[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7882-7905]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
  S. 859. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
mental health community education program, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Mental 
Health Accessibility Act of 2001 with Senators Conrad, Domenici, 
Johnson, Roberts, and Nelson from Nebraska. Like all of the rural 
health bills I've worked on with my colleagues in the Senate Rural 
Health Caucus, I am proud of the bipartisan effort behind this 
important legislation.
  I believe, the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 is 
crucial because it reflects the unique needs of rural communities to 
improve access to mental health services.
  Many people do not seek mental health services because of the stigma 
associated with mental illnesses. This is especially true in rural 
areas where anonymity is more difficult to obtain. This legislation 
creates the Mental Health Community Education Grant program, which 
permits states and communities to conduct targeted public education 
campaigns with particular emphasis on mental illnesses, mental 
retardation, suicide, and substance abuse disorders. This new program 
will go a long way in reducing the stigmatization and misinformation 
surrounding mental health issues.
  More than 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health 
Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas and one-fifth of 
all rural counties in the nation have no mental health services of any 
kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent of 
these remote areas do not have psychiatrists, 68 percent do not have 
psychologists and 78 percent do not have social workers. While I'm 
proud that every county in my home state of Wyoming now has a 
psychologist, there are still several counties that are severely 
underserved and are designated as a Mental Health Shortage Area.
  Due to the scarcity of mental health specialists in rural 
communities, primary care providers are often the only source of 
treatment. However, primary care providers do not receive the 
specialized training necessary to recognize the signs of depression and 
other mental illnesses in their patients. The Rural Mental Health 
Accessibility Act of 2001 authorizes an Interdisciplinary Grant program 
that will permit universities and other entities to establish 
interdisciplinary training programs where mental health providers and 
primary care providers are taught side-by-side in the classroom, with 
clinical training conducted in rural underserved communities. This will 
encourage greater collaboration amongst providers and increase the 
quality of care for rural patients.
  I am particularly concerned that suicide rates among rural children 
and adolescents are higher than in urban areas, especially in western 
and frontier states. Additionally, 20 percent of the nation's elderly 
population live in rural areas, but only 9 percent of our nation's 
physicians practice in rural areas. This bill authorizes $30 million 
for 20 demonstration projects, equally divided, to provide mental 
health services to children and elderly residents of long term care 
facilities located in mental health shortage areas. These projects will 
also provide mental illness education and targeted instruction on 
coping and dealing with the stressful experiences of childhood and 
adolescence or aging.
  To prepare for further expansion of mental telehealth, this bill 
requires the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health in 
consultation with the Director of the Office of Rural Health Policy to 
report to Congress on the efficacy and effectiveness of mental health 
services delivered through the utilization of telehealth technologies.
  In crafting this legislation I and my colleagues worked with numerous 
outside organizations with an interest in mental health issues. As a 
result of this collaboration, the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act 
of 2001 is strongly supported by the National Rural Health Association, 
the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the American Psychiatric 
Association and the American Psychological Association.
  I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and 
well-being of our rural communities. I strongly urge all my colleagues 
to support the rural areas in their states by becoming cosponsors of 
the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of 
endorsement from supporting organizations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 859

       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 Mental Health 
     Accessibility Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

       Subpart I of part D of title III of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 330I. MENTAL HEALTH COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Director of the Office of 
     Rural Health Policy (of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration) shall award grants to eligible entities to 
     conduct mental health community education programs.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' includes 
     a State entity, public or private school, mental health 
     clinic, rural health clinic, local public health department, 
     nonprofit private entity, federally qualified health center, 
     rural Area Health Education Center, Indian tribe and tribal 
     organization, and any other entity deemed eligible by the 
     Secretary.

[[Page 7883]]

       ``(2) Mental health community education program.--The term 
     `mental health community education program' means a program 
     regarding mental illness, mental retardation, suicide 
     prevention and co-occurring mental illness and substance 
     abuse disorder.
       ``(c) Preference.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), 
     the Director shall give a preference to eligible entities 
     that are or propose to be in a network, or work in 
     collaboration, with other eligible entities to carry out the 
     programs under this section, such as a rural public or 
     nonprofit private entity that represents a network of local 
     health care providers or other entities that provide or 
     support delivery of health care services, and a State office 
     of rural health or other appropriate State entity.
       ``(d) Duration.--The Director shall award grants under 
     subsection (a) for a period of 3 years.
       ``(e) Amount.--Each grant awarded under this section shall 
     not be greater than $200,000 each fiscal year.
       ``(f) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a 
     grant under subsection (a) shall use funds received through 
     such grant to administer a mental health community education 
     program to rural populations that provides information to 
     dispel myths regarding mental illness and to reduce any 
     stigma associated with mental illness.
       ``(g) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under subsection (a) shall submit an application to the 
     Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Director may reasonably require, 
     including--
       ``(1) a description of the activities which the eligible 
     entity intends to carry out using amounts provided under the 
     grant;
       ``(2) a plan for continuing the project after Federal 
     support is ended;
       ``(3) a description of the manner in which the educational 
     activities funded under the grant will meet the mental health 
     care needs of underserved rural populations within the State; 
     and
       ``(4) a description of how the local community or region to 
     be served by the network or proposed network, if the eligible 
     entity is in such a network, will be involved in the 
     development and ongoing operations of the network.
       ``(h) Evaluations; Report.--Each eligible entity that 
     receives a grant under this section shall submit to the 
     Director of the Office of Rural Health Policy (of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration) an evaluation 
     describing the programs authorized under this section and any 
     other information that the Director deems appropriate. After 
     receiving such evaluations, the Director shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report describing such 
     evaluations.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $50,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal years 2003 through 2006.

     ``SEC. 330J. INTERDISCIPLINARY GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Director of the Office of 
     Rural Health Policy (of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration) shall award grants to eligible entities to 
     establish interdisciplinary training programs that include 
     significant mental health training in rural areas for certain 
     health care providers.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     public university or other educational institution that 
     provides training for mental health care providers or primary 
     health care providers.
       ``(2) Mental health care provider.--The term `mental health 
     care provider' means--
       ``(A) a physician with postgraduate training in a residency 
     program of psychiatry;
       ``(B) a licensed psychologist (as defined by the Secretary 
     for purposes of section 1861(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(ii)));
       ``(C) a clinical social worker (as defined in section 
     1861(hh)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(1)); or
       ``(D) a clinical nurse specialist (as defined in section 
     1861(aa)(5)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(5)(B))).
       ``(3) Primary health care provider.--The term `primary 
     health care provider' includes family practice, internal 
     medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, geriatrics, 
     and emergency medicine physicians as well as physician 
     assistants and nurse practitioners.
       ``(4) Rural area.--The term `rural area' means a rural area 
     as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Social Security 
     Act, or such an area in a rural census tract of a 
     metropolitan statistical area (as determined under the most 
     recent modification of the Goldsmith Modification, originally 
     published in the Federal Register on February 27, 1992 (57 
     Fed. Reg. 6725)), or any other geographical area that the 
     Director designates as a rural area.
       ``(c) Duration.--Grants awarded under subsection (a) shall 
     be awarded for a period of 5 years.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a 
     grant under subsection (a) shall use funds received through 
     such grant to administer an interdisciplinary, side-by-side 
     training program for mental health care providers and primary 
     health care providers, that includes providing, under 
     appropriate supervision, health care services to patients in 
     underserved, rural areas without regard to patients' ability 
     to pay for such services.
       ``(e) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under subsection (a) shall submit an application to the 
     Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Director may reasonably require, 
     including--
       ``(1) a description of the activities which the eligible 
     entity intends to carry out using amounts provided under the 
     grant;
       ``(2) a description of the manner in which the activities 
     funded under the grant will meet the mental health care needs 
     of underserved rural populations within the State; and
       ``(3) a description of the network agreement with 
     partnering facilities.
       ``(f) Evaluations; Report.--Each eligible entity that 
     receives a grant under this section shall submit to the 
     Director of the Office of Rural Health Policy (of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration) an evaluation 
     describing the programs authorized under this section and any 
     other information that the Director deems appropriate. After 
     receiving such evaluations, the Director shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report describing such 
     evaluations.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $100,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for 
     each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2006.

     ``SEC. 330K. STUDY OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DELIVERED WITH 
                   TELEHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute 
     of Mental Health, in consultation with the Director of the 
     Office of Rural Health Policy, shall carry out activities to 
     research the efficacy and effectiveness of mental health 
     services delivered remotely by a qualified mental health 
     professional (psychiatrist or doctoral level psychologist) 
     using telehealth technologies.
       ``(b) Mandatory Activities.--Research described in 
     subsection (a) shall include--
       ``(1) objective measurement of treatment outcomes for 
     individuals with mental illness treated remotely using 
     telehealth technologies as compared to individuals with 
     mental illness treated face-to-face;
       ``(2) objective measurement of treatment compliance by 
     individuals with mental illness treated remotely using 
     telehealth technologies as compared to individuals with 
     mental illness treated face-to-face; and
       ``(3) any other variables as determined by the Director.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary.

     ``SEC. 330L. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DELIVERED VIA TELEHEALTH.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth of 
     the Health Resources and Services Administration, shall award 
     grants to eligible entities to establish demonstration 
     projects for the provision of mental health services to 
     special populations as delivered remotely by qualified mental 
     health professionals using telehealth and for the provision 
     of education regarding mental illness as delivered remotely 
     by qualified mental health professionals and qualified mental 
     health education professionals using telehealth.
       ``(2) Number of demonstration projects.--Ten grants shall 
     be awarded under paragraph (1) to provide services for the 
     children and adolescents described in subsection (d)(1)(A) 
     and not less than 6 of such grants shall be for services 
     rendered to individuals in rural areas. Ten grants shall also 
     be awarded under paragraph (1) to provide services for the 
     elderly described in subsection (d)(1)(B) in rural areas. If 
     the maximum number of grants to be awarded under paragraph 
     (1) is not awarded, the Secretary shall award the remaining 
     grants in a manner that is equitably distributed between the 
     populations described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     subsection (d)(1).
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     public or nonprofit private telehealth provider network which 
     has as part of its services mental health services provided 
     by qualified mental health providers.
       ``(2) Qualified mental health education professionals.--The 
     term `qualified mental health education professionals' refers 
     to teachers, community mental health professionals, nurses, 
     and other entities as determined by the Secretary who have 
     additional training in the delivery of information on mental 
     illness to children and adolescents or who have additional 
     training in the delivery of information on mental illness to 
     the elderly.
       ``(3) Qualified mental health professionals.--The term 
     `qualified mental health professionals' refers to providers 
     of mental health services currently reimbursed under medicare 
     who have additional training in the treatment of mental 
     illness in children and adolescents or who have additional 
     training in the treatment of mental illness in the elderly.

[[Page 7884]]

       ``(4) Special populations.--The term `special populations' 
     refers to the following 2 distinct groups:
       ``(A) Children and adolescents located in primary and 
     secondary public schools in mental health underserved rural 
     areas or in mental health underserved urban areas.
       ``(B) Elderly individuals located in long-term care 
     facilities in mental health underserved rural areas.
       ``(5) Telehealth.--The term `telehealth' means the use of 
     electronic information and telecommunications technologies to 
     support long-distance clinical health care, patient and 
     professional health-related education, public health, and 
     health administration.
       ``(c) Amount.--Each entity that receives a grant under 
     subsection (a) shall receive not less than $1,500,000 with no 
     more than 40 percent of the total budget outlined for 
     equipment.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this section shall use such funds--
       ``(A) for the populations described in subsection 
     (b)(3)(A)--
       ``(i) to provide mental health services, including 
     diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, in primary and 
     secondary public schools as delivered remotely by qualified 
     mental health professionals using telehealth;
       ``(ii) to provide education regarding mental illness 
     (including suicide and violence) in primary and secondary 
     public schools as delivered remotely by qualified mental 
     health professionals and qualified mental health education 
     professionals using telehealth, including early recognition 
     of the signs and symptoms of mental illness, and instruction 
     on coping and dealing with stressful experiences of childhood 
     and adolescence (such as violence, social isolation, and 
     depression); and
       ``(iii) to collaborate with local public health entities 
     and the eligible entity to provide the mental health 
     services; and
       ``(B) for the populations described in subsection 
     (b)(3)(B)--
       ``(i) to provide mental health services, including 
     diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, in long-term care 
     facilities as delivered remotely by qualified mental health 
     professionals using telehealth;
       ``(ii) to provide education regarding mental illness to 
     primary staff (including physicians, nurses, and nursing 
     aides) as delivered remotely by qualified mental health 
     professionals and qualified mental health education 
     professionals using telehealth, including early recognition 
     of the signs and symptoms of mental illness, and instruction 
     on coping and dealing with stressful experiences of old age 
     (such as loss of physical and cognitive capabilities, death 
     of loved ones and friends, social isolation, and depression); 
     and
       ``(iii) to collaborate with local public health entities 
     and the eligible entity to provide mental health services.
       ``(2) Other uses.--An eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this section may also use funds to--
       ``(A) acquire telehealth equipment to use in primary and 
     secondary public schools and long-term care facilities for 
     the purposes of this section;
       ``(B) develop curriculum to support activities described in 
     subsections (d)(1)(A)(ii) and (d)(1)(B)(ii);
       ``(C) pay telecommunications costs; and
       ``(D) pay qualified mental health professionals and 
     qualified mental health education professionals on a 
     reasonable cost basis as determined by the Secretary for 
     services rendered.
       ``(3) Prohibited uses.--An eligible entity that receives a 
     grant under this section shall not use funds received through 
     such grant to--
       ``(A) purchase or install transmission equipment (other 
     than such equipment used by qualified mental health 
     professionals to deliver mental health services using 
     telehealth under the project); or
       ``(B) build upon or acquire real property (except for minor 
     renovations related to the installation of reimbursable 
     equipment).
       ``(e) Equitable Distribution.--In awarding grants under 
     this section, the Secretary shall ensure, to the greatest 
     extent possible, that such grants are equitably distributed 
     among geographical regions of the United States.
       ``(f) Application.--An entity that desires a grant under 
     this section shall submit an application to the Secretary at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary determines to be reasonable.
       ``(g) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and 
     submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     that shall evaluate activities funded with grants under this 
     section.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums that are 
     required to carry out this program for fiscal years 2003 
     through 2009.
       ``(i) Sunset Provision.--This section shall be effective 
     for 7 years from the date of enactment of this section.''.
                                  ____

                                       NAMI, National Alliance for


                                             the Mentally Ill,

                                       Arlington, VA, May 7, 2001.
     Hon. Craig Thomas,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thomas: on behalf of the 220,000 members and 
     1,200 affiliates of the National Alliance for the Mentally 
     Ill (NAMI), I am pleased to offer our support for the Rural 
     Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001. As the nation's 
     largest organization representing children and adults with 
     severe mental illnesses and their families, NAMI is pleased 
     to support this important legislation. Thank you for your 
     leadership in bringing this bipartisan measure forward.
       Accessing mental illness treatment and services is a 
     particular challenge for individuals living in isolated rural 
     communities. The challenges related to geographic isolation 
     are too often further compounded by the stigma associated 
     with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar 
     disorder, major depression and severe anxiety disorders. 
     Advances in scientific research and medical treatment for 
     these serious brain disorders have been tremendous in recent 
     years. Your legislation will bring these advances in research 
     and treatment to underserved rural areas. The initiatives 
     contained in the rural Mental Health Accessibility Act--
     community education to address stigma, training for 
     providers, funding for a telehealth services program--are an 
     important step forward for expanding access to treatment in 
     sparsely populated regions of our country. NAMI looks forward 
     to working with you to ensure passage of this legislation in 
     2001.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue for 
     individuals with severe mental illnesses and their families.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jacqueline Shannon
     President.
                                  ____



                            National Rural Health Association,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 2001.
     Hon. Craig Thomas,
     U.S. Senate,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thomas: on behalf of the National Rural Health 
     Association, I would like to convey our strong support for 
     the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001.
       While a lack of primary care services in rural and frontier 
     areas has long been acknowledged, the scarcity of rural 
     mental health services has only recently received increased 
     attention. At the end of 1997, 76% of designated mental 
     health professional shortage areas were located in 
     nonmetropolitan areas with a total population of over 30 
     million Americans.
       The Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 would 
     provide important first steps toward increased access to 
     mental health care services in rural and frontier areas. The 
     stigma associated with having a mental disorder and the lack 
     of anonymity in small rural communities leads to under-
     diagnosis and under-treatment of mental disorders among rural 
     residents. Your legislation would address this problem by 
     creating a Mental Health Community Education Program aimed at 
     reducing the stigma and misinformation surrounding mental 
     health care.
       In many rural and frontier communities, primary care 
     providers by necessity are responsible for the delivery of 
     mental health services. Because primary care providers often 
     lack specific mental health training, interdisciplinary 
     collaboration and training would increase access for rural 
     residents to appropriate mental health care treatment. The 
     interdisciplinary training grant program created by your 
     legislation would increase collaboration and sharing of 
     information between mental health providers and primary care 
     providers and improve care for rural residents.
       The NRHA appreciates your ongoing leadership on rural 
     health issues, and stands ready to work with you on enactment 
     of the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001, which 
     would increase the availability of mental health care in 
     rural and frontier areas.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Charlotte Hardt,
                                                        President.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues 
as a cosponsor of the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001. 
This bipartisan effort would take important steps toward improving 
access to mental health care in rural America.
  This issue is particularly important to me and my constituents in 
North Dakota. Sadly, as compared to the rest of the United States, 
North Dakota has the second-highest suicide rate among children ages 10 
through 14, and the sixth-highest suicide rate among teenagers 15 
through 19 years of age. As a result, over the 10 year period from 1987 
to 1996, the percentage of deaths due to suicide among North Dakota's 
children and teens was double the national average. Clearly, suicide 
makes a much greater impact on child mortality in North Dakota than it 
does in the rest of the United States, and it is a leading cause of 
death in this age group.

