of the conditions described in paragraph (3) 
     is met, the United States shall have a lien on the facility, 
     or may by agreement with the party obtain from an appropriate 
     party a lien on any other property or other assurance of 
     payment satisfactory to the Administrator, for the 
     unrecovered response costs.

[[Page 2131]]

       ``(3) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in paragraph 
     (2) are the following:
       ``(A) Response action.--A response action for which there 
     are unrecovered costs of the United States is carried out at 
     the facility.
       ``(B) Fair market value.--The response action increases the 
     fair market value of the facility above the fair market value 
     of the facility that existed before the response action was 
     initiated.
       ``(4) Amount; duration.--A lien under paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) shall be in an amount not to exceed the increase in 
     fair market value of the property attributable to the 
     response action at the time of a sale or other disposition of 
     the property;
       ``(B) shall arise at the time at which costs are first 
     incurred by the United States with respect to a response 
     action at the facility;
       ``(C) shall be subject to the requirements of subsection 
     (l)(3); and
       ``(D) shall continue until the earlier of--
       ``(i) satisfaction of the lien by sale or other means; or
       ``(ii) notwithstanding any statute of limitations under 
     section 113, recovery of all response costs incurred at the 
     facility.''.

     SEC. 203. INNOCENT LANDOWNERS.

       Section 101(35) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(35)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the first sentence, in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``deeds or'' and inserting ``deeds, 
     easements, leases, or''; and
       (B) in the second sentence--
       (i) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the defendant''; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, 
     provides full cooperation, assistance, and facility access to 
     the persons that are authorized to conduct response actions 
     at the facility (including the cooperation and access 
     necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, and 
     maintenance of any complete or partial response action at the 
     facility), and is in compliance with any land use 
     restrictions established or relied on in connection with the 
     response action at a facility, and does not impede the 
     effectiveness or integrity of any institutional control 
     employed at the facility in connection with a response 
     action.''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Reason to know.--
       ``(i) All appropriate inquiries.--To establish that the 
     defendant had no reason to know of the matter described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i), the defendant must demonstrate to a 
     court that--

       ``(I) on or before the date on which the defendant acquired 
     the facility, the defendant carried out all appropriate 
     inquiries, as provided in clauses (ii) and (iv), into the 
     previous ownership and uses of the facility in accordance 
     with generally accepted good commercial and customary 
     standards and practices; and
       ``(II) the defendant took reasonable steps to--

       ``(aa) stop any continuing release;
       ``(bb) prevent any threatened future release; and
       ``(cc) prevent or limit any human, environmental, or 
     natural resource exposure to any previously released 
     hazardous substance.
       ``(ii) Standards and practices.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of the Brownfields Revitalization 
     and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, the Administrator 
     shall by regulation establish standards and practices for the 
     purpose of satisfying the requirement to carry out all 
     appropriate inquiries under clause (i).
       ``(iii) Criteria.--In promulgating regulations that 
     establish the standards and practices referred to in clause 
     (ii), the Administrator shall include each of the following:

       ``(I) The results of an inquiry by an environmental 
     professional.
       ``(II) Interviews with past and present owners, operators, 
     and occupants of the facility for the purpose of gathering 
     information regarding the potential for contamination at the 
     facility.
       ``(III) Reviews of historical sources, such as chain of 
     title documents, aerial photographs, building department 
     records, and land use records, to determine previous uses and 
     occupancies of the real property since the property was first 
     developed.
       ``(IV) Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens 
     against the facility that are filed under Federal, State, or 
     local law.
       ``(V) Reviews of Federal, State, and local government 
     records, waste disposal records, underground storage tank 
     records, and hazardous waste handling, generation, treatment, 
     disposal, and spill records, concerning contamination at or 
     near the facility.
       ``(VI) Visual inspections of the facility and of adjoining 
     properties.
       ``(VII) Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of 
     the defendant.
       ``(VIII) The relationship of the purchase price to the 
     value of the property, if the property was not contaminated.
       ``(IX) Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
     information about the property.
       ``(X) The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely 
     presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to 
     detect the contamination by appropriate investigation.

       ``(iv) Interim standards and practices.--

       ``(I) Property purchased before may 31, 1997.--With respect 
     to property purchased before May 31, 1997, in making a 
     determination with respect to a defendant described of clause 
     (i), a court shall take into account--

       ``(aa) any specialized knowledge or experience on the part 
     of the defendant;
       ``(bb) the relationship of the purchase price to the value 
     of the property, if the property was not contaminated;
       ``(cc) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
     information about the property;
       ``(dd) the obviousness of the presence or likely presence 
     of contamination at the property; and
       ``(ee) the ability of the defendant to detect the 
     contamination by appropriate inspection.

       ``(II) Property purchased on or after may 31, 1997.--With 
     respect to property purchased on or after May 31, 1997, and 
     until the Administrator promulgates the regulations described 
     in clause (ii), the procedures of the American Society for 
     Testing and Materials, including the document known as 
     `Standard E1527-97', entitled `Standard Practice for 
     Environmental Site Assessment: Phase 1 Environmental Site 
     Assessment Process', shall satisfy the requirements in clause 
     (i).

       ``(v) Site inspection and title search.--In the case of 
     property for residential use or other similar use purchased 
     by a nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility 
     inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further 
     investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements 
     of this subparagraph.''.

                   TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS

     SEC. 301. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as amended by section 202) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(41) Eligible response site.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible response site' means 
     a site that meets the definition of a brownfield site in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (39), as modified by 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `eligible response site' 
     includes--
       ``(i) notwithstanding paragraph (39)(B)(ix), a portion of a 
     facility, for which portion assistance for response activity 
     has been obtained under subtitle I of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) from the Leaking 
     Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund established under section 
     9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(ii) a site for which, notwithstanding the exclusions 
     provided in subparagraph (C) or paragraph (39)(B), the 
     President determines, on a site-by-site basis and after 
     consultation with the State, that limitations on enforcement 
     under section 129 at sites specified in clause (iv), (v), 
     (vi) or (viii) of paragraph (39)(B) would be appropriate and 
     will--

       ``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
       ``(II) promote economic development or facilitate the 
     creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a 
     greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or 
     other property used for nonprofit purposes.

       ``(C) Exclusions.--The term `eligible response site' does 
     not include--
       ``(i) a facility for which the President--

       ``(I) conducts or has conducted a remedial site 
     investigation; and
       ``(II) after consultation with the State, determines or has 
     determined that the site qualifies for listing on the 
     National Priorities List;

     unless the President has made a determination that no further 
     Federal action will be taken; or
       ``(ii) facilities that the President determines warrant 
     particular consideration as identified by regulation, such as 
     sites posing a threat to a sole-source drinking water aquifer 
     or a sensitive ecosystem.''.
       (b) State Response Programs.--Title I of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) (as amended by section 101(b)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 129. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Assistance to States.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) States.--The Administrator may award a grant to a 
     State or Indian tribe that--
       ``(i) has a response program that includes each of the 
     elements, or is taking reasonable steps to include each of 
     the elements, listed in paragraph (2); or
       ``(ii) is a party to a memorandum of agreement with the 
     Administrator for voluntary response programs.
       ``(B) Use of grants by states.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State or Indian tribe may use a grant 
     under this subsection to establish or enhance the response 
     program of the State or Indian tribe.
       ``(ii) Additional uses.--In addition to the uses under 
     clause (i), a State or Indian tribe may use a grant under 
     this subsection to--

       ``(I) capitalize a revolving loan fund for brownfield 
     remediation under section 128(c); or
       ``(II) develop a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or 
     insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions 
     under a State response program.

[[Page 2132]]

       ``(2) Elements.--The elements of a State or Indian tribe 
     response program referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) are the 
     following:
       ``(A) Timely survey and inventory of brownfield sites in 
     the State.
       ``(B) Oversight and enforcement authorities or other 
     mechanisms, and resources, that are adequate to ensure that--
       ``(i) a response action will--

       ``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
       ``(II) be conducted in accordance with applicable Federal 
     and State law; and

       ``(ii) if the person conducting the response action fails 
     to complete the necessary response activities, including 
     operation and maintenance or long-term monitoring activities, 
     the necessary response activities are completed.
       ``(C) Mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful 
     opportunities for public participation, including--
       ``(i) public access to documents that the State, Indian 
     tribe, or party conducting the cleanup is relying on or 
     developing in making cleanup decisions or conducting site 
     activities; and
       ``(ii) prior notice and opportunity for comment on proposed 
     cleanup plans and site activities.
       ``(D) Mechanisms for approval of a cleanup plan, and a 
     requirement for verification by and certification or similar 
     documentation from the State, an Indian tribe, or a licensed 
     site professional to the person conducting a response action 
     indicating that the response is complete.
       ``(3) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2006.
       ``(b) Enforcement in Cases of a Release Subject to State 
     Program.--
       ``(1) Enforcement.--
       ``(A) In general.-- Except as provided in subparagraph (B) 
     and subject to subparagraph (C), in the case of an eligible 
     response site at which--
       ``(i) there is a release or threatened release of a 
     hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant; and
       ``(ii) a person is conducting or has completed a response 
     action regarding the specific release that is addressed by 
     the response action that is in compliance with the State 
     program that specifically governs response actions for the 
     protection of public health and the environment;

     the President may not use authority under this Act to take an 
     administrative or judicial enforcement action under section 
     106(a) or to take a judicial enforcement action to recover 
     response costs under section 107(a) against the person 
     regarding the specific release that is addressed by the 
     response action.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--The President may bring an enforcement 
     action under this Act during or after completion of a 
     response action described in subparagraph (A) with respect to 
     a release or threatened release at an eligible response site 
     described in that subparagraph if--
       ``(i) the State requests that the President provide 
     assistance in the performance of a response action;
       ``(ii) the Administrator determines that contamination has 
     migrated or will migrate across a State line, resulting in 
     the need for further response action to protect human health 
     or the environment, or the President determines that 
     contamination has migrated or is likely to migrate onto 
     property subject to the jurisdiction, custody, or control of 
     a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
     and may impact the authorized purposes of the Federal 
     property;
       ``(iii) after taking into consideration the response 
     activities already taken, the Administrator determines that--

       ``(I) a release or threatened release may present an 
     imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or 
     welfare or the environment; and
       ``(II) additional response actions are likely to be 
     necessary to address, prevent, limit, or mitigate the release 
     or threatened release; or

       ``(iv) the Administrator determines that information, that 
     on the earlier of the date on which cleanup was approved or 
     completed, was not known by the State, as recorded in 
     documents prepared or relied on in selecting or conducting 
     the cleanup, has been discovered regarding the contamination 
     or conditions at a facility such that the contamination or 
     conditions at the facility present a threat requiring further 
     remediation to protect public health or welfare or the 
     environment.
       ``(C) Public record.--The limitations on the authority of 
     the President under subparagraph (A) apply only at sites in 
     States that maintain, update not less than annually, and make 
     available to the public a record of sites, by name and 
     location, at which response actions have been completed in 
     the previous year and are planned to be addressed under the 
     State program that specifically governs response actions for 
     the protection of public health and the environment in the 
     upcoming year. The public record shall identify whether or 
     not the site, on completion of the response action, will be 
     suitable for unrestricted use and, if not, shall identify the 
     institutional controls relied on in the remedy. Each State 
     and tribe receiving financial assistance under subsection (a) 
     shall maintain and make available to the public a record of 
     sites as provided in this paragraph.
       ``(D) EPA notification.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of an eligible response site 
     at which there is a release or threatened release of a 
     hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant and for which 
     the Administrator intends to carry out an action that may be 
     barred under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall--

       ``(I) notify the State of the action the Administrator 
     intends to take; and
       ``(II)(aa) wait 48 hours for a reply from the State under 
     clause (ii); or
       ``(bb) if the State fails to reply to the notification or 
     if the Administrator makes a determination under clause 
     (iii), take immediate action under that clause.

       ``(ii) State reply.--Not later than 48 hours after a State 
     receives notice from the Administrator under clause (i), the 
     State shall notify the Administrator if--

       ``(I) the release at the eligible response site is or has 
     been subject to a cleanup conducted under a State program; 
     and
       ``(II) the State is planning to abate the release or 
     threatened release, any actions that are planned.

       ``(iii) Immediate federal action.--The Administrator may 
     take action immediately after giving notification under 
     clause (i) without waiting for a State reply under clause 
     (ii) if the Administrator determines that 1 or more 
     exceptions under subparagraph (B) are met.
       ``(E) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of initiation of any enforcement action by the President 
     under clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subparagraph (B), the 
     President shall submit to Congress a report describing the 
     basis for the enforcement action, including specific 
     references to the facts demonstrating that enforcement action 
     is permitted under subparagraph (B).
       ``(2) Savings provision.--
       ``(A) Costs incurred prior to limitations.--Nothing in 
     paragraph (1) precludes the President from seeking to recover 
     costs incurred prior to the date of enactment of this section 
     or during a period in which the limitations of paragraph 
     (1)(A) were not applicable.
       ``(B) Effect on agreements between states and epa.--Nothing 
     in paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) modifies or otherwise affects a memorandum of 
     agreement, memorandum of understanding, or any similar 
     agreement relating to this Act between a State agency or an 
     Indian tribe and the Administrator that is in effect on or 
     before the date of enactment of this section (which agreement 
     shall remain in effect, subject to the terms of the 
     agreement); or
       ``(ii) limits the discretionary authority of the President 
     to enter into or modify an agreement with a State, an Indian 
     tribe, or any other person relating to the implementation by 
     the President of statutory authorities.
       ``(3) Effective date.--This subsection applies only to 
     response actions conducted after June 8, 2000.
       ``(c) Effect on Federal Laws.--Nothing in this section 
     affects any liability or response authority under any Federal 
     law, including--
       ``(1) this Act, except as provided in subsection (b);
       ``(2) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.);
       ``(3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1251 et seq.);
       ``(4) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et 
     seq.); and
       ``(5) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 
     seq.).''.

     SEC. 302. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.

       Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) NPL Deferral.--
       ``(1) Deferral to state voluntary cleanups.--At the request 
     of a State and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     President generally shall defer final listing of an eligible 
     response site on the National Priorities List if the 
     President determines that--
       ``(A) the State, or another party under an agreement with 
     or order from the State, is conducting a response action at 
     the eligible response site--
       ``(i) in compliance with a State program that specifically 
     governs response actions for the protection of public health 
     and the environment; and
       ``(ii) that will provide long-term protection of human 
     health and the environment; or
       ``(B) the State is actively pursuing an agreement to 
     perform a response action described in subparagraph (A) at 
     the site with a person that the State has reason to believe 
     is capable of conducting a response action that meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Progress toward cleanup.--If, after the last day of 
     the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the 
     President proposes to list an eligible response site on the 
     National Priorities List, the President determines that the 
     State or other party is not

[[Page 2133]]

     making reasonable progress toward completing a response 
     action at the eligible response site, the President may list 
     the eligible response site on the National Priorities List.
       ``(3) Cleanup agreements.--With respect to an eligible 
     response site under paragraph (1)(B), if, after the last day 
     of the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the 
     President proposes to list the eligible response site on the 
     National Priorities List, an agreement described in paragraph 
     (1)(B) has not been reached, the President may defer the 
     listing of the eligible response site on the National 
     Priorities List for an additional period of not to exceed 180 
     days if the President determines deferring the listing would 
     be appropriate based on--
       ``(A) the complexity of the site;
       ``(B) substantial progress made in negotiations; and
       ``(C) other appropriate factors, as determined by the 
     President.
       ``(4) Exceptions.--The President may decline to defer, or 
     elect to discontinue a deferral of, a listing of an eligible 
     response site on the National Priorities List if the 
     President determines that--
       ``(A) deferral would not be appropriate because the State, 
     as an owner or operator or a significant contributor of 
     hazardous substances to the facility, is a potentially 
     responsible party;
       ``(B) the criteria under the National Contingency Plan for 
     issuance of a health advisory have been met; or
       ``(C) the conditions in paragraphs (1) through (3), as 
     applicable, are no longer being met.''.
                                  ____

                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk 
         Assessment, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste 
         Control, and Risk Assessment, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.

       Dear Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee and Boxer: On behalf of 
     The United States Conference of Mayors, I am writing to 
     express the strong support of the nation's mayors for your 
     bipartisan legislation, the ``Brownfields Revitalization and 
     Environmental Restoration Act of 2001.'' The mayors believe 
     that this legislation can dramatically improve the nation's 
     efforts to recycle abandoned and other underutilized 
     brownfield sites, providing new incentives and statutory 
     reforms to speed the assessment, cleanup and redevelopment of 
     these properties.
       This is a national problem that deserves a strong and 
     prompt federal response. The mayors believe that this 
     bipartisan legislation will help accelerate ongoing private 
     sector and public efforts to recycle America's land.
       We thank you for your leadership on this priority 
     legislation for the nation's cities. We strongly support this 
     legislation and we encourage you to move forward 
     expeditiously so that the nation can secure the many positive 
     benefits to be achieved from the reuse and redevelopment of 
     the many thousands of brownfields throughout the U.S.
           Sincerely,

                                               H. Brent Coles,

                                                        President,
     Mayor of Boise.
                                  ____



                 National Association of Realtors',

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chafee: On behalf of the more than 760,000 
     members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ', 
     I wish to convey our strong support for the ``Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act.'' NAR 
     commends you for your efforts in crafting a practical and 
     effective bill which has garnered bipartisan support from the 
     leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works 
     Committee.
       NAR supports this bill because it:
       Provides liability relief for innocent property owners who 
     have not caused or contributed to hazardous waste 
     contamination;
       Increases funding for the cleanup and redevelopment of the 
     hundreds of thousands of our nation's contaminated 
     ``brownfields'' sites;
       Recognizes the finality of successful state hazardous waste 
     cleanup efforts.
       Brownfields sites offer excellent opportunities for the 
     economic, environmental and social enrichment of our 
     communities. Unfortunately, liability concerns and a lack of 
     adequate resources often deter redevelopment of such sites. 
     As a result, properties that could be enhancing community 
     growth are left dilapidated, contributing to nothing but 
     economic ruin. Once revitalized, however, brownfields sites 
     benefit their surrounding communities by increasing the tax 
     base, creating jobs and providing new housing.
       The new Administration has clearly indicated its support 
     for brownfields revitalization efforts. The ``Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act'' is a 
     positive, broadly-supported policy initiative. NAR looks 
     forward to working together with you to enact brownfields 
     legislation in the 107th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                               Richard Mendenhall,
     2001 President.
                                  ____



                               American Insurance Association,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Senator Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, Risk 
         Assessment, Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the American Insurance 
     Association, I want to congratulate you upon the introduction 
     of the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act.
       We believe this bill will provide necessary relief to many 
     cities struggling with the problem of abandoned, contaminated 
     properties. While insurance is now emerging as one of the 
     most useful tools for managing environmental liability risk 
     in the redevelopment of contaminated properties, insurance 
     products alone are not enough. The predicament for many 
     cities is that they don't have the resources to address the 
     brownfields problem, but they can't develop the resources 
     without addressing the brownfields problem. Your bill is a 
     giant step toward resolving this conundrum.
       In sum, we believe this bill constitutes a positive step 
     toward cleaning up hazardous waste sites. We are especially 
     happy to observe that the bill does this through a mechanism 
     other than litigation. Finally, we are pleased to note the 
     bill is the product of a bipartisan consensus of the 
     leadership of the Senate Environment Committee.
       We look forward to working with you to see that this 
     legislation becomes law.
           Sincerely,
                                                John G. Arlington,
     Assistant Vice President.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                             Industrial and Office Properties,

                                   Herndon, VA, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and 
         Risk Assessment, Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of The National Association of 
     Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP), I am writing to 
     voice our support for the Brownfields Revitalization and 
     Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. This legislation is 
     very important to the development community as it promotes 
     the cleanup and reuse of brownfields, provides financial 
     assistance for brownfields revitalization and helps to 
     provide incentives to put unused industrial sites back into 
     productive use.
       NAIOP, with over 9,400 members, is a national association 
     that represents the interests of developers, owners and 
     investors of industrial, office and related commercial real 
     estate throughout North America. We applaud the efforts of 
     the Committee to once again encourage brownfields 
     revitalization.
       With respect to brownfields, NAIOP is encouraged by the 
     grant program proposed in the bill and supports federal 
     assistance to states in establishing and expanding voluntary 
     clean up programs. These provisions demonstrate a serious 
     attempt toward achieving much-needed brownfields 
     revitalization, which is a primary concern to the commercial 
     real estate industry.
       All across the country there is debate about how to control 
     urban sprawl. We believe that this legislation will go 
     further to address the issue of sprawl, especially since it 
     will encourage the revitalization of our nation's urban 
     areas.
       NAIOP urges swift passage of this bill, and we look forward 
     to working with you to achieve this result.
           Sincerely,
     Anne Evans Estabrook,
       Chairman of the Board.
     Thomas J. Bisacquino,
       President.

[[Page 2134]]

     
                                  ____
                                          International Council of


                                             Shopping Centers,

                                Alexandria, VA, February 13, 2001.
     Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chafee: The International Council of Shopping 
     Centers (ICSC) strongly commends your plans to introduce the 
     ``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration 
     Act of 2001.'' Along with your co-sponsors, you have 
     displayed critical leadership on a public policy issue too 
     often caught up in partisan rhetoric. ICSC enthusiastically 
     supports the legislation, as we did last year with S. 2700, 
     and looks forward to working with you and your staff to 
     ensure its passage.
       Shopping centers are America's marketplace, representing 
     economic growth, environmental responsibility, and community 
     strength. Founded in 1957, the ICSC is the global trade 
     association of the shopping center industry. Its nearly 
     35,000 U.S. members represent almost all of the 44,426 
     shopping centers in the United States. In addition, shopping 
     centers employ over 11 million people, about nine percent of 
     non-agricultural jobs in the United States. Legislation such 
     as the ``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act of 2001'' will allow center developers to 
     further step-up their efforts to assist in the redevelopment 
     of urban areas in their continuing efforts to enhance the 
     environmental and economic quality of America's cities.
       The 2001 Act will provide practical solutions to many of 
     the issues developers confront when debating the merits of 
     brownfields redevelopment. Provisions providing liability 
     relief for innocent property owners who have not caused or 
     contributed to hazardous waste contamination; increased 
     funding for the cleanup and redevelopment of the hundreds of 
     thousands of the country's brownfields sites; and, 
     recognition that sites remediated under the authority of 
     state voluntary clean up laws should constitute final action 
     are all vital to encouraging development in sites that may 
     otherwise be left abandoned.
       The targeted reforms you have focused on will result in 
     greater infill development and enhance the urban landscape. 
     The 2001 Act will not only spur economic development but also 
     improve environmental quality throughout the country. ICSC 
     looks forward to working with you in the coming months in 
     support of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                          William H. Hoffman, III,
     Manager, Environmental Issues.
                                  ____



                                   The Real Estate Roundtable,

                                                February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chafee: I am writing on behalf of the Real 
     Estate Roundtable to express our members' enthusiastic 
     support for ``The Brownfields Revitalization and 
     Environmental Restoration Act of 2001'' (BRERA). This 
     important legislation would make welcome reforms to the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
     Liability Act or ``Superfund'' law.
       Last year's similar legislation achieved an astonishing 
     degree of bipartisan support--picking up a total 67 co-
     sponsors and broad support from a diverse array of 
     environmental, state and local government and business 
     organizations. Today we believe there is a great 
     opportunity--with help from the Bush Administration--to move 
     BRERA quickly through Congress and to the president's desk 
     for signature. In that regard, we have been heartened by the 
     strong signal of support for this type of bill sent by 
     President Bush during his campaign for the presidency. As 
     indicated by her remarks during her confirmation hearings, 
     Administrator Christine Todd Whitman will also clearly be an 
     ally.
       There are brownfields in every state--and almost every 
     community--in this country. If enacted into law, BRERA would 
     significantly advance the economic prospects for remediating 
     and recycling those properties into a broad range of 
     productive uses. The economic and regulatory incentives 
     included in the bill would help thousands of brownfield sites 
     across the country become vibrant new employment centers. In 
     other cases, the clean-up properties would provide many 
     communities with environmentally sound housing alternatives.
       As you know, The Real Estate Roundtable's members are 
     America's leading real estate owners, advisors, builders, 
     investors, lenders and managers. The Real Estate Roundtable 
     (and its predecessor organization the National Realty 
     Committee) has long supported enactment of bipartisan 
     legislation that includes meaningful incentives for 
     brownfields redevelopment. BRERA is clearly just such a piece 
     of legislation.
       In particular, the proposed legislation would go far in 
     assuring those parties purchasing already contaminated 
     ``brownfields'' properties that they have not also acquired 
     unwarranted Superfund liability. Such assurance is critical 
     to successfully financing and closing on brownfields 
     transaction. In addition, we are pleased the bill recognizes 
     the need to clarify the innocence of those individuals or 
     companies whose real property has become contaminated simply 
     because hazardous substances have migrated from adjacent 
     sites.
       The legislation also includes a provision that will, in 
     most cases, reassure participants in state voluntary cleanup 
     programs that their state-approved cleanup is not likely to 
     be ``second-guessed'' by federal officials. This so-called 
     ``finality'' assurance is crucial not only to potential 
     buyers and sellers of brownfields properties but to their 
     financial partners as well. The bill presents a welcome 
     compromise on a very difficult policy challenge.
       We look forward to working with you, other Senate leaders 
     and the Administration to encourage the swift passage of 
     BRERA.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jeffrey D. DeBoer,
     President and Chief Operating Officer.
                                  ____



                                    The Trust for Public Land,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and 
         Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Chafee, Senator Reid, and 
     Senator Boxer: On behalf of the Trust for Public Land, I am 
     writing to thank you for introducing the Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. We 
     appreciate your outstanding efforts to promote local 
     environmental quality, as typified by your energetic advocacy 
     of this brownfields legislation.
       TPL was honored to be part of the coalition that helped to 
     push this legislation to the brink of enactment at the end of 
     the 106th Congress, and we again look forward to working with 
     you to make this legislation a reality within the near 
     future. We are particularly grateful that you have re-
     introduced identical legislation this time around.
       Given our experience in community open-space issues, we are 
     heartened by the emphasis the legislation places on 
     brownfields-to-parks conversion where appropriate, and its 
     flexibility to tailor loan and grant funding based on 
     community needs and eventual uses. In all, this legislation 
     provides the framework and funding that an effective national 
     approach to brownfields requires, and offers the promise of a 
     much-needed federal partnership role in brownfields 
     reclamation.
       Brownfields afford some of the most promising 
     revitalization opportunities from our cities to more rural 
     locales. This legislation will serve to help meet the 
     pronounced needs in underserved communities to reclaim 
     abandoned sites and create open spaces where they are most 
     needed. By transforming these idled sites into urgently 
     needed parks and green spaces, or by focusing investment into 
     their appropriate redevelopment, reclamation of brownfield 
     properties brings new life to local economies and to the 
     spirit of neighborhoods.
       The Trust for Public Land gratefully recognizes the vision 
     and careful craftsmanship you have shown in your work to 
     advance this vital legislation, and we look forward to 
     working with you towards its enactment.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Alan Front,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____

                                                Institute of Scrap


                                   Recycling Industries, Inc.,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Robert C. Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and 
         Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee and Boxer: The Institute 
     of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI), strongly supports 
     the passage of the Brownfields Revitalization and 
     Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. Passage of this 
     bipartisan bill will reduce the many legal and regulatory 
     barriers that stand in the way of brownfields redevelopment.
       This important brownfields legislation will provide 
     liability relief for innocent property owners who purchase a 
     property without knowing that it is contaminated, but who 
     carry out a good faith effort to investigate the site. It 
     also recognizes the finality of successful state approved 
     voluntary cleanup efforts and provides funds to cleanup and 
     redevelop brownfields sites.

[[Page 2135]]

       ISRI stands ready to help build support for passage of this 
     bipartisan brownfields bill. In the previous Congress, ISRI's 
     membership worked to build grassroots support and sought 
     cosponsors for S. 2700 of the 106th Congress, the predecessor 
     bill to the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act of 2001.
       ISRI looks forward to continuing to work with you to see 
     that the brownfields bill you have sponsored becomes law. We 
     believe that the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act of 2001 is a model for sensible bipartisan 
     environmental policy.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robin K. Wiener,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                February 15, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and 
         Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Chafee, Senator Reid, and 
     Senator Boxer: We are writing to thank you for the 
     outstanding leadership you have demonstrated by your re-
     introduction of the Brownfields Revitalization and 
     Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. Our organizations, and 
     our many community partners across America, are heartened by 
     the benefits that this legislation would impart upon our 
     landscapes, economies, public parks and our communities as a 
     whole. Transforming abandoned brownfield sites into 
     greenfields or new development will provide momentum for 
     increasing ``smart growth'' and reducing sprawl by utilizing 
     existing transportation infrastructure, which in turn will 
     lead to better transportation systems and the revitalization 
     of historic areas and our urban centers.
       As you are well aware, brownfields pose some of the most 
     critical land-use challenges--and afford some of the most 
     promising revitalization opportunities--facing our nations' 
     communities, from our cities to more rural locales. 
     Revitalization of these idled sites into urgently needed 
     parks and green spaces or into appropriate redevelopment will 
     provide great benefits to our neighborhoods and local 
     economies. In the process, it has also proven to be an 
     extremely powerful too in local efforts to control urban 
     sprawl by directing economic growth to already developed 
     areas, encouraging the restoration and reuse of historical 
     sites, and in addressing longstanding issues of environmental 
     justice in underserved areas.
       We acknowledge the commitment that the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and other federal agencies have 
     demonstrated to brownfields restoration through existing 
     programs. At the same time, given that there are estimated 
     450,000-600,000 brownfield properties nationwide, we 
     recognize that these limited resources have been stretched 
     too far to allow for an optimal federal role. Additional 
     investment, at higher levels and in new directions, is 
     essential to meeting the enormous backlog of need and to 
     establishing the truest federal partnership with the many 
     state, local, and private entities working to renew 
     brownfield sites.
       The Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration 
     Amendments Act of 2001 would provide this much needed federal 
     response. Through our work with local governments, our 
     organizations have witnessed first-hand--and have often 
     worked as a partner to help create--the benefits that this 
     bill would provide. We are particularly gratified by the 
     emphasis your legislation places on brownfields-to-parks 
     conversion, and the flexibility its provides to tailor 
     funding based on a community's a particular needs. In all, 
     this bill provides the framework and funding that an 
     effective national approach to brownfields will require.
       Accordingly, we appreciate your vision in developing this 
     legislation, and we look forward to working with you towards 
     its enactment.
           Sincerely,
         The Trust for Public Land; Scenic America; American 
           Planning Association; The Enterprise Foundation; 
           National Association of Regional Councils; Smart Growth 
           America; Surface Transportation Policy Project; 
           National Recreation and Park Association.
                                  ____

                                            Environmental Business


                                             Action Coalition,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Robert Smith,
     Chairman, Environment & Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk 
         Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and 
         Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee, Boxer: On behalf of the 
     Environmental Business Coalition (EBAC), I am writing to 
     strongly support your introduction of the Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. 
     EBAC endorses this bipartisan effort and will work with you 
     to secure its passage this year.
       EBAC is an organization of nearly thirty-five environmental 
     engineering, scientific and construction firms representing 
     over 60,000 professional, managerial and support personnel in 
     the hazardous waste cleanup field. Our companies are the 
     experts in environmental cleanup, including Superfund and 
     brownfields nationwide.
       The Brownfields Revitalization and Environment Restoration 
     Act of 2001 would provide the much-needed ``finality'' for 
     states that already have successful cleanup programs. In 
     addition, the measure would provide critically needed 
     financial support for assessment and cleanup of brownfields. 
     Finally, the proposal's liability reforms will go a long way 
     in returning to productive use these abandoned sites 
     burdening communities across the country.
       While EBAC supports these provisions and believe they will 
     make important contributions to the redevelopment of 
     countless abandoned properties nationwide, we strongly urge 
     you to expand the liability reform provisions contained in 
     this legislation to include protections for Response Action 
     Contractors (RAC's) form the Superfund law's unfair liability 
     scheme. This will greatly increase the resources available 
     for cleanups across the country. Similarly, we urge you to 
     support the use of professional engineering judgment that 
     will increase program efficiency as opposed to imposing 
     nationwide ASTM standards on site cleanups. These ``one-size-
     fits-all'' dictates will needlessly complicate efforts by 
     creating legal uncertainty for professionals addressing the 
     inherently unique characteristics of contaminated sites.
       EBAC appreciates your hard work in drafting this important 
     legislation. We are committed to working closely with you to 
     move this measure to enactment.
           Sincerely,
                                              Jeremiah D. Jackson,
     President.
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                February 15, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and 
         Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Chafee, Senator Reid and 
     Senator Boxer: Smart Growth America would like to thank you 
     for your leadership on the introduction the Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. A 
     broad coalition of elected officials, public and private 
     sector professionals, community groups, and environmentalists 
     have been championing the need for brownfields redevelopment 
     for many years. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently 
     conducted a survey and found that across the country, 210 
     cities are plagued with 21,000 industrial or commercial sites 
     whose redevelopment is hindered by environmental 
     contamination or sometimes just the perception of 
     contamination.
       As advocates of smart growth--growth that revitalizes 
     neighborhoods, creates and preserves affordable housing, 
     promotes transportation choice, preserves scenic and historic 
     resources, and conserves open space and farmland--we regard 
     brownfields redevelopment as a top priority. Although we 
     support the bill, we are concerned that the bill may not 
     provide adequate protection of the environment and public 
     health in certain cases. We believe this would be unwise and 
     hope to work with you on appropriate amendments to the 
     language.
       The primary obstacle to brownfields redevelopment has been 
     inadequate funding and liability issues for contiguous 
     landowners, prospective purchasers and innocent landowners. 
     This legislation addresses these issues and presents a 
     tremendous opportunity for communities to capitalize on their 
     untapped resources. The U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 
     176 cities estimated that between $878 million and $2.4 
     billion annually could be generated by fully tapping into the 
     potential of brownfields sites. In addition, 189 cities 
     predict that 554,419 new jobs could be generated.
       We believe the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act of 2001 will allow communities nationwide to 
     utilize

