[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11354-11372]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRASSLEY.
  S. 1076. A bill to provide for the review of agriculture mergers and 
acquisitions by the Department of Agriculture and to outlaw unfair 
practices in the agriculture industry, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, 
agriculture is a crucial industry for Iowa. The small, independent 
family farmer is an important thread which holds together my State's 
cultural, economic and social fabric. In fact, the family farmer is one 
of the best things about Iowa's heritage. My colleagues are well aware 
that I'm committed to preserving and supporting this valuable member of 
Iowa's communities.
  Agriculture is a risky business. I know that from personal 
experience, I've lived and worked on a farm all my life. But these 
days, farmers feel especially vulnerable. ``Merger-mania'' has been 
running rampant, with large companies joining forces to create new 
business giants in every sector of the economy, including agriculture.
  The agriculture sector has witnessed a number of mega-mergers and 
alliances affecting grain and livestock. And the independent producer 
is seeing fewer choices of who to buy from and who to sell to. More and 
more family farmers and independent producers are feeling the pressure 
and impact of concentration in agriculture. Good men and women who have 
farmed for years and years are going out of business. Yet, the 
independent farmer is one of the most efficient businessman in our 
Nation's economy. That's why the United States can feed itself and a 
good portion of the world.
  I've said before that I am not of the belief that all mergers are in 
and of themselves wrong or unfair to family farmers. But we need to 
make sure that open and fair access to the marketplace is preserved for 
everyone. We need to make sure that large businesses are not acting in 
a predatory or anti-competitive manner. We need to make sure that 
family farmers and independent producers can compete on a level playing 
field. That's how we can keep our economy strong, our agricultural 
community vibrant and competitive, and our consumers happy.
  Now we've heard that a Delaware Court has ordered Tyson Foods and IBP 
to resume their merger discussions, because Tyson Foods did not have a 
contractually permissible reason to terminate its merger agreement with 
IBP when it announced in March that it was rescinding the transaction. 
While I do not want to take issue with the court's findings, I am 
concerned about the fact that this merger looks like it will go through 
and, consequently, the meat industry will consolidate even further. 
Beginning last September when Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette/Rawhide 
Holdings Corporation, then Smithfield Foods, and finally Tyson Foods 
started a bidding war for IBP, I pushed the Justice Department to 
carefully scrutinize each possible business combination. In January, I 
wrote the Justice Department urging it to vigorously review the Tyson-
IBP transaction from all angles, and to consult with the Agriculture 
Department to

[[Page 11355]]

better ascertain the ramifications of such a merger on family farmers 
and independent producers. I would have thought that a combination of 
the Nation's largest poultry producer with the world's largest producer 
of beef and pork products would result in significantly reduced market 
opportunities, as well as increased the possibility of anti-competitive 
business practices. I shared the concerns of many farmers and producers 
that this transaction would adversely impact their ability to obtain 
fair prices for their products. I was also concerned that a combined 
IBP-Tyson presence in the retail market would negatively affect product 
choice and the prices consumers pay at the meat counter.
  But the Justice Department determined earlier this year that the 
potential negative impact on competition was insufficient to sustain an 
injunction against the merger under the antitrust laws. Because the 
Justice Department completed its antitrust review in January, I 
understand that there is nothing further for the Department to do in 
terms of an antitrust review if the parties re-engage their merger 
talks in due course and without changes to the transaction. But I 
remain seriously concerned about the impact this merger will have on 
our farm community and I hope that, if this merger is ultimately 
completed, the Justice Department will carefully monitor whether a 
merged IBP-Tyson will have unintended consequences on competition in 
the meat economy and, if it does, take appropriate action.
  Nevertheless, this development re-energizes my gut feeling that we 
need to somehow change the way ag mergers are reviewed and approved. 
So, today I'm re-introducing a bill I authored last year, the 
``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act,'' to help address some of 
the competition concerns of America's family farmers and independent 
producers. My bill will refocus the merger review process as it 
pertains to agri-business, and will enhance the Department of 
Agriculture's ability to address anti-competitive activity in 
agriculture. I believe that bringing to the table a greater 
understanding of ag producers' needs when ag mergers are reviewed is 
the biggest missing element to making the merger review process as fair 
as possible. Closing this gap is the heart of my proposal.
  Several provisions in the ``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act'' 
are based on proposals by the American Farm Bureau, the largest 
organization representing producers of agricultural commodities. 
However, I'd like to briefly discuss what I believe to be the most 
important components of this bill: the enhancement of the Department of 
Agriculture's role in the Hart-Scott-Rodino review process, the 
creation of a new ``impact on family farmers and independent 
producers'' standard of review by the Department of Agriculture for ag 
mergers, and the expansion of the Department of Agriculture's ability 
to take regulatory and enforcement action with respect to anti-
competitive and unfair practices in the agricultural sector.
  Far more than the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission, 
the Department of Agriculture has extraordinary knowledge and expertise 
in agricultural matters. The Department of Agriculture formulates ag 
policy for the Nation, and works closely with the farm community about 
their various concerns. So, I believe that the Department of 
Agriculture is the office that can best assess the true impact of ag 
mergers and other business transactions on farmers, ranchers and 
independent producers. That is why my bill seeks to expand and enhance 
the role that the Department of Agriculture plays in the antitrust 
review of ag mergers.
  Currently, when the Justice Department or the Federal Trade 
Commission assesses a proposed merger, the focus of their analysis is 
weighted heavily toward the impact of the transaction on consumers. 
However, agriculture is unique. The antitrust laws already recognize 
this with the ag cooperative exception. But I believe we need to go 
further by requiring the Justice Department and Federal Trade 
Commission to specifically take into account the effect ag mergers have 
on family farmers and producers. The ``Agriculture Competition 
Enhancement Act'' would do just that by requiring the Department of 
Agriculture to conduct an assessment of how a proposed ag transaction 
will affect family farmers and independent producers and their access 
to the market.
  I realize that presently the Justice Department and Federal Trade 
Commission informally consult with the Department of Agriculture when 
they consider ag mergers. But I believe that the current process does 
not sufficiently ensure that the farm community's concerns are being 
adequately addressed. The approach I advocate will ensure that 
producers' concerns and needs are fully discussed when federal agencies 
examine proposed ag business mergers. By guaranteeing inclusion and 
openness for family farmers and independent producers, we can go a long 
way toward alleviating their understandable anxiety about an 
increasingly concentrated industry.
  So my bill requires the Department of Agriculture to do a merger 
review that focuses on the needs of producers by examining whether the 
transaction would cause substantial harm to farmers' ability to compete 
in the marketplace. This review would be conducted simultaneously with 
the Justice Department's antitrust review, in order to minimize 
disruption to the current merger review process. Further, my bill 
encourages the parties and the Department of Agriculture to resolve 
concerns about the proposed merger during this timeframe. If its 
concerns are not satisfied, the Department of Agriculture has the 
ability to challenge the merger in federal court to either stop the 
merger, or to impose appropriate conditions or limitations on the 
proposed transaction.
  Recognizing that the Department of Agriculture needs to have an 
individual who will perform this new antitrust responsibility, my bill 
calls for the creation of a Special Counsel for Competition Matters at 
the Department of Agriculture. My bill also provides for increased 
funding for competition matters, and authorizes additional specialized 
staff--including antitrust attorneys and economists--at the Justice 
Department and Department of Agriculture, to ensure that these agencies 
have the appropriate resources to accomplish the goals of this 
legislation.
  Furthermore, under my bill, the competition protection authorities of 
the Department of Agriculture's Packers and Stockyards Division are 
extended to include anti-competitive practices by dealers, processors 
and commission merchants of all ag commodities. This expanded 
authority, based on provisions in the current Packers and Stockyards 
Act, will give the Department of Agriculture an increased ability to 
look at unfair, deceptive and predatory business practices by all ag 
businesses, not just packers and poultry farmers.
  As my colleagues from rural States know, ag concentration is one of 
the most important issues in agriculture today. Other members here in 
Congress have introduced bills or are presently working to craft their 
own legislative proposals to respond to the concerns of America's 
farmers. I want it to be clearly understood that it is my desire to 
work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the Bush 
Administration, so that we can make meaningful progress on this issue. 
I know that my proposal has its critics, but I am willing and ready to 
listen to their concerns and work on constructive changes to my bill. 
But I truly hope that we can achieve a bipartisan compromise sooner 
rather than later on this issue, so we can calm farmers' fears about 
high levels of ag concentration.
  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. 1076

       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 ``Agriculture Competition 
     Enhancement Act''.

[[Page 11356]]



     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural 
     commodity'' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of 
     the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).
       (2) Agricultural cooperative.--The term ``agricultural 
     cooperative'' means an association of persons that meets the 
     requirements of the Capper-Volstead Act (7 U.S.C. 291 et 
     seq.; 42 Stat. 388).
       (3) Agricultural input supplier.--The term ``agricultural 
     input supplier'' means any person (excluding agricultural 
     cooperatives) engaged in the business of selling in commerce, 
     any product to be used as an input (including seed, germ 
     plasm, hormones, antibiotics, fertilizer, and chemicals, but 
     excluding farm machinery) for the production of any 
     agricultural commodity.
       (4) Assistant attorney general.--The term ``Assistant 
     Attorney General'' means the Assistant Attorney General in 
     charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
     Justice.
       (5) Broker.--The term ``broker'' means any person 
     (excluding agricultural cooperatives) engaged in the business 
     of negotiating sales and purchases of any agricultural 
     commodity in commerce for or on behalf of the vendor or the 
     purchaser.
       (6) Commission merchant.--The term ``commission merchant'' 
     means any person (excluding agricultural cooperatives) 
     engaged in the business of receiving in commerce any 
     agricultural commodity for sale, on commission, or for or on 
     behalf of another.
       (7) Dealer.--The term ``dealer'' means any person 
     (excluding agricultural cooperatives) engaged in the business 
     of buying, selling, or marketing agricultural commodities in 
     commerce, except that no person shall be considered a dealer 
     with respect to sales or marketing of any agricultural 
     commodity of that person's own raising.
       (8) Processor.--The term ``processor'' means any person 
     (excluding agricultural cooperatives) engaged in the business 
     of handling, preparing, or manufacturing (including 
     slaughtering) of an agricultural commodity, or the products 
     of such agricultural commodity, for sale or marketing in 
     commerce for human consumption but not with respect to sale 
     or marketing at the retail level.
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (10) Special counsel.--The term ``Special Counsel'' means 
     the Special Counsel for Competition Matters at the Department 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR COMPETITION MATTERS.

       (a) In General.--There shall be established within the 
     Department of Agriculture a Special Counsel for Competition 
     Matters whose primary responsibilities shall be to--
       (1) analyze mergers within the food and agricultural 
     sectors, in consultation with the Chief Economist of the 
     Department of Agriculture, as required by section 4; and
       (2) assure that section 5, and the Packers and Stockyards 
     Act and related authorities, are enforced appropriately.
       (b) Appointment.--The Special Counsel for Competition 
     Matters shall be appointed by the President subject to the 
     advice and consent of the Senate.
       (c) Prosecutorial Authority.--The Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters shall have the authority to bring any 
     civil action authorized pursuant to this Act on behalf of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 4. AGRIBUSINESS MERGER REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT BY THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

       (a) Notice of Filing.--The Assistant Attorney General or 
     the Federal Trade Commission, as appropriate, shall notify 
     the Secretary of Agriculture of any filing pursuant to 
     section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) involving a 
     merger or acquisition described in subsection (b)(1), and 
     shall give the Secretary of Agriculture the opportunity to 
     participate in the review proceedings.
       (b) Special Counsel Review.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to the antitrust review 
     conducted by the Federal Trade Commission or Assistant 
     Attorney General pursuant to section 7A of the Clayton Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 18a), and notwithstanding any participation in 
     those antitrust review proceedings, the Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters, in consultation with the Chief Economist 
     of the Department of Agriculture, shall, contemporaneously, 
     observing the time period limitations provided under the 
     antitrust laws and the Department of Justice merger 
     guidelines, and utilizing the factors set forth in subsection 
     (d), review, to determine whether the proposed transaction 
     would cause substantial harm to the ability of independent 
     producers and family farmers to compete in the marketplace, 
     any merger or acquisition involving--
       (A) a dealer, processor, commission merchant, agricultural 
     input supplier, broker, or operator of a warehouse of 
     agricultural commodities with annual net sales or total 
     assets of more than $100,000,000 merging or acquiring, 
     directly or indirectly, any voting securities or assets of 
     any other dealer, processor, commission merchant, 
     agricultural input supplier, broker, or operator of a 
     warehouse of agricultural commodities with annual net sales 
     or total assets of more than $10,000,000; or
       (B) a dealer, processor, commission merchant, agricultural 
     input supplier, broker, or operator of a warehouse of 
     agricultural commodities with annual net sales or total 
     assets of more than $10,000,000 merging or acquiring, 
     directly or indirectly, any voting securities or assets of 
     any other dealer, processor, commission merchant, 
     agricultural input supplier, broker, or operator of a 
     warehouse of agricultural commodities with annual net sales 
     or total assets of more than $100,000,000 if the acquiring 
     person would hold--
       (i) 15 percent or more of the voting securities or assets 
     of the acquired person; or
       (ii) an aggregate total amount of the voting securities and 
     assets of the acquired person in excess of $15,000,000.
       (2) Exception.--The Special Counsel for Competition 
     Matters, at his or her discretion, may also request that the 
     Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission 
     require section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) 
     notification of an agriculture merger or acquisition of a 
     size smaller than is required under paragraph (1), if the 
     Special Counsel for Competition Matters believes that such 
     transaction will cause substantial harm to the ability of 
     independent producers and family farmers to compete in the 
     market.
       (c) Notification on Failure To Proceed.--If the Assistant 
     Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission determines 
     not to proceed against the parties of an agriculture merger 
     or acquisition under the antitrust laws, the Assistant 
     Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission immediately 
     shall notify the Special Counsel for Competition Matters of 
     such decision.
       (d) Standard of Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Special Counsel for Competition 
     Matters, in consultation with the Chief Economist of the 
     Department of Agriculture, shall review, and may challenge, a 
     merger or acquisition described in subsection (b) based on 
     whether the merger or acquisition would cause substantial 
     harm to the ability of independent producers and family 
     farmers to compete in the marketplace.
       (2) Factors.--The review shall consider, among other 
     factors--
       (A) the effect of the acquisition or merger on prices paid 
     to producers who sell to, buy from, or bargain with, one or 
     more of the parties involved in the merger or acquisition;
       (B) the likelihood that the acquisition or merger will 
     result in significantly increased market power for the new or 
     surviving entity;
       (C) the likelihood that the acquisition or merger will 
     increase the potential for anticompetitive or predatory 
     conduct by the new or surviving entity; and
       (D) whether the acquisition or merger will adversely affect 
     producers in a particular regional area, including an area as 
     small as a single State.
       (e) Evidentiary Powers.--The Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters shall have the same powers as possessed 
     by the Assistant Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
     Commission under the antitrust laws, to obtain evidence 
     necessary to make determinations for the review described in 
     subsection (b).
       (f) Access to Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission 
     Information.--The Assistant Attorney General or the Federal 
     Trade Commission, as appropriate, shall make available to the 
     Special Counsel for Competition Matters any information, 
     including any testimony, documentary material, or related 
     information relevant to the review conducted by the Special 
     Counsel under this section which is under the control of the 
     Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission. 
     Each agency will share information, consistent with 
     applicable confidentiality restrictions, in order to provide 
     the others with information believed to be potentially 
     relevant and useful to the others' enforcement 
     responsibilities. Such information may include legal, 
     economic, and technical assistance.
       (g) Transmittal of Findings of Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters.--After receiving notice pursuant to 
     subsection (a) and conducting the review required in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture shall report to 
     the Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade 
     Commission, as appropriate, and the parties, the findings of 
     the review, including any recommended conditions on the 
     merger or suggested remedies.
       (h) Response to Special Counsel Findings.--
       (1) Antitrust agency response to findings.--The Assistant 
     Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission, as 
     appropriate, shall provide the Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters a response, including the rationale as to 
     why such findings and recommendations are accepted or 
     rejected.
       (2) Party opportunity to address findings.--The parties to 
     the merger or acquisition affected by such findings shall 
     have the opportunity to make changes to their operations or 
     structure, and to negotiate with the Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters an acceptable resolution to any concerns 
     raised in the findings.
       (i) Enforcement.--