[[Page 7885]]

  In the vast majority of cases, suicide is directly related to mental 
illness, particularly mood disorders such as depression. Depressive 
symptoms are remarkably common in North Dakota's school-age children, 
with one screening finding that 21 percent of students had mild 
depression and 5 percent had moderate-to-severe depression. This level 
of depression is likely a contributing factor to the 2,600 suicide 
attempts by North Dakota's teens reported in 1999.
  North Dakota is not alone in this crisis. Rather, it is one of a 
group of western and Plains states that have elevated youth suicide 
rates. As agricultural difficulties continue to plague rural areas, the 
stress on families and individuals grows greater with each passing 
season. Farm financial stress has been related to individual 
psychological problems and an increased risk of mental disorders, 
including depression, substance abuse, and suicide.
  It is important to keep in mind that rural areas have a prevalence of 
mental illness similar to urban areas. The difference is that people in 
rural areas have less access to health care, especially mental health 
care. Availability of mental health treatment is scarce in remote rural 
areas. Additionally, there remains a strong stigma surrounding mental 
illness and its treatment. The bill we introduce today would address 
both of these problems: reducing the stigma and increasing access to 
mental health services in rural areas.
  Our bill addresses the problem of stigma through $50 million in 
grants designed to support community mental health education programs. 
Existing state and community efforts could be sustained and expanded 
through these grants, and new efforts could obtain early support. In 
addition, our bill establishes $30 million in demonstration projects 
for the provision of mental health education in rural public schools 
and nursing homes using televideoconferencing technology. Rural schools 
and nursing homes would have access to information regarding mental 
illness, information that would reduce stigma, enhance understanding, 
and increase recognition of mental disorders. Importantly, suicide 
education and prevention are to be key parts of these programs.
  Other provisions of our bill address the access problem to mental 
health services found in the majority of rural communities. Since 
mental health care in rural communities is often provided solely by 
primary care clinics, our bill establishes a $150 million grant program 
to foster close interaction between mental health professionals and 
primary care physicians. The grants would be available to public 
universities or educational institutions to develop side-by-side 
training programs for mental health care professionals and primary care 
providers. These provider teams would give care to patients in 
underserved, rural areas without regard to the patient's ability to pay 
for such services. It is expected that primary care providers 
participating in such a training program would develop greater comfort 
and improved coordination with colleagues in treating mental illness in 
rural settings.
  Finally, our bill would increase access to mental health care 
professionals by taking advantage of the latest telehealth 
technologies. Our bill would fund telehealth demonstration projects 
that would be focused on providing mental health services to hard-to-
reach populations, such as children, adolescents, and the elderly. 
These individuals would be able to receive mental health services in 
convenient sites, such as rural public schools and nursing homes.
  It is my hope that the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act will 
strengthen existing community efforts to fight mental illness while 
encouraging the formation of new and innovative programs. I am pleased 
to join Senator Thomas and others in this effort. I urge my colleagues 
to support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Baucus, and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 860. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the treatment of certain expenses of rural letter carriers; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.S. Postal Service provides a vital 
and important communication link for the Nation and the citizens of my 
home state of Iowa. Rural Letter Carriers play a special role and have 
a proud history as an important link in assuring the delivery of our 
mail. Rural Carriers first delivered the mail with their own horses and 
buggies, later with their own motorcycles, and now in their own cars 
and trucks. They are repsonsible for maintenance and operation of their 
vehicles in all types of weather and road conditions. In the winter, 
snow and ice is their enemy, while in the spring, the melting snow and 
ice causes potholes and washboard roads. In spite of these quite 
adverse conditions, rural letter carriers daily drive over 3 million 
miles and serve 24 million American families on over 66,000 routes.
  Although the mission of rural carriers has not changed since the 
horse and buggy days, the amount of mail they deliver has changed 
dramatically. As the Nation's mail volume has increased throughout the 
years, the Postal Service is now delivering more than 200 billion 
pieces of mail a year. The average carrier delivers about 2,300 pieces 
of mail a day to about 500 addresses.
  Most recently, e-commerce has changed the type of mail rural carriers 
deliver. This fact was confirmed in a recent GAO study entitled ``U.S. 
Postal Service: Challenges to Sustaining Performance Improvements 
Remain Formidable on the Brink of the 21st Century,'' dated October 21, 
1999. As this report explains, the Postal Service expects declines in 
its core business, which is essentially letter mail, in the coming 
years. The growth of e-mail on the Internet, electronic communications, 
and electronic commerce has the potential to substantially affect the 
Post Service's mail volume.
  First-Class mail has always been the bread and butter of the Postal 
Service's revenue, but the amount of revenue from First-Class letters 
is declining. E-commerce is providing the Postal Service with another 
opportunity to increase another part of its business. That's because 
what individuals and companies order over the Internet must be 
delivered, sometimes by the Postal Service and often by rural carriers. 
Currently, the Postal Service has about 33 percent of the parcel 
business. Carriers are not delivering larger volumes of business mail, 
parcels, and priority mail packages. But, more parcel business will 
mean more cargo capacity will be necessary in postal delivery vehicles, 
especially in those owned and operated by rural letter carriers.
  When delivering greeting cards or bills, or packages ordered over the 
Internet, Rural Letter Carriers use vehicles they currently purchase, 
operate and maintain. In exchange, they receive a reimbursement from 
the Postal Service. This reimbursement is called an Equipment 
Maintenance Allowance (EMA). Congress recognizes that providing a 
personal vehicle to deliver the U.S. Mail is not typical vehicle use. 
So, when a rural carrier is ready to sell such a vehicle, it's going to 
have little trade-in value because of the typically high mileage, 
extraorindary wear and tear, and the fact that it is probably right-
hand drive. Therefore, Congress intended to exempt the EMA allowance 
from taxation in 1988 through a specific provision for rural mail 
carriers in the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.
  That provision allowed an employee of the U.S. Postal Service who was 
involved in the collection and delivery of mail on a rural route, to 
compute their business use mileage deduction as 150 percent of the 
standard mileage rate for all business use mileage. As an alternative, 
rural carrier taxpayers could elect to utilize the actual expense 
method, business portion of actual operation and maintenance of the 
vehicle, plus depreciation. If EMA exceeded the allowable vehicle 
expense deductions, the excess was subject to tax. If EMA fell short of 
the allowable vehicle expenses, a deduction was allowed only to the 
extent that the sum of the shortfall and all other miscellaneous

[[Page 7886]]

itemized deductions exceeded two percent of the taxpayer's adjusted 
gross income.
  The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 further simplified the tax returns of 
rural letter carriers. That Act permitted the EMA income and expenses 
``to wash,'' so that neither income nor expenses would have to be 
reported on a rural letter carrier's return. That simplified taxes for 
approximately 120,000 taxpayers, but the provision eliminated the 
option of filing the actual expense method for employee business 
vehicle expenses. The lack of this option, combined with the dramatic 
changes the Internet is having on the mail, specifically on rural 
carriers and their vehicles, is a problem I believe Congress can and 
must address.
  The mail mix is changing and already Postal Service management has, 
understandably, encouraged rural carriers to purchase larger right-hand 
drive vehicles, such as Sports Utility Vehicles, SUVs, to handle the 
increase in parcel loads. Large SUVs are much more expensive than 
traditional vehicles, so without the ability to use the actual expense 
method and depreciation, rural carriers must use their salaries to 
cover vehicle expenses. Additionally, the Postal Service has placed 
11,000 postal vehicles on rural routes, which means those carriers 
receive no EMA.
  These developments have created a situation that is contrary to the 
historical congressional intent of using reimbursement to fund the 
government service of delivering mail, and also has created an 
inequitable tax situation for rural carriers. If actual business 
expenses exceed the EMA, a deduction for those expenses should be 
allowed. To correct this inequity, I am introducing a bill today that 
reinstates the ability of a rural letter carrier to choose between 
using the actual expense method for computing the deduction allowable 
for business use of a vehicle, or using the current practice of 
deducting the reimbursed EMA expenses.
  Rural carriers perform a necessary and valuable service and face many 
changes and challenges in this new Internet era. We must make sure that 
these public servants receive fair and equitable tax treatment as they 
perform their essential role in fulfilling the Postal Service's mandate 
of binding the Nation together.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Jeffords, 
Conrad, Breaux, Rockefeller, Daschle, Baucus, Lincoln and myself in 
sponsoring this legislation.
  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. 860

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

     SECTION 1. CERTAIN EXPENSES OF RURAL LETTER CARRIERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 162(o) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to treatment of certain reimbursed 
     expenses of rural mail carriers) is amended by redesignating 
     paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and by inserting after 
     paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Special rule where expenses exceed reimbursements.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(A), if the expenses incurred by 
     an employee for the use of a vehicle in performing services 
     described in paragraph (1) exceed the qualified 
     reimbursements for such expenses, such excess shall be taken 
     into account in computing the miscellaneous itemized 
     deductions of the employee under section 67.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 162(o) 
     is amended by striking ``Reimbursed''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this important 
legislation with the Chairman of the Finance Committee and several of 
our colleagues that would reduce the costs incurred by rural letter 
carriers by allowing them to deduct the actual expenses they incur when 
using their own vehicle to deliver the mail. For many years, rural 
letter carriers were allowed to calculate their deductible expenses by 
using either a special formula or keeping track of their costs. In 
1997, Congress simplified the tax treatment for letter carriers, but 
disallowed them the ability to use the actual expense method (business 
portion of actual operation and maintenance of the vehicle, plus 
depreciation) for calculating their costs. The result is that many 
letter carriers are unable to account for the real expenses they incur 
when using their own vehicle to deliver the mail. This problem has been 
exasperated by the increased need for larger vehicles by rural letter 
carriers, in part, due to the volume and size of parcels. Road 
conditions and severe weather have also increased vehicle costs because 
of the necessity to have an SUV or four wheel drive vehicle. These 
letter carriers must often purchase special vehicles with right hand 
drive capabilities which are more expensive than the regular 
counterpart and may have little to no value when it is time to trade 
them in for a new one. It is important that these mail carriers are not 
forced to pay these costs out of their own pockets.
  Although the internet has made the world seem smaller, purchased 
goods must still be delivered. The benefits of internet purchases in 
remote locations is limited if the purchased item cannot be delivered. 
For this reason, in rural states, such as New Mexico, these letter 
carriers play an important role in delivering the majority of the 
state's mail and parcels. On a daily basis, across the nation rural 
letter carriers drive over 3 million miles delivering mail and parcels 
to over 30 million families. We need to be sure that we have not 
created a tax impediment for these dedicated individuals. I look 
forward to working with the Chairman and my colleagues to get this 
legislation passed this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 861. A bill to enhance small business access to Federal 
contracting opportunities and provide technical advice and support that 
small businesses need to perform contracts awarded to them, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I offer a bill to take a successful 
pilot program at the Department of Defense, make it permanent, and 
extend it governmentwide. For the past decade, DOD has had a program in 
place to try to develop and maintain small business vendors as a vital 
part of our Nation's defense industrial base. This program, the Mentor-
Protege program, has also been a principal source of opportunity for 
small business, to offset some of the other Federal procurement 
practices that have squeezed small business out of contracting.
  Those two goals, the enhanced vendor base and improved opportunity, 
are worth emphasizing before I discuss the specific provisions of this 
bill. Why is small business participation in contracting important?
  Far too often, small business is seen as just another social or 
economic development program. In Federal contracting, however, it is 
much more than that. Small business is a critical, vital, indispensable 
part of our nation's preparedness for its defense.
  We have been working here in the Senate toward trying to shore up our 
defense preparedness. For the better part of a decade, DOD has had more 
and more missions with fewer and fewer resources. Now that we are 
trying to overcome this neglect with additional funding, we must also 
ensure that our economic base is strong, as well. It will do little 
good to have the money to buy defense-related goods and services if 
there are no vendors available to sell them.
  The DOD Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has an 
excellent slogan that drives this point home. ``Small Business: A 
Readiness Multiplier.''
  So, keeping small business involved in contracting is a matter of 
self-interest for our Nation. It is a matter of having the goods, the 
services, the resources for the warfighter to take into battle.
  Second, small business must have access to contracting as a matter of 
economic opportunity. The Government is an enormous customer. It 
averages about $180 to $190 billion worth of contracting every year. No 
one else has

[[Page 7887]]

that kind of presence in the marketplace.
  If the Government spends the lion's share of its money on a handful 
of large insider corporations, it distorts the marketplace. It tends to 
give unfair advantage to the winning firms, purely because of the 
Government's enormous purchasing power.
  To avoid harming our economy with that kind of market distortion, the 
small business program seeks to disperse Government contracts among a 
variety of vendors. The small business program is not so much an 
intervention in the economy as it is a dilution of the distortion that 
would otherwise occur.
  Unfortunately, over the last decade the Government has increasingly 
squeezed small business out of contracting. As part of the 
``Reinventing Government'' effort, acquisition has been streamlined.
  Now, I don't mean to suggest that all acquisition reform has been 
harmful. In fact, burdensome processes and bureaucracy also tend to 
discourage small business. Large businesses are more likely to have 
lawyers and contracting staff to wade through the bureaucracy, so 
excessive emphasis on process tends to crowd out small business.
  But in some areas we have gone too far. Contract bundling is a good 
example of this. By rolling several small contracts into large 
packages, the Government has made things simpler and faster for the 
contracting officers. It is administratively simpler to handle one 
bundled contract than ten smaller ones.
  However, that often crowds out small business. A small business owner 
looks at one of these huge contracts and says, ``Even if I won that 
contract, I couldn't carry it out. It's too big, and the requirements 
are too complex.'' So she, and it is often women business owners that 
suffer, she doesn't even bother to bid.
  Those two issues, the need to improve opportunity and to strengthen 
our defense vendor base, show why we need to take specific steps to 
restore small business access to procurement opportunities.
  Fortunately, we have a successful model to build upon!
  In the Fiscal 1991 defense authorization bill, the Congress adopted a 
provision to help small firms develop the technical infrastructure 
necessary to perform Federal contracts effectively. This pilot program, 
the Mentor-Protege program, provided for prime contractors either to be 
reimbursed for their added costs in providing technical assistance to 
small firms, or to receive credit for accomplishing their 
subcontracting plans in lieu of reimbursement.




  Experience under the Mentor-Protege pilot program has been very 
positive. We have learned a lot about what it takes to get small 
businesses ready to be serious players in Federal procurement. For 
firms that are simply delivering a specific order for a product, 
performing on that delivery order is often simple enough.
  But longer term, larger contracts are more complex. They require 
sustained effort over many months or years. They require a firm to 
commit to and achieve intermediate milestones on time. They require the 
firm to maintain quality assurance standards month in and month out, 
year in and year out. This can be extraordinarily challenging.
  Mentor firms have demonstrated that they can help train small protege 
firms to develop that infrastructure, so necessary to be successful in 
larger Federal contracts.
  I have a case history right here that I call to the attention of my 
colleagues. Scott Ulvi, of Anteon Corporation, has written me about his 
experience in mentoring, and Ray Lopez, of Engineering Services 
Network, has written about the value of the training and assistance he 
received from Anteon. I call particular attention to Mr. Lopez' 
experience in successfully receiving Federal contracts, only to have 
the reality sink in that he was originally unprepared to carry them 
out. His experience is truly instructive of what small business owners 
encounter daily, and I call his letter to the attention of my 
colleagues. I will ask unanimous consent that both letters be inserted 
into the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The bill I am offering today would build upon the experience with the 
DOD program and make it governmentwide. Specifically, the Administrator 
of the Small Business Administration would be charged with developing a 
governmentwide program that would provide assistance to all types of 
firms targeted for special procurement procedures under the Small 
Business Act.
  Now, it would not be possible for the SBA to manage every Mentor-
Protege relationship in the Federal Government. It would be 
administratively impossible. Thus, my bill calls for the Administrator 
to develop a core Mentor-Protege program, applicable across the 
Government, and to reimburse part of the expenses of agencies that 
agree to adopt the SBA program. Agencies would administer the program 
in-house, but would apply to be reimbursed for up to 50 percent of 
certain expenses incurred in a program that conforms to the 
Administrator's guidelines.
  The expenses to be partially reimbursed are those for which an agency 
reimburses the mentoring firms. Mentor firms can get reimbursed from 
the contracting office for added costs they incur in providing 
technical, managerial, and developmental assistance to the protege 
firm. Under this bill, up to 50 percent of these costs would then in 
turn be reimbursed to the agency from the SBA. The technical assistance 
provided through this reimbursable program is far and away the most 
valuable, as the letter from Scott Ulvi of Anteon Corporation 
describes. This program seeks to help agencies put together the 
resources they need to make such reimbursements.
  This program will help all agencies of the Government strengthen 
their vendor base, just as it has for the Department of Defense. It 
will help small businesses develop their abilities to compete for 
larger contracts, and the taxpayer will be the ultimate winner as a 
result of that competition. It also meets one of the Bush 
administration's goals, as described in the recent budget submission, 
of reducing fragmentation among Federal programs by ensuring a uniform, 
core Mentor-Protege program across the Government.
  Nothing succeeds like success. The DOD Mentor-Protege program, 
adopted as a pilot in 1991, has been such a success. Now we need to 
learn from that success and make it available across the Government. My 
bill proposes to do exactly that and I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill and supporting letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 861

       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 ``Governmentwide Mentor-
     Protege Program Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. MENTOR-PROTEGE PROGRAM.

       The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 36 as section 37; and
       (2) by inserting after section 35 the following:

     ``SEC. 36. MENTOR-PROTEGE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment of Program.--The Administrator shall 
     establish a Program to be known as the `Governmentwide 
     Mentor-Protege Program'.
       ``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Program are to 
     provide--
       ``(1) incentives for major Federal contractors to assist 
     eligible small business concerns to enhance the capabilities 
     of eligible small business concerns to perform as 
     subcontractors and suppliers under Federal contracts in order 
     to increase the participation of eligible small business 
     concerns as subcontractors and suppliers under those 
     contracts; and
       ``(2) Governmentwide criteria for partial reimbursement of 
     certain agency costs incurred in the administration of the 
     Program.
       ``(c) Program Participants.--
       ``(1) Mentor firms.--A mentor firm may enter into 
     agreements under subsection (e) and furnish assistance to 
     eligible small business concerns upon making application to 
     the head of the agency for which it is contracting and being 
     approved for participation in the Program by the head of the 
     agency.