[[Page 2136]]

     their existing infrastructure to encourage economic 
     development, remove environmental and public health hazards, 
     promote neighborhood revitalization and preserve open space. 
     We support your efforts and look forward to working with you 
     to pass this truly groundbreaking legislation.
           Sincerely,
         Smart Growth America; National Trust for Historic 
           Preservation; Surface Transportation Policy Project; 
           Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Environmental Justice 
           Resource Center, Clark Atlanta University; Great 
           American Station Foundation, Center for Neighborhood 
           Technology; Scenic America; American Planning 
           Association; The Enterprise Foundation; National Center 
           for Bicycling and Walking; and Environmental & Energy 
           Study Institute.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, I am pleased to join Senator 
Reid, the ranking member of the Committee; Senator Chafee, the chairman 
of the Superfund Subcommittee; and Senator Boxer, ranking member of the 
Subcommittee, to introduce a bill that protects the environment, 
encourages community involvement, promotes economic redevelopment, 
provides incentive for the preservation of green spaces, and sets the 
stage for future comprehensive Superfund reform.
  As a nation, our industrial heritage has left us with numerous 
contaminated abandoned or underutilized ``brownfield'' sites. Although 
the level of contamination at many of these sites is relatively low, 
and the potential value of the property may be quite high, developers 
often shy away from redeveloping these sites. Behind their reluctance: 
uncertainty regarding the level of contamination, the extent of 
potential liability, or the likely costs of cleanup.
  The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 
2001 addresses the uncertainty that has long plagued developers, 
property owners, and communities seeking to make use of these otherwise 
desirable sites. This bill is identical to a bill we introduced last 
year, a bill that had the overwhelming support of 67 cosponsors, but 
unfortunately never saw floor time.
  How is our bill better than current law? Simply stated, our bill 
provides an element of finality which does not exist today, while 
allowing for federal involvement under a specific universe of 
conditions. Our bill strikes a solid balance on the issue of finality 
between so-called ``Republican bills'' and ``Democratic bills'' 
championed in previous years with no bipartisan support. Furthermore, 
our bill provides authorization for critically needed funds to assess 
and clean up brownfield sites, which will create jobs, increase tax 
revenues, and preserve and create open space and parks. This is a 
balanced bill. If you never had a chance to review it last year, do so 
now. This year, we are determined to move this bill through the 
process--and quickly. Senator Reid and I have committed to marking up 
this bill in early March, and we hope to have floor time soon 
afterwards.
  There are an estimated 450,000 brownfield sites in the United States. 
These are low risk sites, not the traditional Superfund sites that 
would be impacted by comprehensive Superfund reform. However, if States 
and citizens continue to be discouraged form cleaning up brownfield 
sites, these sites will never be redeveloped, and may in fact become 
Superfund sites. While I strongly believe that comprehensive Superfund 
reform is needed, I feel that we can move forward with brownfield 
legislation without compromising our chances for comprehensive reform.
  As brownfield sites are outside of the scope of Superfund, I believe 
that liability carve-outs are outside of the scope of any brownfield 
legislation. As I have done in the past, I continue to oppose narrow 
carve-outs. Carve-outs weaken attempts at overhauling the remedy 
selection and liability allocation provisions in the current Superfund 
statute and, frankly, make a bad system worse. Our brownfield 
legislation does not affect the allocation of liability at Superfund 
sites; instead, it provides needed resources to address sites, provides 
certainty to those who voluntarily cleanup, and prevents brownfields 
from being included in the superfund web. Brownfield legislation 
presents a win-win for all involved and should jumpstart action on 
substantive Superfund reform.
  Let me just say that last year, the Congress made a bold move in 
approving bipartisan legislation to restore the Florida Everglades. One 
of the proudest moments of my Senate career was witnessing the signing 
into law of that landmark environmental legislation. I want to use the 
Everglades model--cooperation, partnership, bipartisanship--as an 
example of what Congress can do when it puts aside personal politics 
for good policy. No one thought we'd get Everglades to the President's 
desk in a presidential election year, but we proved them wrong. 
Pessimists have little faith that an equally divided Senate will 
accomplish more than partisan bickering. Let's prove them wrong, too, 
by committing to enact brownfield legislation in the first session of 
this Congress. By doing so, not only do we demonstrate to a skeptical 
nation that bipartisan cooperation is possible, but once again, the 
environment wins.
  Our bill represents a carefully negotiated compromise, and as is the 
nature of a compromise, both sides had to give a little to reach common 
ground. Now that we stand together on that common ground, let's not 
undermine our widespread support by trying to bring the bill farther to 
the left or to the right. The Brownfield Revitalization and 
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 is a strong bill and represents 
our best chance of addressing the issues plaguing brownfield sites. I 
urge your support for this bill.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan 
legislation to cleanup American's brownfields. I am joined by my 
colleagues from the Environment and Public Works Committee in 
introducing this important legislation, Senators Chafee, Smith, Boxer, 
Baucus, Graham, Corzine, and Warner.
  This is an exciting beginning to my tenure as the ranking member of 
the Environment and Public Works--this bill which I hope will be 
enacted swiftly, has broad support on both sides of the aisle, and 
which is supported by environmentalists, realtors and the business 
community.
  What are brownfields? They are contaminated, abandoned sites that 
blight our communities, but also offer great promise for the future. 
there are, according to the Conference of Mayors, over 450,000 
brownfields in the US, in every state of the union, and in both rural 
and urban areas. The Conference of Mayors has estimated that 
redeveloping these sites would create more than 587,000 jobs nationally 
and increase annual tax revenues from between $902 million to $2.4 
billion dollars.
  So, it is clear that there are great benefits to be realized from 
cleaning up these sites. For example, in Las Vegas alone, there are 
roughly 30 brownfields sites. It is estimated that cleaning up these 
sites would generate between $1.6 and $4 million per year of additional 
tax revenues, and create an estimated 320 jobs.
  Some think of brownfields cleanup as just an urban issue, but 
brownfields can be found anywhere, even in our most rural areas. Their 
cleanup will have important economic benefits for rural America. For 
example, Hawthorne, a small town in Nevada has limited private lands to 
accommodate the town's growth. To the west of the city, 240 acres of 
valuable space have been used as a landfill for years. Nevada's 
brownfield program completed the first contamination assessment and 
companies are already interested in developing the land.
  Brownfields funding can be used to complete the assessment and 
cleanup of this valuable rural land, allowing the town to grow, provide 
new jobs, and expand its tax base.
  Let me give you another specific example of what we can do with 
brownfields funding. The National Guard Armory site in Las Vegas was 
the first site in the nation to be cleaned up under a loan from EPA's 
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund. This site had been used for a 
variety of military purposes, including chemical storage. The cleanup, 
including removal of over 600 cubic yards of

[[Page 2137]]

soil contaminated with hazardous waste and petroleum hydrocarbons, cost 
only $50,000, but freed the site up for reuse. The city is making the 
site a community center with space for a senior center, a small 
business center, a cultural center and retail stores.
  This bill will provide for many years more such success stories. With 
this bill, we can begin to address in a significant way those 450,000 
sites and help our neighborhoods and business thrive.
  These blighted areas pose threats to human health and the 
environment, contributing to economic depression, crime and job loss. 
They push new development into farmland and green spaces and cause 
sprawl, increasing driving time, traffic, congestion and air pollution.
  The brownfields bill we are introducing today will directly spur such 
cleanup of these sites, in a number of ways.
  It provides critically needed money to assess and clean up abandoned 
and underutilized brownfield sites.
  It encourages cleanup and redevelopment of these properties, by 
providing legal protections for innocent parties, such as contiguous 
property owners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners.
  It provides for funding and expansion of state cleanup programs, and 
provides ``certainty'' for developers, but still ensures protection of 
public health and the environment.
  It creates a public record of brownfield sites and enhances community 
involvement in site cleanup and reuse.
  In conclusion, this bill has the support of a wide variety of groups, 
including environmentalists, mayors, businesses, and the real estate 
community. We are fortunate enough to have an opportunity to do well by 
so many. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this 
legislation this Congress and seeing the payoff in clean sites and new 
jobs in communities across the country.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment, I am pleased to join 
my colleagues in sponsoring the Brownfields Revitalization and 
Environmental Restoration Act--a very important piece of legislation.
  Our nation's industrial history has left us with the unfortunate 
legacy of tens of thousands of abandoned sites that are contaminated 
with hazardous materials.
  Unfortunately, many of these sites are located in low-income, 
minority communities. The result is that this toxic legacy 
disproportionately impacts some of our most vulnerable and disempowered 
populations.
  For many of my constituents in places like Oakland, Anaheim, Long 
Beach, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Stockton these polluted 
areas--or so-called ``brownfields''--are a blight on the community. 
They are dead zones that sit unused or only partially used, sometimes 
posing health hazards, sometimes merely eyesores.
  The idea behind the Brownfields Initiative is that those areas of 
light, or moderate, contamination should be restored for economic 
redevelopment, community use, or made into parks and greenways.
  In Oakland, for instance, an abandoned industrial brownfield site is 
going to be transformed into a large-scale, mixed use development area. 
It will include a pedestrian walkway, retail shops, child care 
facilities, medical care facilities, a senior center, and a branch of 
the Oakland Public Library.
  I'm proud to note that two California sites, in East Palo Alto and 
Los Angeles, have been selected by the Environmental Protection Agency, 
EPA, to be ``Showcase Communities.'' These communities are at the 
cutting edge of the brownfields effort; their experiences will help us 
learn how to bring together federal, state, local, and non-governmental 
interests to address the brownfields problem. They will serve as a 
model for the rest of the Nation.
  While EPA has made important strides in the development of the 
Brownfields Initiative, there is much more than could be done.
  By authorizing increased funding for this program, clarifying some of 
the liability questions, and directing the program to the areas of 
greatest need, this legislation will help expand the scope of this 
program and elevate its visibility in the eyes of the American public.
  This legislation helps us set right some of the mistakes that were 
made in the past. And it illustrates what we have had to learn the hard 
way--that a prosperous economy and a healthy environment go hand in 
hand.
  By cleaning up these contaminated brownfields, we can protect public 
health, while at the same time curbing the devastating impact of urban 
sprawl on our environment.
  Encouraging the clean up of these contaminated properties will also 
mean new jobs and greater economic growth for the communities that need 
it most.
  We owe it to our children to leave them an environment that is 
cleaner and healthier than the one we have inherited. This bill will 
help take us in that direction.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-
used commercial or industrial properties where development or expansion 
is hindered by real or perceived environmental contamination. 
Businesses located on brownfields were once the economic foundations of 
communities. Today, brownfields lie abandoned--the legacy of our 
industrial past. These properties taint our urban landscape. 
Contamination, or the perception of contamination, impedes brownfields 
redevelopment, stifles community development and threatens the health 
of our citizens and the environment. Redeveloped, brownfields can be 
engines for economic development. They represent new opportunities in 
our cities, older suburbs and rural areas for housing, jobs and 
recreation. Today, Senator Smith, Senator Reid, Senator Chafee and 
Senator Boxer introduced the Brownfields Revitalization and 
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I support their efforts to 
address this issue and I will co-sponsor the legislation.
  As cochair of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, I believe 
brownfields redevelopment is one of the most important ways to 
revitalize cities and implement growth management. The redevelopment of 
brownfields is one fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to 
neglected neighborhoods, cleanup the environment, use infrastructure 
that is already paid for and relieve development pressure on our urban 
fringe and farmlands.
  The State of Michigan is a leader in brownfields redevelopment--
offering technical assistance and grant and loan programs to help 
communities redevelop brownfields. This legislation will complement 
State and local efforts to successfully redevelop brownfields. The bill 
provides much needed funding to State and local jurisdictions for the 
assessment, characterization, and remediation of brownfield sites. 
Importantly, the bill removes the threat of lawsuits for contiguous 
landowners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners. 
Communities must often overcome serious financial and environmental 
barriers to redevelop brownfields. Greenfields availability, liability 
concerns, the time and cost of cleanup, and a reluctance to invest in 
older urban areas deters private investment. This bill will help 
communities address these barriers to redevelopment. Finally, the bill 
provides greater certainty to developers and parties conducting the 
cleanup, ensuring that decisions under state programs will not be 
second-guessed. Public investment and greater governmental certainty 
combined with private investment can provide incentives for 
redeveloping brownfield properties and level the economic playing field 
between greenfields and brownfields.
  I believe the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
Restoration Act of 2001 will do much to encourage commercial, 
residential and recreational development in our nation's communities 
where existing infrastructure, access to public transit, and close 
proximity to cultural facilities currently exist. America's emerging 
markets and future potential for economic

[[Page 2138]]

growth lies in our cities and older suburbs. This potential is 
reflected in locally unmet consumer demand, underutilized labor 
resources and developable land that is rich in infrastructure. In 
Detroit, the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that 
there is a $1.4 billion retail gap (the purchasing power of residents 
minus retail sales). In Flint, HUD estimates the retail gap to be $186 
million and in East Lansing, $160 million. The redevelopment of 
brownfields will help communities realize the development potential of 
our urban communities. It is a critical tool for metropolitan areas to 
grow smarter--allowing us to recycle our Nation's land to promote 
continued economic growth while curtailing urban sprawl and cleaning up 
our environment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 351. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to reduce the 
quantity of mercury in the environment by limiting use of mercury fever 
thermometers and improving collection, recycling, and disposal of 
mercury, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Kerry, I am 
introducing the Mercury Reduction and Disposal Act of 2001. This bill 
addresses the very serious problem of mercury in the environment and 
mercury disposal. It takes special aim at one of the most common and 
widely distributed sources of mercury, and that is mercury fever 
thermometers.
  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that is widespread in the environment 
and particularly harmful to developing children and pregnant women. In 
fact, a National Academy of Sciences report released last year 
attributed mercury exposure to birth defects and brain damage in up to 
60,000 newborn children each year.




  Although mercury can be safe in an elemental form or in amalgamations 
such as dental fillings, mercury takes on a highly toxic organic form 
known as methylmercury when it enters the environment. Methylmercury is 
almost completely absorbed into the blood and distributed to all 
tissues, including the brain. This organic mercury can accumulate in 
the food chain and become concentrated in some species of fish, posing 
a health threat to those who consume them. For this reason, 40 States 
have issued public health warnings advising certain individuals to 
restrict or avoid consuming fish from certain affected bodies of water.
  Mr. President, the largest sources of mercury in the environment 
include incinerated solid waste, powerplant emissions, and emissions 
from chlor-alkali plants, such as the now closed HoltraChem 
Manufacturing Company in Orrington, ME.
  About 50 tons of mercury are estimated to enter the environment from 
medical and solid waste incinerators, about 45 tons from powerplant 
emissions, and a large but uncertain amount derives from chlor-alkali 
plants.
  Of the 50 tons of mercury that enters the environment from medical 
and solid waste incinerators, mercury thermometers are one of the 
largest, if not the largest, source. The EPA has estimated that mercury 
thermometers contributed approximately 17 tons of mercury to solid 
waste per year in the early 1990s. Although this number may well be 
declining due to innovative efforts, such as those in towns like 
Freeport, ME--the first town in Maine to ban the sale of mercury fever 
thermometers--it is still a very large amount.
  Mr. President, I have a mercury thermometer right here. It is very 
familiar to all of us. Many of us know from personal experience how 
easily it can be broken. I have broken a couple myself, and not 
realizing the dangers of mercury back then, I used my hands to gather 
up the various beads of mercury and throw them away, not realizing the 
danger I was creating.
  In fact, in 1998, the American Poison Control Center received 18,000 
phone calls from consumers who had broken mercury thermometers.
  This one mercury thermometer contains about 1 gram of mercury. That 
does not sound like much, but let me tell you, despite its small size, 
just one of these thermometers per year contains enough mercury to 
contaminate all of the fish in a 20-acre lake.
  Let me repeat that. The mercury in one of these thermometers is 
sufficient to pollute a 20-acre lake.
  The bill I am introducing today calls for a nationwide ban on the 
sale of mercury fever thermometers such as the one I just showed. It 
will also provide grants for swap programs to help consumers exchange 
mercury thermometers for digital or other alternatives.
  I have an example of an alternative right here. This is a digital 
thermometer. Digital thermometers like this one are easier to read, 
much quicker to use, they do not break easily, and, most important of 
all, they do not contain a toxic element such as mercury.
  My bill will allow millions of consumers across the Nation to receive 
free digital thermometers in exchange for their mercury thermometers. 
By bringing mercury thermometers in for proper disposal, consumers will 
ensure the mercury from their thermometers does not end up polluting 
our lakes and threatening our health. It will also reduce the risk of 
breakage and contamination inside the home.
  Another important component of my bill is the safe disposal of the 
mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs. My legislation 
directs the EPA to ensure that the mercury is properly collected and 
stored to make sure it is kept out of the environment and out of 
commerce. This mercury will not reenter the environment, and it will 
not be sent, for example, to India, one of the largest manufacturers of 
mercury thermometers.
  The mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs addresses 
only one part of the problem. The other aspect is the global 
circulation of mercury. When the HoltraChem chlor-alkali manufacturing 
plant in Orrington, ME, shut down last year, the plant was left with 
over 100 tons of unwanted mercury and no way to permanently dispose of 
it. In total, about 3,000 tons of mercury are held at similar plants 
across the United States.
  In addition, large amounts of mercury are still being mined around 
the world. In 1999, Algeria mined 400 tons of virgin mercury and 
Kyrgyzstan mined 600 tons. In total, approximately 2,000 tons of new 
mercury are mined every year. Moreover, the Department of Defense 
currently has a stockpile of over 4,000 tons of mercury it does not 
want and does not know what to do with.
  What can we do about these problems? What can we do about the 
situation where some countries are still mining large amounts of an 
element that is a known neurotoxin, while the United States and other 
countries are doing their best to remove this extremely toxic element 
from the environment? How will the United States dispose of the huge 
amounts of mercury at chlor-alkali plants and other no longer needed 
sources?
  My legislation creates an interagency task force to address these 
very issues. This task force will be chaired by the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency and comprised of representatives 
from the States, other Federal agencies involved with mercury, and 
public health officials.
  Specifically, my bill directs this task force to find ways to reduce 
the mercury threat to humans and the environment, to identify a long-
term means of disposing of mercury, and to address the excess mercury 
problems from mines as well as from industrial sources.
  In sum, this task force is directed to identify comprehensive 
solutions to the global mercury problem. In one year, the mercury task 
force will make recommendations to Congress for permanently disposing 
of mercury, for retiring mercury from chlor-alkali plants and other 
sources, and for reducing the amount of new mercury mined every year. 
At that time, it will be up to Congress to act on their 
recommendations.
  In the meantime, this bill will make significant progress toward 
reducing one of the most widespread sources of

[[Page 2139]]

mercury contamination in the environment, something that many of us 
still have in our medicine chests at home, and that is the mercury 
fever thermometer.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for his attention. I urge support and 
cosponsorship of my colleagues for this initiative.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 351

       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 ``Mercury Reduction and 
     Disposal Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) mercury is a persistent and toxic pollutant that 
     bioaccumulates in the environment;
       (2) according to recent studies, mercury deposition is a 
     significant public health threat in many States throughout 
     the United States;
       (3) 40 States have issued fish advisories that warn certain 
     individuals to restrict or avoid consuming mercury-
     contaminated fish from affected bodies of water;
       (4) according to a report by the National Academy of 
     Sciences, over 60,000 children are born each year in the 
     United States at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental effects 
     due to exposure to methyl mercury in utero;
       (5) studies have documented that exposure to elevated 
     levels of mercury in the environment results in serious harm 
     to species of wildlife that consume fish;
       (6) combustion of municipal and other solid waste is a 
     major source of mercury emissions in the United States;
       (7) according to the Mercury Study Report, prepared by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and submitted to Congress in 
     1997, mercury fever thermometers contribute approximately 17 
     tons of mercury to solid waste each year;
       (8) the Governors of the New England States have endorsed a 
     regional goal of ``the virtual elimination of the discharge 
     of anthropogenic mercury into the environment'';
       (9) mercury fever thermometers are easily broken, creating 
     a potential risk of dangerous exposure to mercury vapor in 
     indoor air and risking mercury contamination of the 
     environment; and
       (10) according to the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     quantity of mercury in 1 mercury fever thermometer, 
     approximately 1 gram, is enough to contaminate all fish in a 
     lake with a surface area of 20 acres.

     SEC. 3. MERCURY.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 3024. MERCURY.

       ``(a) Prohibition on Sale of Mercury Fever Thermometers 
     Except by Prescription.--Effective beginning 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this section--
       ``(1) a person shall not sell or supply mercury fever 
     thermometers to consumers, except by prescription; and
       ``(2) with each mercury fever thermometer sold or supplied 
     by prescription, the manufacturer of the thermometer shall 
     provide clear instructions on--
       ``(A) careful handling of the thermometer to avoid 
     breakage; and
       ``(B) proper cleanup of the thermometer and its contents in 
     the event of breakage.
       ``(b) Thermometer Exchange Program.--The Administrator 
     shall make grants to States, municipalities, nonprofit 
     organizations, or other suitable entities for implementation 
     of a national program for the collection of mercury fever 
     thermometers from households and their exchange for 
     thermometers that do not contain mercury.
       ``(c) Disposal of Collected Mercury Waste.--
       ``(1) Interagency task force.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--There is established an advisory 
     committee to be known as the `Interagency Task Force on 
     Mercury' (referred to in this section as the `Task Force').
       ``(B) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of 7 
     members, of whom--
       ``(i) 1 member shall be the Administrator, who shall serve 
     as Chairperson of the Task Force;
       ``(ii) 1 member shall be appointed by each of--

       ``(I) the Secretary of State;
       ``(II) the Secretary of Defense;
       ``(III) the Secretary of Energy; and
       ``(IV) the Director of the National Institute of 
     Environmental Health Sciences of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services;

       ``(iii) 1 member shall be appointed by the President to 
     represent the American Public Health Association; and
       ``(iv) 1 member shall be appointed by the President from 
     the Environmental Council of the States.
       ``(C) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of 
     the Task Force shall be made not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section.
       ``(D) Term; vacancies.--
       ``(i) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of 
     the Task Force.
       ``(ii) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Task Force--

       ``(I) shall not affect the powers of the Task Force; and
       ``(II) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment was made.

       ``(E) Meetings.--
       ``(i) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which all members of the Task Force have been 
     appointed, the Task Force shall hold the initial meeting of 
     the Task Force.
       ``(ii) Calling of meetings.--The Task Force shall meet at 
     the call of the Chairperson.
       ``(iii) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Task 
     Force shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of 
     members may hold hearings.
       ``(F) Duties.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     initial meeting of the Task Force, the Task Force shall 
     submit to Congress a report containing recommendations 
     concerning--
       ``(i) the long-term management and retirement of mercury 
     collected from--

       ``(I) mercury fever thermometers;
       ``(II) other medical and commercial sources; and
       ``(III) government sources, including mercury stored by the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of Energy;

       ``(ii) collection of mercury from industrial or other 
     sources in the United States in cases in which the mercury is 
     no longer needed, such as from retired chlor-alkali plants;
       ``(iii) programs to test the long-term durability of 
     promising technologies for sequestration of mercury that has 
     been retired from use;
       ``(iv) storage of mercury collected or sequestered under 
     clause (i), (ii), or (iii) in a manner that ensures that 
     there is no release of the mercury into the environment;
       ``(v) reduction of the total threat posed by mercury to 
     humans and the environment; and
       ``(vi) reduction of the total quantity of mercury produced, 
     used, and released on a global basis, including whether and 
     how--

       ``(I) the quantity of virgin mercury mined from the ground 
     and placed in circulation each year can be reduced through 
     bilateral or international agreements or other means;
       ``(II) the quantity of mercury used in products and 
     manufacturing can be reduced through substitution of mercury-
     free alternatives that are safer, available, and affordable; 
     and
       ``(III) essential mercury needs can be met through use of 
     stockpiles in existence on the date of enactment of this 
     section and increased recycling rather than through use of 
     virgin mercury.

       ``(G) Hearings.--The Task Force may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Task Force considers advisable 
     to carry out this section.
       ``(H) Information from federal agencies.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Task Force may secure directly from 
     a Federal agency such information as the Task Force considers 
     necessary to carry out this section.
       ``(ii) Provision of information.--On request of the 
     Chairperson of the Task Force, the head of the agency shall 
     provide the information to the Task Force.
       ``(I) Postal services.--The Task Force may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other agencies of the Federal Government.
       ``(J) Gifts.--The Task Force may accept, use, and dispose 
     of gifts or donations of services or property.
       ``(K) Compensation of members; travel expenses.--
       ``(i) Non-federal employees.--A member of the Task Force 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Task Force.
       ``(ii) Federal employees.--A member of the Task Force who 
     is an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall 
     serve without compensation in addition to the compensation 
     received for the services of the member as an officer or 
     employee of the Federal Government.
       ``(iii) Travel expenses.--A member of the Task Force shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from the home or regular place of business 
     of the member in the performance of the duties of the Task 
     Force.
       ``(L) Staff and funding.--
       ``(i) Determination.--The Chairperson of the Task Force 
     shall determine the level of staff and funding that are 
     adequate to carry out the activities of the Task Force.
       ``(ii) Source.--The staff and funding shall be provided by 
     and drawn equally from the resources of--

[[Page 2140]]

       ``(I) the Department of Energy;
       ``(II) the Department of Defense; and
       ``(III) the Environmental Protection Agency.

       ``(iii) Appointment of staff.--The Chairperson may, without 
     regard to the civil service laws (including regulations), 
     appoint and terminate such staff as are necessary to enable 
     the Task Force to perform the duties of the Task Force.
       ``(iv) Compensation.--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), 
     the Chairperson may fix the compensation of the staff of the 
     Task Force that are not officers or employees of the Federal 
     Government without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates.
       ``(II) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the staff 
     shall not exceed the rate payable for level V of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

       ``(v) Detail of federal government employees.--

       ``(I) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government 
     may be detailed to the Task Force without reimbursement.
       ``(II) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee 
     shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status 
     or privilege.

       ``(vi) Procurement of temporary and intermittent 
     services.--The Chairperson of the Task Force may procure for 
     the purposes of the Task Force temporary and intermittent 
     services in accordance with section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of that title.
       ``(M) Termination of task force.--The Task Force shall 
     terminate on the date that is 90 days after the date on which 
     the Task Force submits the report required under subparagraph 
     (F).
       ``(2) Responsibility of the administrator for safe disposal 
     and storage of mercury.--In consultation with the Task Force, 
     the Administrator shall--
       ``(A)(i) take title to the mercury collected under the 
     thermometer exchange program established under subsection 
     (b), or an equivalent quantity of mercury; and
       ``(ii) manage (or designate a contractor to manage) the 
     mercury collected in a manner that ensures that the mercury 
     collected is not released into the environment or 
     reintroduced into commerce; and
       ``(B)(i) identify potential mercury stabilization 
     technologies and measures that ensure minimal release of 
     mercury into the environment; and
       ``(ii) conduct such research, development, and 
     demonstration of the technologies and measures as the 
     Administrator determines to be appropriate.
       ``(d) Relation to Other Law.--Nothing in this section--
       ``(1) precludes any State from imposing any additional 
     requirement; or
       ``(2) diminishes any obligation, liability, or other 
     responsibility under other Federal law.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, of 
     which--
       ``(1) not more than 2.5 percent shall be used to carry out 
     the activities of the Task Force; and
       ``(2) not more than 2.5 percent shall be used to carry out 
     subsection (c)(2)(B).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1001 of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) is amended by adding at 
     the end of the items relating to subtitle C the following:

``Sec. 3024. Mercury.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dorgan, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dayton, Ms. Cantwell, 
        Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Reid, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Carnahan, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kohl, 
        Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Bayh):
  S. 352. A bill to increase the authorization of appropriations for 
low-income energy assistance, weatherization, and state energy 
conservation grant programs, to expand the sue of energy savings 
performance contracts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
increase the authorization for low-income energy assistance, 
weatherization and state energy conservation grants and to increase the 
energy efficiency of federal facilities. I am offering this bill on 
behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, and many of my colleagues.
  Energy costs have been, and are expected, to remain especially high 
this year. We have had a long period of economic growth, enabled in 
part by extremely low oil and natural gas prices. But, we are finally 
experiencing the end of the excess capacity cushion that had kept the 
system functioning with low prices and relatively minor bumps along the 
way. Those extremely low oil and gas prices that consumers loved so 
much a few years ago devastated the domestic drilling industry. 
Drilling has recovered, so we will start seeing an impact on prices in 
the coming months as those supplies find their way to market.
  In the interim, unusually cold weather early in the winter has 
resulted in natural gas bills at least 70 percent-100 percent higher 
than last year. Heating oil and propane prices correlate closely with 
natural gas. Farmers, especially, are seeing huge increases in propane 
prices this winter and are looking at dramatically higher fertilizer 
prices this spring. Natural gas prices and tight generating capacity 
are driving up electricity prices around the country, and many people 
in the southern states with high air conditioning needs will be 
especially hard hit this summer.
  Applications for assistance have increased dramatically this year. 
Most states have already depleted the LIHEAP and Weatherization funds 
we appropriated for this year. Many states have laws prohibiting 
cutting off heating supplies during the winter, but when those 
prohibitions expire in March or April, the seriousness of the situation 
for low-income and working families will become harshly obvious. And 
assistance to low-income and working families for the summer cooling 
season will be impossible at current levels.
  Some will say we need to address these issues as part of some 
comprehensive energy bill, yet to be written. I disagree.
  We have immediate needs that cannot wait months, as we debate an 
ideal energy policy. The Administration has told us it will not even 
have its proposal to us for another two months. Individuals, families 
and small businesses are suffering today from energy bills they cannot 
pay. This bill authorizes changes to the LIHEAP program to help 
alleviate the financial burdens in the near term. The bill also focuses 
attention on investment in energy efficiency through the low income 
weatherization program, state conservation grants and the federal 
energy management program. This bill covers needed changes to existing 
authorizations. Next we need to ensure that full funding is forthcoming 
as soon as possible.
  Specifically, the base authorization for the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program to $3.4 billion for fiscal years 2001 to 2005. The 
base funding has been relatively flat at roughly $2 billion since the 
mid-1980's. This increase comes close to addressing the erosion in the 
program due to inflation, but does not take into consideration the 
increase in population.
  The bill provides states with additional flexibility on the income 
level for recipients, by increasing eligibility from 150 percent to 200 
percent of the poverty level. This change, which only applies for the 
remainder of this fiscal year, will give the states the flexibility to 
help working families.
  The bill also increases the authorization for the weatherization 
program to $310 million. The current appropriation is at $162 million, 
down from $300 million in the mid-1980s. The weatherization program is 
a long term investment in energy efficiency.
  A one-time investment in weatherization yields savings of $300-$470 
per household annually thereafter. The program requires trained staff, 
erratic and insufficient funding of the program has diminished its 
effectiveness in recent years. Increased energy efficiency is the least 
cost solution to meeting energy needs. Even at $310 million the program 
is still lower in real dollars than in the 1980's.
  The bill increases the authorization for grants to state energy 
programs to $75 million. This program funds state conservation and 
emergency planning. The low level of funding in recent years has 
diminished the states' ability to implement state level conservation

[[Page 2141]]

plans and to plan for emergencies in coordination with the Department 
of Energy and neighboring states.
  Finally, Executive Order 13123 requires federal facilities to 
increase energy efficiency by 30 percent by 2005 and 35 percent by 2010 
relative to 1985. The Federal Energy Management Program requires 
federal facility managers to evaluate opportunities for energy and 
water efficiency improvements and opportunities for siting renewable 
projects. Federal agencies spend $4 billion per year to heat, coal and 
power facilities, we can and should do better.
  The bill includes several amendments to the program clarifying and 
enhancing the use of alternative financing tools to minimize the need 
for additional government outlays. The bill calls for a concerted 
effort by facility managers to meet those targets early, thereby saving 
taxpayer dollars, reducing stress on the power grid and demand for 
fuels.
  Companion measures, that I support, have been introduced by Senator 
Kerry, S. 295, Senator Feinstein, S. 286, to provide emergency loans to 
small businesses.
  There will be plenty of time in this Congress to consider the highly 
complex issues of U.S. energy supply and consumption. Senator Murkowski 
and I intend to proceed with a series of hearings to evaluate the 
different elements of our energy policy and systems. We need to focus 
on how we can ensure adequate fuel supplies and sufficient 
infrastructure to deliver those fuels, whether electricity, natural 
gas, or gasoline without degradation of environmental quality. We also 
need to look at issues of supply diversity and efficiency. Those 
efforts will require some time on the part of the Congress and the 
Administration, in consultation with the states and the various 
stakeholders.
  We should not allow that lengthy process, though, to prevent us from 
meeting clear and present needs. I urge my colleagues to support 
immediate passage of this bill and the small business bills.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.

                                 S. 352

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Emergency Response 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) high energy costs are causing hardship for families;
       (2) restructured energy markets have increased the need for 
     a higher and more consistent level of funding for low income 
     energy assistance programs;
       (3) conservation programs implemented by the States and the 
     low income weatherization program reduce costs and need for 
     additional energy supplies;
       (4) energy conservation is a cornerstone of national energy 
     security policy;
       (5) the Federal Government is the largest consumer of 
     energy in the economy of the United States;
       (6) many opportunities exist for significant energy cost 
     savings within the Federal Government.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to provide 
     assistance to those individuals most affected by high energy 
     prices and to promote and accelerate energy conservation 
     investments in private and Federal facilities.

     SEC. 3. INCREASED FUNDING FOR LIHEAP, WEATHERIZATION AND 
                   STATE ENERGY GRANTS.

       (b) LIHEAP.--(1) Section 2602(b) of the Low-Income Home 
     Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621(b)) is amended 
     by striking the first sentence and inserting the following: 
     ``These are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
     provisions of this title (other than section 2607A), 
     $3,400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
       (2) Section 2605(b)(2) of the Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624(b)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``And except that during fiscal year 2001, a State may make 
     payments under this title to households with incomes up to 
     and including 200 percent of the poverty level for such 
     State;''.
       (b) Weatherization Assistance.--Section 422 of the Energy 
     Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6872) is amended 
     by striking ``For fiscal years 1999 through 2003 such sums as 
     may be necessary'' and inserting: ``$310,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
       (b) State Energy Conservation Grants.--Section 365(f) of 
     the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6325(f)) is 
     amended by striking ``for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 such 
     sums as may be necessary'' and inserting: ``$75,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT REVIEWS.

       Section 543 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 8253) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       (b) Priority Response Reviews.--Each agency shall--
       ``(1) not later than October 1, 2001, undertake a 
     comprehensive review of all practicable measures for--
       ``(A) increasing energy and water conservation, and
       ``(B) using renewable energy sources; and
       ``(2) not later than 180 days after completing the review, 
     implement measures to achieve not less than 50 percent of the 
     potential efficiency and renewable savings identified in the 
     review.''.

     SEC. 5. COST SAVINGS FROM REPLACEMENT FACILITIES.