[[Page 11357]]

       (1) Judicial action.--Not later than 30 days after 
     notification by the Assistant Attorney General or the Federal 
     Trade Commission of their determination not to proceed 
     against the parties, the Special Counsel for Competition 
     Matters, if he or she is not satisfied with the review of, or 
     the conditions placed on, the merger or acquisition by the 
     Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission, 
     may challenge the transaction in Federal court based on the 
     findings conducted in the review under this section.
       (2) Enforcement and damages.--The enforcement and damage 
     provisions of the antitrust laws shall apply with respect to 
     a violation of the substantial harm to producers and family 
     farmers standard of subsection (d) in the same manner as such 
     sections apply with respect to a violation of the antitrust 
     laws.
       (j) Conforming Amendments to Antitrust Laws.--Section 7A of 
     the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) is amended by inserting at 
     the end the following:
       ``(k)(1) Notwithstanding the threshold requirements of 
     sections 1, 2, and 3, the Federal Trade Commission and the 
     Assistant Attorney General may require, at the request of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, notification pursuant to the rules 
     under subsection (d)(1) from the parties to a proposed merger 
     or acquisition in the agriculture industry.
       ``(2) The Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade 
     Commission, as appropriate, shall give the Secretary of 
     Agriculture the opportunity to participate in the review 
     under the antitrust laws of any proposed merger or 
     acquisition involving the agriculture industry.''.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST UNFAIR PRACTICES IN TRANSACTIONS 
                   INVOLVING AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Unlawful Practices.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker of any 
     agricultural commodity to--
       (1) engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, 
     or deceptive practice or device;
       (2) make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or 
     advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect 
     whatsoever, or subject any particular person or locality to 
     any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage;
       (3) sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, or broker, or buy or 
     otherwise receive from or for any other dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, or broker, any article for the purpose 
     or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any 
     such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or 
     effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly;
       (4) sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, 
     or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any 
     article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or 
     controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the 
     acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, 
     or of restraining commerce;
       (5) engage in any course of business or do any act for the 
     purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling 
     prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, 
     buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of 
     restraining commerce;
       (6) conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other 
     person--
       (A) to apportion territory for carrying on business;
       (B) to apportion purchases or sales of any article; or
       (C) to manipulate or control prices; or
       (7) conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other 
     person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made 
     unlawful by paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5).
       (b) Procedure Before Secretary for Violations.--
       (1) Complaint; hearing; intervention.--If the Secretary has 
     reason to believe that any dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, or broker, has violated or is violating any 
     provision of this section, the Secretary shall cause a 
     complaint in writing to be served upon the dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, or broker, stating the charges in that 
     respect, and requiring the dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, or broker, to attend and testify at a hearing at a 
     time and place designated therein, at least 30 days after the 
     service of such complaint; and at such time and place there 
     shall be afforded the dealer, processor, commission merchant, 
     or broker, a reasonable opportunity to be informed as to the 
     evidence introduced against him (including the right of 
     cross-examination), and to be heard in person or by counsel 
     and through witnesses, under such regulations as the 
     Secretary may prescribe. Any person for good cause shown may 
     on application be allowed by the Secretary to intervene in 
     such proceeding, and appear in person or by counsel. At any 
     time prior to the close of the hearing the Secretary may 
     amend the complaint; but in case of any amendment adding new 
     charges the hearing shall, on the request of the dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, or broker, be adjourned for a 
     period not exceeding 15 days.
       (2) Report and order; penalty.--If, after such hearing, the 
     Secretary finds that the dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, or broker, has violated or is violating any 
     provisions of this section covered by the charges, the 
     Secretary shall make a report in writing in which the 
     Secretary shall state his findings as to the facts, and shall 
     issue and cause to be served on the dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, or broker, an order requiring such 
     dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker, to cease 
     and desist from continuing such violation. The testimony 
     taken at the hearing shall be reduced to writing and filed in 
     the records of the Department of Agriculture. The Secretary 
     may also assess a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for 
     each such violation. In determining the amount of the civil 
     penalty to be assessed under this section, the Secretary 
     shall consider the gravity of the offense, the size of the 
     business involved, and the effect of the penalty on the 
     person's ability to continue in business. If, after the lapse 
     of the period allowed for appeal or after the affirmance of 
     such penalty, the person against whom the civil penalty is 
     assessed fails to pay such penalty, the Secretary may proceed 
     to recover such penalty by an action in the appropriate 
     district court of the United States.
       (3) Amendment of report or order.--Until the record in such 
     hearing has been filed in a court of appeals of the United 
     States, as provided in subsection (c), the Secretary at any 
     time, upon such notice and in such manner as the Secretary 
     deems proper, but only after reasonable opportunity to the 
     dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker, to be 
     heard, may amend or set aside the report or order, in whole 
     or in part.
       (4) Service of process.--Complaints, orders, and other 
     processes of the Secretary under this section may be served 
     in the same manner as provided in section 5 of the Federal 
     Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       (c) Conclusiveness of Order; Appeal and Review.--
       (1) Filing of petition; bond.--An order made under 
     subsection (b) shall be final and conclusive unless within 30 
     days after service the dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, or broker, appeals to the court of appeals for the 
     circuit in which he has his principal place of business, by 
     filing with the clerk of such court a written petition 
     praying that the Secretary's order be set aside or modified 
     in the manner stated in the petition, together with a bond in 
     such sum as the court may determine, conditioned that such 
     dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker, will pay 
     the costs of the proceedings if the court so directs.
       (2) Filing of record by secretary.--The clerk of the court 
     shall immediately cause a copy of the petition to be 
     delivered to the Secretary, and the Secretary shall thereupon 
     file in the court the record in such proceedings, as provided 
     in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. If before 
     such record is filed the Secretary amends or sets aside his 
     report or order, in whole or in part, the petitioner may 
     amend the petition within such time as the court may 
     determine, on notice to the Secretary.
       (3) Temporary injunction.--At any time after such petition 
     is filed, the court, on application of the Secretary, may 
     issue a temporary injunction, restraining, to the extent it 
     deems proper, the dealer, processor, commission merchant, or 
     broker, and his officers, directors, agents, and employees, 
     from violating any of the provisions of the order pending the 
     final determination of the appeal.
       (4) Evidence.--The evidence so taken or admitted, and filed 
     as aforesaid as a part of the record, shall be considered by 
     the court as the evidence in the case.
       (5) Action by the court.--The court may affirm, modify, or 
     set aside the order of the Secretary.
       (6) Additional evidence.--If the court determines that the 
     just and proper disposition of the case requires the taking 
     of additional evidence, the court shall order the hearing to 
     be reopened for the taking of such evidence, in such manner 
     and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem 
     proper. The Secretary may modify his findings as to the 
     facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional 
     evidence so taken, and the Secretary shall file such modified 
     or new findings and his recommendations, if any, for the 
     modifications or setting aside of his order, with the return 
     of such additional evidence.
       (7) Injunction.--If the court of appeals affirms or 
     modifies the order of the Secretary, its decree shall operate 
     as an injunction to restrain the dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, or broker, and his officers, directors, 
     agents, and employees from violating the provisions of such 
     order or such order as modified.
       (8) Finality.--The court of appeals shall have 
     jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it 
     shall be exclusive, to review, and to affirm, set aside, or 
     modify, such orders of the Secretary, and the decree of such 
     court shall be final except that it shall be subject to 
     review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon 
     certiorari, as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United 
     States Code, if such writ is duly applied for within 60 days 
     after entry of the decree. The issue of such writ shall not 
     operate as a stay of the decree of the court of appeals, 
     insofar

[[Page 11358]]

     as such decree operates as an injunction unless so ordered by 
     the Supreme Court.
       (d) Punishment for Violation of Order.--Any dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, or broker, or any officer, 
     director, agent, or employee of a dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, or broker, who fails to obey any order 
     of the Secretary issued under the provisions of subsection 
     (b), or such order as modified--
       (1) after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a 
     petition in the court of appeals to set aside or modify such 
     order, if no such petition has been filed within such time;
       (2) after the expiration of the time allowed for applying 
     for a writ of certiorari, if such order, or such order as 
     modified, has been sustained by the court of appeals and no 
     such writ has been applied for within such time; or
       (3) after such order, or such order as modified, has been 
     sustained by the courts as provided in subsection (c);

     shall on conviction be fined not less than $500 nor more than 
     $10,000, or imprisoned for not less than 6 months nor more 
     than 5 years, or both. Each day during which such failure 
     continues shall be deemed a separate offense.

     SEC. 6. REPORT ON CORPORATE STRUCTURE.

       A dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker with 
     annual sales in excess of $100,000,000 shall annually file 
     with the Secretary a report which describes, with respect to 
     both domestic and foreign activities, the strategic 
     alliances, ownership in other agribusiness firms or 
     agribusiness-related firms, joint ventures, subsidiaries, and 
     brand names, interlocking boards of directors with other 
     corporations, representatives, and agents that lobby Congress 
     on behalf of such dealer, processor, commission merchant, or 
     broker, as determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSES IN LIVESTOCK 
                   AND POULTRY PRODUCTION CONTRACTS.

       Confidentiality clauses barring a party to a contract from 
     sharing terms of such contract for the purposes of obtaining 
     legal or financial advice, are prohibited in livestock 
     production contracts and grain production contracts (except 
     to the extent a legitimate trade secret (as applied in the 
     Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.) is being 
     protected).

     SEC. 8. PROTECTIONS FOR CONTRACT POULTRY GROWERS.

       (a) Removal of Poultry Slaughter Requirement From 
     Definitions.--Section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
     1921 (7 U.S.C. 182) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(8) the term `poultry grower' means any person engaged in 
     the business of raising or caring for live poultry under a 
     poultry growing arrangement, whether the poultry is owned by 
     such person or by another person;'';
       (2) in paragraph (9), by striking ``and cares for live 
     poultry for delivery, in accord with another's instructions, 
     for slaughter'' and inserting ``or cares for live poultry in 
     accord with another person's instructions''; and
       (3) in paragraph (10), by striking ``for the purpose of 
     either slaughtering it or selling it for slaughter by 
     another''.
       (b) Administrative Enforcement Authority Over Live Poultry 
     Dealers.--Sections 203, 204, and 205 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
     193, 194, 195) are amended by inserting ``or live poultry 
     dealer'' after ``packer'' each place it appears.
       (c) Authority To Request Temporary Injunction or 
     Restraining Order.--Section 408 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 229) is 
     amended by striking ``on account of poultry'' and inserting 
     ``on account of poultry or poultry care''.
       (d) Violations by Live Poultry Dealers.--Section 411 of 
     such Act (7 U.S.C. 228b-2) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``any provision of 
     section 207 or section 410 of''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``any provisions of 
     section 207 or section 410'' and inserting ``any provision''.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORITY TO MAKE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY GUARANTEED 
                   LOANS FOR FARMER-OWNED PROJECTS THAT ADD VALUE 
                   TO OR PROCESS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.

       Section 310B(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(1)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(and in areas other than rural communities, in the case of 
     insured loans, if a majority of the project involved is owned 
     by individuals who reside and have farming operations in 
     rural communities, and the project adds value to or processes 
     agricultural commodities)'' after ``rural communities''.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF AND FUNDING FOR 
                   AGRICULTURE COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Additional Staff.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     hire sufficient staff, including antitrust and litigation 
     attorneys, economists, and investigators, to appropriately 
     carry out the agribusiness merger review and prohibition 
     against unfair practices responsibilities, described in 
     sections 4 and 5.
       (b) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as are necessary to hire the staff referenced in 
     subsection (a) to implement this Act.

     SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF AND FUNDING FOR 
                   THE GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to enhance the capability of the Grain Inspection, 
     Packers and Stockyards Administration to monitor, 
     investigate, and pursue the competitive implications of 
     structural changes in the meat packing industry. Sums are 
     specifically earmarked to hire litigating attorneys to allow 
     the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
     to more comprehensively and effectively pursue its 
     enforcement activities.

     SEC. 12. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURAL 
                   ANTITRUST MATTERS.

       (a) In General.--There shall be established within the 
     Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice an Assistant 
     Attorney General for Agricultural Antitrust Matters, who 
     shall be responsible for oversight and coordination of 
     antitrust and related matters which affect agriculture, 
     directly or indirectly.
       (b) Appointment.--The Assistant Attorney General for 
     Agricultural Antitrust Matters shall be appointed by the 
     President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

     SEC. 13. INCREASE IN HART-SCOTT-RODINO FILING FEES.

