[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10063-10076]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Stabenow, 
        and Mr. Reid):
  S. 989. A bill to prohibit racial profiling; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise along with the Senator from 
New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, 
and others, to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001. This 
bill is a package of steps to eliminate racial profiling once and for 
all. Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to walk, 
drive, or travel on our streets and highways and through our airports 
free of discrimination. It is time for us to act.
  I am very pleased to be joined by a number of distinguished 
colleagues. I simply have to point out that I think almost minutes 
after Senators Corzine and Clinton were sworn in, they were already 
talking to me and Representative Conyers of the House about how we 
could introduce a strong bill to deal with this problem. I thank them 
and appreciate the strong work and support they have given. They have 
made significant contributions and have offered good ideas to 
strengthen the legislation.
  I also acknowledge our long-time leader on this issue, Representative 
John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. He 
is introducing the companion bill in the House today. This is the third 
Congress in which Representative Conyers has introduced legislation on 
racial profiling. He has fought long and hard to educate the Congress 
and all Americans about racial profiling. Before he took on the issue, 
I don't think many of us knew what racial profiling was. I thank 
Representative Conyers for his tremendous leadership. It is an honor to 
be working with him on this bill.
  Those who have experienced racial profiling suffer great harm. They 
are unfairly treated as suspect, humiliated, and can feel fear, anxiety 
or even anger. It is a grave indignity.
  U.S. Army Sergeant Rossano Gerald testified during a hearing in the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution last year about his personal 
experience as a victim of racial profiling. Sergeant Gerald is a 
veteran of the Persian Gulf war and a law-abiding citizen. In August 
1998, he was driving along a major highway in Oklahoma with his 12-
year-old son when he was pulled over and handcuffed. Both he and his 
son were thrown into the back seat of a state trooper's car while the 
trooper extensively searched Sergeant Gerald's car. When the entire 
episode was over, the trooper gave Sergeant Gerald a warning ticket for 
changing lanes without signaling and left his car with over $1,000 of 
damage.
  In moving testimony before the subcommittee, a hearing which then-
Senator Ashcroft chaired and has said influenced his thinking on the 
issue, Sergeant Gerald said,

       I was very humiliated by this experience. I was embarrassed 
     and ashamed that people driving by would think I had 
     committed a serious crime. It was particularly horrible to be 
     treated like a criminal in front of my impressionable young 
     son.

  Robert Wilkins also testified before the subcommittee. He and his 
family were stopped along a highway in Maryland. He described his 
experience as ``humiliating and degrading.'' He said:

       So there we were. Standing outside the car in the rain, 
     lined up along the road, with police lights flashing, 
     officers standing guard, and a German Shepard jumping on top 
     of, underneath, and sniffing every inch of our vehicle. We 
     were criminal suspects; yet we were just trying to use the 
     interstate highway to travel from our homes to a funeral. It 
     is hard to describe the frustration and pain you feel when 
     people presume you to be guilty for no good reason and you 
     know that you are innocent. I particularly remember a car 
     driving past with two young children in the back seat, noses 
     pressed against the window. They were looking at the 
     policemen, the flashing lights, the German Shepard and us. In 
     this moment of education that each of us receives through 
     real world experiences, those children were putting two and 
     two together and getting five. They saw some black people 
     standing along the road who certainly must have been bad 
     people who had done something wrong, for why else would the 
     police have them there? They were getting an untrue, negative 
     picture of me, and there was nothing in the world that I 
     could do about it.

  Mr. President, as Americans, we take great pride in our freedom and 
independence. Central to our sense of who we are is our firm belief 
that we are free to walk the paths of our own choosing, free to move 
about as we please, and free from the intrusion of the government in 
that movement.
  Immigrants came to our nation's shores to escape arbitrary 
government. Fleeing the British Government's discrimination based on 
religion in the 1600s, Puritans came to Massachusetts, Quakers came to 
New Jersey and then Pennsylvania, Catholics came to Maryland, and Jews 
came to Rhode Island.
  And responding to indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted by 
the British, our Founders adopted the fourth amendment, which states: 
``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall 
not be violated . . . .''
  It is thus fundamental to American history and rooted in American law 
that the officers of the state may not arrest or detain its citizens 
arbitrarily or without cause.
  But this is not the case for all Americans today. Some Americans 
still cannot walk where they choose. Some Americans cannot travel free 
from the harassment of the government. Some Americans still do not 
receive the full benefit of their civil rights.
  Although many did come to these shores as immigrants, many came in

[[Page 10064]]

chains, because of the color of their skin. They and their descendants 
endured our nation's long struggle against slavery and discrimination. 
Sadly, even now, skin color alone still makes too many Americans more 
likely to be a suspect, more likely to be stopped, more likely to be 
searched, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be imprisoned.
  Mr. President, I believe that the vast majority of law enforcement 
agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally, without bias, 
and protect the safety of their communities. But I also believe that 
racial profiling is a very real problem. The use by law enforcement 
officers of race, ethnicity or national origin in deciding which 
persons should be subject to traffic stops, stop and frisks, 
questioning, searches and seizures is a problematic law enforcement 
tactic.
  Mr. President, the bill that Representative Conyers first introduced 
in the 105th Congress, and which we introduced again in the 106th 
Congress, was a traffic stops study bill. It would have required the 
Attorney General to conduct a nationwide study of traffic stops based 
on existing data and a sampling of jurisdictions that would provide 
additional data to the Attorney General. We proposed a study bill 
because, at that time, there was still very much education that needed 
to take place in Congress and America. We thought that a study would 
provide the facts to show people that racial profiling indeed is very 
real in America today.
  Mr. President, we no longer need, just a study. We now have facts 
that show us that racial profiling is a problem. Statistical evidence 
from a number of jurisdictions across the country demonstrates that 
racial profiling is a real and measurable phenomenon. For example, data 
collected under a federal court consent decree revealed that between 
January 1995 and 1997, 70 percent of the drivers stopped and searched 
by the Maryland State Police on Interstate 95 were black, while only 
17.5 percent of drivers and speeders were black.
  A 1992 study of traffic stops in Volusia County, Florida revealed 
that 70 percent of those stopped on a particular interstate highway in 
central Florida were black or Hispanic, although only 5 percent of the 
motorists on that highway were black or Hispanic. Further, minorities 
were detained for longer periods of time per stop than whites, and were 
80 percent of those whose cars were searched after being stopped.
  We also know that racial profiling is a problem not only for 
motorists on our nation's highways. Racial profiling, unfortunately, 
extends to racial and ethnic minority Americans as pedestrians or 
travelers through our nation's airports.
  A December 1999 report by New York's Attorney General on the use of 
``stop and frisk'' tactics by the New York City Police Department 
revealed that between January 1998 through March 1999, 84 percent of 
the almost 175,000 people stopped by NYPD were black or Hispanic, 
despite the fact that these two groups comprised less than half of the 
city's population.
  A March 2000 GAO report on the U.S. Customs Service found that black, 
Asian, and Hispanic female U.S. citizens were 4 to 9 times more likely 
than white female U.S. citizens to be subjected to X-rays after being 
frisked or patted down.
  Many of those who deny that racial profiling is a problem have argued 
that these discrepancies can be justified by the fact that blacks and 
other minorities are more likely to commit crimes--especially drug-
related crimes--than whites, and that profiling therefore amounts to a 
rational law enforcement tactic. The statistics refute this argument.
  Although black motorists were disproportionately stopped on I-95 by 
the Maryland State Police, the instances in which police actually found 
drugs were the same per capita for white and black motorists.
  In Volusia County, Florida, where 70 percent of more than 1000 
traffic stops of motorists on an interstate highway were of minority 
drivers, only 9 stops resulted in so much as a traffic ticket.
  The New York Attorney General's report on NYPD stop and frisk tactics 
revealed that stops of minorities were less likely to lead to arrests 
than stops of white New Yorkers--the NYPD arrested one white New Yorker 
for every 8 stops, one Hispanic New Yorker for every 9 stops, and one 
black New Yorker for every 9.5 stops.
  The General Accounting Office found that while black female U.S. 
citizens were nine times more likely than white female U.S. citizens to 
be subjected to x-ray searches by the Customs Service, black females 
were less than half as likely to be found carrying contraband as white 
females.
  In my home state of Wisconsin, racial profiling has touched the lives 
of many law abiding citizens, including African Americans, Latino 
Americans, and Asian Americans. My state is home to one of the largest 
Hmong and Lao populations in the country. They came to our country 
seeking safety and freedom. But their dreams of freedom have somehow 
been tarnished by unfair stops by police officers.
  I am very pleased that during the last year, a Task Force appointed 
by former Governor Tommy Thompson developed a set of recommendations 
for combating racial profiling and restoring the important trust that 
must exist between law enforcement officials and the communities they 
are charged to protect and serve.
  Because, as we know, racial profiling undermines the willingness of 
people to work with the police. As one victim of racial profiling in 
Glencoe, Illinois, said: ``Who is there left to protect us? The police 
just violated us.''
  Mr. President, current efforts by state and local governments to 
eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, while 
laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient to address this 
problem nationwide.
  During his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Ashcroft said:

       I think racial profiling is wrong. I think it's 
     unconstitutional. I think it violates the 14th Amendment. I 
     think most of the men and women in our law enforcement are 
     good people trying to enforce the law. I think we all share 
     that view. But we owe it to provide them with guidance to 
     ensure that racial profiling does not happen.