       Section 801(a) of the National Energy Conservation Policy 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 8287(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3)(A) In the case of any energy savings contract or 
     energy savings performance contract providing for energy 
     savings through the construction and operation of one or more 
     buildings or facilities to replace one or more existing 
     buildings or facilities, benefits ancillary to the purpose of 
     such contract under paragraph (1) may include savings 
     resulting from reduced costs of operation and maintenance at 
     such replacement buildings or facilities being replaced.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(B), aggregate annual 
     payments by an agency under an energy savings contract or 
     energy savings performance contract referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) may take into account (through the 
     procedures developed pursuant to this section) savings 
     resulting from reduced costs of operation and maintenance as 
     described in subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 6. REPEAL OF ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACT SUNSET.

       Section 801(c) of the National Energy Conservation Policy 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 8287(c)) is repealed.

     SEC. 7. ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACT DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Energy Savings.--Section 804(2) of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c(2)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) the term `energy savings' means a reduction in the 
     cost of energy or water, from a base cost established through 
     a methodology set forth in the contract, used in either--
       ``(A) an existing federally owned building or buildings or 
     other federally owned facilities as a result of--
       ``(i) the lease or purchase of operating equipment, 
     improvements, altered operation and maintenance, or technical 
     services;
       ``(ii) the increased efficient use of existing energy 
     sources by congeneration or heat recovery, excluding any 
     cogeneration process for other than a federally owned 
     building or buildings or other federally owned facilities; or
       ``(iii) the increased efficient use of existing water 
     sources; or ``(B) a replacement facility under section 
     801(a)(3).''.
       (b) Energy Savings Contract.--Section 804(3) of the 
     National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c(3)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``The terms `energy savings contract' and `energy savings 
     performance contract' mean a contract which provides for--
       ``(A) the performance of services for the design, 
     acquisition, installation, testing, operations, and, where 
     appropriate, maintenance and repair, of an identified energy 
     or water conservation measure or series of measures at one or 
     more locations; or
       ``(B) energy savings through the construction and operation 
     of one or more buildings or facilities to replace one or more 
     existing buildings or facilities.''.
       (c) Energy or Water Conservation Measure.--Section 804(4) 
     of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
     8287c(4) is amended to read as follows:
       ``The term `energy or water conservation measure' means--
       ``(A) an energy conservation measure, as defined in section 
     551(4) (42 U.S.C. 8459(4)); or
       ``(B) a water conservation measure that improves water 
     efficiency, is life cycle cost effective, and involves water 
     conservation, water recycling or reuse, improvements in 
     operation or maintenance efficiencies, retrofit activities or 
     other related activities, not at a Federal hydroelectric 
     facility.''.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Energy 
Emergency Response Act of 2001, which will help low-income residents 
cope with high energy costs brought on by the crisis in California. I 
thank Senator Bingaman and others on the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources for their leadership in preparing this valuable 
legislation. The current crisis in energy supply and costs is a crucial 
and immediate problem for the people of Washington state.

[[Page 2142]]

I am working on several fronts to help alleviate these effects.
  The Energy Emergency Response Act of 2001 authorizes increased 
funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. The 
program is a lifeline to many of our most vulnerable people, providing 
direct assistance to eligible households to pay for home energy. 
Because of the energy crisis, applications for LIHEAP assistance in 
Washington state have increased by more than 50 percent this year. We 
need to bolster the program, or it will fall short at a time when low-
income people need it the most.
  This bill also authorizes increased funding for the Weatherization 
Program that provides insulation for Washington state homes, educates 
families on energy conservation, tests furnaces and ovens for safety 
and efficiency, and makes homes safer and healthier places to live. An 
average household saves 20 percent in fuel and energy costs every year 
as a result of participating in the Weatherization program. In these 
times of soaring energy costs, those savings are especially important. 
That is why this bill authorizes increased funding and raises the 
eligibility to 200 percent of the poverty level.
  The bill requires Federal facility managers to evaluate opportunities 
to increase efficiency of energy and water use and installation of 
renewable energy projects at federal facilities. It also requires that 
the evaluation period be followed by implementation of energy and water 
savings within the 180 days.
  Energy Savings Performance Contract usage is enhanced by this bill. 
These are innovative financing methods that leverage private sector 
investment and expertise to accomplish energy savings and cost savings 
in federal facilities. The bill amends the Federal Energy Management 
Program to include savings realized from operation and maintenance 
efficiencies.
  This bill also authorizes a total of $75 million for state energy 
conservation. This is for energy efficiency and emergency planning at 
the state level. The bill also clarifies the definition of energy 
savings to include water conservation, excluding Federal hydroelectric 
facilities.
  We are going to push for the funding of this bill to be appropriated 
through a special supplemental appropriation for 2001, adding $1 
billion to base funding for LIHEAP, $152 million for weatherization, 
and $37 million for state energy conservation grants. We will also 
attempt to get forward funding for LIHEAP for 2002.
  I will be working with the Washington State delegation, Senator 
Bingaman, and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move this 
bill and to push for funding as soon as possible. The energy crisis 
will not be resolved easily, but we can and should make this investment 
a part of our overall response to this issue. I urge my colleagues to 
move quickly on this legislation, and I hope that the President will 
make LIHEAP a priority in his upcoming budget.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Gramm, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 353. A bill to provide that a certification of the cooperation of 
Mexico with United States counterdrug efforts not be required in fiscal 
year 2001 for the limitation on assistance for Mexico under section 490 
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 not to go into effect in that 
fiscal year, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will begin to reform our relationship with Mexico, particularly as 
it relates to our partnership in fighting drugs. I am pleased to be 
joined in this effort by Senators Dianne Feinstein, Pete Domenici, Phil 
Gramm, Jon Kyl, and Jeff Sessions, who are cosponsoring the legislation 
I will introduce today.
  As you know, President Bush will visit Mexico on February 16th. He 
will hold a one day summit with Mexico's new President Vicente Fox. 
Improving cooperation between our two countries in the war on drugs 
will figure prominently on the President's agenda when he meets with 
President Fox.
  Now is the time that we take the right first step in our mutual 
efforts to stop the flow of drugs into the United States through 
Mexico.
  Last year, the Senate passed a resolution expressing a Sense of the 
Senate that the incoming new governments in both Mexico and the United 
States must develop and implement a counter-drug program that more 
effectively addresses illegal drug trafficking.
  The resolution stated that a one-year waiver of the requirement that 
the President certify Mexico is warranted to permit both new 
governments time to implement such strategies and programs.
  The legislation I am offering today again provides that a waiver is 
appropriate for this year. It also directs that a long term solution be 
found to the massive drug problem.
  As you know, by March 1, after just six weeks in office, President 
Bush will be required to re-certify to Congress that Mexico is making 
progress in the war on drugs.
  Forcing a confrontation so soon on the most important issue that we 
face with Mexico will serve neither country, and it will not loosen the 
grip that the drug culture has on both of our societies and economies.
  Our bill will authorize a one-year waiver for Mexico from the annual 
certification process. The various reports and assessments prepared by 
the Department of State, the Department of Justice, or the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy will still be required.
  The legislation will simply eliminate the requirement that the 
President in effect ``grade'' Mexico's performance in this area a scant 
12 weeks after a new Mexican President has taken office.
  Our legislation also takes another important step. It asks the 
President, no later than June 30, 2001, to develop and submit to 
Congress, a strategic plan outlining proposed efforts to increase 
cooperation between our two countries in the fight against drugs.
  We need proposals on both sides of the border that will combat drug 
gangs; money laundering; drug smuggling and any other items the 
President believes should be addressed.
  It seems to me that we must look for a comprehensive solution to this 
problem. We must look beyond the certification process--that in many 
ways is broken.
  The strategic plan called for in this resolution should serve as the 
beginning of a new effort in the war against drugs.
  We have two new leaders who are committed to tackling this problem. 
This bill is a good first step for building on the new relationship. I 
submit this to the Senate. I hope that we can consider this measure 
soon.
  I want to say about the new leader of Mexico that he is taking a very 
positive approach and I think an aggressive one.
  It was reported on February 2 of this year in the Washington Post in 
a by-line that has the Mexico City date line that the new head of 
Mexico's customs agency has fired more than 90 people, including 
virtually every manager, in the first major purge of government 
officials since President Fox took office in December.
  Forty-five out of the customs department's 47 supervisors were fired 
on corruption issues. In addition, in the first month of this year 150 
tractor-trailers containing contraband were stopped by the Mexican 
customs office. Last year, for the entire year, 38 tractor-trailers 
were stopped for contraband merchandise.
  That is a good sign. That is a sign that President Fox is going to 
make good on his promise to purge the corruption out of the system. We 
applaud him. That is why I think we should give him a chance to sit 
down with President Bush and work out a cooperative plan, one that is 
not punitive or unilateral but one that is cooperative. It will be in 
the best interest of both our countries to stop the cancer of drug 
trafficking. It is a cancer on both of our societies. The criminal 
element in Mexico certainly takes away from the productivity of that 
country. The criminal element that has arisen in the

[[Page 2143]]

United States that is preying on our children certainly must be 
stopped.
  I hope we can have an expedited action on this bill because I think 
we can do some good. I intend to talk to our majority leader and the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to see if we can agree on 
something that will stop this decertification. Let's sit down and do 
something that will produce the results that both of our countries 
want.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 354. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to 
include additional information in social security account statements; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bicameral piece 
of legislation with my colleague Representative DeMint ensuring that 
every American worker is provided with honest information about the 
financial status of the Social Security program, including the real 
value of their personal retirement benefits. It is our obligation to 
talk straight with working Americans about the true financial status of 
the Social Security program.
  Under the current system, hard working Americans--young and old--are 
not receiving straight, honest information regarding the actual 
financial status of the Social Security program, including how much it 
is receiving in payroll taxes and how much is needed to give promised 
benefits to seniors. It is our obligation to ensure that all Americans 
are provided with accurate information regarding exactly when the 
Social Security program will no longer have sufficient funds for paying 
full benefits.
  Furthermore, we must begin providing working Americans with accurate, 
easy to understand information regarding the average rate of return 
they can expect to receive from Social Security as compared to the 
amount of taxes an individual pays into the program. It is only fair to 
be straight with everyone and let them know the true facts about how 
much they will pay in payroll taxes and what the limited return will be 
on their contributions.
  Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to once again remind 
my colleagues of the very precarious financial condition of the entire 
Social Security system and the urgent need for a serious, bipartisan 
effort to reform and revitalize this cornerstone of many Americans' 
retirement planning.
  The only way to achieve real reform of the Social Security system is 
to work together in a bipartisan manner. It's time to abandon the 
irresponsible game of playing partisan politics with Social Security. 
Democrats will have to stop using the issue to scare seniors into 
voting against Republicans. Republicans will have to resist using 
Social Security revenues to finance tax cuts. And both parties must 
stop raiding the Trust Funds to waste retirement dollars on more 
government spending. We must face up to our responsibilities, not as 
Republicans or Democrats, but as elected representatives of the 
American people with a common obligation to protect their interests.
  We have an obligation to ensure that Social Security benefits are 
paid as promised, without putting an unfair burden on today and 
tomorrow's workers. It is time for us to talk straight to Americans 
about Social Security and begin working together in a bipartisan 
fashion to make the necessary changes to strengthen and save the 
nation's retirement program for the seniors of today and tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 354

       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 ``Straight Talk on Social 
     Security Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT 
                   STATEMENT.

       Section 1143(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1320b-13(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (D) by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) a statement of the current social security tax rates 
     applicable with respect to wages and self-employment income, 
     including an indication of the combined total of such rates 
     of employee and employer taxes with respect to wages; and
       ``(F)(i) as determined by the Chief Actuary of the Social 
     Security Administration, a comparison of the total annual 
     amount of social security tax inflows (including amounts 
     appropriated under subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of 
     this Act and section 121(e) of the Social Security Amendments 
     of 1983 (26 U.S.C. 401 note)) during the preceding calendar 
     year to the total annual amount paid in benefits during such 
     calendar year;
       ``(ii) as determined by such Chief Actuary--
       ``(I) a statement of whether the ratio of the inflows 
     described in clause (i) for future calendar years to amounts 
     paid for such calendar years is expected to result in a cash 
     flow deficit,
       ``(II) the calendar year that is expected to be the year in 
     which any such deficit will commence, and
       ``(III) the first calendar year in which funds in the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the 
     Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund will cease to be 
     sufficient to cover any such deficit;
       ``(iii) an explanation that states in substance--
       ``(I) that the Trust Fund balances reflect resources 
     authorized by the Congress to pay future benefits, but they 
     do not consist of real economic assets that can be used in 
     the future to fund benefits, and that such balances are 
     claims against the United States Treasury that, when 
     redeemed, must be financed through increased taxes, public 
     borrowing, benefit reduction, or elimination of other Federal 
     expenditures,
       ``(II) that such benefits are established and maintained 
     only to the extent the laws enacted by the Congress to govern 
     such benefits so provide, and
       ``(III) that, under current law, inflows to the Trust Funds 
     are at levels inadequate to ensure indefinitely the payment 
     of benefits in full; and
       ``(iv) in simple and easily understood terms--
       ``(I) a representation of the rate of return that a typical 
     taxpayer retiring at retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l)) credited each year with average wages and self-
     employment income would receive on old-age insurance benefits 
     as compared to the total amount of employer, employee, and 
     self-employment contributions of such a taxpayer, as 
     determined by such Chief Actuary for each cohort of workers 
     born in each year beginning with 1925, which shall be set out 
     in chart or graph form with an explanatory caption or legend, 
     and
       ``(II) an explanation for the occurrence of past changes in 
     such rate of return and for the possible occurrence of future 
     changes in such rate of return.

     The Comptroller General of the United States shall consult 
     with the Chief Actuary to the extent the Chief Actuary 
     determines necessary to meet the requirements of subparagraph 
     (F).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Breaux, Mr. 
        Cleland, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, 
        Mr. Harkin, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Nelson 
        of Florida, Mr. Reid, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
        Brownback, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine, 
        Mr. Specter, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Miller, and Mrs. Carnahan):
  S. 355. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins 
in commemoration of the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 
to the United States; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which 
is long overdue. February is a particularly appropriate time to 
introduce this legislation, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative 
Coin Act of 2001, as this month we celebrate Black History Month.
  Historian Carter G. Woodson began what was first called Negro History 
Week in 1926 when he realized schools were not teaching children about 
the history and achievements of black Americans. Now, for one month out 
of every year, we focus on the contributions of African-Americans 
during Black History Month. However, celebrations of the history and 
culture of black Americans should not be limited to just one month. By 
recognizing the

[[Page 2144]]

history of black Americans every day of the year, we build the respect 
and perspective necessary to face the challenges before us.
  During the 1960s, a young and gifted preacher from Georgia gave a 
voice to the voiceless by bringing the struggle for freedom and civil 
rights into the living rooms of all Americans. Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr. raised his voice rather than his fists as he helped lead our nation 
into a new era of tolerance and understanding. He ultimately gave his 
life for this cause, but in the process brought America closer to his 
dream of a nation without racial divisions.
  It has been said that, ``Those who do not understand history are 
condemned to repeat it.'' America's history includes dark chapters--
chapters in which slavery was accepted and discrimination against 
African-Americans, women and other minorities was commonplace. It is in 
acknowledgment of that history, and in honor of Dr. King's bright 
beacon of hope, which has lead us to a more enlightened era of civil 
justice, that I introduce the Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative 
Coin Act of 2001.
  This bill would instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins 
in commemoration of Dr. King's contributions to the United States. 
Revenues from the surcharge of the coin would be used by the Library of 
Congress to purchase and maintain historical documents and other 
materials associated with the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr.
  As we start the 21st century, I cannot think of a better way to honor 
the civil and human rights legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  Today, Dr. King's message goes beyond any one group, embracing all 
who have been denied civil or human rights because of their race, 
religion, gender, sexual orientation, or creed. This Congress, as well 
as previous Congresses, has taken important steps to put these beliefs 
into civil code.
  However, upholding Dr. King's dream is a continuing struggle. As a 
society, we must always remember Dr. King's message, ``that one day 
this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 
`We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created 
equal.' ''
  Dr. King's majestic and inspiring voice as he made this speech will 
remain in our collective memory forever. His writings and papers 
compliment the visual history of his legacy. Keeping Dr. King's papers 
available for public access will serve to remind us of what our country 
once was, and how a solitary voice changed the path of a nation. It 
also would be a constant reminder of the vigilance needed to ensure we 
never return to such a time.
  This legislation has been developed in consultation with the King 
family, the Library of Congress, the Citizens Commemorative Coin 
Advisory Committee, and the U.S. Mint. Similar legislation has been 
introduced in the House of Representatives by the chairman of the House 
Banking and Financial Services Committee, Congressman Jim Leach of 
Iowa.
  Although African-Americans have played a vital role in our nation's 
history, African-Americans were included on only 4 out of 157 
commemorative coins:
  Jackie Robinson who broke baseball's color barrier and brought about 
a cultural revolution with the courage and dignity in which he played 
the great American pass time, and the way he lived his life;
  Booker T. Washington who founded Tuskegee Institute in Alabama and 
served as a role model for millions of African-Americans who thought a 
formal education would forever be outside of their grasp;
  George Washington Carver whose scientific experiments began as a way 
to improve the lot in life of sharecroppers, but ended up 
revolutionizing agriculture throughout the South; and
  The Black Revolutionary War Patriots, a commemorative half-dollar 
which recognized the 275th anniversary of the birth of Crispus Attucks, 
who was the first revolutionary killed in the Boston Massacre.
  The Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Coin will give us an 
opportunity to recognize the valuable contributions of all Americans 
who stood and were counted during our nation's civil rights struggle.
  Americans such as the late Reverend Avery C. Alexander, a patriarch 
of the New Orleans' civil rights movement. He championed anti-
discrimination, voter registration, labor rights, and environmental 
regulations as a six-term state legislator and as an advisor to 
Governor Morrison of Louisiana in the 1950s.
  Heroes such as Dr. C.O. Simpkins of Shreveport, Louisiana, whose home 
was bombed simply because he dared to stand by Dr. King and demand that 
the buses in Shreveport be integrated, and Reverend T.J. Jemison of 
Baton Rouge--a front-line soldier and good friend of Dr. King who 
helped coordinate one of the earliest boycotts of the civil rights 
movement.
  Louisiana also was fortunate enough to have elected leaders such as 
my father Moon Landrieu and Dutch Morial, both former mayors of New 
Orleans during those turbulent times. They led the way when the 
personal and political stakes were very high.
  These are just a few of the great civil rights leaders from my state. 
However, throughout Louisiana and all across America thousands of 
citizens--black and white, young and old, rich and poor--listened to 
Dr. King, followed his voice and dreamed his dreams. It is in memory of 
all of our struggles that I introduce this bill.
  The great Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza said, ``If you want the 
present to be different from the past, study the past.'' This 
legislation not only ensures we are able to preserve and study our 
past, but also honors Dr. King, who played such an integral role in 
shaping both our present and our future. Most importantly, this coin 
would serve as a reminder every day of the year, not just during Black 
History Month, of the great contributions of Dr. King and all black 
Americans who have shaped this nation's history and future.
  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. 355

       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 ``Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 
     Commemorative Coin Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. dedicated his life to 
     securing the Nation's fundamental principles of liberty and 
     justice for all its citizens;
       (2) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the leading civil 
     rights advocate of his time, spearheading the civil rights 
     movement in the United States during the 1950's and 1960's;
       (3) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the keynote speaker at 
     the August 28, 1963, March on Washington, the largest rally 
     of the civil rights movement, during which, from the steps of 
     the Lincoln Memorial and before a crowd of more than 200,000 
     people, he delivered his famous ``I Have A Dream'' speech, 
     one of the classic orations in American history;
       (4) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a champion of 
     nonviolence, fervently advocated nonviolent resistance as the 
     strategy to end segregation and racial discrimination in 
     America, and was awarded the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize in 
     recognition of his efforts;
       (5) all Americans should commemorate the legacy of Dr. 
     Martin Luther King, Jr. so ``that one day this Nation will 
     rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: `We hold 
     these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created 
     equal.' ''; and
       (6) efforts are underway to secure the personal papers of 
     Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for the Library of Congress so 
     that they may be preserved and studied for generations to 
     come.

     SEC. 3. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

       (a) $1 Silver Coins.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall mint and issue not more than 500,000 $1 coins, each of 
     which shall--
       (1) weigh 26.73 grams;
       (2) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
       (3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
       (b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be 
     legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United 
     States Code.

[[Page 2145]]



     SEC. 4. SOURCES OF BULLION.

       The Secretary shall obtain silver for minting coins under 
     this Act from all available sources, including stockpiles 
     established under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock 
     Piling Act.

     SEC. 5. DESIGN OF COINS.

       (a) Design Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be emblematic of the human rights legacy and 
     leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
       (2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted 
     under this Act there shall be--
       (A) a designation of the value of the coin;
       (B) an inscription of the year ``2003''; and
       (C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We 
     Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus 
     Unum''.
       (b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be--
       (1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with the 
     Librarian of Congress, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the 
     estate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
       (2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory 
     Committee.

     SEC. 6. ISSUANCE OF COINS.

       (a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be 
     issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
       (b) Mint Facility.--Only 1 facility of the United States 
     Mint may be used to strike any particular quality of the 
     coins minted under this Act.
       (c) Period for Issuance.--The Secretary may issue coins 
     minted under this Act only during the 1-year period beginning 
     on January 1, 2003.

     SEC. 7. SALE OF COINS.

       (a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be 
     sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
       (1) the face value of the coins;
       (2) the surcharge provided in subsection (c) with respect 
     to such coins; and
       (3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including 
     labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, 
     marketing, and shipping).
       (b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the 
     coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
       (c) Surcharges.--All sales of coins issued under this Act 
     shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.

     SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.

       Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31, United States Code, 
     all surcharges received by the Secretary from the sale of 
     coins issued under this Act shall be promptly paid by the 
     Secretary to the Library of Congress for the purposes of 
     purchasing and maintaining historical documents and other 
     materials associated with the life and legacy of Dr. Martin 
     Luther King, Jr.

  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor 
of S. 355, the Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Coin Act. The bill 
would instruct the U.S. Treasury to mint coins to commemorate the many 
contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The proceeds from the sale 
of the proposed commemorative coin will be used by the Library of 
Congress to purchase and maintain historical materials related to the 
legacy of Dr. King and America's Civil Rights era for future 
generations.
  The coin will be silver and will be minted under the Act for only a 
1-year period beginning on January 1, 2003.
  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was an extraordinary leader whose march 
for justice stretched far beyond the red clay hills of our beloved 
Georgia. His was a long, tumultuous journey and his vision of equality 
is one that touched the lives of so many people around this country, 
including my own.
  I will continue to do all I can to assure that we preserve his legacy 
for generations to come. It is my hope that this commemorative coin 
will become a collector's treasure and that its popularity will help us 
preserve the timeless and poignant story of Dr. King and the civil 
rights movement for our children.
  Dr. King spoke these words in his final sermon on the day before he 
died in 1968:

       Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us 
     stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in 
     these powerful days, these days of challenge, to make America 
     what it ought to be.

  I hope that every American who holds one of these commemorative coins 
in their hands will remember Dr. King's powerful message.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 356. A bill to establish a National Commission on the Bicentennial 
of the Louisiana Purchase; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senators 
Lincoln, Breaux, and Carnahan, to introduce a bill to establish a 
National Commission on the Bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase. This 
legislation has particularly special meaning to Senators from Louisiana 
because the site of the actual transfer of the Louisiana Purchase in 
1803, the Cabildo, is a building still located in Jackson Square in New 
Orleans.
  The bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase, which occurs in 2003, 
marks an event that more than any other, determined the character of 
our national life--determined that we should be a great expanding 
nation instead of a relatively small and stationary one.
  For only $15 million, three cents an acre, a remarkable bargain, all 
or part of 14 states were created out of vast territory acquired in the 
Louisiana Purchase, virtually doubling the size of the United States. 
The largest peaceful land transaction in history, the Purchase opened 
the heartland of North America for exploration, settlement and 
achievement to the people of the United States and immigrant from 
around the world.
  It made possible the travels of Lewis and Clark, whose invaluable 
knowledge of the land and peoples beyond the Mississippi River 
emboldened thousands of Americans to search for a new life Out West. 
Around the world, the American Frontier became synonymous with the 
search for spiritual, economic and political freedom.
  The bill we are introducing today creating this Commission would 
require an appropriation of no more than $4,000,000. The Commission 
would be composed of a bipartisan group of 24 members, appointed by the 
President through recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the 
Senate majority and minority leaders. A year after enactment of this 
order, the Commission will submit a report to the President and 
Congress detailing its recommendations for activities to celebrate the 
event. By March 31, 2005, the Commission is to submit a final report 
describing all activities, programs, expenditures and donations 
relating to its work.
  Commemoration of the Louisiana Purchase and the subsequent opening of 
the West can enhance public understanding of the impact of westward 
expansion on American society and can provide lessons for democratic 
governance in our own time. I call on my colleagues to join us in 
honoring this momentous occasion in our nation's history and provide 
the proper ways and means for us to celebrate it appropriately.
  Mr. President, again, this bill is to establish a national commission 
on the bicentennial of the Louisiana purchase. This, hopefully, is 
going to be an exciting celebration for our Nation. Of course, it will 
take place in the year 2003. This legislation has particularly special 
meaning to the Senators from Louisiana because the site of the actual 
transfer of the Louisiana purchase, of course, which was in 1803, took 
place in the Cabildo, a building that still stands right there on the 
historic Jackson Square in New Orleans.
  The bicentennial of the Louisiana purchase which will occur in 2003 
marks an event that more than any other determined the character of our 
national life. It determined that we should be a great and expanding 
Nation instead of a relatively small and stationary one.
  As we all remember from our history classes, for only $15 million, 3 
cents an acre--a remarkable bargain, actually, for part or all of 14 
States that were created out of this vast territory acquired in the 
Louisiana Purchase, virtually doubling the size of the United States--
this was, in fact, the largest peaceful land transaction in history. 
The purchase opened the heartland of North America for exploration, 
settlement, and achievement to the people of the United States and 
immigrants from around the world. It made possible the travel of Lewis 
and Clark, whose invaluable knowledge of the land and peoples beyond 
the Mississippi River emboldened thousands of Americans to search for a 
new life out West.

[[Page 2146]]

  Around the world, the American frontier became synonymous with the 
search for spiritual, economic, and political freedom. So the bill we 
are introducing today creates a commission. It would require an 
appropriation of no more than $4 million. The commission would be 
composed of a bipartisan group of 24 members appointed by the President 
through recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate 
majority and minority leaders. A year after enactment of this order, 
according to our legislation, the commission will submit a report to 
the President and Congress detailing its recommendations and activities 
to celebrate this wonderful event.
  Hopefully, by March of 2005, the commission will submit a final 
report describing all of the activities and programs, expenditures, and 
donations relating to its work.
  The commemoration of the Louisiana Purchase and the subsequent 
opening of the West can enhance a public understanding of the impact of 
the westward expansion on American society, and, I think, provide for 
all of us, adults and children alike, lessons we can use each day as we 
press forward for more stable and robust and terrific democracy and for 
governance in our time.
  I call on colleagues today to join us in honoring this occasion in 
our Nation's history so we can provide the proper ways and means for us 
to celebrate it fully and appropriately.
  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. 356

       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 ``Louisiana Purchase 
     Bicentennial Commission Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase occurs in 
     2003, 200 years after the United States, under the leadership 
     of President Thomas Jefferson and after due consideration and 
     approval by Congress, paid $15,000,000 to France in order to 
     acquire the vast area in the western half of the Mississippi 
     River Basin;
       (2) the Louisiana Purchase was the largest peaceful land 
     transaction in history, virtually doubling the size of the 
     United States;
       (3) the Louisiana Purchase opened the heartland of the 
     North American continent for exploration, settlement, and 
     achievement to the people of the United States;
       (4) in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase, the new frontier 
     attracted immigrants from around the world and became 
     synonymous with the search for spiritual, economic, and 
     political freedom;
       (5) today the States of Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, 
     Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North 
     Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming make up 
     what was the Louisiana Territory; and
       (6) commemoration of the Louisiana Purchase and the opening 
     of the West would--
       (A) enhance public understanding of the impact of westward 
     expansion on the society of the United States; and
       (B) provide lessons for continued democratic governance in 
     the United States.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Bicentennial.--The term ``Bicentennial'' means the 
     200th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the National 
     Commission on the Bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase 
     established under section 4(a).

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``National Commission on the Bicentennial of the 
     Louisiana Purchase''.
       (b) Duties.--The Commission shall plan, encourage, 
     coordinate, and conduct the commemoration of the 
     Bicentennial.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 24 
     members, of which 12 members shall be Republicans and 12 
     members shall be Democrats, including--
       (A) 12 members, of which 6 members shall be Republicans and 
     6 members shall be Democrats, appointed by the President to 
     represent the United States;
       (B) 6 members, of which 3 members shall be Republicans and 
     3 members shall be Democrats, appointed by the President, on 
     the recommendation of the majority and minority leaders of 
     the Senate; and
       (C) 6 members, of which 3 members shall be Republicans and 
     3 members shall be Democrats, appointed by the President, on 
     the recommendation of the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, in consultation with the minority leader of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (2) Criteria.--A member of the Commission shall be chosen 
     from among individuals that have demonstrated a strong sense 
     of public service, expertise in the appropriate professions, 
     scholarship, and abilities likely to contribute to the 
     fulfillment of the duties of the Commission.
       (3) Prohibition on federal government employment.--A member 
     of the Commission shall not be an employee or former employee 
     of the Federal Government.
       (4) International Participation.--The President shall 
     invite the Governments of France and Spain to appoint, not 
     later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 1 
     individual to serve as a nonvoting member of the Commission.
       (5) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of 
     the Commission described in paragraph (1) shall be made not 
     later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Term; Vacancies.--
       (1) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Vacancy.--A vacancy on the Commission--
       (A) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
       (B) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment was made.
       (e) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the 
     Commission.
       (f) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Co-Chairpersons described under subsection (h).
       (g) Quorum.--A quorum of the Commission for decision-making 
     purposes shall be 13 members, except that a lesser number of 
     members, as determined by the Commission, may conduct 
     meetings.
       (h) Co-Chairpersons and Vice Co-Chairpersons.--
       (1) Co-Chairpersons.--The President shall designate 2 of 
     the members, 1 of which shall be a Republican and 1 of which 
     shall be a Democrat, to be Co-Chairpersons of the Commission.
       (2) Co-Vice-Chairpersons.--The Commission shall select 2 
     Co-Vice-Chairpersons, 1 of which shall be a Republican and 1 
     of which shall be a Democrat, from among the members of the 
     Commission.

     SEC. 5. DUTIES.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall--
       (1) plan and develop activities appropriate to commemorate 
     the Bicentennial including a limited number of proposed 
     projects to be undertaken by the appropriate Federal 
     departments and agencies that commemorate the Bicentennial by 
     seeking to harmonize and balance the important goals of 
     ceremony and celebration with the equally important goals of 
     scholarship and education;
       (2) consult with and encourage Indian tribes, appropriate 
     Federal departments and agencies, State and local 
     governments, elementary and secondary schools, colleges and 
     universities, foreign governments, and private organizations 
     to organize and participate in Bicentennial activities 
     commemorating or examining--
       (A) the history of the Louisiana Territory;
       (B) the negotiations of the Louisiana Purchase;
       (C) voyages of discovery;
       (D) frontier movements; and
       (E) the westward expansion of the United States; and
       (3) coordinate activities throughout the United States and 
     internationally that relate to the history and influence of 
     the Louisiana Purchase.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the 
     President and Congress a comprehensive report that includes 
     specific recommendations for--
       (A) the allocation of financial and administrative 
     responsibility among participating entities and persons with 
     respect to commemoration of the Bicentennial; and
       (B) the commemoration of the Bicentennial and related 
     events through programs and activities, such as--
       (i) the production, publication, and distribution of books, 
     pamphlets, films, electronic publications, and other 
     educational materials focusing on the history and impact of 
     the Louisiana Purchase on the United States and the world;
       (ii) bibliographical and documentary projects, 
     publications, and electronic resources;
       (iii) conferences, convocations, lectures, seminars, and 
     other programs;
       (iv) the development of programs by and for libraries, 
     museums, parks and historic sites, including international 
     and national traveling exhibitions;
       (v) ceremonies and celebrations commemorating specific 
     events;
       (vi) the production, distribution, and performance of 
     artistic works, and of programs and activities, focusing on 
     the international and national significance of the Louisiana

[[Page 2147]]

     Purchase and the westward movement opening the frontier for 
     present and future generations; and
       (vii) the issuance of commemorative coins, medals, 
     certificates of recognition, and stamps.
       (2) Annual report.--The Commission shall submit an annual 
     report that describes the activities, programs, expenditures, 
     and donations of or received by the Commission to--
       (A) the President;
       (B) the Senate; and
       (C) the House of Representatives.
       (3) Final Report.--Not later than March 31, 2005, the 
     Commission shall submit a final report that describes the 
     activities, programs, expenditures, and donations of or 
     received by the Commission to--
       (A) the President;
       (B) the Senate; and
       (C) the House of Representatives.
       (c) Assistance.--In carrying out this Act, the Commission 
     shall consult, cooperate with, and seek advice and assistance 
     from appropriate Federal departments and agencies.

     SEC. 6. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--The Commission may provide for--
       (1) the preparation, distribution, dissemination, 
     exhibition, and sale of historical, commemorative, and 
     informational materials and objects that will contribute to 
     public awareness of, and interest in, the Bicentennial, 
     except that any commemorative coin, medal, or postage stamp 
     recommended to be issued by the United States shall be sold 
     only by a Federal department or agency;
       (2) competitions and awards for historical, scholarly, 
     artistic, literary, musical, and other works, programs, and 
     projects relating to the Bicentennial;
       (3) a Bicentennial calendar or register of programs and 
     projects, and in other ways provide a central clearinghouse 
     for information and coordination regarding dates, events, 
     places, documents, artifacts, and personalities of 
     Bicentennial historical and commemorative significance; and
       (4) the design and designation of logos, symbols, or marks 
     for use in connection with the commemoration of the 
     Bicentennial shall establish procedures regarding their use.
       (b) Advisory Committee.--The Commission may appoint such 
     advisory committees as the Commission determines necessary to 
     carry out the purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Location of Office.--
       (1) Principal office.--The principal office of the 
     Commission shall be in New Orleans, Louisiana.
       (2) Satellite office.--The Commission may establish a 
     satellite office in Washington, D.C.
       (b) Staff.--
       (1) Appointment of director and deputy director.--
       (A) In general.--The Co-Chairpersons, with the advice of 
     the Commission, may appoint and terminate a director and 
     deputy director without regard to the civil service laws 
     (including regulations).
       (B) Delegation to director.--The Commission may delegate 
     such powers and duties to the director as may be necessary 
     for the efficient operation and management of the Commission.
       (2) Staff paid from federal funds.--The Commission may use 
     any available Federal funds to appoint and fix the 
     compensation of not more than 10 additional personnel staff 
     members, as the Commission determines necessary.
       (3) Staff paid from non-federal funds.--The Commission may 
     use any available non-Federal funds to appoint and fix the 
     compensation of additional personnel.
       (4) Compensation.--
       (A) Members.--
       (i) In general.--A member of the Commission shall serve 
     without compensation.
       (ii) Travel Expenses.--A member of the Commission shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from the home or regular place of business 
     of the member in the performance of the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (B) Staff.--
       (i) In general.--The Co-Chairpersons of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the director, deputy director, and 
     other personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 
     51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States 
     Code, relating to classification of positions and General 
     Schedule pay rates.
       (ii) Maximum rate of pay.--

       (I) Director.--The rate of pay for the director shall not 
     exceed the rate payable for level IV of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (II) Deputy director.--The rate of pay for the deputy 
     director shall not exceed the rate payable for level V of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (III) Staff members.--The rate of pay for staff members 
     appointed under paragraph (2) shall not exceed the rate 
     payable for grade GS-15 of the General Schedule under section 
     5332 of title 5, United States Code.

