[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16854-16864]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2941. A bill to authorize grants for the establishment of quasi-
judicial campus drug courts at colleges and universities modeled after 
State drug courts programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Campus Classmate 
Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act.''
  The Campus Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act, 
which can also be referred to as the ``Campus CORT Act,'' directs the 
Department of Justice to establish a demonstration program to provide 
grants and training to help our Nation's universities and colleges 
establish new quasi-judicial systems. These systems aim at countering 
the serious drug and substance abuse related problems that are taking 
such a heavy toll on our institutions of higher learning and the 
students who attend them. The demonstration program, which would be 
administered by the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, 
would be based on the valuable lessons and successes we have garnered 
from our Nation's innovative and expanding drug court system.
  Specifically, this demonstration program legislation would authorize 
the establishment of up to five Campus CORTs each year for Fiscal Years 
2003 through 2006. The bill authorizes the Office of Justice Programs 
to provide $2,000,000 in Federal funding during each of those years to 
help get five Campus CORTs well trained, soundly established and up and 
running. This new program's approach should be similar to how the 
Office of Justice Programs currently runs the ongoing drug court grant-
making program, including providing an Internet-based application 
process.
  There are plenty of good reasons to take the next step and establish 
a Campus CORTs program based on the drug court model. Since they first 
appeared in 1989, drug courts have rapidly spread all across the 
Nation. Rather than simply locking-up nonviolent drug offenders in 
prison along side violent criminals, drug courts provide the 
alternative of court-supervised treatment. Instead of simply punishing, 
drug courts help get people clean.
  Drug courts' many successes are underscored both by the bipartisan 
support they have received in Congress and by the Bush Administration. 
For example, during a national conference hosted this last April by the 
National Association of Drug Court Professionals, both Office of 
National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters, our Nation's ``Drug 
Czar,'' and Drug Enforcement Agency Director Asa Hutchinson gave 
speeches in support of drug courts.
  According to the latest statistics as reported by the Department of 
Justice's Office of Justice Programs, there are nearly 700 Drug Courts 
in operation all across the United States. This includes 483 Adult Drug 
Courts, 167 Juvenile Drug Courts, and 37 Family Drug Courts. An 
additional 400-plus new Drug Courts are in the planning process. The 
report goes on to state that approximately 220,000 adults and 9,000 
juveniles have been enrolled in the drug court system and of those, 
73,000 adults and 1,500 juveniles have graduated.
  The merits of the drug court system are well documented. Nationwide, 
the drug courts have helped more than 1,000 to be born drug free, more 
than 3,500 parents to regain custody of their children, and 4,500 
parents to resume

[[Page 16855]]

