[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8155-8169]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
        Graham, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Allen, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
        Nelson of Florida, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
        Smith of Oregon, and Mr. Reid.)
  S. 894. A bill to authorize increased support to the democratic 
opposition and other oppressed people of Cuba to help them regain their 
freedom and prepare themselves for a democratic future, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it is an honor to be joined today by 
Senator Lieberman and eight other distinguished Senators in the 
sponsorship of the Cuban Solidarity Act which is intended to be a 
blueprint for a more vigorous U.S. policy to liberate the now enslaved 
island of Cuba.
  This measure, S. 894, is the companion to House bill No. 1271 
sponsored by Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart and 95 other Members of 
the House of Representatives.
  Whether one supports the current embargo on the Castro regime or not, 
we should all agree that we can and must do more to help those 
struggling for freedom today in Cuba. That is the aim of the Cuban 
Solidarity Act, and that is why I ask Senators on both sides of the 
embargo issue to consider supporting this bill on its merits.
  The embargo is not a policy, it is merely a policy tool, and the U.S. 
policy should be to put an end to Fidel Castro's stranglehold on the 
Cuban people and end his brutal dictatorship--and the sooner the 
better.
  The Cuban Solidarity Act will authorize $100 million in U.S. 
assistance to the Cuban people over 4 years. It also will mandate a 
proactive U.S. policy to support the internal opposition to Castro in 
Cuba. This strategy, by the way, is modeled after the decisive U.S. 
support for the Polish Solidarity movement back in the 1980s.
  With the enactment of the legislation, the U.S. Government will move 
beyond merely isolating the Fidel Castro regime. Indeed, we can 
undermine Castro's isolation and oppression of the Cuban people by 
finding bold, proactive, and creative programs to help those who are 
working for change on the island of Cuba. This can be achieved by 
giving the President a mandate to increase all forms of U.S. support 
for prodemocracy and human rights activists in Cuba.
  This support may include food, medicines, office supplies, books, 
educational materials, telephones, FAX machines, or other material or 
financial support. And recipients may include political prisoners or 
their families, persecuted dissidents, labor rights activists, 
economists, journalists, and others working for peaceful change.
  Such support will encourage independent libraries, independent 
agricultural cooperatives, so-called microenterprises run by self-
employed Cubans, or U.S.-based exchange and scholarship programs. In 
addition, this measure will support nongovernmental charitable 
programs, such as senior citizen centers, free clinics, or soup 
kitchens.
  For Senators who are not fans of foreign aid--and I am among them--I 
am obliged nevertheless to acknowledge that the investment the United 
States made in the liberation of Eastern Europe has yielded 
immeasurable benefits. That is precisely what we propose to do with and 
to Cuba. Our businesses and our farmers stand to benefit once the Cuban 
people can begin to reconstruct their economy. This, of course, cannot 
happen until the Cuban people can shed themselves of the Marxist regime 
now in power in Cuba that is bankrupt in every sense of the word.
  While the pending bill neither tightens nor loosens the embargo on 
the Cuban regime--that is to say, the Fidel Castro regime--it will 
allow President Bush to license private donations from Americans to 
independent Cuban groups and to independent self-employed Cubans. The 
President can license the importation into the United States of goods 
made by independent, self-employed Cubans. These potential 
beneficiaries and activities have in common the intent and purpose to 
promote freedom and independence from

[[Page 8156]]

the ruthless Fidel Castro regime that now uses hunger and fear to keep 
the people of Cuba under control.
  Critics of this bill may contend that this high-profile support will 
give Castro an excuse to harass and jail dissidents for receiving 
foreign support. But the sad truth is that Fidel Castro is already 
tormenting his own people, systematically and relentlessly.
  Furthermore, if courageous Cuban dissidents choose to stand up for 
their God-given rights and look to us for moral or material support, 
certainly we should not turn our backs on them. Let Castro do his 
worst. Let us do our best. Let others waste their energy trying to 
engage the wornout, cruel dictator, Fidel Castro. The United States 
will be engaging the other 11 million souls on the island of Cuba who 
have suffered persecution for too long already.
  President Bush already has broad authority to initiate many of the 
programs prescribed by this bill, and I anticipate that he may do so. 
He should begin by instructing all relevant U.S. agencies to increase 
support to democratic opposition groups on the island of Cuba.
  For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development has been 
providing support to U.S. groups promoting democracy and human rights 
in Cuba. Under the Clinton administration, this program amounted to 
little more than ``window dressing.'' Hardly anything was done about 
it. Under President Bush, it must have more personnel, more money, and 
more room to maneuver around the Fidel Castro regime.
  Now other steps are prescribed by this proposed legislation, and they 
are steps that President Bush can take this day, right now. For 
example, the proposed act also urges multilateral diplomacy calling on 
the Cuban Government to respect human rights, free political prisoners, 
legalize political parties, allow independent trade unions, and submit 
to internationally monitored free elections, none of which Fidel Castro 
has permitted since he took over the island of Cuba.
  The pending legislation urges the ``freedom broadcasting" stations, 
known as Radio and Television Marti and the Voice of America, to take 
steps to overcome Castro's jamming of the power of those stations so 
that their excellent programming will be available throughout the 
island.
  The act also urges the President of the United States to instruct the 
Attorney General to bring to justice those Cubans involved in the 
February 1996 shoot-down of four innocent pilots on a humanitarian 
mission over international waters.
  Pending indictments also tell us that Castro and his cronies are up 
to their noses in cocaine smuggling. It is high time for Fidel Castro 
to be held accountable for that crime and his many other crimes.
  The act also mandates an international campaign to remind the world 
every day of Castro's abuse of human rights, workers' rights, the 
independent press, and religious freedom of the Cuban people.
  The act also requires an indepth review of all of Fidel Castro's 
threats to U.S. security posed by his espionage and his relentless 
quest for unconventional weaponry.
  This coming Sunday, May 20, will mark Cuba's independence day. Few 
Americans know that the United States played a pivotal role in helping 
Cubans win their independence from Spain back in 1902. Today, our 
Nation is called upon to keep faith with those Cuban mothers who want 
to raise their children with the best values, and with Cuban fathers 
who want to see their families thrive and prosper, and for little Cuban 
children who deserve a better future than they now have.
  The Cuban Solidarity Act is a blueprint for a principled, proactive 
policy aimed at liberating Cuba. We will be keeping faith with the 
Cuban people.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Frist):
  S. 895. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
credit against income tax for research related to developing vaccines 
against widespread diseases and ensure that such vaccines are 
affordable and widely distributed; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last month at the African Summit on AIDS in 
Nigeria, the Secretary General of the U.N., Kofi Annan, called upon the 
international community to establish a new multibillion-dollar global 
fund to combat AIDS and other infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis 
and malaria. He estimates that $7 billion to $10 billion annually will 
be needed to fight the global pandemic of HIV/AIDS on all fronts--
prevention, care, and treatment. This call reflects the magnitude of 
the challenge before all of us.
  The AIDS crisis has never been so devastating or so urgent as it is 
today. In less than two decades, AIDS has become a global epidemic, 
endangering the lives of millions of people, the majority of them in 
developing countries. It has proved more devastating than wars. In 
1998, in Africa, 200,000 people died in armed conflict, but in the same 
time, 2.2 million people died from AIDS.
  It is destroying the economies of many developing countries at a 
critical juncture, unacceptable as that level of death would be at any 
time, and it is reversing half a century of developmental gains.
  Even more importantly, AIDS has emerged as an international security 
threat with the ability to destroy communities, whole generations, and 
even nations. Just recently, the Bush administration continued what the 
Clinton administration had done, which is recognizing it as a security 
threat to the United States of America.
  The statistics are chilling. Over 36.1 million people are living with 
HIV/AIDS around the world. According to the United Nations, every 60 
seconds, 11 people contract HIV due mostly to unprotected sex, but also 
to intravenous drugs. At the end of the day today, 14,500 more men, 
women, and children will be infected with HIV. Over 13 million children 
have been orphaned by AIDS.
  Africa is hardest hit by this epidemic today. Eight African countries 
are struggling under the weight of a disease that has infected 15 
percent of their adult populations. Three African countries--South 
Africa, Botswana, and Zimbabwe--are threatened with negative population 
growth in the next few years, and if a cure is not found, that will 
happen.
  I know it is difficult for any of us to imagine the enormity of the 
human suffering that goes along with these statistics, but it is 
important that we as policymakers do not shy away from understanding 
the terrible impact AIDS is having on a global basis.
  In South Africa, which is at the epicenter of this global epidemic, 
25 percent of adults, one in every nine South Africans, are now living 
with HIV. U.N. officials estimate that if the epidemic continues to 
spread at its current pace, close to one-half of the country's 15-year-
olds will die of AIDS-related illnesses in the coming years--one-half 
of all the 15-year-olds. This represents an entire generation of South 
Africans.
  While Africa is bearing the brunt of the epidemic today, there are 
strong signs that Asia will soon fall under the same inconceivable 
burden. Infection rates are climbing in Asia with countries such as 
India on the brink of a large-scale expansion of the epidemic. 
Currently, almost 4 million people in India are infected--second only 
to South Africa in total number of infections.
  In a country with one-sixth the world's population, the AIDS pandemic 
in India is of particular concern to us. According to the International 
AIDS Vaccine Initiative, it is making clear inroads into the general 
population. As with many countries affected by HIV/AIDS, many of the 
high-risk groups, such as commercial sex workers, intravenous drug 
users, truckers, and migrant workers, all of whom have high infection 
rates, end up spreading HIV at alarming rates as globalization and the 
market economies continue to put pressure on the movement of migrant 
populations of workers.
  Prevention efforts in India face many of the same obstacles as in 
many developing countries. These include high illiteracy rates, 
widespread poverty,