[[Page 7888]]

       ``(2) Eligible small business concerns.--
       ``(A) In general.--An eligible small business concern may 
     obtain assistance from a mentor firm upon entering into an 
     agreement with the mentor firm to become a protege firm, as 
     provided in subsection (e).
       ``(B) Restriction.--A protege firm may not be a party to 
     more than one agreement to receive assistance described in 
     subparagraph (A) at any time.
       ``(3) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--Before receiving assistance from a 
     mentor firm under this section, a small business concern 
     shall furnish to the mentor firm--
       ``(i) if the Administration regularly issues certifications 
     of qualification for the category of that small business 
     concern listed in subsection (k)(1), that certification; and
       ``(ii) if the Administration does not regularly issue 
     certifications of qualification for the category of that 
     small business concern listed in subsection (k)(1), a 
     statement indicating that it is an eligible small business 
     concern.
       ``(B) Development of certification.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to require the Administration to 
     develop a certification program for any category of small 
     business concern listed in subsection (k)(1).
       ``(C) Assistance to non-eligible small business concern.--
     If at any time, a small business concern is determined by the 
     Administration not to be an eligible small business concern 
     in accordance with this section--
       ``(i) the small business concern shall immediately notify 
     the mentor firm of the determination; and
       ``(ii) assistance furnished to that small business concern 
     by the mentor firm after the date of the determination may 
     not be considered to be assistance furnished under the 
     Program.
       ``(d) Mentor Firm Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c)(1), a mentor 
     firm that is eligible for award of Federal contracts may 
     enter into an agreement with one or more protege firms under 
     subsection (e) and provide assistance under the Program 
     pursuant to that agreement, if the mentor firm demonstrates 
     to the subject agency the capability to assist in the 
     development of protege firms.
       ``(2) Presumption of capability.--A mentor firm shall be 
     presumed to be capable under paragraph (1) if the total 
     amount of contracts and subcontracts that the mentor firm has 
     entered into with the subject agency exceeds an amount 
     determined by the Administrator, in consultation with the 
     head of the subject agency, to be significant relative to the 
     contracting volume of the subject agency.
       ``(e) Mentor-Protege Agreement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Before providing assistance to a protege 
     firm under the Program, a mentor firm shall enter into a 
     mentor-protege agreement with the protege firm regarding the 
     assistance to be provided by the mentor firm.
       ``(2) Contents of agreement.--The agreement required by 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) a developmental program for the protege firm, in such 
     detail as may be reasonable, including--
       ``(i) factors to assess the developmental progress of the 
     protege firm under the Program; and
       ``(ii) the anticipated number and type of subcontracts to 
     be awarded to the protege firm;
       ``(B) a Program participation term of not longer than 3 
     years, except that the term may be for a period of not longer 
     than 5 years if the Administrator determines, in writing, 
     that unusual circumstances justify a Program participation 
     term of longer than 3 years; and
       ``(C) procedures for the protege firm to terminate the 
     agreement voluntarily and for the mentor firm to terminate 
     the agreement for cause.
       ``(f) Forms of Assistance.--A mentor firm may provide to a 
     protege firm--
       ``(1) assistance using mentor firm personnel, in--
       ``(A) general business management, including organizational 
     management, financial management, and personnel management, 
     marketing, business development, and overall business 
     planning;
       ``(B) engineering and technical matters, including 
     production, inventory control, and quality assurance; and
       ``(C) any other assistance designed to develop the 
     capabilities of the protege firm under the developmental 
     program referred to in subsection (e)(2)(A);
       ``(2) the award of subcontracts on a noncompetitive basis 
     under Federal contracts;
       ``(3) progress payments for performance of the protege firm 
     under a subcontract referred to in paragraph (2), in amounts 
     as provided for in the subcontract, except that no such 
     progress payment may exceed 100 percent of the costs incurred 
     by the protege firm for the performance;
       ``(4) advance payments under subcontracts referred to in 
     paragraph (2);
       ``(5) loans;
       ``(6) cash in exchange for an ownership interest in the 
     protege firm, not to exceed 10 percent of the total ownership 
     interest;
       ``(7) assistance obtained by the mentor firm for the 
     protege firm from--
       ``(A) small business development centers established 
     pursuant to section 21;
       ``(B) entities providing procurement technical assistance 
     pursuant to chapter 142 of title 10, United States Code; or
       ``(C) a historically Black college or university or a 
     minority institution of higher education.
       ``(g) Incentives for Mentor Firms.--
       ``(1) Reimbursement for progress or advance payment.--The 
     head of the agency for which a mentor firm is contracting may 
     provide to a mentor firm reimbursement for the total amount 
     of any progress payment or advance payment made under the 
     Program by the mentor firm to a protege firm in connection 
     with a Federal contract awarded to the mentor firm.
       ``(2) Reimbursement for mentoring assistance.--
       ``(A) Mentor firm.--The head of the agency for which a 
     mentor firm is contracting may provide to a mentor firm 
     reimbursement for the costs of the assistance furnished to a 
     protege firm pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (7) of subsection 
     (f), as provided for in a line item in a Federal contract 
     under which the mentor firm is furnishing products or 
     services to the agency, subject to a maximum amount of 
     reimbursement specified in the contract, except that this 
     subparagraph does not apply in a case in which the head of 
     the agency determines in writing that unusual circumstances 
     justify reimbursement using a separate contract.
       ``(B) Total amount of reimbursement.--The total amount 
     reimbursed under subparagraph (A) to a mentor firm for costs 
     of assistance furnished in a fiscal year to a protege firm 
     may not exceed $1,000,000, except in a case in which the head 
     of the subject agency determines in writing that unusual 
     circumstances justify reimbursement of a higher amount.
       ``(C) Reimbursement to agency.--The head of an agency may 
     submit documentation to the Administrator indicating the 
     total amount of reimbursement that the agency paid to each 
     mentor firm under this paragraph, and the agency shall be 
     reimbursed by the Administration for not more than 50 percent 
     of that total amount, as indicated in the documentation.
       ``(3) Costs not reimbursed.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Credit.--Costs incurred by a mentor firm in providing 
     assistance to a protege firm that are not reimbursed pursuant 
     to paragraph (2) shall be recognized as credit in lieu of 
     subcontract awards for purposes of determining whether the 
     mentor firm attains a subcontracting participation goal 
     applicable to the mentor firm under a Federal contract or 
     under a divisional or companywide subcontracting plan 
     negotiated with an agency.
       ``(ii) Subject agency authority.--Clause (i) shall not be 
     construed to authorize the negotiation of divisional or 
     companywide subcontracting plans by an agency that did not 
     have such authority before the date of enactment of the 
     Governmentwide Mentor-Protege Program Act of 2001.
       ``(B) Amount of credit.--The amount of the credit given to 
     a mentor firm for unreimbursed costs described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be equal to--
       ``(i) 4 times the total amount of the unreimbursed costs 
     attributable to assistance provided by entities described in 
     subsection (f)(7);
       ``(ii) 3 times the total amount of the unreimbursed costs 
     attributable to assistance furnished by the employees of the 
     mentor firm; and
       ``(iii) 2 times the total amount of any other unreimbursed 
     costs.
       ``(C) Adjustment of credit.--Under regulations issued by 
     the Administrator pursuant to subsection (j), the head of the 
     subject agency shall adjust the amount of credit given to a 
     mentor firm pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this 
     paragraph, if the head of the subject agency determines that 
     the performance of the mentor firm regarding the award of 
     subcontracts to eligible small business concerns has declined 
     without justifiable cause.
       ``(h) Administrative Provisions.--
       ``(1) Developmental assistance.--For purposes of this Act, 
     no determination of affiliation or control (either direct or 
     indirect) may be found between a protege firm and its mentor 
     firm on the basis that the mentor firm has agreed to furnish 
     (or has furnished) to the protege firm pursuant to a mentor-
     protege agreement under this section any form of 
     developmental assistance described in subsection (f).
       ``(2) Participation in program.--Notwithstanding section 8, 
     the Administration may not determine an eligible small 
     business concern to be ineligible to receive any assistance 
     authorized under this Act on the basis that the small 
     business concern has participated in the Program, or has 
     received assistance pursuant to any developmental assistance 
     agreement authorized under the Program.
       ``(3) Administration review.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon determining that the mentor-protege 
     program administered by the subject agency conforms to the 
     standards set forth in the rules issued under subsection 
     (j)(1), the Administrator may not require a small business 
     concern that is entering into, or has entered into, an 
     agreement

[[Page 7889]]

     under subsection (e) as a protege firm, or a firm that makes 
     an application under subsection (c)(1), to submit the 
     application, agreement, or any other document required by the 
     agency in the administration of the Program to the 
     Administration for review, approval, or any other purpose.
       ``(B) Exception.--The Administrator may require submission 
     for review of an agreement entered into under subsection (e), 
     or application submitted under subsection (c)(1), if the 
     agreement or application relates to--
       ``(i) a mentor-protege program administered by the agency 
     that does not conform to the standards set forth in the rules 
     issued under subsection (j)(1); or
       ``(ii) a claim for reimbursement of costs submitted by an 
     agency to the Administration under subsection (g)(2)(C) that 
     the Administrator has reason to believe is not authorized 
     under this section.
       ``(i) Participation in Program not To Be a Condition for 
     Award of a Contract or Subcontract.--A mentor firm may not 
     require a small business concern to enter into an agreement 
     with the mentor firm pursuant to subsection (e) as a 
     condition for being awarded a contract by the mentor firm, 
     including a subcontract under a contract awarded to the 
     mentor firm.
       ``(j) Regulations.--
       ``(1) Proposed rules.--Not later than 270 days after the 
     date of enactment of the Governmentwide Mentor-Protege 
     Program Act of 2001, the Administrator shall issue final 
     rules to carry out this section .
       ``(2) Proposed rules from the federal acquisition 
     regulatory council.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of issuance of the final rules of the Administration under 
     paragraph (1), the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council 
     shall publish final rules that conform to the final rules 
     issued by the Administration .
       ``(k) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `eligible small business concern' means--
       ``(A) any qualified HUBZone small business concern, as 
     defined in section 3(p)(5);
       ``(B) any small business concern that is owned and 
     controlled by women, as defined in section 3(n);
       ``(C) any small business concern that is owned and 
     controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals, as defined in section 8(a)(4); and
       ``(D) any small business concern that is owned and 
     controlled by service-disabled veterans, as defined in 
     section 3(q)(2);
       ``(2) the term `historically Black college and university' 
     means any of the historically Black colleges and universities 
     referred to in section 2323 of title 10, United States Code;
       ``(3) the term `mentor firm' means a business concern 
     that--
       ``(A) meets the requirements of subsection (d); and
       ``(B) is approved for participation in the Program under 
     subsection (c)(1);
       ``(4) the term `minority institution of higher education' 
     means an institution of higher education with a student body 
     that reflects the composition specified in paragraphs (3), 
     (4), and (5) of section 312(b) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1058(b)(3), (4), (5));
       ``(5) the term `Program' means the Mentor-Protege Program 
     established under this section;
       ``(6) the term `protege firm' means an eligible small 
     business concern that receives assistance from a mentor firm 
     under this section; and
       ``(7) the term `subcontracting participation goal', with 
     respect to a Federal Government contract, means a goal for 
     the extent of the participation by eligible small business 
     concerns in the subcontracts awarded under such contract, as 
     established by the Administrator and the subject agency head, 
     in accordance with the goals established pursuant to section 
     15(g).
       ``(l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004.''.
                                  ____



                                           Anteon Corporation,

                                      Fairfax, VA, April 30, 2001.
     Senator Christopher S. Bond,
     Chairman, Small Business Committee, Russell Senator Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senate Bond: Anteon Corporation is a mid-sized 
     Government contractor that has been a Department of Defense 
     Mentor since 1997. This program has enabled Anteon to provide 
     valuable assistance to seven small disadvantaged businesses 
     at critical points in their development. We are committed to 
     the success of our protege firms and the Mentor-Protege 
     Program overall. The responsibility of a mentor is a serious 
     one. We recognize this and have established a separate 
     Mentor-Protege organization dedicated to delivering the 
     highest quality mentoring services. This has been made 
     possible primarily by the reimbursement provided under our 
     Mentor-Protege Agreements within the DOD. The financial 
     incentives from DOD's program have produced significant 
     results in several of Anteon's Mentor-Protege Agreements:
       Anteon and Engineering Services Network, Inc.--March 2001, 
     DoD Nunn-Perry Award winning team--240% Growth in Revenues in 
     18 months; 178% Growth in employees; 1,281% return on 
     investment (ROI) since March 1999.
       Anteon and CETECH, Inc.--422% Growth in Revenues in 36 
     months; 400% Growth in employees; 452% ROI over 36 months.
       Anteon and DaySys, Inc.--217% improvement in Revenues; 128% 
     improvement in profit from 1999 to 2001 (projected).
       While each firm is certainly unique, the common denominator 
     for the success realized under this program, is the owner's 
     recognition of the value of a mentor and a willingness to 
     accept assistance. Anteon's success as a mentor comes from 
     our commitment and dedication to our protege and the program. 
     Our experience has taught us that a truly successful program 
     must focus on technical development while effectively 
     balancing the infrastructure support so important to small 
     businesses. Technical development is unquestionably the most 
     important component of this program because it increases the 
     value and competitive posture of the protege to the customer. 
     As a result of the DOD Mentor-Protege Program our proteges 
     have been able to receive technical development in such 
     critical areas as: ISO 9000 Quality Management System 
     Certification; Software Engineering Institute Capability 
     Maturity Model preparation; and other high technology 
     development in the disciplines of engineering and information 
     technology. These important skills produce significant return 
     to the Federal Government in terms of increased efficiency, 
     lower costs and higher project success rates.
       The success of our program is the direct result of 
     knowledge, experience and a great deal of hard work, work 
     that would not have been possible without the support 
     afforded this program by the DOD, both financially and 
     otherwise. This program is what it is today because of the 
     tremendous support and vision of its leaders past and 
     present. Mr. Robert Neal, Mr. George Schultz, and Ms. Janet 
     Koch have shown relentless commitment to the success of the 
     Mentor-Protege program in DOD and deserve the lion's share of 
     recognition for the program's success. The support of the 
     Congress in reauthorizing this program every year for the 
     last decade speaks volumes of the support received by our 
     Nation's leaders. The support for this program must continue 
     and the program must grow to reach the multitude of deserving 
     small businesses that desperately need the assistance.
       Mentor firms like Anteon receive considerable business, 
     social and political value from this program. That value 
     translates directly to the bottom line by taking part in the 
     growth and success of our proteges as business partners and 
     through our active participation in the small business 
     community. My mentor once told me that the highest calling of 
     a leader is to develop others--I truly believe that. My 
     reward for being a mentor is the gratification of knowing 
     that my efforts have helped to develop the business leaders 
     of tomorrow.
       Anteon stands ready to assist the Department of Defense, 
     the Congress and the Federal Government in any way possible 
     to ensure the continued success and growth of this most 
     important program.
           Sincerely,
                                                  M.N. Scott Ulvi,
     Director, Mentor-Protege Programs.
                                  ____

                                              Engineering Services


                                                Network, Inc.,

                                    Arlington, VA, April 27, 2001.
     Senator Christopher S. Bond,
     Chairman, Small Business Committee, Russell Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: I would like to make you aware of what I 
     consider to be the most important small business program 
     currently available to small businesses whether they be 
     minority owned, veteran owned, woman owned, or otherwise. The 
     Mentor-Protege Program is so important that it transcends 
     personalities, race, creed, color or religion. This program 
     has enabled my firm, Engineering Services Network, Inc., to 
     realize remarkable success in a very short period of time. 
     The Mentor-Protege Program deserves continued and increasing 
     support from the Federal government and our Executive Branch.
       After my retirement from the U.S. Navy in 1994, I 
     considered a career coaching in the secondary education 
     system, I also had an interest in providing high technology 
     services to my former fellow shipmates and the patriots of 
     this great nation. My wife and I made the decision that the 
     transition to a business life would be easier if I could 
     provide services to the organization that meant so much to me 
     for thirty years. Little did I realize the amount of 
     headwork, legwork, anxiety and mental toughness required to 
     enter the field of business. Our first few years became the 
     toughest challenge of our lives. Although I was technically 
     astute in Command, Control, Communication, Combat Systems and 
     the various operational aspects of the United States Navy, I 
     soon realized that I was ill prepared for the challenges 
     presented by owning your own business. I enjoyed a gift that 
     enabled me to bring in business, but quickly found that we 
     lacked the necessary skills and experience within the firm to 
     manage and grow the work that I'd captured. We needed to 
     learn the basic skills of pricing, contract management, and

[[Page 7890]]

      project management in order to perform successfully. On the 
     business side, the basic and key concepts of developing a 
     solid business plan were foreign to me. The significance and 
     meaning of operating assets and liabilities were as 
     unfamiliar to me as the standard operational procedures of an 
     M1 Tank. I was a warrior, not a businessman.
       After two years of slowly building the organization to 18 
     employees, surviving delivery order to delivery order, and 
     continually asking ourselves whether the effort was worth the 
     reward, two pivotal events occurred:
       1. The company received its 8(a) status from the Small 
     Business Administration.
       2. We entered into an informal Mentor-Protege relationship 
     with Anteon Corporation.
       The 8(a) program was instrumental in opening doors to 
     market areas in which our corporation would not normally 
     compete. Our informal mentor protege relationship with Anteon 
     provided us access to training resources that allowed us to 
     understand some of the basic concepts of doing business in 
     the DOD arena. This was an important asset for ESN at such a 
     critical point in our business life.
       In 1999 ESN and Anteon took the next natural step in 
     advancing our relationship by entering into a formal Mentor-
     Protege relationship through the Defense Information Systems 
     Agency (DISA). In the short four years since its birth, the 
     company had grown to 28 employees and had limped along with 
     limited and inexperienced infrastructure.
       The formal Mentor-Protege relationship established a far 
     more structured and focused approach to assisting ESN with 
     its developmental needs. Our mentor introduced to us cutting 
     edge and critical ideas, not only in technology but in our 
     financial and other responsibilities as a company. They have 
     helped ESN to implement effective management controls 
     including budgeting and financial management and are largely 
     responsible for catalyzing ESN's commitment to achieve ISO 
     9000 certification in 2001. Our mentor has helped us build a 
     foundation that will take ESN far into the 21st century. 
     After only two short years in our formal Mentor-Protege 
     relationship with Anteon we employ 87 people, which would not 
     have been possible without our Mentor's help. Our progress 
     was recognized by the Department of Defense in March 2001 
     with the award of the prestigious Nunn-Perry Award. As a 
     result of the progress we have made, ESN is able to 
     contribute to the Gross National Product and provide 
     outstanding technical and engineering skills to our nation's 
     warfighters. I am now a businessman and former warrior.
       Without the Mentor-Protege Program there would be no 
     ``ESNs'' to contribute to the important cause of keeping our 
     nation safe and free by protecting our country and our 
     national security. As you can tell from this letter, I fully 
     believe in and support the Mentor-Protege Program, 
     established many years ago by our forward thinking leaders, 
     and willingly respond to any call that will help to continue 
     and improve this program.
           Sincerely,
                                            Raymond F. Lopez, Jr.,
                                                  President & CEO.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Graham, Mr. Reid, 
        Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. McCain):
  S. 862. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2002 through 2006 to carry 
out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2001,'' 
bipartisan legislation that would authorize funds to relieve State and 
county governments of the some of the high costs of incarcerating 
persons who enter this country illegally and are later convicted of 
felonies or multiple misdemeanors. I am pleased to be joined in 
introducing this bill by Senators Jon Kyl, Bob Graham, John McCain, 
Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, and John Kerry.
  The broad principle on which this bill is based is simple: the 
control of illegal immigration is a Federal responsibility. The Federal 
government's failure to control illegal immigration, and the financial 
and human consequences of this failure are, thus, Federal 
responsibilities as well.
  More and more, the fiscal consequences of illegal immigration are 
being dealt to the states and local counties. The ``State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2001'' would properly 
vest the fiscal burden of incarcerating illegal immigrants who commit 
crimes with the Federal government. It would do this by authorizing up 
to $750 million for federal reimbursement to the States and county 
governments for the direct costs associated with incarcerating 
undocumented felons.
  At the initiative of my colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham, 
the Federal government took the first steps in 1994 in addressing these 
costs by authorizing reimbursements to State and local governments 
through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, established 
by the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Since 1997, the 
authorization level for SCAAP has been $650 million. Last year, the 
provision authorizing SCAAP funding through the Violent Crime Reduction 
Trust Fund expired. Enactment of the reauthorization legislation would 
constitute an acknowledgment that these costs, though borne by other 
levels of government, remain the Federal government's obligation.
  Winning enactment of this authorization bill is half of what Congress 
needs to do to provide adequate funding to states and counties for this 
important program. Congress also must appropriate an adequate level of 
funding for SCAAP, and my colleagues and I will be working in the 
Appropriations Committee to assure that this is done.
  This bill would help all states that are experiencing increasing 
costs from incarcerating undocumented felons, both low-impact and high-
impact states. Even in historically low impact states and counties 
SCAAP funding has been on the rise. SCAAP funding to Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for example, has risen from $14,906 in FY 1999 to $2 million 
in FY 2000. In the County of Outgamie, Wisconsin, SCAAP funding has 
jumped from $0 in FY 1999 to $548,458 in FY 2000. In the State of 
Mississippi, SCAAP funding rose from $47,171 in FY 1999 to $$780,795 in 
FY 2000.
  Clearly, these numbers suggest that the increasing costs to states 
and local governments for incarcerating criminal aliens is not just a 
problem for States on the southwest border but, rather, it is a 
nationwide problem.
  High impact States, like California, continue to face extraordinary 
criminal alien incarceration costs. In February 1997, there were 17,904 
undocumented felons in the California correctional system with 
Immigration and Naturalization Service holds. By the end of February 
2001, there were 20,937 illegal alien inmates in the system with INS 
holds. This year, California taxpayers can expect to spend $576.1 
million to pay for what is, indeed, a Federal obligation. In fact, 
1995, the first year in which SCAAP funding was awarded, California has 
spent a total of $3.8 billion in costs directly associated with 
incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens.
  Local counties often shoulder a disproportional share of the burden 
of criminal aliens as well. In California, for example, counties are 
responsible for providing local law enforcement, detention, 
prosecution, probation and indigent defense services. While SCAAP only 
reimburses a portion of the costs directly related to the incarceration 
of undocumented criminal aliens, most other indirect criminal justice 
expenditures, are fully borne by County taxpayers.
  Furthermore, while funding levels for SCAAP has remained about the 
same, the number of local governments applying for the awards has 
greatly increased over the past few years. In fiscal year 1996, local 
governments were reimbursed at a rate of approximately 60 percent for 
the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens convicted of a felony or two 
or more misdemeanors when only 90 jurisdictions applied for such 
reimbursement. For fiscal year 2000, 361 local jurisdictions applied 
for SCAAP funding, and reimbursement amounted to less than 40 percent 
of the costs incurred by these jurisdictions.
  SCAAP funding is especially important to Los Angeles County, which 
has a larger undocumented immigrant population than any single state 
except California, and operates the nation's largest local criminal 
justice system. Los Angeles County also has a violent crime rate which 
is far higher than the national average, and accounts for about one out 
of every 16 violent crimes committed in the United States.