making their child-support payments. The retention rate is over 70 
percent, with 73 percent of the participants managing to keep their 
jobs or successfully find new work. These are encouraging successes, 
and not just for the individuals involved, but for society as a whole.
  These are the kind of successes we should be able to see once the 
drug court model is customized and applied through Campus CORTs as we 
work together to respond to the alcohol, drug and other substance abuse 
challenges facing our Nation's colleges and universities.
  Our Nation's drug courts use a carrot and stick approach where 
offenders can either live at home and remain free to work under court 
supervised treatment or face the very real threat of hard jail time. 
Similarly, Campus CORTs will give troubled students the chance to get 
supervised treatment and stay clean or get kicked out of school and 
watch their futures get squandered away.
  Instead of simply booting students with substance abuse problems 
directly out of school, as is currently happening at many universities 
and colleges all across the country, I believe we should instead help 
provide institutions of higher learning with new tools they can use to 
help students get and stay clean. Of course, just like it is with the 
existing drug courts, there will be some students who simply do not 
respond to Campus CORTs. While those students will have to face the 
fact that they may well be expelled from school, at least we will have 
been able to give them the opportunity to clean-up their act.
  Since the new Campus CORTs would be established at colleges and 
universities, the legislation calls on the Office of Justice Programs, 
or OJP, to establish new ``quasi-judicial standards and procedures for 
disciplinary cases'' for institutions of higher learning that wish to 
participate in the new Federal program.
  Today, I am pleased to highlight that one of the leading institutions 
of higher learning in my home State, Colorado State University, CSU, 
has already broken new ground as the Nation's first university to apply 
the drug court concept in a campus setting. The ``Day IV'' program, as 
it is known at CSU, has racked-up a successful record in helping keep 
students clean and in school.
  Under the pioneering leadership of Cheryl Asmus, the drug court 
inspired program helped 26 out of 30 students who would have otherwise 
been kicked out of school stay there during the last spring semester 
alone. As I understand it, two of the four were dismissed from school 
for not meeting the Day IV program's treatment requirements and the 
other two left school for other reasons.
  In any case, a success rate approaching 90 percent is a wonderful 
accomplishment, both for the university and especially for the 26 
students who have managed to pull themselves back from potential 
disaster.
  Our drug court system is making a difference all across our Nation. 
In fact, a 2002 report issued by Columbia University's prestigious 
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse states that ``drug 
courts provide closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more 
frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program, than other 
forms of community supervision.'' The report underscores that ``drug 
use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are 
participating in drug court'' and that ``criminal behavior is lower 
after participation, especially for graduates.''
  Far too many of our Nation's college students are falling by the 
wayside as they get sidetracked by crippling drug and alcohol abuse 
problems. Not only are academic careers being impacted and ended, 
entire lives are being thrown into limbo.
  Our Nation's drug court system is a good example of a viable and 
productive partnership between the Federal Government, our State 
governments and local jurisdictions. Their collaboration is making a 
positive impact all across our country. I want to take this moment to 
thank the people of the OJP, the experts at the National Association of 
Drug Court Professionals and the State and local judges, prosecutors, 
law enforcement officers and other officials who have done so much to 
establish, build upon and continually improve our Nation's drug court 
system.
  I also want to take a moment to thank Judge Karen Freeman Wilson, 
Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Drug Court 
Professionals, Stuart VanMeveren, District Attorney for Colorado's 
Eighth Judicial District, and Colorado State University President 
Albert Yates for their letters of support for the Campus CORT 
legislation I am introducing today. Their support for this bill is 
appreciated.
  I ask unanimous consent that the three letters of support and the 
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2941

       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 ``Campus Classmate Offenders 
     in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act'' or the ``Campus CORT 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF CAMPUS DRUG COURTS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, acting through the 
     Office of Justice Programs, is authorized to make 
     demonstration grants to accredited universities and colleges 
     to establish not to exceed 5 campus classmate offenders in 
     rehabilitation and treatment programs (referred to as 
     ``Campus CORTS'') each fiscal year modeled after the 
     statewide local drug court programs throughout the United 
     States.
       (b) Campus CORTS.--Campus CORTS shall--
       (1) be established at accredited colleges or universities;
       (2) have jurisdiction over substance abuse related 
     disciplinary cases involving students that may or may not be 
     criminal in nature, including illegal drug use, abuse of 
     prescription drugs, alcohol abuse, and other issues, but no 
     student who is deemed to be a danger to the community may be 
     involved;
       (3) pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney 
     General, establish appropriate quasi-judicial standards and 
     procedures for disciplinary cases; and
       (4) impose as the ultimate sanction expulsion from school.
       (c) Consultation.--The Attorney General shall consult with 
     the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, d.b.a., 
     the National Drug Court Institute, universities and colleges, 
     including the Campus Drug Court program at Colorado State 
     University, and other experts in establishing quasi-judicial 
     standards required by this Act.
       (d) Assistance.--The Attorney General shall make grants to 
     qualified universities and colleges, the National Association 
     of Drug Court Professionals, d.b.a., the National Drug Court 
     Institute, and other associations and experts to assist in 
     establishing campus drug courts and provide training and 
     technical assistance in support of the program.
       (e) Grant Making Considerations.--In awarding grants to 
     qualified colleges or universities, the Office of Justice 
     Programs should--
       (1) endeavor to include colleges and universities of 
     different sizes across the United States; and
       (2) enable colleges and universities to apply for grants 
     through the Internet site of the Office of Justice Programs.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 2003 through 2006 to carry out this Act.
                                  ____