[[Page 8157]]

very poor infrastructure, the low status of women, and taboos on 
talking about issues of sexuality.
  In East Asia, more than 2.4 million people are already infected with 
the HIV virus, and an estimated 150,000 children have been orphaned. 
While China does not yet have the same infections as India, Chinese 
researchers estimate that the number of HIV-infected people could jump 
to 10 million in a few years.
  Countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are also 
vulnerable, with Russia experiencing the highest increase in infection 
rates in the world last year. The Russian Federation had more new HIV 
infections in 2000 than in all the previous years of the epidemic 
combined, totaling 700,000 infections in the year 2000, up from 170,000 
in 1997.
  Latin America and the Caribbean are also heading down the same path. 
In fact, some of the Caribbean island states have worse epidemics than 
any country outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Five percent of the adults 
in Haiti are living with AIDS.
  Even these alarming statistics do not give a full picture of the 
scope of the HIV/AIDS threat. In fact, for many people in the 
developing world, AIDS is simply another burden on top of many others, 
such as poverty, armed conflict, and incomplete infrastructure.
  By eating away at the social capital of many of these countries, AIDS 
is decimating the most productive members of society who are needed to 
solve many of the other problems in their nations.
  In addition to the challenges posed by AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis 
are also exacting a tremendous toll on the developing world. In 1999, 
there were an estimated 8.4 million new tuberculosis cases, and 10.2 
million new cases are expected in 2005 if present trends continue. 
Malaria also poses an increasing threat as well, killing at least 1 
million people each year, about 3,000 people a day.
  The spread of each of these infectious diseases is made worse by 
health systems' failure, population movement, deteriorating sanitation, 
and insufficient prevention and treatment efforts.
  A human crisis of this proportion demands that we respond with 
urgency and thoughtfulness. We must continue to support robust 
prevention, treatment and care programs. But we must also recognize 
that vaccines are the most effective weapons in the arsenal of modern 
medicine to stop the threat of AIDS and other infectious diseases. 
Pharmaceutical companies, however, are reluctant to invest in research 
for vaccines to prevent HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases because 
they fear they will not recover the expense of their research.
  The bill that I am introducing today, along with my colleague Senator 
Frist, is designed to address this problem by providing incentives for 
pharmaceutical and biotech research companies to accelerate their 
efforts to develop vaccines and microbicides to prevent AIDS, TB, 
malaria, and other deadly infectious diseases. It does this in three 
ways.
  First, it provides a 30 percent tax credit each year on qualified 
research expenses to develop microbicides for HIV and vaccines for HIV, 
TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases that kill more than 1 
million people annually. This is an expansion of the existing R&D tax 
and can be applied to clinical trials outside of the United States, 
since the majority of those infected with these diseases are beyond our 
borders.
  Second, it provides a refundable tax credit to small biotechnology 
companies based on the amount of qualified research that they do in a 
given year. Biotech firms are among the most innovative when it comes 
to research. Increased research efforts by these firms could be 
instrumental to the effort to develop effective vaccines, particularly 
for HIV/AIDS.
  Third, the bill provides a 100 percent tax credit on contracts and 
other arrangements for research and development of these vaccines and 
microbicides. This credit, which is an increase over the 65 percent 
credit now in the tax code, is designed to serve as an incentive to 
larger pharmaceutical companies to work hand in hand with the smaller 
biotech companies to pick up the pace of vaccine development.
  Over the last year a number of pharmaceutical companies have taken 
steps to help in the treatment of those infected with AIDS by providing 
life-extending therapies to the developing world at reduced costs. 
These drugs are critically important but the war against AIDS cannot be 
won unless we develop vaccines against the HIV virus and related 
infectious diseases. The pharmaceutical and biotech companies hold the 
key.
  Once vaccines are developed, it is imperative that they be widely 
distributed. The bill that I am introducing today with Senator Frist 
also addresses the distribution side of the equation. It provides a 100 
percent tax credit to companies on the sales of new vaccines and 
microbicides as long as those sales are made to a qualified 
international health organization or foreign government for 
distribution in developing countries. It also directs the Secretary of 
the Treasury to establish a fund in the Treasury for the purchase and 
distribution of eligible vaccines to developing countries. Finally, it 
urges continued U.S. government support for the Global Alliance for 
Vaccines and Immunizations, GAVI, and the Global Fund for Children's 
Vaccines.
  Mr. President, many steps need to be taken in the war against AIDS 
and other infectious diseases. This bill focuses on only one area but a 
critically important one: vaccine development and distribution. If the 
public and private sectors work together with energy and commitment, I 
believe we can develop the vaccines and once developed, we will win the 
war.
  It is easy for people in a country as rich as we are, as safe as we 
are, as blessed as we are to lose sight of what is happening on the 
rest of the planet. There are even some in this country who are quick 
to simply say: Well, it's their fault; it's the result of their sexual 
practices; it's the result of their values; it's the result of their 
culture.
  It may well be that it is possible for people to cast a finger and to 
point blame, but this is a crisis of human proportions that affects all 
of us. It affects all of us because of the potential destabilization of 
whole nations with which we do business and on whom we must rely in a 
whole series of relationships.
  It is also critical for us to understand the implications of this 
because in the world today there are no boundaries. This is a disease, 
and a disease has all the capacity to be carried across boundaries and 
become as important to us in this nation as it should have been already 
simply by virtue of the number of people in our country who are 
infected and who may potentially carry the disease elsewhere.
  Yes, we must continue to support prevention; yes, we must continue to 
support treatment; and, yes, we must continue to support care programs. 
But I do not believe any of us can feel secure in the notion that there 
will be enough money, enough delivery systems, or that we will ever 
have the capacity to provide the kind of care, treatment, and 
prevention that will deal with the numbers about which we are talking 
in a global pandemic of this nature.
  The most important tool, the most important weapon in the arsenal 
against this we have not even begun to use because we have not 
discovered it yet, and that is a vaccine. A vaccine can replace all of 
the need for infrastructure, except for the delivery of the vaccine, 
the need for care, the extraordinary burden on health care systems, and 
the incapacity of systems to deal with the sheer numbers we are facing.
  There is a reason we do not have a vaccine. It is because there is no 
marketplace. All of these countries are poor, and the drug companies, 
by and large, have an incentive to provide the drugs that most rapidly 
remunerates them. We have Prozac, Viagra, and a host of other drugs 
that are quickly and easily put in the marketplace.
  We need to create an incentive in the Tax Code to encourage research 
and development for the creation of an AIDS vaccine. Many of us are 
confident that if the United States were to create the

[[Page 8158]]

kind of energy in our research and development technology, in our 
education sector, we have the ability to provide the ultimate vaccine 
against this.
  Senator Frist, a colleague of enormous respect in this institution, 
as a physician is unparalleled in his understanding of the difficulties 
of this issue.
  I am proud that he is a cosponsor with me of this legislation. We are 
hoping our colleagues will join us next week when the tax bill comes to 
the floor in reconciliation. We have an opportunity to provide the 
small amount of money necessary through this tax structure to be able 
to create the vaccine that can help deal with this crisis.
  Many steps are needed in the war against AIDS and other infectious 
diseases. This bill focuses on only one area, but it is a critically 
important one, vaccine development and distribution. If the public and 
private sectors work together with the energy and commitment that we 
produced for so many other things in this country, we can make a global 
contribution of historic proportions. I think we should strive to do 
nothing less than that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to support of S. 895, the 
Vaccines for the New Millennium Act of 2001. In an age where 
antibiotics are taken for granted, we often forget that one fourth of 
all deaths worldwide, over 13 million people annually, are the result 
of infectious disease. In the next hour alone, 1,500 will die from an 
infectious disease such as AIDS, malaria, TB or pneumonia, over half 
those who die will be under the age of 5 years old.
  The developing world suffers a disproportionate burden of infectious 
disease deaths, which destroy lives and perpetuate poverty and 
sickness, undermining gains in economic growth, education and life 
expectancy. Vaccines, the most cost-effective weapons in the fight 
against infectious diseases, have eradicated smallpox, nearly 
eliminated polio from the planet, and dramatically lowered measles 
rates.
  Yet vaccines are not reaching all those who need them. The expanded 
use of currently available vaccines, such as those for tetanus, measles 
and hepatitis could save up to 4 million children every year. The U.S. 
heavily invests in immunization programs, providing over $100 million 
each year for polio eradication efforts and millions more to support 
other global vaccination programs. Recently, we joined the Gates 
Foundation and other governments to fund the Global Alliance for 
Vaccines and Immunization to help purchase and deliver the latest 
vaccines to the poorest countries.
  But despite these programs, effective vaccines do not yet exist for 
malaria, TB, or AIDS, diseases that together kill nearly 6 million 
people each year. Unfortunately, research and development for diseases 
such as these, lag far behind the need. Of the $60 billion investment 
in health research by the public and private sectors, only 10 percent 
is allocated to the health needs of developing countries.
  The National Institutes of Health is the global leader in searching 
for new vaccines for these diseases, but the job of NIH is science, not 
development and distribution of commodities such as vaccines. We must 
encourage increased attention by the private sector if vaccines for 
AIDS, Malaria and TB are to become a reality.
  Research and development by both pharmaceutical and biotech companies 
have provided dramatic and lifesaving technologies and drugs that 
benefit millions here and abroad. Their efforts are the lynchpin that 
ensures recent advances in science reach the widest number of people. 
But companies are faced with a conundrum, how do they justify the 
hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to develop and license a 
vaccine, such as for TB, when the markets for those vaccines are 
primarily in the world's poorest countries, countries spending less 
than $10-20 per person on health care per year?
  The Vaccines for the New Millennium Act of 2001, is an attempt to 
provide market incentives for both the large pharmaceutical industry 
and smaller biotech companies to accelerate development of vaccines for 
AIDS, malaria and TB, diseases that disproportionately affect 
developing countries.
  The bill will provide incentives at multiple levels in the vaccine 
development process. It: provides a 30 percent tax credit for research 
and development expenditures for vaccines for malaria, TB, and AIDS; 
provides a refundable tax credit to biotech companies that are doing 
innovative research but are not yet making a profit; provides a 100 
percent credit on sale of vaccines for these three diseases to poor 
countries. Over 10 years, this provision alone could provide as much as 
$1 billion in additional funding for pharmaceutical companies that 
develop vaccines for AIDS, malaria, and TB; authorizes a purchase fund 
for these three vaccines to be established after they become available 
to the market; and provides the same package of benefits to research 
and development of microbicides for HIV/AIDS--medications that would 
enable women to protect themselves from infection with the virus.
  It is the objective of this bill to energize the public/private 
partnership that has helped the U.S. pharmaceutical industry become the 
world leader in innovation. By promoting increased R&D for diseases 
affecting the poorest countries, we will all benefit. There is a clear 
humanitarian and moral call to do what we can to provide safe and 
effective vaccines to save lives. But beyond this obligation, we cannot 
forget that infectious diseases do not respect borders. Until TB, 
malaria, and AIDS are eliminated, we all face the threat from diseases 
that should be rapidly relegated to the waste bin of history.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

          Vaccines for the New Millennium Act of 2001--Summary

       This bill has two purposes: to provide incentives to 
     pharmaceutical and private sector biotech companies to 
     accelerate research and development of vaccines and 
     microbicides to prevent deadly infectious diseases such as 
     HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, which kill some 5-6 
     million people annually; and to increase international access 
     to vaccines and microbicides, once developed.

                   Incentives to Accelerated Research


      1--increased tax credit for vaccine research and development

       Provides a 30 percent tax credit on qualified research 
     expenses to develop microbicides for HIV and vaccines for 
     malaria, TB, HIV and other diseases that kill 1 million 
     people or more annually. This is an expansion of the existing 
     20 percent Research and Development tax credit.
       Mandates that a company file a research plan with the 
     Secretary of the Treasury on these priority vaccines or 
     microbicides before claiming the tax credit.
       Allows the tax credit to be applied to the costs of 
     clinical trials outside of the United States, because of the 
     prevalence of malaria, TB, and HIV in developing countries. 
     However, pre-clinical research must be conducted in the 
     United States in order to claim the tax credit.