[[Page 7891]]

  A recent study conducted by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's 
Department concluded that 23 percent of the County's inmate population 
consisted of criminal aliens in 2000. The study further found that the 
impact of criminal aliens on the criminal justice system in Los Angeles 
County had doubled from approximately $75 million in 1990 to more than 
$150 million in 1999.
  There are numerous other jurisdictions in California that are 
significantly affected by criminal aliens, including the border 
counties of San Diego and Imperial. Like Los Angeles County, these 
counties are not being adequately reimbursed for the costs associated 
with the incarceration of criminal aliens.
  In FY 1999 San Diego and Imperial counties spent a combined $56 
million on law enforcement and indirect costs involving illegal aliens, 
whether criminal or not. These costs include criminal alien 
incarceration, justice and court costs, emergency medical care, 
autopsies, and burials of indigents. SCAAP compensated these counties 
for only $8 million or 15 percent of these costs which went solely to 
the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens.
  Border counties, however, are taking a hit in other areas: San Diego, 
has to spend 7 percent of its total public safety budget to cover other 
costs, including indigent defense, court and emergency medical costs; 
Imperial County expends 16 percent of its public safety budget to cover 
these costs.
  The structure of public financing in California makes it extremely 
difficult for local governments, especially county governments, to 
increase their sources of revenue. This problem is greatly exacerbated 
when they are also forced to pay for costs related to the Federal 
responsibility of controlling illegal immigration.
  Without the ability to raise taxes in any significant way to deal 
with the costs associated with criminal illegal aliens, counties are 
forced to cut back on other expenditures that would otherwise benefit 
the legal resident population.
  It is unfortunate, that at a time when Congress is concerned about 
unfunded mandates, the Administration has seen fit to propose cutting 
SCAAP funding by almost $300 million for fiscal year 2002. Given the 
increasing numbers of illegal aliens that California and other states 
incarcerate each year, the Administration's decision in this regard is 
perplexing.
  If the Administration has its way, States and local counties would 
face an unfair set of choices with real consequences: either cut other 
essential local law enforcement programs and community services, or 
raise local taxes. Neither of these are acceptable options.
  I am pleased that this legislation has the support of such 
organizations as the National Association of Counties and the 
California Correctional Peace Officers Association.
  I also ask unanimous consent that the letter to President Bush, 
signed by a bipartisan group of Senators, expressing concern about the 
proposed cuts in SCAAP funding and the text of the bill be printed into 
the Record.
  I join my colleagues in introducing the SCAAP reauthorization bill 
today in hopes that it will go further to alleviate some of the fiscal 
hardships States and local counties incur when they must take on a 
Federal responsibility. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
move it through the Senate.
  I ask for unanimous consent that their letters in support of this 
measure be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows;

                                 S. 862

       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 ``State Criminal Alien 
     Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2002 
                   THROUGH 2006.

       Section 241(i)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1251(i)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) $750,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2006.''.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 2001.
     Hon. George W. Bush, 
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We write out of deep concern over your 
     Fiscal Year 2002 Budget proposal to cut funding for the State 
     Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) by nearly 50 
     percent. We ask that you reconsider this recommendation and, 
     instead, at a minimum, support funding this program at $750 
     million. SCAAP is a vitally important program that assists 
     states in recovering the costs associated with the 
     incarceration of criminal aliens. We would strongly oppose 
     cuts in this important program.
       As you are well aware, control of our nation's borders is 
     under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal government. 
     Unfortunately, Federal efforts are often not adequate to 
     combat illegal immigration. As a consequence, such high 
     impact states as California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, 
     Florida, New York, Washington, Nevada and Massachusetts 
     continue to face extraordinary costs associated with 
     incarcerating criminal aliens. Much of these costs are borne 
     by counties, some of which are among the poorest in the 
     nation and traditionally operate with slim budgets and 
     staffing.
       By some estimates, the total annual cost to states and 
     county governments exceeds $1.6 billion. In light of this 
     growing burden, your FY 02 budget proposal inexplicably 
     recommends cutting funding for this urgently needed program 
     by $300 million.
       Unless the Administration supports and Congress 
     appropriates sufficient funds for SCAAP, our state and local 
     governments will continue to unfairly shoulder the burden of 
     bearing the costs of a Federal responsibility. Given the 
     upward trend in incarceration costs, any shortfall in SCAAP 
     funding would force states to draw funds away from other, 
     cash-strapped crime control and prevention programs. In 
     short, the impact on the states would be devastating.
       Therefore, we urge you to support funding for this 
     important program at a level of $750 million.
           Sincerely,
     Dianne Feinstein.
     Bob Graham.
     Jon Kyl.
     Harry Reid.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2001.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     The President, The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The National Association of counties 
     strongly supports the State Criminal Alien Assistance program 
     (SCAAP) at least at its full authorization level. However, we 
     believe the program needs to be funded at a much higher level 
     than proposed, in order to address the serious shortfall in 
     meeting costs to counties.
       As of today, SCAAP only reimburses counties at a rate of 40 
     percent of actual expenses. To truly meet our annual costs 
     for the incarceration of alien undocumented criminals, this 
     considerable increase in funding would be needed. Moreover, 
     due to recent changes in the administration of the program, 
     significant costs such as inmate recreation and drug 
     treatment expenses are no longer recognized.
       While immigration policy is solemnly within federal 
     responsibility, many of the expenses associated with it 
     burden counties and state governments. Costs of providing 
     services for undocumented aliens extend to county hospitals 
     and county health departments and county human service 
     agencies. With the upward trend in incarceration costs, 
     counties depend even more on federal programs such as SCAAP 
     since most of our local correctional agencies are at or near 
     capacity.
       We strongly urge you to fund SCAAP at least at its full 
     authorization level.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry E. Naake,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                             Pinellas County Sheriff's Office,

                                        Largo, FL, April 27, 2001.
     Senator Bob Graham,
     Senate Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We write to you in response to your 
     Fiscal Year 2002 budget proposal to cut funding for the state 
     Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) by more than 50 
     percent. We urge you not to reduce the program but rather 
     secure funding at a minimum of the current appropriation 
     level. As of today, SCAAP only partly reimburses the actual 
     expenses borne by state and local governments. To truly meet 
     our annual costs for the incarceration of alien undocumented 
     criminals, a considerable increase in the funding would be 
     needed. Due to recent changes in the administration of the 
     program, significant costs such as inmate recreation and drug 
     treatment expenses are no longer recognized.

[[Page 7892]]

       While immigration policy is solemnly within federal 
     responsibility, many of the expenses associated with it 
     burden local jurisdictions. Costs of providing services for 
     undocumented aliens extend to the municipal police, local 
     hospitals and health care department. With the upward trend 
     in incarceration costs, counties depend even more on federal 
     programs such as SCAAP since any undocumented alien caught 
     committing a state felony or several misdemeanors enters the 
     state or county criminal justice system.
       We strongly ask you to reconsider your proposed cuts for 
     SCAAP and instead secure financial assistance for the states 
     and counties.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Everett S. Rice,
     Sheriff.
                                  ____



                              Collier County Sheriff's Office,

                                       Naples, FL, April 27, 2001.
     Re State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).

     President George W. Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We write to you in response to your 
     Fiscal Year 2002 budget proposal to cut funding for the State 
     Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) by more than 50 
     percent. We urge you not to reduce the program but rather 
     secure funding at a minimum of the current appropriation 
     level. As of today, SCAAP only partially reimburses the 
     actual expenses borne by state and local governments. To 
     truly meet our annual costs for the incarceration of alien 
     undocumented criminals, a considerable increase in the 
     funding would be needed. Due to recent changes in the 
     administration of the program, significant costs such as 
     inmate recreation and drug treatment expenses are no longer 
     recognized.
       While immigration policy is solemnly within federal 
     responsibility, many of the expenses associated with it 
     burden local jurisdictions. Costs of providing services for 
     undocumented aliens extend to local law enforcement agencies, 
     local hospitals, and health care departments. With the upward 
     trend in incarcerations costs, counties depend even more on 
     federal programs such as SCAAP since any undocumented alien 
     caught committing a state felony or several misdemeanors 
     enters the state or county criminal justice system.
       We strongly urge you to reconsider your proposed cuts for 
     SCAAP and instead secure financial assistance for the states 
     and counties.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Don Hunter,
     Sheriff.
                                  ____



                         Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office,

                                           Tampa, FL, May 2, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: Enclosed is the original and a copy of 
     my letter to President Bush regarding the State Criminal 
     Alien Assistance Program. I appreciate the pro active stance 
     that you have taken to counter the proposed funding cut.
       We have examined Senate Bill 169 and do not feel that it is 
     a reasonable alternative. Each county and state, regardless 
     of its geographic location, should have equal opportunity to 
     apply for reimbursement using the same formula and criteria.
       The other questions that you posed regarding the efficiency 
     and effectiveness of the current SCAAP program are on point, 
     but we do not have supporting statistics or documentation 
     readily available. I would simply suggest that adequate 
     funding for the program in its current form is of greatest 
     importance.
       Thank you again for taking the lead to protect the SCAAP 
     program.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Cal Henderson,
     Sheriff.
                                  ____

                                           California Correctional


                                   Peace Officers Association,

                                      Sacramento, CA, May 9, 2001.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Senate Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing on behalf of the 
     California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), 
     representing approximately 28,000 correctional officers and 
     parole agents in the State of California, to express our 
     strong support for legislation you plan to introduce to 
     reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 
     (SCAAP).
       It is our understanding that your bill would reauthorize 
     the SCAAP program at an increased level of $750,000,000 for 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2006. As you know, this program 
     reimburses state and local governments for the costs of 
     incarcerating criminal aliens. This program pays for the 
     incarceration costs of criminals who have illegally entered 
     or stayed in our country, have committed at least one felony 
     or two misdemeanor crimes while in this country, and are 
     serving time in local jails or state prisons. SCAAP 
     recognizes that the federal government has sole jurisdiction 
     over preventing illegal immigration and should be accountable 
     for the consequences of illegal immigration. States and 
     counties should not have to bear the financial consequences 
     of the federal government's failure to prevent illegal 
     immigration.
       CCPOA was disappointed that the President's $265 million in 
     funding for this program, a decrease of $299 million from 
     last year, because ``SCAAP reimburses a relatively small 
     portion of states incarceration costs and contributes little 
     to reducing violent crime.'' SCAAP does only reimburse a 
     small portion of states' incarceration costs, which is 
     exactly why appropriations for this program need to be 
     increased, not decreased. The program was never intended to 
     reduce violent crime. It was intended, and has succeeded, in 
     allowing state and local resources to be used on state and 
     local crime issues, rather than federal responsibilities.
       Again, CCPOA commends you for your leadership in this area. 
     Please contact our Washington representative, Shannon Lahey 
     if we can be of any assistance to you in securing the passage 
     of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Mike Jimenez,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2001.
     Hon. Diane Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I understand you will be 
     introducing legislation tomorrow that will raise the SCAAP 
     authorization level to $750 million annually. The National 
     Association of Counties (NACo) wishes to go on record in 
     support of your legislation.
       NACo recognizes that securing the nation's border from 
     illegal immigration is clearly the responsibility of the 
     federal government and that Congress should fully reimburse 
     counties for the costs of incarcerating undocumented aliens.
       We look forward to working with you on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry E. Naake,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues Senators 
Feinstein, Kyl, and others, to reauthorize the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program, or SCAAP.
  SCAAP was created as part of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act because the federal government recognized the 
responsibility we have to alleviate the impact of immigration policy on 
state and local governments.
  The federal government has sole jurisdiction over national 
immigration policy, and we should do all possible so that our federal 
decisions and actions do not cause a financial burden on states and 
localities.
  SCAAP is a reimbursement program that sends dollars to our counties 
and states to help offset the costs associated with jailing illegal or 
criminal aliens.
  SCAAP also established and now facilitates a process to better 
identify undocumented criminal aliens and to expedite the transfer of 
illegal aliens from state facilities and county jails to federal 
institutions in preparation for deportation, or other federal 
proceedings.
  Thus, I was greatly concerned looking through the President's budget 
that this program was cut by more than 50 percent this year.
  At the moment, SCAAP only provides reimbursement for about 37 cents 
of every dollar a state spends on criminal aliens.
  We barely cover half the costs as is, and this is before the program 
was cut in half in this most recent budget.
  For FY99, state and local governments incurred $1.5 billion in costs 
associated with criminal aliens which were eligible for reimbursement 
under the SCAAP program. In FY98, costs to state and local governments 
were even higher: $1.7 billion. This past year, $1.6 billion was spent 
by state and local governments on these concerns. Yet, we funded the 
program at $585 million in each of those years.
  It's not as much reimbursement as is needed, but the reimbursement 
gives an appropriate and respectful amount of relief to state and local 
law enforcement budgets for the benefits they are providing to the 
federal government.
  The National Governors Association has the reauthorization of this 
program as one of their top priorities for this year. I am certain that 
they also join me in asking that the program at least maintain funding 
levels of last year, if not a funding increase that will get them a 
more fair reimbursement for the dollars they spend.

[[Page 7893]]

  The National Association of Counties supports reauthorization and 
full funding of SCAAP.
  They make the point that state and local taxpayers should not have to 
bear the costs of criminal aliens. They are a federal responsibility, 
and should be transferred to federal custody in an expeditious manner.
  Last year, every state, and more than 220 local governments received 
reimbursement under SCAAP.
  This affects us all. I do not want to see the federal government 
backtrack on our obligation to state and local governments in the area 
of immigration.
  Lastly, statements in the President's budget about this program 
concern me.
  Two reasons were given for the cut of $299 million which this program 
endured.
  The first was that it ``reimburses a relatively small portion of 
states' incarceration costs.''
  This statement is true. As I've said, it only reimburses state or 
local governments about 37 cents of each dollar they spend on illegal 
immigrants and criminal aliens.
  However, this is no reason to further cut the program! If anything, 
if we agree on the premise that immigration policy is a federal 
responsibility, then it is reason to fully fund the program.
  I have never seen a rationale given where there is clear federal 
jurisdiction, like in this case, that specifically says: we can only 
reimburse states a small portion of what we owe them, so let's cut the 
program in half. I fail to see how this accomplishes the most effective 
public policy.
  The second reason that is given for the program cut is that it has 
contributed ``little to reducing violent crime.''
  Again--on it's face--this statement may be true, although I have not 
been able to obtain any supporting documentation that verifies it. But, 
regardless, that was never the Congressional intent of the program.
  The intent of the program, clearly spelled out in the 1994 Crime 
bill, was to reimburse state, and later on through amendments in 1996, 
local governments for the costs they incur because of federal 
immigration policy. And, secondly, to expedite the transfer of criminal 
aliens from the state and local facilities where they may be originally 
held, into the federal system. I would argue that this, in and of 
itself, does reduce crime.
  But I find it unfair that a program should be penalized with a 50 
percent budget cut because it failed to achieve a goal that was never 
intended for the program.
  Whichever side of the immigration debate you may be on--a more 
expansive immigration policy, or a more restrictive immigration 
policy--if you agree with the premise that immigration is the 
responsibility of and obligation of the federal government--then you 
should join us in our efforts to reauthorize and fully fund the SCAAP 
program.
  I commend my colleagues, especially Senator Feinstein and Senator 
Kyl, for their tireless work on this issue. I look forward to seeing 
the program reauthorized and funded at an appropriate level this 
Congress.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished 
colleagues in introducing this important legislation to reauthorize the 
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP. Our bill will provide a 
higher level of federal reimbursement to states and localities across 
America whose budgets are disproportionately affected by the costs 
associated with illegal immigration.
  The premise of our bill, and of current law governing this type of 
federal reimbursement to the states, is that controlling illegal 
immigration is principally the responsibility of the federal 
government, not the states. Local jurisdictions in many areas of our 
country, and especially along the southwest border, are burdened by the 
excessive costs of incarcerating criminal illegal aliens and providing 
emergency medical care to illegal immigrants. In a typical year, the 
federal government reimburses states and localities for less than 40 
percent of these costs.
  Regrettably, the Bush Administration's proposed FY 2002 budget would 
slash SCAAP funding by 50 percent from its current, already-
insufficient level of $575 million. The National Governors' Association 
and the National Association of Counties, whose members deal with the 
problem of illegal immigration on a daily basis, believe we should 
increase, not cut, funding for this program, and I agree. SCAAP money 
flows to all 50 states and 350 local governments, with more applying 
for this assistance every year. Rather than forcing local residents to 
subsidize local jails and hospitals because of our government's failure 
to adequately reimburse them for illegal alien incarceration and 
medical costs, I hope we will take responsibility as a nation for 
protecting our borders and covering the contingencies that arise at the 
local level when we fail to do so.
  The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program is an important 
expression of our government's commitment to border control, and to the 
quality of life of Americans who suffer the costs of illegal 
immigration. I thank my colleagues for considering the merits of our 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 863. A bill to require Medicare providers to disclose publicly 
staffing and performance in order to promote improved consumer 
information and choice; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Patient Safety 
Act. This legislation would require Medicare providers, such as 
hospitals and clinics, to publicly disclose staffing ratios and 
performance data in order to promote improved consumer information and 
choice.
  As we celebrate National Nurses Week, it is hard to ignore our 
nation's burgeoning nurse staffing crisis. As the baby-boom population 
ages and begins to require more nursing care, this shortage will only 
get worse. Inadequate staffing levels not only diminish nurses' working 
conditions, but they affect the quality of care patients receive. A 
recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services, Nurse 
Staffing and Patient Outcomes in Hospitals, confirmed that the number 
of nurses in a hospital makes a difference in the quality of care 
patients receive. One recommendation that came out of the study was the 
need to develop a system for routinely monitoring outcomes of hospital 
patient care sensitive to nursing and nurse staffing.
  The Patient Safety Act would help to accomplish this goal by 
requiring health care institutions to make public specified information 
on staffing levels, mix and patient outcomes. At a minimum, they would 
have to make public: the number of registered nurses providing direct 
care; the number of unlicensed personnel utilized to provide direct 
patient care; the average number of patients per registered nurse 
providing direct patient care; patient mortality rate; incidence of 
adverse patient care incidents; and methods used for determining and 
adjusting staffing levels and patient care needs.
  In addition, health care institutions would have to make public data 
regarding complaints filed with the state agency, the Health Care 
Financing Administration (HCFA) or an accrediting agency related to 
Medicare conditions of participation. The agency would then have to 
make public the results of any investigations or findings related to 
the complaint.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill that would 
improve the safety of patients by encouraging higher nurse to patient 
ratios, and ultimately help retain nurses in the face of a nationwide 
nursing shortage by encouraging safe work environments.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Liberman, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 864. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide that aliens who commit acts of torture, extrajudicial killings, 
or other specified atrocities abroad are inadmissible and removable and 
to establish within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice 
an Office of Special Investigations having responsibilities under that 
Act with respect to all alien participants in war crimes, genocide, and 
the commission of acts of torture