  This February in his Address to Congress, President Bush said, ``It's 
wrong, and we will end it in America.'' At remarks marking Black 
History Month this February in Washington, DC, President Bush said that 
he would ``look at all opportunities'' to end racial profiling.
  Attorney General Ashcroft then wrote Congress to say that the traffic 
stops statistics study bill that we wrote and supported in the last 
Congress ``is an excellent starting place for such an enterprise.''
  While I welcome the administration's statements, it is now no longer 
time simply to study. It is time to move beyond studying whether racial 
profiling exists. We know it exists. Now, let's take the right steps to 
eliminate it and protect the rights of all Americans to walk or travel 
free of discrimination. It is time to act. I urge the Attorney General 
and President to support this bill as the best opportunity to translate 
our nation's promises into action.
  Representative Conyers and I have taken a fresh look at the role 
Congress can play in eliminating racial profiling by all law 
enforcement agencies. Our bill reflects the President's and Attorney 
General's view that racial profiling is wrong and should end. This bill 
has two major components. First, the bill explicitly bans racial 
profiling. Second, the bill sets out several steps for federal, state, 
and local law enforcement agencies to take to eliminate racial 
profiling. The bill takes a ``carrot and stick'' approach. It 
conditions federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies on 
their compliance with certain requirements, but also authorizes the 
Attorney general to provide incentive grants to assist agencies with 
complying with this Act. The bill requires federal, state, and local 
law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial 
profiling; implement complaint procedures to respond to complaints of 
racial profiling effectively; implement disciplinary procedures for 
officers who engage in the practice; and collect data on stops.
  Grants awarded by the Attorney general could be used for training to 
prevent racial profiling; the acquisition of

[[Page 10065]]

in-car video cameras and other technology; and the development of 
procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding to complaints 
of racial profiling. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney 
General to report to congress two years after enanctment of the Act and 
each year thereafter on racial profiling in the United States. These 
are the right steps to take in the interest of better police practices 
and increased accountability.
  Mr. President, this bill is a priority for the civil rights 
community. It has the support of the Leadership Conference on Civil 
rights and its member organizations like the NAACP, National Council of 
La Raza, and ACLU. This bill reflects a new political reality: both 
Republicans and Democrats can agree that racial profiling is wrong and 
should be eliminated. Congress can play a role in ensuring that all 
police departments do their part and give them the financial assistance 
they may need to get the job done. I urge my colleagues to join with 
me, Senators Corzine, Clinton, Kennedy, Torricelli, Schumer, Durbin, 
and Stabenow in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001.
  We Americans take great pride in our freedom and independence. 
Central to our sense of who we are is our firm belief that we are free 
to walk the paths of our choosing, free to move about as we please, and 
free of the intrusion of the Government in that movement.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record immediately following my statement.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 989

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``End Racial 
     Profiling Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.

                TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING

Sec. 101. Prohibition.
Sec. 102. Enforcement.

    TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW 
                          ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Sec. 201. Policies to eliminate racial profiling.

 TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE AND LOCAL 
                        LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Sec. 301. Policies required for grants.
Sec. 302. Best practices development grants.

   TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT ON RACIAL PROFILING IN THE 
                             UNITED STATES

Sec. 401. Attorney General to issue report on racial profiling in the 
              United States.
Sec. 402. Limitation on use of data.

           TITLE V--DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Severability.
Sec. 503. Savings clause.
Sec. 504. Effective dates.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide 
     discharge their duties professionally, without bias, and 
     protect the safety of their communities.
       (2) The use by police officers of race, ethnicity, or 
     national origin in deciding which persons should be subject 
     to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, 
     and seizures is a problematic law enforcement tactic. 
     Statistical evidence from across the country demonstrates 
     that such racial profiling is a real and measurable 
     phenomenon.
       (3) As of November 15, 2000, the Department of Justice had 
     14 publicly noticed, ongoing, pattern or practice 
     investigations involving allegations of racial profiling and 
     had filed five pattern and practice lawsuits involving 
     allegations of racial profiling, with four of those cases 
     resolved through consent decrees.
       (4) A large majority of individuals subjected to stops and 
     other enforcement activities based on race, ethnicity, or 
     national origin are found to be law-abiding and therefore 
     racial profiling is not an effective means to uncover 
     criminal activity.
       (5) A 2001 Department of Justice report on citizen-police 
     contacts in 1999 found that, although African-Americans and 
     Hispanics were more likely to be stopped and searched, they 
     were less likely to be in possession of contraband. On 
     average, searches and seizures of African-American drivers 
     yielded evidence only eight percent of the time, searches and 
     seizures of Hispanic drivers yielded evidence only 10 percent 
     of the time, and searches and seizures of white drivers 
     yielded evidence 17 percent of the time.
       (6) A 2000 General Accounting Office report on the 
     activities of the United States Customs Service during fiscal 
     year 1998 found that black women who were United States 
     citizens were 9 times more likely than white women who were 
     United States citizens to be X-rayed after being frisked or 
     patted down and, on the basis of X-ray results, black women 
     who were United States citizens were less than half as likely 
     as white women who were United States citizens to be found 
     carrying contraband. In general, the report found that the 
     patterns used to select passengers for more intrusive 
     searches resulted in women and minorities being selected at 
     rates that were not consistent with the rates of finding 
     contraband.
       (7) Current local law enforcement practices, such as ticket 
     and arrest quotas, and similar management practices, may have 
     the unintended effect of encouraging law enforcement agents 
     to engage in racial profiling.
       (8) Racial profiling harms individuals subjected to it 
     because they experience fear, anxiety, humiliation, anger, 
     resentment, and cynicism when they are unjustifiably treated 
     as criminal suspects. By discouraging individuals from 
     traveling freely, racial profiling impairs both interstate 
     and intrastate commerce.
       (9) Racial profiling damages law enforcement and the 
     criminal justice system as a whole by undermining public 
     confidence and trust in the police, the courts, and the 
     criminal law.
       (10) Racial profiling violates the Equal Protection Clause 
     of the Constitution. Using race, ethnicity, or national 
     origin as a proxy for criminal suspicion violates the 
     constitutional requirement that police and other government 
     officials accord to all citizens the equal protection of the 
     law. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development 
     Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
       (11) Racial profiling is not adequately addressed through 
     suppression motions in criminal cases for two reasons. First, 
     the Supreme Court held, in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 
     806 (1996), that the racially discriminatory motive of a 
     police officer in making an otherwise valid traffic stop does 
     not warrant the suppression of evidence. Second, since most 
     stops do not result in the discovery of contraband, there is 
     no criminal prosecution and no evidence to suppress.
       (12) Current efforts by State and local governments to 
     eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, 
     while laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient 
     to address this national problem.
       (b) Purposes.--The independent purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection 
     of the laws, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment and section 5 of 
     the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
       (2) to enforce the constitutional right to protection 
     against unreasonable searches and seizures, pursuant to the 
     Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
       (3) to enforce the constitutional right to interstate 
     travel, pursuant to section 2 of article IV of the 
     Constitution of the United States; and
       (4) to regulate interstate commerce, pursuant to clause 3 
     of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United 
     States.

                TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING

     SEC. 101. PROHIBITION.

       No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall 
     engage in racial profiling.

     SEC. 102. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Remedy.--The United States, or an individual injured by 
     racial profiling, may enforce this title in a civil action 
     for declaratory or injunctive relief, filed either in a State 
     court of general jurisdiction or in a District Court of the 
     United States.
       (b) Parties.--In any action brought pursuant to this title, 
     relief may be obtained against: any governmental unit that 
     employed any law enforcement agent who engaged in racial 
     profiling; any agent of such unit who engaged in racial 
     profiling; and any person with supervisory authority over 
     such agent.
       (c) Nature of Proof.--Proof that the routine investigatory 
     activities of law enforcement agents in a jurisdiction have 
     had a disparate impact on racial or ethnic minorities shall 
     constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this title.
       (d) Attorneys' Fees.--In any action or proceeding to 
     enforce this title against any governmental unit, the court 
     may allow a prevailing plaintiff, other than the United 
     States, reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs, and 
     may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.

    TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW 
                          ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

     SEC. 201. POLICIES TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING.

       (a) In General.--Federal law enforcement agencies shall--

[[Page 10066]]

       (1) maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to 
     eliminate racial profiling; and
       (2) cease existing practices that encourage racial 
     profiling.
       (b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in 
     subsection (a)(1) shall include the following:
       (1) A prohibition on racial profiling.
       (2) The collection of data on routine investigatory 
     activities sufficient to determine if law enforcement agents 
     are engaged in racial profiling and submission of that data 
     to the Attorney General.
       (3) Independent procedures for receiving, investigating, 
     and responding meaningfully to complaints alleging racial 
     profiling by law enforcement agents of the agency.
       (4) Procedures to discipline law enforcement agents who 
     engage in racial profiling.
       (5) Such other policies or procedures that the Attorney 
     General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.

 TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE AND LOCAL 
                        LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

     SEC. 301. POLICIES REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--An application by a State or governmental 
     unit for funding under a covered program shall include a 
     certification that such unit and any agency to which it is 
     redistributing program funds--
       (1) maintains adequate policies and procedures designed to 
     eliminate racial profiling; and
       (2) has ceased existing practices that encourage racial 
     profiling.
       (b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in 
     subsection (a) shall include the following:
       (1) A prohibition on racial profiling.
       (2) The collection of data on routine investigatory 
     activities sufficient to determine if law enforcement agents 
     are engaged in racial profiling and submission of that data 
     to the Attorney General.
       (3) Independent procedures for receiving, investigating, 
     and responding meaningfully to complaints alleging racial 
     profiling by law enforcement agents.
       (4) Procedures to discipline law enforcement agents who 
     engage in racial profiling.
       (5) Such other policies or procedures that the Attorney 
     General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.
       (c) Noncompliance.--If the Attorney General determines that 
     a grantee is not in compliance with conditions established 
     pursuant to this title, the Attorney General shall withhold 
     the grant, in whole or in part, until the grantee establishes 
     compliance. The Attorney General shall provide notice 
     regarding State grants and opportunities for private parties 
     to present evidence to the Attorney General that a grantee is 
     not in compliance with conditions established pursuant to 
     this title.

     SEC. 302. BEST PRACTICES DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

       (a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General may make 
     grants to States, law enforcement agencies and other 
     governmental units, Indian tribal governments, or other 
     public and private entities to develop and implement best 
     practice devices and systems to ensure the racially neutral 
     administration of justice.
       (b) Uses.--The funds provided pursuant to subsection (a) 
     may be used to support the following activities:
       (1) Development and implementation of training to prevent 
     racial profiling and to encourage more respectful interaction 
     with the public.
       (2) Acquisition and use of technology to facilitate the 
     collection of data regarding routine investigatory activities 
     in order to determine if law enforcement agents are engaged 
     in racial profiling.
       (3) Acquisition and use of technology to verify the 
     accuracy of data collection, including in-car video cameras 
     and portable computer systems.
       (4) Development and acquisition of early warning systems 
     and other feedback systems that help identify officers or 
     units of officers engaged in or at risk of racial profiling 
     or other misconduct, including the technology to support such 
     systems.
       (5) Establishment or improvement of systems and procedures 
     for receiving, investigating, and responding meaningfully to 
     complaints alleging racial or ethnic bias by law enforcement 
     agents.
       (6) Establishment or improvement of management systems to 
     ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the conduct 
     of their subordinates.
       (c) Equitable Distribution.--The Attorney General shall 
     ensure that grants under this section are awarded in a manner 
     that reserves an equitable share of funding for small and 
     rural law enforcement agencies.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--The Attorney General 
     shall make available such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section from amounts appropriated for programs 
     administered by the Attorney General.

  TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORTS ON RACIAL PROFILING IN THE 
                             UNITED STATES

     SEC. 401. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REPORTS ON RACIAL 
                   PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than two years after the 
     enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to Congress a report on racial profiling 
     by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the 
     United States.
       (2) Scope.--The reports issued pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) a summary of data collected pursuant to sections 
     201(b)(2) and 301(b)(2) and any other reliable source of 
     information regarding racial profiling in the United States;
       (B) the status of the adoption and implementation of 
     policies and procedures by Federal law enforcement agencies 
     pursuant to section 201;
       (C) the status of the adoption and implementation of 
     policies and procedures by State and local law enforcement 
     agencies pursuant to sections 301 and 302; and
       (D) a description of any other policies and procedures that 
     the Attorney General believes would facilitate the 
     elimination of racial profiling.
       (b) Data Collection.--Not later than six months after the 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall by 
     regulation establish standards for the collection of data 
     pursuant to sections 201(b)(2) and 301(b)(2), including 
     standards for setting benchmarks against which collected data 
     shall be measured. Such standards shall result in the 
     collection of data, including data with respect to stops, 
     searches, seizures, and arrests, that is sufficiently 
     detailed to determine whether law enforcement agencies are 
     engaged in racial profiling and to monitor the effectiveness 
     of policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial 
     profiling.
       (c) Public Access.--Data collected pursuant to section 
     201(b)(2) and 301(b)(2) shall be available to the public.

     SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA.

       Information released pursuant to section 401 shall not 
     reveal the identity of any individual who is detained or any 
     law enforcement officer involved in a detention.

           TITLE V--DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Covered program.--The term ``covered program'' means 
     any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds 
     made available under any of the following:
       (A) The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance Programs (part E of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3750 et seq.)).
       (B) The ``Cops on the Beat'' program under part Q of title 
     I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.), but not including any program, 
     project, or other activity specified in section 1701(d)(8) of 
     that Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(d)(8)).
       (C) The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program of the 
     Department of Justice, as described in appropriations Acts.
       (2) Governmental unit.--The term ``governmental unit'' 
     means any department, agency, special purpose district, or 
     other instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or Indian 
     tribal government.
       (3) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement 
     agency'' means a Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal 
     public agency engaged in the prevention, detection, or 
     investigation of violations of criminal, immigration, or 
     customs laws.
       (4) Law enforcement agent.--The term ``law enforcement 
     agent'' means any Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal 
     official responsible for enforcing criminal, immigration, or 
     customs laws, including police officers and other agents of 
     Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
       (5) Racial profiling.--The term ``racial profiling'' means 
     the practice of a law enforcement agent relying, to any 
     degree, on race, ethnicity, or national origin in selecting 
     which individuals to subject to routine investigatory 
     activities, or in deciding upon the scope and substance of 
     law enforcement activity following the initial routine 
     investigatory activity, except that racial profiling does not 
     include reliance on such criteria in combination with other 
     identifying factors when the law enforcement agent is seeking 
     to apprehend a specific suspect whose race, ethnicity, or 
     national origin is part of the description of the suspect.
       (6) Routine investigatory activities.--The term ``routine 
     investigatory activities'' includes the following activities 
     by law enforcement agents: traffic stops; pedestrian stops; 
     frisks and other types of body searches; consensual or 
     nonconsensual searches of the persons or possessions 
     (including vehicles) of motorists or pedestrians; inspections 
     and interviews of entrants into the United States that are 
     more extensive than those customarily carried out; and 
     immigration-related workplace investigations.

     SEC. 502. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions of such to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

[[Page 10067]]



     SEC. 503. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit legal or 
     administrative remedies under section 1979 of the Revised 
     Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983), section 
     210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14141), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), and title VI of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.).

     SEC. 504. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Conditions on Funding.--Section 301 shall take effect 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise on this special day to talk about 
an issue that I think defines our health as a society--the issue of 
racial profiling. I thank my colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator 
Clinton--particularly Senator Feingold, for his tremendous leadership 
on this issue over several Congresses. During the last session he held 
a number of hearings on racial profiling, and he and his staff have 
worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue on the 
national agenda as a matter of civil rights. I also would be remiss if 
I didn't mention Congressman Conyers, who has taken an equally valiant 
and effective role in presenting this issue on the floor of the House. 
It is one about which I think we all feel passionately.
  The practice of racial profiling is the antithesis of America's 
belief in fairness and equal protection under the law. Stopping people 
on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color 
of their skin tears at the very fabric of what it is to be an American.
  We are a nation of laws, and everyone should receive equal protection 
under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less. We should 
demand nothing less. There is no equal protection, there is no equal 
justice, if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices 
that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after 
black and brown people on the hunch that they are more likely to be 
criminals.
  Let me add that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is also not 
effective as a law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping 
people of color adds to catching the bad guys. In fact, there is 
statistical evidence which points out that singling out black and 
Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher 
percentage of arrests. Minority motorists are simply no more likely to 
be breaking the law than white motorists.
  Unfortunately, racial profiling persists. In the last wave of 
statistics from New Jersey, minority motorists accounted for 73 percent 
of those searched on the New Jersey Turnpike. Yet, even the State 
attorney general admitted that State troopers were twice as likely to 
find drugs or other illegal contraband when searching vehicles driven 
by whites.
  Take the example of the March 2000 General Accounting Office report 
on the U.S. Customs Service. The report found that black, Asian, and 
Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than white women to 
be subjected to x rays after being frisked or patted down. On the basis 
of x ray results, however, black women were less than half as likely as 
white women to be found carrying contraband.
  This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants, no probable cause. 
What is the hunch based on? Race, plain and simple.
  Nowhere was this more evident than in my own home State 3 Aprils ago. 
Four young men on the New Jersey Turnpike in a minivan--on their way to 
North Carolina, hoping to get college basketball scholarships--were 
stopped by two State troopers. Frightened, the driver lost control of 
the van, and two dozens shots rang out and struck the van. Three out of 
the four young men were shot.
  I spoke to those kids a while ago. One of them told me he was asleep 
when his van was pulled over. He told me, ``What woke me up was a 
bullet.''
  Stories such as this should wake us all up in America. The practice 
of racial profiling broadly undermines the confidence of the American 
people in the institutions on which we depend to protect and defend us. 
Different laws for different people do not work.
  Now we know that many law enforcement agencies, including some in my 
home State, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken 
steps to combat it. I commend them for those efforts. Many law 
enforcement officials believe this is the step we need to take. It is a 
national problem. It is not a local problem, it is not a State problem, 
it is a national problem, and it requires a Federal response applicable 
to all. That is why my colleagues and I have introduced this 
legislation to end this practice. We want to be sure there are no more 
excuses, no more questions about what racial profiling means.
  This bill defines racial profiling clearly and then bans it; no 
routine stops solely on the basis of race, national origin, or 
ethnicity.
  We will also require a collection of statistics to accurately measure 
whether progress is being made, whether problems exist. By collecting 
this data, we will get a fair picture of law enforcement at work.
  We use statistics in every aspect of our life. I came from the 
financial services industry. We collected statistics. If you go to a 
hospital, they collect statistics. We need to do that with regard to 
law enforcement so we have the information to detect problems early on.
  It is not our intention to micromanage law enforcement. Our bill does 
not tell law enforcement agencies what data should be collected. 
Instead, we direct the Attorney General to develop the standards for 
data collection, and he presumably will work with law enforcement in 
developing those particular standards for particular situations.
  Our legislation also specifically directs the Attorney General to 
establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected 
data should be measured so that no data is taken out of context, which 
some in law enforcement rightly fear.
  No, it is an indication, a benchmark, not an absolute. If the numbers 
reveal a portrait of continued racial profiling, then the Justice 
Department or independent third parties can seek relief in Federal 
court ordering that remedies be put into effect to end racial 
profiling.
  Our bill will also put in place procedures to receive and investigate 
complaints of alleged racial profiling. By the way, this mirrors 
legislation that is now going through the New Jersey State Legislature 
on a bipartisan basis. It will require procedures to discipline law 
enforcement officers engaging in racial profiling.
  Finally, we will encourage a climate of cultural change in law 
enforcement with a carrot and stick. We are not trying to say that this 
all be done through the law; part of this has to come from a real 
cultural change.
  First the carrot. We recognize that law enforcement should not be 
expected to do this alone. It is a bigger problem. We are saying if you 
do the job right, fairly and equitably, you can be eligible to receive 
a best practices development grant to help pay for programs dealing 
with advanced training, to help pay for the computer technology 
necessary to collect data, such as hand-held computers in police cars. 
We will help pay for video cameras and recorders for patrol cars, which 
protects the person who is stopped and also the law enforcement 
officer.



  We will help pay for establishing or improving systems for handling 
complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling and will help to 
establish management systems to assure supervisors are held accountable 
for subordinates.
  If they do not do the job right, however, there is a stick. If State 
and local law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to 
end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal 
law enforcement funds.
  Let me be clear. This bill is not about blaming law enforcement, but 
we do believe we need to see change. It is not designed to prevent law 
enforcement from doing its job, it is to encourage them to do a better 
job. In