         2--refundable tax credit for small, biotech companies

       Provides a refundable tax credit to small biotech companies 
     based on the amount of qualified research that they a company 
     does in a given year. This credit is designed to stimulate 
     increased research among firms that often do the most 
     innovative research.
       Mandates that any firm receiving this credit put an 
     equivalent amount of funds into research and development 
     within 2 years of having received the credit. Such 
     expenditures cannot be claimed under the tax credit for 
     qualified vaccine research and development. Requires the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations to 
     recapture the credit if a company fails to make these 
     expenditures.


               3--tax credit for research contracted out

       Provides a 100 percent tax credit on contracts and other 
     arrangements for research and development on these priority 
     vaccines and microbicides. This credit, an increase from the 
     existing 65 percent, is designed as an incentive for larger 
     firms to contract with smaller, vaccine research companies.

           International Access to Vaccines and Microbicides


          1--Tax Credit on sales of vaccines and microbicides

       Provides a 100 percent tax credit on the value of sales of 
     new vaccines and microbicides for malaria, TB, and HIV and 
     any other disease killing more than 1 million people 
     annually. Sales must be made to a

[[Page 8159]]

     qualified international health organization or foreign 
     government for use in developing countries.
       Limits the annual credit on such sales to $100 million 
     through the years 2002-2006 and 125 million through the years 
     2007-2010.


          2--establishment of lifesaving vaccine purchase fund

       Mandates the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a 
     purchase fund in the Department of the Treasury at the time 
     that an eligible vaccine is ready for purchase.
       Authorizes the Secretary to use the fund to purchase 
     vaccines and distribute those vaccines in developing 
     countries.


           3--other mechanisms to increase access to vaccines

       Requires a company that develops a vaccine or microbicide 
     using the research and development credit to certify to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury that it will establish a plan to 
     maximize distribution of the vaccine or microbicide to 
     developing countries. Such plan would not waive any rights to 
     pricing, patent ownership or release of proprietary 
     information.
       Urges continued U.S. Government support for the Global 
     Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, GAVI, and the Global 
     Fund for Children's Vaccines.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Allard, Mr. Leahy, 
        and Mr. Levin):
  S. 897. A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to provide that 
the procedures relating to the closing or consolidation of a post 
office be extended to the relocation or construction of a post office, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Government Affairs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to re-introduce an 
important, common sense, community-based bill with my friend, Mr. 
Jeffords. That bill is the Post Office Community Partnership Act of 
2001.
  It is not by mistake that we offer this bill during National Historic 
Preservation Week. This week, sponsored by the National Trust for 
Historic Preservation, highlights the need to support the diversity and 
history of our communities and work to revitalize them.
  A few years ago, we discovered that post offices throughout the 
country were not paying attention to local ideas and local needs before 
closing, relocating, consolidating, or constructing new facilities. I 
know of several examples in my home state of Montana. Post offices in 
Livingston and Red Lodge, for example, proposed changes that would have 
severely altered the downtown fabric of those communities. These small, 
rural towns have a Main Street by name and by function. It's on Main 
Street that people stop by the post office on the way to the bank or 
the grocery store. It's where they enjoy the chance to not only get all 
their ``in town'' chores done, but also interact with each other.
  It's small town ``Main Streets'' all over the country that are 
threatened when post offices close or relocate. At a time when many 
rural communities are struggling, the closure or relocation of a Main 
Street post office is the sounding of a death knell.
  Communities like Livingston and Red Lodge define our rural 
landscapes. They have been built around a cluster of essential services 
that ensure their vitality. Communities are unnecessarily hurt when 
cornerstone institutions, like post offices, close or relocate. People 
not only lose a gathering place, they lose an important element of 
their community.
  There are certainly instances where closures, relocations, 
consolidations, and new construction are good choices for a community. 
This bill doesn't change that. What it does, is address those instances 
where people and communities have suffered because the Postal Service 
has made a decision without consulting with community members.
  While the Postal Service has made some internal changes in the past 
couple of years to include more public involvement, I fear that new 
pressures on delivery service will tempt the Postal Service to focus on 
ways to meet their business needs, while belying the role they play in 
communities.
  Today, Senator Jeffords and I are re-introducing legislation to 
ensure public participation in local post office decisions relating to 
closing, consolidation, relocation, or new construction. This bill 
isn't about imposing new mandates on the Postal Service. It's about 
honoring the role that the Postal Service plays in our towns and 
communities. It's about protecting a partnership that communities and 
the Postal Service have nurtured throughout the history of this 
country.
  Indeed, partnership is what this bill is all about. Specifically, our 
bill outlines a process for community notification and involvement. It 
makes sure that a community's voice is heard. It requires the Postal 
Service to post notification of proposed facility changes. It specifies 
that local government officials be notified of the proposed changes at 
the same time as persons serviced by the local post office. And it 
requires the Postal Service to follow local public participation 
processes if they are more stringent than their own.
  These common-sense provisions will ensure that communities continue 
to partner with the Postal Service and that both the Postal Service and 
our communities will continue to enjoy a mutually beneficial 
relationship.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senator Jeffords and me in passing 
this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 897

       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 ``Post Office Community 
     Partnership Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE PROPOSED CLOSING, 
                   CONSOLIDATION, RELOCATION, OR CONSTRUCTION OF A 
                   POST OFFICE.

       (a) Applicability.--Section 404(b) of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and
       (3) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(b)(1) This subsection shall apply in the case of any 
     proposed closing, consolidation, relocation, or construction 
     of a post office.''.
       (b) Advance Notice.--Paragraph (2) of such section 404(b) 
     (as so redesignated) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2)(A) The Postal Service, before making a determination 
     under subsection (a)(3) as to the necessity for a proposed 
     action described in paragraph (1), shall, in order to ensure 
     that the persons, including local government officials, who 
     are (or would be) served by the post office involved will 
     have an opportunity to present their views, provide adequate 
     notice of its intention to take such action with respect to 
     such post office at least 60 days before--
       ``(i) in the case of the proposed construction of a post 
     office, the date of the determination under subsection 
     (a)(3); or
       ``(ii) in the case of an action other than the proposed 
     construction of a post office, the proposed date of such 
     action.
       ``(B) The requirements of this paragraph shall not be 
     considered met unless the notice--
       ``(i) has, by the deadline specified in subparagraph (A)--
       ``(I) been hand delivered or delivered by mail to the 
     persons required under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(II) been published once a week for at least 4 weeks in 1 
     or more newspapers regularly issued and of general 
     circulation within the zip code areas which are (or would be) 
     served by the post office involved; and
       ``(ii) includes a description of the action proposed to be 
     taken with respect to the post office involved, a summary of 
     the reasons for the proposed action, and the date on which 
     such action is proposed to be taken (or, if the construction 
     of a post office is involved, the proposed timetable 
     therefor).''.
       (c) Considerations.--Paragraph (3) of such section 404(b) 
     (as so redesignated) is amended--
       (1) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking ``to 
     close or consolidate'' and inserting ``to take a proposed 
     action with respect to'';
       (2) by striking ``such closing or consolidation'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``such action'';
       (3) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking the semicolon and 
     inserting ``, taking into account (I) the extent to which the 
     post office is part of a core downtown business area (if at 
     all), and (II) the nature and the extent of any opposition 
     within the community to the proposed action;'';
       (4) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``Service employed 
     at such office;'' and inserting ``Service;'';

[[Page 8160]]

       (5) in subparagraph (A)(iv), by inserting ``quantified 
     long-term'' before ``economic''; and
       (6) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     clause (iv), by redesignating clause (v) as clause (viii), 
     and by inserting after clause (iv) the following:
       ``(v) any views or concerns expressed by any officials or 
     other representatives of local government, including whether 
     the proposed action is reasonable in light of local 
     population projections;
       ``(vi) consistency with the size, scale, design, and 
     general character of the surrounding community;
       ``(vii) whether all reasonable alternatives to such action 
     have been explored; and''.
       (d) Notice of Determination.--Paragraph (4) of such section 
     404(b) (as so redesignated) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``to close or consolidate'' and inserting 
     ``to take a proposed action (described in paragraph (1)) with 
     respect to'';
       (2) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (3)''; and
       (3) by striking ``office.'' and inserting ``office 
     (including by posting a copy of such determination in the 
     post office or each post office serving the persons who will 
     be affected by such action) and shall be transmitted to 
     appropriate local officials.''.
       (e) Additional Requirements.--Such section 404(b) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) In any case in which a community has promulgated any 
     procedures to address the relocation, closing, consolidation, 
     or construction of buildings in the community, and the public 
     participation requirements of those procedures are more 
     stringent than those provided in this subsection, the Postal 
     Service shall apply those procedures to the relocation, 
     closing, consolidation, or construction of a post office in 
     that community in lieu of applying the procedures established 
     in this subsection.
       ``(8) In making a determination to relocate, close, 
     consolidate, or construct any post office, the Postal Service 
     shall comply with any applicable zoning, planning, or land 
     use laws (including design guidelines, building codes, and 
     all other provisions of law) to the same extent and in the 
     same manner as if the Postal Service were not an 
     establishment of the Government of the United States.
       ``(9) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     apply to a temporary customer service facility to be used by 
     the Postal Service for a period of less than 60 days.
       ``(10)(A) In this paragraph the term `emergency' means any 
     occurrence that forces an immediate relocation from an 
     existing facility, including natural disasters, fire, health 
     and safety factors, and lease terminations.
       ``(B) If the Postmaster General determines that there 
     exists an emergency affecting a particular post office, the 
     Postmaster General may suspend the application of this 
     subsection, with respect to such post office, for a period of 
     not to exceed 180 days.
       ``(C) The Postmaster General may exercise the suspension 
     authority under this paragraph with respect to a post office 
     once for each discrete emergency affecting such post office.
       ``(11) The relocation, closing, consolidation, or 
     construction of any post office shall be conducted in 
     accordance with applicable provisions of the National 
     Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).''.
       (f) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Such section 
     404(b) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5) (as so redesignated) by striking 
     ``take no action to close or consolidate'' and inserting 
     ``take no action described in paragraph (1) with respect 
     to''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``to close or consolidate'' and inserting 
     ``to take any action described in paragraph (1) with respect 
     to''; and
       (B) by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (4)''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague 
Senator Baucus in reintroducing the ``Post Office Community Partnership 
Act of 2001.''
  This bill is similar to the one we introduced in the 105th and 106th 
Congress that so many of our colleagues supported in the past. It is my 
hope that this year the bill will become law. We are also coordinating 
our efforts with Representative Blumenauer of Oregon who will introduce 
a companion bill in the House of Representatives this week.
  This bill will allow local communities to have a voice in determining 
the future of their local Post Office. In many towns across Vermont, 
the post office functions as the social and economic cornerstone of the 
local downtown area. Not only does the post office provide a daily 
service to residents, it is an enduring neighborhood institution. The 
post office is an enduring neighborhood institution where residents 
catch up with their neighbors, or get the latest news. As a consequence 
many small towns across America are hurt by decisions to close, 
relocate or consolidate postal facilities. Our bill will increase local 
community input when the Postal Service determines that a facility will 
be constructed, consolidated, relocated, or closed.
  This bill also addresses larger smart growth concerns. Right now, the 
U.S. Postal Service is exempt from local zoning and building laws. This 
creates situations where the new facilities do not fit in with the size 
or scale of the local community. Many new facilities are relocated to 
the outer fringes of downtowns which encourages sprawl. Transplanting 
local facilities out of downtown locations has a potentially 
devastating impact on the character of many towns. This bill will help 
preserve the small town way of life by preventing sprawl and 
encouraging the re-use of historic structures. The Post Office 
Community Partnership Act will help communities have a say in the 
future of their local post offices.
  There have been a number of incidents in Vermont where a post office 
has moved out of the traditional town center and local officials have 
had little or no say in the decision. In Perkinsville, VT the post 
office moved from the general store to a site miles from the downtown. 
The same thing happened in Fairfax, when the post office moved from a 
historic building downtown to a strip mall.
  A prime example is Westminster, one of the oldest towns in Vermont. 
This town of 3,200 people was shocked to learn that the Postal Service 
was replacing their old facility with a building more than four times 
as large with 33 parking spaces. There were several reasons the 
community and local government officials were outraged at the decision. 
First, the Postal Services's standard ``design number 30'' does not fit 
in with Westminster's size, scale, zoning, or historic character. The 
Postal Service has been unwilling to modify their standard designs to 
meet community needs. Moreover the neighboring town recently built a 
new post office with more than 1200 PO boxes that are still vacant. The 
Post Office Community Partnership Act will allow the Postal Service and 
the local community to work together from the beginning of the planning 
process toward common sense solutions that benefit everyone.
  This legislation is necessary to ensure that local communities will 
always have a voice in the Postal Service's decision making process. As 
towns struggle to grow and plan for their development, the Postal 
Service has all too often been an unwilling partner. In Vermont and 
across the U.S., many communities are attempting to carefully plan 
their future development, to protect and preserve their open space, 
prevent unregulated sprawl, and conserve natural resources. Yet they 
are not getting any assistance, and are often hindered by Postal 
Service decisions. This bill will close some of the loopholes that 
allow the Postal Service to operate outside the regulations that 
localities place on other businesses and government agencies.
  This legislation will strengthen the ties between the Postal Service 
and local governments, help preserve our downtowns, prevent sprawl, and 
promote sensible, managed growth. I urge my colleagues to join Senator 
Baucus and me in support of this legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor 
of the Post Office Community Partnership Act. Too often the Postal 
Service's designs for new offices fail to conform with local land use 
laws and these new cookie-cutter structures are replacing what were 
once the heart and soul of our towns. This legislation will ensure that 
the Postal Service does a better job of listening to local communities, 
respecting zoning regulations, and preserving Vermont's distinctive 
character.
  In Vermont and across the country, Post Offices are community 
linchpins, serving more than just generic mailing stations. It is the 
Post Office where people go to meet their neighbors and talk about the 
latest news. The Postmaster is sometimes the only national 
representative in a community, and they often provide advice and 
guidance about important issues. The Post Office is inextricably linked 
with daily