       (a) In General.--The filing fee the Federal Trade 
     Commission assesses on a person acquiring voting securities 
     or assets who is required to file premerger notifications 
     under section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) for 
     mergers and acquisitions satisfying the $15,000,000 size-of-
     transaction requirement is increased to $100,000 for those 
     transactions valued at more than $100,000,000.
       (b) Fees Earmarked.--The filing fee increase described in 
     subsection (a) is partially earmarked to pay for the costs of 
     staff increases at the Transportation, Energy and Agriculture 
     section at the Department of Justice, as considered necessary 
     by the Assistant Attorney General, to enhance their review of 
     agriculture transactions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Reid, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Corzine, 
        and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 1078. A bill to promote brownfields redevelopment in urban and 
rural areas and spur community revitalization in low-income and 
moderate-income neighborhoods; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Reid, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Corzine, 
        Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 1079. A bill to amend the Public Works and Economic Development 
Act of 1965 to provide assistance to communities for the redevelopment 
of brownfield sites; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, along with Senator 
Jeffords, as co-chairmen of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, two 
bills to help communities expedite the economic redevelopment of 
brownfields. These bills are complementary to S. 350 which we strongly 
support. Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and 
commercial properties where expansion or redevelopment is complicated 
by real or perceived environmental contamination. More than 450,000 of 
these sites taint our nation's landscape, inhibiting economic 
development and posing a threat to human health and the environment. 
Undeveloped, or underdeveloped, brownfields blight communities forcing 
development onto greenfields. But redeveloped, these sites offer new 
opportunities for businesses, housing and green space. Brownfields 
redevelopment is a fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to 
neglected neighborhoods, cleanup the environment, reuse existing 
infrastructure that is already paid for, utilize existing markets and 
labor pools, and relieve development pressure on our urban fringe and 
farmlands.
  My home State of Michigan is a national leader in brownfields 
redevelopment. Michigan communities are reclaiming brownfields in urban 
centers, towns and villages, ensuring that natural areas and 
greenspaces are less likely to succumb to sprawl when there are 
brownfield properties available to meet development needs. The City of 
Kalamazoo has leveraged $28 million in private investment and created 
over 200 jobs through its brownfields redevelopment program. The city 
has fully

[[Page 11359]]

completed development of 4 sites and played a role in the redevelopment 
of 16 properties, creating new opportunities for commercial and 
industrial development. The City of St. Ignace, a small community in 
the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, successfully redeveloped a former 
railroad property into a community recreation building and conference 
center. The project, built jointly by the Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa 
Indian Tribe and the City of St. Ignace, created jobs and has the 
potential of stimulating additional year-round tourist activities where 
seasonal unemployment rates range between 20-25 percent during the 
winter months.
  At the Federal level, we need to support local communities and States 
in their efforts to reclaim brownfields by providing economic 
development resources to revitalize these sites. The two bills I am 
introducing today will aid cities like Kalamazoo and St. Ignace in 
their efforts to promote social well-being and create economic vitality 
by redeveloping brownfields.
  The first bill, the Brownfield Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of 
2001, creates a new program within the Department of Commerce's 
Economic Development Administration, EDA, to provide targeted 
assistance for projects that redevelop brownfield sites. The Act would 
provide EDA with a dedicated source of funding for brownfields 
redevelopment and increased funding flexibility to help States, local 
communities, Indian tribes and nonprofit organizations restore these 
sites to productive use. This bill would provide EDA with the authority 
to facilitate effective economic development planning for reuse; 
develop the infrastructure necessary to prepare brownfield sites for 
re-entry into the market; and, provide the capital necessary to support 
new business development on brownfields. The bill provides $60 million 
each year for FY2002 to FY2006.
  The second bill, the Brownfields Economic Development Act of 2001, 
would allow the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to 
make existing Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, BEDI, grants 
more easily available to units of general local government and 
federally-recognized Indian tribes by permitting the Department to make 
these grants independent of economic development loan guarantees. The 
bill also provides funding for small communities, known as 
nonentitlement areas, and federally-recognized Indian tribes.
  BEDI grants can help communities redevelop brownfields by providing 
local governments with a flexible source of funding to pursue 
brownfields redevelopment through land acquisition, site preparation, 
economic development and other activities. Currently, BEDI grants are 
required to support economic development loan guarantees known as 
Section 108 loan guarantees. To be eligible for these funds, a local 
community or State must pledge Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, 
funds as partial collateral for the loan guarantee. This requirement is 
a significant barrier to many local communities that need assistance to 
revitalize brownfields, but are unable to pledge these funds. This bill 
would allow HUD to make BEDI grants independent of economic development 
loan guarantees, providing critical financial assistance to leverage 
private sector investment in brownfields.
  Many organizations support these bills, including: (1) the Council 
for Urban Economic Development, (2) Enterprise Foundation, (3) National 
Association of Business Incubators, (4) National Association of 
Counties, (5) National Association of Development Organizations, (6) 
National Association of Installation Developers, (7) National 
Association of Regional Councils, (8) National Association of Towns and 
Townships, (9) National Congress for Community Economic Development, 
(10) National League of Cities, (11) Smart Growth America, and (12) 
United States Conference of Mayors. Brownfields affect urban, rural and 
Native American communities. In urban areas, the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, USCM, estimates that brownfields redevelopment could generate 
more than 550,000 additional jobs and up to $2.4 billion in new tax 
revenues in over one hundred cities surveyed. The cities surveyed by 
the USCM reported that lack of funding for redevelopment and liability 
problems arising from Superfund are the major obstacles to reuse. In 
rural areas it is easy to ``leap frog'' over brownfields to abundant 
open space. The National Association of Development Organizations, 
NADO, in a report on reclaiming rural America's brownfields found that 
Federal agencies are not reaching rural areas through existing 
brownfields programs, and rural communities need financial and 
technical assistance to include brownfields in economic development 
strategies. Indian tribes face a legacy of contamination from former 
agricultural, industrial and commercial facilities. The Environmental 
Protection Agency estimates that nationwide there are 1,645 facilities 
located on tribal lands and 6,982 facilities located within three miles 
of tribal lands. Nationally, State brownfields programs have 
facilitated reuse of more than 40,000 sites, but this is less than 10 
percent of the estimated 450,000 brownfields nationwide. A report of 
the National Governors Association stated that assessment and cleanup 
of brownfields are only part of the process, equally important is 
physical development of these sites. These two bills would provide the 
financial resources to help communities and states realize new private 
investment and tax revenues from the redevelopment of brownfields, and 
would assist EDA and HUD to reach rural towns and Indian tribes to 
support their reuse efforts.
  The two bills that Senator Jeffords and I are introducing will 
complement the resources and liability clarifications provided in S. 
350, and together these three bills will provide communities with the 
financial assistance needed to leverage private investment in 
brownfields and accelerate reuse. Providing economic development 
resources through HUD and EDA can stimulate brownfields economic 
development by leveraging private investment into communities, and can 
give communities the financial resources and technical assistance they 
need to turn brownfield environmental liabilities into economic assets.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the two bills and letters of 
support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1078

       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 ``Brownfields Economic 
     Development Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

       Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5308(q)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Assistance'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (5), 
     assistance'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Eligible'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (5), eligible''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Brownfields redevelopment grants.--
       ``(A) Grant authority.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), of 
     amounts made available to carry out this subsection, the 
     Secretary may make grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     eligible public entities and federally recognized Indian 
     tribes for the redevelopment of brownfield sites, independent 
     of any note or other obligation guaranteed under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(B) Set-aside.--Of the amounts made available for grants 
     under this paragraph, the Secretary shall set aside not less 
     than 10 percent and not more than 30 percent, which shall be 
     used for brownfield site redevelopment in nonentitlement 
     areas and by federally recognized Indian tribes.
       ``(C) Brownfield site definition.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `brownfield site' means real 
     property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may 
     be complicated by the presence or potential presence of--

       ``(I) a hazardous substance (as defined in section 101 of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601)); or
       ``(II) any other pollutant or contaminant, as determined by 
     the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.

       ``(ii) Exclusions.--Except as provided in clause (iii), the 
     term `brownfield site' does not include--

       ``(I) a facility that is the subject of a planned or 
     ongoing removal action under the

[[Page 11360]]

     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.);
       ``(II) a facility that is listed on the National Priorities 
     List, or is proposed for listing, under that Act;
       ``(III) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral 
     administrative order, a court order, an administrative order 
     on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to 
     or entered into by the parties under that Act;
       ``(IV) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral 
     administrative order, a court order, an administrative order 
     on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to 
     or entered into by the parties, or a facility to which a 
     permit has been issued by the United States or an authorized 
     State under--

       ``(aa) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.);
       ``(bb) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1321);
       ``(cc) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et 
     seq.); or
       ``(dd) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 
     seq.);

       ``(V) a facility that--

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(IX) a portion of a facility, for which portion, 
     assistance for response activity has been obtained under 
     subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et 
     seq.) from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
     established under section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.

       ``(iii) Site-by-site inclusions.--The term `brownfield 
     site', with respect to the provision of financial assistance, 
     includes a site referred to in subclause (I), (IV), (V), 
     (VI), (VIII), or (IX) of clause (ii), if, on a site-by-site 
     basis, the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency, determines that use 
     of the financial assistance at the site will--

       ``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
       ``(II)(aa) promote economic development; or
       ``(bb) enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition 
     to parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational 
     property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.

       ``(D) Additional inclusions.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (C), the term `brownfield site' includes a site that meets 
     the definition of `brownfield site' under clauses (i) through 
     (iii) of subparagraph (C) that--
       ``(i) is contaminated by a controlled substance (as defined 
     in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802));
       ``(ii)(I) is contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum 
     product excluded from the definition of `hazardous substance' 
     under section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601); and
       ``(II) is a site determined by the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, to be--

       ``(aa) of relatively low risk, as compared with other 
     petroleum-only sites in the State in which the site is 
     located; and
       ``(bb) a site for which there is no viable responsible 
     party and that will be assessed, investigated, or cleaned up 
     by a person that is not potentially liable for cleaning up 
     the site; and

       ``(III) is not subject to any order issued under section 
     9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h)); 
     or
       ``(iii) is mine-scarred land.''.
                                  ____


                                S. 1079

       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 ``Brownfield Site 
     Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       Consistent with section 2 of the Public Works and Economic 
     Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121), the purposes of 
     this Act are--
       (1) to provide targeted assistance, including planning 
     assistance, for projects that promote the redevelopment, 
     restoration, and economic recovery of brownfield sites; and
       (2) through such assistance, to further the goals of 
     restoring the employment and tax bases of, and bringing new 
     income and private investment to, distressed communities that 
     have not participated fully in the economic growth of the 
     United States because of a lack of an adequate private sector 
     tax base to support essential public services and facilities.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act 
     of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3122) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (10) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (11), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(1) Brownfield site.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `brownfield site' means real 
     property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may 
     be complicated by the presence or potential presence of--
       ``(i) a hazardous substance (as defined in section 101 of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601)); or
       ``(ii) any other pollutant or contaminant, as determined by 
     the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     the term `brownfield site' does not include--
       ``(i) a facility that is the subject of a planned or 
     ongoing removal action under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601 et seq.);
       ``(ii) a facility that is listed on the National Priorities 
     List, or is proposed for listing on that list, under that 
     Act;
       ``(iii) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral 
     administrative order, a court order, an administrative order 
     on consent, or a judicial consent decree that has been issued 
     to or entered into by the parties under that Act;
       ``(iv) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral 
     administrative order, a court order, an administrative order 
     on consent, or a judicial consent decree that has been issued 
     to or entered into by the parties, or a facility to which a 
     permit has been issued by the United States or an authorized 
     State, under--

       ``(I) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.);
       ``(II) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1251 et seq.);
       ``(III) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et 
     seq.); or
       ``(IV) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 
     seq.);

       ``(v) a facility--

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(ix) a portion of a facility, for which portion, 
     assistance for response activity has been obtained under 
     subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et 
     seq.) from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
     established by section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       ``(C) Site-by-site inclusions.--The term `brownfield site' 
     includes a site referred to in clause (i), (iv), (v), (vi), 
     (viii), or (ix) of subparagraph (B), if, on a site-by-site 
     basis, the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency, determines that use 
     of the financial assistance at the site will--
       ``(i) protect human health and the environment; and
       ``(ii)(I) promote economic development; or
       ``(II) enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition 
     to parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational 
     property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.
       ``(D) Additional inclusions.--The term `brownfield site' 
     includes a site that meets the definition of `brownfield 
     site' under subparagraphs (A) through (C) that--
       ``(i) is contaminated by a controlled substance (as defined 
     in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802));
       ``(ii)(I) is contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum 
     product excluded from the definition of `hazardous substance' 
     under section

[[Page 11361]]

     101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601); and
       ``(II) is a site determined by the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, to be--

       ``(aa) of relatively low risk, as compared with other 
     petroleum-only sites in the State in which the site is 
     located; and
       ``(bb) a site for which there is no viable responsible 
     party and that will be assessed, investigated, or cleaned up 
     by a person that is not potentially liable for cleaning up 
     the site; and

       ``(III) is not subject to any order issued under section 
     9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h)); 
     or
       ``(iii) is mine-scarred land.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Unused land.--The term `unused land' means any 
     publicly-owned or privately-owned unused, underused, or 
     abandoned land that is not contributing to the quality of 
     life or economic well-being of the community in which the 
     land is located.''.

     SEC. 4. COORDINATION.

       Section 103 of the Public Works and Economic Development 
     Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3132) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Comprehensive Economic Development 
     Strategies.--'' before ``The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Brownfield Site Redevelopment.--The Secretary shall 
     coordinate activities relating to the redevelopment of 
     brownfield sites under this Act with other Federal agencies, 
     States, local governments, consortia of local governments, 
     Indian tribes, nonprofit organizations, and public-private 
     partnerships.''.