       (c) Detail of Federal Government Employees.--
       (1) In general.--On request of the Commission, the head of 
     any Federal agency or department may detail any of the 
     personnel of the agency or department to the Commission to 
     assist the Commission in carrying out this Act.
       (2) Reimbursement.--A detail of personnel under this 
     subsection shall be without reimbursement by the Commission 
     to the agency from which the employee was detailed.
       (3) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee shall 
     be without interruption or loss of civil service status or 
     privilege.
       (d) Other Revenues and Expenditures.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may procure supplies, 
     services, and property, enter into contracts, and expend 
     funds appropriated, donated, or received to carry out 
     contracts.
       (2) Donations.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission may solicit, accept, use, 
     and dispose of donations of money, property, or personal 
     services.
       (B) Limitations.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the 
     Commission shall not accept donations--
       (i) the value of which exceeds $50,000 annually, in the 
     case of donations from an individual; or
       (ii) the value of which exceeds $250,000 annually, in the 
     case of donations from a person other than an individual.
       (C) Nonprofit organization.--The limitations in 
     subparagraph (B) shall not apply in the case of an 
     organization that is--
       (i) described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986; and
       (ii) exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (4) Acquired items.--Any book, manuscript, miscellaneous 
     printed matter, memorabilia, relic, and other material or 
     property relating to the time period of the Louisiana 
     Purchase acquired by the Commission may be deposited for 
     preservation in national, State, or local libraries, museums, 
     archives, or other agencies with the consent of the 
     depositary institution.
       (e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mail to carry out this Act in the same manner and 
     under the same conditions as other agencies of the Federal 
     Government.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), there 
     are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the purposes 
     of this Act--
       (1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       (2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2005.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated under this 
     section for any fiscal year shall remain available until 
     March 31, 2005.
       (c) Limitation.--The total amount of funds made available 
     under this section shall not exceed $4,000,000.

     SEC. 9. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The authority provided by this Act terminates effective 
     March 31, 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Frist):
  S. 358. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to establish a 
Medicare Prescription Drug and Supplemental Benefit Program and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again stand before the 
Senate and speak on the critical issue of Medicare reform and 
prescription drugs. Over the past 3 years, I have worked extensively on 
this issue with my friend Senator Breaux, and we have introduced two 
pieces of bipartisan legislation comprehensively reforming and 
strengthening the Medicare program. Therefore, I am thrilled today to 
reintroduce these bills along with Senator Breaux as we take the next 
step in this process towards improving Medicare.
  No one disputes that Medicare needs changes. Every year, Congress 
considers numerous proposals to update the Medicare program--some more 
far-reaching than others. We have a strong consensus on the importance 
of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. What remains 
for us, then, is to strengthen the Medicare program in a way that will 
bring it into the 21st century--by allowing seniors to have a 
prescription drug benefit, bringing the overall benefits package into 
line with what most other Americans receive, and giving the program the 
flexibility to change and grow over the years.
  We all know Medicare's shortcomings. It is projected to be bankrupt 
by 2025. It only covers 53 percent of beneficiaries' health care costs, 
making seniors spend an average of $2,000 per year out-of-pocket on 
health care. It does not cover prescription drugs, long-term care, 
eyeglasses or dental

[[Page 2148]]

care. As the fourth-largest item in the budget, its spending, left 
unchecked will consume an ever-increasing share of the Federal budget. 
A generational time-bomb awaits it as 77 million baby boomers begin to 
enter the program in 2010. It is an example of Congressional 
micromanagement at its worst, and its regulatory system encompasses 
more than 130,000 pages of HCFA regulations.
  Designed in 1965, the Medicare program remains mired in the past. 
When Medicare was first enacted in 1965, it had the goal of providing 
seniors necessary acute health care that would otherwise have been 
unaffordable. However today's health care delivery systems are far more 
advanced than the program's creators ever imagined. It has simply not 
kept pace with the changing nature of health care. We must fix the 
program--not just continue to tinker around the edges.
  I believe that the overwhelming public support for a prescription 
drug benefit gives us a real opportunity to improve Medicare in a 
bipartisan, comprehensive manner. Seniors absolutely need prescription 
drug benefits, but a free-standing drug benefit that fails to address 
the underlying program only exacerbates Medicare's financial and 
administrative troubles while removing the political will to tackle the 
pressing need for system-wide reform.
  Therefore, any reform legislation, while including prescription drug 
coverage, must also address these other issues facing the program. The 
first bill we introduce today, ``Breaux-Frist I,'' was the first 
bipartisan attempt to comprehensively reform Medicare in the program's 
35-year history. Breaux-Frist I draws heavily on the recommendations of 
the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare and is 
modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, (FEHBP), a 
plan through which we and millions of other Federal employees receive 
health care. This is a plan with a forty year track record of success 
in providing quality comprehensive health coverage.
  Breaux-Frist I does three main things. First, it replaces the current 
system for competing health plans in Medicare, which is not working 
very well, with a new system based on the FEHBP. A new Medicare Board, 
not HCFA, would oversee the competition. It also requires that all 
Medicare plans, including the HCFA-sponsored plans, have a high option 
with prescription drug coverage and a limit on seniors' out-of-pocket 
costs. The Government would make the least cost high option plan 
available to low-income seniors for free and would share a part of the 
cost with all beneficiaries choosing a high option plan. Finally, it 
gives HCFA the opportunity to manage the government-run plans more like 
a business, with less regulation and less need for Congressional 
micromanagement.
  Building on Breaux-Frist I and the findings of the Medicare 
Commission, our second piece of legislation, ``Breaux-Frist II,'' takes 
the first steps towards long-term Medicare reform while adding a much 
needed outpatient prescription drug benefit to the program. The bill 
will provide seniors the option to choose the kind of health care 
coverage that best suits their individual needs, including enhanced 
benefits, outpatient prescription drug coverage, and protections 
against high out-of-pocket drug costs.
  Breaux-Frist II establishes the Competitive Medicare Agency, CMA, an 
independent, executive-branch agency to spearhead an advanced level of 
Medicare management and oversight--leaving behind the intransigent 
bureaucracy and outdated mindset infecting the program and instead 
guaranteeing seniors choice, health care security, and improved 
benefits and delivery of care.
  Vital to this bill is the Prescription Drug and Supplemental Benefit 
Program that provides beneficiaries outpatient prescription drugs and 
other additional benefits through new Medicare Prescription Plus plans 
offered by private entities or through Medicare+Choice plans. Seniors 
are guaranteed a minimum benefit but also have the choice of other drug 
benefit packages. I recognize more than anyone that a one-size-fits-all 
approach to health care does not work. It is important to pass along 
the same choices we, as members of Congress, have. Seniors deserve no 
less.
  The bill also provides drug coverage premium subsidies for low-income 
beneficiaries and addresses the high costs of drugs by ensuring that no 
beneficiary will ever pay retail prices for prescription drugs again.
  Both of these bills will prove successful in placing Medicare on the 
right road to financial stability and quality health care. They will 
ensure more competition, provide a universal prescription drug benefit, 
protect low-income and rural Americans and create new measures of 
Medicare's financial solvency.
  Medicare must be modernized to provide seniors integrated health care 
choices, including outpatient prescription drug coverage. By moving 
forward on this legislation, we can truly provide choice and security 
for our Medicare beneficiaries to ensure their individual health care 
needs are met, today and well into the future. I look forward to 
working with Senator Breaux, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
and the White House towards this critical goal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S. 359. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide 
eligibility for members enlisting in a regular component of the Armed 
Forces to enroll for advanced training in the Senior Reserve Officers' 
Training Program; to increase the maximum age authorized for 
participation in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps financial 
assistance program; and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Senior Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps Eligibility Reform Act of 2001. I believe this 
bill will shore up the military's ability to recruit and retain 
qualified junior officers. This legislation will reform our college 
level Reserve Officer Training Corps Units by expanding eligibility for 
those programs.
  This bill contains two primary provisions which will alter the way in 
which ROTC determines eligibility. First, it will allow active duty 
enlisted personnel, who have been selected for an officer commissioning 
program, to participate in ROTC training. These enlisted personnel are 
already on college campuses and are attached administratively to an 
ROTC unit. Their tuition is paid by their respective service and they 
earn their regular active duty pay while earning their degree. However, 
these enlisted personnel do not normally begin their formal officer 
training until after earning their degree when they attend their 
respective service's officer candidate school. On average, our 
military's officer candidate schools are three months long. This 
legislation would permit these personnel to complete their officer 
training at the ROTC unit which serves the college or university they 
are attending. This would be a more equitable use of an officer 
candidate's time and would decrease the time and cost associated with 
training. Additionally, it will free up positions at officer training 
schools and significantly increase their ability to cope with 
fluctuations in the number of officer recruits.
  Second, this legislation increases the maximum age for participation 
in ROTC scholarship programs from 27 to 35. In other words, if a cadet 
or midshipman can complete their degree and earn their commission, by 
the maximum legal commissioning age of 35, they should be able to earn 
a scholarship which will pay for that education. This provision will 
allow the services to use scholarship money to cover the entire 
commissioning envelope. Our military recruiters will be able to provide 
financial incentives to an older yet valuable age group. I have been 
told that officer trainees in the 27 to 35 age group are more mature 
and focused and are less likely to try to back out of their service 
commitment.
  This legislation is one small initiative in our effort to rebuild the 
morale and readiness of our armed forces. Whether they be infantry 
commanders,

[[Page 2149]]

pilots, submariners, intelligence analysts or information technology 
specialists, our junior officer ranks are depleted across the spectrum. 
In conjunction with the service academies and officer candidate 
schools, the ROTC scholarship program has been the backbone of our 
military's ability to train and commission high quality junior 
officers. My proposal today would merely expand this established 
program to include regular active duty personnel and an older and more 
seasoned citizenry. Overall, I believe that this bill will help the 
military to commission more junior officers, especially those with 
valuable prior enlisted service. I urge my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 361. A bill to establish age limitations for airmen; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Inhofe and Enzi in introducing legislation that attempts to diminish 
the scope of a problem that is facing our air transport industry, 
namely a critical shortage of pilots. The pilot shortage is starting to 
have effects in many rural states.
  In response to this problem, I am today introducing a bill that would 
repeal the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rule which now 
requires pilots who fly under Part 121 to retire at ago 60. Under my 
legislation, pilots in excellent health would be allowed to continue to 
pilot commercial airliners until their 65th birthday.
  The Age 60 rule was instituted 40 years ago when commercial jets were 
first entering service. The rule was established without the benefit of 
medical or scientific studies or public comment. The most recent study, 
the results of which were released in 1993, examined the correlation 
between age and accident rate as pilots approach 60. That study found 
no increase in accidents.
  The FAA contends that although science does not dictate retirement at 
the age of 60, it is the age range when sharp increases in disease 
mortality and morbidity occur. In FAA's view it is too risky to allow 
older pilots to fly the largest aircraft, carrying the greatest number 
of passengers over the longest non-stop distances, in the highest 
density traffic.
  However, 44 countries worldwide have relaxed the age 60 rule within 
the last ten years primarily because the pilot shortage is a worldwide 
phenomenon. Many of these air carriers currently fly into U.S. 
airspace.
  One of the ways carriers are attempting to adapt to the shortage is 
to lower their flight time requirements. In my view, this is a risk 
factor the FAA should be concerned about.
  How did this shortage occur? The reason is simple: There has been an 
explosive growth of the major airlines worldwide, and there's a 
shortage of military pilots who used to feed the system. In addition, 
there is an aging pilot pool that must retire at age 60.
  Add to this domino effect the decline in the number of people 
learning to fly, due primarily to the cost, and the pool of available 
pilots has shrunk.
  The shortage acutely affects my home state of Alaska because we 
depend on air transport far more than any other state. Rural residents 
in Alaska have no way out other than by air service. There are no rural 
routes, state or interstate highways serving most rural residents in 
Alaska and the airplane for many of them is their lifeline to the 
outside world.
  The pilot shortage has left Alaskan carriers scrambling for pilots. 
Alaska's carriers must hire from the available pilot pool in the lower 
48. Many of these pilots view flying in Alaska as a stepping stone that 
allows them to build up flight time. Although they get great flying 
experience in my home state, in nearly all instances when a pilot gets 
a higher-pay job offer with a larger carrier in the lower 48, he leaves 
Alaska.
  According to the Alaska Air Carriers Association, raising the 
retirement age to 65 will help alleviate the shortage and keep 
experienced pilots flying and serving rural Alaskans.
  I would note that what is happening across the country is that the 
major carriers are luring pilots from commuter airlines, who in turn 
recruit from the air charter and corporate industry, who in turn hire 
flight instructors, agriculture pilots, etc. Which leaves rural 
carriers strapped. The big fish are feeding off the little ones.
  Small carriers simply cannot compete with the salaries, benefits and 
training costs of the major carriers. They simply do not have the 
financial resources.
  According to figures provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, 
there were 694,000 pilots in 1988 and 616,342 in 1997. Within that 
number, private pilot certificates fell from approximately 300,000 in 
1988 to 247,604 in 1997. Commercial certificates, like air taxi and 
small commuter pilots, fell from 143,000 in 1988 to 125,300 in 1997. 
The number of total pilots in Alaska fell from more than 10,000 in 1988 
to approximately 8,700 in 1997.
  However, light is beginning to show at the end of the tunnel. 
Organizations such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) 
and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) have been 
monitoring this shortage for some time and have stepped up to the plate 
to get people interested in flying. AOPA has started a pilot mentoring 
program in 1994 and approximately 30,000 have entered the program. 
GAMA's ``Be a Pilot'' program is starting to bring more potential 
pilots into flight training.
  Even the Air Force is starting to institute new programs to keep 
pilots.
  In Alaska, as a result of a precedent-setting program involving Yute 
Air, the Association of Village Council Presidents, the University of 
Alaska, Anchorage, Aero Tech Flight Service, Inc., and the FAA, a 
program was developed to train rural Alaska Natives to fly. Seven are 
on their way to pilot careers.
  Also, the number of students working on pilot licenses at the 
University's Flight Technology program has almost doubled in two years.
  It is my hope that the shortage has hit rock bottom. But even so, it 
will take years before a cadre of qualified pilots is ready to take to 
the friendly skies.
  The time has come for Congress to wrestle with this problem. As long 
as a pilot can pass the rigorous medical exam, he or she should be 
allowed to fly. Air service is critical to keep commerce alive, 
especially in rural states.
   I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 361

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

     SECTION 1. AGE AND OTHER LIMITATIONS.

       (a) General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     beginning on the date that is 30 days 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 65 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 65 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.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Daschle, and Mrs. 
        Lincoln):
  S. 362. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
an exclusion for gain from the sale of farmland which is similar to the 
exclusion from gain on the sale of a principal residence; to the 
Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. 
        Lincoln, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 363. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction for 100 percent of the health insurance costs of self-
employed individuals; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 2150]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 364. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the applicability of section 179 which permits the expensing of certain 
depreciable assets; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm reintroducing several bills that 
are needed to fix glaring problems in our Internal Revenue Code.
  Clearly, the issue of tax cuts will be the subject of extensive 
debate in the coming months. I think a responsible new tax relief plan 
could be crafted to ease the tax burden on working families and others 
who need it. I also believe that if the expected surpluses materialize, 
a significant part should be used to pay down the federal debt.
  But, as we move forward with this debate about new tax breaks, I 
think Congress needs to remember that there are a number of tax 
fairness matters pending from previous years that we must address 
without any further delay.
  First, when Congress enacted a new $500,000 capital gains exclusion 
for home sales in 1997, it offered a good deal to those families who 
live in urban areas affected by rising home and land prices. 
Unfortunately, this provision offers little or no benefits for family 
farmers because their farm homes are part of the larger farmstead. By 
itself, the farmhouse often has little value in relation to the 
surrounding farmland and buildings. This means that farmers who are 
selling the whole farm because they are retiring or who are being 
forced out of business because of the downturn in the farm economy may 
face a hefty tax bill at a time they can least afford it.
  Legislation that Senator Hagel and I are introducing today recognizes 
the economic realities of farming and extends the benefit of the 
$500,000 capital gains tax exclusion to farm families. Specifically, 
our legislation would expand the $500,000 capital gains exclusion for 
home sales to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses or 
surrounding farmland, so long as they are actively farming prior to the 
sales.
  We have introduced virtually identical legislation in the past. Our 
approach has garnered substantial bipartisan support from most of our 
colleagues. If we enact a major tax bill this year, we believe it ought 
to include language to correct this capital gains tax problem that many 
of our nation's farmers urgently need fixed.
  Second, I'm introducing legislation along with Senators Johnson, 
Daschle and others to immediately eliminate the disparity between sole 
proprietors and their large corporate competitors in the tax treatment 
of their health insurance costs. Under current federal tax law, we tell 
our biggest corporations that they can deduct 100 percent of their 
health insurance costs, while we say to our nation's sole proprietors 
that they can deduct only 60 percent of these same costs. Almost 
everyone agrees that this circumstance is indefensible and needs to be 
remedied. Current law fixes this problem by 2003, but small business 
owners should not have to wait. Congress should act now to give them 
the full deduction.
  This legislation addresses this inequity facing family farmers, 
ranchers, and other self-employed individuals by permitting them to 
deduct 100-percent of their health insurance costs beginning this year. 
The health of a family farmer or small business owner is just as 
important as the health of an officer of a large corporation and our 
tax laws should reflect that simple fact now.
  The third bill I'm introducing today addresses what I believe is a 
major flaw in the current federal income tax expensing provision that 
hinders many small businesses from making needed building improvements. 
Under current law, small businesses generally can deduct immediately up 
to $24,000 in qualifying purchases of equipment and machinery. But they 
must depreciate over 39 years the costs of any storefront or other 
structural building improvements, even if those improvements are 
crucial to the business or to the maintenance of a Main Street.
  This legislation tells the local drug store, shoe store or barber 
shop, which doesn't have much need for equipment purchases but does 
need to improve the storefront or interior, that it should be able to 
deduct the costs of such improvements, rather than be forced to 
depreciate them over nearly four decades. Specifically, my bill expands 
the current $24,000 expensing provision to cover investments in 
depreciable real property. The bill also increases the expensing amount 
to $25,000, which is currently scheduled to occur by the year 2003.
  There are Main Streets across this country that were built or 
refurbished decades ago and now need investments and improvements. Our 
federal tax laws ought to assist small businesses to make such 
improvements, and my legislation is a simple way to accomplish that.
  The Senate unanimously agreed to an amendment I offered to a larger 
tax bill last summer that would have made the changes I have proposed 
in the three bills I introduce today. Unfortunately, none of these 
provisions was included in the final version of that tax bill or other 
legislation before the Congress adjourned last year.
  Therefore, I would urge my Senate colleagues to cosponsor each of 
these bills and work with me to get them added to any tax package 
passed by the Congress this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS:
  S. 365: A bill to provide recreational snowmobile access to certain 
units of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
provide recreational snowmobile access to certain units of the National 
Park System, and for other purposes.
  Recently many of my constituents in and around Yellowstone and Grand 
Teton National Parks witnessed the bureaucracy exercise its powers and 
run roughshod over those who disagreed with its findings.
  For years, the National Park Service managed and encouraged 
recreational snowmobiling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks 
and on the adjacent John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, 
providing thousands of Americans an opportunity to enjoy the winter 
wonders of the Yellowstone plateau and the majestic surrounding 
countryside.
  Instead of continuing this reasonable approach to winter access, or 
constructively addressing perceived adverse issues; The Clinton 
administration hijacked the National Park Service effort to update 
Yellowstone's winter use management plan; corrupted the environmental 
impact statement process; cut off meaningful participation by 
cooperating states, local communities and citizens; disregarded 
critical facts and science, and injected new anti-snowmobile 
alternatives into the process at the last moment.
  In short, federal land managers cast aside their statutory duties and 
obligations and instead accepted interpretations of law twisted to 
stage a grand political gesture--the banning of snowmobiles from 
National Parks, including Yellowstone and Grand Teton.
  Snowmobiles often come under fire from those who suspect that the 
machines degrade air and water quality, despite the fact that 
scientists were unable to produce or confirm any resource degradation 
in the recent environmental impact study conducted by the National Park 
Service. In this regard, I have met personally with the presidents and 
CEO's of the four major snowmobile manufacturers. They have informed 
me, that as soon as the Environmental Protection Agency issues emission 
standards, they can produce and market snowmobiles that meet or exceed 
the standards within three years.
  Mr. President, the industry only needs to have the emission standards 
set so that they can get on with their business. In fact, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, was in the process of creating 
standards; however, EPA employees were told to stand down by the 
President's appointees until the Yellowstone scenario was played out. 
They did not want to be confused by the facts nor did they desire to 
constructively address the perceived problems.

[[Page 2151]]

  Headlines were more important than people as well as the economic 
viability of small communities and businesses in Idaho, Montana and 
Wyoming. Press reports were more important than providing winter 
visitors continued access to their parks.
  The bureaucrats did decide that the ``snowcoach only no other 
snowmachine'' scenario is the only way people should enjoy, experience 
and view the majesty that winter brings to the Yellowstone region.
  The ``snowcoach only'' scenario is unfortunately another bureaucratic 
snafu. No one considered that today's snowcoach is mechanically 
unreliable and it lacks the speed necessary to see much of the park in 
a day. While the snowcoach may be the correct and preferred mode of 
transportation for some, it is not for many. Telling local businessmen 
that more comfortable, more reliable snowcoaches will be developed in 
the next few years at taxpayer expense serves absolutely no purpose. I 
know of no such budget request or plan and I know of no one willing to 
invest in such a risky scheme.
  I do know that a viable alternative for winter access is possible. 
More importantly, access can be attained in an environmentally sound 
manner. It is not an issue that should be ignored. I doubt that the new 
rules and regulations will stand the scrutiny of our court system. The 
International Snowmobile Manufacturer's Association and other parties 
have already filed suit against the Department of the Interior and the 
National Park Service challenging the government's arbitrary and 
capricious decision to reverse decades of traditional activity.
  In watching the progress and the mistakes made, along with the 
information and facts ignored, I believe there is a real possibility 
that the newly issued rules and regulations will be overturned.
  It is for this reason that I am introducing this legislation today. I 
believe that a proactive, constructive and environmentally sound 
approval to winter access to our parks needs to be discussed and 
implemented.
  This legislation, when enacted, will:
  (1) direct the EPA, within two years, to promulgate final national 
standards governing emissions by snowmobiles;
  (2) the National Park Service, in conjunction with the Society of 
Automotive Engineers, shall set noise standards for snowmobile use in 
the National Park System, and
  (3) not later than five years after the enactment of this act, the 
National Park Service will not allow a snowmachine to operate within 
the boundaries of a park that does not meet the new emission and noise 
standards.
  The measure also provides the Secretary with authorities to close 
portions of parks if damage to the resource can be shown and the bill 
requires comprehensive studies; which, to date, have not been 
completed, much less initiated. The studies will assess the impacts of 
recreational snowmobile use within the affected units of the System on 
park resources, visitor use and enjoyment, and adjacent communities.
  I am not suggesting that snowmachine users have unfettered access 
across park lands. Any use will be closely monitored and highly 
regulated. Some are unaware of the fact that currently snowmachines in 
parks are limited to the same established roadways used by hundreds of 
automobiles during the summer months. The users are not allowed to 
travel at will in parks as they are allowed on other federal lands.
  There will be some who will admit that cleaner, quieter machines are 
not that much different than the automobiles that tend to clog our park 
roadways from time to time. They would be correct, except that there 
are far fewer snowmachines visiting our parks than there are 
automobiles. They will point out; however, that snowmachines harass 
wildlife.
  Some of the folks at Yellowstone coined a phrase--``bison ping pong'' 
Evidently, there is a VCR tape that has been circulated showing two 
individuals on snowmobiles harassing a bison within the boundaries of 
Yellowstone National Park. I have not seen the tape and I cannot attest 
to its veracity.
  Currently, there are laws that make it a federal crime to engage or 
participate in such activities. The National Park Service has all of 
the powers and authorities it needs to address this management problem 
or illegal activity, if indeed, it exists. I would advocate, that 
anyone apprehended in a park engaged in this sort of illegal activity, 
should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and in addition 
to fines and jail time, their machines should be confiscated.
  The bottom line in the snowmobile debate is that with a little care, 
the program can be well managed, without causing damage to the park 
resources, including the wildlife therein.
  Finally, I am committed to work with my colleagues toward the passage 
of this legislation. I am willing to compromise where necessary and I 
am willing to listen to all sides of this issue. I firmly believe that 
we can reach resolution.
  The concept and management style which advocates the theory that 
there may be a problem with a particular activity, but we don't really 
know what the problem is--therefore the activity should be eliminated 
no matter who or what is inconvenienced, forced out of business, or 
denied access to our natural treasures--should not be allowed to 
continue unchecked.
  I am an avid supporter and protector of our National Park System. I 
firmly believe this winter use can be accommodated through good 
management, good science and a little common sense.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a synopsis of 
snowmobile regulations, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 365

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This act may be cited as the ``National Park Service Winter 
     Access Act''.

     SEC. 2. SNOWMOBILES.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) Recreational snowmobile use within units of the 
     National Park system is an established, traditional, and 
     legitimate means of visitor use and enjoyment of these public 
     lands when conducted in a manner that does not adversely 
     affect or impair park resources and values.
       (2) The snowmobile manufacturers and the Environmental 
     Protection Agency will be working to establish emissions 
     standards for a new generation of snowmobiles. This new 
     generation of machines will be cleaner and quieter and should 
     be available to the public within five years.
       (3) Cleaner, quieter snowmobiles may provide the public 
     with a greater opportunity to enjoy the National Park System 
     in a manner that is consistent with park resources and 
     values.
       (b) Interim Park Operations.--
       (1) As is consistent with the Act entitled, ``An Act to 
     establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes,'' 
     approved August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), in the 
     following units of the National Park System where snowmobile 
     use occurred or was authorized as of January 1, 2000, such 
     use shall continue restricted to levels of no less than the 
     average wintertime use and activity over the last three 
     winters. This use can be subject to other reasonable 
     regulations governing such use existing as of January 1, 
     2000, including emergency closure authority:
       Acadia National Park, Maine
       Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, Colorado
       Crater Lake National Park, Oregon
       Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming
       Mount Rainier National Park, Washington
       North Cascades National Park, Washington
       Olympic National Park, Washington
       Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado
       Sequoia National Park, California
       Kings Canyon National Park, California
       Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota
       Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota
       Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
       Zion National Park, Utah
       Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Multi-States
       Saint Croix National Scenic River, Wisconsin, Minnesota
       Pictured Rocks National Seashore, Michigan
       Cedar Breaks National Monument, Utah
       Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado, Utah
       Grand Portage National Monument, Minnesota

[[Page 2152]]

       Blue Ridge Parkway, North Carolina, Virginia
       John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Parkway, Wyoming
       Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, Iowa
       Perry's Victory National Historic Site, Ohio
       Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, Montana, Wyoming
       Curecanti National Recreation Area, Colorado
       Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, new Jersey, 
     Pennsylvania
       Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Washington
       Ross Lake National Recreation Area, Washington
       (2)(i) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1), and consistent 
     with other applicable laws, the Secretary has the authority, 
     if necessary, to address or avert significant environmental 
     impacts in a particular unit or portion of a unit, to 
     restrict snowmobile use and activity down to a level that is 
     no less than 50% below the three year average level 
     established under subsection (b)(1). The restrictions shall 
     apply to the smallest practical portion of the unit adequate 
     to address the impacts.
       (ii) Before restricting use and activity in this manner, 
     the Secretary shall make a finding of significant 
     environmental impact based on on-the-ground study in the 
     affected unit or portion of the unit and sound, peer-reviewed 
     scientific information applicable to that unit or portion of 
     the unit. Within at least 90 days before finalizing such 
     restrictions, the Secretary shall notify the Senate Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on 
     Resources of its intent and provide the public with at least 
     30 days to comment on the proposal.
       (3) Consistent with other applicable law, the National Park 
     Service may prohibit recreational snowmobile use within all 
     units of the system not listed in subsection (b)(1).
       (c) Long-Term Program and Operations.--
       (1) Within two years after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate final 
     national standards governing emissions by snowmobiles.
       (2) The Environmental Protection Agency may engage in 
     negotiated rulemaking with the snowmobile manufacturers 
     regarding this standard.
       (3) Taking into account noise reductions achieved in 
     conjunction with the emissions standard described in 
     subsection (c)(1), not later than five years following the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the National Park Service, in 
     conjunction with the Society of Automotive Engineers, shall 
     set noise standards for snowmobile use in the National Park 
     System.
       (d) Management Plans and Studies.--
       (1) The National Park Service is directed to prepare 
     management plans to assure education and enforcement of 
     regulations governing recreational snowmobile use within the 
     system.
       (2) The National Park Service shall conduct new 
     comprehensive studies to assess the impacts of recreational 
     snowmobile use within the affected units of the system on 
     park resources, visitor use and enjoyment, and adjacent 
     communities. Among other things, these studies must include 
     consideration of the EPA snowmobile emission standards, 
     snowmobiles that are produced in response to those standards, 
     and technological and other advances occurring or anticipated 
     at that time. The conclusions derived from such studies shall 
     be the basis for any proposed revised regulations and 
     management plans to govern use of recreational snowmobiles 
     within the units listed in subsection (g)(1) of this section.
       (3) Not later than four years following the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the National Park Service shall 
     prepare a Report to Congress concerning the proper use of 
     snowmobiles for recreation in National Park System units. 
     Among other things, this Report shall consider the impact of 
     the snowmobiles complaint with the emission standards set in 
     subsection (c)(1) on wildlife, the environment, and other 
     relevant factors.
       (4) Not later than five years after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, and based upon the findings of the report to 
     Congress described in subsection (d)(3) and other relevant 
     information, the National Park Service shall propose revised 
     regulations and management plans to govern use of 
     recreational snowmobiles within the units listed in 
     subsection (b)(1) of this Act.
       (i) No management plan or regulation developed in 
     accordance with subsection (d)(4) shall permit the entry of 
     snowmobiles that do not meet the emission and noise standards 
     described in subsections (c)(1) and (c)(3), respectively, 
     into the units of the National Park System described in 
     section (b)(1) of this Act.
       (e) Savings Clause.--
       Nothing herein is intended to affect the provisions of 
     Public Law 96-487, including but not limited to, Section 
     1110(a).
                                  ____


                                Synopsis


                       Yellowstone National Park

       The regulation delineates a timeline that eliminates all 
     recreational snowmobile access by the end of the 2003-04 
     season. This prohibition will be implemented incrementally 
     over several years. Upon the effective date, February 21, 
     2001, the regulation designates established routes for 
     snowmobiles and snowcoaches, public safety and air pollution 
     restrictions for snowmobiles and snowcoaches, designated 
     periods of operation for snowcoaches, permit and license 
     requirements for snowmobile operators, and a prohibition on 
     snowplanes.
       Effective through the end of the 2001-2002 winter season, 
     the use of snowmobiles is limited to the unplowed roadway. 
     There are further restrictions on the routes available to 
     snowmobiles during the 2002-2003 winter season and there are 
     restrictions placed on what hours during the day that 
     snowmobiles may be operated. Additional restrictions during 
     this period include a daily limit on the number of 
     snowmobiles allowed to use the park each day, a requirement 
     for snowmobiles to be accompanied by a guide in groups of no 
     more than 11. By the end of the 2003-2005 winter season, the 
     use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone is prohibited.


               John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway

       As in Yellowstone there are restrictions and requirements 
     that go into effect immediately, such as registration, 
     licensing, rules of the road, and restriction to keep 
     snowmobiles on designated routes. Effective until the end of 
     2001-2002 winter season use, snowmobiles are required to stay 
     on designated routes. Snowplanes are prohibited.
       During the 2002-2003 season there are specific routes 
     designated for snowmobile travel, limits on the numbers of 
     snowmobiles each day are imposed, and the hours of operation 
     are prescribed.
       The prohibition on all snowmobile use occurs one year 
     earlier than in Yellowstone, at the end of the 2002-2003 
     season.