[[Page 10068]]

fact, we believe it will help our law enforcement officers in this 
Nation maintain the public trust they need to do their jobs.
  If race is part of a description of a specific suspect involved in an 
investigation, this bill would not prevent them from using that 
information or having that information distributed, but stopping people 
on a random, race-based hunch will be outlawed.
  Race has been a never-ending battle in this country. It began with 
our Constitution when the Founding Fathers argued over the rights of 
southern slaves. Then we fought a war over race. We fought a war that 
ripped our country apart. Our country emerged whole, but discrimination 
and Jim Crow laws continued for decades--discrimination sanctioned in 
part by our own Supreme Court.
  Our country's history has always been about change, about growth, 
about getting better, about recognizing things that weaken us from 
within. A generation ago, we began to fight another war, a war founded 
on peaceful principles, a war that killed our heroes, burned our 
cities, and shook us, once again, to the very core. But we advanced 
with important civil rights initiatives, such as the Voting Rights Act, 
the public accommodation laws. We demanded and gained laws to fight 
discrimination in employment, housing, and education.
  It is time for us to take another very important step. Racial 
profiling has bred humiliation, anger, resentment, and cynicism 
throughout this country. It has weakened respect for the law by many, 
not just the offended.
  I close by putting it in simple words: Racial profiling is wrong, and 
it must end. Today Senator Feingold, Senator Clinton, I, and a 
bipartisan group in the House pledge to do just that: to define it, to 
ban it, and then enforce that ban.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot help but notice, as I look at 
the Presiding Officer and the Senator from New Jersey, how fortunate we 
are to have new Members who have immediately come to the Senate and 
exerted leadership--the Presiding Officer on education, as well as 
other issues; and the Senator from New Jersey, his determination and 
hard work on this has been truly striking. I am just delighted to be 
working with him on this.
  I also thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy in 
allowing us to interrupt the education bill for this purpose.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be an original 
cosponsor of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
bipartisan End of Racial Profiling Act of 2001. I believe it is a 
thoughtful and balanced effort, designed to bring people together, not 
to divide. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to my esteemed 
colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator Corzine, for their leadership 
and tremendous efforts in crafting this legislation that affects so 
many communities throughout this country.
  I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Representative Conyers, the 
Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and a leader on this 
issue. Representative Conyers has worked to obtain the support of both 
Democrats and Republicans alike, including Republican Representatives 
Asa Hutchinson, Chris Shays, Tim Johnson, Constance Morella, and Jim 
Greenwood. I thank them for attending the bipartisan press conference 
this morning and showing their support for this legislation. I hope we 
will be able to build upon this strong bipartisan support in the 
Senate.
  I am also pleased that we were joined by Chief Bruce Chamberlin, an 
esteemed and experienced member of the national law enforcement 
community, who is the Chief of Police of Cheektowaga--in the western 
part of the great state of New York.
  It was important for Chief Chamberlin to be here with us today to 
express his support for the bill because he recognizes, as we all do, 
that racial profiling is wrong and that this bill is an important step 
in bringing this practice to an end.
  Racial profiling is unjust. It relegates honest, law-abiding citizens 
to second-class status when they suffer the embarrassment, the 
humiliation, the indignity, of being stopped or searched, and in some 
cases even physically harmed simply because of their race, ethnicity or 
national origin.
  Racial profiling is not an effective law enforcement tool. The 
experts at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and elsewhere will tell 
you that the evidence is unquestionably clear, for example, that the 
vast majority of Blacks and Hispanics who are stopped or searched have 
committed no crime.
  Indeed, racial profiling has an insidious and devastating effect on 
entire communities because it increases the level of mistrust between 
law enforcement and the communities it is charged with the heavy burden 
to protect. That result serves no one. It fails to serve law 
enforcement because a critical component of truly effective law 
enforcement is strong community-police relations, partnerships in which 
law enforcement and our communities are working together to reduce 
crime and to make our communities as safe as they can be.
  Racial profiling fails to serve prosecutors, because law-abiding 
people who don't have faith that their law enforcement will protect 
them properly and treat them with dignity will not have faith in law 
enforcement when sitting on juries and assessing the credibility of 
police officers who often play a key role in getting convictions for 
criminals.
  What does this bill do and what doesn't it do?
  As you, my colleagues consider this legislation, understand that this 
bill is not about blaming law enforcement or saying that law 
enforcement is bad or doesn't do a good job. We know that this is 
simply not true.
  Those who uphold our Nation's laws on the streets where we live are 
men and women of courage. They go to work each day without the same 
degree of certainty that most of us have that they will return home 
safely, because they never know when the next traffic stop, the next 
domestic dispute, the next arrest will explode in their face. There is 
a memorial here in Washington with the names of more than 14,000 
American heroes who gave their lives to make ours a safer country.
  What this bill does do is make very clear that racial profiling is 
wrong and that law enforcement agencies that haven't done so already 
should adopt policies and procedures to eliminate and prevent racial 
profiling.
  Some might ask, how can adopting policies and procedures help stop 
racial profiling? Well, the experts at John Jay College will tell you 
that in the 1960s and early 1970s, most police departments in this 
country left it up to the individual officer to decide when to shoot to 
kill. During that time, the racial disparity among persons shot and 
killed by police was as high as eight African-Americans for every white 
person, and very much higher among victims who were neither armed nor 
in the process of assaulting a police officer.
  During the 1970s and early 1980s, police departments promulgated and 
enforced strict standards, basically decreeing that deadly force could 
be exercised only in defense of the life of the officer or another 
person. In the large police departments in this country, these changes 
were accompanied by reductions of as much as 51 percent in the number 
of civilians killed by police. It also resulted in the significant 
reduction in the number of officers killed in the line of duty. This is 
just one example of how good policies and procedures can actually save 
lives without reducing the effectiveness of law enforcement.
  Recognizing the importance of policies and procedures to eliminate 
and prevent racial profiling, this bill provides incentives for law 
enforcement to promote such policies by providing grants to state and 
local law enforcement agencies to use in ways they believe will be most 
effective for their communities--whether to purchase equipment and 
other resources to assist in data collection or to provide

[[Page 10069]]

training to officers to improve community relations and build trust.
  Chief Chamberlin spoke eloquently this morning about the importance 
of training and building relationships between law enforcement and 
communities. His actions, however, have spoken even louder than his 
words. He has taken the lead in Western New York in forming the Law 
Enforcement and Diversity Team or ``LEAD'' program, which exists to 
enhance communication and understanding between suburban law 
enforcement agencies and the diverse citizenry of Western New York. The 
LEAD team, sponsored by the National Conference for Community and 
Justice and the Erie County Chiefs of Police, developed one of the 
Nation's leading programs--``Building Bridges'' to start a dialogue 
between police officers and people of diverse cultural and racial 
backgrounds.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation has utilized excerpts from the 
LEAD Team's ``What to do When Stopped by Police'' brochure for the 
department's national publication. The program has been adopted by the 
Buffalo and Cheektowaga school systems in the curriculum for high 
schools students. It provides an important educational opportunity for 
the entire community and assists in the development of positive 
relationships between police and community by eliminating some level of 
fear, distrust, and skepticism.
  Other New Yorkers have also worked to improve the relationship 
between communities and law enforcement. New York's Attorney General, 
Elliot Spitzer, has instituted training programs in an effort to try 
and prevent racial profiling. In fact, just this past February through 
April, the Attorney General's office conducted in-service training of 
all members of the New Rochelle, New York Police Department at the 
request of that department. The training took place on Thursday 
mornings and focused, among other things, on what is meant by ``racial 
profiling'' and the perceptions of community members of police 
encounters in order to raise awareness. The training also reported on 
data collection efforts taking place across the country and the results 
of those efforts.
  Academia can also play a role in promoting trust between law 
enforcement and the community. For example, the John Jay College of 
Criminal Justice--whose Master of Public Administration Program was 
ranked first in the nation among graduate schools with specializations 
in Criminal Justice Policy and Management by U.S. News and World Report 
for the second year in a row--has begun to conduct a six-week free 
course for members of the New York City Police Department on the racial 
and cultural diversity of New York City. More than 600 police officers 
from across New York City have enrolled in a course entitled: ``Police 
Supervision in a Multiracial and Multicultural City.''
  With this bill, efforts like those currently led by Chief 
Chamberlain, Attorney General Spitzer, and John Jay College will be 
expanded throughout the country.
  More than a year ago when I spoke about this issue at the Riverside 
Church in New York City, I said, ``we must all be on the same side.'' I 
am so proud that today--we are all here together--on the same side, 
citizens, officers of the law, Republicans and Democrats--to say that 
racial profiling is wrong and must end.
  We are here to say that in fighting racial profiling, we can at the 
same time forge even better relations between police and the 
neighborhoods they patrol, as we wage a common effort to reduce crime 
and make our communities safe.
  In closing, I hope that as we move forward with the consideration of 
this legislation, it will engender a positive and thoughtful dialogue 
between and among members of Congress, the President, law enforcement, 
and the civil rights community. And that by eliminating the practice of 
racial profiling, we can begin to restore the bonds of trust between 
communities and the law enforcement officers that serve them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:
  S. 990. A bill to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
Act to improve the provisions relating to wildlife conservation and 
restoration programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
a comprehensive wildlife conservation measure, the American Wildlife 
Enhancement Act of 2001. This bill will help to increase conservation 
efforts by promoting local control and State partnerships through 
flexible, incentive driven conservation programs and increased 
partnerships with local land owners. The true conservationists are 
those who live on and work the land, and it is my intention to provide 
the incentives to help them continue those efforts. People don't come 
to New Hampshire for the malls. They come to kayak, bike, fish, swim, 
hunt, hike trails, ski, and more. That's our industry. We cannot, and 
should not, turn away from that. I believe that when we conserve our 
wildlife and wildlife areas, we affirm our long-standing tradition of 
honoring our natural American heritage. This bill is about achieving 
that goal in a cooperative, partnership approach, something that 
unfortunately, the Federal Government has too long neglected.
  This bill will accomplish these goals by infusing additional funds 
into the popular Pittman-Robertson program; establishing a new 
competitive matching grant fund that would allow private landowners to 
apply for assistance to protect endangered and threatened species on 
their land; and establishing a new competitive grant fund that would 
allow one or several States to apply for a grant to protect an area of 
regional or national significance through the purchase of an easement 
or acquisition. This measure represents our best, and most effective, 
chances of addressing the growing needs for wildlife conservation in 
our Nation.
  Title I of this bill authorizes $350 million a year to enhance the 
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration program. Unlike the existing 
Pittman-Robertson program, which is funded through a tax on hunting 
equipment, the enhanced program would be authorized for a specific time 
period, would have to compete for funds through the appropriations 
process and would be held in an account that is separate from the 
already established Wildlife Restoration Fund.
  Funds for this enhanced program would be distributed to the States 
through a formula based on land area and population, with no State 
receiving less than one percent of the available funding. Projects 
eligible for funding through the new program would include: acquisition 
and improvement of wildlife habitat; hunter education; wildlife 
population surveys; construction of facilities to improve public 
access; management of wildlife areas; recreation; conservation 
education; and facility development and maintenance. States would pay 
for a project up front and would be reimbursed up to 75 percent of the 
total cost of the project. Similar language was included in last year's 
Commerce-State-Justice appropriations measure, but was authorized for 
one year, at a level of $50 million. The program has been successful 
since its inception, and should continue past this fiscal year. My bill 
would authorize this program for five years at a level of $350 million 
each year.
  The State of New Hampshire ranks 44th out of 50 States in land area 
and 41st in population. Still, the State received $487,000 out of the 
money appropriated in last year's Commerce-State-Justice appropriations 
bill. If my bill were enacted and fully appropriated, even a small 
State like New Hampshire would be eligible to receive $3.5 million. 
Believe me, $3.5 million would make an incredible difference not only 
for New Hampshire, but nationwide. There is not only a demonstrated 
need for these additional funds, but a keen interest in seeing this 
infusion of appropriations within a time-tested program, the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Program, popular with sportsmen and 
women and conservationists alike.