     SEC. 5. GRANTS FOR BROWNFIELD SITE REDEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Public Works and Economic 
     Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 210 through 213 as sections 
     211 through 214, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 209 the following:

     ``SEC. 210. GRANTS FOR BROWNFIELD SITE REDEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--On the application of an eligible 
     recipient, the Secretary may make grants for projects to 
     alleviate or prevent conditions of excessive unemployment, 
     underemployment, blight, and infrastructure deterioration 
     associated with brownfield sites, including projects 
     consisting of--
       ``(1) development of public facilities;
       ``(2) development of public services;
       ``(3) business development (including funding of a 
     revolving loan fund);
       ``(4) planning;
       ``(5) technical assistance; and
       ``(6) training.
       ``(b) Criteria for Grants.--The Secretary may provide a 
     grant for a project under this section only if--
       ``(1) the Secretary determines that the project will assist 
     the area where the project is or will be located to meet, 
     directly or indirectly, a special need arising from--
       ``(A) a high level of unemployment or underemployment, or a 
     high proportion of low-income households;
       ``(B) the existence of blight and infrastructure 
     deterioration;
       ``(C) dislocations resulting from commercial or industrial 
     restructuring;
       ``(D) outmigration and population loss, as indicated by--
       ``(i)(I) depletion of human capital (including young, 
     skilled, or educated populations);
       ``(II) depletion of financial capital (including firms and 
     investment); or
       ``(III) a shrinking tax base; and
       ``(ii) resulting--

       ``(I) fiscal pressure;
       ``(II) restricted access to markets; and
       ``(III) constrained local development potential; or

       ``(E) the closure or realignment of--
       ``(i) a military or Department of Energy installation; or
       ``(ii) any other Federal facility; and
       ``(2) except in the case of a project consisting of 
     planning or technical assistance--
       ``(A) the Secretary has approved a comprehensive economic 
     development strategy for the area where the project is or 
     will be located; and
       ``(B) the project is consistent with the comprehensive 
     economic development strategy.
       ``(c) Particular Community Assistance.--Assistance under 
     this section may include assistance provided for activities 
     identified by a community, the economy of which is injured by 
     the existence of 1 or more brownfield sites, to assist the 
     community in--
       ``(1) revitalizing affected areas by--
       ``(A) diversifying the economy of the community; or
       ``(B) carrying out industrial or commercial (including 
     mixed use) redevelopment projects on brownfield sites or 
     sites adjacent to brownfield sites;
       ``(2) carrying out development that conserves environmental 
     and agricultural resources by--
       ``(A) reusing existing facilities and infrastructure;
       ``(B) reclaiming unused land and abandoned buildings; or
       ``(C) creating publicly owned parks, playgrounds, 
     recreational facilities, or cultural centers that contribute 
     to the economic revitalization of a community; or
       ``(3) carrying out a collaborative economic development 
     planning process, developed with broad-based and diverse 
     community participation, that addresses the economic 
     repercussions and opportunities posed by the existence of 
     brownfield sites in an area.
       ``(d) Direct Expenditure or Redistribution by Eligible 
     Recipient.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an eligible 
     recipient of a grant under this section may directly expend 
     the grant funds or may redistribute the funds to public and 
     private entities in the form of a grant, loan, loan 
     guarantee, payment to reduce interest on a loan guarantee, or 
     other appropriate assistance.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Under paragraph (1), an eligible 
     recipient may not provide any grant to a private for-profit 
     entity.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 
     (42 U.S.C. prec. 3121) is amended by striking the items 
     relating to sections 210 through 213 and inserting the 
     following:

``Sec. 210. Grants for brownfield site redevelopment.
``Sec. 211. Changed project circumstances.
``Sec. 212. Use of funds in projects constructed under projected cost.
``Sec. 213. Reports by recipients.
``Sec. 214. Prohibition on use of funds for attorney's and consultant's 
              fees.''.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title VII of the Public Works and Economic 
     Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3231 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 704. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BROWNFIELD 
                   SITE REDEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to amounts made available 
     under section 701, there is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out section 210 $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2006, to remain available until expended.
       ``(b) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding section 204, subject 
     to section 205, the Federal share of the cost of activities 
     funded with amounts made available under subsection (a) shall 
     be not more than 75 percent.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 
     (42 U.S.C. prec. 3121) is amended by adding at the end of the 
     items relating to title VII the following:

``Sec. 704. Authorization of appropriations for brownfield site 
              redevelopment.''.
                                  ____



                                    The Enterprise Foundation,

                                       Columbia, MD, June 6, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: The Enterprise Foundation commends you 
     for introducing with Senator Jeffords the ``Brownfield Site 
     Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2001'' and the ``Brownfields 
     Economic Development Act of 2001.'' Enterprise strongly 
     support these two bills.
       Enterprise is a national nonprofit organization that raises 
     resources and channels them to grassroots at the local level 
     for affordable housing, economic development and other 
     community revitalization initiatives in distressed urban and 
     rural neighborhoods nationwide. Central to our mission is 
     generating investment in areas suffering from blight, neglect 
     and disinvestment. Brownfields are prime examples of such 
     areas.
       Enterprise is engaged in several large-scale brownfield 
     redevelopment efforts around the country. Targeted incentives 
     such as your bills provide would enable Enterprise and others 
     in the private sector to convert more brownfields to 
     productive uses.
       By spurring brownfields redevelopment, your bills direct 
     limited public resources to places that already benefit from 
     existing infrastructure and promote economic investment where 
     it is needed most. The bills epitomize smart growth and 
     comprehensive community development principles.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                             F. Barton Harvey III,
     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                                                   March 15, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. James Jeffords,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin and Senator Jeffords: The National 
     Association of Counties (NACo) commends both of your efforts 
     in offering bipartisan legislation to address the 
     redevelopment of brownfields.
       NACo advocates for the redevelopment of these sites, in 
     both urban and rural counties,

[[Page 11362]]

     as a component of a county's broader interest in achieving 
     sustainable development on a regional basis. Redevelopment of 
     abandoned or underutilized sites can stimulate economic 
     revitalization in the surrounding areas, and preserve green 
     space by providing an alternative to unchecked urban sprawl. 
     Therefore, NACo strongly supports language mandating the 
     development of a comprehensive economic development strategy.
       We applaud your efforts to provide assistance for 
     redevelopment projects that promote the redevelopment, 
     restoration and economic recovery of brownfield sites. 
     Furthermore, NACo supports the legislative objective of 
     bringing new income and private investment to distressed 
     communities that have not fully participated in the 
     nationwide economic expansion. This legislation is closely 
     aligned with NACo policy objectives, and we offer our support 
     during the legislative process.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. 
     Please feel free to contact Cassandra Matthews, Associate 
     Legislative Director, at (202) 942-4204 if you need 
     additional information or assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry E. Naake,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                    Development Organizations,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Development Organizations (NADO), I am writing to express 
     our strong support for your efforts to enhance and support 
     the Economic Development Administration's (EDA's) brownfields 
     redevelopment activities.
       As a national association representing regional planning 
     and development organizations that provide valuable 
     professional and technical assistance to over 1,800 counties 
     and 15,000 small cities and towns, we recognize the value and 
     benefits of returning former commercial and industrial sites 
     to productive use. This includes targeting sites in small 
     metropolitan and rural America, as well as our urban centers.
       In addition to being encouraged and supportive of 
     congressional efforts to strengthen the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's (EPA's) brownfields portfolio, we also 
     recognize the unique tools and experience that EDA has to 
     offer local communities. While EPA has implemented effective 
     assessment and clean up programs, there is a tremendous need 
     for federal programs focused on redeveloping and transforming 
     the former brownfields sites into productive facilities.
       Over the past 35 years, EDA has developed a successful 
     track record in partnering with local communities to 
     revitalize, upgrade and expand former commercial sites into 
     industrial facilities that help create quality jobs, expand 
     the local tax base and improve the quality of life in the 
     area. This includes making the necessary investments in 
     infrastructure, as well as providing essential planning and 
     technical assistance.
       EDA has also proven to be an effective federal partner for 
     EPA, with the two federal agencies leveraging their funding 
     and particular expertise to assist communities. Therefore, we 
     strongly support your efforts to provide EDA with the 
     resources and program tools needed to help small metropolitan 
     and rural communities convert brownfields into economic 
     development opportunities.
           Sincerely,
                                               Aliceann Wohlbruck,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                         Smart Growth America,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2001.
     Hon. James Jeffords,
     Co-Chair, Senate Smart Growth Task Force, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Co-Chair, Senate Smart Growth Task Force, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Jeffords and Senator Levin: Smart Growth 
     America would like to thank you for your leadership on the 
     introduction of the Brownfields Economic Development Act of 
     2001 and the Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of 
     2001. We strongly support these bills and your efforts to 
     complement the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act of 2001 by focusing on the physical 
     redevelopment of brownfields.
       S. 350 provides needed liability relief and funding to 
     inventory, assess and remediate brownfield sites. These two 
     new bills build upon S. 350 by providing communities with 
     additional economic development resources to return 
     brownfields to productive use.
       Economic development of brownfield sites is an essential 
     element of smart growth--growth that revitalizes 
     neighborhoods, creates and preserves affordable housing, 
     promotes transportation choice, and preserves open space and 
     farmland. And, it makes economic sense. The U.S. Conference 
     of Mayors found that as much as $2.4 billion annually could 
     be generated in new tax revenues by fully tapping into the 
     potential of our nation's brownfields. This economic 
     development could create more than 550,000 new jobs.
       The Brownfields Economic Development Act and the Brownfield 
     Site Redevelopment Assistance Act improve the ability of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the 
     Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration 
     to fund and assist communities in their efforts to develop 
     their brownfields and return them to productive use. We 
     applaud your efforts and look forward to working with you to 
     see the timely passage of these measures.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Don Chen,
     Director.
                                  ____



                           Coalition for Economic Development,

                                                   March 16, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. James Jeffords,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin and Senator Jeffords: The organizations 
     that comprise the Coalition for Economic Development commend 
     both of you for proposing legislation that will address much-
     needed redevelopment of brownfields.
       The establishment within the Economic Development 
     Administration of a revolving loan fund especially devoted to 
     brownfields will quickly increase the amount of money ``on 
     the street'' for redevelopment. EDA has a highly successful 
     track record in operating a revolving loan fund that has put 
     millions of dollars into business development in low-income 
     urban and rural areas and has leveraged millions more.
       The requirement to develop a comprehensive economic 
     development strategy will guarantee that different 
     constituents within a community are given a voice in 
     redevelopment planning.
       The changes you propose in the Department of House and 
     Urban Development's Section 108 will encourage greater use of 
     this program since it does not tie up future Community 
     Development Block Grant funding that is equally needed for 
     other purposes.
       Together, the EDA revolving fund and the HUD grant program 
     will provide local governments, regional councils and non-
     profits with excellent programs to help redevelop these 
     unutilized and underutilized areas that have become eye-sores 
     that have hindered revitalization in many urban and rural 
     areas. Brownfields redevelopment helps turn those eye-sores 
     into homes, businesses, parks and active commercial 
     districts.
       Please feel free to contact any members of the coalition. A 
     list of contacts is attached.


                              Contact list

       Beverly Nykwest, chair, Director of Policy, National 
     Association of Regional Councils, (202) 457-0710, ext. 20; e-
     mail: nykwest&narc.org.
       Paul Kalomiris, Legislative Director, Council for Urban 
     Economic Development, National Association of Installation 
     Developers, (202) 223-4735, e-mail: 
     [email protected].
       Carol Wayman, Director, Policy Research & Development, 
     National Congress for Community Economic Development, (202) 
     289-9020, ext. 112, [email protected].
       Cassandra Matthews, Legislative Assistant, National 
     Association of Counties, (202) 942-4204, e-mail: 
     [email protected].
       Scott Shrum, Legislative Assistant, National League of 
     Cities, (202) 626-3020, e-mail: [email protected].
       Tom Halicki, Executive Director, National Association of 
     Towns and Townships, (202) 624-3553, e-mail: 
     [email protected].
       Eugene Lowe, U.S. Conference of Mayors, (202) 293-7330, e-
     mail: [email protected].
       Laura Marshall, Legislative Representative National 
     Association of Development Organizations, (202) 624-8177, e-
     mail: [email protected].
       Dinah Atkins, President and CEO, National Business 
     Incubator Association, (740) 593-4331, e-mail: 
     [email protected].

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, 
Senator Levin, in introducing two legislative initiatives that will 
expand upon the resources available for brownfields revitalization.
  The first bill, the Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of 
2001, provides the Department of Commerce's Economic Development 
Administration (EDA) with a dedicated source of funding for 
brownfields. EDA can currently assist communities with brownfields 
redevelopment when these projects involve infrastructure development or 
economic adjustment activities, however there is no specific authority 
or funding for brownfields revitalization.
  The second bill, the Brownfields Economic Development Act of 2001, 
addresses requirements on the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's, HUD, Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, BEDI, 
grant program that are hampering small city brownfields revitalization 
efforts.

[[Page 11363]]