                       Grand Teton National Park

       The regulations restricting snowmobile and snowplane use at 
     Grand Teton NP vary from those found at Yellowstone and the 
     John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway primarily to allow for 
     access across parklands and access to private lands within 
     the park. Recreational snowmobile use is eliminated entirely 
     from Grand Teton NP, except for snowmobile use over certain 
     designated routes and for specific purposes. Snowplane use is 
     allowed to continue under permit until the end of the 2001-
     2002 season.
       Upon the regulations effective date several public safety, 
     licensing, and registration requirements are imposed, there 
     is an exception on licensing for individuals accessing 
     private and adjacent public lands.
       The regulation specifies designated snowmobile routes that 
     are effective to the end of the 2001-2002 winter season most 
     of which follow unplowed roads. During the 2002-2003 winter 
     season only the Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail is 
     designated for snowmobile use. Effective winter use season of 
     2003-2004, the only snowmobile use is for reasonable and 
     direct access to adjacent public and private lands via 
     designated routes.
                                  ____


                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       Section 1 designates the Act's short title as the 
     ``National Park Service Winter Access Act.''
       Section 2(a) finds that snowmobile use in the National Park 
     System is an established, traditional, and legitimate means 
     of visitor use and enjoyment.
       Paragraph 2 finds that snowmobile manufacturers and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency will work together to 
     establish emission standards for a new generation of 
     snowmobiles which should be available in five years.
       Paragraph 3 states that cleaner and quieter snowmobiles may 
     provide the public the opportunity to enjoy the parks in a 
     manner consistent with park values.
       Subsection 2(b)(1) directs that until new emission 
     standards and the new generation snowmobiles are available, 
     the National Park Service will allow snowmobiles use to 
     continue at levels no less than the average wintertime use 
     and activity over the last three years. This subsection 
     designates 29 National Park Service areas where such use will 
     continue.
       Paragraph 2(b)(2)(i) allows the Secretary to restrict 
     snowmobile use and activity down to a level no less than 50% 
     below the three year average level to address or avert 
     significant environmental impacts. Such restrictions apply to 
     the smallest practical area to address the impact.
       Paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) requires that before restricting 
     snowmobile activity, the Secretary must make a finding of 
     significant environmental impact and present these findings 
     to House and Senate Committees as well as give adequate 
     public notice.
       Paragraph 2(b)(3) allows the National Park Service to 
     prohibit snowmobile use in all areas not listed in paragraph 
     2(b)(1).
       Subsection 2(c) requires the EPA to promulgate national 
     standards on snowmobile emission.
       Paragraph 2 allows the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     engage in negotiated rulemaking with snowmobile manufacturers 
     on emissions standards.

[[Page 2153]]

       Paragraph 3 requires the National Park Service to set noise 
     standards for snowmobile use within five years of this act's 
     enactment, in conjunction with the Society of Automotive 
     Engineers.
       Subsection 2(d) directs the National Park Service to 
     complete management plans addressing education and 
     enforcement of regulations regarding recreational snowmobile 
     use in the National Park System.
       Paragraph 2 directs the National Park Service to conduct 
     new studies on the impacts of recreational snowmobile use in 
     the park system. The studies will consider the new EPA 
     standards and anticipated changes in technology.
       Paragraph 3 directs the National Park Service to prepare a 
     Report to Congress addressing the use of snowmobiles in 
     National Park Service units within four years of the act's 
     enactment.
       Paragraph 4 requires the National Park Service to propose 
     revised regulations governing the use of snowmobiles in units 
     affected by this act within five years of the enactment of 
     the act. These regulations should include a prohibition on 
     snowmobiles that do not meet established noise and emission 
     standards
       Subsection 2(e) states that nothing in this act will affect 
     the access provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Act (PL 96-487).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Smith of 
        Oregon, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Wyden, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 366, A bill to amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to 
increase the amount of funds available for certain Agricultural Trade 
programs; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Craig, 
Cleland, Gordon Smith, Cantwell, Wyden and Boxer to reintroduce the 
Agricultural Market Access and Development Act of 2001.
  Trade is the lifeblood of Washington state's economy. From aerospace 
to software to agriculture, one out of every three jobs in my state is 
trade-related. Without access to markets around the world, Washington 
state's economy cannot function.
  The legislation I am introducing today would open and expand markets 
for U.S. agricultural exports. It would help rural economies. It would 
create jobs in regions that need them the most.
  In the 106th Congress, we focused our attention on opening markets to 
American goods and services. I strongly supported efforts to pass 
permanent normal trade relations for China, to reform our ineffective 
unilateral sanctions policies, and to create new trade relationships 
with Africa and the Caribbean Basin.
  Our nation's producers generally supported these efforts, but their 
enthusiasm for new trade agreements is waning.
  It's difficult for our farmers and ranchers to endorse new trade 
agreements when our trade partners heavily subsidize their producers.
  It's difficult for farmers and ranchers to get excited about 
potential new markets when federal agencies give a green light to 
imports from nations that won't let our products in.
  It's difficult for farmers and ranchers to support free trade when 
our competitors have the advantage of cheaper labor, cheaper land, 
cheaper water and fewer environmental regulations.
  When these trade challenges are combined with low prices, a strong 
dollar, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and higher energy and 
fertilizer prices, I understand why many of our farmers and ranchers 
are losing patience with our trade agreements.
  I believe agricultural producers and rural communities should 
continue to support free trade. U.S. producers are so productive that 
we can't afford not to push for more open markets.
  But I also believe we should give our agricultural producers a 
fighting chance to succeed. We need to pursue trade agreements that are 
fair. We need to enforce the good agreements we make. And we need to 
invest in market promotion and development.
  The legislation I am introducing today will help give producers a 
fighting chance. It invests in market share, not potential markets. It 
builds on success, not rhetoric.
  Current law authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars for the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's Export Enhancement Program. But the program 
isn't being used. Current law does not allow the Secretary of 
Agriculture to transfer those authorized funds to programs that are 
being used, like the Market Access Program and the the Foreign Market 
Development ``Cooperator'' Program.
  My bill would change that.
  The Agricultural Market Access and Development Act does three things.
  First, it raises the existing cap on the Market Access Program from 
$90 million to $200 million.
  Second, it creates a $35 million floor for the Foreign Market 
Development ``Cooperator'' Program.
  The Market Access Program and the Cooperator Program have helped to 
expand markets for apples, potatoes, wheat, wine and other products 
from Washington state and around the nation. Under these programs, the 
federal government reimburses a non-profit industry association or a 
private business for a portion of trade promotion activities.
  Third, the bill establishes a mechanism to pay for these changes. It 
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer a percentage of 
unspent funds under the Export Enhancement Program to market access and 
development programs.
  The legislation I am introducing today is nearly identical to S. 
1983, which I introduced in 1999. In the 106th Congress, more than 
eighty agriculture and food organizations wrote to Members of Congress 
supporting S. 1983. I believe we will have equal--if not greater--
support as we start working on the next farm bill.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support the Agricultural Market 
Access and Development Act.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that I am 
cosponsoring the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act of 
2001, which was introduced by Senator Murray today. This bill will 
authorize increases in the funding levels for agricultural market 
access and development programs in 2001 and 2002. These programs 
provide matching funds to assure aggressive marketing of our 
agricultural products in the international markets.
  U.S. exports of high-value and consumer-oriented agricultural 
products have increased steadily in recent years but are facing stiff 
competition from foreign sources. In 1998 foreign competitors outspent 
the U.S. by nearly 4 to 1 on export promotion activities. The Market 
Access Program is a cost-sharing approach to help U.S. farmers and 
growers close this funding gap. Program funds are used to generically 
support important Washington agricultural products.
  Washington State depends on agriculture to provide jobs, particularly 
in Eastern Washington which has been left out of the prosperity of the 
Puget Sound region. Apple growers in the Yakima valley must have new 
markets if their businesses are to survive and prosper. Eastern 
Washington needs these jobs and we need this program.
  Export markets provide some of the best economic support to the 
agricultural community. Agricultural products are an important part of 
the dynamic market mix that makes Washington a thriving, productive 
economic area. The matching funding of the Market Access Program helps 
to provide support and encouragement for the farmers and growers so 
important to Washington State and the Northwest.
  I thank Senator Murray for the leadership she has shown in promoting 
and protecting our agricultural interests. I look forward to continuing 
close cooperation with Senator Murray, other members of the Washington 
State delegation, as well as State and local leaders to support our 
valued agricultural interests.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Chafee, 
        Mr. Reid, Ms. Collins, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Corzine, 
        Mr. Durbin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. 
        Specter):

[[Page 2154]]

  S. 367. A bill to prohibit the application of certain restrictive 
eligibility requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with 
respect to the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, within 48 hours of assuming the 
Presidency, President Bush issued a policy that will hurt the women of 
the world. A policy that takes us back to the 1980s, rather than ahead 
to the new century.
  His policy, the Mexico City gag rule, cuts U.S. funding to any 
organization that uses its own funds to provide abortion services. It 
even cuts U.S. funds if the organization uses its own funds to simply 
counsel women on all their options which include abortions.
  As a result, many organizations will be forced to either limit their 
services or simply close their doors to women across the world. And, 
this will cause women and families increased misery and death.
  The current facts are chilling.
  Approximately 78,000 women throughout the world die each year as a 
result of unsafe abortions. At least one-fourth of all unsafe abortions 
in the world are to girls aged 15-19. By 2015, contraceptive needs in 
developing countries will grow by more than 40 percent.
  Make no mistake, the Mexican city gag rule will restrict family 
planning, not abortions.
  The media has mistakenly portrayed the Mexico City policy. I think we 
need to be clear of what this policy does and does not do:
  It does not change the fact that no United States funds can be used 
for abortion services. That is already law, and has been since 1973. It 
does restrict foreign organizations in ways that would be 
unconstitutional here at home.
  It is puzzling for me to understand how anyone could fail to realize 
that family planning is crucial to preventing abortions.
  According to Population Action International, research shows that 
higher levels of contraception use are associated with lower reliance 
on abortion.
  For example, the recent increased availability of modern family 
planning methods has already resulted in a 33 percent drop in the 
abortion rate in Russia and a 60 percent reduction in Hungary.
  Additionally, we know that young girls between the ages of 15 and 19 
are twice as likely to die in childbirth as older mothers. Talk about a 
policy that is cruel to girls and young women--this is it.
  Family planning can significantly improve the health of these girls 
and young women by teaching them to postpone childbearing until the 
healthiest times in their life, which would in turn prevent abortions.
  However, as a result of the harsh penalties imposed by the Mexico 
City gag rule, family planning groups will not be able to adequately 
counsel these desperate women.
  Picture a woman who has already walked sometimes half a day to get to 
the nearest clinic. How can we expect these clinics to then tell this 
woman who is seeking services on her own volition, that they cannot 
counsel her on the full array of her legal options when there is no 
other clinic within a hundred miles of them?
  Additionally, the Mexico City policy goes against a fundamental tenet 
of American society . . . freedom of speech.
  That is why today in the Senate today, I am introducing the 
bipartisan ``Global Democracy Promotion Act.''
  The Boxer-Snowe bill aims to overturn the draconian restrictions 
place upon international family planning programs put in place by 
President Bush on January 22. Our bill will allow these organizations 
to continue to provide legal family planning services without 
needlessly restricting their funds.
  Family planning organizations should not be prevented from using 
their own privately raised funds to provide legal abortion services, 
including counseling and referral services.
  These groups should not be forced to relinquish their right to free 
speech in order to receive United States funding. This type of 
restriction is un-American and undermines our key foreign policy goal 
of supporting democracy worldwide.
  The true bipartisan consensus is that family planning organizations 
should be supported, not punished, for helping women in need. We hope 
President Bush will change his mind and reverse his order. If not, we 
will work hard to overturn it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 367

       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 ``Global Democracy Promotion 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) It is a fundamental principle of American medical 
     ethics and practice that health care providers should, at all 
     times, deal honestly and openly with patients. Any attempt to 
     subvert the private and sensitive physician-patient 
     relationship would be intolerable in the United States and is 
     an unjustifiable intrusion into the practices of health care 
     providers when attempted in other countries.
       (2) Freedom of speech is a fundamental American value. The 
     ability to exercise the right to free speech, which includes 
     the ``right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 
     petition the government for a redress of grievances'' is 
     essential to a thriving democracy and is protected under the 
     United States Constitution.
       (3) The promotion of democracy is a principal goal of 
     United States foreign policy and critical to achieving 
     sustainable development. It is enhanced through the 
     encouragement of democratic institutions and the promotion of 
     an independent and politically active civil society in 
     developing countries.
       (4) Limiting eligibility for United States development and 
     humanitarian assistance upon the willingness of a foreign 
     nongovernmental organization to forgo its right to use its 
     own funds to address, within the democratic process, a 
     particular issue affecting the citizens of its own country 
     directly undermines a key goal of United States foreign 
     policy and would violate the United States Constitution if 
     applied to United States-based organizations.
       (5) Similarly, limiting the eligibility for United States 
     assistance on a foreign nongovernmental organization's 
     willingness to forgo its right to provide, with its own 
     funds, medical services that are legal in its own country and 
     would be legal if provided in the United States constitutes 
     unjustifiable interference with the ability of independent 
     organizations to serve the critical health needs of their 
     fellow citizens and demonstrates a disregard and disrespect 
     for the laws of sovereign nations as well as for the laws of 
     the United States.

     SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGN NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 
                   UNDER PART I OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 
                   1961.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or 
     policy, in determining eligibility for assistance authorized 
     under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2151 et seq.), foreign nongovernmental organizations--
       (1) shall not be ineligible for such assistance solely on 
     the basis of health or medical services including counseling 
     and referral services, provided by such organizations with 
     non-United States Government funds if such services do not 
     violate the laws of the country in which they are being 
     provided and would not violate United States Federal law if 
     provided in the United States; and
       (2) shall not be subject to requirements relating to the 
     use of non-United States Government funds for advocacy and 
     lobbying activities other than those that apply to United 
     States nongovernmental organizations receiving assistance 
     under part I of such Act.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong 
support for the ``Global Democracy Act of 2001'', introduced by my 
friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer.
  Last month, President Bush announced that he was reinstating the 
``global gag rule'' restricting United States assistance to 
international family planning organizations. I was extremely 
disappointed and amazed that the President opted to start his 
Administration with such a divisive action.
  If women are to be able to better their own lives and the lives of 
their families, they must have access to the educational and medical 
resources needed to control their reproductive

[[Page 2155]]

destinies and their health. International family planning programs 
reduce poverty, improve health, and raise living standards around the 
world; they enhance the ability of couples and individuals to determine 
the number and spacing of their children.
  The ``Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001'' will allow foreign Non 
Governmental Organizations that receive U.S. family planning assistance 
to use non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, including 
counseling and referrals and will lift the restrictions on lobbying and 
advocacy.
  The United States must reclaim its leadership role on international 
family planning and reproductive issues. The United States must renew 
its commitment to help those around the world who need and want our 
help and assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                   ____
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 368. A bill to develop voluntary consensus standards to ensure 
accuracy and validation of the voting process, to direct the Director 
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to study voter 
participation and emerging voting technology, to provide grants to 
States to improve voting methods, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the nearly 280 million 
Americans in this country, today I am introducing the American Voting 
Standards and Technology Act. After one of the closest and most 
contested elections in our Nation's history, Americans want to have 
complete confidence in the electoral process. We can accomplish that 
goal by ridding politics of large, unregulated contributions, and by 
ensuring that every vote is counted and recorded accurately.
  The key to achieving meaningful reform and to restoring Americans' 
faith in government, is finding both a short-term and a long-term 
solution to the widespread abuses of the past election. I have devised 
a two-pronged strategy toward realizing these necessary changes in our 
electoral system. First, on January 22, Senator Feingold and I 
introduced the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. This measure 
bans soft money contributions, restricts corporate and union spending 
on electioneering ads, and provides for greater disclosure and stronger 
election laws. I look forward to bringing campaign finance reform back 
to the floor next month.
  The bill that I am introducing today represents the second part of my 
electoral reform strategy. One of the most flagrant violations of our 
democratic electoral process was highlighted this past November by the 
overwhelming number of precincts who reported voting machine flaws. 
This is an embarrassment to our democracy. The American Voting 
Standards and Technology Act was written to directly address the root 
of these voting controversies--the actual machines. In the 2000 
election, pre-scored punch-card ballots were used by one in three 
voters. These archaic ``votomatic'' machines, engineered in the 1960's, 
continue to be employed throughout the country, yet their ability to 
accurately record voters is questionable. In 1988, The National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, recommended the 
elimination of prescored ballot cards, but this recommendation was 
unfortunately never heeded.
  To compound the problems with pre-scored punch cards, numerous 
studies reveal that throughout the country, ballots cast by African 
Americans were nullified at a much higher rate than those of 
Caucasians. In Atlanta's Fulton County, which uses old punch-card 
voting machines, one of every 16 ballots for president was invalidated, 
while two largely white neighboring counties, Cobb and Gwinnett, using 
more modern equipment had a rate of 1 in 200. Similar patterns were 
found in Florida and Illinois. We cannot encourage and expect every 
American to vote if we ignore the inequalities that are inherent in our 
entire voting system.
  The National Association of Secretaries of States recently issued 
fifteen recommendations aimed at avoiding the problems of last year's 
presidential election. The resolution recommends that States: Ensure 
equal access to the election system for the elderly, disabled, and 
minority communities; modernize voting machines and equipment; and 
conduct aggressive voter education and outreach programs. The 
resolution also advocates that Congress authorize an update of the 
voluntary federal voting standards and fund the development of 
voluntary management standards for each voting system. Senator Hollings 
and I have written the American Voting Standards and Technology Act in 
response to these recommendations.
  This legislation that we are introducing today has three targets: 
First, it directs NIST to develop voluntary consensus standards to 
ensure the accuracy and validation of the voting process. Second, it 
authorizes matching grants to State agencies to purchase new or 
rehabilitated voting equipment to improve the ability of the public to 
cast a timely and accurate vote for the candidate of their choice. 
Finally, it authorizes grants throughout the Department of Commerce to 
State agencies to strengthen voter education campaigns. Both Senator 
Hollings and I have been working closely with NIST to begin this 
process now so that the next election will not bring the same confusion 
and frustration at the polls.
  How can we encourage young Americans to vote if they believe their 
vote may not be counted? We must modernize our voting machinery and 
improve our voting process without barraging the States and local 
governments with excessive rules and regulations. The American Voting 
Standards and Technology Act accomplishes these goals.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it has been said that there's no system 
worse than democracy--except for all of the other ones. What this 
aphorism reveals is that though democracy, in its republican form of 
elections, is the best form of government that we know of at this 
point, it nevertheless has its shortcomings, be they human or 
mechanical. A close election certainly tends to highlight these human 
and mechanical flaws in our voting systems. This was never more proven 
than by last year's Presidential election. Last November and December 
stories of overvotes, undervotes, and hanging chads flooded the media. 
Many voters complained that confusing butterfly ballots led them to 
make unintended choices, while others claimed they were denied the 
opportunity to vote by being left off of the registration rolls or 
through intimidation.
  Unfortunately, these problems are not new. We've had difficulties 
using punch cards and other machine-readable ballots for more than 30 
years. Federal officials were made aware of these issues as early as 
1978, by a National Bureau of Standards, now NIST, study, Science & 
Technology: Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying. 
That study--and another in 1988--found difficulties in vote-tallying 
stemming from management failures, technology failures, and human 
operational failures. The 1978 report cited major difficulties in 7 
cities. One of the key recommendations was the elimination of the pre-
scored punch card, similar to the kind used in Palm Beach County's 
Votomatic machines.
  We know that there is a problem, the question is what are we going to 
do about it? Senator McCain and I have one answer--the American Voting 
Standards and Technology Act, which we are introducing today. In short, 
the Act would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
to develop voluntary consensus standards to ensure the accuracy and 
validation of the voting process from voter registration through any 
recount. Quite simply, NIST knows standards--it has been in the 
standards game for over 100 years. Its experts know how to work with 
stakeholders like state and local governments and private sector 
technology leaders to build valid, usable, reliable standards that 
people trust. The agency updates its standards regularly.
  NIST's voluntary voting standards could set a threshold for accuracy,

[[Page 2156]]

maintenance, and usability of voting systems that would feed into the 
second leg of our program--matching grants to State and local 
government agencies to purchase new or rehabilitated voting equipment. 
We want to give priority in this program to the places least able to 
afford state of the art voting equipment--the precincts with high 
unemployment and low income levels.
  However, because we don't want to buy new equipment if no one knows 
how to use it, our bill would authorize the Department of Commerce to 
give grants to State agencies to strengthen voter education campaigns. 
We want voters to understand how to use the technology that is in their 
polling place and how to determine if their vote will be correctly 
counted.
  The right to vote is the most fundamental right bestowed upon 
Americans by the U.S. Constitution. There are millions of Americans who 
lost faith in the guarantee and exercise of this fundamental right due 
to the circumstances of the last election. Senator McCain and I do not 
claim to know how to restore the American people's faith in our voting 
systems. However, we do have an idea that setting basic performance 
standards, helping election officials acquire systems which meet those 
standards, and helping voters use those systems is part of the 
solution. When we return from the President's Day recess, we plan to 
schedule hearings to work through the details of our legislation and 
improve it. We realize that our American Voting Standards and 
Technology Act is only one piece of the pie, and we also look forward 
to working with other Senators who are examining other aspects of the 
electoral system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 369. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
written agreement relating to the exclusion of certain farm rental 
income from net earnings from self-employment; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. 369

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

     SECTION 1. WRITTEN AGREEMENT RELATING TO EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN 
                   FARM RENTAL INCOME FROM NET EARNINGS FROM SELF-
                   EMPLOYMENT.

       (a) Internal Revenue Code.--Section 1402(a)(1)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to net earnings from 
     self-employment) is amended by striking ``an arrangement'' 
     and inserting ``a lease agreement''.
       (b) Social Security Act.--Section 211(a)(1)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act is amended by striking ``an arrangement'' 
     and inserting ``a lease agreement''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.
                                   ____
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 370. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt 
agricultural bonds from State volume caps; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. 370

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

     SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL BONDS FROM STATE VOLUME 
                   CAP.

       (a) In General.--Section 146(g) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to exception for certain bonds) is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3), by 
     striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and inserting 
     ``, and'', and by inserting after paragraph (4) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) any qualified small issue bond described in section 
     144(a)(12)(B)(ii).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED:
  S. 371. A bill to establish and expand child opportunity zone family 
centers in public elementary schools and secondary schools, and for 
their purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
seeks to remove barriers to learning by encouraging communities to 
coordinate community services through school-based or school-linked 
family centers. These centers would provide a comprehensive array of 
information, support, services, and activities to improve the 
education, health, mental health, safety, and economic well-being of 
children and their families.
  As we strive to ensure the academic and future success of our 
students, we must recognize that the increasingly complex needs of 
children cannot be met by our schools and teachers alone. Children 
bring many social, health, and family problems to school, which leaves 
them in no shape to learn.
  Some facts to illustrate this point:
  Today, 7.5 million children under the age of 18 require mental health 
services, while the National Institute of Mental Health estimates that 
fewer than one in five receive the help they need.
  11.3 million children--more than 90 percent of them in working 
families--have no health insurance.
  It is estimated that nearly five million school-age children spend 
time without adult supervision during a typical week. Meanwhile, FBI 
data show that the peak hours for violent juvenile crime occur during 
the after-school hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
  Also according to the FBI, juveniles accounted for 17 percent of all 
violent crime arrests in 1997, and juveniles are victims in nearly 25 
percent of all crimes.
  Programs and services exist to deal with these and other needs facing 
children--SCHIP, WIC, and after school programs, to name a few. 
However, too many children can't access such programs and services, 
and, consequently, too many children don't get the help they need. This 
is because these services are often too disjointed and fragmented, 
making it difficult for many families to find a point of entry. This 
problem is especially acute in low-income urban and rural areas.
  To address these and other serious issues facing our children and 
families, a few states and localities have established centers and 
developed programs designed to provide families with access and 
linkages to needed social services, like health and mental health care, 
nutritional programs, child care, housing, and job training, in a 
location that is easily accessed by families--their children's school. 
The aim of my legislation is to support and expand such efforts.
  Research indicates that school-linked family center programs are a 
cost-effective way to provide supports to children and families. 
According to a report by the Department of Education's Northeast and 
Islands Regional Educational Laboratory, school-linked services can 
also ``help to increase student achievement, save money and reduce 
overlapping services, reach those children and families most in need, 
make schools more welcoming to families, increase community support for 
the school, and help at-risk families develop the capacity to manage 
their own lives successfully.'' Moreover, according to a 1999 American 
Association of School Administrators Nationwide Survey, 82 percent of 
parents would like family centers in their schools to help improve 
their schools.
  My legislation, the Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act, builds 
on a successful model in my home state of Rhode Island, the Rhode 
Island Child Opportunity Zone (COZ) Family Center initiative, as well 
as Kentucky's Family Resource and Youth Service Centers, and 
Minnesota's Family Service program.
  The Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act, which is supported by 
more than 30 health, education, and children's organizations, would 
provide grants on a competitive basis to partnerships consisting of a 
high poverty public school; school district; other public agency, such 
as a department of health or social services; and non-profit community 
organizations. Partnerships would be required to complete a

[[Page 2157]]

needs assessment, and then use this information to provide children and 
families with linkages to existing community prevention and 
intervention services in core areas such as education, child care, non-
school hours care and enrichment programs, health services, mental 
health services, nutrition, family support, literacy services, 
parenting skills, and dropout prevention. In addition, partnerships 
would provide violence prevention education to children and families, 
as well as training to enable families to help their children meet 
challenging standards and succeed in school.
  The guiding principle of Rhode Island's COZ Family Centers is to help 
children and families get the assistance they need so children are 
ready to learn in the classroom. This principle is reflected in my 
legislation, which contains accountability provisions to ensure that 
partnerships focus on improvements in student achievement, family 
participation in schools, access to health care, mental health care, 
child care, as well as family support services, and work to reduce 
violence among youth, truancy, suspension, and dropout rates in order 
to continue to receive funding.
  As we again begin to consider the reauthorization of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act, I believe that it is critical that we do 
all we can to provide a seamless, integrated system of support for 
children and families. By giving families an opportunity to get the 
support they need, we can truly help children come to school ready to 
learn and in turn help children succeed in school and life. I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its 
inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record along with a letter of support.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 371

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

     SECTION 1. CHILD OPPORTUNITY ZONE FAMILY CENTERS.

       Title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 8001 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

            ``Part L--Child Opportunity Zone Family Centers

     ``SEC. 10995A. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `Child Opportunity Zone 
     Family Center Act of 2001'.

     ``SEC. 10995B. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this part is to encourage eligible 
     partnerships to establish or expand child opportunity zone 
     family centers in public elementary schools and secondary 
     schools in order to provide comprehensive support services 
     for children and their families, and to improve the 
     children's educational, health, mental health, and social 
     outcomes.

     ``SEC. 10995C. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Child opportunity zone family center.--The term 
     `child opportunity zone family center' means a school-based 
     or school-linked community service center that provides and 
     links children and their families with comprehensive 
     information, support, services, and activities to improve the 
     education, health, mental health, safety, and economic well-
     being of the children and their families.
       ``(2) Eligible partnership.--The term `eligible 
     partnership' means a partnership--
       ``(A) that contains--
       ``(i) at least 1 public elementary school or secondary 
     school that--

       ``(I) receives assistance under title I and for which a 
     measure of poverty determination is made under section 
     1113(a)(5) with respect to a minimum of 40 percent of the 
     children in the school; and
       ``(II) demonstrates parent involvement and parent support 
     for the partnership's activities;

       ``(ii) a local educational agency;
       ``(iii) a public agency, other than a local educational 
     agency, such as a local or State department of health, mental 
     health, or social services; and
       ``(iv) a nonprofit community-based organization, providing 
     health, mental health, or social services;
       ``(v) a local child care resource and referral agency; and
       ``(vi) a local organization representing parents; and
       ``(B) that may contain--
       ``(i) an institution of higher education; and
       ``(ii) other public or private nonprofit entities with 
     experience in providing services to disadvantaged families.

     ``SEC. 10995D. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award, on a 
     competitive basis, grants to eligible partnerships to pay for 
     the Federal share of the cost of establishing and expanding 
     child opportunity zone family centers.
       ``(b) Duration.--The Secretary shall award grants under 
     this section for periods of 5 years.

     ``SEC. 10995E. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.

       ``Each eligible partnership receiving a grant under this 
     part shall use the grant funds--
       ``(1) in accordance with the needs assessment described in 
     section 10995F(b)(1), to provide or link children and their 
     families with information, support, activities, or services 
     in core areas such as education, child care, before- and 
     after-school care and enrichment programs, health services, 
     mental health services, family support, nutrition, literacy 
     services, parenting skills, and drop-out prevention;
       ``(2) to provide intensive, high-quality, research-based 
     programs that--
       ``(A) provide violence prevention education for families 
     and developmentally appropriate instructional services to 
     children (including children below the age of compulsory 
     school attendance); and
       ``(B) provide effective strategies for nurturing and 
     supporting the emotional, social, and cognitive growth of 
     children; and
       ``(3) to provide training, information, and support to 
     families to enable the families to participate effectively in 
     their children's education, and to help their children meet 
     challenging standards, including assisting families to--
       ``(A) understand the applicable accountability systems, 
     including State and local content standards, performance 
     standards, and assessments, their children's educational 
     performance in comparison to the standards, and the steps the 
     school is taking to address the children's needs and to help 
     the children meet the standards; and
       ``(B) communicate effectively with personnel responsible 
     for providing educational services to the families' children, 
     and to participate in the development and implementation of 
     school-parent compacts, parent involvement policies, and 
     school plans.

     ``SEC. 10995F. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each eligible partnership desiring a 
     grant under this part shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(b) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) include a needs assessment, including a description 
     of how the partnership will ensure that the activities to be 
     assisted under this part will be tailored to meet the 
     specific needs of the children and families to be served;
       ``(2) describe arrangements that have been formalized 
     between the participating public elementary school or 
     secondary school, and other partnership members;
       ``(3) describe how the partnership will effectively 
     coordinate with the centers under section 1118 and utilize 
     Federal, State, and local sources of funding that provide 
     assistance to families and their children;
       ``(4) describe the partnership's plan to--
       ``(A) develop and carry out the activities assisted under 
     this part with extensive participation of parents, 
     administrators, teachers, pupil services personnel, social 
     and human service agencies, and community organizations and 
     leaders; and
       ``(B) coordinate the activities assisted under this part 
     with the education reform efforts of the participating public 
     elementary school or secondary school, and the participating 
     local educational agency;
       ``(5) describe how the partnership will ensure that 
     underserved populations such as families of students with 
     limited English proficiency, or families of students with 
     disabilities, are effectively involved, informed, and 
     assisted;
       ``(6) describe how the partnership will collect and analyze 
     data, and will utilize specific performance measures and 
     indicators to--
       ``(A) determine the impact of activities assisted under 
     this part as described in section 10995I(a); and
       ``(B) improve the activities assisted under this part; and
       ``(7) describe how the partnership will protect the privacy 
     of families and their children participating in the 
     activities assisted under this part.

     ``SEC. 10995G. FEDERAL SHARE.

       ``The Federal share of the cost of establishing and 
     expanding child opportunity zone family centers--
       ``(1) for the first year for which an eligible partnership 
     receives assistance under this part shall not exceed 90 
     percent;
       ``(2) for the second such year, shall not exceed 80 
     percent;
       ``(3) for the third such year, shall not exceed 70 percent;
       ``(4) for the fourth such year, shall not exceed 60 
     percent; and
       ``(5) for the fifth such year, shall not exceed 50 percent.

[[Page 2158]]



     ``SEC. 10995H. FUNDING.

       ``(a) Continuation of Funding.--Each eligible partnership 
     that receives a grant under this part shall, after the third 
     year for which the partnership receives funds through the 
     grant, be eligible to continue to receive the funds if the 
     Secretary determines that the partnership has made 
     significant progress in meeting the performance measures used 
     for the partnership's local evaluation under section 
     10995I(a).
       ``(b) Limitation on Use of Funds To Offset Other 
     Programs.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds received under a grant under this part may be 
     used to pay for expenses related to any other Federal 
     program, including treating such funds as an offset against 
     such a Federal program.

     ``SEC. 10995I. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.

       ``(a) Local Evaluations.--Each partnership receiving funds 
     under this part shall conduct annual evaluations and submit 
     to the Secretary reports containing the results of the 
     evaluations. The reports shall include the results of the 
     partnership's performance assessment effectiveness in 
     reaching and meeting the needs of families and children 
     served under this part, including performance measures 
     demonstrating--
       ``(1) improvements in areas such as student achievement, 
     family participation in schools, and access to health care, 
     mental health care, child care, and family support services, 
     resulting from activities assisted under this part; and
       ``(2) reductions in such areas as violence among youth, 
     truancy, suspension, and dropout rates, resulting from 
     activities assisted under this part.
       ``(b) National Evaluations.--The Secretary shall reserve 
     not more than 3 percent of the amount appropriated under this 
     part to carry out a national evaluation of the effectiveness 
     of the activities assisted under this part. Such evaluation 
     shall be completed not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act of 
     2001, and every year thereafter and shall be submitted to 
     Congress.
       ``(c) Exemplary Activities.--The Secretary shall broadly 
     disseminate information on exemplary activities developed 
     under this part.

     ``SEC. 10995J. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 
     2005.''.
                                  ____

                                              American Association


                                          of University Women,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 2001.