[[Page 10070]]

  The second title of my bill establishes a new competitive matching 
grant fund that would allow private landowners to apply for assistance 
to protect endangered and threatened species on their land through the 
development and implementation of recovery agreements. A recovery 
agreement would provide an economic incentive to protect habitat for 
threatened and endangered species, list specific recovery goals, 
schedule an implementation plan, and monitor the results. In return for 
agreeing to carry out these activities, the landowner would receive 
financial compensation. Currently any effort that a private landowner 
undertakes to conserve an endangered species is paid for out-of-pocket. 
Under this bill though, for the first time, private landowners will be 
able to apply for a grant to assist in the recovery of endangered or 
threatened species on their property. In other words, they would be 
eligible to get compensation for some of the conservation measures that 
they now have to pay for themselves.
  That is a big step forward. Since approximately 90-percent of the 
listed endangered and threatened species inhabit non-federal lands, one 
of the keys to the successful recovery of our endangered and threatened 
species is the increased participation of private landowners. This is 
best achieved through a collaborative, not combative, process that 
provides landowners with an incentive to participate.
  This title is an amendment to the Endangered Species Act. This title 
should not be interpreted as a vehicle for comprehensive reform, but as 
a great opportunity to get dollars to those land owners who want to 
protect species today. I welcome the opportunity to work with all of my 
colleagues on comprehensive reform to the Endangered Species Act 
through hearings, debate and bipartisan legislation. However, in the 
meantime we need to provide private land owners the opportunity to 
protect the habitat of endangered species.
  The final title of my bill would establish a new competitive grant 
fund that would allow one or more States to apply for a grant to 
protect an area of regional or national significance through the 
purchase of an easement or acquisition. Without a source of flexible 
Federal funds such as this, States and local communities alone will be 
unable to protect some of the Nation's most important natural areas. I 
highlight the Northern Forest that spans the states of New Hampshire, 
Maine, Vermont, and New York; the Central Appalachian Highlands; the 
Mississippi Delta, just to name a few. This flexible funding will allow 
States and communities to protect vital natural, cultural and 
recreational areas without creating or expanding Federal units. Such a 
funding program promotes local control and multi-state partnerships, 
and is also cost-effective.
  I am a firm believer in preserving our national treasures for future 
generations to enjoy. I also believe that the States, local communities 
and individual property owners are in the best position to identify and 
protect the species and areas that are in the greatest need of 
conservation. But they also need financial assistance from the Federal 
Government to effectively conserve and manage the natural resources 
that need either protection or restoration. This belief is strongly 
reflected in my bill.
  I have received a very positive response for this bill from the 
interested constituencies, both in New Hampshire and nationwide. In 
general, there is a growing consensus that we must act now or we will 
lose many of our special places, and if we wait, what is destroyed or 
lost will be gone forever. It is our responsibility to act as stewards 
of the environment. I have said it before and I will say it again: it 
is not anti-conservative to be pro-environment.
  This bill is one that should attract the interest of both sides of 
the aisle. On that note, I would like to thank Senator Reid, my 
counterpart on the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his 
leadership on the issue of wildlife conservation. In April, he chaired 
a field hearing in Reno, NV, on State wildlife and conservation issues. 
I know he is engaged in this matter, and I look forward to working with 
him to advance the goals of the American Wildlife Enhancement Act.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the American Wildlife 
Enhancement Act of 2001 and ask 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. 990

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``American 
     Wildlife Enhancement Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

   TITLE I--PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION 
                          PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account.
Sec. 104. Apportionment of amounts in the Account.
Sec. 105. Wildlife conservation and restoration programs.
Sec. 106. Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Sec. 107. Technical amendments.
Sec. 108. Effective date.

          TITLE II--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY

Sec. 201. Purpose.
Sec. 202. Endangered and threatened species recovery assistance.

         TITLE III--NON-FEDERAL LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM

Sec. 301. Non-Federal land conservation grant program.

   TITLE I--PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION 
                          PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Conservation and Restoration Programs Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2 of the Pittman-Robertson 
     Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this Act:
       ``(1) Account.--The term `Account' means the Wildlife 
     Conservation and Restoration Account established by section 
     3(a)(2).
       ``(2) Conservation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `conservation' means the use of 
     a method or procedure necessary or desirable to sustain 
     healthy populations of wildlife.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `conservation' includes any 
     activity associated with scientific resources management, 
     such as--
       ``(i) research;
       ``(ii) census;
       ``(iii) monitoring of populations;
       ``(iv) acquisition, improvement, and management of habitat;
       ``(v) live trapping and transplantation;
       ``(vi) wildlife damage management;
       ``(vii) periodic or total protection of a species or 
     population; and
       ``(viii) the taking of individuals within a wildlife stock 
     or population if permitted by applicable Federal law, State 
     law, or law of the District of Columbia or a territory.
       ``(3) Fund.--The term `fund' means the Federal aid to 
     wildlife restoration fund established by section 3(a)(1).
       ``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       ``(5) State fish and game department.--The term `State fish 
     and game department' means any department or division of a 
     department of another name, or commission, or 1 or more 
     officials, of a State, the District of Columbia, or a 
     territory empowered under the laws of the State, the District 
     of Columbia, or the territory, respectively, to exercise the 
     functions ordinarily exercised by a State fish and game 
     department or a State fish and wildlife department.
       ``(6) Territory.--The term `territory' means Puerto Rico, 
     Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.
       ``(7) Wildlife.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `wildlife' means--
       ``(i) any species of wild, free-ranging fauna (excluding 
     fish); and
       ``(ii) any species of fauna (excluding fish) in a captive 
     breeding program the object of which is to reintroduce 
     individuals of a depleted indigenous species into the 
     previously occupied range of the species.
       ``(B) Wildlife conservation and restoration program.--For 
     the purposes of each wildlife conservation and restoration 
     program, the term `wildlife' includes fish.
       ``(8) Wildlife-associated recreation project.--The term 
     `wildlife-associated recreation project' means--
       ``(A) a project intended to meet the demand for an outdoor 
     activity associated with wildlife, such as hunting, fishing, 
     and wildlife observation and photography;

[[Page 10071]]

       ``(B) a project such as construction or restoration of a 
     wildlife viewing area, observation tower, blind, platform, 
     land or water trail, water access route, area for field 
     trialing, or trail head; and
       ``(C) a project to provide access for a project described 
     in subparagraph (A) or (B).
       ``(9) Wildlife conservation and restoration program.--The 
     term `wildlife conservation and restoration program' means a 
     program developed by a State fish and game department and 
     approved by the Secretary under section 12.
       ``(10) Wildlife conservation education project.--The term 
     `wildlife conservation education project' means a project, 
     including public outreach, that is intended to foster 
     responsible natural resource stewardship.
       ``(11) Wildlife-restoration project.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `wildlife-restoration project' 
     means a project consisting of the selection, restoration, 
     rehabilitation, or improvement of an area of land or water 
     (including a property interest in land or water) that is 
     adaptable as a feeding, resting, or breeding place for 
     wildlife.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `wildlife-restoration project' 
     includes--
       ``(i) acquisition of an area described in subparagraph (A) 
     that is suitable or capable of being made suitable for 
     feeding, resting, or breeding by wildlife;
       ``(ii) construction in an area described in subparagraph 
     (A) of such works as are necessary to make the area available 
     for feeding, resting, or breeding by wildlife;
       ``(iii) such research into any problem of wildlife 
     management as is necessary for efficient administration of 
     wildlife resources; and
       ``(iv) such preliminary or incidental expenses as are 
     incurred with respect to activities described in this 
     paragraph.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The first section, section 3(a)(1), and section 12 of 
     the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 
     669, 669b(a)(1), 669i) are amended by striking ``Secretary of 
     Agriculture'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary''.
       (2) The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 
     U.S.C. 669 et seq.) is amended by striking ``Secretary of the 
     Interior'' each place it appears and inserting ``Secretary''.
       (3) Section 3(a)(1) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(a)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``(hereinafter referred to as the `fund')''.
       (4) Section 6(c) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669e(c)) is amended by striking 
     ``established by section 3 of this Act''.
       (5) Section 11(b) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h-2(b)) is amended by striking 
     ``wildlife restoration projects'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``wildlife-restoration projects''.

     SEC. 103. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION ACCOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Section 3 of the Pittman-Robertson 
     Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 3. (a)(1) An'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 3. FEDERAL AID TO WILDLIFE RESTORATION FUND.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Federal aid to wildlife restoration fund.--An'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Wildlife conservation and restoration account.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--There is established in the fund an 
     account to be known as the `Wildlife Conservation and 
     Restoration Account'.
       ``(B) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Account for apportionment to States, the District of 
     Columbia, and territories in accordance with section 4(d)--
       ``(i) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(ii) $350,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2006.''; and
       (3) by striking subsections (c) and (d).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 3(a)(1) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(a)(1)) is amended in the 
     first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than the Account)'' after 
     ``wildlife restoration fund''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``(other than sections 4(d) and 12)''.
       (2) Section 4 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(A)--

       (I) by inserting ``(other than the Account)'' after ``the 
     fund''; and
       (II) by inserting ``(other than subsection (d) and sections 
     3(a)(2) and 12)'' after ``this Act''; and

       (ii) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``from the fund 
     (other than the Account)'' before ``under this Act''; and
       (B) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``said fund'' and inserting ``the fund (other than the 
     Account)''.
       (3) Section 6 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 669e) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``(other than sections 4(d) and 12)'' after ``this Act'';
       (ii) in the last sentence of paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``this Act from funds apportioned under this Act'' and 
     inserting ``this Act (other than sections 4(d) and 12) from 
     funds apportioned from the fund (other than the Account) 
     under this Act'';
       (iii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(other than 
     sections 4(d) and 12)'' after ``this Act''; and
       (II) in the last sentence, by striking ``said fund as 
     represents the share of the United States payable under this 
     Act'' and inserting ``the fund (other than the Account) as 
     represents the share of the United States payable from the 
     fund (other than the Account) under this Act''; and

       (iv) in the last paragraph, by inserting ``from the fund 
     (other than the Account)'' before ``under this Act'' each 
     place it appears; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``(other than sections 
     4(d) and 12)'' after ``this Act'' each place it appears.
       (4) Section 8A of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g-1) is amended in the first 
     sentence by inserting ``from the fund (other than the 
     Account)'' before ``under this Act''.
       (5) Section 9 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 669h) is amended in subsections (a) and (b)(1) 
     by striking ``section 4(a)(1)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``subsections (a)(1) and (d)(1) of section 4''.
       (6) Section 10 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h-1) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (i) by inserting ``(other than the Account)'' after ``the 
     fund''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``but excluding any 
     use authorized solely by section 12'' after ``target 
     ranges''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``(other than sections 4(d) and 12)''.
       (7) Section 11(a)(1) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h-2(a)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(other than the Account)'' after ``the fund''.