BEDI's required link to Section 108 loan guarantees demands that future 
Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, allocations be pledged as 
collateral. BEDI's required link to Section 108 serves as a deterrent 
to many small towns in Vermont and throughout the nation, who do not 
have the resources to commit to brownfields. Our bill would permit HUD 
to make grants available independent of economic development loan 
guarantees. The legislation also provides a 30 percent set aside for 
small communities and federally-recognized Indian tribes.
  This legislation would help communities in Vermont reclaim their 
older underutilized sites. A prime example is an old mill in the heart 
of Ludlow, VT which occupies 30,000 square feet of prime downtown land. 
It is next to residential properties and again, ripe for redevelopment. 
There are currently Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, funds for 
assessment to investigate what is in the ground and how much it will 
cost to clean up. But the owner, the bank and the town are reluctant to 
act if the site is contaminated. These bills will assist many small 
towns such as Ludlow access the clean up funding they need to 
revitalize contaminated sites.
  Since the inception of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force in 1999, 
Senator Levin and I as co-chairs, have been working to expand funding 
sources for brownfields. This legislation is just one component of the 
overall effort to restore brownfield sites to productive use in our 
cities and towns. By advancing this legislation, we will address a 
critical gap in brownfields' funding for site assessment and clean up, 
while promoting economic development as well as preservation of 
farmland and open space.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues--Senator 
Jeffords, Senator Levin and others--in co-sponsoring the Brownfields 
Site Redevelopment Assistance Act and the Brownfields Economic 
Development Act.
  These two Acts are important complements to S. 350, the Brownfields 
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 that the 
Senate passed unanimously earlier this year. S. 350 encourages the 
remediation of brownfield sites by reducing financial and legal 
barriers to clean-up. The Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act 
and the Brownfields Economic Development Act expand the abilities of 
the Economic Development Administration and the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development to help local communities physically develop and 
restore brownfield sites to productive use. Taken together, these three 
bills make up a complete brownfields redevelopment package.
  The two Acts introduced today will provide critical economic and 
technical assistance to communities during all stages of the 
brownfields redevelopment process--from an initial site assessment to 
putting the finishing touches on a new apartment building or city park. 
These bills have enormous potential to enhance and revitalize 
communities and their economies, to turn neglected wastelands into 
productive developments, and to create more parks and open spaces. This 
in turn will create great opportunities for new jobs and economic 
development. This is particularly true in my State of Montana where 
we've been working hard to jump start our economy. Montana's industrial 
past has left the State with its share of brownfield sites--wood 
treatment facilities, railroad yards, sawmills. Hopefully, this 
legislation will provide communities with the tools they need to put 
these sites to productive uses.
  The Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2001 will 
provide the Economic Development Administration with authority and 
funding for grants to States, local communities, Indian tribes and non-
profit organizations for brownfield redevelopment projects. The 
Brownfields Economic Development Act of 2001 will make HUD Brownfields 
Economic Development Initiative grants available to local governments 
and Indian tribes for community development projects. The bill will 
also provide a 30 percent set-aside for small communities and tribes, a 
provision that is very important to a rural State like Montana. The 
National Association of Development Organizations reports that Federal 
agencies are not reaching rural areas through existing brownfields 
programs. Rural communities and tribes in Montana and elsewhere need 
financial and technical assistance to include brownfields in economic 
development strategies.
  Getting brownfield sites cleaned-up makes good sense in Montana and 
throughout the nation. That, again, is good for the environment, good 
for communities, good for our economy, and good for the country. I 
wholeheartedly support this legislation, and I hope both bills will 
enjoy swift passage through the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 1080. A bill to amend chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, 
to provide that employees who retire as registered nurses under the 
Federal Employees Retirement System shall have unused sick leave used 
in the computation of annuities, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, statistics from the National League of 
Nursing and the American Nurses' Association demonstrate the nursing 
workforce is shrinking. The Federal health sector, employing 
approximately 45,000 nurses, may be the hardest hit in the near future 
with an estimated 47 percent of its nursing workforce eligible for 
retirement in the year 2004. Current and anticipated nursing vacancies 
in Federal health care agencies are particularly alarming with the 
increased nursing care needs of an aging America. The Journal of the 
American Medical Association published a study last year which found 
the average age of the nursing workforce rose by 4.5 years between 1983 
and 1998, mostly because fewer younger people are joining the 
profession.
  It is imperative that the Federal Health Care System recruit and 
retain nurses in such crucial areas as the Veterans Affairs Health 
Administration, Department of Defense, Public Health Service, Indian 
Health Service, and Federal Bureau of Prisons. Nursing shortages will 
result in major changes in the quality and type of care these agencies 
can provide to their beneficiaries. There are no quick fixes to 
recruiting and retaining registered nurses, but Congress must act now 
on identified problem areas. One identified measure which would help 
recruit and retain Federal nurses is to address employee benefits. 
Title 38 currently excludes nurses employed by the Federal health care 
system after 1983 from including unused sick leave in computation of 
retirement. Approximately 68 percent of the Federal nurses are enrolled 
in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). My proposal would 
allow registered nurses under FERS to include unused sick leave in the 
same manner as nurses enrolled in the Civilian Retirement System, 
(CRS), for computation of retirement benefits. Under CRS regulations, 
unused sick leave time is added after all of the required retirement 
criteria are met. With my proposal, registered nurses who have accrued 
the needed increments of sick leave will retain their hard earned 
benefit as part of their retirement package.
  Nurses played a crucial role in my recovery from injuries incurred in 
Vietnam. I can not imagine how much more difficult that recovery would 
have been without the skill and compassion of nurses. I urge my Senate 
colleagues to support this measure as we continue to look at strategies 
to prevent the looming Federal nurse shortage.
  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. 1080

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

     SECTION 1. UNUSED SICK LEAVE INCLUDED IN ANNUITY COMPUTATION 
                   OF REGISTERED NURSES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal 
     Registered Nurse Retirement Adjustment Act of 2001''.

[[Page 11364]]

       (b) Annuity Computation.--Section 8415 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) In computing an annuity under this subchapter, the 
     total service of an employee who retires from the position of 
     a registered nurse on an immediate annuity or dies while 
     employed in that position leaving any survivor entitled to an 
     annuity includes the days of unused sick leave to the credit 
     of that employee under a formal leave system, except that 
     such days shall not be counted in determining average pay or 
     annuity eligibility under this subchapter.''.
       (c) Deposit Not Required.--Section 8422(d) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Under such regulations''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Deposit may not be required for days of unused sick 
     leave credited under section 8415(i).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act and apply to individuals who separate from service on or 
     after that effective date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 1081. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
business credit for the development of low-to-moderate income housing 
for home ownership, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which 
builds on the most well received provisions of the highly successful 
Low to Moderate Income Housing Tax Credit bill, LIHTC, of 1986. The 
evidence is clear that the entrepreneurial spirit that has been 
harnessed over the last 15 years in favor of aggressively addressing 
the Nation's need for rental housing can and should be channeled in 
response to the dire need for affordable single family hosing in urban 
America.
  Although the economic prosperity enjoyed by this country for a decade 
led to a home ownership rate that has reached levels of nearly 70 
percent, sadly the rate for central cities is 52 percent. One 
unfortunate reality is that having a good job does not guarantee a 
family a decent place to live at an affordable rate. According to one 
report; ``More than 220,000 teachers, police and public safety officers 
across the country spend more than half their incomes for housing and 
the problem is, in fact, getting worse.''
  Housing experts continually tell us that low homeownership in our 
urban communities is a result of the lack of quality homes to purchase 
and not the lack of potential homeowners. Developers have expressed 
that the high costs associated with building homes in urban areas have 
acted as a disincentive to developing or redeveloping communities. If 
supply drives demand as it often does in the case of other commodities 
then the key to revitalizing neighborhoods that were once jewels is the 
entrepreneural spirit to build homes.
  The use of tax credits to provide a source of capital to dramatically 
increase the rental housing stock has been a wonderful success. In 
recent meetings with developers and community development officials in 
my State of New Jersey, a consistent answer to the question of ``what 
can we do to spur the development of single family homes'' has been 
``just build on the success of the low income housing tax credit 
program''. Using tax incentives for such critical economic development 
purposes, such as overcoming capital market shortages is a proven 
method. In that regard, inclusion of certain industry practice 
development costs in the ``eligible costs'' basis of the property for 
computing tax credits and exclusion of the first $10,000 would quite 
often be just enough to keep developers out of the ``red'' in many 
urban communities.
  In many respects it is only proper that we begin this century 
recapturing space that once served as home of vibrant neighborhoods and 
bustling businesses since the middle of the 19th century. Certainly, 
effective development of space at the core of our urban centers 
requires building on the pride of ownership, rehabilitating classic 
structures that are found in all of our older cities and reclaiming 
land that has served us well.
  As we move ahead as a nation it is critical that we not leave many of 
our urban communities behind. AHEAD, (Affordable Housing and 
Environmental Action through Development), is a sound approach that 
cannot be implemented too soon. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1081

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Low-to-
     Moderate Income Home Ownership Tax Credit Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; etc.
Sec. 2. Credit for low-to-moderate income housing for home ownership.
Sec. 3. Partial exclusion of gain from sale of low-to-moderate income 
              housing.
Sec. 4. Expansion of rehabilitation credit.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR LOW-TO-MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FOR HOME 
                   OWNERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 42A. LOW-TO-MODERATE INCOME HOME OWNERSHIP CREDIT.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 38, the amount 
     of the home ownership credit determined under this section 
     for any taxable year in the credit period shall be an amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified basis of 
     each qualified low-to-moderate income building.
       ``(b) Applicable Percentage: 70 Percent Present Value 
     Credit for New Buildings; 30 Percent Present Value Credit for 
     Existing Buildings.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `applicable percentage' means 
     the appropriate percentage prescribed by the Secretary for 
     the earlier of--
       ``(A) the first month of the credit period with respect to 
     a low-to-moderate income building, or
       ``(B) at the election of the taxpayer, the month in which 
     the taxpayer and the housing credit agency enter into an 
     agreement with respect to such building (which is binding on 
     such agency, the taxpayer, and all successors in interest) as 
     to the housing credit dollar amount to be allocated to such 
     building.
     A month may be elected under subparagraph (B) only if the 
     election is made not later than the 5th day after the close 
     of such month. Such an election, once made, shall be 
     irrevocable.
       ``(2) Method of prescribing percentages.--The percentages 
     prescribed by the Secretary for any month shall be 
     percentages which will yield over a 10-year period amounts of 
     credit under subsection (a) which have a present value equal 
     to--
       ``(A) 70 percent of the qualified basis of a new building, 
     and
       ``(B) 30 percent of the qualified basis of an existing 
     building.
       ``(3) Method of discounting.--The present value under 
     paragraph (2) shall be determined--
       ``(A) as of the last day of the 1st year of the 10-year 
     period referred to in paragraph (2),
       ``(B) by using a discount rate equal to 72 percent of the 
     average of the annual Federal mid-term rate and the annual 
     Federal long-term rate applicable under section 1274(d)(1) to 
     the month applicable under subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     paragraph (1) and compounded annually, and
       ``(C) by assuming that the credit allowable under this 
     section for any year is received on the last day of such 
     year.
       ``(c) Qualified Basis; Eligible Basis; Qualified Low-to-
     Moderate Income Building.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified basis.--
       ``(A) Determination.--The qualified basis of any qualified 
     low-to-moderate income building for any taxable year is an 
     amount equal to--
       ``(i) the applicable fraction (determined as of the close 
     of such taxable year) of
       ``(ii) the eligible basis of such building.
       ``(B) Applicable fraction.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     term `applicable fraction' means the smaller of the unit 
     fraction or the floor space fraction.
       ``(ii) Unit fraction.--For purposes of clause (i), the term 
     `unit fraction' means the fraction--

       ``(I) the numerator of which is the number of low-to-
     moderate income units in the building, and
       ``(II) the denominator of which is the number of all units 
     (whether or not occupied) in such building.

       ``(iii) Floor space fraction.--For purposes of clause (i), 
     the term `floor space fraction' means the fraction--

       ``(I) the numerator of which is the total floor space of 
     the low-to-moderate income units in such building, and

[[Page 11365]]

       ``(II) the denominator of which is the total floor space of 
     all units (whether or not occupied) in such building.

       ``(C) Eligible basis.--
       ``(i) In general.--The eligible basis of any qualified low-
     to-moderate income building for any taxable year shall be 
     determined under rules similar to the rules under section 
     42(d), except that--

       ``(I) the determination of the adjusted basis of any 
     building shall be made as of the beginning of the credit 
     period, and
       ``(II) such basis shall include development costs properly 
     attributable to such building.

       ``(ii) Development costs.--For purposes of clause (i)(II), 
     the term `development costs' includes--

       ``(I) site preparation costs,
       ``(II) State and local impact fees,
       ``(III) reasonable development costs,
       ``(IV) professional fees related to basis items,
       ``(V) construction financing costs related to basis items 
     other than land, and
       ``(VI) on-site and adjacent improvements required by State 
     and local governments.

       ``(2) Qualified low-to-moderate income building.--The term 
     `qualified low-to-moderate income building' means any 
     building which is part of a qualified low-to-moderate income 
     development project at all times during the period--
       ``(A) beginning on the 1st day in the compliance period on 
     which such building is part of such a development project, 
     and
       ``(B) ending on the last day of the compliance period with 
     respect to such building.
       ``(d) Rehabilitation expenditures treated as separate new 
     building.--Rehabilitation expenditures paid or incurred by 
     the taxpayer with respect to any building shall be treated 
     for purposes of this section as a separate new building under 
     the rules of section 42(e).
       ``(e) Definition and special rules relating to credit 
     period.--
       ``(1) Credit period defined.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `credit period' means, with respect to any building, 
     the period of 10 taxable years beginning with the taxable 
     year in which the building (or a low-to-moderate income unit 
     in such building) is first sold by the taxpayer to a low-to 
     moderate income individual after being placed in service.
       ``(2) Special rule for 1st year of credit period.--
       ``(A) In general.--The credit allowable under subsection 
     (a) with respect to any building for the 1st taxable year of 
     the credit period shall be determined by substituting for the 
     applicable fraction under subsection (c)(1) the fraction--


       ``(i) the numerator of which is the sum of the applicable 
     fractions determined under subsection (c)(1) as of the close 
     of each full month of such year during which such building 
     was in service, and
       ``(ii) the denominator of which is 12.
       ``(B) Disallowed 1st year credit allowed in 11th year.--Any 
     reduction by reason of subparagraph (A) in the credit 
     allowable (without regard to subparagraph (A)) for the 1st 
     taxable year of the credit period shall be allowable under 
     subsection (a) for the 1st taxable year following the credit 
     period.
       ``(3) Credit period for existing buildings not to begin 
     before rehabilitation credit allowed.--The credit period for 
     an existing building shall not begin before the 1st taxable 
     year of the credit period for rehabilitation expenditures 
     with respect to the building.
       ``(f) Qualified Low-to-Moderate Income Development 
     Project.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified low-to-moderate 
     income development project' means any development project of 
     1 or more for qualified low-to-moderate income buildings 
     located in an area if 40 percent or more of the residential 
     units in such development project are occupied and owned by 
     individuals whose income is 100 percent or less of area 
     median gross income.
       ``(2) Treatment of units occupied by individuals whose 
     incomes rise above limit.--Notwithstanding an increase in the 
     income of the occupants of a low-to-moderate income unit 
     above the income limitation applicable under paragraph (2) or 
     (3), such unit shall continue to be treated as a low-to-
     moderate income unit if the income of such occupants 
     initially met such income limitation and such unit continues 
     to be so restricted.
       ``(3) Certain rules made applicable.--Paragraphs (3), (5), 
     (7), and (8) of section 42(g) shall apply for purposes of 
     determining whether any development project is a qualified 
     low-to-moderate income development project.
       ``(g) Limitation on aggregate credit allowable with respect 
     to development projects located in a State.--
       ``(1) Credit may not exceed credit amount allocated to 
     building.--The amount of the credit determined under this 
     section for any taxable year with respect to any building 
     shall not exceed the housing credit dollar amount allocated 
     to such building under rules similar to the rules of section 
     42(h)(1) (determined without regard to subparagraph (D) 
     thereof).
       ``(2) Allocated credit amount to apply to all taxable years 
     ending during or after credit allocation year.--Any housing 
     credit dollar amount allocated to any building for any 
     calendar year--
       ``(A) shall apply to such building for all taxable years in 
     the credit period ending during or after such calendar year, 
     and
       ``(B) shall reduce the aggregate housing credit dollar 
     amount of the allocating agency only for such calendar year.
       ``(3) Housing credit dollar amount for agencies.--
       ``(A) In general.--The aggregate housing credit dollar 
     amount which a housing credit agency may allocate for any 
     calendar year is the portion of the State housing credit 
     ceiling allocated under this paragraph for such calendar year 
     to such agency.
       ``(B) State ceiling initially allocated to state housing 
     credit agencies.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (D) and 
     (E), the State housing credit ceiling for each calendar year 
     shall be allocated to the housing credit agency of such 
     State. If there is more than 1 housing credit agency of a 
     State, all such agencies shall be treated as a single agency.
       ``(C) State housing credit ceiling.--The State housing 
     credit ceiling applicable to any State and any calendar year 
     shall be an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(i) the unused State housing credit ceiling (if any) of 
     such State for the preceding calendar year,
       ``(ii) the greater of--

       ``(I) $1.75 multiplied by the State population, or
       ``(II) $2,000,000,

       ``(iii) the amount of State housing credit ceiling returned 
     in the calendar year, plus
       ``(iv) the amount (if any) allocated under subparagraph (D) 
     to such State by the Secretary.