       Dear Senator Reed: The undersigned organizations, 
     representing parents, educators, early childhood 
     professionals, health professionals, pupil services 
     personnel, and education advocates, thank you for introducing 
     the Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act (COZ). The Reed 
     COZ bill would ensure the coordination of services in order 
     to remove barriers to learning. According to a report of the 
     Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory, 
     school-linked services ``help to increase student 
     achievement, save money, and reduce overlapping services, 
     reach those children and families most in need, make schools 
     more welcoming to families, increase community support for 
     the school, and help at-risk families develop the capacity to 
     manage their own lives successfully.''
       Unfortunately, too many children today are struggling with 
     a variety of problems that make their ability to meet 
     challenging academic standards much more difficult. 
     Inadequate access to health care, lack of family and child 
     mental health services, poor nutrition, abuse, and other 
     social ills undercut these children's ability to succeed in 
     the classroom and in their daily lives. The coordination of 
     schools with the range of supportive services that children 
     and families need is particularly important in low-income 
     urban and rural areas. Families that need and would otherwise 
     be eligible to receive services simply cannot access them 
     without coordination at or through the schools.
       The Reed COZ bill draws on successful efforts already 
     underway in some areas. Kentucky's Family Resource and Youth 
     Service Centers, Minnesota's Family Service program, and 
     Rhode Island's Child Opportunity Zone Family Center 
     Initiative need to be replicated more widely. The current 
     barriers to these important services are pervasive in every 
     state. We believe that these proposed grants are critical to 
     helping schools and school districts partner with communities 
     and parents to make possible the school- linked or school-
     based coordination of the necessary services for 
     strengthening our nation's children.
       Once again, we thank you for introducing the Reed Child 
     Opportunity Zone Family Center Act. We look forward to 
     working with you on this and many other important issues in 
     the future.
           Sincerely,
       American Association of University Women.
       American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
       American Association of School Administrators.
       American Counseling Association.
       American Federation of Teachers.
       American Psychological Association.
       American School Counselor Association.
       Association of Educational Service Agencies.
       Council for Exceptional Children.
       General Federation of Women's Clubs.
       National Alliance of Black School Educators.
       National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity.
       National Association for Bilingual Education.
       National Association for the Education of Young Children.
       National Association of Elementary School Principals.
       National Association of Pupil Services Administrators.
       National Association of School Psychologists.
       National Association of Secondary School Principals.
       National Association of Social Workers.
       National Association of State Directors of Special 
     Education.
       National Coalition for Sex Equity in Education.
       National Council of Administrative Women in Education.
       National Council of La Raza.
       National Education Association.
       National Education Knowledge Industry Association.
       National PTA.
       National Rural Education Association.
       National School Boards Association.
       School Social Work Association of America.
       Wider Opportunities for Women.
       Women & Philanthropy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 372. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 to strengthen the involvement of parents in the education of their 
children, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parent Act, 
which seeks to increase parental involvement in the educational lives 
of their children.
  Research, experience, and reason tell us that providing parents with 
opportunities to play active roles in their children's schools empowers 
them to help their children excel. When parents are actively involved 
in their child's education, not only does their own child go further, 
but their child's school also improves to the benefit of all students. 
Indeed, as I have witnessed in Rhode Island, and I am sure my 
colleagues can attest to this in their states, our best schools are not 
simply those with the finest teachers and principals, but those which 
strive to engage parents in the education of their children.
  Research shows that regardless of economic, ethnic, or cultural 
background, parental involvement is a major factor in determining a 
child's academic success. Parental involvement contributes to better 
grades and test scores, higher homework completion rates, better 
attendance, and greater discipline. Further, when parental involvement 
is a school priority, schools have fewer failing students, achieve 
better reputations in the community, and show improvements in staff 
morale.
  In 1999, the American Association of School Administrators conducted 
a nationwide survey and found that 96 percent of parents believe that 
parental involvement is critical for a student to succeed in school and 
that 84 percent believe in parent involvement so strongly that they are 
willing to require such involvement. Further, a recent National PTA 
survey revealed that 91 percent of parents recognize that it is 
extremely important for parents to be involved in their children's 
school. Unfortunately, even as we extol the virtue of parental 
involvement, we must recognize that reality falls far short of that 
goal. The National PTA survey also found that roughly half the parents 
surveyed felt they were inadequately informed about ways in which they 
could participate in schools, or even gain access to basic information 
about their children's studies and their children's teachers. There are 
also other obstacles to greater parental involvement, such as working 
parents who find it difficult to get to schools and be involved or 
parents who have

[[Page 2159]]

had negative schooling experiences and are wary of entering schools to 
participate in their children's education.
  With more than 90 percent of parents believing that parental 
involvement is critical to a child's academic achievement and less than 
50 percent of parents believing that their schools adequately involve 
them in their children's education, the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA provides an opportunity to 
help bring schools and parents together, and to ensure parents have the 
tools to become meaningfully and effectively involved in their 
children's education. While the ESEA currently contains parental 
involvement provisions, they mainly apply to Title I schools and 
students, and have not been fully implemented.
  That is why I am pleased to be joined by Senators Wellstone and 
Murray and Representative Lynn Woolsey in the other body in introducing 
the Parent Act. This legislation would amend the ESEA to bolster 
existing, and add new, parental involvement provisions.
  The Parent Act requires that all schools implement effective, 
research-based parental involvement best practices, and it provides 
technical assistance to schools that are having problems implementing 
parental involvement programs. My bill also seeks to improve parental 
access to information about their children's education and a school's 
parental involvement policies; ensure that professional development 
activities provide training to teachers and administrators on how to 
foster relationships with parents and encourage parental involvement; 
utilize technology to expand efforts to connect schools and teachers 
with parents; and promote parental involvement in drug and violence 
prevention programs. Further, the bill requires each local district to 
make available to parents an annual report card which explains how a 
school is performing with respect to student achievement, teacher 
qualification, class size, school safety, drop-out rates, the actions 
the school is taking to involve parents in school activities and 
decision making, and other school performance indicators.
  The Parent Act also offers $500 million for school districts, with 
strict accountability measures, to supplement and support recognized 
and proven initiatives that improve student achievement through 
parental involvement. Currently, section 1118 of Title I requires 
districts to develop written parental involvement policies and requires 
schools to develop school-parent compacts, hold annual meetings for 
parents at schools, and involve parents in school review and 
improvement policies and plans. Local districts are required to spend 1 
percent of their Title I allotment for this purpose, unless that 1 
percent amounts to less than $5,000. In Rhode Island, however, in only 
9 of the 34 districts that receive Title I funds is this amount above 
$5,000, and this situation is similar across the nation. In fact, the 
Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I found that a quarter 
of Title I schools do not have required school-parent compacts, more 
than four years after they were required. As Secretary Paige stated at 
his confirmation hearing, ``increased assistance will be needed'' to 
enhance parental involvement.
  Last Congress, during the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee debate on ESEA, many provisions of the Parent Act were added 
to S. 2, the ESEA reauthorization bill. But S. 2 did not go far enough 
to ensure the parental involvement provisions of ESEA are actually 
implemented. The accountability provisions of the Parent Act and its 
grant resources are essential to making sure all of the elements for 
effective parental involvement are in place.
  To succeed in the endeavor of increasing parental involvement, we 
must depend on parents, teachers, and school administrators throughout 
the country to work collaboratively to implement effective programs. 
However, federal leadership is needed to provide schools, teachers, and 
parents with the tools required for this task.
  The bottom line of federal support for education is to increase 
student achievement. Parental involvement is essential to ensuring that 
our students succeed. This legislation is strongly supported by the 
National PTA, and I urge my colleagues to join Senators Wellstone and 
Murray, Representative Woolsey, and me in supporting the Parent Act, 
and working for its inclusion in the ESEA reauthorization.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 372

       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 ``Parent Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or a repeal of, a section or other provision, 
     the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Parents are the first and most influential educators of 
     their children.
       (2) The Federal Government must provide leadership, 
     technical assistance, and financial support to States and 
     local educational agencies, as partners, in helping the 
     agencies implement successful and effective parental 
     involvement policies and programs that lead to improved 
     student achievement.
       (3) State and local education officials, as well as 
     teachers, principals, and other staff at the school level, 
     must work as partners with the parents of the children they 
     serve.
       (4) Research has documented that, regardless of the 
     economic, ethnic, or cultural background of the family, 
     parental involvement in a child's education is a major factor 
     in determining success in school.
       (5) Parental involvement in a child's education contributes 
     to positive outcomes such as improved grades and test scores, 
     higher expectations for student achievement, better school 
     attendance, improved homework completion rates, decreased 
     violence and substance abuse, and higher rates of graduation 
     and enrollment in postsecondary education.
       (6) Numerous education laws now require meaningful parental 
     involvement, including title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the 
     Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.), the 
     Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), and the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), and 
     elements of these laws should be extended to other Federal 
     education programs.

     SEC. 4. BASIC PROGRAMS.

       (a) State Plan.--Section 1111 (20 U.S.C. 6311) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking ``and technical 
     assistance under section 1117'' and inserting ``, technical 
     assistance under section 1117, and parental involvement under 
     section 1118'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (d) through (g) as 
     subsections (e) through (h), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Parental Involvement.--Each State plan shall 
     demonstrate that the State has identified or developed 
     effective research-based best practices designed to foster 
     meaningful parental involvement. Such best practices shall--
       ``(1) be disseminated to all schools and local educational 
     agencies in the State;
       ``(2) be implemented in all schools in the State; and
       ``(3) address the full range of parental involvement 
     activities required under section 1118.''.
       (b) Local Educational Agency Plans.--Section 1112 (20 
     U.S.C. 6312) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), 
     and (9) as paragraphs (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) 
     respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) a description of the strategy the local educational 
     agency will use to implement effective parental involvement 
     in accordance with section 1118;'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (H) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (I); and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) work in consultation with schools as the schools 
     develop and implement their plans or activities under 
     sections 1118 and 1119;''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)(3), by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``and if such agency's parental involvement 
     activities are in accordance with section 1118''.
       (c) Schoolwide Programs.--Section 1114 (20 U.S.C. 6314) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)(E), by inserting after 
     ``involvement'' the following: ``in accordance with section 
     1118''; and

[[Page 2160]]

       (2) in subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv), by inserting after 
     ``results'' the following: ``in a language the family can 
     understand''.
       (d) Targeted Assistance.--Section 1115(c)(1)(H) (20 U.S.C. 
     6315(c)(1)(H)) is amended by inserting after ``involvement'' 
     the following: ``in accordance with section 1118''.
       (e) Assessments.--Section 1116 (20 U.S.C. 6317) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) review the effectiveness of the actions and 
     activities the schools are carrying out under this part with 
     respect to the parental involvement programs described in 
     section 1118, the professional development activities 
     described in section 1119, and other activities assisted 
     under this Act;'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(4), by inserting after ``elements of 
     student performance problems'' the following: ``, that 
     addresses school problems, if any, in implementing the 
     parental involvement requirements in section 1118 and the 
     professional development requirements in section 1119,'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) annually review the effectiveness of the action or 
     activities carried out under this part by each local 
     educational agency receiving funds under this part with 
     respect to parental involvement, professional development, 
     and other activities assisted under this Act; and''; and
       (4) in subsection (d)(5)(i)--
       (A) in subclause (I), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(III) address problems, if any, in implementing the 
     parental involvement requirements described in section 1118 
     and the professional development provisions described in 
     section 1119; and''.

       (f) State Assistance.--Section 1117 (20 U.S.C. 6318) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``parental 
     involvement,'' after ``including''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(C)--
       (i) by inserting ``parents,'' after ``including''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``parental involvement programs,'' after 
     ``successful''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Parental involvement.--Each State shall collect and 
     disseminate effective parental involvement practices to local 
     educational agencies and schools. Such practices shall--
       ``(A) be based on the most current research on effective 
     parental involvement that fosters achievement to high 
     standards for all children; and
       ``(B) be geared toward lowering barriers to greater 
     participation in school planning, review, and improvement 
     experienced by parents.''.
       (g) Parental Involvement.--Section 1118 (20 U.S.C. 6319) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by inserting before the 
     semicolon the following: ``activities that will lead to 
     improved student achievement for all students'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B)(i) The Secretary is authorized to award grants to 
     local educational agencies to enable the local educational 
     agencies to supplement the implementation of the provisions 
     of this section and to allow for the expansion of other 
     recognized and proven initiatives and policies to improve 
     student achievement through the involvement of parents.
       ``(ii)(I) Each local educational agency desiring a grant 
     under this subparagraph shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(II) Each application submitted under subclause (I) shall 
     describe the activities to be undertaken using funds received 
     under this subparagraph and shall set forth the process by 
     which the local educational agency will annually evaluate the 
     effectiveness of the agency's activities in improving student 
     achievement and increasing parental involvement.
       ``(iii) Each grant under this subparagraph shall be awarded 
     for a 5-year period.
       ``(iv) The Secretary shall conduct a review of the 
     activities carried out by each local educational agency using 
     funds received under this subparagraph, to determine whether 
     the local educational agency demonstrates improvement in 
     student achievement and an increase in parental involvement.
       ``(v) The Secretary shall terminate grants to a local 
     educational agency under this subparagraph after the fourth 
     year if the Secretary determines that the evaluations 
     conducted by such agency and the reviews conducted by the 
     Secretary show no improvement in the local educational 
     agency's student achievement and no increase in such agency's 
     parental involvement.
       ``(vi) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     this subparagraph $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal 
     years, of which the Secretary may reserve not more than .20 
     percent to carry out the reviews described in clause (iv).''; 
     and
       (C) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     ``and granted under subparagraph (B)'' after ``subparagraph 
     (A)'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting before the last 
     sentence the following: ``Parents shall be notified of the 
     policy in the language most familiar to the parents.'';
       (4) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``participating parents'' 
     and inserting ``all parents of children served by the school 
     or agency, as appropriate,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) materials or training using technology to foster 
     parental involvement;'';
       (5) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Such local educational agencies and schools may use 
     information, technical assistance, and other support from the 
     parental information and resource centers to create parent 
     resource centers in schools.''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) State Review.--The State educational agency shall 
     review the local educational agency's parental involvement 
     policies and practices to determine if such policies and 
     practices meet the requirements of section 1118 and are 
     meaningful and targeted to improve home and school 
     communication, student achievement, and parental involvement 
     in school planning, review, and improvement.''.

     SEC. 5. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Purposes.--Section 2002(2) (20 U.S.C. 6602(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) incorporates training in effective practices in order 
     to encourage and offer opportunities to get parents involved 
     in their child's education in ways that will foster student 
     achievement and well-being; and
       ``(H) includes special training for teachers and 
     administrators to develop the skills necessary to work most 
     effectively with parents.''.
       (b) Authorized Activities.--Section 2102(c) (20 U.S.C. 
     6622(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (13), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (14), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) the development and dissemination of model programs 
     that teach teachers and administrators how best to work with 
     parents and how to encourage the parent's involvement in the 
     full range of parental involvement activities described in 
     section 1118.''.
       (c) State Applications.--Section 2205(b)(2) (20 U.S.C. 
     6645(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (N), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (O) as subparagraph (P); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (N) the following:
       ``(O) describe how the State will train teachers to foster 
     relationships with parents and encourage parents to become 
     collaborators with schools in their children's education; 
     and''.
       (d) State-Level Activities.--Section 2207 (20 U.S.C. 6647) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (12) and (13) as paragraphs 
     (13) and (14), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
       ``(12) providing professional development programs that 
     enable teachers, administrators, and pupil services personnel 
     to effectively communicate with and involve parents in the 
     education process to support school planning, review, 
     improvement, and classroom instruction, and to work 
     effectively with parent volunteers;''.
       (e) Local Plan and Application for Improving Teaching and 
     Learning.--Section 2208 (20 U.S.C. 6648) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting ``parents,'' after 
     ``administrators,''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (I) and (J) as 
     subparagraphs (J) and (K), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following:
       ``(I) describe the specific professional development 
     strategies that will be implemented to improve parental 
     involvement in education and how such agency will be held 
     accountable for implementing such strategies.''.
       (f) Local Allocation.--Section 2210(b)(3) (20 U.S.C. 
     6650(b)(3)) is amended--

[[Page 2161]]

       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (P) and (Q) as 
     subparagraphs (Q) and (R), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (O) the following:
       ``(P) professional development activities designed to 
     enable teachers, administrators, and pupil services personnel 
     to communicate with parents regarding student achievement on 
     assessments;''.

     SEC. 6. TECHNOLOGY FOR EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--Section 3111 (20 U.S.C. 6811) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``and by facilitating 
     mentor relationships,'' after ``by means of 
     telecommunications,'';
       (2) in paragraph (14), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (3) in paragraph (15), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) access to education technology and teachers trained 
     in how to incorporate the technology into their instruction 
     leads to improved student achievement, motivation, and school 
     attendance;
       ``(17) the use of technology in education can enhance the 
     educational opportunities schools can offer students with 
     special needs; and
       ``(18) the introduction of education technology increases 
     parental involvement, which has been shown to improve student 
     achievement.''.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--Section 3112 (20 U.S.C. 6812) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding after paragraph (12), the following:
       ``(13) development and support for technology and 
     technology programming that will enhance and facilitate 
     meaningful parental involvement.''.
       (c) National Long-Range Technology Plan.--Section 
     3121(c)(4) (20 U.S.C. 6831(c)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) increased parental involvement in schools through the 
     use of technology;''.
       (d) Federal Leadership.--Section 3122(c) (20 U.S.C. 
     6832(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (15), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (16) as paragraph (17); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (15) the following:
       ``(16) the development, demonstration, and evaluation of 
     model technology programs designed to improve parental 
     involvement; and''.
       (e) Local Uses of Funds.--Section 3134 (20 U.S.C. 6844) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) utilizing technology to develop or expand efforts to 
     connect schools and teachers with parents to promote 
     meaningful parental involvement and foster increased 
     communication about curriculum, assignments, and assessments; 
     and
       ``(8) providing support to help parents understand the 
     technology being applied in their child's education so that 
     parents are able to reinforce their child's learning.''.
       (f) Local Applications.--Section 3135 (20 U.S.C. 6845) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(D)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) a description of how parents will be informed of 
     the use of technologies so that the parents are able to 
     reinforce at home the instruction their child receives at 
     school;'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) improve parental involvement in schools;'';
       (3) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) describe how the local educational agency will 
     effectively use technology to promote parental involvement 
     and increase communication with parents.''.
       (g) National Challenge Grants.--Section 3136(c) (20 U.S.C. 
     6846(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) the project will enhance parental involvement by 
     providing parents the information needed to more fully 
     participate in their child's learning.''.

     SEC. 7. DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES.

       (a) State Applications.--Section 4112 (20 U.S.C. 7112) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, including how the 
     agency will receive input from parents regarding the use of 
     such funds'' after ``4113(b)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``, and how such review 
     will include input from parents'' after ``4115''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) a specific description of how input from parents will 
     be sought regarding the use of funds under section 
     4114(a).''.
       (b) Evaluation and Reporting.--Section 4117 (20 U.S.C. 
     7117) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) on the State's efforts to inform parents of, and 
     include parents in, violence and drug prevention efforts.''; 
     and
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (c), by striking 
     the period and inserting ``and a description of how parents 
     were informed of, and participated in, violence and drug 
     prevention efforts.''.

     SEC. 8. INNOVATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM STRATEGIES.

       (a) Definition.--Section 6003 (20 U.S.C. 7303) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``children, and (3)'' and inserting 
     ``children, (3) adopting meaningful parental involvement 
     policies and practices, and (4)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) A climate that promotes meaningful parental 
     involvement in the classroom and in site-based activities.''.
       (b) State Applications.--Section 6202(a) (20 U.S.C. 
     7332(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) provides information on the parental involvement 
     policies and practices promoted by the State.''.
       (c) Targeted Uses of Funds.--Section 6301(b) (20 U.S.C. 
     7351(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) programs to promote the meaningful involvement of 
     parents.''.
       (d) Local Applications.--Section 6303(a)(1)(A) (20 U.S.C. 
     7353(a)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting ``, including parental 
     involvement,'' before ``designed''.

     SEC. 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Definition.--Section 14101 (20 U.S.C. 8801) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (24) through (30) as 
     paragraphs (25) through (31), respectfully; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (23) the following:
       ``(24) Parental involvement.--The term `parental 
     involvement', when used with respect to a school, means--
       ``(A) the school engages parents in regular, two-way, and 
     meaningful communication;
       ``(B) parenting skills are promoted and supported at the 
     school;
       ``(C) parents play an integral role in assisting student 
     learning;
       ``(D) parents are welcome in the school;
       ``(E) parents are included in decision-making and advisory 
     committees at the school; and
       ``(F) parents are included in other activities described in 
     section 1118.''.
       (b) Parental Involvement.--Title XIV (20 U.S.C. 8801 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

                     ``PART H--PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

     ``SEC. 14901. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.

       ``(a) State Parental Involvement Plan.--In order to receive 
     Federal funding for any program authorized under this Act, a 
     State educational agency shall (as part of a consolidated 
     application, or other State plan or application submitted 
     under this Act) submit to the Secretary--
       ``(1) a description of the agency's parental involvement 
     policies, consistent with section 1118, including specific 
     details about--
       ``(A) how Federal funds will be used to implement such 
     policies; and
       ``(B) successful research-based practices in schools 
     throughout the State; and
       ``(2) a description of how such policies will be evaluated 
     with respect to increased parental involvement in the schools 
     throughout the State.
       ``(b) Parental Review of State Parental Involvement Plan.--
     Prior to making the submission described in subsection (a), a 
     State educational agency shall involve parents in the 
     development of the policies described in such subsection by--
       ``(1) providing public notice of the policies in a manner 
     and language understandable to parents;
       ``(2) providing the opportunity for parents and other 
     interested individuals to comment on the policies; and
       ``(3) including the comments received with the submission.

[[Page 2162]]

       ``(c) Language Applicability.--Each State educational 
     agency and local educational agency that is required to 
     establish a parental involvement plan or policy under a 
     program assisted under this Act shall make available, to the 
     parents of children eligible to participate in the program, 
     the plan or policy in the language most familiar to the 
     parents and in an easily understandable manner.
       ``(d) Report Cards.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each local educational agency that 
     receives assistance under this Act shall prepare and make 
     available to parents an annual report card that puts into 
     context various factors that affect student performance, such 
     as the socioeconomic status of families in the school 
     attendance area, the level of student mobility, and the 
     availability of other student support services, and includes, 
     at a minimum--
       ``(A) student achievement information as demonstrated by 
     how students within schools served by the local educational 
     agency perform on tests;
       ``(B) other measurements of student achievement;
       ``(C) teacher qualifications;
       ``(D) class size;
       ``(E) school safety;
       ``(F) dropout rates;
       ``(G) actions being taken by schools served by the local 
     educational agency to involve parents in school activities 
     and decision making; and
       ``(H) information concerning whether schools served by the 
     local educational agency have been identified for school 
     improvement, and if so, what technical assistance, supports, 
     and resources have been provided to help the schools improve 
     student achievement.
       ``(2) Student data.--Student data in each report card under 
     paragraph (1) shall contain disaggregated results for the 
     following categories:
       ``(A) Gender.
       ``(B) Racial and ethnic group.
       ``(C) Migrant status.
       ``(D) Students with disabilities, as compared with students 
     who are not disabled.
       ``(E) Economically disadvantaged students, as compared with 
     students who are not economically disadvantaged.
       ``(F) Students with limited English proficiency, as 
     compared with students who are proficient in English.
       ``(3) Format.--School report cards under this subsection 
     shall--
       ``(A) be in a format that--
       ``(i) is informative to the parents and the public;
       ``(ii) is easily understandable; and
       ``(iii) is in the language most familiar to the parents; 
     and
       ``(B) provide a clear description of statistical data.
       ``(4) Other information.--A local educational agency may 
     include in the agency's report card under this subsection any 
     other appropriate information.
       ``(5) Public dissemination.--Beginning in the 2002-2003 
     school year, the local educational agency shall publicly 
     report the information described in paragraph (1) through 
     such means as posting on the Internet, distribution to the 
     media, and through public agencies.
       ``(6) Privacy.--Information collected under this section 
     shall be collected and disseminated in a manner that protects 
     the privacy of individuals.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED:
  S. 373. A bill to provide for the professional development of 
elementary and secondary school educators; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Professional 
Development Reform Act to strengthen and improve professional 
development opportunities for teachers and administrators.
  I have long worked to improve the quality of teaching in America's 
classrooms for the simple reason that well-trained and well-prepared 
teachers and principals are central to improving the academic 
performance and achievement of students. In the 105th Congress, I 
introduced the TEACH Act to reform the way our prospective teachers are 
trained, and I was pleased that this legislation was included in the 
Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998.
  As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, ESEA, the focus shifts to increasing support 
for both new and veteran classroom teachers, as well as school 
principals.
  Research shows that professional development programs, however, too 
often consist of fragmented, one-shot workshops, at which teachers 
passively listen to experts, and lack significant opportunity for 
teacher interaction. The Department of Education recently evaluated the 
Eisenhower Professional Development program and found that the vast 
majority of professional development opportunities are not of 
sufficient duration or intensity to generate significant improvements 
in teaching. Other studies support that finding and show that such 
professional development fails to improve or even impact teaching 
practice.
  We do not expect students to learn their ``ABCs'' after one day of 
lessons, and we should not expect a one-day professional development 
workshop to yield the desired results. Indeed, the Department of 
Education found that teaching would improve if teachers experienced 
consistent, high-quality professional development.
  Moreover, a recent survey of teachers found that professional 
development is too short-term and lacks intensity. In fact, recent 
studies indicated that the majority of teachers participated in 
professional development activities from one to eight hours, or for no 
more than one day a year.
  As a consequence, only about 1 in 5 teachers felt very well prepared 
for addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency, 
those from culturally diverse backgrounds, and those with disabilities, 
or integrating educational technology into the curriculum.
  There is also widespread agreement that a good principal is the 
keystone of a good school. However, there is great concern that the 
supply of quality principals may not meet the increasing demand for 
quality school leadership. Unfortunately, the depth and quality of 
support and development programs for both new and veteran principals 
varies widely, which creates another gap in our education system.
  I am introducing legislation today which would reform professional 
development for teachers and principals.
  There is broad consensus among experts about the elements that truly 
constitute an effective professional development program. Research 
shows that effective professional development approaches are sustained, 
intensive activities that focus on deepening teachers knowledge of 
content; allow teachers to work collaboratively; provide opportunities 
for teachers to practice and reflect upon their teaching; are aligned 
with standards and embedded in the daily work of the school; and 
involve parents and other community members.
  Such high-quality professional development improves student 
achievement. Indeed, a 1998 study in California found that the more 
teachers were engaged in ongoing, curriculum-centered professional 
development, the higher their students scored on mathematics 
achievement on the state's assessment. Further, Community School 
District 2 in New York City has seen its investment in sustained, 
intensive professional development pay off with significant increases 
in student achievement. Professional development in District 2 is 
delivered in schools and classrooms and focused on system-wide 
instructional improvement, with intensive activities such as 
observation of exemplary teachers and classrooms both inside and 
outside the district, supervised practice, peer networks, and offsite 
training opportunities. I have visited District 2 and have seen this 
outstanding professional development first hand.
  My legislation builds on these successful models and the research on 
effective professional development to create a new formula program for 
high-quality professional development that is sustained, collaborative, 
content-centered, embedded in the daily work of the school, and aligned 
with standards and school reform efforts.
  To achieve this enhanced professional development, my legislation 
funds the following activities: mentoring; peer observation and 
coaching; curriculum-based content training; dedicated time for 
collaborative lesson planning; opportunities for teachers to visit 
other classrooms to model effective teaching practice; training on 
integrating technology into the curriculum, addressing the specific 
needs of diverse students, and involving parents; professional 
development networks to provide a forum for interaction and exchange of 
information

[[Page 2163]]

among teachers and administrators; as well as release time and 
compensation for mentors and substitute teachers to make these 
activities possible.
  The Professional Development Reform Act also requires partnerships 
between elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher 
education for providing training opportunities, including advanced 
content area courses and training to address teacher shortages. In 
fact, Department of Education data show that the Eisenhower 
Professional Development program activities are most effective when 
they are sponsored by institutions of higher education.
  My legislation will also provide funding for leadership training to 
encourage highly qualified individuals to become principals, and to 
develop and enhance leadership, management, parental involvement, and 
mentoring skills for principals and superintendents. Indeed, ensuring 
that our principals have the training and support to serve as 
instructional leaders is critical. Further, my legislation will provide 
funding for programs to encourage highly qualified and effective 
teachers to become mentoring teachers.
  We know that our schools with the highest percentage of poverty have 
the greatest need for professional development improvement and 
resources, and that is why my bill targets funding to these schools.
  Importantly, the Professional Development Reform Act offers resources 
but it demands results. The bill's strong accountability provisions 
require that school districts and schools which receive funding 
actually improve student performance and increase participation in 
sustained professional development in three years in order to secure 
additional funding.
  In sum, my legislation seeks to ensure that new teachers and 
principals have the support they need to be successful educators, that 
all teachers have access to high quality professional development 
regardless of the content areas they teach, and that professional 
development does not isolate teachers, but rather brings teachers 
together as part of a coordinated and comprehensive strategy aligned 
with standards.
  The time for action is now because schools must hire an estimated 2.2 
million new teachers over the next decade due to increasing 
enrollments, the retirement of approximately half of our current 
teaching force, and high attrition rates. Ensuring that teachers and 
principals have the training, assistance, and support to increase 
student achievement and sustain them throughout their careers is a 
great challenge. But we must meet and overcome this challenge if we are 
to reform education and prepare our children for the 21st Century. The 
Professional Development Reform Act, by increasing our professional 
development investment and focusing it on the kind of activities and 
opportunities for teachers and administrators that research shows is 
effective, is critical to this effort.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this essential endeavor by 
cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the 
reauthorization of the ESEA.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 373

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

     SECTION 1. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Professional Development Reform Act''.
       (b) Amendments.--Title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating part E as part F; and
       (2) by inserting after part D the following:

                   ``PART E--PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

     ``SEC. 2351. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this part are as follows:
       ``(1) To improve the academic achievement of students by 
     providing every student with a well-prepared teacher and 
     every school with an effective principal.
       ``(2) To provide every beginning teacher with structured 
     support, including a qualified and trained mentor teacher, to 
     facilitate the transition into successful teaching.
       ``(3) To ensure that every teacher is given the assistance, 
     tools, and professional development opportunities, throughout 
     the teacher's career, to help the teacher teach to the 
     highest academic standards and help students succeed.
       ``(4) To provide training to prepare and support principals 
     to serve as instructional leaders and to work with teachers 
     to create a school climate that fosters excellence in 
     teaching and learning.
       ``(5) To transform, strengthen, and improve professional 
     development from a fragmented, one-shot approach to 
     sustained, high quality, and intensive activities that--
       ``(A) are collaborative, content-centered, standards-based, 
     results-driven, and embedded in the daily work of the school;
       ``(B) allow teachers regular opportunities to practice and 
     reflect upon their teaching and learning; and
       ``(C) are responsive to teacher needs.

     ``SEC. 2352. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Professional development.--The term `professional 
     development' means effective professional development that--
       ``(A) is sustained, high quality, intensive, and 
     comprehensive;
       ``(B) is content-centered, collaborative, school-embedded, 
     tied to practice, focused on student work, supported by 
     research, and aligned with and designed to help elementary 
     school or secondary school students meet challenging State 
     content standards and challenging State student performance 
     standards;
       ``(C) includes sustained in-service activities to improve 
     elementary school or secondary school teaching in the core 
     academic subjects;
       ``(D) includes sustained activities to encourage and 
     provide instruction on how to work with and involve parents 
     to foster student achievement, to address the specific needs 
     of diverse students, including limited English proficient 
     students, individuals with disabilities, and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals, to integrate technology into the 
     curriculum, to improve understanding and the use of student 
     assessments, and to improve classroom management skills; and
       ``(E) includes sustained onsite training opportunities that 
     provide active learning and observational opportunities for 
     elementary school or secondary school teachers to model 
     effective practice.
       ``(2) Administrator.--The term `administrator' means a 
     school principal or superintendent.
       ``(3) Beginning teacher.--The term `beginning teacher' 
     means an elementary school or secondary school teacher who 
     has taught for 3 years or less.
       ``(4) Mentoring.--The term `mentoring' means structured 
     guidance and induction activities that provide ongoing and 
     regular support to beginning teachers.

     ``SEC. 2353. STATE ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

       ``From the amount appropriated under section 2361 that is 
     not reserved under section 2360 for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall make an allotment to each State educational 
     agency having an application approved under section 2354 in 
     an amount that bears the same relation to the amount 
     appropriated under section 2361 that is not reserved under 
     section 2360 for the fiscal year as the amount the State 
     educational agency received under part A of title I for the 
     fiscal year bears to the amount received under such part by 
     all States having applications so approved for the fiscal 
     year.

     ``SEC. 2354. STATE APPLICATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS.

       ``Each State educational agency desiring an allotment under 
     section 2353 for a fiscal year shall submit to the Secretary 
     an application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied 
     by such information as the Secretary may require. The 
     application shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the strategy to be used to implement 
     State activities described in section 2355;
       ``(2) a description of how the State educational agency 
     will assist local educational agencies in transforming, 
     strengthening, and improving professional development;
       ``(3) a description of how the activities described in 
     section 2355 and the assistance described in paragraph (2) 
     will assist the State in achieving the State's goals for 
     comprehensive education reform, will help all students meet 
     challenging State content standards and challenging State 
     student performance standards, and will help all teachers 
     meet State standards for teaching excellence;
       ``(4) a description of the manner in which the State 
     educational agency will ensure, consistent with the State's 
     comprehensive education reform plan policies, or statutes, 
     that funds provided under this part will be effectively 
     coordinated with all Federal and State professional 
     development funds and activities, including funds and 
     activities under this title, titles I, III, VI, and VII of 
     this Act, title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
     section 307 of the Department of Education Appropriations 
     Act, 1999, and the Goals 2000: Educate America Act; and
       ``(5) a description of--
       ``(A) how the State educational agency will collect and 
     utilize data for evaluation of the

[[Page 2164]]

     activities carried out by local educational agencies under 
     this part, including collecting baseline data in order to 
     measure changes in the professional development opportunities 
     provided to teachers and measure improvements in teaching 
     practice and student performance; and
       ``(B) the specific performance measures the State 
     educational agency will use to determine the need for 
     technical assistance described in section 2355(3) and to make 
     a continuation of funding determination under section 2358.

     ``SEC. 2355. STATE ACTIVITIES.

       ``From the amount allotted to a State educational agency 
     under section 2353 for a fiscal year, the State educational 
     agency--
       ``(1) shall reserve not more than 5 percent to support, 
     through grants made on a competitive basis to local 
     educational agencies or consortia of local educational 
     agencies, or through contracts with entities that are 
     educational nonprofit organizations, professional 
     associations of administrators, institutions of higher 
     education, or other groups or institutions that are 
     responsive to the needs of administrators, or partnerships of 
     those entities, programs that provide effective leadership 
     training--
       ``(A) to encourage highly qualified individuals to become 
     administrators; and
       ``(B) to develop and enhance instructional leadership, 
     school management, parent involvement, mentoring, and staff 
     evaluation skills of administrators;
       ``(2) shall reserve 3 percent to support, through grants 
     made on a competitive basis to local educational agencies or 
     consortia of local educational agencies, or through contracts 
     with entities that are educational nonprofit organizations, 
     institutions of higher education, or other groups or 
     institutions that are responsive to the needs of teachers, or 
     partnerships of those entities, programs that provide 
     effective leadership and mentor training--
       ``(A) to encourage highly qualified and effective teachers 
     to become mentor teachers; and
       ``(B) to develop and enhance the mentoring and peer 
     coaching skills of such qualified and effective teachers;
       ``(3) may reserve not more than 2.5 percent for providing 
     technical assistance and dissemination of information to 
     schools and local educational agencies to help the schools 
     and local educational agencies implement effective 
     professional development activities that are aligned with 
     challenging State content standards, challenging State 
     student performance standards, and State standards for 
     teaching excellence; and
       ``(4) may reserve not more than 2.5 percent for evaluating 
     the effectiveness of the professional development provided by 
     schools and local educational agencies under this part in 
     improving teaching practice, increasing the academic 
     achievement of students, and helping students meet 
     challenging State content standards and challenging State 
     student performance standards, and for administrative costs.