     SEC. 104. APPORTIONMENT OF AMOUNTS IN THE ACCOUNT.

       Section 4 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended by striking the second subsection 
     (c) and subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Apportionment of Amounts in the Account.--
       ``(1) Deduction for administrative expenses.--For each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary may deduct, for payment of 
     administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary in carrying 
     out activities funded from the Account, not more than 3 
     percent of the total amount of the Account available for 
     apportionment for the fiscal year.
       ``(2) Apportionment to district of columbia and 
     territories.--For each fiscal year, after making the 
     deduction under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall apportion 
     from the amount in the Account remaining available for 
     apportionment--
       ``(A) to each of the District of Columbia and the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a sum equal to not more than \1/
     2\ of 1 percent of that remaining amount; and
       ``(B) to each of Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands, a sum 
     equal to not more than \1/4\ of 1 percent of that remaining 
     amount.
       ``(3) Apportionment to states.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for each 
     fiscal year, after making the deduction under paragraph (1) 
     and the apportionment under paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall apportion the amount in the Account remaining available 
     for apportionment among States in the following manner:
       ``(i) \1/3\ based on the ratio that the area of each State 
     bears to the total area of all States.
       ``(ii) \2/3\ based on the ratio that the population of each 
     State bears to the total population of all States.
       ``(B) Minimum and maximum apportionments.--For each fiscal 
     year, the amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be 
     adjusted proportionately so that no State is apportioned a 
     sum that is--
       ``(i) less than 1 percent of the amount available for 
     apportionment under this paragraph for the fiscal year; or
       ``(ii) more than 5 percent of that amount.
       ``(4) Use.--
       ``(A) In general.--Apportionments under paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)--
       ``(i) shall supplement, but not supplant, funds available 
     to States, the District of Columbia, and territories--

       ``(I) from the fund; or
       ``(II) from the Sport Fish Restoration Account established 
     by section 9504(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and

       ``(ii) shall be used to address the unmet needs for a wide 
     variety of wildlife and associated habitats, including 
     species that are not hunted or fished, for projects 
     authorized to be carried out as part of wildlife conservation 
     and restoration programs in accordance with section 12.

[[Page 10072]]

       ``(B) Prohibition on diversion.--A State, the District of 
     Columbia, or a territory shall not be eligible to receive an 
     apportionment under paragraph (2) or (3) if the Secretary 
     determines that the State, the District of Columbia, or the 
     territory, respectively, diverts funds from any source of 
     revenue (including interest, dividends, and other income 
     earned on the revenue) available to the State, the District 
     of Columbia, or the territory after January 1, 2000, for 
     conservation of wildlife for any purpose other than the 
     administration of the State fish and game department in 
     carrying out wildlife conservation activities.
       ``(5) Period of availability of apportionments.--
     Notwithstanding section 3(a)(1), for each fiscal year, the 
     apportionment to a State, the District of Columbia, or a 
     territory from the Account under this subsection shall remain 
     available for obligation until the end of the second 
     following fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 105. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
     Act is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 12 and 13 (16 U.S.C. 669i, 
     669 note) as sections 13 and 15, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 11 (16 U.S.C. 669h-2) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 12. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Definition of State.--In this section, the term 
     `State' means a State, the District of Columbia, and a 
     territory.
       ``(b) Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State, acting through the State fish 
     and game department, may apply to the Secretary--
       ``(A) for approval of a wildlife conservation and 
     restoration program; and
       ``(B) to receive funds from the apportionment to the State 
     under section 4(d) to develop and implement the wildlife 
     conservation and restoration program.
       ``(2) Application contents.--As part of an application 
     under paragraph (1), a State shall provide documentation 
     demonstrating that the wildlife conservation and restoration 
     program of the State includes--
       ``(A) provisions vesting in the State fish and game 
     department overall responsibility and accountability for the 
     wildlife conservation and restoration program of the State;
       ``(B) provisions to identify which species in the State are 
     in greatest need of conservation; and
       ``(C) provisions for the development, implementation, and 
     maintenance, under the wildlife conservation and restoration 
     program, of--
       ``(i) wildlife conservation projects--

       ``(I) that expand and support other wildlife programs; and
       ``(II) that are selected giving appropriate consideration 
     to all species of wildlife in accordance with subsection (c);

       ``(ii) wildlife-associated recreation projects; and
       ``(iii) wildlife conservation education projects.
       ``(3) Public participation.--A State shall provide an 
     opportunity for public participation in the development, 
     implementation, and revision of the wildlife conservation and 
     restoration program of the State and projects carried out 
     under the wildlife conservation and restoration program.
       ``(4) Approval for funding.--If the Secretary finds that 
     the application submitted by a State meets the requirements 
     of paragraph (2), the Secretary shall approve the wildlife 
     conservation and restoration program of the State.
       ``(5) Payment of federal share.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (D), after the 
     Secretary approves a wildlife conservation and restoration 
     program of a State, the Secretary may use the apportionment 
     to the State under section 4(d) to pay the Federal share of--
       ``(i) the cost of implementation of the wildlife 
     conservation and restoration program; and
       ``(ii) the cost of development, implementation, and 
     maintenance of each project that is part of the wildlife 
     conservation and restoration program.
       ``(B) Federal share.--The Federal share shall not exceed 75 
     percent.
       ``(C) Timing of payments.--Under such regulations as the 
     Secretary may promulgate, the Secretary--
       ``(i) shall make payments to a State under subparagraph (A) 
     during the course of a project; and
       ``(ii) may advance funds to pay the Federal share of the 
     costs described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Maximum amount for law enforcement activities.--
     Notwithstanding section 8(a), for each fiscal year, not more 
     than 10 percent of the apportionment to a State under section 
     4(d) for the wildlife conservation and restoration program of 
     the State may be used for law enforcement activities.
       ``(6) Method of implementation of projects.--A State may 
     implement a project that is part of the wildlife conservation 
     and restoration program of the State through--
       ``(A) a grant made by the State to, or a contract entered 
     into by the State with--
       ``(i) any Federal, State, or local agency (including an 
     agency that gathers, evaluates, and disseminates information 
     on wildlife and wildlife habitats);
       ``(ii) an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4 of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450b));
       ``(iii) a wildlife conservation organization; or
       ``(iv) an outdoor recreation or conservation education 
     entity; and
       ``(B) any other method determined appropriate by the State.
       ``(c) Wildlife Conservation Strategy.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     the initial apportionment to a State under section 4(d), to 
     be eligible to continue to receive funds from the 
     apportionment to the State under section 4(d), the State 
     shall, as part of the wildlife conservation and restoration 
     program of the State, develop and begin implementation of a 
     wildlife conservation strategy that is based on the best 
     available and appropriate scientific information.
       ``(2) Required elements.--A wildlife conservation strategy 
     shall--
       ``(A) use such information on the distribution and 
     abundance of species of wildlife as is indicative of the 
     diversity and health of the wildlife of the State, including 
     such information on species with low populations and 
     declining numbers of individuals as the State fish and game 
     department determines to be appropriate;
       ``(B) identify the extent and condition of wildlife 
     habitats and community types essential to conservation of the 
     species of wildlife of the State identified using information 
     described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(C)(i) identify the problems that may adversely affect--
       ``(I) the species identified using information described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(II) the habitats of the species identified under 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) provide for high priority research and surveys to 
     identify factors that may assist in the restoration and more 
     effective conservation of--
       ``(I) the species identified using information described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(II) the habitats of the species identified under 
     subparagraph (B);
       ``(D)(i) describe which actions should be taken to 
     conserve--
       ``(I) the species identified using information described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(II) the habitats of the species identified under 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) establish priorities for implementing those actions; 
     and
       ``(E) provide for--
       ``(i) periodic monitoring of--

       ``(I) the species identified using information described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(II) the habitats of the species identified under 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(III) the effectiveness of the conservation actions 
     described under subparagraph (D); and

       ``(ii) adaptation of conservation actions as appropriate to 
     respond to new information or changing conditions.
       ``(3) Public participation in development of strategy.--A 
     State shall provide an opportunity for public participation 
     in the development and implementation of the wildlife 
     conservation strategy of the State.
       ``(4) Review and revision.--Not less often than once every 
     10 years, a State shall review the wildlife conservation 
     strategy of the State and make any appropriate revisions.
       ``(5) Coordination.--During the development, 
     implementation, review, and revision of the wildlife 
     conservation strategy of the State, a State shall provide for 
     coordination, to the maximum extent practicable, between--
       ``(A) the State fish and game department; and
       ``(B) Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian tribes 
     that--
       ``(i) manage significant areas of land or water within the 
     State; or
       ``(ii) administer programs that significantly affect the 
     conservation of

       ``(I) the species identified using information described in 
     paragraph (2)(A); or
       ``(II) the habitats of the species identified under 
     paragraph (2)(B).

       ``(d) Use of Funds for New and Existing Programs and 
     Projects.--Funds made available from the Account to carry out 
     activities under this section may be used--
       ``(1) to carry out new programs and projects; and
       ``(2) to enhance existing programs and projects.
       ``(e) Priority for Funding.--In using funds made available 
     from the Account to carry out activities under this section, 
     a State shall give priority to species that are in greatest 
     need of conservation, as identified by the State.
       ``(f) Limitation on Use of Funds for Wildlife Conservation 
     Education Projects.--Funds made available from the Account to 
     carry out wildlife conservation education projects shall not 
     be used to fund, in whole or in part, any activity that 
     promotes or encourages opposition to the regulated hunting or 
     trapping of wildlife.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8(a) of the Pittman-
     Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g) is 
     amended by striking the last sentence.

[[Page 10073]]



     SEC. 106. NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.

       (a) Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.--The 
     Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (as amended by 
     section 105(a)(1)) is amended by inserting after section 13 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 14. NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
                   ACT.