     For purposes of clause (i), the unused State housing credit 
     ceiling for any calendar year is the excess (if any) of the 
     sum of the amounts described in clauses (ii) through (iv) 
     over the aggregate housing credit dollar amount allocated for 
     such year. For purposes of clause (iii), the amount of State 
     housing credit ceiling returned in the calendar year equals 
     the housing credit dollar amount previously allocated within 
     the State to any development project which fails to meet the 
     10 percent test under section 42(h)(1)(E)(ii) on a date after 
     the close of the calendar year in which the allocation was 
     made or which does not become a qualified low-to-moderate 
     income development project within the period required by this 
     section or the terms of the allocation or to any development 
     project with respect to which an allocation is canceled by 
     mutual consent of the housing credit agency and the 
     allocation recipient.
       ``(D) Unused housing credit carryovers allocated among 
     certain states.--
       ``(i) In general.--The unused housing credit carryover of a 
     State for any calendar year shall be assigned to the 
     Secretary for allocation among qualified States for the 
     succeeding calendar year.
       ``(ii) Unused housing credit carryover.--For purposes of 
     this subparagraph, the unused housing credit carryover of a 
     State for any calendar year is the excess (if any) of the 
     unused State housing credit ceiling for such year (as defined 
     in subparagraph (C)(i)) over the excess (if any) of --

       ``(I) the unused State housing credit ceiling for the year 
     preceding such year, over
       ``(II) the aggregate housing credit dollar amount allocated 
     for such year.

       ``(iii) Formula for allocation of unused housing credit 
     carryovers among qualified states.--The amount allocated 
     under this subparagraph to a qualified State for any calendar 
     year shall be the amount determined by the Secretary to bear 
     the same ratio to the aggregate unused housing credit 
     carryovers of all States for the preceding calendar year as 
     such State's population for the calendar year bears to the 
     population of all qualified States for the calendar year. For 
     purposes of the preceding sentence, population shall be 
     determined in accordance with section 146(j).
       ``(iv) Qualified state.--For purposes of this subparagraph, 
     the term `qualified State' means, with respect to a calendar 
     year, any State--

       ``(I) which allocated its entire State housing credit 
     ceiling for the preceding calendar year, and
       ``(II) for which a request is made (not later than May 1 of 
     the calendar year) to receive an allocation under clause 
     (iii).

       ``(E) Special rule for states with constitutional home rule 
     cities.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(i) In general.--The aggregate housing credit dollar 
     amount for any constitutional home rule city for any calendar 
     year shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to the 
     State housing credit ceiling for such calendar year as--

       ``(I) the population of such city, bears to
       ``(II) the population of the entire State.

       ``(ii) Coordination with other allocations.--In the case of 
     any State which contains 1 or more constitutional home rule 
     cities, for purposes of applying this paragraph with respect 
     to housing credit agencies in such State other than 
     constitutional home rule cities, the State housing credit 
     ceiling for any calendar year shall be reduced by the 
     aggregate housing credit dollar amounts determined for such 
     year for all constitutional home rule cities in such State.

[[Page 11366]]

       ``(iii) Constitutional home rule city.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `constitutional home rule city' has 
     the meaning given such term by section 146(d)(3)(C).
       ``(F) State may provide for different allocation.--Rules 
     similar to the rules of section 146(e) (other than paragraph 
     (2)(B) thereof) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(G) Population.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     population shall be determined in accordance with section 
     146(j).
       ``(H) Cost-of-living adjustment.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a calendar year after 
     2002, the $2,000,000 and $1.75 amounts in subparagraph (C) 
     shall each be increased by an amount equal to--

       ``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f )(3) for such calendar year by substituting 
     `calendar year 2001' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
     (B) thereof.

       ``(ii) Rounding.--

       ``(I) In the case of the $2,000,000 amount, any increase 
     under clause (i) which is not a multiple of $5,000 shall be 
     rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5,000.
       ``(II) In the case of the $1.75 amount, any increase under 
     clause (i) which is not a multiple of 5 cents shall be 
     rounded to the next lowest multiple of 5 cents.

       ``(4) Portion of state ceiling set-aside for certain 
     development projects involving qualified nonprofit 
     organizations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not more than 90 percent of the State 
     housing credit ceiling for any State for any calendar year 
     shall be allocated to development projects other than 
     qualified low-to-moderate income development projects 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Development projects involving qualified nonprofit 
     organizations.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a qualified 
     low-to-moderate income development project is described in 
     this subparagraph if a qualified nonprofit organization is to 
     materially participate (within the meaning of section 469(h)) 
     in the development and operation of the development project 
     throughout the compliance period.
       ``(C) Qualified nonprofit organization.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `qualified nonprofit organization' 
     means any organization if--
       ``(i) such organization is described in paragraph (3) or 
     (4) of section 501(c) and is exempt from tax under section 
     501(a),
       ``(ii) such organization is determined by the State housing 
     credit agency not to be affiliated with or controlled by a 
     for-profit organization; and
       ``(iii) 1 of the exempt purposes of such organization 
     includes the fostering of low-to-moderate income housing.
       ``(D) Treatment of certain subsidiaries.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, a 
     qualified nonprofit organization shall be treated as 
     satisfying the ownership and material participation test of 
     subparagraph (B) if any qualified corporation in which such 
     organization holds stock satisfies such test.
       ``(ii) Qualified corporation.--For purposes of clause (i), 
     the term `qualified corporation' means any corporation if 100 
     percent of the stock of such corporation is held by 1 or more 
     qualified nonprofit organizations at all times during the 
     period such corporation is in existence.
       ``(E) State may not override set-aside.--Nothing in 
     subparagraph (F) of paragraph (3) shall be construed to 
     permit a State not to comply with subparagraph (A) of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(5) Buildings eligible for credit only if minimum long-
     term commitment to low-to-moderate income housing.--
       ``(A) In general.--No credit shall be allowed by reason of 
     this section with respect to any building for the taxable 
     year unless a low-to-moderate income housing commitment is in 
     effect as of the end of such taxable year.
       ``(B) Low-to-moderate income housing commitment.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the term `low-to-moderate income 
     housing commitment' means any agreement between the taxpayer 
     and the housing credit agency--
       ``(i) which requires that the applicable fraction (as 
     defined in subsection (c)(1)(B)) for the building for each 
     taxable year in the compliance period will not be less than 
     the applicable fraction specified in such agreement,
       ``(ii) which allows individuals who meet the income 
     limitation applicable to the building under subsection (f) 
     (whether prospective, present, or former occupants of the 
     building) the right to enforce in any State court the 
     requirement of clause (i),
       ``(iii) which allows the taxpayer the right of first 
     refusal to purchase the building from the low-or-moderate 
     income individual to whom the taxpayer first sold the 
     building,
       ``(iv) which is binding on all successors of the taxpayer, 
     and
       ``(v) which, with respect to the property, is recorded 
     pursuant to State law as a restrictive covenant.
       ``(C) Allocation of credit may not exceed amount necessary 
     to support commitment.--The housing credit dollar amount 
     allocated to any building may not exceed the amount necessary 
     to support the applicable fraction specified in the low-to-
     moderate income housing commitment for such building.
       ``(D) Effect of noncompliance.--If, during a taxable year, 
     there is a determination that a low-to-moderate income 
     housing agreement was not in effect as of the beginning of 
     such year, such determination shall not apply to any period 
     before such year and subparagraph (A) shall be applied 
     without regard to such determination if the failure is 
     corrected within 1 year from the date of the determination.
       ``(E) Development projects which consist of more than 1 
     building.--The application of this paragraph to development 
     projects which consist of more than 1 building shall be made 
     under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(6) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Building must be located within jurisdiction of 
     credit agency.--A housing credit agency may allocate its 
     aggregate housing credit dollar amount only to buildings 
     located in the jurisdiction of the governmental unit of which 
     such agency is a part.
       ``(B) Agency allocations in excess of limit.--If the 
     aggregate housing credit dollar amounts allocated by a 
     housing credit agency for any calendar year exceed the 
     portion of the State housing credit ceiling allocated to such 
     agency for such calendar year, the housing credit dollar 
     amounts so allocated shall be reduced (to the extent of such 
     excess) for buildings in the reverse of the order in which 
     the allocations of such amounts were made.
       ``(C) Credit reduced if allocated credit dollar amount is 
     less than credit which would be allowable without regard to 
     sales convention, etc.--
       ``(i) In general.--The amount of the credit determined 
     under this section with respect to any building shall not 
     exceed the clause (ii) percentage of the amount of the credit 
     which would (but for this subparagraph) be determined under 
     this section with respect to such building.
       ``(ii) Determination of percentage.--For purposes of clause 
     (i), the clause (ii) percentage with respect to any building 
     is the percentage which--

       ``(I) the housing credit dollar amount allocated to such 
     building bears to
       ``(II) the credit amount determined in accordance with 
     clause (iii).

       ``(iii) Determination of credit amount.--The credit amount 
     determined in accordance with this clause is the amount of 
     the credit which would (but for this subparagraph) be 
     determined under this section with respect to the building if 
     this section were applied without regard to paragraph (2)(A) 
     of subsection (e).
       ``(D) Housing credit agency to specify applicable 
     percentage and maximum qualified basis.--In allocating a 
     housing credit dollar amount to any building, the housing 
     credit agency shall specify the applicable percentage and the 
     maximum qualified basis which may be taken into account under 
     this section with respect to such building. The applicable 
     percentage and maximum qualified basis so specified shall not 
     exceed the applicable percentage and qualified basis 
     determined under this section without regard to this 
     subsection.
       ``(7) Other definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Housing credit agency.--The term `housing credit 
     agency' means any agency authorized to carry out this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Possessions treated as States.--The term `State' 
     includes a possession of the United States.
       ``(h) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Compliance period.--The term `compliance period' 
     means, with respect to any building, the period of 5 taxable 
     years beginning with the 1st taxable year of the credit 
     period with respect thereto.
       ``(2) New building.--The term `new building' means a 
     building the original use of which begins with the taxpayer.
       ``(3) Existing building.--The term `existing building' 
     means any building which is not a new building.
       ``(4) Application to estates and trusts.--In the case of an 
     estate or trust, the amount of the credit determined under 
     subsection (a) and any increase in tax under subsection (j) 
     shall be apportioned between the estate or trust and the 
     beneficiaries on the basis of the income of the estate or 
     trust allocable to each.
       ``(i) Recapture of credit.--If--
       ``(1) as of the close of any taxable year in the compliance 
     period, the amount of the qualified basis of any building 
     with respect to the taxpayer is less than
       ``(2) the amount of such basis as of the close of the 
     preceding taxable year,

     then the taxpayer's tax under this chapter for the taxable 
     year shall be increased by the credit recapture amount 
     determined under rules similar to the rules of section 42(j).
       ``(j) Application of at-risk rules.--For purposes of this 
     section, rules similar to the rules of section 42(k) shall 
     apply.
       ``(k) Certifications and other reports to Secretary.--
       ``(1) Certification with respect to 1st year of credit 
     period.--Following the close of the 1st taxable year in the 
     credit period

[[Page 11367]]

     with respect to any qualified low-to-moderate income 
     building, the taxpayer shall certify to the Secretary (at 
     such time and in such form and in such manner as the 
     Secretary prescribes)--
       ``(A) the taxable year, and calendar year, in which such 
     building was first sold after being placed in service,
       ``(B) the adjusted basis and eligible basis of such 
     building as of the beginning of the credit period,
       ``(C) the maximum applicable percentage and qualified basis 
     permitted to be taken into account by the appropriate housing 
     credit agency under subsection (g),
       ``(D) the election made under subsection (f) with respect 
     to the qualified low-to-moderate income housing development 
     project of which such building is a part, and
       ``(E) such other information as the Secretary may require.

     In the case of a failure to make the certification required 
     by the preceding sentence on the date prescribed therefor, 
     unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable 
     cause and not to willful neglect, no credit shall be 
     allowable by reason of subsection (a) with respect to such 
     building for any taxable year ending before such 
     certification is made.
       ``(2) Annual reports to the Secretary.--The Secretary may 
     require taxpayers to submit an information return (at such 
     time and in such form and manner as the Secretary prescribes) 
     for each taxable year setting forth--
       ``(A) the qualified basis for the taxable year of each 
     qualified low-to-moderate income building of the taxpayer,
       ``(B) the information described in paragraph (1)(C) for the 
     taxable year, and
       ``(C) such other information as the Secretary may require.

     The penalty under section 6652(j) shall apply to any failure 
     to submit the return required by the Secretary under the 
     preceding sentence on the date prescribed therefor.
       ``(3) Annual reports from housing credit agencies.--Each 
     agency which allocates any housing credit amount to any 
     building for any calendar year shall submit to the Secretary 
     (at such time and in such manner as the Secretary shall 
     prescribe) an annual report specifying--
       ``(A) the amount of housing credit amount allocated to each 
     building for such year,
       ``(B) sufficient information to identify each such building 
     and the taxpayer with respect thereto, and
       ``(C) such other information as the Secretary may require.