[[Page 7894]]

and extrajudicial killings abroad; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with Senators 
Lieberman and Levin the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2001. I 
introduced similar legislation in the last Congress, and was pleased 
when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House and the 
Senate. The measure was introduced in the last Congress by 
Representatives Foley, Franks and Ackerman as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058, 
and has again been introduced on April 4, 2001, by Representatives 
Foley and Ackerman as H.R. 1449. Moreover, the legislation passed the 
Senate, on November 5, 1999, as part of the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe 
Havens to Internationals and War Criminals Act,'' S. 1754, but 
unfortunately was not acted on by the House. The problem of human 
rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in this country is real, 
and requires an effective response with the legal and enforcement 
changes proposed in this legislation. The loss last week by the United 
States of its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission is highly 
embarrassing and unfortunate, but by ensuring that our country is no 
safe haven for human rights abusers, we can lead the world by our 
actions.
  War criminals and human rights abusers have used loopholes in current 
law to enter and remain in this country. I have been appalled that this 
country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in 
foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent 
civilians. For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American 
court that Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in 
Ethiopia engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses 
against them in the late 1970's when they lived in that country. The 
court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a 
naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the 
presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive 
damages in the amount of $1,500,000 to the plaintiffs was subsequently 
affirmed by an appellate court. See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 
(11th Cir. 1996). Yet, while Negewo's case was on appeal, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service granted him citizenship.
  As Professor William Aceves of California Western School of Law has 
noted, this case reveals ``a glaring and troubling limitation in 
current immigration law and practice. This case is not unique. Other 
aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also 
gained entry into the United States and been granted immigration 
relief.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at 657. In fact, the Center for Justice 
and Accountability, a San Francisco human rights group, has identified 
approximately sixty suspected human rights violators now living in the 
United States.
  Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against 
innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and 
Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the 
same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock 
that door to those human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the 
United States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we 
should promptly show them the door out.
  We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed 
for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too 
long after the last world war to focus prosecutorial resources and 
attention on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false 
pretenses, or worse, with the collusion of American intelligence 
agencies. Last month, thousands of declassified CIA documents were made 
public, as a result of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was 
proud to help enact in 1998, and made clear the extent that United 
States relied on and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, 
the head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, 
noted, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of the Cold War 
were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake for other 
aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to the United 
States. We need to focus the attention of our law enforcement 
investigators to prosecute and deport those who have committed 
atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United States.
  When I first introduced this bill in 1999, the Pulitzer prize-winning 
paper, the Rutland Herald, opined on October 31, 1999, that:

       For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything, 
     U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough 
     to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and 
     then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip 
     across the border to find a home in America.

  The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws. 
One Clinton Administration witness testified in February, 2000:

       Right now, only three types of human rights abuses could 
     prevent someone from entering or remaining in the United 
     States. The types of prohibited conduct include: (1) 
     genocide; (2) particularly severe violations of religious 
     freedom; and (3) Nazi persecutions. Even these types of 
     conduct are narrowly defined.

  Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act,'' before 
the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the House Comm. On the 
Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. 
Costello, Associate Deputy Attorney General).
  The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act closes these loopholes. The 
Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, currently provides that (i) 
participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 
1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii) 
aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious 
freedom, are inadmissable to the United States and deportable. See 8 
U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D). The Justice 
Department's specialized OSI unit is authorized under a 1979 Attorney 
General order to investigate only Nazi war criminals, not any other 
human rights abuser. The bill would expand the grounds for 
inadmissibility and deportation to (1) add new bars for aliens who have 
engaged in acts, outside the United States, of ``torture'' and 
``extrajudicial killing'' and (2) remove limitations on the current 
bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly severe violations of 
religious freedom.''
  The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial 
killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which 
implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other 
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These 
definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill 
incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal 
criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2340, which prohibits:

       an act committed by a person acting under the color of law 
     specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental 
     pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to 
     lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or 
     physical control. 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2340(1).

  ``Severe mental pain or suffering'' is further defined to mean:

       prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from: (A) the 
     intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe 
     physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or 
     application, or threatened administration or application, of 
     mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to 
     disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the 
     threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another 
     person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical 
     pain or suffering, or the administration or application of 
     mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to 
     disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. 18 U.S.C. Sec.  
     2340(2).

  The Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for 
``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, this law establishes civil 
liability for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or 
apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . . 
subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which is defined to 
mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment 
pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial 
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. 
Such term, however, does not include any such

[[Page 7895]]

killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under 
the authority of a foreign nation.''
  The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and 
deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the 
current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that 
term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on 
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(3)(E)(ii). For clarity and consistency, the bill would 
substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18 
U.S.C. Sec.  1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. 
obligations under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden 
the reach of the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in 
genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has 
ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This 
broader scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more 
appropriate range of levels of complicity.
  Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly 
severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the 
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, IFRA, limits its 
application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct 
within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the 
individual's spouse and children, if any. The bill would delete 
reference to prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period 
since this limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the 
United States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As 
Professor Aceves opines:

       This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month 
     time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A 
     perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to 
     seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the 
     commission of these acts. William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich. 
     J. Int'l L., at 683.

  In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for 
the spouse or children. This is a serious sanction that should not 
apply to individuals because of familial relationships that are not 
within an individual's control. None of the other grounds relating to 
serious human rights abuse prevent the spouse or child of an abuser 
from entering or remaining lawfully in the United States. Moreover, the 
purpose of these amendments is to make those who have participated in 
atrocities accountable for their actions. That purpose is not served by 
holding the family members of such individuals accountable for the 
offensive conduct over which they had no control.
  Changing the law to address the problem of human rights abusers 
seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part of the 
solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert noted:

       [s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to 
     implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does 
     not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice 
     with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and 
     prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights 
     atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency 
     for this function can be seen in the experiences of the 
     Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at 
     689.

  We need to update OSI's mission to ensure effective enforcement. Our 
country has long provided the template and moral leadership for dealing 
with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized unit, 
OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute, and remove Nazi war 
criminals who had slipped into the United States among their victims 
under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective 
enforcement. Since the OSI's inception in 1979, 61 Nazi persecutors 
have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, 49 such individuals have been 
removed from the United States, and more than 150 have been denied 
entry.
  OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it 
remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when 
Attorney General Civiletti established OSI within the Criminal Division 
of the Department of Justice, that office was directed to conduct all 
``investigative and litigation activities involving individuals, who 
prior to and during World War II, under the supervision of or in 
association with the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other 
affiliated [sic] governments, are alleged to have ordered, incited, 
assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person 
because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' 
(Attorney Gen. Order No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be 
limited by that Attorney General Order.
  Little is being done about the new generation of international human 
rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are 
costly. As any prosecutor, or, in my case, former prosecutor, knows 
instinctively, such delays make documentary and testimonial evidence 
more difficult to obtain. Stale cases are the hardest to make. Since I 
introduced this bill in the last Congress, there have been no further 
developments in the Kelbessa Negewo case, he still remains living in 
Atlanta. In addition, there has been no action taken on Carlos Eugenio 
Vides Casanova, the former head of the Salvadoran National Guard, a 
unit whose members kidnaped, raped, and murdered four American 
churchwomen during the El Salvadoran civil war. Vides Casanova remains 
in the United States.
  We should not repeat the mistake of waiting decades before tracking 
down war criminals and human rights abusers who have settled in this 
country. War criminals should find no sanctuary in loopholes in our 
current immigration policies and enforcement. No war criminal should 
ever come to believe that he is going to find safe harbor in the United 
States.
  The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec.  1103, by directing the Attorney 
General to establish an Office of Special Investigations (OSI) within 
the Department of Justice with authorization to investigate, remove, 
denaturalize, prosecute or extradite any alien who has participated in 
Nazi persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. 
Not only would the bill provide statutory authorization for Office of 
Special Investigation, it would also expand its jurisdiction to deal 
with any alien who participated in torture, extrajudicial killing and 
genocide abroad, not just Nazis.
  The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the 
effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. 
OSI has worked, and it is time to update its mission. The knowledge of 
the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in 
genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective 
prosecutions of these cases and may best be accomplished by the 
concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal 
litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse 
missions.
  The bill directs the Attorney General, in determining what action to 
take against a human rights abuser seeking entry into or found within 
the United States, to consider whether a prosecution should be brought 
under U.S. law or whether the alien should be deported to a country 
willing to undertake such a prosecution. As one human rights expert has 
noted:

       The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is discovered 
     that serious human rights abusers have found their way into 
     the United States may lead well-meaning people to call for 
     their immediate expulsion. Such individuals certainly should 
     not be enjoying the good life America has to offer. But when 
     we ask the question ``where should they be?'' the answer is 
     clear: they should be in the dock. That is the essence of 
     accountability, and it should be the central goal of any 
     scheme to penalize human rights abusers.

  Hearing on H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability 
Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the House Comm. 
On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept. 28, 2000 (Statement of 
Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington Office, Lawyers Committee For 
Human Rights).
  I appreciate that this part of the legislation has proven 
controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have 
concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of 
the Department to address the

[[Page 7896]]

new responsibilities proposed in the bill. Professor Aceves, who has 
studied these matters extensively, has concluded that OSI's 
``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals can be applied with equal 
rigor to other perpetrators of human rights violations. As the number 
of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines, the OSI can begin to enforce 
U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators of genocide and other gross 
violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l. 657.
  Similarly, the Rutland Herald noted that the INS has never deported 
an immigrant on the basis of human rights abuses, by contrast to OSI's 
active deportations of ex-Nazis, while maintaining a list of 60,000 
suspected war criminals with the aim of barring them from entry. Based 
on this record, the Rutland Herald concluded that the legislation 
correctly looks to OSI to carry out the additional responsibilities 
called for in the bill, noting that:

       It resolves a turf war between the INS and the OSI in favor 
     of the OSI, which is as it should be. The victims of human 
     rights abuses are often victimized again when, seeking refuge 
     in the United States, they are confronted by the draconian 
     policies of the INS. It's a better idea to give the job of 
     finding war criminals to the office that has shown it knows 
     how to do the job.

  Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice 
remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from 
the OSI's current mission. Additional resources are authorized in the 
bill for OSI's expanded duties.
  Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the 
Judiciary Committees of the Senate and the House on implementation of 
the new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of 
matters to OSI, any revisions made to INS forms to reflect amendments 
made by the bill, and the procedures developed, with adequate due 
process protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether 
an alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill.
  We must honor and respect the unique experiences of those who were 
victims in the darkest moment in world history. We may help honor the 
memories of the victims of the Holocaust by pursuing all human rights 
abusers and war criminals who enter our country. By so doing, the 
United States can provide moral leadership and show that we will not 
tolerate perpetrators of genocide, extrajudicial killing and torture, 
least of all here.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a sectional 
analysis be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 864

       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 ``Anti-Atrocity Alien 
     Deportation Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND REMOVABILITY OF ALIENS WHO HAVE 
                   COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE OR EXTRAJUDICIAL 
                   KILLINGS ABROAD.

       (a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``has engaged in conduct 
     that is defined as genocide for purposes of the International 
     Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide is 
     inadmissible'' and inserting ``ordered, incited, assisted, or 
     otherwise participated in conduct outside the United States 
     that would, if committed in the United States or by a United 
     States national, be genocide, as defined in section 1091(a) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) Commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial 
     killings.--Any alien who, outside the United States, has 
     committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise 
     participated in the commission of--

       ``(I) any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of 
     title 18, United States Code; or
       ``(II) under color of law of any foreign nation, any 
     extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of Torture 
     Victim Protection Act of 1991;

     is inadmissible.''; and
       (3) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Participants 
     in nazi persecution or genocide'' and inserting 
     ``Participants in nazi persecution, genocide, or the 
     commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
       (b) Removability.--Section 237(a)(4)(D) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(D)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``clause (i) or (ii)'' and inserting 
     ``clause (i), (ii), or (iii)''; and
       (2) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Assisted in 
     nazi persecution or engaged in genocide'' and inserting 
     ``Assisted in nazi persecution, participated in genocide, or 
     committed any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to offenses committed before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. INADMISSIBILITY AND REMOVABILITY OF FOREIGN 
                   GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED 
                   PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS 
                   FREEDOM.

       (a) Section 212(a)(2)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(G) Foreign government officials who have committed 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom.--Any 
     alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, 
     was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as 
     defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom 
     Act of 1998, are inadmissible.''.
       (b) Section 237(a)(4) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Participated in the commission of severe violations 
     of religious freedom.--Any alien described in section 
     212(a)(2)(G) is deportable.''.

     SEC. 4. BAR TO GOOD MORAL CHARACTER FOR ALIENS WHO HAVE 
                   COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE, EXTRAJUDICIAL 
                   KILLINGS, OR SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS 
                   FREEDOM.

       Section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) one who at any time has engaged in conduct described 
     in section 212(a)(3)(E) (relating to assistance in Nazi 
     persecution, participation in genocide, or commission of acts 
     of torture or extrajudicial killings) or 212(a)(2)(G) 
     (relating to severe violations of religious freedom).''.

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL 
                   INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
     Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1103) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) The Attorney General shall establish within the 
     Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of 
     Special Investigations with the authority of investigating, 
     and, where appropriate, taking legal action to remove, 
     denaturalize, prosecute, or extradite any alien found to be 
     in violation of clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 
     212(a)(3)(E). In determining such appropriate legal action, 
     consideration shall be given to--
       ``(1) the availability of prosecution under the laws of the 
     United States for any conduct that may form the basis for 
     removal and denaturalization; or
       ``(2) removal of the alien to a foreign jurisdiction that 
     is prepared to undertake a prosecution for such conduct.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Department of Justice such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out the additional duties established under section 
     103(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by 
     this Act) in order to ensure that the Office of Special 
     Investigations fulfills its continuing obligations regarding 
     Nazi war criminals.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 6. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with the 
     Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall submit 
     to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives a report on implementation of this 
     Act that includes a description of--
       (1) the procedures used to refer matters to the Office of 
     Special Investigations in a manner consistent with the 
     amendments made by this Act;
       (2) the revisions, if any, made to immigration forms to 
     reflect changes in the Immigration and Nationality Act made 
     by the amendments contained in this Act; and
       (3) the procedures developed, with adequate due process 
     protection, to obtain sufficient evidence to determine 
     whether an alien may be inadmissible under the terms of the 
     amendments made by this Act.
                                  ____


    Sectional Analysis of Leahy Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act


                                summary

       This bill would make the following four changes in our 
     country's enforcement capability against aliens who have 
     committed atrocities abroad and then try to enter or remain 
     in the United States:
       Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to expand 
     the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to cover 
     aliens who have engaged in acts of torture, as defined in 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. 2340, and extrajudicial killing, as

[[Page 7897]]

     defined in the Torture Victim Protection Act, abroad, as well 
     as expand the scope of the current prohibitions on aliens who 
     have engaged in genocide and particularly severe violations 
     of religious freedom;
       Amend the INA to make clear that aliens who have committed 
     torture, extrajudicial killing or particularly severe 
     violations of religious freedom abroad do not have ``good 
     moral character'' and cannot qualify to become U.S. citizens 
     or for other immigration benefits;
       Direct the Attorney General to establish the Office of 
     Special Investigation (OSI) within the Criminal Division and 
     expand the OSI's authority to investigate, remove, 
     denaturalize, prosecute, or extradite any alien who 
     participated in torture, genocide and extrajudicial killing 
     abroad--not just Nazi war criminals; and
       Direct the Attorney General, in consultation with the INS 
     Commissioner, to report to the Judiciary Committees of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives on implementation of 
     procedures to refer matters to OSI, revise INS forms, and 
     procedures to obtain adequate evidence to develop ``watch 
     lists'' of aliens deemed inadmissible under the bill.