       ``Coordination with State fish and game department 
     personnel or with personnel of any other agency of a State, 
     the District of Columbia, or a territory under this Act shall 
     not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.).''.
       (b) Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.--The 
     Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 15 (16 U.S.C. 777 note) as 
     section 16; and
       (2) by inserting after section 14 (16 U.S.C. 777m) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 15. NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
                   ACT.

       ``Coordination with State fish and game department 
     personnel or with personnel of any other State agency under 
     this Act shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).''.

     SEC. 107. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) The first section of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669) is amended by striking ``That 
     the'' and inserting the following:

     ``SECTION 1. COOPERATION OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WITH 
                   STATES.

       ``The''.
       (b) Section 5 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 669d) is amended by striking ``Sec. 5.'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 5. CERTIFICATION OF AMOUNTS DEDUCTED OR 
                   APPORTIONED.''.

       (c) Section 6 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 669e) is amended by striking ``Sec. 6.'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 6. SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS AND PROJECTS.''.

       (d) Section 7 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 669f) is amended by striking ``Sec. 7.'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 7. PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO STATES.''.

       (e) Section 8 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 669g) is amended by striking ``Sec. 8.'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 8. MAINTENANCE OF PROJECTS; FUNDING OF HUNTER SAFETY 
                   PROGRAMS AND PUBLIC TARGET RANGES.''.

       (f) Section 8A of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g-1) is amended by striking 
     ``Sec. 8A.'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 8A. APPORTIONMENTS TO TERRITORIES.''.

       (g) Section 12 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669i) is amended by striking 
     ``Sec. 12.'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 12. RULES AND REGULATIONS.''.

     SEC. 108. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title takes effect on October 1, 2001.

          TITLE II--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY

     SEC. 201. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to promote involvement by non-
     Federal entities in the recovery of the endangered species 
     and threatened species of the United States and the habitats 
     on which the species depend.

     SEC. 202. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 13 of the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 (87 Stat. 902) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 13. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Small landowner.--The term `small landowner' means an 
     individual who owns not more than 150 acres of land.
       ``(2) Species recovery agreement.--The term `species 
     recovery agreement' means an endangered and threatened 
     species recovery agreement entered into under subsection (c).
       ``(b) Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery 
     Assistance.--
       ``(1) Financial assistance.--The Secretary may provide 
     financial assistance to any person for development and 
     implementation of an endangered and threatened species 
     recovery agreement entered into by the Secretary and the 
     person under subsection (c).
       ``(2) Priority.--In providing financial assistance under 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to the 
     development and implementation of species recovery agreements 
     that--
       ``(A) implement actions identified under recovery plans 
     approved by the Secretary under section 4(f);
       ``(B) have the greatest potential for contributing to the 
     recovery of an endangered species or threatened species; and
       ``(C) are proposed by small landowners.
       ``(3) Prohibition on assistance for required activities.--
     The Secretary shall not provide financial assistance under 
     this subsection for any activity that is required--
       ``(A) by a permit issued under section 10(a)(1)(B);
       ``(B) by an incidental taking statement provided under 
     section 7(b)(4); or
       ``(C) under another provision of this Act or any other 
     Federal law.
       ``(4) Payments under other programs.--
       ``(A) Other payments not affected.--Financial assistance 
     provided to a person under this subsection shall be in 
     addition to, and shall not affect, the total amount of 
     payments that the person is eligible to receive under--
       ``(i) the conservation reserve program established under 
     subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.);
       ``(ii) the wetlands reserve program established under 
     subchapter C of that chapter (16 U.S.C. 3837 et seq.);
       ``(iii) the environmental quality incentives program 
     established under chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.); or
       ``(iv) the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program established 
     under section 387 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3836a).
       ``(B) Limitation.--A person shall not receive financial 
     assistance under a species recovery agreement for any 
     activity for which the person receives a payment under a 
     program referred to in subparagraph (A) unless the species 
     recovery agreement imposes on the person a financial or 
     management obligation in addition to the obligations of the 
     person under that program.
       ``(c) Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery 
     Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--In accordance with this subsection, the 
     Secretary may enter into endangered and threatened species 
     recovery agreements.
       ``(2) Required terms.--The Secretary shall include in each 
     species recovery agreement with a person provisions that--
       ``(A) require the person--
       ``(i) to carry out on real property owned or leased by the 
     person activities not required by other law that contribute 
     to the recovery of an endangered species or threatened 
     species; or
       ``(ii) to refrain from carrying out on real property owned 
     or leased by the person otherwise lawful activities that 
     would inhibit the recovery of an endangered species or 
     threatened species;
       ``(B) describe the real property referred to in clauses (i) 
     and (ii) of subparagraph (A);
       ``(C) specify species recovery goals for the species 
     recovery agreement, and activities for attaining the goals;
       ``(D)(i) require the person to make reasonable efforts to 
     make measurable progress each year in achieving the species 
     recovery goals; and
       ``(ii) specify a schedule for implementation of the species 
     recovery agreement;
       ``(E) specify actions to be taken by the Secretary or the 
     person to monitor the effectiveness of the species recovery 
     agreement in attaining the species recovery goals;
       ``(F) require the person to notify the Secretary if any 
     right or obligation of the person under the species recovery 
     agreement is assigned to any other person;
       ``(G) require the person to notify the Secretary if any 
     term of the species recovery agreement is breached;
       ``(H) specify the date on which the species recovery 
     agreement takes effect and the period of time during which 
     the species recovery agreement shall remain in effect;
       ``(I) provide that the species recovery agreement shall not 
     be in effect on or after any date on which the Secretary 
     publishes a certification by the Secretary that the person 
     has not complied with the species recovery agreement; and
       ``(J) schedule the disbursement of financial assistance 
     provided under subsection (b) for implementation of the 
     species recovery agreement, on an annual or other basis 
     during the period in which the species recovery agreement is 
     in effect, based on the schedule for implementation required 
     under subparagraph (D)(ii).
       ``(3) Review and approval of proposed species recovery 
     agreements.--On submission by any person of a proposed 
     species recovery agreement under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) review the proposed species recovery agreement and 
     determine whether the species recovery agreement--
       ``(i) complies with this subsection; and
       ``(ii) will contribute to the recovery of each endangered 
     species or threatened species that is the subject of the 
     proposed species recovery agreement;
       ``(B) propose to the person any additional provisions that 
     are necessary for the species recovery agreement to comply 
     with this subsection; and
       ``(C) if the Secretary determines that the species recovery 
     agreement complies with this subsection, enter into the 
     species recovery agreement with the person.
       ``(4) Monitoring of implementation of species recovery 
     agreements.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) periodically monitor the implementation of each 
     species recovery agreement; and
       ``(B) based on the information obtained from the 
     monitoring, annually or otherwise disburse financial 
     assistance under this section to implement the species 
     recovery agreement as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate under the species recovery agreement.
       ``(d) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--Of the 
     amounts made available to carry out this section for a fiscal 
     year, not

[[Page 10074]]

     more than 3 percent may be used to pay administrative 
     expenses incurred in carrying out this section.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 15 of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1542) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery 
     Assistance.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry 
     out section 13 $75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 
     through 2006.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in the 
     first section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. prec. 1531) is amended by striking the item relating 
     to section 13 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 13. Endangered and threatened species recovery assistance.''.

         TITLE III--NON-FEDERAL LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM

     SEC. 301. NON-FEDERAL LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Partnerships for Wildlife Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3741 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 7106. NON-FEDERAL LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--In consultation with appropriate 
     State, regional, and other units of government, the Secretary 
     shall establish a competitive grant program, to be known as 
     the `Non-Federal Land Conservation Grant Program' (referred 
     to in this section as the `program'), to make grants to 
     States or groups of States to pay the Federal share 
     determined under subsection (c)(4) of the costs of 
     conservation of non-Federal land or water of regional or 
     national significance.
       ``(b) Ranking Criteria.--In selecting among applications 
     for grants for projects under the program, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) rank projects according the extent to which a 
     proposed project will protect watersheds and important 
     scenic, cultural, recreational, fish, wildlife, and other 
     ecological resources; and
       ``(2) subject to paragraph (1), give preference to proposed 
     projects--
       ``(A) that seek to protect ecosystems;
       ``(B) that are developed in collaboration with other 
     States;
       ``(C) with respect to which there has been public 
     participation in the development of the project proposal;
       ``(D) that are supported by communities and individuals 
     that are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 
     project or that would be directly affected by the proposed 
     project; or
       ``(E) that the State considers to be a State priority.
       ``(c) Grants to States.--
       ``(1) Notice of deadline for applications.--The Secretary 
     shall give reasonable advance notice of each deadline for 
     submission of applications for grants under the program by 
     publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
       ``(2) Submission of applications.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State or group of States may submit to 
     the Secretary an application for a grant under the program.
       ``(B) Required contents of applications.--Each application 
     shall include--
       ``(i) a detailed description of each proposed project;
       ``(ii) a detailed analysis of project costs, including 
     costs associated with--

       ``(I) planning;
       ``(II) administration;
       ``(III) property acquisition; and
       ``(IV) property management;