     The penalty under section 6652(j) shall apply to any failure 
     to submit the report required by the preceding sentence on 
     the date prescribed therefor.
       ``(l) Responsibilities of housing credit agencies.--
       ``(1) Plans for allocation of credit among development 
     projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, the housing credit dollar amount with respect 
     to any building shall be zero unless--
       ``(i) such amount was allocated pursuant to a qualified 
     allocation plan of the housing credit agency which is 
     approved by the governmental unit (in accordance with rules 
     similar to the rules of section 147(f)(2) (other than 
     subparagraph (B)(ii) thereof)) of which such agency is a 
     part,
       ``(ii) such agency notifies the chief executive officer (or 
     the equivalent) of the local jurisdiction within which the 
     building is located of such development project and provides 
     such individual a reasonable opportunity to comment on the 
     development project,
       ``(iii) a comprehensive market study of the housing needs 
     of low- and moderate-income individuals in the area to be 
     served by the development project is conducted before the 
     credit allocation is made and at the developer's expense by a 
     disinterested party who is approved by such agency, and
       ``(iv) a written explanation is available to the general 
     public for any allocation of a housing credit dollar amount 
     which is not made in accordance with established priorities 
     and selection criteria of the housing credit agency.
       ``(B) Qualified allocation plan.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `qualified allocation plan' means any 
     plan--
       ``(i) which sets forth selection criteria to be used to 
     determine housing priorities of the housing credit agency 
     which are appropriate to local conditions,
       ``(ii) which also gives preference in allocating housing 
     credit dollar amounts among selected development projects 
     to--

       ``(I) development projects serving the lowest income 
     owners, and
       ``(II) development projects which are located in qualified 
     census tracts (as defined in section 42(d)(5)(C)) and the 
     development of which contributes to a concerted community 
     revitalization plan, and

       ``(iii) which provides a procedure that the agency (or an 
     agent or other private contractor of such agency) will follow 
     in monitoring for noncompliance with the provisions of this 
     section and in notifying the Internal Revenue Service of such 
     noncompliance which such agency becomes aware of and in 
     monitoring for noncompliance with habitability standards 
     through regular site visits.
       ``(C) Certain selection criteria must be used.--The 
     selection criteria set forth in a qualified allocation plan 
     must include--
       ``(i) development project location,
       ``(ii) housing needs characteristics,
       ``(iii) development project characteristics, including 
     whether the development project includes the use of existing 
     housing as part of a community revitalization plan,
       ``(iv) populations with special housing needs,
       ``(v) low-to-moderate income housing waiting lists, and
       ``(vi) populations of individuals with children.
       ``(2) Credit allocated to building not to exceed amount 
     necessary to assure development project feasibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--The housing credit dollar amount 
     allocated to a development project shall not exceed the 
     amount the housing credit agency determines is necessary for 
     the financial feasibility of the development project and its 
     viability as a qualified low-to-moderate income development 
     project throughout the compliance period.
       ``(B) Agency evaluation.--In making the determination under 
     subparagraph (A), the housing credit agency shall consider--
       ``(i) the sources and uses of funds and the total financing 
     planned for the development project,
       ``(ii) any proceeds or receipts expected to be generated by 
     reason of tax benefits,
       ``(iii) the percentage of the housing credit dollar amount 
     used for development project costs other than the cost of 
     intermediaries, and
       ``(iv) the reasonableness of the developmental and 
     operational costs of the development project.

     Clause (iii) shall not be applied so as to impede the 
     development of development projects in hard-to-develop areas.
       ``(C) Determination made when credit amount applied for and 
     when building sold.--
       ``(i) In general.--A determination under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be made as of each of the following times:

       ``(I) The application for the housing credit dollar amount.
       ``(II) The allocation of the housing credit dollar amount.
       ``(III) The date the building is first sold after having 
     been placed in service.

       ``(ii) Certification as to amount of other subsidies.--
     Prior to each determination under clause (i), the taxpayer 
     shall certify to the housing credit agency the full extent of 
     all Federal, State, and local subsidies which apply (or which 
     the taxpayer expects to apply) with respect to the building.
       ``(m) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this section, including regulations--
       ``(1) dealing with--
       ``(A) development projects which include more than 1 
     building or only a portion of a building,
       ``(B) buildings which are sold in portions,
       ``(2) providing for the application of this section to 
     short taxable years,
       ``(3) preventing the avoidance of the rules of this 
     section, and
       ``(4) providing the opportunity for housing credit agencies 
     to correct administrative errors and omissions with respect 
     to allocations and record keeping within a reasonable period 
     after their discovery, taking into account the availability 
     of regulations and other administrative guidance from the 
     Secretary.
       ``(n) Termination.--Clause (ii) of subsection (g)(3)(C) 
     shall not apply to any amount allocated after December 31, 
     2004.''.
       (b) Current Year Business Credit Calculation.--Section 
     38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     current year business credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' 
     at the end of paragraph (12), by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (13) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(14) the home ownership credit determined under section 
     42A(a).''.
       (c) Limitation on Carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to carryback 
     and carryforward of unused credits) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(10) No carryback of home ownership credit before 
     effective date.--No amount of unused business credit 
     available under section 42A may be carried back to a taxable 
     year beginning on or before the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 55(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by inserting ``or subsection (i) or (j) of section 
     42A'' after ``section 42''.
       (2) Subsections (i)(c)(3), (i)(c)(6)(B)(i), and (k)(1) of 
     section 469 of such Code are each amended by inserting ``or 
     42A'' after ``section 42''.
       (3) Section 772(a) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (10), by redesignating 
     paragraph (11) as paragraph (12), and by inserting after 
     paragraph (10) the following:
       ``(11) the home ownership credit determined under section 
     42A, and''.

[[Page 11368]]

       (4) Section 774(b)(4) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``, 42A(i),'' after ``section 42(j)''.
       (e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 42 the following:

``Sec. 42A. Low-to-moderate income home ownership credit.''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenditures made in taxable years beginning 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. PARTIAL EXCLUSION OF GAIN FROM SALE OF LOW-TO-
                   MODERATE INCOME HOUSING.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by 
     redesignating section 139 as section 140 and inserting after 
     section 138 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 139. CERTAIN GAIN FROM SALE OF LOW-TO-MODERATE INCOME 
                   HOUSING.

       ``(a) In General.--Gross income shall not include the gain 
     from the sale of any low-to-moderate income building made 
     during the taxable year and with respect to which the 
     taxpayer is allowed a credit under section 42A.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The amount of gain which may be taken 
     into account under subsection (a) with respect to the sale of 
     a low-to-moderate income building shall not exceed $10,000 
     for each low-to-moderate income unit in such building.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part 
     III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 139 and inserting the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 139. Certain gain from sale of low-to-moderate income housing.
``Sec. 140. Cross references to other Acts.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply sales in taxable years beginning after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. EXPANSION OF REHABILITATION CREDIT.

       (a) Credit Applicable to Buildings at Least 50 Years Old.--
     Subparagraph (B) of section 47(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to qualified rehabilitated building is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Building must be at least 50 years old.--In the case 
     of a building other than a certified historic structure, a 
     building shall not be a qualified rehabilitated building 
     unless the building was first placed in service before the 
     date which is at least 50 years before the date such building 
     is placed in service for purposes of the credit under this 
     section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 1082. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the expensing of environmental remediation costs; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is 
intended to build upon a bi-partisan effort that has spanned over a 
decade culminating with the passage of S. 350. In August of 1997, this 
body approved a potentially significant brownfield tax incentive. This 
tax incentive referred to as the ``expensing'' provision allowed new 
owners of these contaminated sites to write off clean-up costs from 
their taxes in the year they are deducted. Despite this stride forward 
there have been issues pertaining to the provision that have 
represented barriers to re-development efforts.
  The barriers which have thwarted re-development efforts have been: 
(1) the sunset of the bill contributed to uncertainty associated with 
the time needed to clean-up, obtain financing and re-develop these 
properties; (2) the exclusion of petroleum related products and 
pesticides from the definition of ``hazardous substances'' which 
required that the treatment of these clean up costs as (non-deductable) 
capital expenditures rather than expenses; and (3) the recapturing as 
ordinary income, at the time of sale, qualified environmental 
remediation expenses that have received exemptions.
  My bill will eliminate the sunset provision. Eliminating the sunset 
for this expensing provision would be a major stride forward. Obtaining 
sufficient financing for brownfield re-development is generally 
difficult enough without the specter of a looming sunset.
  Petroleum products in the form of fuel oil, heating oil or gasoline 
and pesticides are quite often found at these brownfield sites. 
Unfortunately, ``hazardous substance'' as it relates to brownfields 
does not include these particular substances. Therefore, the exclusion 
of substances commonly found at brownfields increases the costs of 
brownfield re-development significantly. This bill will expand the 
definition of hazardous items to include petroleum and pesticides.
  In an effort to give true value to brownfields tax incentives, this 
bill will repeal the recapture provision related to brownfield tax 
incentives, section 193 e. Currently, any qualified environmental 
remediation expenditure which has been deducted is subject to recapture 
as ordinary income when sold or otherwise disposed. Because the tax 
liability for ordinary income is taxed higher, there is no incentive to 
redevelop contaminated sites and then sell the property for beneficial 
use. The repeal of this exclusion will give developers an opportunity 
to realize their tax incentives if they intend to sell property shortly 
after redevelopment.
  The passage of the expensing provisions and the recently passed S. 
350 represent critical steps in enhancing the public/private 
partnership in brownfield re-development but more must be done. An 
effective partnership will utilize tax incentives to help attract 
affordable private investment. Using tax incentives to overcome capital 
shortages, in the marketplace, to achieve greater public benefits, is a 
proven formula for success. This can reverse negative trends and start 
new constructive trends.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. 
        Inouye):
  S. 1083. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
exclude clinical social worker services from coverage under the 
Medicare skilled nursing facility prospective payment system; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clinical 
Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2001. I am proud to sponsor this 
legislation that will ensure that clinical social workers can receive 
Medicare reimbursement for the mental health services they provide in 
skilled nursing facilities. This bill will give clinical social workers 
parity with other mental health providers who are exempted from the 
Medicare Part B Prospective Payment System.
  Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to protect and 
strengthen the safety net for our Nation's seniors. Making sure that 
seniors have access to quality, affordable mental health care is an 
important part of this fight. I know that millions of seniors are not 
receiving the mental health services they need. For example, depression 
effects nearly 6 million seniors, but only one-tenth ever get treated. 
This is unacceptable. Protecting seniors' access to clinical social 
workers can help make sure that our most vulnerable citizens get the 
quality, affordable mental health care they need.
  Clinical social workers, much like psychologists and psychiatrists, 
treat and diagnose mental illnesses. In fact, clinical social workers 
are the primary mental health providers for many nursing home 
residents. But unlike other mental health providers, clinical social 
workers often cannot bill directly for the important services they 
provide to their patients. This bill will correct this inequity and 
make sure clinical social workers are paid for the valuable services 
they provide.
  Before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, clinical social workers 
billed Medicare Part B directly for mental health services provided in 
nursing facilities to each patient they served. Under the new 
Prospective Payment System, services provided by clinical social 
workers are lumped, or ``bundled,'' along with the services of other 
health care providers for the purposes of billing and payments. 
Psychologists and psychiatrists, however, were exempted from this new 
system and continue to bill Medicare directly. This bill would exempt 
clinical social workers, like their mental health colleagues, from the 
Prospective Payment System, and would make sure that clinical social 
workers are paid for the services they provide to patients in

[[Page 11369]]

skilled nursing facilities. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits 
Improvement and Protection Act addressed some of these concerns, but 
this legislation would remove the final barrier to ensuring that 
clinical social workers are treated fairly and equitably for the care 
they provide.
  This bill is about more than paperwork and payment procedures. This 
bill is about equal access to Medicare payments for the equal and 
important work done by clinical social workers. And it is about making 
sure our Nation's most vulnerable citizens have access to quality, 
affordable mental health care. Without clinical social workers, many 
nursing home residents may never get the counseling they need when 
faced with illness or the loss of a loved one. I think we can do better 
by our Nation's seniors, and I'm fighting to make sure we do.
  The Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2001 is strongly 
supported by the National Association of Social Workers and the 
Clinical Social Work Federation. I look forward to the Senate's support 
of this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1084. A bill to prohibit the importation into the United States of 
diamonds unless the countries exporting the diamonds have in place a 
system of controls on rough diamonds, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today, along with 
Senator DeWine and Senator Feingold, to cut off the source of income 
that is fueling horrendous conflicts in Sierra Leone, Angola, and the 
Democratic Republic of Congo, the illicit trade in conflict diamonds.
  The brutal wars in these African Nations may be thousands of miles 
away, but the source of the funds that buy the weapons may be as close 
as your ring finger. Our legislation says, if you can't prove to U.S. 
Customs agents that your diamonds are legitimate, take your business 
and your diamonds somewhere else.
  I am pleased that the diamond industry and the human rights community 
are united in their support for this bill. They met many times with our 
staffs to work out a compromise that everyone is enthusiastically 
supporting.
  We can and must do more than look with horror at the pictures of 
children with missing hands, arms or legs. We must take a strong stand 
that says to the world that this nation, which purchases 65 percent of 
the world's diamonds, will not buy the diamonds that fund rebels and 
terrorists.
  American consumers who purchase diamonds for some happy milestone in 
their lives, like an engagement, wedding, or anniversary, must be 
assured that they are buying a diamond from a legitimate, legal, and 
responsible source.
  Setting up a system that would allow American consumers to have 
confidence that they are buying ``clean'' diamonds would also serve our 
local jewelers and diamond retailers.
  It is hard to imagine today that diamonds could become unfashionable, 
but if consumers associate diamonds with guerrillas who hack off the 
arms of children, instead of the joyous life events that are now 
associated with the gemstones, the diamond industry in our country 
could suffer a sharp decline.
  The jewelers in our local malls and downtown shops do not want to 
support rebels and terrorists in Africa any more than consumers do. 
This legislation aims to protect our local merchants, as well as cut 
off funds to African rebels.
  I heard from a jeweler in my hometown of Springfield, Illinois, Bruce 
Lauer, President of the Illinois Jewelers Association, who wrote:

       The use of diamond profits to fund warfare and atrocities 
     in parts of Africa is abhorrent to all of us. The system 
     created by your bill to bar U.S. imports of conflict stones 
     will allow retail jewelers to be confident that the diamonds 
     and diamond jewelry they sell have no part in the violence 
     and suffering that are prevalent in Sierra Leone, Angola, or 
     other conflict areas.
       As the owner of Stout & Lauer Jewelers in Springfield, I 
     know first hand the importance of diamonds to my customers. A 
     diamond is a very special purchase symbolizing love, 
     commitment and joy. It should not be tarnished with doubt. . 
     ..We want to be able to assure our customers unequivocally 
     that the diamonds in our stores come from legitimate sources.