     ``SEC. 2356. LOCAL PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Allocations to Local Educational Agencies.--Each 
     State educational agency receiving an allotment under section 
     2353 for a fiscal year shall make an allocation from the 
     allotted funds that are not reserved under section 2355 for 
     the fiscal year to each local educational agency in the State 
     that is eligible to receive assistance under part A of title 
     I for the fiscal year in an amount that bears the same 
     relation to the allotted funds that are not reserved under 
     section 2355 as the amount such local educational agency 
     received under such part for the fiscal year bears to the 
     amount all such local educational agencies in the State 
     received under such part for the fiscal year.
       ``(b) Application and Accountability Provisions.--Each 
     local educational agency desiring a grant under this part 
     shall submit an application to the State educational agency 
     at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the State educational agency may require. The 
     application shall include--
       ``(1) a description of how the local educational agency 
     plans--
       ``(A) to work with schools served by the local educational 
     agency that are described in section 2357 to carry out the 
     local activities described in section 2357; and
       ``(B) to meet the purposes described in section 2351;
       ``(2) a description of the manner in which the local 
     educational agency will ensure that--
       ``(A) the grant funds will be used--
       ``(i) to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills 
     necessary, including subject matter and teaching methods, to 
     teach students to meet the proficient or advanced level of 
     performance on challenging State content standards and 
     challenging State student performance standards, and to carry 
     out any local education reform plans or policies; and
       ``(ii) to help teachers meet standards for teaching 
     excellence; and
       ``(B) funds provided under this part will be effectively 
     coordinated with all Federal, State, and local professional 
     development funds and activities;
       ``(3) a description of how the professional development and 
     mentoring activities to be carried out through the grant will 
     address the ongoing professional development and mentoring of 
     teachers and administrators;
       ``(4) a description of the local educational agency's 
     strategy for--
       ``(A) selecting and training highly qualified mentor 
     teachers (utilizing teachers certified by the National Board 
     for Professional Teaching Standards and teachers granted 
     advanced certification as a master or mentor teacher by the 
     State, where possible), for matching such mentor teachers 
     (from the beginning teachers' teaching disciplines) with the 
     beginning teachers; and
       ``(B) providing release time for the teachers (utilizing 
     highly qualified substitute teachers and high quality retired 
     teachers, where possible);
       ``(5) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will provide training to enable the teachers to address the 
     needs of students with disabilities, students with limited 
     English proficiency, and other students with special needs;
       ``(6) a description of how the professional development and 
     mentoring activities will have a substantial, measurable, and 
     positive impact on student achievement and how the activities 
     will be used as part of a broader strategy to eliminate the 
     achievement gap that separates low-income and minority 
     students from other students;
       ``(7) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will provide training to teachers to enable the teachers to 
     work with parents, involve parents in their child's 
     education, and encourage parents to become collaborators with 
     schools in promoting their child's education;
       ``(8) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will collect and analyze data on the quality and impact of 
     activities carried out in schools under this part, and the 
     specific performance measures the local educational agency 
     will use in the local educational agency's evaluation 
     process;
       ``(9) a description of the local educational agency's plan 
     to develop and carry out the activities described in section 
     2357 with the extensive participation of administrators, 
     teachers, parents, and the partnering institution described 
     in section 2357(4); and
       ``(10) a description of the local educational agency's 
     strategy to ensure that there is schoolwide participation in 
     the schools to be served.

     ``SEC. 2357. LOCAL ACTIVITIES.

       ``Each local educational agency receiving an allocation 
     under this part shall use the allocation to carry out 
     professional development activities in schools served by the 
     local educational agency that have the highest percentages of 
     students living in poverty, as measured in accordance with 
     section 1113(a)(5), including--
       ``(1) mentoring, team teaching, and peer observation and 
     coaching;
       ``(2) dedicated time for collaborative lesson planning and 
     curriculum development meetings;
       ``(3) consultation with exemplary teachers and short-term 
     and long-term visits to other classrooms and schools;
       ``(4) partnering with institutions of higher education and, 
     where appropriate, educational nonprofit organizations, for 
     joint efforts in designing the sustained professional 
     development opportunities, for providing advanced content 
     area courses and other assistance to improve the content 
     knowledge and pedagogical practices of teachers, and 
     providing training to address areas of teacher and 
     administrator shortages, as appropriate;
       ``(5) providing release time (including compensation for 
     mentor teachers and substitute teachers as necessary) for 
     activities described in this section; and
       ``(6) developing professional development networks, through 
     Internet links, where available, that--
       ``(A) provide a forum for interaction among teachers and 
     administrators; and
       ``(B) allow the exchange of information regarding advances 
     in content and pedagogy.

     ``SEC. 2358. CONTINUATION OF FUNDING.

       ``Each local educational agency or school that receives 
     funding under this part shall be eligible to continue to 
     receive the funding after the third year the local 
     educational agency or school receives the funding if the 
     local educational agency or school demonstrates that the 
     local educational agency or school has--
       ``(1) improved student performance;
       ``(2) increased participation in sustained professional 
     development and mentoring programs;
       ``(3) reduced the number of out-of-field placements and the 
     number of teachers who are not certified or licensed;
       ``(4) reduced the beginning teacher attrition rate for the 
     local educational agency or school; and
       ``(5) increased partnerships and linkages with institutions 
     of higher education.

     ``SEC. 2359. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

       ``Funds made available under this part shall be used to 
     supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local 
     funds expended to carry out activities relating to teacher 
     programs or professional development.

     ``SEC. 2360. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Reservation.--The Secretary shall reserve not more 
     than 5 percent of the amount

[[Page 2165]]

     appropriated under section 2361 for each fiscal year for the 
     national evaluation described in subsection (b) and the 
     dissemination activities described in subsection (c).
       ``(b) National Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for an 
     annual, independent, national evaluation of the activities 
     assisted under this part not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of the Professional Development Reform Act. 
     The evaluation shall include information on the impact of the 
     activities assisted under this part on student performance.
       ``(2) State reports.--Each State receiving an allotment 
     under this part shall submit to the Secretary the results of 
     the evaluation described under section 2355(4).
       ``(3) Report to congress.--The Secretary annually shall 
     submit to Congress a report that describes the information in 
     the national evaluation and the State reports.
       ``(c) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall collect and 
     broadly disseminate information (including creating and 
     maintaining a national database or clearinghouse) to help 
     States, local educational agencies, schools, teachers, and 
     institutions of higher education learn about effective 
     professional development policies, practices, and programs, 
     data projections of teacher and administrator supply and 
     demand, and available teaching and administrator 
     opportunities.

     ``SEC. 2361. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 
     2006.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Cochran):




  S. 374. A bill to authorize the operation by the National Guard of 
counterdrug schools, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to draw my colleagues' attention 
to the critical role our National Guard plays in efforts to rid our 
country of illegal drugs--a role that I believe should be expanded. The 
Guard operates several regional support schools around the nation, that 
facilitate valuable training for state and local law enforcement 
agencies. These schools are dedicated to teaching counterdrug-related 
skills to State and local law enforcement agencies and community based 
organizations. These counterdrug schools provide training to thousands 
of people each year that would otherwise not be able to receive it for 
a lack of resources.
  Operating under the authority of Title 32, United States Code, 
Section 112, the National Guard actively supports local, state, and 
federal law enforcement agencies and community based antidrug 
coalitions. As a part of this effort, the National Guard currently 
operates four schools that provide unique and invaluable assistance to 
those individuals at the forefront of our country's drug interdiction 
and demand reduction effort. These schools, located in Pennsylvania, 
Florida, Mississippi, and California, have proved their effectiveness 
in developing training and educational opportunities for local law 
enforcement officials--opportunities that would not otherwise exist.
  I note, however, that the vagaries in funding and geographical 
distribution of the existing schools have limited the effectiveness of 
these training programs. Our national drug problem is not a coastal 
problem, but affects all communities throughout the United States. I 
believe we need a more centrally located school to provide more 
accessible training in the Midwest and Northwest United States.
  In addition to the need for a fifth school in the upper-Midwest, we 
should also consider the current budgeting process for these schools. I 
believe a critical element in achieving quality training for law 
enforcement and being cost-effective at the same time must include a 
unified National Guard Counterdrug schools budget which fully funds the 
schools. Rather than being pieced together from the National Guard 
State budgets, Defense Department support, and Congressional line 
items, there should be a discrete item for these National Guard schools 
so Congress can have a clearer idea of the mission, the funding, and 
the accomplishments of these schools.
  Today, joining with my colleagues Senator Harkin and Senator Cochran, 
I am introducing legislation that will accomplish these objectives. 
This legislation clarifies the authorities of the National Guard Bureau 
to operate the four existing counterdrug schools. In addition, it would 
establish one additional school in Iowa to serve law enforcement 
agencies in the Midwest and Northwest United States. It will establish 
a separate line of funding for these counterdrug schools with an 
authorized funding level of $25 million for FY 2002.
  I want to take a moment to say something additional about the fifth 
school (Midwest Counterdrug Training Center, MCTC, to be established at 
Camp Dodge, located in Johnston, Iowa. Designed to fulfill a need for 
training in the Midwest and Northwest United States, it would be 
primarily supported by the Iowa National Guard, and serve as a training 
center for State and local law enforcement agencies in the Midwest and 
Northwest United States. Camp Dodge has much of the physical 
infrastructure necessary for the school, including housing and being 
the hub for a state-wide fiber optic network that allows for live, two 
way video and audio communication between Camp Dodge and every National 
Guard Armory and school district in the State of Iowa.
  I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
legislation, which I now send to the desk and ask that it be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 374

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

     SECTION 1. NATIONAL GUARD COUNTERDRUG SCHOOLS.

       (a) Authority To Operate.--Under such regulations as the 
     Secretary of Defense may prescribe, the Chief of the National 
     Guard Bureau may establish and operate not more than five 
     schools (to be known generally as ``National Guard 
     counterdrug schools'') for the provision by the National 
     Guard of training in drug interdiction and counter-drug 
     activities, and drug demand reduction activities, to the 
     personnel of the following:
       (1) Federal agencies.
       (2) State and local law enforcement agencies.
       (3) Community-based organizations engaged in such 
     activities.
       (4) Other non-Federal governmental and private entities and 
     organizations engaged in such activities.
       (b) Counterdrug Schools Specified.--The National Guard 
     counterdrug schools operated under the authority in 
     subsection (a) are as follows:
       (1) The National Interagency Civil-Military Institute 
     (NICI), San Luis Obispo, California.
       (2) The Multi-Jurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force 
     Training (MCTFT), St. Petersburg, Florida.
       (3) The Midwest Counterdrug Training Center (MCTC), to be 
     established in Johnston, Iowa.
       (4) The Regional Counterdrug Training Academy (RCTA), 
     Meridian, Mississippi.
       (5) The Northeast Regional Counterdrug Training Center 
     (NCTC), Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.
       (c) Use of National Guard Personnel.--(1) To the extent 
     provided for in the State drug interdiction and counter-drug 
     activities plan of a State in which a National Guard 
     counterdrug school is located, personnel of the National 
     Guard of that State who are ordered to perform full-time 
     National Guard duty authorized under section 112(b) of that 
     title 32, United States Code, may provide training referred 
     to in subsection (a) at that school.
       (2) In this subsection, the term ``State drug interdiction 
     and counter-drug activities plan'', in the case of a State, 
     means the current plan submitted by the Governor of the State 
     to the Secretary of Defense under section 112 of title 32, 
     United States Code.
       (d) Annual Reports on Activities.--(1) Not later than 
     February 1, 2002, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the activities 
     of the National Guard counterdrug schools.
       (2) Each report under paragraph (1) shall set forth the 
     following:
       (A) The amount made available for each National Guard 
     counterdrug school during the fiscal year ending in the year 
     preceding the year in which such report is submitted.
       (B) A description of the activities of each National Guard 
     counterdrug school during the year preceding the year in 
     which such report is submitted.
       (3) The report under paragraph (1) in 2002 shall set forth, 
     in addition to the matters described in paragraph (2), a 
     description of the activities relating to the establishment 
     of the Midwest Counterdrug Training Center in Johnston, Iowa.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense 
     for the National Guard for fiscal year 2002,

[[Page 2166]]

     $25,000,000 for purposes of the National Guard counterdrug 
     schools in that fiscal year.
       (2) The amount authorized to be appropriated by paragraph 
     (1) is in addition to any other amount authorized to be 
     appropriated for the Department of Defense for the National 
     Guard for fiscal year 2002.
       (f) Availability of Funds.--(1) Of the amount authorized to 
     be appropriated by subsection (e)(1)--
       (A) $4,000,000 shall be available for the National 
     Interagency Civil-Military Institute, San Luis Obispo, 
     California;
       (B) $8,000,000 shall be available for the Multi-
     Jurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training, St. 
     Petersburg, Florida;
       (C) $3,000,000 shall be available for the Midwest 
     Counterdrug Training Center, Johnston, Iowa;
       (D) $5,000,000 shall be available for the Regional 
     Counterdrug Training Academy, Meridian, Mississippi; and
       (E) $5,000,000 shall be available for the Northeast 
     Regional Counterdrug Training Center, Fort Indiantown Gap, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (2) Amounts available under paragraph (1) shall remain 
     available until expended.
       (g) Funding for Fiscal Years After Fiscal Year 2002.--(1) 
     The budget of the President that is submitted to Congress 
     under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for any 
     fiscal year after fiscal year 2002 shall set forth as a 
     separate budget item the amount requested for such fiscal 
     year for the National Guard counterdrug schools.
       (2) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (A) the amount authorized to appropriated for the National 
     Guard counterdrug schools for any fiscal year after fiscal 
     year 2002 should not be less than the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated for those schools for fiscal year 2002 by 
     subsection (e)(1), in constant fiscal year 2002 dollars; and
       (B) the amount made available to each National Guard 
     counterdrug school for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2002 
     should not be less than the amount made available for such 
     school for fiscal year 2002 by subsection (f)(1), in constant 
     fiscal year 2002 dollars, except that the amount made 
     available for the Midwest Counterdrug Training School should 
     not be less than $5,000,000, in constant fiscal year 2002 
     dollars.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills that I 
believe will help address a critical need for Iowa state and local law 
enforcement.
  These bills, which would provide needed training assistance in 
narcotics as well as overall law enforcement, are based on my 
conversations with Iowa law enforcement officials last summer.
  The National Guard Counter Drug Schools Act, which I am cosponsoring 
with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, would create a new 
counterdrug training school at Camp Dodge in Johnston, Iowa that law 
enforcement can use for the specialized training on drug 
investigations, including those cases that involve methamphetamine.
  The National Guard has four of these centers in Florida, 
Pennsylvania, California and Mississippi. But, Senator Grassley and I 
recognized the need for one in the Midwest--to help state and local law 
enforcement in their efforts to reduce the supply and demand of 
methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs.
  The second one, which I am cosponsoring with Senator Hutchinson from 
Arkansas, would focus on rural law enforcement--and would provide new 
training and assistance resources for small town sheriff and police 
departments.
  Right now, rural law enforcement officers in Iowa and across the 
country have limited resources where they can get continued training 
for general investigations, the latest in forensics technology and 
technical assistance.
  One place where many of them go is the National Center for Rural Law 
Enforcement in Little Rock, Arkansas. But, these small departments need 
something that's closer to home.
  The Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act would bring the Center 
closer to these officers by expanding the center into branches in eight 
regions across the country.
  I believe these two bills will help ensure that rural law enforcement 
agencies receive the training and assistance they need to make their 
communities safer.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, 
        Mr. Feingold, Mr. Reed, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 375. A bill to provide assistance to East Timor to facilitate the 
transition of East Timor to an independent nation, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Chafee, Leahy, 
Harkin, Feingold, Reed, Jeffords, and Kerry, I am introducing 
legislation to help facilitate East Timor's transition to independence. 
Congressman Lantos, Congressman Chris Smith, and others have introduced 
identical legislation in the House of Representatives.
  In August 1999, after almost three decades of unrest under Indonesian 
rule, the people of East Timor voted overwhelmingly in favor of 
independence.
  They did so at great personal risk. Anti-independence militia groups 
killed hundreds, hoping to intimidate and retaliate against those 
supporting independence. The militias also destroyed or severely 
damaged seventy percent of East Timor's infrastructure. Government 
services and public security were severely undermined.
  An international effort, led by Australia and including the United 
States, brought much-needed stability to East Timor.
  Now, under the United Nation's Transitional Authority, stability is 
taking hold again in East Timor, and normal life is slowly returning.
  In coming months, looking to America and other democratic nations as 
an example, East Timor's leaders will hold a constitutional convention 
to decide which form of democratic government to adopt. It is a process 
that reminds us of our own Constitutional Convention and would make our 
Founding Fathers proud.
  Late next year, after choosing a form of democratic government and 
electing leaders, East Timor is expected to declare its independence as 
the UN draws down. A new, democratic nation will take its rightful 
place in the world.
  This is a success story. It is a great success story. But it is far 
from over.
  East Timor remains one of the poorest places in Asia. Only 20 percent 
of its population is literate. The annual per capita gross national 
produce is $340.
  The people of East Timor need and deserve our help. The extraordinary 
physical and moral courage they demonstrated over the years is 
impressive. The great faith in the democratic process they showed by 
voting for independence under the barrel of a gun must not go 
unrewarded.
  This bill is our chance to help them, and help now. Its purpose is to 
put U.S. governmental programs and resources in place now and to enable 
U.S. government agencies to focus on the imminent reality of an 
independent East Timor. If we wait until East Timor declares its 
independence before we do the preliminary work, we will lose crucial 
time and do a disservice to both the United States and to East Timor.
  Specifically, this bill lays the groundwork for establishing a firm 
bilateral and multilateral assistance structure.
  It authorizes $25 million in bilateral assistance, $2 million for a 
Peace Corps presence and $1 million for a scholarship fund for East 
Timorese students to study in the United States.
  It encourages the President, the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency and other agencies to put 
in place now the tools and programs to create an equitable trade and 
investment relationship.
  It requires the State Department to establish an accredited mission 
to East Timor co-incident with independence.
  And it authorizes the provision of excess defense articles and 
international military education and training, after the President 
certifies that these articles and training are in the interests of the 
United States and will help promote human rights in East Timor and the 
professionalization of East Timor's armed services.
  The people of East Timor have chosen democracy. The United States has 
a golden opportunity to help them create their new democratic nation. 
But we must prepare for that day now. We must not miss this rare 
opportunity to help.
  I ask that a copy of the bill appear in the Record, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.

[[Page 2167]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 375

       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 ``East Timor Transition to 
     Independence Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On August 30, 1999, the East Timorese people voted 
     overwhelmingly in favor of independence from Indonesia. Anti-
     independence militias, with the support of the Indonesian 
     military, attempted to prevent then retaliated against this 
     vote by launching a campaign of terror and violence, 
     displacing 500,000 people and murdering at least 1,000 
     people.
       (2) The violent campaign devastated East Timor's 
     infrastructure, destroyed or severely damaged 60 to 80 
     percent of public and private property, and resulted in the 
     collapse of virtually all vestiges of government, public 
     services and public security.
       (3) The Australian-led International Force for East Timor 
     (INTERFET) entered East Timor in September 1999 and 
     successfully restored order. On October 25, 1999, the United 
     Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET) 
     began to provide overall administration of East Timor, guide 
     the people of East Timor in the establishment of a new 
     democratic government, and maintain security and order.
       (4) UNTAET and the East Timorese leadership currently 
     anticipate that East Timor will become an independent nation 
     as early as late 2001.
       (5) East Timor is one of the poorest places in Asia. A 
     large percentage of the population live below the poverty 
     line, only 20 percent of East Timor's population is literate, 
     most of East Timor's people remain unemployed, the annual per 
     capita Gross National Product is $340, and life expectancy is 
     only 56 years.
       (6) The World Bank and the United Nations have estimated 
     that it will require $300,000,000 in development assistance 
     over the next three years to meet East Timor's basic 
     development needs.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO SUPPORT FOR EAST TIMOR.

       It is the sense of Congress that the United States should--
       (1) facilitate East Timor's transition to independence, 
     support formation of broad-based democracy in East Timor, 
     help lay the groundwork for East Timor's economic recovery, 
     and strengthen East Timor's security;
       (2) help ensure that the nature and pace of the economic 
     transition in East Timor is consistent with the needs and 
     priorities of the East Timorese people, that East Timor 
     develops a strong and independent economic infrastructure, 
     and that the incomes of the East Timorese people rise 
     accordingly;
       (3) begin to lay the groundwork, prior to East Timor's 
     independence, for an equitable bilateral trade and investment 
     relationship;
       (4)(A) officially open a diplomatic mission to East Timor 
     as soon as possible;
       (B) recognize East Timor, and establish diplomatic 
     relations with East Timor, upon its independence; and
       (C) ensure that a fully functioning, fully staffed, 
     adequately resourced, and securely maintained United States 
     diplomatic mission is accredited to East Timor upon its 
     independence;
       (5) support efforts by the United Nations and East Timor to 
     ensure justice and accountability related to past atrocities 
     in East Timor through--
       (A) United Nations investigations;
       (B) development of East Timor's judicial system, including 
     appropriate technical assistance to East Timor from the 
     Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     and the Drug Enforcement Administration;
       (C) the possible establishment of an international tribunal 
     for East Timor; and
       (D) sharing with the United Nations Transitional 
     Administration for East Timor (UNTAET) and East Timorese 
     investigators any unclassified information relevant to past 
     atrocities in East Timor gathered by the United States 
     Government; and
       (6)(A) as an interim step, support observer status for an 
     official delegation from East Timor to observe and 
     participate, as appropriate, in all deliberations of the 
     Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) group, the 
     Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and other 
     international institutions; and
       (B) after East Timor achieves independence, support full 
     membership for East Timor in these and other international 
     institutions, as appropriate.

     SEC. 4. BILATERAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Authority.--The President, acting through the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development, is authorized to--
       (1) support the development of civil society, including 
     nongovernmental organizations in East Timor;
       (2) promote the development of an independent news media;
       (3) support job creation, including support for small 
     business and microenterprise programs, environmental 
     protection, sustainable development, development of East 
     Timor's health care infrastructure, educational programs, and 
     programs strengthening the role of women in society;
       (4) promote reconciliation, conflict resolution, and 
     prevention of further conflict with respect to East Timor, 
     including establishing accountability for past gross human 
     rights violations;
       (5) support the voluntary and safe repatriation and 
     reintegration of refugees into East Timor; and
       (6) support political party development, voter education, 
     voter registration, and other activities in support of free 
     and fair elections in East Timor.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the President to carry out this section $30,000,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.
       (2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.

     SEC. 5. MULTILATERAL ASSISTANCE.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United 
     States executive director at each international financial 
     institution to which the United States is a member to use the 
     voice, vote, and influence of the United States to support 
     economic and democratic development in East Timor.

     SEC. 6. PEACE CORPS ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Authority.--The Director of the Peace Corps is 
     authorized to--
       (1) provide English language and other technical training 
     for individuals in East Timor as well as other activities 
     which promote education, economic development, and economic 
     self-sufficiency; and
       (2) quickly address immediate assistance needs in East 
     Timor using the Peace Corps Crisis Corps, to the extent 
     practicable.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Peace Corps to carry out this section $2,000,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
       (2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.

     SEC. 7. TRADE AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) OPIC.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the President should initiate negotiations with the 
     United Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor 
     (UNTAET), the National Council of East Timor, and the 
     government of East Timor (after independence for East 
     Timor)--
       (1) to apply to East Timor the existing agreement between 
     the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and Indonesia; or
       (2) to enter into a new agreement authorizing the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation to carry out programs with 
     respect to East Timor,

     in order to expand United States investment in East Timor, 
     emphasizing partnerships with local East Timorese 
     enterprises.
       (b) Trade and Development Agency.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the Trade and Development 
     Agency is authorized to carry out projects in East Timor 
     under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2421).
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--
       (A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Trade and Development Agency to carry out this subsection 
     $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 
     2004.
       (B) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under subparagraph (A) are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.
       (c) Export-Import Bank.--The Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States shall expand its activities in connection with 
     exports to East Timor.

     SEC. 8. GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President should encourage the United Nations 
     Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET), in close 
     consultation with the National Council of East Timor, to seek 
     to become eligible for duty-free treatment under title V of 
     the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.; relating to 
     generalized system of preferences).
       (b) Technical Assistance.--The United States Trade 
     Representative and the Commissioner of the United States 
     Customs Service are authorized to provide technical 
     assistance to UNTAET, the National Council of East Timor, and 
     the government of East Timor (after independence for East 
     Timor) in order to assist East Timor to become eligible for 
     duty-free treatment under title V of the Trade Act of 1974.

     SEC. 9. BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY.

       It is the sense of Congress that the President should seek 
     to enter into a bilateral investment treaty with the United 
     Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET), 
     in close consultation with the National Council of East 
     Timor, in order to establish a more stable legal framework 
     for United States investment in East Timor.

     SEC. 10. SCHOLARSHIPS FOR EAST TIMORESE STUDENTS.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary of State--
       (1) is authorized to carry out an East Timorese scholarship 
     program under the authorities of the United States 
     Information

[[Page 2168]]

     and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, the Mutual Educational 
     and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Reorganization Plan Number 
     2 of 1977, and the National Endowment for Democracy Act; and
       (2) shall make every effort to identify and provide 
     scholarships and other support to East Timorese students 
     interested in pursuing undergraduate and graduate studies at 
     institutions of higher education in the United States.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of State, $1,000,000 for 
     the fiscal year 2002 and $1,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 
     to carry out subsection (a).

     SEC. 11. PLAN FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC FACILITIES IN 
                   EAST TIMOR.

       (a) Development of Detailed Plan.--The Secretary of State 
     shall develop a detailed plan for the official establishment 
     of a United States diplomatic mission to East Timor, with a 
     view to--
       (1) officially open a fully functioning, fully staffed, 
     adequately resourced, and securely maintained diplomatic 
     mission in East Timor as soon as possible;
       (2) recognize East Timor, and establish diplomatic 
     relations with East Timor, upon its independence; and
       (3) ensure that a fully functioning, fully staffed, 
     adequately resourced, and securely maintained diplomatic 
     mission is accredited to East Timor upon its independence.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Initial report.--Not later than three months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State 
     shall submit to the Committee on International Relations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate a report that contains the detailed 
     plan described in subsection (a), including a timetable for 
     the official opening of a facility in Dili, East Timor, the 
     personnel requirements for the mission, the estimated costs 
     for establishing the facility, and its security requirements.
       (2) Subsequent reports.--Beginning six months after the 
     submission of the initial report under paragraph (1), and 
     every six months thereafter until January 1, 2004, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit to the committees specified 
     in that paragraph a report on the status of the 
     implementation of the detailed plan described in subsection 
     (a), including any revisions to the plan (including its 
     timetable, costs, or requirements) that have been made during 
     the period covered by the report.
       (3) Form of report.--Each report submitted under this 
     subsection shall be in unclassified form, with a classified 
     annex as necessary.

     SEC. 12. SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR EAST TIMOR.

       (a) Authorization.--Beginning on the date on which the 
     President transmits to the Congress a certification described 
     in subsection (b), the President is authorized--
       (1) to transfer excess defense articles under section 516 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) to 
     East Timor in accordance with such section; and
       (2) to provide military education and training under 
     chapter 5 of part II of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.) for 
     the armed forces of East Timor in accordance with such 
     chapter.
       (b) Certification.--A certification described in this 
     subsection is a certification that--
       (1) East Timor has established an independent armed forces; 
     and
       (2) the assistance proposed to be provided pursuant to 
     subsection (a)--
       (A) is in the national security interests of the United 
     States; and
       (B) will promote both human rights in East Timor and the 
     professionalization of the armed forces of East Timor.
       (c) Study and Report.--
       (1) Study.--The President shall conduct a study to 
     determine--
       (A) the extent to which East Timor's security needs can be 
     met by the transfer of excess defense articles under section 
     516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
       (B) the extent to which international military education 
     and training (IMET) assistance will enhance professionalism 
     of the armed forces of East Timor, provide training in human 
     rights, and promote respect for human rights and humanitarian 
     law; and
       (C) the terms and conditions under which such defense 
     articles or training, as appropriate, should be provided.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 month after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit a report to 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives setting forth the findings of 
     the study conducted under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 13. AUTHORITY FOR RADIO BROADCASTING.

       The Broadcasting Board of Governors shall further the 
     communication of information and ideas through the increased 
     use of audio broadcasting to East Timor to ensure that radio 
     broadcasting to that country serves as a consistently 
     reliable and authoritative source of accurate, objective, and 
     comprehensive news.

     SEC. 14. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than three months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and every six months thereafter 
     until January 1, 2004, the Secretary of State, in 
     coordination with the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, the United States Trade Representative, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation, the Director of the Trade and Development 
     Agency, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Director of the 
     Peace Corps, shall prepare and transmit to the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report 
     that contains the information described in subsection (b).
       (b) Information.--The report required by subsection (a) 
     shall include--
       (1) developments in East Timor's political and economic 
     situation in the period covered by the report, including an 
     evaluation of any elections occurring in East Timor and the 
     refugee reintegration process in East Timor;
       (2)(A) in the initial report, a 3-year plan for United 
     States foreign assistance to East Timor in accordance with 
     section 4, prepared by the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development, which outlines the 
     goals for United States foreign assistance to East Timor 
     during the 3-year period; and
       (B) in each subsequent report, a description in detail of 
     the expenditure of United States bilateral foreign assistance 
     during the period covered by each such report;
       (3) a description of the activities undertaken in East 
     Timor by the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the Asian Development Bank, and other 
     international financial institutions, and an evaluation of 
     the effectiveness of these activities;
       (4) an assessment of--
       (A) the status of United States trade and investment 
     relations with East Timor, including a detailed analysis of 
     any trade and investment-related activity supported by the 
     Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import 
     Bank of the United States, and the Trade and Development 
     Agency during the period of time since the previous report; 
     and
       (B) the status of any negotiations with the United Nations 
     Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET) or East 
     Timor to facilitate the operation of the United States trade 
     agencies in East Timor;
       (5) the nature and extent of United States-East Timor 
     cultural, education, scientific, and academic exchanges, both 
     official and unofficial, and any Peace Corps activities;
       (6) a comprehensive study and report on local agriculture 
     in East Timor, emerging opportunities for producing, 
     processing, and exporting indigenous agricultural products, 
     and recommendations for appropriate technical assistance from 
     the United States; and
       (7) statistical data drawn from other sources on economic 
     growth, health, education, and distribution of resources in 
     East Timor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 376. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to modify 
for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 the procedures relating to 
assistance for countries not cooperating in United States counterdrug 
efforts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am sending to the desk a bill for 
myself and Mr. DeWine to reform the current certification requirement 
for international drug control. As many members know, I have been a 
strong supporter of the drug certification process. I remain one. Of 
late, however, we have seen a lot of criticism of the process. Some of 
this has been by foreign countries and some here at home. Rather than 
answer all of these criticisms, I want to take a few moments to address 
what I believe have been misconceptions about the process.
  The first point I want to make is to remind my colleagues why 
Congress required certification in the first place. It arose because we 
believed that doing something here and overseas about the drug problem 
was in the national interests. The public agreed. I might add the 
public has not changed its mind. I don't believe that we ought to do so 
either.
  Most of the drugs available in the United States today come from 
overseas. They are produced overseas and smuggled to this country. That 
production is illegal. It is illegal in international law. It is 
illegal in the domestic laws of all the countries where these drugs are 
produced. It is illegal to smuggle the drugs. Here and abroad. The 
consequences of that smuggling--illegal drugs on our streets--are felt 
in homes and neighborhoods and schools all across this country.

[[Page 2169]]

  I continue to believe that it is in our interest to stop that 
production and flow. I own that we have an obligation to expect 
countries to abide by international law, bilateral agreements, and 
their own legal codes on drug production and trafficking. I believe 
that it is not just a quirk of U.S. interest to expect that we and 
others commit ourselves to stopping this illegal production and trade. 
In fact, I believe that we have a moral obligation to stop these 
activities. In order to do that, we need a clear, knowable process that 
holds ourselves and other countries to account for what we do to help 
stop this production and trade.
  Drug dealers do more harm to this country every year than all the 
terrorists put together have done in the past 10 years. Let me ask my 
colleagues, would you seriously offer to ignore or suspend the 
requirements that we have put in place that hold others to an 
international standard of conduct on stopping terrorism? Human rights? 
I think not. But that is one of the things being proposed for how to 
deal with international drug certification. I do not propose that we be 
any less committed to stopping illegal drugs internationally than we 
are when other important concerns are involved, and I ask my colleagues 
to support this view.
  I also would point out that this is no time to carve out special 
exemptions for any one country or region. We remain collectively 
responsible to act responsibly on this issue. That means every one of 
us.
  My second point on why we have the certification process is to note 
congressional intent. We passed the law 15 years ago to make stopping 
illegal drug production and transit a national priority. I do not 
believe that most members of Congress nor the majority of the U.S. 
public believe that it is time to change that. Drug trafficking and 
threats from major criminal organizations have grown worse not better. 
Our third largest foreign assistance program is to help Colombia deal 
with problems arising from trafficking and the thugs that promote it. 
Is it really time to say we no longer regard international drug 
trafficking as a national priority? I happen to believe that it is not.
  I would also note that we have had repeated demonstrations in the 
past several years of the effectiveness of certification in securing 
improved international cooperation. Administration officials have 
testified repeatedly as to its effectiveness and utility. It has also 
given us needed leverage in specific cases to make important progress. 
I for one am unwilling to undo a process that has paid such dividends.
  On the other hand, I am aware that the certification process has 
raised a number of concerns here and abroad in the past few years. 
While I do not think that the solution in response to these concerns is 
to suspend the process, I do have a suggestion that I believe will 
help. Hence the bill Senator DeWine and I send to the desk.
  Briefly what this proposal does is to simplify the current 
methodology. At present, we have a three-step certification process: 
the President can certify a country as fully cooperating, decertify a 
country as failing to cooperate, or decertify with a national interest 
waiver. This aspect of the process has been the main source of 
contention. It has led some to believe that it forces the 
Administration to be less than candid about some countries that might 
be on the list. It has also complicated our relations with important 
allies.
  What this proposal does is to go to a decertification only standard. 
This is similar to what we do with terrorism and human rights. In other 
words, the default position is that all countries are doing the right 
thing on meeting international drug control standards. The only 
countries singled out for consideration are those whose actions are 
clearly outside a reasonable assessment of accountability as defined in 
current law.
  Our bill simplifies a complex process and focuses attention on the 
bad guys. It gives the President more flexibility. In doing so, we keep 
accountability. We keep a useful process in place. We avoid unnecessary 
complications with friends and allies doing the responsible thing. We 
maintain necessary reporting on international efforts. We keep our eye 
on a critical issue.
  The provision also sunsets in three years unless Congress acts to 
keep it. That means we have a chance to drive it around the block, kick 
the tires, and see if it's a lemon or not.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill and I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 376

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

     SECTION 1. THREE-YEAR MODIFICATION OF PROCEDURES RELATING TO 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES NOT COOPERATING WITH 
                   UNITED STATES COUNTERDRUG EFFORTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 8 of part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 490A. LIMITATIONS DURING FISCAL YEARS 2002, 2003, AND 
                   2004 ON ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES NOT 
                   COOPERATING WITH UNITED STATES COUNTERDRUG 
                   EFFORTS.