       ``(iii) a statement describing how the project is of 
     regional or national significance; and
       ``(iv) a plan for stewardship of any land or water, or 
     interest in land or water, to be acquired under the project.
       ``(3) Selection of grant recipients.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of receipt of an application, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) review the application; and
       ``(B)(i) notify the State or group of States of the 
     decision of the Secretary on the application; and
       ``(ii) if the application is denied, provide an explanation 
     of the reasons for the denial.
       ``(4) Cost sharing.--The Federal share of the costs of a 
     project under the program shall be--
       ``(A) in the case of a project to acquire the fee simple 
     interest in land or water, not more than 50 percent of the 
     costs of the project;
       ``(B) in the case of a project to acquire less than the fee 
     simple interest in land or water (including acquisition of a 
     conservation easement), not more than 70 percent of the costs 
     of the project; and
       ``(C) in the case of a project involving 3 or more States, 
     not more than 75 percent of the costs of the project.
       ``(5) Effect of insufficiency of funds.--If the Secretary 
     determines that there are insufficient funds available to 
     make grants with respect to all applications that meet the 
     requirements of this subsection, the Secretary shall give 
     priority to those projects that best meet the ranking 
     criteria established under subsection (b).
       ``(d) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the end of each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Resources of the House of Representatives a report 
     describing the grants made under this section, including an 
     analysis of how projects were ranked under subsection (b).
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7105(g)(2) of the 
     Partnerships for Wildlife Act (16 U.S.C. 3744(g)(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``this chapter'' and inserting ``this 
     section''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. Landrieu (for herself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. 
        Sessions):
  S. 991. A bill to authorize the president to award a gold medal on 
behalf of the Congress to Andrew Jackson Higgins (posthumously), and to 
the D-day Museum in recognition of the contributions of Higgins 
Industries and the more than 30,000 employees of Higgins Industries to 
the Nation and to world peace during World War II; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I speak today to honor an innovative and 
patriotic American, a logger-turned-boatbuilder, who single-handedly 
transformed the concept of amphibious ship design when our nation and 
her Allies needed it most. Despite some bureaucratic obstacles in 
America's massive World War II war-machine, Andrew Jackson Higgins 
skillfully designed and engineered landing craft, eventually winning 
contracts to build 92 percent of the Navy's war-time fleet of landing 
craft. Andrew Jackson Higgins' story exemplifies the American Dream, 
and merits this body's recognition for his ingenuity, assiduous work, 
and devotion to our country.
  In the late 1930's, Higgins was operating a small New Orleans work-
boat company, with less than seventy-five employees. He quickly earned 
a reputation for fast, dependable work by turning out specialized 
vessels for the oil industry, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and 
U.S. Biological Survey. Despite this reputation, when he presented his 
plans for swift amphibious landing crafts, he met hard resistance. The 
U.S. Navy had overestimated French and British abilities to secure 
France's ports from German encroachment, and overruled decisions to 
create landing boat crafts. When the U.S. Marine Corps finally 
identified the need for mass production of amphibious vessels for use 
in both the Pacific and European theaters, Marine leadership began to 
lobby the Navy to abandon its internal contracting, and procure ships 
from Higgins Industries, which boasted high performance quality and 
unprecedented speed in producing boats. In 1941, the Navy finally asked 
Higgins to begin designing a landing draft to carry tanks. Instead of a 
design, Higgins designed, built and delivered a complete working boat. 
It had only taken 61 hours to design and construct this first Landing 
Craft, Mechanized (LCM). The Navy was so impressed that they awarded 
the contract and the Higgins firm grew to seven plants, eventually 
turning out 700 boats a month, more than all other shipyards in the 
Nation combined. By war's end, Higgins had produced 20,000 boats, 
including the 46-foot LCVP, Landing Craft, Vehicle & Personnel, the 
fast-moving PT boats, the rocket-firing landing craft support boats, 
the 56-foot tank landing craft, the 170 foot freight supply ships and 
the 27-foot airborne lifeboats that could be dropped from B-17 bombers.
  Able to conceive various ship designs and mass-produce vessels 
quickly at affordable prices, Higgins not only transformed wartime 
shipbuilding acquisition, but also sustained the universal faith in 
American invention and global power projection. Higgins boats landed on 
the shores of Normandy on June 6, 1944, 57 years ago today, the key 
enablers in the greatest amphibious assault our world has ever seen. In 
addition to his contributions to Allied war efforts abroad, Higgins' 
manufacturing further changed the face of my own city of New Orleans, 
home to most of the firm's business. I urge my colleagues to support 
provisions to award Andrew Jackson Higgins the Gold

[[Page 10075]]

Medal of Honor, in the tradition of our great institution.
  In 1964, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was reflecting on the success 
of the 1944 Normandy invasion to his biographer, Steven Ambrose. He 
remarked that Andrew Jackson Higgins ``is the man who won the war for 
us. If Higgins had not developed and produced those landing craft, we 
never could have gone in over an open beach. We would have had to 
change the entire strategy of the war.'' Mr. Higgins and his 20,000-
member workforce embody American creativity, persistence, and 
patriotism; they deserve to be recognized for their distinguished place 
in history.
  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. 991

       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 ``Andrew Jackson Higgins Gold 
     Medal Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) Andrew Jackson Higgins was born on August 28, 1886, in 
     Columbus, Nebraska, moved to New Orleans in 1910, and formed 
     Higgins Industries on September 26, 1930;
       (2) Andrew Jackson Higgins designed, engineered, and 
     produced the ``Eureka'', a unique shallow draft boat, the 
     design of which evolved during World War II into 2 basic 
     classes of military craft, high speed PT boats, and types of 
     Higgins landing craft (LCPs, LCPLs, LCVPs, LCMs and LCSs);
       (3) Andrew Jackson Higgins designed, engineered, and 
     constructed 4 major assembly line plants in New Orleans for 
     mass production of Higgins landing craft, and other vessels 
     vital to the Allied Forces' conduct of World War II;
       (4) Andrew Jackson Higgins bought the entire 1940 
     Philippine mahogany crop and other material purely at risk 
     without a Government contract, anticipating that America 
     would join World War II and that Higgins Industries would 
     need the wood to build landing craft, and Higgins also bought 
     steel, engines, and other material necessary to construct 
     landing craft;
       (5) Andrew Jackson Higgins, through Higgins Industries, 
     employed a fully integrated assembly line work force, black 
     and white, male and female, of up to 30,000 during World War 
     II, with equal pay for equal work;
       (6) in 1939, the United States Navy had a total of 18 
     landing craft in the fleet;
       (7) from November 18, 1940, when Higgins Industries was 
     awarded its first contract for Higgins landing craft until 
     the conclusion of the war, the employees of Higgins 
     Industries produced 12,300 Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel 
     (LCVP's) and nearly 8,000 other landing craft of all types;
       (8) during World War II, Higgins Industries employees 
     produced 20,094 boats, including landing craft and Patrol 
     Torpedo boats, and trained 30,000 Navy, Marine, and Coast 
     Guard personnel on the safe operation of landing craft at the 
     Higgins' Boat Operators School;
       (9) on Thanksgiving Day 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower 
     stated in an address to the Nation, ``Let us thank God for 
     Higgins Industries, management, and labor which has given us 
     the landing boats with which to conduct our campaign.'';
       (10) Higgins landing craft, constructed of wood and steel, 
     transported fully armed troops, light tanks, field artillery, 
     and other mechanized equipment essential to amphibious 
     operations;
       (11) Higgins landing craft made the amphibious assault on 
     D-day and the landings at Leyte, North Africa, Guadalcanal, 
     Sicily, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Guam, and thousands of less well-
     known assaults possible;
       (12) Captain R.R.M. Emmett, a commander at the North Africa 
     amphibious landing, and later commandant of the Great Lakes 
     Training Station, wrote during the war, ``When the history of 
     this war is finally written by historians, far enough removed 
     from its present turmoil and clamor to be cool and impartial, 
     I predict that they will place Mr. (Andrew Jackson) Higgins 
     very high on the list of those who deserve the commendation 
     and gratitude of all citizens.''; and
       (13) in 1964, President Dwight D. Eisenhower told historian 
     Steven Ambrose, ``He (Higgins) is the man who won the war for 
     us. If Higgins had not developed and produced those landing 
     craft, we never could have gone in over an open beach. We 
     would have had to change the entire strategy of the war.''.

     SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

       (a) Presentation Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The President is authorized, on behalf of 
     Congress, to award a gold medal of appropriate design to--
       (A) the family of Andrew Jackson Higgins, honoring Andrew 
     Jackson Higgins (posthumously) for his contributions to the 
     Nation and world peace; and
       (B) the D-day Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana, for public 
     display, honoring Andrew Jackson Higgins (posthumously) and 
     the employees of Higgins Industries for their contributions 
     to the Nation and world peace.
       (2) Modalities.--The modalities of presentation of the 
     medals under this Act shall be determined by the President, 
     after consultation with the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     (in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall strike 2 
     gold medals with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions, 
     to be determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 4. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

       The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of 
     the gold medals struck under this Act, under such regulations 
     as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price sufficient to 
     cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, 
     use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the 
     gold medal.

     SEC. 5. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS.

       The medals struck under this Act are national medals for 
     purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.

       (a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to 
     be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise 
     Fund an amount not to exceed $60,000 to pay for the cost of 
     the medals authorized by this Act.
       (b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of 
     duplicate bronze medals under section 4 shall be deposited in 
     the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Frist, and Mr. 
        Torricelli):
  S. 992. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the provision taxing policy holder dividends of mutual life insurance 
companies and to repeal the policyholders surplus account provisions; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to simplify 
the taxation of life insurance companies, along with Senator Conrad and 
several of our colleagues.
  Our legislation repeals section 809 and section 815 of the Internal 
Revenue Code. Due to significant changes in the life insurance industry 
and their taxation over the years, these provisions are no longer 
relevant and their repeal will simplify the tax code.
  Section 809 was enacted in 1984 as part of an overhaul of the 
taxation of life insurance companies. At the time, mutual life 
insurance companies were thought to be the dominant segment of the 
industry, and Congress sought to ensure that stock life insurance 
companies were not competitively disadvantaged. However, today, mutual 
life insurance companies comprise only about ten percent of the 
industry. Section 809 raises little revenue, but is very complex and 
burdensome. Since the reason for its enactment no longer exists, our 
bill repeals it.
  Section 815 has an even longer history, dating back to 1959. Tax 
changes in 1959 created an accounting mechanism called a 
``policyholders surplus account'' for stock life insurance companies. 
These companies were allowed to defer tax on one-half of their 
underwriting income so long as it was not distributed to shareholders. 
This income was accounted for through the policyholder surplus account. 
In 1984, Congress eliminated the deferral of income, but they did not 
address the issue of the policyholder surplus accounts. The amounts in 
those accounts remain subject to tax if certain triggering events 
occur. Since no company is willing to ``trigger'' the account, this 
provision also raises little or no revenue, but it directly inhibits 
business decisions of these companies. Our bill would also repeal this 
provision.
  Congress has worked hard over the last few years to modernize laws 
governing the financial services industry to encourage its growth and 
enhance its competitiveness. Elimination of these old, complicated tax 
provisions will complement this effort and provide greater certainty to 
the taxation of these companies.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in this initiative.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CARNAHAN (for herself and Mr. Bond):

[[Page 10076]]

  S. 993. A bill to extend for 4 additional months the period for which 
chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, is reenacted; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 993

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

       Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law 105-277, 
     as amended by Public Law 106-5, Public Law 106-70, and Public 
     Law 107-8, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``June 1, 2001'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``October 1, 2001''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``June 30, 2000'' and inserting ``May 31, 
     2001''; and
       (B) by striking ``July 1, 2000'' and inserting ``June 1, 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect on June 
     1, 2001.

                          ____________________