  What carnage are these conflicts in Africa causing? The photos of 
maimed and mutilated men, women, and children in Sierra Leone are the 
most visible results of the terror tactics by the Revolutionary United 
Front, RUF. This rebel group has also used murder and rape, pressed 
children into becoming soldiers, and caused a mass movements of 
refugees as people flee the terror. The Congressional Research Service 
has released some conflict-related statistics for the Sierra Leone, 
Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I would like to repeat 
some of them for the Record: Out of a population of more than 5 million 
people, there are approximately 490,000 refugees from Sierra Leone in 
neighboring countries and anywhere from 500,000 to 1.3 million 
internally displaced people. Estimates of the numbers of people who 
have died in the conflict range from 20,000 to 50,000. More than 5,000 
children have fought in direct combat roles, with 5,000 more used in 
supporting roles. There are no figures on how many people lost limbs or 
were otherwise mutilated, but World Vision reports that there are 2,000 
amputees in just one camp in Freetown.
  In the long conflicts in Angola and Democratic Republic of Congo, 
DRC, diamonds have been a contributing factor. The United Nations 
recently issued a report showing that the conflict in the DRC has 
become increasingly resource driven, as parties illegally exploit 
diamonds and other mineral wealth, including tantilite, the mineral now 
in high demands for cell phones and other electronic devices.
  Last year the United States worked with the international community 
and the diamond industry to stem the flow of conflict diamonds. The 
United Nations has taken action to ban the conflict diamond trade and 
recommended that a ``simple and workable international certification 
scheme for rough diamonds be created.''
  The United States also participated in May 2000 in the Technical 
Forum on Diamonds, which became known as the ``Kimberley Process'' 
after the city in South Africa where the group met, along with 
representatives from other countries, the diamond industry, and non-
governmental organization. The group recommended the establishment of 
an international export regime like the one set up in the bill I 
introduce today. However, since that time negotiations on setting up 
such a system have slowed. I believe that this bill will help spur 
action to complete negotiations and set up a system to track and 
certify diamond exports.
  The bill that I am introducing today with Senator DeWine and Senator 
Feingold is similar to H.R. 918, introduced by Congressman Tony Hall 
and Congressman Frank Wolf in the House. But our bill also incorporates 
some changes that represent a compromise that the diamond industry and 
the human rights community were able to come together to support. The 
bill was also written to be compliant with US obligations in the World 
Trade Organization, WTO.
  Among other provisions, the bill does the following: The bill 
requires diamond imports--including rough, polished, and jewelry--to 
come from a ``clean stream'' and spells out the details of this system 
(which may be superceded by an international agreement if the United 
States is a party to it). Implementation of any system shall be 
monitored by US agencies and a presidential advisory commission, which 
include human rights advocates and representatives of the diamond 
industry.
  Violators will be subject to civil and criminal penalties, including 
confiscation of contraband. Significant violators' US assets may be 
blocked. Proceeds from penalties and the sale of diamonds seized as 
contraband shall be used to help war victims, through humanitarian 
relief and micro-credit development projects.
  Diamond-sector projects in countries that fail to adopt a system of 
controls

[[Page 11370]]

shall not be eligible for loan guarantees or other assistance of the US 
Export-Import Bank or OPIC.
  The bill provides waiver authority to the President under limited 
circumstances, and spells out the process for determining them under 
what limited conditions, the President may delay applicability of the 
law to a ``cooperating'' country. In issuing such a waiver, the 
President must report to Congress on that country's progress toward 
establishing a system of controls and concluding an international 
agreement. Criteria for determining whether a country is cooperating 
must be developed with public input.
  The bill requires no action by the Treasury Secretary or Customs 
Service that would contradict the United States' obligations to the 
World Trade Organization, as it finds in a dispute proceeding. If 
another country successfully challenges the United States at the WTO, 
Congress intends for the United States to bring its actions into 
conformity with its WTO obligations.
  Both the President and the General Accounting Office are to report as 
to the system's effectiveness and on which countries are implementing 
it.
  The bill encourages the diamond industry to contribute to 
financially-strapped African countries that may have difficulty bearing 
the costs of setting up a system of controls, and authorizes $5 million 
of assistance from the United States to do the same.
  I ask my colleagues to join with us in cosponsoring the bill we 
introduce today and take a positive step in ending the bloody violence 
fueled by the sale of conflict diamonds.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 1085. A bill to provide for the revitalization of Olympic sports 
in the United States; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the foremost responsibility given to 
the United States Olympic Committee when it was created by Congress is 
to obtain for this country ``the most competent representation possible 
in each event of the Olympic Games.'' However, in too many sports, the 
USOC is decidedly disadvantaged in achieving that goal. A key reason 
for the USOC's difficulty is that our colleges and universities are 
eliminating many of their teams in those sports each year. Colleges and 
universities have been the traditional route to participation in the 
Olympic Games in these non-revenue sports, but many of America's 
prospective participants in the Olympic Games are having opportunities 
blocked as these programs disappear.
  As a former college wrestler and someone who continues to follow that 
sport closely at the high school and college levels, I have noticed as 
wrestling programs have been discontinued by colleges and universities 
at a high rate in recent years. Too often, this occurs through a 
process that leaves student-athletes with few options if they want to 
continue wrestling at another institution. As a result of my concerns 
about wrestling, the sport I know best, I worked with now-Speaker of 
the House Dennis Hastert to include in the 1998 reauthorization of the 
Higher Education Act a study by the General Accounting Office on 
patterns in the addition and discontinuation of athletic teams at 4-
year colleges and universities. The study investigated the forces that 
lead to team additions and discontinuations, as well as the processes 
through which discontinuations have occurred. The report from that GAO 
study was recently released. It both reaffirms what Speaker Hastert and 
I already knew about the state of college-level wrestling. And it 
demonstrates that wrestling, where 40 percent of teams have been 
discontinued during the past two decades, is not alone. A number of 
men's and women's sports have experienced a significant net decline in 
the number of programs during the same period. There has been a 53-
percent decline in the number of women's gymnastics teams, a 10-percent 
reduction in the number of women's field hockey teams and a 68-percent 
decline in the number of men's gymnastics programs. Most pertinent is 
the following fact: 16 of the sports that have lost teams during that 
period, which is nearly all the sports that have lost teams, are 
Olympic sports. In light of the Congressional directive contained in 
USOC's authorizing legislation, a federal response is warranted.
  Guided by the findings of the recent GAO report, the bill that I 
introduce today, the Olympic Sports Revitalization Act, seeks to 
counteract the problems faced by these 16 sports, plus three emerging 
women's sports. The first group of 16 sports consists of the following: 
women's gymnastics, women's and men's fencing, women's field hockey, 
women's and men's archery, women's badminton, men's wrestling, men's 
tennis, men's gymnastics, men's rifle/shooting men's outdoor track, 
men's swimming, men's skiing, men's ice hockey, and men's water polo. 
Also covered are the three emerging women's sports: synchronized 
swimming, team handball, and equestrian. The bill would assist in 
developing a competitive American Olympics program that spans the 
spectrum of high- and low-profile sports. Because there is no single, 
shared reason that each of these sports has faced difficulty in recent 
years, the bill has four sections, each of which seeks to address an 
obstacle to their vitality in the United States.
  First, the GAO report indicates that in some cases, declining 
interest in the sports is a key factor in decisions by colleges and 
universities to eliminate their programs. We know that those who will 
go on to become Olympians realize their talent and passion for their 
sport at any early age which means they need to become interested at an 
early age. Therefore, this bill establishes a grant program to assist 
local community-based athletic programs in providing opportunities for 
youngsters to participate in these sports. The bill authorizes funds 
for the USOC itself and the national governing bodies in the sports 
covered by the Act to award grants to community athletic organizations 
to initiate and expand youth sporting opportunities. In particular, it 
encourages a focus on providing such opportunities in communities where 
the sport has not traditionally been available as an option for young 
persons so that the pool of participants in the sport will expand.
  Of course, relatively few of the young people that will participant 
in these programs will ever become Olympians. But aside from building 
interest in otherwise declining sports, these programs will provide 
additional benefits for young men and women. My colleague from Alaska, 
Senator Stevens, for whom the existing Olympic and Amateur Sport Act is 
rightly named, has an ongoing commitment to enhancing the physical 
fitness of Americans. This program offers fitness outlets that can put 
young people on a path toward lifelong commitment to exercise and all 
its physical and mental health benefits.
  As someone who was given the opportunity to develop personally 
through the challenge of wrestling, I also know how important 
involvement in athletics is at an early age in building character. 
Sports help youngsters develop some of the most important skills for 
success in life: the ability to think strategically, the courage to 
overcome fears, and the tact of being a good winner and, yes, a good 
loser.
  I encourage my colleagues to learn more about two existing community 
sports programs that are exactly the type of locally-controlled 
endeavors that this grant program is meant to promote. Peter Westbrook 
grew up in the projects of Newark, New Jersey. He was lucky enough to 
be introduced to fencing at an early age and by focusing on that sport, 
he escaped the desperation of the environment in which he came of age. 
Peter pursued the sport as he became older and he went on to win the 
Bronze Medal in Men's Sabre at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. Seven 
years later, he began a non-profit program in New York City dedicated 
to helping kids in the five boroughs of New York gain access to the 
benefits that he has as a youngster in fencing. Over the past decade, 
hundreds of inner-city kids have participated in the program.
  Like the Peter Westbrook Foundation, the ``Beat the Streets'' program 
begun in 1999 in inner-city Chicago is a

[[Page 11371]]

model for the grant program to be established by this legislation. 
``Beat the Streets,'' a program with which Speaker Hastert has been 
involved, focuses on mentoring youngsters who typically would not have 
access to wrestling training. The youngsters are coached in a number of 
wrestling techniques, conditioning and nutrition. The program also 
focuses on developing social and intellectual skills that go beyond the 
mat. ``Beat the Streets'' has grown throughout Chicago and, working in 
coalition with the YMCA, its advisory board recently began planning the 
expansion of that program to other cities around the country. I hope 
that this legislation can plan a role in the expansion of such an 
outstanding program.
  As I mentioned earlier, three women's emerging sports, that is, 
Olympic sports that have not traditionally been an option for women in 
this country--are also covered by the pertinent sections of this Act. 
That makes sense because the fact that they are not fully established 
sports means that the USOC faces a particular challenge in developing 
the most competitive team possible in those sports.
  The second section of the Olympic Sports Revitalization Act more 
direct focuses on ensuring participation in the covered sports during 
college. It does so by providing funding for scholarships in those 
sports. College and university athletic programs that have discontinued 
the non-revenue sports covered by this Act also cite budgetary strains 
as a frequent reason for those decisions. While the GAO report cites 
numerous cases where colleagues and universites have successfully 
maintained existing sports while adding new sports to meet the 
interests and needs of women athlete, it is important to realize that 
colleges and universities do face real financial contraints. This 
portion of the Act would help protect existing non-revenue sports that 
might otherwise be eliminated. Through this section's provision, the 
USOC would be authorized to provide 4-year grants of between $25,000 
and $50,000 annually to college athletic programs to provide 
scholarships to student-athletes participating in the sports covered by 
the Act. At any one school, a limit of three covered program could be 
grant recipients at any one time. Schools would be required to maintain 
the sport to continue to receive the grant money. This Olympic 
Revitalization Scholarship grant program will reinforce the already 
existing Bart Stupak Olympic Scholarship Program, also in the Higher 
Education Act, which provides financial assistance to athletes who are 
actually in training for the Olympic Games.
  The bill also seeks to ensure that, as they decide where they will 
attend college, prospective student-athletes will be able accurately to 
gauge the relative health of the sports programs at different schools 
they may be considering. Present law requires that all 4-year colleges 
and universities with athletic programs report to the Department of 
Education the number of participants and coaches in all sports, as well 
as further information regarding funding for their teams. This data, 
particularly when examined over time, gives an excellent picture of the 
health of the sport at that college. It also provides insight into the 
continued vitality of the program during the period that the 
prospective student-athlete would hope to participate in the sport. The 
problem is that, while the Department of Education has collected this 
required data, it is not readily available to the general public. The 
Olympic Sports Revitalization Act would authorize funds and require 
that the data over a several year period be posted on the Internet in a 
usable format so that the student-athletes and those involved in their 
college decision can have easy access to that information.
  Finally, one of the most troubling findings in the GAO report is that 
student-athletes are, quite often, given no forewarning that their 
sport is being discontinued by the athletic program. They also have no 
mechanism by which to appeal that decision. Generally, such decisions 
by athletic programs go into effect immediately. In addition to defying 
fairness, this reality means that student-athletes often have their 
college athletic careers disrupted in a manner that makes it difficult 
to stay on track for post-college amateur competition. The data in the 
GAO report indicates that the stories I have heard about the 
termination of wrestling programs in my home State of Minnesota and 
around the country are part of a pattern in other similarly situated 
sports. Therefore, the fourth section of the bill requires that 
colleges and universities provide written justification for a decision 
to discontinue a sport to team members. It also requires that a process 
for appealing the team's termination be established.
  We have a responsibility to field ``the most competent 
representation'' possible in the Olympic games. Just as important, we 
should do all we can to promote the continued vitality of a set of 
sports that have proud traditions in our country and that have provided 
health and character-development benefits for thousands of participants 
through the years. To quote Pat Zilverberg, a constant guardian of the 
sport of wrestling in my home state, from his letter supporting this 
legislation: ``The opportunities to develop athletes and, subsequently, 
good citizens, are at risk.'' This legislation would play a key role in 
revitalizing these sports and I strongly encourage its adoption.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 1086. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer 
Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning 
areas; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Torricelli, I 
am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, COAST, 
Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and 
Northern Atlantic coast.
  The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the 
Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their 
treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious 
threats not to our environment, but to our economy, which depends 
heavily on tourism along our shore.
  Until recently, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even 
a remote possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing 
activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been 
included annually in Interior Appropriations acts. In addition, 
President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS 
areas on June 26, 1990 under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 
12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a 
memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the 
moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas.
  Given the long-standing consensus against drilling in these areas, I 
was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals 
Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a 
study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North-
Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir 
potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the 
RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of 
managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.''
  I believe that the RFP was not only inappropriate, but probably 
illegal, and I was pleased when it was rescinded yesterday. However, I 
remain concerned about the Administration's policy with respect to 
offshore drilling. Although some Administration officials have 
indicated that they support the existing moratoria on offshore 
drilling, the President's energy plan and this recent proposed study 
call the Administration's position into question. I have asked the 
President to clarify his position on this issue, and I hope that he 
will use his authority to endorse the existing moratoria.
  In my view, however, it is time for Congress to act to resolve this 
question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-
Drilling Act. This bill would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and 
other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic.

[[Page 11372]]

  I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important 
legislation. Doing so would ensure that the people of New Jersey and 
neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off 
their beaches.
  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. 1086

       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 ``Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism 
     Anti-Drilling Act'' or the ``COAST Anti-Drilling Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS 
                   OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.

       Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section or any other law, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall not issue a lease for the exploration, 
     development, or production of oil, natural gas, or any other 
     mineral in--
       ``(1) the Mid-Atlantic planning area; or
       ``(2) the North Atlantic planning area.''.

                          ____________________