       ``(a) Annual Identification of Countries Not Cooperating.--
     Not later than November 1 of 2001, 2002, and 2003, the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a report identifying each country, if any, that the 
     President proposes to be subject to the provisions of 
     subsection (f) in the fiscal year in which the country is so 
     identified by reason that such country--
       ``(1) is not cooperating fully with the United States in 
     achieving full compliance with the goals and objectives of 
     the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in 
     Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances;
       ``(2) is not taking adequate steps on its own to achieve 
     full compliance with the goals and objectives of the 
     Convention; or
       ``(3) is not taking adequate steps to achieve full 
     compliance with the goals and objectives of a bilateral 
     agreement with the United States on illicit drug control.
       ``(b) Countries Subject to Withholding of Bilateral 
     Assistance and Opposition to Multilateral Assistance.--
       ``(1) Identification.--Not later than March 1 of 2002, 
     2003, and 2004, the President shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report identifying each country, if 
     any, that shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 
     (f) during the fiscal year in which the country is so 
     identified under this subsection by reason of its 
     identification in the most recent report under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(2) Limitation on countries identified.--A country may be 
     identified in a report under paragraph (1) only if the 
     country is also identified in the most recent report under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(c) Considerations Regarding Cooperation.--In determining 
     whether or not a country is to be identified in a report 
     under subsection (a) or (b), the President shall consider the 
     extent to which the country--
       ``(1) has met the goals and objectives of the United 
     Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs 
     and Psychotropic Substances, including action on such matters 
     as illicit cultivation, production, distribution, sale, 
     transport, financing, money laundering, asset seizure, 
     extradition, mutual legal assistance, law enforcement and 
     transit cooperation, precursor chemical control, and demand 
     reduction;
       ``(2) has accomplished the goals described in the 
     applicable bilateral narcotics control agreement with the 
     United States or a multilateral agreement;
       ``(3) has taken legal and law enforcement measures to 
     prevent and punish public corruption, especially by senior 
     government officials, that facilitates the production, 
     processing, or shipment of narcotic and psychotropic drugs 
     and other controlled substances, or that discourages the 
     investigation or prosecution of such acts; and
       ``(4) in the case of a country that is a producer of licit 
     opium--
       ``(A) maintains licit production and stockpiles of opium at 
     levels no higher than those consistent with licit market 
     demand; and
       ``(B) has taken adequate steps to prevent significant 
     diversion of its licit cultivation and production of opium 
     into illicit markets and to prevent illicit cultivation and 
     production of opium.
       ``(d) Omission for National Security Reasons.--
       ``(1) In general.--The President may omit from 
     identification in a report under subsection (b) a country 
     identified in the most recent report under subsection (a) if 
     the President determines that the vital national security 
     interests of the United States require that the country be so 
     omitted.
       ``(2) Notice to congress.--If the President omits a country 
     under paragraph (1) from a report under subsection (b), the 
     President shall include in the report under that subsection--

[[Page 2170]]

       ``(A) a full and complete description of the vital national 
     security interests of the United States placed at risk if the 
     country is not so omitted; and
       ``(B) a statement weighing the risk described in 
     subparagraph (A) against the risk posed to the vital national 
     security interests of the United States by reason of the 
     failure of the country to cooperate fully with the United 
     States in combatting narcotics or to take adequate steps to 
     combat narcotics on its own.
       ``(e) Congressional Action.--
       ``(1) In general.--The provisions of subsection (f) shall 
     apply to a country in a fiscal year if Congress enacts a 
     joint resolution, not later than March 30 of the fiscal year, 
     providing that such provisions shall apply to the country in 
     the fiscal year.
       ``(2) Covered countries.--A joint resolution referred to in 
     paragraph (1) may apply to a country for a fiscal year only 
     if the country was not identified in the report in the fiscal 
     year under subsection (b).
       ``(3) Senate procedures.--Any joint resolution under this 
     subsection shall be considered in the Senate in accordance 
     with the provisions of section 601(b) of the International 
     Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 
     (Public Law 94-329; 90 Stat. 765), except that for purposes 
     of that section the certification referred to in section 
     601(a)(2)(B) of that Act shall be the applicable report of 
     the President under subsection (b) of this section.
       ``(f) Withholding of Bilateral Assistance and Opposition to 
     Multilateral Assistance.--
       ``(1) Bilateral assistance.--Commencing on March 1 of a 
     fiscal year in which a country is identified in a report 
     under subsection (b), or March 31 in the case of a country 
     covered by a joint resolution enacted in accordance with 
     subsection (e), fifty percent of the United States assistance 
     allocated to the country for the fiscal year in the report 
     required by section 653 shall be withheld from obligation and 
     expenditure.
       ``(2) Multilateral assistance.--Commencing on March 1 of a 
     year in which a country is identified in a report under 
     subsection (b), or March 31 in the case of a country covered 
     by a joint resolution enacted in accordance with subsection 
     (e), the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United 
     States Executive Director of each multilateral development 
     bank to vote, on and after that date, against any loan or 
     other utilization of the funds of such institution for the 
     country.
       ``(3) Multilateral development bank defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term `multilateral development bank' means 
     the following:
       ``(A) The International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development.
       ``(B) The International Development Association.
       ``(C) The Inter-American Development Bank.
       ``(D) The Asian Development Bank.
       ``(E) The African Development Bank.
       ``(F) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
       ``(g) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means 
     the following:
       ``(1) The Committees on Foreign Relations and 
     Appropriations of the Senate.
       ``(2) The Committees on International Relations and 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.''.
       (b) Relationship to Current Certification Process.--Section 
     490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Limitation on Applicability.--This section shall not 
     apply during fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004. For 
     limitations on assistance during those fiscal years for 
     countries not cooperating with United States counterdrug 
     efforts see section 490A.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 489(a)(3)(A) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291h(a)(3)(A)) is 
     amended by inserting after ``under section 490(h)'' the 
     following ``or, in 2002, 2003, and 2004, as otherwise 
     determined by the President for purposes of this section''.

     SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF MAJOR DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATIONS IN 
                   INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL STRATEGY 
                   REPORT.

       Section 489 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2291h), as amended by this Act, is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding after the flush matter at 
     the end of paragraph (7) the following new paragraph (8):
       ``(8) The identity of each organization determined by the 
     President to be a major drug trafficking organization, 
     including a description of the activities of such 
     organization during the 2 fiscal years preceding the fiscal 
     year of the report.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Major drug trafficking organization.--The term `major 
     drug trafficking organization' means any organization engaged 
     in substantial amounts of illicit activity to cultivate, 
     produce, manufacture, distribute, sell, finance, or transport 
     narcotic drugs, controlled substances, or listed chemicals, 
     engages in money laundering or proceeds from such activities, 
     or otherwise endeavor or attempt to do so, or to assist, 
     abet, conspire, or collude with others to do so.
       ``(2) Narcotic drug; controlled substance; listed 
     chemical.--The terms `narcotic drug', `controlled substance', 
     and `listed chemical' have the meanings given those terms in 
     section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Fitzgerald):
  S. 378. A bill to redesignate the Federal building located at 3348 
South Kedzie Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Paul Simon Chicago 
Job Corps Center''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today Senator Fitzgerald and I are 
introducing legislation naming the Job Corps Center in Chicago, 
Illinois, for our former colleague, Senator Paul Simon.
  During his 12 years in the Senate, Paul Simon was a stalwart champion 
of the Job Corps program and the work it does in connecting 
disadvantaged young people to the job market. He led the fight for the 
job corps as chairman of the authorizing subcommittee of jurisdiction 
and also through requests to the Senate Appropriations Committee. 
During most of this time, Chicago was the last remaining large city 
without a Job Corps center, despite the community's strong interest in 
the program. Securing a charter for a Job Corps center in Chicago was 
one of Paul Simon's top priorities in the latter half of his service in 
the Senate.
  Working within the established process for establishing new centers, 
Paul Simon pressed ahead with Illinois allies like former U.S. 
Representative John Porter, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, and the Job 
Corps community to ensure that Chicago's application met all program 
specifications and that the funds for expansion would be there when 
Chicago's charter was approved. These years of effort succeeded in 
meeting that goal. Eventually funds were appropriated for expansion of 
the Job Corps program, and Chicago's Job Corps center now is open and 
serving the Chicago community and, most importantly, its young people.
  Naming the Chicago Job Corps Center for Paul Simon would be 
especially fitting for three reasons: Job training and employment 
policy are central elements of the legacy of his service in Congress; 
he has long been recognized as a diligent and effective champion of the 
Job Corps' mission; and he spent years to fulfill the goal of opening a 
Job Corps center in Chicago. Other centers in the Job Corps network 
have been named for individuals, and this designation would be 
particularly fitting for the Chicago center, a facility Paul Simon 
worked tirelessly to create.
  Paul Simon was clearly one of the Senate's most respected voices. 
This legislation would honor his service and his commitment to youth 
and job training. It is a small but very appropriate way to recognize 
his leadership. I invite my colleagues to join Senator Fitzgerald and 
me in honoring Senator Paul Simon through this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Cleland, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kohl, Ms. 
        Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. McCain, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 379. A bill to establish the National Commission on the 
Modernization of Federal Elections conduct a study of Federal voting 
procedures and election administration, to establish the Federal 
Election Modernization Grant Program to provide grants to States and 
localities for the modernization of voting procedures and election 
administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators 
Schumer and Brownback as an original cosponsor on the Federal Election 
Modernization Act of 2001. It has been approximately three months since 
Americans cast their vote for President, and for many, there remains a 
degree of uneasiness about the whole process. Many Americans who voted 
or tried to vote

[[Page 2171]]

feel disenfranchised. They believe their votes didn't count and their 
voices weren't heard.
  We can be thankful that we are past the days of poll taxes, literacy 
tests, and other discriminatory practices that kept voters away from 
the polls. But if there is even an inadvertent flaw in the design or 
administration of our voting systems that prevents Americans from 
having their votes counted, it is our utmost responsibility to ensure 
that we remedy the situation.
  There is simply no excuse for the most technologically savvy nation 
in the world to be using voting equipment that is 30 years old. And it 
is disturbing, to say the least, that much of the oldest and least 
reliable equipment is found in the poorest counties across the country. 
Often, people of color make up the majority of the population in those 
counties. None of us should ever again be in the position of having to 
explain to urban, minority voters why a portion of their votes didn't 
get counted, while their white suburban neighbors, using better 
equipment, could rest assured that there were no voting irregularities 
in their precincts that would have caused their votes to be discarded.
  If we can't promise all of our citizens that their votes will count 
equally, then all of the past work this nation has done to guarantee 
the right to vote to women, people of color and the poor will have been 
squandered.
  That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues on this bill. The bill 
creates a blue ribbon commission that will study the way we administer 
Federal elections and recommend ways to modernize the process. The bill 
also establishes a five-year, $2.5 billion grant program to help 
upgrade state and local election systems.
  Both of these elements are critical if we are going to have real 
reform of our election processes. The commission, which will include 
among its advisory members a representative from the US Commission on 
Civil Rights, will study methods of voting and counting votes, methods 
of ensuring accessibility to the polls and to voting equipment, and 
methods of identifying registered voters. Its mission will be to 
provide Congress with recommendations to better ensure that all of our 
citizens can exercise their fundamental right to vote and have that 
vote count.
  The second piece of this legislation provides states with a portion 
of the estimated $3-9 billion they will need to upgrade their voting 
systems. This bill provides $2.5 billion over five years in Federal 
matching grants to States and localities to buy new voting equipment, 
overhaul election administration technology, train poll workers, or 
implement any other recommendation of the Commission. States and 
localities will maintain their independence in administering their 
elections, as states are not required to carry out the Commission's 
recommendations. But more and more states are sure to apply for grants 
to finance the reforms they wish to adopt.
  The Federal government must provide states with at least a portion of 
the resources they will need to overhaul their voting systems. State 
officials, from governors to county supervisors, face competing demands 
for funds every day, as they decide how to pay their teachers, pave 
their roads, and remove their garbage. When it comes to paying for 
Federal elections, buying the newest, most reliable technology may be 
far down on their list of priorities. That is why the Federal matching 
grant program is so important. It gives the incentive, as well as the 
resources, to make improvements that are necessary to assure the 
integrity of our elections.
  If there is a silver lining to the chaos that followed the election 
in November, it is that Congress is now fully aware that we must repair 
our election system nationwide. This bill is critical to that effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 381. A bill to amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 
voting Act, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief act of 1940, and 
title 10, United States Code, to maximize the access of uniformed 
services voters and recently separated uniformed services voters to the 
polls, to ensure that each vote cast by such a voter is duly counted, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mrs. President, the bad taste left in everyone's mouth 
after the Florida election debacle is certainly strongest in those who 
had their franchise questioned while, incredibly, they were away 
serving our country. Military men and women are forced to give up some 
opportunities during their military service that the rest of us can 
still enjoy. They surrender some of the freedom of speech, privacy and 
personnel liberty that we take for granted. But losing their right to 
vote is never something they agreed to face, and never something we 
should allow them to face.
  The bill I am introducing today with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, 
the Military Voter Support Act, enhances the voting ability of absentee 
military voters in six key ways. This bill will help us ensure that we 
will not see the repeat of campaign lawyers scrutinizing military 
ballots in a partisan attempt to silence their voice.
  I know that I was not the only one who felt outrage over this. My 
office received a flood of calls and letters from Colorado citizens 
equally upset. I hope this bill proves to our uniformed voters that we 
not only value their service, we value their voice, and we value their 
right to vote.
  The language applies to service members, their spouses, and voting 
age dependents who are necessarily absentee with them.
  The bill prohibits a state from disqualifying a ballot based upon 
lack of postmark or witness signature alone--this was the basis for 
most absentee ballot challenges in Florida. Technical faults beyond the 
control of the voter should not endanger their ballot.
  The bill secures the voting residence of a military voter as they 
travel on orders. It prevents a repeat of the 1997 Texas lawsuit 
challenging future intent of residency.
  It will allow polling places to be operated on military installations 
to serve military voters and others at the discretion of the 
appropriate service Secretary. The law against this was revived and 
enforced by the Clinton Administration for the 2000 elections.
  There is a Catch-22 for military voters who are discharged and move 
before an election but after the residency deadline. They cannot vote 
through the military absentee ballot system. Yet sometimes they are not 
able to fulfill deadlines to establish residency in a State. This bill 
allows them to use the proper discharge forms as a residency waiver and 
vote in person at their new polling site.
  Given the technologies available to us, it should be possible for the 
military to devise and run an efficient and reliable electronic voting 
program. The bill calls for a demonstration program during the 2002 
elections of a possible electronic voting system for the 2004 
elections.
  After each election the Pentagon Federal Voting Assistance Program 
makes recommendations to each state on ways to improve the voting 
ability of absentee voters by state statute changes. This bill brings 
more attention to bear on these improvements--and hopefully generates 
more state legislature interest--by requiring the states to report on 
their implementation of these suggestions to the Secretary of Defense. 
I believe this mild requirement upon a state will raise the profile of 
these fixes, and facilitate in-depth discussion and study by the 
states. And that will, in turn, only serve to improve military absentee 
voting.
  I sincerely hope that military members understand that we in the 
Congress are as outraged as they are about the problems they 
experienced in voting. This bill is a way to attack those problems. 
With it, I hope the 2002 election and every one following is a far 
better demonstration of our democracy and the value we place on the 
right to vote.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Collins, 
        Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Enzi):

[[Page 2172]]

  S. 382. A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic 
information with respect to health insurance; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Genetic 
Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act. I am delighted 
to be joined by Senators Frist, Jeffords, Collins, DeWine, and Enzi as 
original cosponsors of this bill, which provides strong protection to 
all Americans against the unfair and improper use of genetic 
information for insurance purposes.
  Similar language passed the Senate in the last Congress as part of 
the Patients' Bill of Rights, and as an amendment to the FY2001 Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations bill by a vote of 58 to 40. The only 
substantive difference between this year's legislation and last year's 
is the inclusion of a safe harbor provision to prevent conflict with 
the new HHS medical confidentiality regulations.
  This bill ensures that people cannot be denied insurance coverage on 
the basis of genetic information, cannot be dropped from coverage on 
the basis of genetic information, cannot be charged exorbitant premiums 
based on genetic information, and cannot be discriminated against for 
requesting or receiving genetic services.
  The bill also ensures that insurance companies cannot release a 
person's genetic information without their prior consent, and cannot 
carve out covered services because of an inherited genetic disorder. 
Finally, we included safe harbor language to prevent conflict with the 
new privacy regulations published in December by the Department of 
Health and Human Services.
  Scientists are finding genetic links to a whole host of diseases such 
as breast cancer and Huntington's disease--in fact, there are now tests 
for over 450 disorders including Alzheimer's, cystic fibrosis, 
Parkinson's, glaucoma, and kidney and colon cancer. Last June America 
learned that scientists have completed their mapping of the human gene. 
This was a remarkable and historic event that opens the door to new 
scientific breakthroughs that may well help lead us one day to the 
cause and cure for many of these diseases.
  Unfortunately, this remarkable news has the potential to become a 
dangerous tool. As the old adage goes, ``knowledge is power'' and an 
insurance company could use genetic information to deny insurance to an 
individual because they know that the person is predisposed to a 
particular disease or health problem.
  Today in America, we know that an estimated 15 million people are 
affected by over 4,000 currently known genetic disorders. And while we 
cannot yet prevent the diseases that genetic testing can help us find, 
we can give carriers of these mutated genes the information they need 
to take extra precautions to protect their health and that of their 
loved ones.
  It is important to remember that while genetic testing is helpful as 
an informational tool, it still remains an inexact science. Prediction 
does not mean certainty--in the case of the Alzheimer's gene, for 
example, there is less than a 35 percent chance that a patient who 
tests positive for the mutated gene will actually develop the disease. 
And yet, that person should not have to worry about their health 
insurance coverage?
  For instance, when it comes to breast cancer, we know that early 
detection can often mean the difference between life and death. We also 
know that women who inherit mutated forms of either of two genes 
related to breast cancer--BRCA1 or BRCA2 have an 85 percent risk of 
developing the disease. So, should a woman test positive, she is more 
likely to take measures such as regular mammograms and self-
examinations that can detect cancer early--thereby giving herself a 
fighting chance.
  But at the end of the day, all of this means nothing if people are 
afraid to take advantage of genetic testing. And people are afraid that 
the trade-off for gaining an edge in the battle against disease could 
be losing health insurance--or higher premiums. That's just plain 
wrong. We need every advantage we can get when it comes to breast 
cancer and other diseases, and that's why we need this bill.
  The bill we are offering will address these concerns and will allow 
our health care system to catch up to the tremendous health care 
advances of the past few years. It makes no sense to be on the cutting 
edge of medicine but remain in the dark ages when it comes to genetic 
discrimination.
  Anyone who has heard me speak on this issue before has heard me tell 
of the story of Bonnie Lee Tucker, a constituent whose situation is so 
compelling that it bears repeating. Indeed, Bonnie Lee puts a face and 
a name to the very problem I am trying to address here with this bill.
  Nine women in Bonnie Lee's immediate family have been diagnosed with 
breast cancer. And Bonnie Lee herself is a breast cancer survivor. So 
you can imagine that Bonnie Lee is very worried about her daughter, and 
would like more than anything to have the BRCA test for breast cancer. 
But she hasn't because she is frightened that having this test could 
ruin her daughter's chances of ever obtaining insurance in the future.
  Bonnie Lee Tucker is not alone. Across this country there are mothers 
and fathers who are caught in a grip of fear for their children--fear 
that they may have passed along a disease that, without early detection 
and treatment could kill their child and fear that if a genetic test 
detects a mutated gene they will have ruined their children's chance of 
obtaining insurance further down the line.
  This bill will put an end to discriminatory insurance practices based 
on genetic testing and allow patients the freedom to access vital 
information about their health--and I hope my colleagues will join us 
in supporting it.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the critical issue 
of genetic discrimination and to once again proudly join my colleagues, 
Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, and DeWine, in introducing the 
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 2001. 
This progressive, forward-looking legislation, which we have developed 
and pushed over the past several years, will provide patients with real 
protections against the threat of genetic discrimination in health 
insurance.
  This week, researchers will, for the first time, publish the complete 
human genome map and sequence. As a physician and researcher, I applaud 
the completion of this work, and recognize that, although much has been 
done, much more remains before we may have a complete understanding of 
the human gene and its role in many diseases.
  Over the past several years, I have closely followed the progress of 
the research into the human gene, aware of the prospect that it has to 
radically alter the practice of medicine, but also concerned by its 
potential for harm. The past generation has witnessed dramatic progress 
in this area--and I am aware of the great differences in medicine 
between the time when my father was visiting patients' homes with his 
black doctor's bag and my own experiences in heart and lung 
transplantation. But our increasing knowledge of the human genome 
represents an opportunity for revolutionary advances in medical 
diagnoses and treatment. Having access to these secrets of the human 
gene may open doors to an entirely new way of practicing medicine over 
the coming decades, by producing drugs designed for specific genes and 
genetically engineered organs for use in organ transplants, as well as 
enhancing the ability of preventive care based in large part on genetic 
testing.
  We have already identified genes that are associated with an 
increased risk of diseases such as breast cancer, colon cancer and 
Alzheimer's dementia. In the past several weeks, in fact, researchers 
announced the discovery of a gene linked with type 1, or juvenile, 
diabetes, noting that, although the gene may not be the sole cause of 
the disease, targeting the gene, may help prevent its onset. As science 
moves forward, researchers will continue to learn more about links 
between genes

[[Page 2173]]

and the risk of future disease. And, as more is learned in these 
fields, physicians will be able to better treat their patients against 
the risk of future diseases by prescribing preventive measures based on 
an individual's genetic tests.
  However, as important as these advances are, there exists a threat to 
our ability to realize their full potential. If, as has been found to 
be the case, patients fear retribution for carrying ``bad'' genes and 
refuse to be tested, then much of the fruits of these labors will have 
been in vain. As more individuals fear discrimination in health 
insurance through denial of coverage or costly premiums, they will be 
more likely to refuse genetic testing. For example, as I noted when we 
first introduced this legislation two years ago, almost one-third of 
women offered a test for breast cancer risk at the National Institutes 
of Health declined, citing concerns about health insurance 
discrimination.
  Often here in the United States Senate, we are asked to pass 
legislation in response to past or ongoing problems. But the 
legislation we are introducing today gives us a great opportunity to 
avoid this, to pass forward-thinking legislation that will prevent a 
problem, rather than be forced to revisit this issue in a few years to 
attempt to remedy a problem.
  Particularly in the fields of biomedical research, where scientific 
progress moves at a rate much quicker than public policy debate and 
legislation, we are often forced to confront issues after the fact. But 
although we know that the fear of health insurance discrimination based 
upon one's genetic test results is already present in society, we have 
an opportunity through this legislation to calm that fear and to 
prevent such discrimination from ever taking place. But let no one 
misunderstand me. While this legislation is a chance to prevent what 
might happen, our window of opportunity is rapidly shortening. The 
every-escalating speed of genetic discovery demands that Congress move 
to prohibit discrimination against healthy individuals who may have a 
genetic predisposition to disease.
  The bill that I introduce today with Senators Snowe and Jeffords does 
just that. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health 
Insurance Act of 2001 prohibits group health plans or health insurance 
issuers from adjusting premiums based on predictive genetic information 
regarding an individual. It prohibits issuers in the individual 
insurance market from using predictive genetic information to deny 
coverage or set premium rates. It prohibits insurers from even asking 
an individual for predictive genetic information or requiring that 
person to undergo genetic testing. And it makes certain that insurers 
establish and maintain appropriate safeguards for the confidentiality 
of predictive genetic information as well as provide patients a 
description of those procedures in place to safeguard their predictive 
genetic information.
  Over the past several years, Congress has invested great amounts in 
biomedical research, through the push to double the budget of the 
National Institutes of Health and other initiatives. The underlying 
goal in these endeavors has been to see patients benefit from our 
investments and fully utilize these medical advancements to improve 
their health. The deciphering of the human genome presents an 
unparalleled opportunity to more towards this goal of improving 
patients' health, but this will not be possible unless individuals are 
willing to be tested. Patients must feel safe from repercussions based 
on their genetic profile. The prohibition of genetic discrimination in 
insurance will remove the greatest barrier to testing and thus further 
accelerate our scientific progress.
  Patients must not forgo genetic testing because they fear they may be 
discriminated against in insurance. We have the opportunity--we have 
the duty--to dispel the threat of discrimination based on an 
individual's genetic heritage, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to enact this legislation this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 383. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction from gross income for home care and adult day and respite 
care expenses of individual taxpayers with respect to a dependent of 
the taxpayer who suffers from Alzheimer's disease or related organic 
brain disorders; to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 384. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the 
dependent care credit refundable; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, long-term care is an issue that continues 
to tug at Congress and this country. In 1997 close to $117 billion was 
spent on long-term care--almost 12 percent of total U.S. health care 
expenditures. And it is estimated that those in need of long-term care 
will double by 2025, up from the 9 million using these vital services 
today.
  The appropriate care for an individual should be an issue that is 
made by that individual and their loved ones. For many people, 
remaining at home is their choice. It allows them to remain with their 
loved ones in familiar surroundings. But we all know the truth is that 
in many cases it comes down to the financial realities of the family. 
We need to do more to assist these people and their families so that 
they really do have a choice.
  Toward that end I am introducing a bill that provides a tax credit 
for families caring for a relative who suffers from Alzheimer's 
disease. When I first came to Congress over 20 years ago, not a single 
piece of legislation devoted to Alzheimer's disease had even been 
introduced. We have come a long way since then, as today 
``Alzheimer's'' is a household word. It is also the most expensive 
uninsured illness in America.
  Alzheimer's treatment is estimated to cost $100 billion each year. 
And according to the Alzheimer's Association it costs businesses in 
this country more than $33 billion a year due to caregiver absenteeism. 
Sadly, the number of those affected by this disease is rising and will 
continue to rise dramatically, from 4 million today to over 14 million 
by the middle of the century. As staggering as these numbers are, they 
pale in comparison to the emotional costs this disease places on the 
family.
  The first bill I am introducing today would allow families to deduct 
the cost of home care and adult day and respite care provided to a 
dependent suffering from Alzheimer's disease. This bill is important 
because we need to, as a country, help lessen the financial and 
emotional cost of Alzheimer's by providing some relief to Alzheimer's 
patients and their families.
  The second bill I am introducing today will strengthen the dependent 
care tax credit and restore Congress' original intent to provide the 
greatest benefit of the tax credit to low-income taxpayers. This bill 
expands the dependent care tax credit, makes it applicable respite care 
expenses, and makes it refundable.
  In 1976, the dependent care tax credit was created to help low- and 
moderate-income families alleviate the burden of employment-related 
dependent care. We have changed the DCTC since it was created 25 years 
ago and in fact, in the 1985 Tax Reform Act we indexed all the basic 
provision of the tax code that determine tax liability except for DCTC. 
We need to make the credit relevant by updating it to reflect today's 
world.
  As more and more women enter the workforce combined with the aging of 
our population, we are continuing to see an increased need for both 
child and elder care. Expenses incurred for this care can place a large 
burden on a family's finances. The cost of full time child care can 
range from $4,000 to $10,000. The cost of nursing home care is more 
than of $40,000 a year. Managing these costs is difficult for many 
families, but it is exceptionally burdensome for those in lower income 
brackets.
  My legislation will do that by indexing the credit to inflation and 
making it refundable so that those who do not reach the tax thresholds 
will still receive assistance. It also raises the DCTC sliding scale 
from 30 to 50 percent of work-related dependent care expenditures for 
families earing $15,000 or

[[Page 2174]]

less. The scale would then be reduced by 1 percentage point for each 
additional $1,000 more of income, down to a credit of 20 percent for 
person earning $45,000 or more.
  In order to assist those who care for loved ones at home, the bill 
also expands the definition of dependent care to include respite care, 
thereby offering relief from this additional expense. A respite care 
credit would be allowed for up to $1,200 for one qualifying dependent 
care and $2,400 for two qualifying dependents.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these two bills that 
will provide assistance to families that wish to provide long term care 
to their loved ones at home.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 385. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to remove a 
limitation on the expansion of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training 
Corps, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
improve our existing laws regarding the Junior Reserve Officers' 
Training Corps programs, more commonly known as JROTC. Established by 
Congress in 1916, Junior ROTC has demonstrated over the decades that it 
works. Junior ROTC is an elective high school course taught by retired 
military personnel at selected private and public high schools in the 
United States and its territories. It is also taught abroad through the 
Department of Defense Dependents School System. The main goal of JROTC 
is to motivate and develop young people. In order to accomplish this 
goal, the program combines classroom instruction and extracurricular 
activities oriented on attaining an awareness of the rights, 
responsibilities, and privileges of citizenship; developing the 
student's sense of personal responsibility; building life skills; and 
providing leadership opportunities.
  As we are all aware, President Bush recently placed our Nation's 
youth at the top of his agenda. In his forward to the ``No Child Left 
Behind'' Education Reform Plan, the President stated that ``[the] 
mission is to build the mind and character of every child, from every 
background.'' There is no existing education program that accomplishes 
exactly this goal better than JROTC. What students study in Junior ROTC 
is not primarily found in textbooks. What is learned by students 
enrolled in JROTC is not at the disposal of students and schools 
without the JROTC programs. As former Commandant of the Marine Corps, 
General Charles Krulak, summarized in a March 19, 1999 letter to me, 
``as we seek to identify and develop young men and women of character, 
this program does it all.''
  Widely recognized studies have praised JROTC as having a dramatic 
positive impact in high school education. In fact, one report noted 
that JROTC cadets boast a better class attendance rate, a lower number 
of disciplinary infractions, and a higher number of graduates. The 
report also stated that ``Cadets performed better than the overall 
school population in every area that is routinely measured by 
educators, including: academic performance, grade point average, the 
Scholastic Aptitude Test, and the American College Test.'' It comes as 
no surprise that schools districts throughout the United States are 
clamoring to establish JROTC units at hundreds of high schools.
  While the primary purpose of JROTC is to develop good citizens, there 
are, in fact, tangible benefits to our Nation's Armed Services. 
Statistics demonstrate that over 40 percent of students who graduate 
from the JROTC program choose some form of military service. Without a 
doubt, this fact proves conclusively that good citizens choose to serve 
their country.
  The JROTC program's contribution to our Nation's schools, communities 
and Armed Forces is no less than remarkable in conveying a sense of 
service, patriotism, leadership communication skills, team work, and 
self-esteem. After JROTC and advancing into their futures, young men 
and women carry such virtues into America's society while serving as a 
bridge between the military and civil society at a time when the two 
have tended to diverge. The dividends of this cannot be overstated.
  Soon we will be unable to expand the proven and praised Junior 
Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs. By law, the JROTC program is 
limited to having 3,500 units for schools throughout the United States. 
Each of our military services have limits to the number of units they 
may establish, and the Marine Corps has already reached its 
limitations. Without changing existing law, thousands of high schools 
will never have the opportunity to reap the benefits of the JROTC 
program. Furthermore, some Services have encountered difficulty 
recruiting retired Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers to fill 
instructor positions at certain high schools, especially in inner-city 
and rural schools. These staffing difficulties compromise the ability 
to establish these especially critical new units.
  The legislation that I am introducing today is straightforward and 
simple. It seeks to repeal limitations on the number of Junior Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps units and opens the door to the many retired 
Guard and Reserve Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers who have 
expressed an interest in serving as JROTC instructors, but because of 
the existing law are unable to do so.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Every Member in 
Congress has a stake in assuring its unfettered enactment.
  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. 385

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF JUNIOR RESERVE 
                   OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS UNITS.

       Section 2031(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the second sentence.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE EMPLOYMENT OF 
                   RETIRED NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL AS 
                   JROTC ADMINISTRATORS AND INSTRUCTORS.

       Section 2031(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``regular or reserve component'' after ``as 
     administrators and instructors in the program, retired'' in 
     the matter preceding paragraph (1).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself, and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 386. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study 
the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic 
District in the city of Paterson, in Passaic County, New Jersey, as a 
unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to recognize the historical significance of the Great Falls area in 
Paterson, New Jersey. I am joined by my colleagues from New Jersey, 
Senator Corzine, and pleased to announce that companion legislation has 
already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman 
Bill Pascrell.
  Paterson is known as America's first industrialized city. Alexander 
Hamilton founded Paterson in 1792 as a mercantile private-public 
partnership, using the powerful falls to power industry. He built a 
laboratory, and established the Society for the Establishment of Useful 
Manufactures which actively promoted the textiles industry. Textiles 
were a large part of the development of industry in Paterson, once 
known as the Silk City, and regarded as the center of the textile 
industry for many years.
  New and developing industries located to Paterson and contributed to 
the growth of the city. New immigrants, arriving at nearby Ellis 
Island, settled in Paterson, and provided the workforce necessary for 
this newly industrialized city to thrive.
  Rich in history, the Paterson Great Falls is also endowed with 
natural beauty. The Great Falls is an island of beauty in a sea of 
urban development.

[[Page 2175]]

The Great Falls is the second largest waterfall on the East Coast, and 
attracts visitors from within and outside of New Jersey.
  Paterson Great Falls is also an educational tool for New Jersey's 
children. Students young and old travel to Paterson Great Falls to 
witness its natural splendor, to learn about the industrial revolution, 
and the pioneers who helped build our Nation.
  This area is truly a valuable asset to the State of New Jersey, and I 
feel it is only proper to share this wonderful resource with the entire 
nation by establishing the Paterson Great Falls as a unit of the 
National Park Service, NPS.
  The Federal Government has already acknowledged the significance of 
Great Falls, by designating the area a national historic landmark. 
Establishing it as a unit of the NPS would increase the presence Great 
Falls, and the NPS would provide staff and tours, and allow for a 
better, more educational interpretation of the site.
  This designation is warranted. Our Nation's urban history is 
currently under-represented by the NPS. Not many sites tell the story 
of the growth of our Nation and its economy from that of agrarian to 
industrial. Other than Lowell, Massachusetts, a one-time industry 
powerhouse whose historic district was designated a national park, I am 
not aware of another NPS site which represents our Nation's rich urban 
history.
  My legislation would take the first step towards this important 
designation by directing the NPS to study the feasibility of 
establishing a national park at the Paterson Great Falls area. I ask 
that my colleagues join me in support of this worthy effort, so that a 
critical chapter in the story of our nation may be told to future 
generations.

                          ____________________