[[Page 8161]]

life. Remove it, and the special character of the place is lost.
  As the Post Office has experienced financial difficulties in recent 
years, the prospect of Post Office closures has loomed larger. 
Unfortunately, inadequate processes are in place to ensure that the 
U.S. Postal Service will consult with local communities in the event of 
a closure, relocation, or consolidation. This legislation will ensure 
that the service notifies communities far in advance of any action, and 
ensure that concerned citizens have a role in decisions.
  With such provisions in place and other much-need reforms, the U.S. 
Postal Service will work through its difficulties. The service will 
continue to grow, expanding access and making much-needed 
modernizations to its older facilities.
  Too often, though, new post offices look like they do not belong in 
the heart of a traditional town center. Local zoning ordinances are 
ignored, and the Post Office contributes to unsightly sprawl. While 
there are many success stories, there are few detailed guidelines to 
avoid repetitions of the failures. That is why this legislation also 
includes provisions to ensure the U.S. Postal Service will follow local 
land use laws.
  Successful mail service is a subtle balance between efficiency and 
contributing to the community. I think this important legislation will 
help the U.S. Postal Service find that balance well into the future. I 
commend Senator Jeffords for introducing this legislation, and I urge 
its swift consideration and passage, as it will help preserve the 
important role of our Post Offices in our way of life.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 898. A bill to make technical amendments to the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note), provide compensation to certain 
claimants under such act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan 
legislation that will provide important and necessary technical changes 
to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990, RECA, as amended.
  I am delighted that my good friend and esteemed Chairman of the 
Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, is joining me as the primary 
cosponsor. Pete and I have been working on RECA since its enactment in 
1990 and his leadership has been invaluable over the years in making 
this program a reality.
  I want to give special thanks to Senator Daschle for joining us as an 
original cosponsor on this important legislation. His support of this 
program has been critical to its success.
  I also want to thank Congressman Chris Cannon who is introducing the 
companion bill in the House.
  The compensation fund established under the original RECA Act of 1990 
provides a level of financial support to thousands of individuals, both 
workers and civilians, who were not informed about the health hazards 
associated with radiation exposure. Many of these individuals worked in 
uranium mines, many drove the trucks which transported uranium ore, and 
many happened to live downwind from a nuclear test site. These 
individuals, especially the downwinders, became ill due to their 
radiation exposure.
  As my colleagues will recall, last year Congress passed the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Amendments of 2000, S. 1515. This law, P.L. 106-
245, included new eligibility standards so that individuals who were 
injured as a result of working in the government's nuclear weapon's 
program would receive some compensation for their radiation-related 
illness.
  The RECA Amendments of 2000 made important changes to the original 
1990 Act by updating the list of compensable illnesses, primarily 
cancers, eligible for consideration as well as increasing the number of 
individuals and states eligible for compensation based on the latest 
scientific and medical information gathered over the past decade.
  It has become painfully clear that there remain several important 
problems with the program which needs immediate or corrective attention 
by the Congress.
  First and foremost is the fact that the RECA Trust Fund is depleted. 
This is a situation we cannot allow to continue.
  I must say that I am outraged by the lack of funding for RECA. If 
Social Security recipients suddenly did not receive their checks, can 
you imagine the outcry that would fall on the Congress? A government 
IOU is a second injustice for families who have already suffered once 
too much.
  The fact of the matter is that funding for RECA must be permanently 
appropriated. Otherwise, we continue to run the risk of annual 
appropriation shortfalls during the appropriations process.
  Because the trust fund is depleted, RECA claimants are now receiving 
``IOU'' letters from the Federal Government in lieu of a check. I am 
informed by the Justice Department, which oversees the RECA program, 
that approximately 180 claims cannot be paid because the trust fund is 
depleted. Morever, I understand this number is likely to increase to as 
many as 2,000 claims.
  This situation is simply unacceptable. I have met with RECA claimants 
in my state. It does not take long to see the pain and suffering they 
have endured over the years. Pain and suffering, I might add, that has 
taken a toll not only on their lives but on the lives of their 
families, as well.
  Most of these individuals are now retired; they live on modest 
incomes, and fear their declining health will only exacerbate their 
limited family finances.
  Many of these individuals have already died as a result of their 
injuries sustained while working for the government's nuclear 
production program. They have paid the highest price for service to 
their country--their lives.
  I recently received a copy of a letter from one of my constituents, 
Miss Rita Torres, who wrote to President Bush regarding her father, Mr. 
Jose O. Torres, who suffered from cancer as a result of working in a 
uranium mine.
  Mr. Torres was diagnosed with lung cancer two years ago. It 
metastasized to his liver. He had to use oxygen constantly because part 
of one of his lungs had been removed.
  Seven months ago Mr. Torres received a letter from the Department of 
Justice informing him he had been approved for compensation under the 
RECA program.
  According to Mr. Torres, ``When I received my approval, it was a 
happy day. I have exhausted all my means and have been waiting for some 
relief from my government since the approval letter arrived seven 
months ago. Once I was a strong man, glad to work hard all day long. 
But I am no match for the pain, it has brought me to tears, it has 
brought my wife to tears as she struggles to make me comfortable, it 
has brought my children to tears to see their parents suffer so. I have 
no access to money. I have no influential friends. I am a simple person 
who has understood that when you gave your word, it meant something. 
But all the promises to the people have been forgotten. To be near the 
end [of my life] with no relief from the government has saddened me 
very much.''
  Mr. Torres never received his check from the federal government. He 
received an IOU instead.
  Several weeks ago, on March 21 at 2:30 p.m., Mr. Jose Torres passed 
away. He was 73.
  We cannot forget these brave Americans. When Congress passed the 
original RECA legislation in 1990 and the subsequent RECA 2000 
amendments last year, we made a promise to them.
  Mr. Torres, like thousands of other individuals in the 1940s, 50s and 
60s, worked in some of the most horrendous conditions imaginable all 
the while not knowing that they were exposed to dangerous levels of 
radiation.
  The legislation I am introducing today will provide for a permanent, 
indefinite appropriation to the RECA Trust Fund. Both the President's 
budget and the budget resolution contain a provision proposing to fund 
RECA on a permanent basis.