                          sec. 1. short title

       The bill may be cited as the ``Anti-Atrocity Alien 
     Deportation Act of 2001.''


 sec. 2. inadmissibility and removability of aliens who have committed 
            acts of torture or extrajudicial killing abroad

       Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 
     provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during 
     the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, and (ii) 
     aliens who engaged in genocide, are inadmissible to the 
     United States. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(3)(E)(i)&(ii). 
     Current law also provides that aliens who have participated 
     in Nazi persecutions or engaged in genocide are deportable. 
     See Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D). The bill would amend these sections 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act by expanding the 
     grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to cover aliens 
     who have committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise 
     participated in the commission of acts of torture or 
     extrajudicial killing abroad and clarify and expand the scope 
     of the genocide bar.
       Subsection (a) would first amend the definition of 
     ``genocide'' in clause (ii) of section 212(a)(3) of the INA, 
     8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(ii). Currently, the ground of 
     inadmissibility relating to genocide refers to the definition 
     in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the 
     Crime of Genocide. Article III of that Convention punishes 
     genocide, the conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and 
     public incitement to commit genocide, attempts to commit 
     genocide, and complicity in genocide. The bill would modify 
     the definition to refer instead to the ``genocide'' 
     definition in section 1091(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, which was adopted to implement United States 
     obligations under the Convention and also prohibits attempts 
     and conspiracies to commit genocide.
       Specifically, section 1091(a) defines genocide as 
     ``whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, . . . 
     with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in 
     substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious 
     group as such: (1) kills members of that group; (2) causes 
     serious bodily injury to members of that group; (3) causes 
     the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members 
     of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques; 
     (4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are 
     intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in 
     whole or in part; (5) imposes measures intended to prevent 
     births within the group; or (6) transfers by force children 
     of the group to another group.'' This definition includes 
     genocide by public or private individuals in times of peace 
     or war. While the federal criminal statute is limited to 
     those offenses committed within the United States or 
     offenders who are U.S. nationals, see 18 U.S.C. 1091(d), the 
     grounds for inadmissibility in the bill would apply to such 
     offenses committed outside the United States that would 
     otherwise be a crime if committed within the United States or 
     by a U.S. national.
       In addition, the bill would broaden the reach of the 
     inadmissibility bar to apply not only to those who ``engaged 
     in genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien 
     who has ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated 
     in genocide abroad. This broader scope will ensure that the 
     genocide provision addresses a more appropriate range of 
     levels of complicity.
       Second, subsection (a) would add a new clause to 8 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1182(a)(3)(E) that would trigger operation of the 
     inadmissibility ground if an alien has ``committed, ordered, 
     incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in'' acts of 
     torture, as defined in section 2430 of title 18, United 
     States Code, or extrajudicial killings, as defined in section 
     3(a) the Torture Victim Protection Act. The statutory 
     language--``committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or 
     otherwise participated in''--is intended to reach the 
     behavior of persons directly or personally associated with 
     the covered acts. Attempts and conspiracies to commit these 
     crimes are encompassed in the ``otherwise participated in'' 
     language. This language addresses an appropriate range of 
     levels of complicity for which aliens should be held 
     accountable, and has been the subject of extensive judicial 
     interpretation and construction. See Fedorenko v. United 
     States, 449 U.S. 490, 514 (1981); Kalejs v. INS, 10 F. 3d 
     441, 444 (7th Cir. 1993); U.S. v. Schmidt, 923 F. 2d 1253, 
     1257-59 (7th Cir. 1991); Kulle v. INS, 825 F. 2d 1188, 1192 
     (7th Cir. 1987).
       The definitions of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial 
     killing'' are contained in the Torture Victim Protection Act, 
     which served as the implementing legislation when the United 
     States joined the United Nations' ``Convention Against 
     Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
     Punishment.'' This Convention entered into force with respect 
     to the United States on November 20, 1992 and imposes an 
     affirmative duty on the United States to prosecute torturers 
     within its jurisdiction. The Torture Victim Protection Act 
     provides both criminal liability and civil liability for 
     persons who, acting outside the United States and under 
     actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign 
     nation, commit torture or extrajudicial killing.
       The criminal provision passed as part of the Torture Victim 
     Protection Act defines ``torture'' to mean ``an act committed 
     by a person acting under the color of law specifically 
     intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or 
     suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful 
     sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical 
     control.'' 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1). ``Severe mental pain or 
     suffering'' is further defined to mean the ``prolonged mental 
     harm caused by or resulting from (A) the international 
     infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain 
     or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or 
     threatened administration or application, of mind-altering 
     substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt 
     profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the threat of 
     imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will 
     imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or 
     suffering, or the administration or application of mind-
     altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt 
     profoundly the senses or personality.'' 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2340(2).
       The bill also incorporates the definition of 
     ``extrajudicial killing'' from section 3(a) of the Torture 
     Victim Protection Act. This law establishes civil liability 
     for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or 
     apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . 
     . . subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which 
     is defined to mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by 
     a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted 
     court affording all the judicial guarantees which are 
     recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Such term, 
     however, does not include any such killing that, under 
     international law, is lawfully carried out under the 
     authority of a foreign nation.''
       Both definitions of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial 
     killing'' require that the alien be acting under color of 
     law. A criminal conviction, criminal charge or a confession 
     are not required for an alien to be inadmissible or removable 
     under the new grounds added in this subsection of the bill.
       The final paragraph in subsection (a) would modify the 
     subparagraph heading to clarify the expansion of the grounds 
     for in admissibility from ``participation in Nazi persecution 
     or genocide'' to cover ``torture or extrajudicial killing.''
       Subsection (b) would amend section 237(a)(4)(D) of the INA, 
     8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D), which enumerates grounds for 
     deporting aliens who have been admitted into or are present 
     in the United States. The same conduct that would constitute 
     a basis of inadmissibility under subsection (a) is a ground 
     for deportability under this subsection of the bill. Under 
     current law, assisting in Nazi persecution and engaging in 
     genocide are already grounds for deportation. The bill would 
     provide that aliens who have committed any act of torture or 
     extrajudicial killing would also be subject to deportation. 
     In any deportation proceeding, the burden would remain on the 
     government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the 
     alien's conduct brings the alien within a particular ground 
     of deportation.
       Subsection (c) regarding the ``effective date'' clearly 
     states that these provisions apply to acts committed before, 
     on, or after the date this legislation is enacted. These 
     provisions apply to all cases after enactment, even where the 
     acts in question occurred or where adjudication procedures 
     within the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) or 
     the Executive Office of Immigration Review were initiated 
     prior to the time of enactment.


    SEC. 3. INADMISSIBILITY AND REMOVABILITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
    OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF 
                           RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

       This section of the bill would amend section 212(a)(2)(G) 
     of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G), which was added as 
     part of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 
     (IFRA), to expand the grounds for inadmissibility and 
     removability of aliens who commit particularly severe 
     violations of religious freedom. Current law bars the 
     admission of an individual who, while serving as a foreign 
     government official, was responsible for or directly carried 
     out particularly severe violations of religious freedom 
     within

[[Page 7898]]

     the last 24 months. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(c)(2)(G). The existing 
     provision also bars from admission the individual's spouse 
     and children, if any. ``Particularly severe violations of 
     religious freedom'' is defined in section 3 of IFRA to mean 
     ``systematic, ongoing, egregious violation of religious 
     freedom, including violations such as (a) torture or cruel, 
     inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; (B) prolonged 
     detention without charges; (C) causing the disappearance of 
     persons or clandestine detention of those persons; or (D) 
     other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the 
     security of persons. While IRFA contains numerous provisions 
     to promote religious freedom and to prevent violations of 
     religious freedom throughout the world, including a wide 
     range of diplomatic sanctions and other formal expressions of 
     disapproval, section 212(a)(2)(G) is the only provision which 
     specifically targets individual abusers.
       Subsection (a) would delete the 24-month restriction in 
     section 212(a)(2)(G) since it limits the accountability, for 
     purposes of admission, to a two-year period. This limitation 
     is not consistent with the strong stance of the United States 
     to promote religious freedom throughout the world. 
     Individuals who have committed particularly severe violations 
     of religious freedom should be held accountable for their 
     actions and should be admissible to the United States 
     regardless of when the conduct occurred.
       In addition, this subsection would amend the law to remove 
     the current bar to admission for the spouse or children of a 
     foreign government official who has been involved in 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom. The bar 
     of inadmissibility is a serious sanction that should not 
     apply to individuals because of familiar relationships that 
     are not within an individual's control. None of the other 
     grounds relating to serious human rights abuse prevent the 
     spouse or child of an abuser from entering or remaining 
     lawfully in the United States. Moreover, the purpose of these 
     amendments is to make those who have participated in 
     atrocities accountable for their actions. That purpose is not 
     served by holding the family members of such individuals 
     accountable for the offensive conduct over which they had no 
     control.
       Subsection (b) would amend section 237(a)(4) of the INA, 8 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1227(A)(4), which enumerates grounds for 
     deporting aliens who have been admitted into or are present 
     in the United States, to add a new clause (E), which provides 
     for the deportation of aliens described in subsection (a) of 
     the bill.
       The bill does not change the effective date for this 
     provision set forth in the original IFRA, which applies the 
     operation of the amendment to aliens ``seeking to enter the 
     United States on or after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.''


SEC. 4. BAR TO GOOD MORAL CHARACTER FOR ALIENS WHO HAVE COMMITTED ACTS 
 OF TORTURE, EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS, OR SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS 
                                FREEDOM.

       This section of the bill would amend section 101(f) of the 
     INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(f), which provides the current 
     definition of ``good moral character,'' to make clear that 
     aliens who have committed torture, extrajudicial killing--
     severe violation of religious freedom abroad do not qualify. 
     Good moral character is a prerequisite for certain forms of 
     immigration relief, including naturalization, cancellation of 
     removal for nonpermanent residents, and voluntary departure 
     at the conclusion of removal proceedings. Aliens who have 
     committed torture or extrajudicial killing, or severe 
     violations of religious freedom abroad cannot establish good 
     moral character. Accordingly, this amendment prevents aliens 
     covered by the amendments made in sections 2 and 3 of the 
     bill from becoming United States citizens or benefitting from 
     cancellation of removal or voluntary departure. Absent such 
     an amendment there is no statutory bar to naturalization for 
     aliens covered by the proposed new grounds for 
     inadmissibility and deportation.


     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

       Attorney General Civiletti established OSI in 1979 within 
     the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, 
     consolidating within it all `investigative and litigation 
     activities involving individuals, who prior to and during 
     World War II, under the supervision of or in association with 
     the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other 
     affiliated [sic] governments, are alleged to have ordered, 
     incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the 
     persecution of any person because of race, religion, national 
     origin, or political opinion.'' (Att'y Gen. Order No. 851-
     79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that 
     Attorney General Order.
       This section would amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to 
     establish an Office of Special Investigations within the 
     Department of Justice with authorization to investigate, 
     remove, denaturalize, prosecute or extradite any alien who 
     has participated in Nazi persecution, genocide, torture or 
     extrajudical killing abroad. This would expand OSI's current 
     authorized mission. In order to fulfill the United States' 
     obligation under the ``Convention Against Torture and Other 
     Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment'' to hold 
     accountable torturers found in this country, the bill 
     expressly directs the Department of Justice to consider the 
     availability of prosecution under United States laws for any 
     conduct that forms the basis for removal and 
     denaturalization. In addition, the Department is directed to 
     consider deportation to foreign jurisdictions that are 
     prepared to undertake such a prosecution. Statutory and 
     regulatory provisions to implement Article 3 of that 
     Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the removal of 
     any person to a country where he or she would be tortured, 
     may also be part of this consideration. Additional funds are 
     authorized for these expanded duties to ensure that OSI 
     fulfills its continuing obligations regarding Nazi war 
     criminals.


              SEC. 6. REPORT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT

       This section of the bill would direct the Attorney General, 
     in consultations with the INS Commissioner to report within 
     six months on implementation of the Act, including procedures 
     for referral of matters to OSI, any revisions made to INS 
     forms to reflect amendments made by the bill, and the 
     procedures developed, with adequate due process protection, 
     to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether an alien 
     is deemed inadmissible under the bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 865. A bill to provide small businesses certain protections from 
litigation excesses and to limit the product liability of 
nonmanufacturer product sellers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 865

         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 ``Small 
     Business Liability Reform Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS LAWSUIT ABUSE PROTECTION

Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Limitation on punitive damages for small businesses.
Sec. 104. Limitation on joint and several liability for noneconomic 
              loss for small businesses.
Sec. 105. Exceptions to limitations on liability.
Sec. 106. Preemption and election of State nonapplicability.

                TITLE II--PRODUCT SELLER FAIR TREATMENT

Sec. 201. Findings; purposes.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Applicability; preemption.
Sec. 204. Liability rules applicable to product sellers, renters, and 
              lessors.
Sec. 205. Federal cause of action precluded.

                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 301. Effective date.

            TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS LAWSUIT ABUSE PROTECTION

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States civil justice system is inefficient, 
     unpredictable, unfair, costly, and impedes competitiveness in 
     the marketplace for goods, services, business, and employees;
       (2) the defects in the United States civil justice system 
     have a direct and undesirable effect on interstate commerce 
     by decreasing the availability of goods and services in 
     commerce;
       (3) there is a need to restore rationality, certainty, and 
     fairness to the legal system;
       (4) the spiralling costs of litigation and the magnitude 
     and unpredictability of punitive damage awards and 
     noneconomic damage awards have continued unabated for at 
     least the past 30 years;
       (5) the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized 
     that a punitive damage award can be unconstitutional if the 
     award is grossly excessive in relation to the legitimate 
     interest of the government in the punishment and deterrence 
     of unlawful conduct;
       (6) just as punitive damage awards can be grossly 
     excessive, so can it be grossly excessive in some 
     circumstances for a party to be held responsible under the 
     doctrine of joint and several liability for damages that 
     party did not cause;
       (7) as a result of joint and several liability, entities 
     including small businesses are often brought into litigation 
     despite the fact that their conduct may have little or 
     nothing to do with the accident or transaction giving rise to 
     the lawsuit, and may therefore face increased and unjust 
     costs due to the possibility or result of unfair and 
     disproportionate damage awards;
       (8) the costs imposed by the civil justice system on small 
     businesses are particularly acute, since small businesses 
     often lack the

[[Page 7899]]

     resources to bear those costs and to challenge unwarranted 
     lawsuits;
       (9) due to high liability costs and unwarranted litigation 
     costs, small businesses face higher costs in purchasing 
     insurance through interstate insurance markets to cover their 
     activities;
       (10) liability reform for small businesses will promote the 
     free flow of goods and services, lessen burdens on interstate 
     commerce, and decrease litigiousness; and
       (11) legislation to address these concerns is an 
     appropriate exercise of the powers of Congress under clauses 
     3, 9, and 18 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of 
     the United States, and the 14th amendment to the Constitution 
     of the United States.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Crime of violence.--The term ``crime of violence'' has 
     the same meaning as in section 16 of title 18, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Drug.--The term ``drug'' means any controlled substance 
     (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 802)) that was not legally prescribed for use by 
     the defendant or that was taken by the defendant other than 
     in accordance with the terms of a lawfully issued 
     prescription.
       (3) Economic loss.--The term ``economic loss'' means any 
     pecuniary loss resulting from harm (including the loss of 
     earnings or other benefits related to employment, medical 
     expense loss, replacement services loss, loss due to death, 
     burial costs, and loss of business or employment 
     opportunities) to the extent recovery for such loss is 
     allowed under applicable State law.
       (4) Harm.--The term ``harm'' means any physical injury, 
     illness, disease, or death or damage to property.
       (5) Hate crime.--The term ``hate crime'' means a crime 
     described under section 1(b) of the Hate Crime Statistics Act 
     (28 U.S.C. 534 note).
       (6) International terrorism.--The term ``international 
     terrorism'' has the same meaning as in section 2331 of title 
     18, United States Code.
       (7) Noneconomic loss.--The term ``noneconomic loss'' means 
     loss for physical or emotional pain, suffering, 
     inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, 
     disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and 
     companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of 
     domestic service), injury to reputation, or any other 
     nonpecuniary loss of any kind or nature.
       (8) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual, 
     corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, 
     society, joint stock company, or any other entity (including 
     any governmental entity).
       (9) Punitive damages.--The term ``punitive damages'' means 
     damages awarded against any person or entity to punish or 
     deter such person, entity, or others from engaging in similar 
     behavior in the future. Such term does not include any civil 
     penalties, fines, or treble damages that are assessed or 
     enforced by an agency of State or Federal government pursuant 
     to a State or Federal statute.
       (10) Small business.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``small business'' means any 
     unincorporated business, or any partnership, corporation, 
     association, unit of local government, or organization that 
     has fewer than 25 full-time employees as determined on the 
     date the civil action involving the small business is filed.
       (B) Calculation of number of employees.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the number of employees of a subsidiary of 
     a wholly owned corporation includes the employees of--
       (i) a parent corporation; and
       (ii) any other subsidiary corporation of that parent 
     corporation.
       (11) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the 
     United States, or any political subdivision of any such 
     State, commonwealth, territory, or possession.

     SEC. 103. LIMITATION ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR SMALL 
                   BUSINESSES.

       (a) General Rule.--Except as provided in section 105, in 
     any civil action against a small business, punitive damages 
     may, to the extent permitted by applicable Federal or State 
     law, be awarded against the small business only if the 
     claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that 
     conduct carried out by that defendant with a conscious, 
     flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of others was 
     the proximate cause of the harm that is the subject of the 
     action.
       (b) Limitation on Amount.--In any civil action against a 
     small business, punitive damages awarded against a small 
     business shall not exceed the lesser of--
       (1) three times the total amount awarded to the claimant 
     for economic and noneconomic losses; or
       (2) $250,000,

     except that the court may make this subsection inapplicable 
     if the court finds that the plaintiff established by clear 
     and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with 
     specific intent to cause the type of harm for which the 
     action was brought.
       (c) Application by the Court.--The limitation prescribed by 
     this section shall be applied by the court and shall not be 
     disclosed to the jury.

     SEC. 104. LIMITATION ON JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR 
                   NONECONOMIC LOSS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) General Rule.--Except as provided in section 105, in 
     any civil action against a small business, the liability of 
     each defendant that is a small business, or the agent of a 
     small business, for noneconomic loss shall be determined in 
     accordance with subsection (b).
       (b) Amount of Liability.--
       (1) In general.--In any civil action described in 
     subsection (a)--
       (A) each defendant described in that subsection shall be 
     liable only for the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to 
     that defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of 
     responsibility of that defendant (determined in accordance 
     with paragraph (2)) for the harm to the claimant with respect 
     to which that defendant is liable; and
       (B) the court shall render a separate judgment against each 
     defendant described in that subsection in an amount 
     determined under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Percentage of responsibility.--For purposes of 
     determining the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to a 
     defendant under this section, the trier of fact shall 
     determine the percentage of responsibility of each person 
     responsible for the harm to the claimant, regardless of 
     whether or not the person is a party to the action.

     SEC. 105. EXCEPTIONS TO LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY.