                                                  August 23, 2002.
     Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: As the representative of the 
     National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and 
     of the drug court professionals throughout the country I am 
     writing this letter of support for your bill for the ``Campus 
     Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act'' or 
     the `'Campus CORT Act.'' Modeled after the ``campus drug 
     court'' at Colorado State University, campus drug courts 
     nationwide are the exciting next step in the drug court 
     arena. I truly appreciate your commitment to making them a 
     reality.
       All of the drug court professionals across America laud the 
     depth of your knowledge about substance abuse and its 
     concomitant crime and appreciate your steadfast support of 
     stopping the revolving door of drug addiction and crime in 
     our criminal justice system. With the alarming news about 
     drug use and binge drinking on college campuses, the Campus 
     CORT Act will face the campus drug and alcohol use and abuse 
     problem head on, preventing accidents and crimes at colleges 
     and universities throughout the nation.
       Taking the drug court concept to this next level, to 
     college campuses, is the logical way

[[Page 16856]]

     to further the fight against substance abuse and criminal 
     behavior. As you know, Columbia University's prestigious 
     National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) 
     report from 2001 states that drug courts provide closer, more 
     comprehensive supervision and much more frequent drug testing 
     and monitoring during the program, than other forms of 
     community supervision. In addition, it found that drug use 
     and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while 
     offenders are participating in drug court.
       Again, thank you for introducing the `'Campus CORT Act'' 
     and for your continuing support of drug courts. I look 
     forward to continuing to work with you and your staff in the 
     future.
           Very truly yours,
                                Judge Karen Freeman Wilson (ret.),
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____

         Office of the District Attorney, Eighth Judicial 
           District, State of Colorado,
                                Fort Collins, CO, August 28, 2002.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Fort Collins, CO.
       Dear Senator Campbell: I wholeheartedly support your 
     proposed ``Campus CORT Act.''.
       As you know, Colorado State University, through the work of 
     Dr. Cheryl Asmus and others, has developed a Campus Drug 
     Court that is now in full operation. Prior to the 
     implementation of the CSU Campus Drug Court, many bright, 
     promising college students lost their opportunity to obtain 
     their college degree because of being dismissed from school 
     as a result of a drug or alcohol addiction. This new pilot 
     program provides students who have drug or alcohol problems a 
     process in which they can address their usage problem while 
     staying in school. Colorado State University's project has 
     proven very successful. Very few students in the program have 
     failed to abide by the program requirements. Most 
     participants have been able to abstain from usage. This 
     success is due to the very strong impetus for students to 
     ``stay clean'' by allowing them to continue to have access to 
     grants and loans, as well as remain at the university so long 
     as they abide by drug court requirements.
       Federal legislation that creates funding to expand the 
     campus drug court program is an excellent proposal. This 
     program helps promising young people, who have chosen to 
     improve their lives through a college education, succeed when 
     alcohol and drugs may be the one obstacle that stands in 
     their way. They are given the opportunity to stay in school, 
     graduate, and become contributing members of society. That 
     success is insured by addressing a drug or alcohol addiction 
     problem that very well would have a negative affect on their 
     families and their ability to succeed professionally.
       The availability of federal funds to assist in starting 
     these programs across the country has the promise of spawning 
     very successful drug and alcohol programs nationwide. The 
     traditional Drug Court concept has been very successful. The 
     Campus CORT Act can provide the resources that will result in 
     the same success opportunity for students at our colleges and 
     universities.
       We wish you every success in your efforts to pass this 
     legislation. If there is anything I can do to assist, please 
     do not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                             Stuart A. Vanmeveren,
     District Attorney.
                                  ____