[[Page 8162]]

  The bill we are introducing today provides the necessary authority 
for Congress to follow-through and appropriate a full and permanent 
allocation to the trust fund.
  Let me also take a moment to comment briefly about another key 
provision in the bill which I believe deals with a matter of fairness 
for the RECA community.
  The legislation we are introducing today ensures that all individuals 
exposed to radiation as a result of the government's nuclear weapons 
production program are accorded the same level of benefits.
  Last fall, Congress passed the Department of Defense Authorization 
Act of 2000, P.L. 106-398, creating a new ``Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program.'' This new program, which I 
supported, establishes a compensation fund for Department of Energy, 
DOE, employees and contract employees who were injured due to exposure 
to radioactive materials while working at DOE nuclear facilities and 
weapons testing sites.
  Under the Energy program, individuals whose claims are approved will 
receive a monetary amount of $150,000 plus prospective medical 
benefits. These benefits are considerably more generous than those 
provided under RECA.
  During the DOD conference last fall, Senator Domenici and I worked to 
provide an increase in benefits for the RECA claimants to provide them 
with an additional $50,000 plus prospective medical benefits.
  It seems blatantly unfair for the federal government to provide a 
richer level of benefits to its own employees than for innocent 
civilians who happened to live downwind from a test site, or who worked 
in one of the mining operations.
  Although the final agreement did extend additional benefits to the 
RECA workers, the conferees decided not to include the downwinders or 
on site participants.
  The bill we are introducing today corrects this injustice and ensures 
that all individuals exposed to radioactive materials, as part of the 
government's program, are treated the same with respect to the level of 
benefits provided.
  The third and final key provision of this legislation provides 
necessary technical changes to the 2000 Act which, essentially, were 
recommended by the Department of Justice. The 2000 Act inadvertently 
eliminated some claimants previously eligible for compensation, and 
made it more difficult for other claimants to prove eligibility.
  For example, in amending the list of downwinder areas, RECA 2000 
inadvertently eliminated individuals in a portion of Mohave County in 
Arizona who were previously eligible under the original RECA program. 
As a consequence, claimants who reside in this portion of Mohave County 
are no longer eligible for compensation. The technical amendment would 
again include this area in the definition of downwinder areas.
  The proposed legislation we are introducing today will also improve 
the efficiency of the RECA program. Moreover, this bill will ensure 
fairness in the administration of RECA.
  I am particularly mindful of concerns regarding the inclusion of 
additional cancers or counties to be included in the Act as well as the 
standards for length of radiation exposure necessary to qualify for the 
program. I know there has been some confusion over the length of 
radiation exposure requirements for certain cancers.
  In this regard, I have included in the bill Section 5 which 
specifically directs the National Research Council to report to 
Congress annually with recommendations to include additional cancers, 
or counties, in the program. Moreover, the NRC is directed to examine 
whether the requirements for exposure to radiation should be reduced. 
This section will provide Congress the needed epidemiological data to 
assist us in resolving these issues.
  It is critical that Congress pass this legislation as soon as 
possible. And, to that end, I intend to schedule this bill for an 
executive business meeting in the Judiciary Committee as soon as 
possible.
  This bill has strong bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to 
support this measure so that the Federal Government can keep its 
commitment to those eligible claimants for whom RECA was enacted.
  I ask unanimous consent 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. 898

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

     SECTION 1. RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TECHNICAL 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
       (1) in section 4(b)(1)(C), by inserting ``, and that part 
     of Arizona that is north of the Grand Canyon'' after 
     ``Gila'';
       (2) in section 4(b)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``lung cancer (other than in situ lung 
     cancer that is discovered during or after a post-mortem 
     exam),''; and
       (B) by striking ``or liver (except if cirrhosis or 
     hepatitis B is indicated).'' and inserting ``liver (except if 
     cirrhosis or hepatitis B is indicated), or lung.'';
       (3) in section 5(a)(1)(A)(ii)(I), by inserting ``or worked 
     for at least 1 year during the period described under clause 
     (i)'' after ``months of radiation'';
       (4) in section 5(a)(2)(A), by striking ``an Atomic Energy 
     Commission'' and inserting ``a'';
       (5) in section 5(b)(5), by striking ``or lung cancer'';
       (6) in section 5(c)(1)(B)(i), by striking ``or lung 
     cancer'';
       (7) in section 5(c)(2)(B)(i), by striking ``or lung 
     cancer'';
       (8) in section 6(e)--
       (A) by striking ``The'' and inserting ``Except as otherwise 
     authorized by law, the''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, mill, or while employed in the 
     transport of uranium ore or vanadium-uranium ore from such 
     mine or mill'' after ``radiation in a uranium mine'';
       (9) in section 6(i), by striking the second sentence;
       (10) in section 6(j), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the 
     Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000, the 
     Attorney General shall issue revised regulations to carry out 
     this Act.'';
       (11) in section 6, by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Substantiation by Affidavits.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall take such 
     action as may be necessary to ensure that the procedures 
     established by the Attorney General under this section 
     provide that a substantiation may be made by an individual 
     filing a claim under those procedures by means of an 
     affidavit described under paragraph (2), in addition to any 
     other material that may be used to substantiate--
       ``(A) employment history for purposes of determining 
     working level months; or
       ``(B) the residence of an individual filing a claim under 
     section 4.
       ``(2) Affidavits.--An affidavit referred to under paragraph 
     (1) is an affidavit that--
       ``(A) meets such requirements as the Attorney General may 
     establish; and
       ``(B) is made by a person other than the individual filing 
     the claim that attests to the employment history or residence 
     of the claimant.'';
       (12) in section 7, by amending subsection (b) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Choice of Remedies.--No individual may receive more 
     than 1 payment under this Act.''; and
       (13) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 14. GAO REPORTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 
     Amendments of 2000, and every 18 months thereafter, the 
     General Accounting Office shall submit a report to Congress 
     containing a detailed accounting of the administration of 
     this Act by the Department of Justice.
       ``(b) Contents.--Each report submitted under this section 
     shall include an analysis of--
       ``(1) claims, awards, and administrative costs under this 
     Act; and
       ``(2) the budget of the Department of Justice relating to 
     this Act.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3 of the Radiation 
     Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 (Public Law 106-
     245) is amended by striking subsections (e) and (i).

     SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN CLAIMANTS UNDER THE 
                   RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 3630 of the Energy Employees 
     Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as 
     enacted into law by Public Law 106-398, is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 3630. SEPARATE TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMANTS UNDER 
                   THE RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT.

       ``(a) Compensation Provided.--An individual who receives, 
     or has received, a payment under section 4 or 5 of the 
     Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) for 
     a claim made under that Act (in

[[Page 8163]]

     this section referred to as a `covered individual'), or the 
     survivor of that covered individual if the individual is 
     deceased, shall receive compensation under this section in 
     the amount of $50,000.
       ``(b) Medical Benefits.--A covered individual shall receive 
     medical benefits under section 3629 for the illness for which 
     that individual received a payment under section 4 or 5 of 
     that Act.
       ``(c) Coordination With RECA.--The compensation and 
     benefits provided in subsections (a) and (b) are separate 
     from any compensation or benefits provided under that Act.
       ``(d) Payment From Compensation Fund.--The compensation 
     provided under this section, when authorized or approved by 
     the President, shall be paid from the compensation fund 
     established under section 3612.
       ``(e) Survivors.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this 
     section, if a covered individual dies before the effective 
     date specified in subsection (g), whether or not the death is 
     a result of the illness specified in subsection (b), a 
     survivor of that individual may, on behalf of that survivor 
     and any other survivors of that individual, receive the 
     compensation provided for under this section.
       ``(2) The right to receive compensation under this section 
     shall be afforded to survivors in the same order of 
     precedence as that set forth in section 8109 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       ``(f) Procedures Required.--The President shall establish 
     procedures to identify and notify each covered individual, or 
     the survivor of that covered individual if that individual is 
     deceased, of the availability of compensation and benefits 
     under this section.
       ``(g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     July 31, 2001, unless Congress provides otherwise in an Act 
     enacted before that date.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--(1) The table of 
     sections for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
     Compensation Program Act of 2000 is amended by striking the 
     item relating to section 3630 and inserting the following:

``Sec.  3630.  Separate treatment of certain claimants under the 
              Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.''.
       (2) Section 3641 of the Energy Employees Occupational 
     Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as enacted into law 
     by Public Law 106-398, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``covered uranium employee'' and inserting 
     ``covered individual''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to offset any payment of 
     compensation under section 3630 and any payment under the 
     Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note).''.

     SEC. 3. ATTORNEY FEES.

       Section 3648(b)(2) of the Energy Employees Occupational 
     Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as enacted into law 
     by Public Law 106-398, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) 10 percent with respect to--
       ``(A) any claim with respect to which a representative has 
     made a contract for services before the date of enactment of 
     this Act; or
       ``(B) a resubmission of a denied claim.''.

     SEC. 4. RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION.

       Section 3(e) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking the first 2 words 
     and inserting ``Indefinite''; and
       (2) by striking ``authorized to be''.

     SEC. 5. REPORTS BY THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.

       (a) Contract for Reports.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the 
     United States shall enter into a contract with the National 
     Research Council to submit reports in accordance with 
     subsection (b).
       (c) Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2002, and not 
     later than December 31 of each year thereafter through 2010, 
     the National Research Council shall submit a report, in 
     accordance with the contract entered into under subsection 
     (a), to Congress that--
       (1) reviews the most recent scientific information relating 
     to radiation exposure and related cancers; and
       (2) makes any recommendation to--
       (A) reduce the length of radiation exposure requirements; 
     or
       (B) include types of cancer or classes of individuals to be 
     covered by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 
     2210 note).
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $600,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 
     through 2011.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Hatch, to 
introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Technical Amendments and 
Refinement Act. These technical amendments are needed because the RECA 
amendments we passed in 2000 inadvertently eliminated some claimants 
previously eligible for compensation and made it more difficult for 
other claimants to prove eligibility.
  These technical amendments are very important, but perhaps more 
importantly this bill provides mandatory funding for the now-bankrupt 
RECA Trust Fund. For over a year now, eligible claimants have been 
receiving nothing more than a five-line IOU from the Justice 
Department. This is an injustice I never imagined when I authored the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990--an injustice that can and 
must be rectified through this bill.
  RECA was designed to compensate our nation's uranium mine workers who 
became afflicted with debilitating and too often deadly radiation-
related diseases. These men helped build our nuclear arsenal--the 
arsenal that is, at least in part, responsible for ending the cold war. 
We must not let their sacrifice go unanswered.
  These miners and their families lived under tough conditions. Some 
lived in one-room houses located as close as 200 feet from the mine 
shafts. Their children played near the mines and their families drank 
underground water that exposed them to radiation. These miners faced 
long, uncomfortable days many feet underground.
  Many of those uranium miners from New Mexico who endured these 
conditions were Native Americans from the Najavo Nation. To this group 
of victims, our government owes a special duty of care based on a 
longstanding trust relationship formed by treaties and agreements.
  Mr. President, the Najavos and all the uranium miners performed a 
special service for our nation, and our nation owes them a special 
obligation. An obligation that it has twice failed to keep.
  Strike one: The government had adequate warning about the radiation 
hazards of uranium mining, and yet federal mine safety standards were 
not fully implemented until 1971. Thus, prior to 1971, the miners were 
sent into inadequately ventilated mines with virtually no warning 
regarding the dangers of radiation.
  Strike two: The government has failed to keep the program fully 
funded. Frankly, this is unconscionable. Those who helped protect our 
nation's security must be compensated for their suffering. Anything 
less is unacceptable.
  Mr. President, our legislation today would ensure that the government 
does not strike out. These men served our nation well, and it is time 
for this nation to serve them well.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Allen):
  S. 899. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 to increase the amount paid to families of public safety 
officers killed in the line of duty; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Frances 
Collender Public Safety Officers' Benefit Improvement Act of the year 
2001.
  At around 6 a.m. on February 6 of this year, Corporal Frances 
Collender of the Delaware State Police pulled her cruiser behind a van 
that had been disabled by an accident on Route 1 in Odessa, DE. 
Tragically, Corporal Collender was struck and killed by another driver 
just as she was assisting the disabled motorist. There was a little bit 
of snow on the ground.
  Corporal Collender was not only a beloved mother and daughter, she 
was also beloved by her entire troop and by the State Police. This was 
a woman who, after having started another career, went back and decided 
to become a public safety officer and joined the elite of the Delaware 
State Police. She was sort of the mother figure of these folks who were 
a lot younger than she. She was a leader. She was a corporal, but in 
many ways she was the captain. She was the one to whom everybody 
looked.
  Everything and anything that was good that was being sponsored by 
police organizations in our State--she was not atypical in that sense--
she was involved in. She was always one who not only refused to shirk 
her duty but took on additional responsibilities.
  She did not have to respond to this call. She was about to get off, 
but she