       The limitations on liability under sections 103 and 104 do 
     not apply--
       (1) to any defendant whose misconduct--
       (A) constitutes--
       (i) a crime of violence;
       (ii) an act of international terrorism; or
       (iii) a hate crime;
       (B) results in liability for damages relating to the injury 
     to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of, natural 
     resources described in--
       (i) section 1002(b)(2)(A) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 2702(b)(2)(A)); or
       (ii) section 107(a)(4)(C) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(4)(C));
       (C) involves--
       (i) a sexual offense, as defined by applicable State law; 
     or
       (ii) a violation of a Federal or State civil rights law; or
       (D) occurred at the time the defendant was under the 
     influence (as determined under applicable State law) of 
     intoxicating alcohol or a drug, and the fact that the 
     defendant was under the influence was the cause of any harm 
     alleged by the plaintiff in the subject action; or
       (2) to any cause of action which is brought under the 
     provisions of title 31, United States Code, relating to false 
     claims (31 U.S.C. 3729 through 3733) or to any other cause of 
     action brought by the United States relating to fraud or 
     false statements.

     SEC. 106. PREEMPTION AND ELECTION OF STATE NONAPPLICABILITY.

       (a) Preemption.--Subject to subsection (b), this title 
     preempts the laws of any State to the extent that State laws 
     are inconsistent with this title.
       (b) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This 
     title does not apply to any action in a State court against a 
     small business in which all parties are citizens of the 
     State, if the State enacts a statute--
       (1) citing the authority of this subsection;
       (2) declaring the election of such State that this title 
     does not apply as of a date certain to such actions in the 
     State; and
       (3) containing no other provision.

                TITLE II--PRODUCT SELLER FAIR TREATMENT

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) although damage awards in product liability actions may 
     encourage the production of safer products, they may also 
     have a direct effect on interstate commerce and consumers of 
     the United States by increasing the cost of, and decreasing 
     the availability of, products;
       (2) some of the rules of law governing product liability 
     actions are inconsistent within and among the States, 
     resulting in differences in State laws that may be 
     inequitable with respect to plaintiffs and defendants and may 
     impose burdens on interstate commerce;
       (3) product liability awards may jeopardize the financial 
     well-being of individuals and industries, particularly the 
     small businesses of the United States;
       (4) because the product liability laws of a State may have 
     adverse effects on consumers and businesses in many other 
     States, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to enact 
     national, uniform product liability laws that preempt State 
     laws; and
       (5) under clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the United 
     States Constitution, it is the constitutional role of the 
     Federal Government to remove barriers to interstate commerce.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title, based on the 
     powers of the United States under clause 3 of section 8 of 
     article I of the United States Constitution, are to promote 
     the free flow of goods and services and lessen the burdens on 
     interstate commerce, by--

[[Page 7900]]

       (1) establishing certain uniform legal principles of 
     product liability that provide a fair balance among the 
     interests of all parties in the chain of production, 
     distribution, and use of products; and
       (2) reducing the unacceptable costs and delays in product 
     liability actions caused by excessive litigation that harms 
     both plaintiffs and defendants.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Alcohol product.--The term ``alcohol product'' includes 
     any product that contains not less than 1/2 of 1 percent of 
     alcohol by volume and is intended for human consumption.
       (2) Claimant.--The term ``claimant'' means any person who 
     brings an action covered by this title and any person on 
     whose behalf such an action is brought. If such an action is 
     brought through or on behalf of an estate, the term includes 
     the claimant's decedent. If such an action is brought through 
     or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, the term includes the 
     claimant's legal guardian.
       (3) Commercial loss.--The term ``commercial loss'' means--
       (A) any loss or damage solely to a product itself;
       (B) loss relating to a dispute over the value of a product; 
     or
       (C) consequential economic loss, the recovery of which is 
     governed by applicable State commercial or contract laws that 
     are similar to the Uniform Commercial Code.
       (4) Compensatory damages.--The term ``compensatory 
     damages'' means damages awarded for economic and noneconomic 
     losses.
       (5) Dram-shop.--The term ``dram-shop'' means a drinking 
     establishment where alcoholic beverages are sold to be 
     consumed on the premises.
       (6) Economic loss.--The term ``economic loss'' means any 
     pecuniary loss resulting from harm (including the loss of 
     earnings or other benefits related to employment, medical 
     expense loss, replacement services loss, loss due to death, 
     burial costs, and loss of business or employment 
     opportunities) to the extent recovery for that loss is 
     allowed under applicable State law.
       (7) Harm.--The term ``harm'' means any physical injury, 
     illness, disease, or death or damage to property caused by a 
     product. The term does not include commercial loss.
       (8) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means--
       (A) any person who--
       (i) is engaged in a business to produce, create, make, or 
     construct any product (or component part of a product); and
       (ii)(I) designs or formulates the product (or component 
     part of the product); or
       (II) has engaged another person to design or formulate the 
     product (or component part of the product);
       (B) a product seller, but only with respect to those 
     aspects of a product (or component part of a product) that 
     are created or affected when, before placing the product in 
     the stream of commerce, the product seller--
       (i) produces, creates, makes, constructs and designs, or 
     formulates an aspect of the product (or component part of the 
     product) made by another person; or
       (ii) has engaged another person to design or formulate an 
     aspect of the product (or component part of the product) made 
     by another person; or
       (C) any product seller not described in subparagraph (B) 
     that holds itself out as a manufacturer to the user of the 
     product.
       (9) Noneconomic loss.--The term ``noneconomic loss'' means 
     loss for physical or emotional pain, suffering, 
     inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, 
     disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and 
     companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of 
     domestic service), injury to reputation, or any other 
     nonpecuniary loss of any kind or nature.
       (10) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual, 
     corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, 
     society, joint stock company, or any other entity (including 
     any governmental entity).
       (11) Product.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``product'' means any object, 
     substance, mixture, or raw material in a gaseous, liquid, or 
     solid state that--
       (i) is capable of delivery itself or as an assembled whole, 
     in a mixed or combined state, or as a component part or 
     ingredient;
       (ii) is produced for introduction into trade or commerce;
       (iii) has intrinsic economic value; and
       (iv) is intended for sale or lease to persons for 
     commercial or personal use.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``product'' does not include--
       (i) tissue, organs, blood, and blood products used for 
     therapeutic or medical purposes, except to the extent that 
     such tissue, organs, blood, and blood products (or the 
     provision thereof) are subject, under applicable State law, 
     to a standard of liability other than negligence; or
       (ii) electricity, water delivered by a utility, natural 
     gas, or steam.
       (12) Product liability action.--
       (A) General rule.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``product liability action'' means a civil action 
     brought on any theory for a claim for any physical injury, 
     illness, disease, death, or damage to property that is caused 
     by a product.
       (B) The following claims are not included in the term 
     ``product liability action'':
       (i) Negligent entrustment.--A claim for negligent 
     entrustment.
       (ii) Negligence per se.--A claim brought under a theory of 
     negligence per se.
       (iii) Dram-shop.--A claim brought under a theory of dram-
     shop or third-party liability arising out of the sale or 
     providing of an alcoholic product to an intoxicated person or 
     minor.
       (13) Product seller.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``product seller'' means a person 
     who in the course of a business conducted for that purpose--
       (i) sells, distributes, rents, leases, prepares, blends, 
     packages, labels, or otherwise is involved in placing a 
     product in the stream of commerce; or
       (ii) installs, repairs, refurbishes, reconditions, or 
     maintains the harm-causing aspect of the product.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``product seller'' does not 
     include--
       (i) a seller or lessor of real property;
       (ii) a provider of professional services in any case in 
     which the sale or use of a product is incidental to the 
     transaction and the essence of the transaction is the 
     furnishing of judgment, skill, or services; or
       (iii) any person who--

       (I) acts in only a financial capacity with respect to the 
     sale of a product; or
       (II) leases a product under a lease arrangement in which 
     the lessor does not initially select the leased product and 
     does not during the lease term ordinarily control the daily 
     operations and maintenance of the product.

       (14) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the 
     United States, or any political subdivision of any such 
     State, commonwealth, territory, or possession.

     SEC. 203. APPLICABILITY; PREEMPTION.

       (a) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this 
     title governs any product liability action brought in any 
     Federal or State court.
       (2) Actions for commercial loss.--A civil action brought 
     for commercial loss shall be governed only by applicable 
     State commercial or contract laws that are similar to the 
     Uniform Commercial Code.
       (b) Relationship to State Law.--This title supersedes a 
     State law only to the extent that the State law applies to an 
     issue covered by this title. Any issue that is not governed 
     by this title, including any standard of liability applicable 
     to a manufacturer, shall be governed by any applicable 
     Federal or State law.
       (c) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to--
       (1) waive or affect any defense of sovereign immunity 
     asserted by any State under any State law;
       (2) supersede or alter any Federal law;
       (3) waive or affect any defense of sovereign immunity 
     asserted by the United States;
       (4) affect the applicability of any provision of chapter 97 
     of title 28, United States Code;
       (5) preempt State choice-of-law rules with respect to 
     claims brought by a foreign nation or a citizen of a foreign 
     nation;
       (6) affect the right of any court to transfer venue or to 
     apply the law of a foreign nation or to dismiss a claim of a 
     foreign nation or of a citizen of a foreign nation on the 
     ground of inconvenient forum; or
       (7) supersede or modify any statutory or common law, 
     including any law providing for an action to abate a 
     nuisance, that authorizes a person to institute an action for 
     civil damages or civil penalties, cleanup costs, injunctions, 
     restitution, cost recovery, punitive damages, or any other 
     form of relief, for remediation of the environment (as 
     defined in section 101(8) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(8))).

     SEC. 204. LIABILITY RULES APPLICABLE TO PRODUCT SELLERS, 
                   RENTERS, AND LESSORS.

       (a) General Rule.--
       (1) In general.--In any product liability action covered 
     under this title, a product seller other than a manufacturer 
     shall be liable to a claimant only if the claimant 
     establishes that--
       (A)(i) the product that allegedly caused the harm that is 
     the subject of the complaint was sold, rented, or leased by 
     the product seller;
       (ii) the product seller failed to exercise reasonable care 
     with respect to the product; and
       (iii) the failure to exercise reasonable care was a 
     proximate cause of the harm to the claimant;
       (B)(i) the product seller made an express warranty 
     applicable to the product that allegedly caused the harm that 
     is the subject of the complaint, independent of any express 
     warranty made by a manufacturer as to the same product;
       (ii) the product failed to conform to the warranty; and
       (iii) the failure of the product to conform to the warranty 
     caused the harm to the claimant; or

[[Page 7901]]

       (C)(i) the product seller engaged in intentional 
     wrongdoing, as determined under applicable State law; and
       (ii) the intentional wrongdoing caused the harm that is the 
     subject of the complaint.
       (2) Reasonable opportunity for inspection.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1)(A)(ii), a product seller shall not be 
     considered to have failed to exercise reasonable care with 
     respect to a product based upon an alleged failure to inspect 
     the product, if--
       (A) the failure occurred because there was no reasonable 
     opportunity to inspect the product; or
       (B) the inspection, in the exercise of reasonable care, 
     would not have revealed the aspect of the product that 
     allegedly caused the claimant's harm.
       (b) Special Rule.--
       (1) In general.--A product seller shall be deemed to be 
     liable as a manufacturer of a product for harm caused by the 
     product, if--
       (A) the manufacturer is not subject to service of process 
     under the laws of any State in which the action may be 
     brought; or
       (B) the court determines that the claimant is or would be 
     unable to enforce a judgment against the manufacturer.
       (2) Statute of limitations.--For purposes of this 
     subsection only, the statute of limitations applicable to 
     claims asserting liability of a product seller as a 
     manufacturer shall be tolled from the date of the filing of a 
     complaint against the manufacturer to the date that judgment 
     is entered against the manufacturer.
       (c) Rented or Leased Products.--
       (1) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (2), and for 
     determining the applicability of this title to any person 
     subject to that paragraph, the term ``product liability 
     action'' means a civil action brought on any theory for harm 
     caused by a product or product use.
       (2) Liability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     any person engaged in the business of renting or leasing a 
     product (other than a person excluded from the definition of 
     product seller under section 202(13)(B)) shall be subject to 
     liability in a product liability action under subsection (a), 
     but any person engaged in the business of renting or leasing 
     a product shall not be liable to a claimant for the tortious 
     act of another solely by reason of ownership of that product.

     SEC. 205. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION PRECLUDED.

       The district courts of the United States shall not have 
     jurisdiction under this title based on section 1331 or 1337 
     of title 28, United States Code.

                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 301. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect with respect to any civil action 
     commenced after the date of the enactment of this Act without 
     regard to whether the harm that is the subject of the action 
     occurred before such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Warner)
  S. 866. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
a national media campaign to reduce and prevent underage drinking in 
the United States; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today along with my good friend and 
colleague Senator Warner because I am deeply concerned with the 
underage drinking occurring in America. Alcohol is currently the number 
1 drug problem for America's youth. Alcohol kills 6.5 times more young 
people in America than all other illicit drugs combined, Pacific 
Institute for Research and Evaluation.
  Drinking under the age of 21 is illegal in all 50 states, yet 10.4 
million kids in America consume alcohol illegally, starting on average 
at just 13 years of age, Health People 2010 Study, Health and Human 
Services. In my own state of Nevada, there has been a 3-percent 
increase since 1997 in the number of teens who report drinking. 
Nevada's youth, ages 12-17 are ranked third nationally in reported 
illicit drug or alcohol dependence and 5th in binge alcohol use, 
National Household Survey, 1999.
  Alcohol is a major contributing factor in approximately half of all 
youth homicides, suicides, motor vehicle crashes, death and disability 
in Nevada, Nevada Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 1999. Alcohol is clearly 
the drug of choice for teenagers throughout America.
  Specifically in Nevada, 73 percent of 10th graders have tried 
alcohol, while 33 percent drink monthly. The numbers are even greater 
for high school seniors, 75 percent and 41 percent respectively, Nevada 
Safe and Drug Free Schools Survey.
  The purpose of our bill the ``National Media Campaign to Prevent 
Underage Drinking Act of 2001'' is to establish a national campaign to 
reduce and prevent underage drinking in America and will be conducted 
by the Department of Health and Human Services.
  This bipartisan legislation will educate America's youth and their 
parents about the dangers and consequences of underage drinking. It 
will use television, print, radio and Internet advertisements to 
highlight the facts and the negative consequence of underage drinking.
  Our bill addresses a need for a comprehensive public education 
campaign aimed at underage drinking. MADD reports that underage 
drinking contributes to increased motor vehicle crashes, crime, 
violence, unprotected sex, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted 
diseases, depression, suicide, alcohol dependence, and other drug use.
  Young people who begin drinking before age 15 are four times more 
likely to develop alcohol dependence than those who begin drinking 
after age 21, National Institutes of Health. The more America's youth 
drink, the more likely they are to drink and drive, American Academy of 
Pediatrics. Over 16,000 Americans were killed in alcohol-related motor 
vehicle crashes in 1999 and nearly one million were injured. In 1999, 
over 2,000 young people between the ages of 15-20 lost their lives to 
alcohol-related crashes.
  Senator Warner and I have chosen to introduce this legislation today 
because Prom season, graduation parties, and summer vacations are all 
rapidly approaching. And that means a lot of parents are focused on the 
threat of teen drinking, and drunk driving. It is however, important 
that we do not focus on underage drinking only during these types of 
events. This is something we should address every day of the year, year 
after year. That is what this legislation does.
  Additionally, as you all know Mother's Day is this Sunday. I want to 
ask that all of you young Americans consider giving your mother a very 
special gift this year. Promise her that you won't drink and drive--at 
your prom, or at your graduation.
  This independent campaign should be established and should be 
conducted by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
Services. Modeled after the Anti-Drug Campaign, the National Media 
Campaign to Prevent Underage Drinking will be separately funded and 
conducted by the Office of Public Health and Science, in conjunction 
with the Surgeon General, and will be based on scientific research.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the National Media Campaign 
to Prevent Underage Drinking Act of 2001 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 866

       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 ``National Media Campaign to 
     Prevent Underage Drinking Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE OF 
                   PUBLIC HEALTH AND SCIENCE; PROGRAM FOR NATIONAL 
                   MEDIA CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT UNDERAGE DRINKING.

       Title XVII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1711. NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT UNDERAGE 
                   DRINKING.

       ``(a) Requirement To Conduct a National Media Campaign.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop, implement, 
     and conduct a national media campaign in accordance with this 
     section for the purpose of reducing and preventing underage 
     drinking in the United States.
       ``(2) Administration.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section through the Office of Public Health and Science and 
     in consultation with the Surgeon General of the Public Health 
     Service.
       ``(3) Based on science.--The Secretary shall develop, 
     implement, and conduct the national media campaign based upon 
     reputable academic and scientific research on youth attitudes 
     and the prevalence of underage drinking in the United States, 
     as well as on the science and research on mass media 
     prevention campaigns.
       ``(4) Supplement; not supplant.--In developing, 
     implementing, and conducting the national media campaign, the 
     Secretary shall supplement (and not supplant) existing 
     efforts by State, local, private, and nonprofit