[[Page 8164]]

responded--it was typical of her--to keep someone else from having to 
come out. She was ``nearby,'' so she responded. And she has passed 
away. She volunteered, as she always did, and, in doing so, maybe saved 
somebody else's life but lost her own.
  This week, with thousands of law enforcement officers, survivors, and 
family members gathered in the Nation's Capital for National Police 
Week, we listened to the President of the United States, as we have 
other Presidents. We listened as the rollcall was called of all fallen 
officers nationwide in the calendar year 2000. Until you attend an 
event such as this, as I am sure my colleagues have, it doesn't--how 
can I say this?--it doesn't sink in, just how incredible these officers 
are, just what incredible chances they take for us, and just how many 
lose their life in doing so.
  Corporal Collender had two beautiful daughters, one of whom has 
become my buddy. She is 17 years old; she is smart; she is beautiful; 
she is engaged. She lives with her grandmom and grandpop who, if you 
knew them--especially grandmom--you would understand, without knowing 
Corporal Collender, that she is everything I said she is.
  It seems to me we have to do more than pay our respects once a year 
to these families for the sacrifices they have made on our behalf. I 
was involved with a group, years ago, that decided although it is 
technically not a Federal responsibility, we should provide a death 
benefit to fallen and slain officers. What I am suggesting today is 
that a death benefit is not sufficient. It was set years ago. Although 
it has increased with inflation, it is below what I think is a 
realistic need of the average first responder's salary.
  This will cover first responders including firefighters. If you think 
about it, there are very few people in law enforcement--none goes into 
it because they think they are going to make a lot of money, and very 
few in law enforcement come from families who have trusts or endowments 
or inheritances that are left. They are working-class people, almost 
all these days college educated. But they make a decision because of 
their sense of duty, their sense of honor, and their sense of just 
wanting to take on difficult tasks. When they die, their families are 
left in a very difficult circumstance.
  I need not tell anyone in here that a $150,000 death benefit--which 
is what the original death benefit is up to now because of inflation--
is insufficient. It is not going to pay even for the college costs of 
one of Corporal Collender's daughters, if she goes to a private 
institution, by the time they get there. It will not even pay for the 
college costs of her younger daughter if she goes to my alma mater, the 
State University of Delaware.
  So I think it is time, particularly in this period of incredible 
surplus we are talking about, when we can decide that the inheritance 
tax should be eliminated for billionaires, when we decide we are going 
to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax breaks to people who 
make over a million bucks and up, that we ought to be able to, for the 
relative handful, thank God--we are talking hundreds now, not talking 
thousands--we ought to be able to raise the death benefit for those who 
give their lives to make us safer.
  Since 1972 with the shooting of a New York deputy sheriff, over 
15,000 public safety officers have been killed in the line of duty; 30 
officers from my State. Thirty from my little State have paid the 
ultimate price, with Corporal Collender being the most recent loss. 
This past Sunday, 313 names were added to the National Law Enforcement 
Officers Memorial. Yesterday, as I said, families paid tribute to those 
fallen officers by laying a wreath at the National Peace Officers 
Memorial Service. I was there. The President paid tribute to Corporal 
Collender and her family and to the families of all officers who were 
lost.
  There are too many--there are too many--line-of-duty deaths each 
year, and for too long our response to their families just hasn't been 
enough.
  The Justice Department runs the Public Safety Officers' Benefits 
program, an initiative begun 25 years ago to make one-time payments to 
assist public safety officers and their families when they become 
disabled, or lose their lives, in the line of duty.
  For the first 12 years of its existence the Public Safety Officers' 
Benefits Program issued $50,000 payments to qualifying officers and 
their families.
  In 1988, we recognized this figure was inadequate both to express the 
gratitude of a grateful nation and to try to put these families on 
sound financial footing. So 13 years ago we raised the payment to 
$100,000 and indexed it for inflation. This year the program began at 
$151,000.
  Last year, 181 claims were paid, and the Public Safety Officers' 
Benefits program has successfully helped disabled officers, their 
families, and the families of those officers killed in the line of duty 
put their lives back together.
  It is time to take another look at the Public Safety Officers' 
Benefits program. Recently, the other body approved legislation that 
would increase to $250,000 the maximum death benefits for families of 
military personnel killed in the line of duty. We should do the same 
thing for the families of slain public safety officers, including 
firefighters.
  So today I am introducing the Frances Collender Public Safety 
Officers' Benefits Improvement Act, legislation that will increase the 
payment under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program from 
$100,000 to $250,000. Payments will continue to be indexed for 
inflation. We have not adjusted the payment under this program for 
almost 15 years, and the families of those who have paid the ultimate 
price deserve some more help than they are getting.
  I have raised this issue with my good friend and chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. He has indicated he may very well 
want to join as an original cosponsor of the bill. I have not been able 
to get in touch with him this morning, so I have not added his name. 
The reason I am introducing the bill now is because the afternoon will 
get so busy and I may not have an opportunity to speak to the 
introduction of this legislation. If my friend from Utah decides to 
join me on this bill, as I hope he will, I am prepared to rename this 
act in the name of both Frances Collender and a slain Utah police 
officer that my friend from Utah would like to add to this legislation. 
I would be happy to do that if he decides and wishes to join me.
  During Police Week, while the Collenders and other heroic families of 
public safety officers are in Washington to pay tribute, let's show our 
gratitude as well, beyond our sympathy. Washington can pay tribute. 
They can pay tribute by us voting and agreeing to increase this death 
benefit. It is the least Congress can do to express our gratitude to 
the peace officers for all they have done. If we cannot afford it now, 
we can never afford it. I do not see how we can afford not to do this 
for the public safety officers of this Nation.
  I thank the Chair. I thank the family of Frances Collender for their 
bravery because it is sometimes much harder to be in the waiting room 
than the operating room. Sometimes it is much harder to be at the grave 
site than being the one buried, I suspect. They have shown great class. 
They have shown great resolve. And the one thing all of us who deal 
with law enforcement and firefighters know, they never forget their 
own. Although those two beautiful young girls of Frances Collender do 
not have their mother, they have inherited, for as long as they live, 
the entire police force of the State of Delaware, who, for real--it is 
not hyperbole--will be there for them, whether they ever knew their 
mother or not, until the day they die. It is part of the tradition, it 
is part of the honor, and it is part of our responsibility as well.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from Delaware, the people of Nevada 
and people all over the country should be grateful to the Senator from 
Delaware, as they are any time they realize there are fewer slain 
police officers as a result of the work done by the Senator from 
Delaware in giving us the COPS Program, putting tens of thousands of

[[Page 8165]]

new police officers all over America on the streets, so there are fewer 
slain police officers, so there is less crime.
  I, of course, did not know Frances Collender. The Senator, from 
Delaware as usual, is very articulate in explaining the importance of 
this woman to the State of Delaware. But as important as she is to the 
State of Delaware, the Senator from Delaware is important to the 
country for the work he has done. In Nevada, it has made a difference. 
Having additional police officers on the street has been a big benefit. 
We have less crime in Nevada and around the country. Statistics, by any 
way you look at them, have proven that.
  So on behalf of the people in Nevada, and on behalf of the people of 
this country, I extend our appreciation to the Senator from Delaware 
for his undying efforts to make sure we have more police officers on 
the streets. Without the Senator from Delaware, it would not have 
happened.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. As usual, he is 
generous and gracious. He is, as everyone on both sides knows, one of 
the most gracious men who serves in this body. He is a gentleman with a 
backbone like a ramrod. I take his comments to heart because I believe 
he means them. It means a lot to me that he does.
  There are few things I have done in my 28-year career in the Senate 
that I believe has been more worthwhile, and that I am more proud of, 
than working with the law enforcement agencies of this country, getting 
them from 500,000 to over 600,000 in local law enforcement agencies.
  I appreciate the sentiments expressed by my friend. I add, he was 
there every step of the way, voting for it, adding amendments, pushing 
it. I know he will be with me as we try to, quite frankly, prevent the 
President of the United States from eliminating that program. I am sure 
the President cares deeply about the safety of law enforcement officers 
in the country. I hope we can get his attention, to convince him that 
cutting the COPS Program in this upcoming budget is a mistake. I think 
once he focuses on that, we have a shot of doing that.
  But, again, I thank my friend from Nevada. He is a real gentleman and 
a good friend. And I thank the Presiding Officer for listening. One of 
the things--I should not say this--I like best about the present 
occupant of the chair is, whenever I stand to speak in this Chamber--I 
am sure he does it for everybody--he looks and listens and acts as if 
he is paying attention, and it makes a big difference. He is not 
signing his mail. I know I am not supposed to say that, but I am going 
to say it anyway because I appreciate his courtesy, speaking of a 
gentleman.
  I thank you all and yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 901. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
direct the Secretary of the Interior to cease mineral leasing activity 
on the outer Continental Shelf seaward of a coastal State that has 
declared a moratorium on mineral exploration, development, or 
production activity in State water; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Coastal States 
Protection Act, which is intended to protect our Nation's fragile 
coastlines from the detrimental environmental impacts of offshore oil 
and gas development. Chronic leakage associated with normal oil and gas 
operations, as well as catastrophic spills such as the horrific Santa 
Barbara spill in 1969, irreparably contaminate the ocean floor, 
tidelands, and beaches.
  In California, there is strong and enduring public support for the 
protection of our oceans and coastlines. My State decided that the 
potential benefits that might be derived from future offshore oil and 
gas development were not worth the risk of destroying our priceless 
coastal treasures. To ensure that our beaches remain pristine and our 
waters clear, California passed legislation permanently prohibiting oil 
and gas exploration in State waters. Unfortunately, the State only has 
jurisdiction over the territory that extends three nautical miles out 
from shore.
  Federal waters off the coast of California, which extend beyond State 
waters to 200 nautical miles out, have received several forms of 
temporary protection from additional offshore oil and gas development. 
Since 1982, Congress has approved successive 1-year leasing and 
drilling moratoria that have provided protection for U.S. waters. In 
1998, President Clinton issued a 10-year ban on Outer Continental Shelf 
activity off the coast of California. We now face, however, mounting 
pressures to explore new sources of domestic oil and gas.
  My bill provides permanent protection by ensuring that no mineral 
leasing can occur on the Outer Continental Shelf in Federal waters 
where the State has placed a moratorium on mineral exploration, 
development, or production activity in adjacent States waters. Thus, 
this bill guarantees that the wishes of a State are reflected in the 
management decisions made regarding associated Federal waters.
  This legislation is similar to bills I introduced in the 104th, 
105th, and 106th Congress. Several officials in the new administration 
have expressed strong support for State and local decision-making, so I 
am hopeful that they will join me in supporting this legislation.
  This bill will make an important and lasting contribution to the 
protection of our Nation's coastlines.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. 
        Smith of New Hampshire):
  S. 902. A bill to amend section 1951 of title 18, United States Code 
(commonly known as the Hobbs Act), and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
close a long-standing loophole in our Nation's labor laws, and help 
stop union violence in America. The bill would make clear that violence 
conducted in the course of a strike is illegal under the Federal 
extortion law, the Hobbs Act. I am pleased to have Chairman Hatch and 
others join me in introducing this important measure.
  Violence has no place in our society. As I have said many times 
before, I would, if it were in my power to do so, put an absolute stop 
to the disruption of commerce in this country by intimidation and 
violence, whatever its source.
  Unfortunately, corrupt union officials have often been the source of 
such violence. Encouraged by their special Federal exemption from 
prosecution, corrupt union officials have routinely used intimidation 
and violence over the years to achieve their goals. Since 1975, the 
Institute for Labor Relations Research has documented over 9,000 
reported incidents of union violence in America. A major study entitled 
``Union Violence: The Record and the Response by Courts, Legislatures, 
and the NLRB,'' which was updated and republished in 1999 by the John 
M. Olin Institute at George Mason University, discusses the problem and 
trends in union violence in detail. This updated study shows that while 
union membership and the total number of strikes has decreased in 
recent decades, the number of reported incidents of violence per strike 
has actually increased. It is clear that union violence remains a 
serious issue facing our Nation today.
  Let me make clear that I agree that the Federal Government should not 
get involved in minor, isolated physical altercations and vandalism 
that are bound to occur during a labor dispute when emotions are 
charged. Action such as this is not significant to commerce. However, 
when union violence moves beyond this and becomes a pattern of 
coordinated violent activity, the Federal Government should be 
empowered to act. State and local governments sometimes fail to provide 
an effective remedy, whether because of a lack of will, a lack of 
resources, or an inability to focus on the interstate nature of the 
conduct. It is during these times that Federal involvement is needed.
  Let me also note that this legislation has never been an effort to 
involve the Federal Government in a matter that traditionally has been 
reserved for the states. Labor relations are regulated

[[Page 8166]]

on a national basis, and labor management policies are national 
policies. There is no reason to keep the Federal Government out of 
serious labor violence that is intended to achieve labor objectives.
  Indeed, the Congress intended for the Hobbs Act to apply to the 
conduct we are addressing in this legislation today. The decision to 
keep the Federal Government out was not made by the Congress. Rather, 
it was made by the Supreme Court in the United States versus Enmons 
decision in 1973, when the Supreme Court found that the Hobbs Act did 
not apply to a lawful strike, as long as the purpose of the strike was 
to achieve ``legitimate labor objectives,'' such as higher wages. Such 
an exception does not exist in the words of the statute. The Court 
could only create this loophole through a strained interpretation of 
the law. In his dissent, Justice Douglas aptly criticized the majority 
for, ``achieving by interpretation what those who were opposed to the 
Hobbs Act were unable to get Congress to do.''
  The Enmons decision is an unfortunate example of judicial activism, 
of a court interpreting a statute to reach the policy result the court 
favors rather than the one the legislature intended. This is a problem 
that has concerned many of us in the Senate for many years. We have 
held numerous hearings on this matter in the Judiciary Committee since 
the Enmons decision. We must continue to focus on this serious problem 
until it is solved.
  It is time we closed the loophole on union violence in America.
  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. 902

       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 ``Freedom From Union Violence 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY THREATS OR VIOLENCE.

       Section 1951 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or 
       violence

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (c), 
     whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects 
     commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in 
     commerce, by robbery or extortion, or attempts or conspires 
     so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any 
     person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do 
     anything in violation of this section, shall be fined not 
     more than $100,000, imprisoned for a term of not more than 20 
     years, or both.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `commerce' means any--
       ``(A) commerce within the District of Columbia, or any 
     territory or possession of the United States;
       ``(B) commerce between any point in a State, territory, 
     possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside 
     thereof;
       ``(C) commerce between points within the same State through 
     any place outside that State; and
       ``(D) other commerce over which the United States has 
     jurisdiction;
       ``(2) the term `extortion' means the obtaining of property 
     from any person, with the consent of that person, if that 
     consent is induced--
       ``(A) by actual or threatened use of force or violence, or 
     fear thereof;
       ``(B) by wrongful use of fear not involving force or 
     violence; or
       ``(C) under color of official right;
       ``(3) the term `labor dispute' has the same meaning as in 
     section 2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     152(9)); and
       ``(4) the term `robbery' means the unlawful taking or 
     obtaining of personal property from the person or in the 
     presence of another, against his or her will, by means of 
     actual or threatened force or violence, or fear of injury, 
     immediate or future--
       ``(A) to his or her person or property, or property in his 
     or her custody or possession; or
       ``(B) to the person or property of a relative or member of 
     his or her family, or of anyone in his or her company at the 
     time of the taking or obtaining.
       ``(c) Exempted Conduct.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subsection (a) does not apply to any 
     conduct that--
       ``(A) is incidental to otherwise peaceful picketing during 
     the course of a labor dispute;
       ``(B) consists solely of minor bodily injury, or minor 
     damage to property, or threat or fear of such minor injury or 
     damage; and
       ``(C) is not part of a pattern of violent conduct or of 
     coordinated violent activity.
       ``(2) State and local jurisdiction.--Any violation of this 
     section that involves any conduct described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be subject to prosecution only by the appropriate State 
     and local authorities.
       ``(d) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed--
       ``(1) to repeal, amend, or otherwise affect--
       ``(A) section 6 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 17);
       ``(B) section 20 of the Clayton Act (29 U.S.C. 52);
       ``(C) any provision of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (29 U.S.C. 
     101 et seq.);
       ``(D) any provision of the National Labor Relations Act (29 
     U.S.C. 151 et seq.); or
       ``(E) any provision of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 
     et seq.); or
       ``(2) to preclude Federal jurisdiction over any violation 
     of this section, on the basis that the conduct at issue--
       ``(A) is also a violation of State or local law; or
       ``(B) occurred during the course of a labor dispute or in 
     pursuit of a legitimate business or labor objective.''.
                                 ______
                                 

                             By Mr. ALLARD:

  S. 903. A bill to amend the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to 
make technical amendments; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Cache La Poudre 
River Corridor Technical Amendments Act of 2001.
  When former Senator Hank Brown and I decided to sponsor the Cache La 
Poudre River Corridor Act, Public Law 104-323, it was only after we 
held numerous meetings with the affected individuals, groups and 
governmental entities to determine how best to protect the area. The 
result was a delicate compromise bill to which all parties agreed.
  The purpose of the Act was to designate the Cache La Poudre Corridor 
within the Cache La Poudre River Basin for special use. It is to 
provide for an educational and inspirational benefit to both present 
and future generations, as well as provide unique and significant 
contributions to our national heritage of cultural and historical 
lands, waterways, and structures within the Corridor.
  The Act also established the Cache La Poudre Corridor Commission to 
consult with public officials and conduct public hearings on how to 
administer the corridor consistent with the purpose of the Act. The 
make-up of the Commission was to represent the affected counties and 
interested parties.
  However, due to drafting errors and conflicting interpretations of 
the appointment process for the Commission, local communities and the 
Department of the Interior have been unable to proceed with 
implementing the Act.
  To correct these errors, my colleague Congressman Bob Schaffer and I 
are introducing the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Technical Amendments 
Act of 2001. These changes will allow the Cache La Poudre River 
Corridor Act to be fully implemented.
  These corrections will address several non-controversial provisions 
of the original law, which include correcting references to affected 
counties and clarifying duties of the commission. I hope that Congress 
will move quicky and act on the Cache La Poudre River Technical 
Corrections Amendments Act.
  I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this matter.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Warner, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Cochran, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 904. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
an above-the-line deduction for qualified professional development 
expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers and to allow a 
credit against income tax to elementary and secondary school teachers 
who provide classroom materials; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise this evening, along with my good 
friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, to 
introduce the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001. We are very pleased to be 
joined by the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, 
and Senators Cochran and Landrieu, as original cosponsors of our 
legislation. All of

[[Page 8167]]