[[Page 7902]]

     entities to reduce and prevent underage drinking in the 
     United States and shall coordinate with other Federal 
     agencies and departments, including the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, the National Institute on Alcohol 
     Abuse and Alcoholism, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
     Services Administration, the National Institute on Drug 
     Abuse, the Department of Justice, the Department of 
     Transportation, and the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy.
       ``(5) Targeting.--The Secretary shall, to the maximum 
     extent feasible, use amounts available under subsection (e) 
     for media that focuses on, or includes specific information 
     on, prevention or treatment resources for consumers within 
     specific geographic local areas. The Secretary shall ensure 
     that the national media campaign includes messages that are 
     language-appropriate and culturally competent to reach 
     minority groups.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Advertising.--Of the amounts available under 
     subsection (e), the Secretary shall devote sufficient funds 
     to the advertising portion of the national media campaign to 
     meet the stated reach and frequency goals of the campaign.
       ``(2) Authorized uses.--
       ``(A) In general.--Amounts available under subsection (e) 
     for the national media campaign may only be used for the 
     development of the campaign and--
       ``(i) the development of a comprehensive strategy planning 
     document;
       ``(ii) the purchase of media time and space;
       ``(iii) talent reuse payments;
       ``(iv) out-of-pocket advertising production costs;
       ``(v) testing and evaluation of advertising;
       ``(vi) evaluation of the effectiveness of the media 
     campaign; and
       ``(vii) the negotiated fees for the winning bidder on 
     request for proposals issued by the Assistant Secretary for 
     Health.
       ``(B) Certain uses.--In support of the primary goal of 
     developing, implementing and conducting an effective 
     advertising campaign, funds available under subsection (e) 
     may be used for--
       ``(i) partnerships with community, civic, and professional 
     groups, and government organizations related to the media 
     campaign; and
       ``(ii) entertainment industry collaborations to fashion 
     underage-drinking prevention messages in motion pictures, 
     television programming, popular music, interactive (Internet 
     and new) media projects and activities, public information, 
     news media outreach, and corporate sponsorship and 
     participation.
       ``(3) Prohibitions.--None of the amounts available under 
     subsection (e) may be obligated or expended--
       ``(A) to supplant efforts of community-based coalitions to 
     reduce and prevent underage drinking;
       ``(B) to supplant current pro bono public service time 
     donated by national and local broadcasting networks;
       ``(C) for partisan political purposes;
       ``(D) to fund media campaigns that feature any elected 
     officials, persons seeking elected office, cabinet level 
     officials, or other Federal officials employed pursuant to 
     section 213 of schedule C of title 5, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, unless the Assistant Secretary for Health 
     provides advance notice to the appropriations committees, the 
     oversight committees, and the appropriate authorizing 
     committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate; or
       ``(E) to fund or support advertising messages bearing any 
     company or brand logos or other identifying corporate or 
     trade information.
       ``(4) Matching requirement.--As a condition of each 
     purchase of media time or space for the national media 
     campaign, the Secretary shall require that the seller of the 
     time or space provide non-Federal contributions to the 
     national media campaign in an amount equal to 50 percent of 
     the purchase price of the time or space, which may be 
     contributions of funds, or in-kind contributions in the form 
     of public service announcements specifically directed to 
     reducing and preventing underage drinking.
       ``(c) Reports to Congress.--
       ``(1) Comprehensive strategy.--Not later than 6 months 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     shall develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy 
     that identifies the nature and extent of the problem of 
     underage drinking, the scientific basis for the strategy, 
     including a review of the existing scientific research, 
     target audiences, goals and objectives of the campaign, 
     message points that will be effective in changing attitudes 
     and behavior, a campaign outline and implementation plan, an 
     evaluation plan, and the estimated costs of implementation.
       ``(2) Annual reports.--The Secretary shall annually submit 
     to Congress a report on the activities for which amounts 
     available under subsection (e) were obligated during the 
     preceding year, including information for each quarter of 
     such year, and on the specific parameters of the national 
     media campaign including whether the campaign is achieving 
     identified performance goals based on an independent 
     evaluation.
       ``(3) Progress report.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the progress of the national media 
     campaign based on measurable outcomes previously provided to 
     Congress.
       ``(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `underage drinking' means any consumption of alcoholic 
     beverages by individuals who have not attained the age at 
     which (in the State involved) it is legal to purchase such 
     beverages.
       ``(e) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2007.
       ``(2) Limitation regarding comprehensive strategy 
     activities.--Of the amounts appropriated under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary may not expend more than $1,000,000 to carry 
     out subsection (c)(1).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 868. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974, Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to require that group and individual health insurance coverage and 
group health plans provide coverage and group health plans provide 
coverage of cancer screening; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
require health insurance plans to cover screening tests for cancer. 
Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney and Sue Kelly are introducing a companion 
bill in the House today.
  The bill requires plans to cover screening tests including 
mammography and clinical breast examinations for breast cancer, ``pap'' 
tests and pelvic examinations for gynecological cancers, colorectal 
screening for colon and rectum cancers, and prostate screening for 
prostate cancer.
  To address future changes in scientific knowledge and medical 
practice, the bill allows the Secretary to change the requirements upon 
the Secretary's initiative or upon petition by a private individual or 
group. This provision is included because we do not yet have screening 
tests for many cancers, including brain tumors, leukemia Hodgkin's 
disease, and ovarian, liver and pancreatic cancers. These are often not 
detected until they produce symptoms, at which point the cancer may 
have advanced significantly.
  The American Cancer Society has described ``screening'' as ``the 
search for disease in persons who do not have disease or who do not 
recognize that they have symptoms of disease,'' Screening, as defined 
by the American medical Association, is ``health care services or 
products provided to an individual without apparent signs or symptoms 
of an illness, injury, or disease for the purpose of identifying or 
excluding an undiagnosed illness, disease or condition.'' One of the 
most common screening procedures is the mammogram, which millions of 
women get annually to determine if there are suspicious lesions or 
lumps in their breasts.
  A major way to reduce the number of cancer-related deaths and to 
increase survival is to increase cancer screening rates. The American 
Cancer Society, (ACS), predicts that 563,100 Americans will die of 
cancer this year. With appropriate screening, one-third of cancer 
deaths could be prevented, says ACS.
  Screening is the greatest single tool for finding cancers early. 
Cancers found early are cancers that do not grow or metastasize and are 
cancers that can be treated more successfully than those that are found 
late. Early detection can extend life, reduce treatment, and improve 
the quality of life. For example, people can have colon cancer long 
before they know it. They may not have any symptoms, Patients diagnosed 
by a colon cancer screening have a 90 percent chance of survival while 
patients not diagnosed until symptoms are apparent only have a 8 
percent change of survival.
  Screening-accessible cancers, such as cancers of the breast, tongue, 
mouth, colon, rectum, cervix, prostate, testis, and skin, account for 
approximately half of all new cancer cases. If all Americans had 
regular cancer screenings, the five-year survival rate for cancers of 
the breast, tongue, mouth, colon, rectum, cervix, prostate, testis and 
skin could grow from 81 percent to 95 percent.
  Screening costs less than treatment. For example, Medicare pays from 
$100 to $400 for a colorectal cancer screening test. The cost of 
treating colorectal

[[Page 7903]]

cancer from diagnosis to death costs over $51,000, according to the 
Institute of Medicine.
  To put cancer deaths in perspective, the number of Americans that die 
each year from cancer exceeds the total number of Americans lost to all 
wars that we have fought in this century. The American Cancer Society 
says that over 1.3 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the 
U.S. this year.
  Despite our increasing understanding of cancer, unless we act with 
urgency, the cost to the United States is likely to become unmanageable 
in the next 10-20 years. The incidence rate of cancer in 2010 is 
estimated to increase by 29 percent for new cases, and cancer deaths 
are estimated to increase by 25 percent. Cancer will surpass heart 
disease as the leading fatal disease in the U.S. by 2010. With our 
aging U.S. population, unless we act now to change current cancer 
incidence and death rates, according to the September 1998 report from 
the Cancer March Research. Task Force, we can expect over 2.0 million 
new cancer cases and 1.0 million deaths per year by 2025. Listen to 
these startling statistics: One out of every four deaths in the U.S. is 
caused by cancer. That more than 1,500 Americans will die each day from 
cancer. The National Cancer Institute estimates that approximately 8.2 
million Americans alive today have a history of cancer. One out of 
every two men, one out of every three women will be diagnosed with 
cancer at some point in their lifetime.
  One of the tragedies of cancer is that we have tools available which 
can prevent much unnecessary suffering and death. But cancer must be 
prevented and it must be found early.
  Deaths from colorectal cancer could be cut in half if most people 
over 50 had refuting screenings, for a disease that claims 56,700 a 
year.
  Experts cite several barriers that prevent many Americans from 
getting cancer screenings. These include a lack of insurance coverage, 
inadequate insurance coverage, inability to pay for screenings, a fear 
of discomfort, and the fact that most of American health care is 
complaint drive, not preventive.
  Insurance coverage is a major factor in whether people have 
preventive screenings. In other words, when screenings are covered by 
plans, people are more likely to get them. In California, screening 
rates for cervical and breast cancer are lower for uninsured women, who 
are less likely to have had a recent screening and more likely to have 
gone longer without being screened than women with coverage. In 
Medicare, for example, a study reported in Public Health Reports in 
October 1997, found that Medicare coverage increased the use of 
mammograms.
  According to an University of California-Los Angeles Center for 
Health Policy Research study from February 1998, in California women 
ages 18-64, 63 percent of uninsured women had not had a Pap test during 
1997 versus 40 percent of insured women. Additionally, approximately 67 
percent of uninsured Californian women ages 30-64 had not had a 
clinical breast examination during 1997, compared to 40 percent for 
insured women in the same age group.
  The bill we are introducing, by requiring plans to cover screenings, 
can reduce death, reduce suffering and reduce costs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objections, it was so ordered.
  A summary of the bill follows:

       Summary of the Comprehensive Cancer Screening Act of 2001

       Requires private health insurance plans to cover cancer 
     screenings consistent with professionally-developed and 
     recognized medical guidelines, specifically: mammograms and 
     clinical breast examinations (for breast cancer); ``pap'' 
     tests and pelvic examinations (for gynecological cancers); 
     colorectal screening (for colon and rectum cancers); prostate 
     cancer screening (for prostate cancers).
       Authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Health an Human Services 
     by regulation to modify or update the coverage requirements 
     to reflect advances in medical practice or new scientific 
     knowledge, for all cancers as screenings are developed, based 
     on the Secretary's own initiative or upon the petition of an 
     individual or organization.
       Prohibits health insurance plans from: denying eligibility 
     for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the bill; 
     providing monetary payments to encourage individuals to 
     accept less than the minimum protections available; 
     penalizing or reducing reimbursement because a provider 
     provides care consistent with these requirements; providing 
     incentives to a provider to encourage the provider to provide 
     care inconsistent with the requirements.
       Requires plans to provide subscribers full information on 
     the extent of coverage, including covered benefits, cost-
     sharing requirements, and the extent of choice of providers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 870. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
additional tax incentives for public-private partnerships in financing 
of highway, mass transit, high speed rail, and intermodal transfer 
facilities projects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce 
the Multi Modal Transportation Financing Act. The United States faces a 
significant shortfall in funding for our highway and bridge 
infrastructure needs. It is incumbent upon us to look at new and 
innovative ways to make the most of limited resources to address these 
significant needs. This bill will lift the existing restrictions on 
tax-exempt bond financing for public agencies seeking greater private 
sector participation in a variety of transportation projects. This 
financing tool will serve to manage congestion, build more 
transportation options, and encourage technological innovation.
  This bill will adjust the tax code in order to remove a barrier to 
needed transportation infrastructure investment. Under current Federal 
tax law, highways built by government can be financed through the use 
of tax exempt bonds--but those built by the private sector are not 
eligible to use this valuable financing tool, even though this tool is 
currently available to the private sector for the construction of 
seaports, airports and other public infrastructure facilities. Tax-
exempt bonds can reduce interest rates as much as two percentage points 
below rates on comparable taxable bond issues and can reduce financing 
costs by 20-25 percent. While this has been a huge benefit for other 
infrastructure needs, once the private sector seeks to participate in 
the development or operation of a government-owned highway or intercity 
rail project, tax-exempt financing is no longer available. Yet these 
transportation projects costing from $100 million to over $1 billion 
are rendered financially infeasible when subjected to taxable bond 
financing, forcing the private sector out of transportation project 
development.
  As a result, public/private partnerships in the provision of highway 
facilities are unlikely to materialize, despite the potential 
efficiencies in design, construction, and operation offered by such 
arrangements. By depending solely on public sector tax-exempt 
financing, some projects will not be built at all, while projects that 
still get built are done so much later, at higher cost, greater 
inefficiency and public sector risk.
  Private sector participation in these transportation projects will 
provide access to new expertise, greater operating efficiencies, new 
sources of investment capital, and private sector risk sharing. This 
practice of private sector involvement has already been successfully 
implemented in a number of other countries. U.S. companies are 
currently investing billions of dollars in foreign infrastructure 
projects that are not subject to the United States tax code 
discrimination against similar private investment. Increasing the 
private sector's role in these countries has offered opportunities for 
construction cost savings and more efficient operation.
  The effort to enhance private sector participation began a few years 
ago by my predecessor as chairman of the environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator John Chafee. While his legislation did pass the 
Senate, it never made it to the President's desk. It is

[[Page 7904]]

time for this long over due private sector encouragement to become law.
  I hope that this bill can be one in a series of new approaches to 
meeting our substantial transportation infrastructure needs and will be 
one of the approaches that will help us find more efficient methods to 
design, build, and operate the nation's transportation infrastructure. 
We should begin by knocking down barriers that discourage the private 
sector from unleashing its full resources to help build this nation's 
transportation network. I urge my colleague to join me in supporting 
this vital legislation.
  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. 870

       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 ``Multimodal Transportation 
     Financing Act''.

     SEC. 2. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF QUALIFIED HIGHWAY 
                   INFRASTRUCTURE.

       (a) Treatment as Exempt Facility Bond.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 142 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     exempt facility bond) is amended by striking ``or'' at the 
     end of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (12) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(13) qualified highway infrastructure projects.''.
       (b) Qualified Highway Infrastructure Projects.--Section 142 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(k) Qualified Highway Infrastructure Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(13), the 
     term `qualified highway infrastructure project' means a 
     project--
       ``(A) for the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance 
     of a highway, including related startup costs, and
       ``(B) meeting the requirements of paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Project requirements.--A project meets the 
     requirements of this paragraph if the project--
       ``(A) serves the general public,
       ``(B) is located on publicly-owned rights-of-way, and
       ``(C) is publicly owned or the ownership of the highway 
     constructed, reconstructed, or maintained under the project 
     reverts to the public.''
       (c) Exemption From General State Volume Caps.--Paragraph 
     (3) of section 146(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to exception for certain bonds) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or (12)'' and inserting ``(12), or 
     (13)'', and
       (2) by striking ``and environmental enhancements of 
     hydroelectric generating facilities'' and inserting 
     ``environmental enhancements of hydroelectric generating 
     facilities, and qualified highway infrastructure projects''.
       (d) Exemption From Limitation on Use for Land 
     Acquisition.--Section 147(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to exception for certain land acquired for 
     environmental purposes, etc.) is amended by striking ``or 
     wharf'' both places it appears and inserting ``wharf, or 
     qualified highway infrastructure project''.
       (e) Treatment of Certain Refunding Bonds.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 149(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain private 
     activity bonds) is amended by inserting ``or any exempt 
     facility bond issued as part of an issue described in 
     paragraph (13) of section 142(a) (relating to qualified 
     highway infrastructure projects)'' after ``other than a 
     qualified 501(c)(3) bond''.
       (2) Special rules.--Paragraph (6) of section 149(d) of such 
     Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) Special rules for purposes of paragraph (3).--For 
     purposes of paragraph (3)--
       ``(A) bonds issued before October 22, 1986, shall be taken 
     into account under subparagraph (A)(i) thereof except--
       ``(i) a refunding which occurred before 1986 shall be 
     treated as an advance refunding only if the refunding bond 
     was issued more than 180 days before the redemption of the 
     refunded bond, and
       ``(ii) a bond issued before 1986, shall be treated as 
     advance refunded no more than once before March 15, 1986, and
       ``(B) a bond issued as part of an issue that is either the 
     1st or 2nd advance refunding of the original bond shall be 
     treated as only the 1st advance refunding of the original 
     bond if--
       ``(i) at least 95 percent or more of the net proceeds of 
     the original bond issue are to be used to finance a highway 
     infrastructure project (regardless of whether the original 
     bond was issued as a private activity bond),
       ``(ii) the original bonds and applicable refunding bonds 
     are or are reasonably expected to be primarily secured by 
     project-based revenues, and
       ``(iii) in any case in which--

       ``(I) the original bonds or applicable refunding bonds are 
     private activity bonds issued as part of an issue at least 95 
     percent or more of the net proceeds of which are to be used 
     to finance a qualified highway infrastructure project 
     described in section 142(a)(13), the refunding bonds of the 
     issue and original bonds of the issue satisfy the 
     requirements of section 147(b), or
       ``(II) the original bonds and applicable refunding bonds 
     are not private activity bonds, the second generation advance 
     refunding bonds of the issue (and any future bonds of the 
     issue refunding such bonds) satisfy the requirements of 
     section 147(b).''.

       (3) Special rule relating to maturity limitation.--Section 
     147(b) of such Code (relating to maturity limitations) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Special rule for certain highway infrastructure 
     projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of bonds of an issue 
     described in section 149(d)(6)(B), the limit described in 
     paragraph (1)(B) shall be reduced--
       ``(i) in any case in which the original bonds or applicable 
     refunding bonds are private activity bonds, by the remaining 
     weighted average maturity of the escrowed bonds with respect 
     to both the first and second generation advance refunding, 
     and
       ``(ii) in any case in which the original bonds and 
     applicable refunding bonds are not private activity bonds, by 
     the remaining weighted average maturity of the escrowed bonds 
     with respect to the second generation advance refunding.
       ``(B) Remaining weighted average maturity of escrowed 
     bonds.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the remaining 
     weighted average maturity of the escrowed bonds is equal to 
     the weighted average maturity, calculated as of the 
     applicable refunding bond issue date--
       ``(i) with respect to subparagraph (A)(i), of the 
     applicable bonds advance refunded, and
       ``(ii) with respect to subparagraph (A)(ii), of the 
     applicable bonds directly refunded by the second generation 
     advance refunding bonds, and
     treating any date of actual early redemption as a maturity 
     date for this purpose.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 3. MASS COMMUTING FACILITIES.

       (a) Exemption From State Volume Cap.--Section 146(g)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception for 
     certain bonds), as amended by section 2, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(3),'' after ``(2),'', and
       (2) by inserting ``mass commuting facilities,'' after 
     ``wharves,''.
       (b) Inclusion of Rolling Stock.--Section 142(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to airports, docks 
     and wharves, mass commuting facilities and high-speed 
     intercity rail facilities) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Mass commuting facilities.--The term `mass commuting 
     facilities' includes rolling stock related to such 
     facilities.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 4. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF HIGH-SPEED INTERCITY 
                   RAIL FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 142(i)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining high-speed intercity rail facilities) 
     is amended by striking `` and their baggage'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``on high speed rail corridors 
     designated under section 104(d)(2) of title 23, United States 
     Code, or on corridors using magnetic levitation 
     technology.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 5. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF INTERMODAL TRANSFER 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Treatment as Exempt Facility Bond.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 142 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     exempt facility bond), as amended by section 2(a), is amended 
     by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (12), by striking 
     the period at the end of paragraph (13) and inserting ``, 
     or'', and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) intermodal transfer facilities.''.
       (b) Intermodal Transfer Facilities.--Section 142 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 2(b), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Intermodal Transfer Facilities.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a)(14), the term `intermodal transfer facilities' 
     means any facility for the transfer of people or goods 
     between the same or different transportation modes.''.
       (c) Exemption From General State Volume Caps.--Paragraph 
     (3) of section 146(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to exception for certain bonds), as amended by 
     section 2(c), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or (13)'' and inserting ``(13), or 
     (14)'', and
       (2) by striking ``and qualified highway infrastructure 
     projects'' and inserting ``qualified highway infrastructure 
     projects, and intermodal transfer facilities''.

[[Page 7905]]

       (d) Exemption From Limitation on Use for Land 
     Acquisition.--Section 147(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to exception for certain land acquired for 
     environmental purposes, etc.), as amended by section 2(d), is 
     amended by striking ``or qualified highway infrastructure 
     project'' both places it appears and inserting ``qualified 
     highway infrastructure project, or intermodal transfer 
     facility''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (c) of section 142 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or (11)'' both places it appears in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting ``, (11), or (14)'', and
       (2) by striking ``and High-Speed Intercity Rail 
     Facilities'' in the heading thereof and inserting ``, High-
     Speed Intercity Rail Facilities, and Intermodal Transfer 
     Facilities''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

                          ____________________