these Senators are strong advocates for education and for our Nation's 
teachers.
  It would be difficult to script a more appropriate time for us to 
introduce this important legislation. We stand now at the summit of an 
education debate that began over 2 weeks ago. At the same time, we 
anticipate a major tax relief bill to which we will turn our attention 
as early as tomorrow.
  Our bill is related to both. It is both sound education policy and 
sensible tax policy. We plan on offering it as an amendment to the tax 
bill as soon as feasible on the Senate floor.
  For that reason, Senator Warner and I wanted to take advantage of 
this time this evening to talk a little bit about our bill and the 
ensuing amendment. In the midst of the education and tax debates, we 
are asking the Senate not to overlook the selfless efforts of our 
teachers and the many financial sacrifices they make to improve their 
instructional skills and the classrooms where they teach. Senator 
Warner deserves tremendous credit for focusing our attention, through a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the education bill, on the need to 
provide tax relief for our Nation's teachers.
  Our teachers serve such a critical role in the education and 
development of our children. In fact, study after study demonstrates 
that other than involved parents, a high-quality, dedicated teacher is 
the single most important prerequisite for student success.
  The amendment which Senator Warner offered earlier this past week, 
and which I was proud to cosponsor, expressed the sense of the Senate 
that Congress should pass legislation providing teachers with tax 
relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses, unreimbursed 
expenses they incur to improve the education of our children. The bill 
we introduce today is legislation very similar to Senator Warner's 
amendment which was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 95-3.
  The bill we introduce today is targeted to support the expenditures 
of teachers who strive for excellence beyond the constraints of what 
their schools can provide.
  Earlier this year, Senator Warner, Senator Hatch, and I each 
introduced our own version of our teacher tax relief bills. Last year 
Senator Kyl and I teamed up in a similar way. We have now all come 
together behind the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001, which enjoys 
bipartisan support from our colleagues as well as the endorsement of 
the National Education Association.
  Our bill has two major provisions. First, it will allow teachers, 
teachers' aides, principals, and counselors to take an above-the-line 
deduction for their professional development expenses. I have talked 
with teachers in Maine who have financed continuing education courses 
at the master's and doctoral level as well as seminars out of their 
pocket. They then came back to their schools and shared their knowledge 
with their colleagues, and that additional course work has made them 
better teachers.
  Some school districts reimburse for those kinds of professional 
development expenses. It would be great if they all did. But some 
school districts simply don't have the resources to help teachers who 
are striving to improve their skills.
  What our bill will do is help those teachers who are financing those 
educational expenses out of their own pockets by giving them an above-
the-line tax deduction.
  The second provision of our bill will grant educators a tax credit of 
up to $250 for books, supplies, and equipment they purchase for their 
students. The tax credit would be set at 50 percent of such 
expenditures so that teachers would receive 50 cents of tax relief for 
every dollar of their own money they spend for supplies for their 
classroom.
  It is remarkable how much the average teacher spends every year out 
of his or her own pocket to buy supplies and other materials for their 
students. According to a study by the National Education Association, 
the average public school teacher spends more than $400 annually on 
classroom materials.
  Just recently, I met with Idella Harter, president of the Maine 
Education Association. She told me of the books, rewards for student 
behavior, and other materials she routinely purchases for her 
classroom. One year Idella decided to save her receipts to see how much 
she actually was spending. She said she started adding up the receipts 
and was startled to discover they totaled over $1,000. When they got 
that high, she decided to stop counting. But she continues to this day 
to purchase supplies and materials for her students.
  When you think that the average teacher is not particularly well 
paid, it speaks volumes about their dedication that they are willing to 
make that kind of investment to improve the teaching for their 
students.
  Idella is not alone. Maureen Marshall, who handles education issues 
for me in my office, taught public school for several years in Hawaii 
and Virginia. In her first year as a teacher, she, too, spent more than 
$1,000 of her own money on educational software, books, pocket charts 
to assist with language arts instruction, and other materials. Because 
of her tax situation, she could not deduct any of these expenses from 
her taxable income.
  The ultimate beneficiaries of efforts to provide financial assistance 
to our teachers are our students. Our bill provides tax relief for up 
to $1,000 spent out of pocket by teachers for professional development 
and for supplies. These are teachers who are going the extra mile for 
our children, for our students.
  Our bill makes it a priority to reimburse educators for just a small 
part of what they invest in our children's future.
  I hope our colleagues will join us in support of this important 
initiative. I hope they will join us in a resounding vote when Senator 
Warner and I offer this proposal as an amendment to the upcoming tax 
bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, just last week, on May 8, 2001, the Senate 
overwhelmingly passed an amendment that I offered to the education bill 
currently on the floor. This amendment, which passed by a vote of 95-3, 
stated:

       The Senate should pass legislation providing elementary and 
     secondary level educators with additional tax relief in 
     recognition of the many out of pocket, unreimbursed expenses 
     educators incur to improve the education of our Nation's 
     students.

  At that time, both Senator Collins and I were pursuing the same goal, 
obtaining much needed tax relief for our teachers. However, despite 
sharing the same goal, we each had our own bill and each had our own 
approach towards achieving this shared goal.
  Senator Collins has truly been a leader on this issue. I commend her 
for her work in highlighting this issue and for her tireless efforts to 
improve education in this country.
  I am so glad that Senator Collins and I had the opportunity to sit 
down and discuss teacher tax relief legislation in greater detail. As a 
result of these discussions, we have joined forces and agreed on an 
approach to achieve our shared goal.
  Today, I am honored to be joining Senator Collins in introducing the 
Teacher Tax Relief Act.
  This Collins/Warner bill is cosponsored by Senators Landrieu, 
Cochran, and Allen. We will be offering this bill as an amendment to 
the tax reconciliation bill that will be on the Senate floor tomorrow.
  The Collins/Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act has two components.
  First, the legislation provides a $250 tax credit to teachers for 
classroom supplies. This credit recognizes that our teachers dip into 
their own pocket in significant amounts to bring supplies into the 
classroom to better the education of our children.
  Second, this legislation provides a $500 above the line deduction for 
professional development costs that teachers incur. This deduction will 
particularly help low-income school districts that typically do not 
have the finances to pay for professional development costs for their 
teaches.
  Our teachers in this country are overworked, underpaid, and all too 
often, under-appreciated. In addition, they spend significant money out 
of their own pocket to better the education of our children.

[[Page 8168]]

  These out of pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our 
teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. 
Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage.
  While the primary responsibility rests with the states, I believe the 
Federal Government can and should play a role in helping to alleviate 
the nation's teaching shortage.
  On a Federal level, we can encourage individuals to enter the 
teaching profession and remain in the teaching profession by providing 
tax relief to teachers for the costs that they incur as part of the 
profession. This incentive will help financially strapped urban and 
rural school systems as they recruit new teachers and struggle to keep 
those teachers that are currently in the system.
  Our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next 
generation and to strengthen America. While many people spend their 
lives building careers, our teachers spend their careers building 
lives.
  The Teacher Tax Relief Act goes a long way towards providing our 
teachers with the recognition they deserve by providing teachers with 
important and much needed tax relief.
  It is important to note that providing a specific profession with tax 
relief is not without precedent. Title 26, United States Code, Section 
62(a) allows an above the line deduction to performing artists in 
connection with their performances.
  I believe teachers in this country deserve similar treatment under 
the tax code. I look forward to a vote on the teacher Tax Relief Act in 
the next few days.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Mr. Reid, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 905. A bill to provide incentives for school construction, and for 
other purposes, to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today 
with my good friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, to deal 
with the issue of overcrowded and dilapidated schools. In March I 
offered an amendment in the Senate Finance Committee that was very 
similar to the legislation that we are introducing today. I am sorry 
that the amendment failed on a 10-10 vote in the Committee, but I am 
hopeful that we can come together to find a way to pass school 
construction legislation during this Congress.
  The need for school construction assistance is great. Three-quarters 
of the public schools are in need of repairs, renovation, or 
modernization. More than one-third of schools rely on portable 
classrooms, such as trailers, many of which lack heat or air 
conditioning. Twenty percent of public schools report unsafe 
conditions, such as failing fire alarms or electric problems.
  At the same time the schools are getting older, the number of 
students is growing, up nine percent since 1990. The Department of 
Education estimates that 2,400 new schools will be needed by 2003 and 
public elementary and secondary enrollment is expected to increase 
another million between 1999 and 2006, reaching an all-time high of 
44.4 million and increasing demand on schools.
  It's increasingly difficult to have meaningful reform in schools that 
are falling apart at the seams. Research does show that student and 
teacher achievement lags in shabby school buildings, those with no 
science labs, inadequate ventilation, and faulty heating systems. Older 
schools are also less likely to be connected to the Internet than 
recently built or renovated schools. Facilities are vital to 
implementation of research-based school reform efforts. We know, for 
example, that students learn more effectively in small classes, but 
school districts cannot create smaller classes or hire more teachers 
unless there is a place to put them.
  Many schools are trying to offer more robust curricula, including 
music, physical education and classes in the arts, but their ability to 
provide these programs is hampered if there is no space to house them.
  Almost every State in the Nation has implemented curriculum 
standards, calling for advanced work in science and technologies, but 
some schools are so old that their electrical wiring cannot support 
enough computers for the students and their science facilities are so 
antiquated that students cannot perform the experiments required to 
learn the state's curriculum.
  Some school districts are looking to implement universal preschool, a 
service that we know enhances children's school preparedness and which 
a study published in last week's Journal of the American Medical 
Association confirmed makes children more likely to complete high 
school, less likely to need special education or grade retention 
services while in school, and more likely to avoid arrest as young 
adults, but the lack of available facilities is often prohibitive. If 
we are serious about encouraging research-based, meaningful, effective 
education reforms, and if we are serious about doing our part to help 
local districts run safe schools, a commensurate investment in school 
facilities is imperative.
  The America's Better Classroom Act, is similar to legislation 
introduced in the House by Congressman Rangel and Congresswoman Johnson 
that has 158 cosponsors. Our legislation allows the Federal government 
to issue $24.8 billion in school modernization bonds through a formula-
based allocation to states and through expansion of the Qualified Zone 
Academy Bond, QZAB, program. The bill also includes a $200 million set-
aside for Bureau of Indian Affairs schools for two years to help school 
replacement projects at schools funded or run by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs.
  Our bill would allocate 60 percent of $22 billion in bonds to states 
based on school-aged population. The remaining 40 percent of the bond 
revenue would be directly allocated to the 125 school districts with 
the largest number of low-income students based on ESEA Title I 
funding.
  States and local school districts are investing in school 
construction, but it is clear that they still need our help. Annual 
construction expenditures for elementary and secondary schools have 
been growing. But local and state budgets have not been able to keep up 
with demand for new schools and the repair of aging ones. Unless school 
leaders can persuade their wary voters to pass such bond referendums or 
raise local taxes, though, there's often little hope of change. Until 
the last few years, the plight of state and local leaders had not 
received much attention from Washington. Last year we came together to 
respond to their call by funding a $1.2 billion grant program and this 
year we should come together again and pass legislation that continues 
our commitment to help local districts with their repair and renovation 
needs.
  It is a tragedy that so many of our Nation's students attend schools 
in crumbling and unsafe facilities. According to the American Institute 
of Architects, one in every three public schools in America needs major 
repair. The American Society of Civil Engineers found school facilities 
to be in worse condition than any other part of our nation's 
infrastructure.
  The problem is particularly acute in some high-poverty schools, where 
inadequate roofs, electrical systems, and plumbing place students and 
school employees at risk. Last month I visited the Westford Public 
School District in Massachusetts. School facilities were a big concern 
for this semi-rural town which has seen its student population sky 
rocket in recent years, but has not experienced comparable property tax 
revenues. In order to meet the fiscal demands of new school 
construction, the town is foregoing replacement of large, drafty 
windows from the early 1950s and is relying on pre-fab trailers to 
serve as an elementary school.
  The Wilson Middle School in Natick, MA was built for approximately 
500 students and currently houses 625. The school has no technical 
infrastructure, it has no electrical wiring to allow the integration of 
computers in the classroom. The classrooms are 75 percent of the size 
of contemporary classrooms

[[Page 8169]]

and were built with chairs and desks fixed to floor. Classrooms like 
these make it near-impossible for teachers to use modern-day teaching 
methods which rely heavily on student collaboration and interaction. 
The school also lacks science laboratories, making it impossible for 
students to do hands-on work and experiments.
  Natick High School, like many aging school buildings around the 
Commonwealth, needs to have its basic infrastructure updated: 
electrical wiring, heating, plumbing and intercom systems are among the 
many components of the school in need of modernization. Also, the 
science labs are presently unable to meet the demands of updated state 
curricula. Natick put in place a prototype lab, and saw remarkable 
changes in students' interest and ability to experiment in science.
  I am very pleased to be introducing this legislation today with 
Senator Harkin, and it is my sincere hope that we can come together 
again on the issue of school construction and pass legislation that 
addresses this Nation's critical need for school repairs and 
renovation, and that we can do it as a part of a broader package of 
honest and tough reforms which focus, above all else, on the goal of 
empowering our schools to raise student achievement.

                          ____________________