                                    Colorado State University,

                              Fort Collins, CO, September 4, 2002.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: This letter serves as strong support 
     for the bill you are proposing to introduce to the United 
     States Senate that will authorize the appropriation of funds 
     to establish ``drug courts'' at other colleges and 
     universities. These drug courts will be modeled after the 
     Drug Courts Program, and the Colorado State University (CSU) 
     campus drug court. I understand that CSU will play a critical 
     role as consultant to the Attorney General of the United 
     States in this effort, and we are committed to working in any 
     capacity in this effort. As the first, and only university 
     with a campus drug court to date, we are in a unique position 
     to provide first-hand experience and advice.
       In late 1999, the Family and Youth Institute at Colorado 
     State University set up several meetings with the CSU Office 
     of Judicial Affairs and Colorado's Eighth Judicial District 
     Drug Court. The result of these meetings spawned an effort to 
     apply for support to establish a ``campus drug court.'' In 
     mid-2001, the Family and Youth Institute was awarded two 
     years of support for the drug court from the U.S. Department 
     of Education. Currently, a cross-disciplinary team meets 
     weekly to staff the drug court students. After one semester 
     in operation, all but four (one school dropout, two expelled 
     from program, one positive breathalyzer) of approximately 20 
     students remain trouble and AOD free. So far, we have three 
     drug court graduates and recorded improvements in the other 
     participants in terms of grades, employment, family 
     situations, attitudes, and behaviors.
       As a Carnegie Class I research institution, CSU is poised 
     to lead the field in determining what factors of a drug court 
     influence their success. I am aware of the current debates 
     across the nation of the true impacts of the 1000 plus drug 
     courts. I am confident that by introducing the model into the 
     world of academia, inevitably it will inevitably spur 
     research that will result in research-based evidence to 
     concretely address these debates and concerns.
       We have found the model to be easily adaptable to our 
     campus setting and have listed as one of our four goals to 
     assist other campuses in developing their own campus drug 
     courts. We are extremely grateful and appreciative you have 
     decided to assist us in this goal. It is not an accident that 
     Colorado State University, and Colorado, will lead in this 
     effort. You have long championed drug courts and, in 
     particular, the Eighth Judicial District's Juvenile Drug 
     Court, our mentor.
       A key strategy of Colorado State University is civic 
     education renewal. A part of this strategy is to focus on 
     initiatives and programs that assist students in developing 
     into people of integrity and strong values. We are also 
     dedicated to the ability to graduate students in four years 
     who are prepared to enter the world as contributing citizens. 
     Using dismissal or expulsion as a consequence for someone 
     with a substance abuse problem is a quick fix for our campus, 
     but not for the individual or the community at large. As a 
     land-grand institution, valuing service to our society, we 
     believe the integration of drug court's goal of using 
     treatment with strong interventions into the disciplinary 
     system, as an alternative to dismissal or expulsion directly 
     supports the mission of Colorado State University.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Albert C. Yates,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. Crapo (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Specter, Mr. Miller, Mr. 
        McCain, and Mr. Bunning)
  S. 2942. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
eliminate the five-month waiting period in the disability insurance 
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. Crapo. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important 
legislation that will correct a serious flaw in the Social Security 
Disability Insurance program, which currently forces many Americans who 
are diagnosed with a terminal illness to live out their final days in 
poverty.
  Under current law, any eligible individual applying for SSDI benefits 
must wait 5 full months before he or she can begin receiving benefits. 
I appreciate the support of Senator Bayh, Senator Specter, Senator 
McCain, and Senator Miller for this bill that will eliminate the 
waiting period for those individuals with terminal illnesses.
  Far too often, I have had terminally ill constituents contact me 
through my State offices with horror stories about their personal 
experiences. These people are healthy, hard-working members of our 
society. Suddenly, they are told by their doctor that they have a 
terminal illness and that it would be best if they stop working and go 
on disability as soon as possible to maintain their strength. However, 
because of the waiting period, before they know it, these people are 
several months behind in their bills. Others, unfortunately, do not 
even live through the full waiting period.
  I am sure that if any of my colleagues were to contact their State 
offices and speak to their staff that handle these disability cases, 
they would find that their constituents have faced similar difficulties 
with this waiting period. Like every other hard-working American, these 
terminally ill individuals have all paid into the Social Security 
system throughout their working lives, with the expectation that future 
benefits would be there to supplement lost income should a disability 
or serious illness ensue.
  I am please that this legislation has the support of the National 
Association for the Terminally Ill. This organization's primary mission 
is to assist individuals diagnosed with a terminal illness, whose life 
expectancy is two years or less. They have told me of the many 
individuals that have come to them for assistance, faced with no 
income, while waiting through those 5 months before receiving 
disability benefits. Frequently, the association is contacted by people 
who are forced to sell furniture, cars, family heirlooms, and even 
their homes, just to pay expenses for daily living.
  Two years ago, this Congress did the right thing by waiving the 24-
month

[[Page 16857]]

waiting period for Medicare coverage for individuals diagnosed with Lou 
Gehrig's Disease. The time has now come for Congress to take the 
appropriate action to relieve part of what is already an unthinkable 
burden on all terminally ill individuals.
  I invite my colleagues to join us in this effort and I hope the 
Senate will proceed expeditiously with this important legislation that 
will provide relief for tens of thousands of working Americans. 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. 2942

       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 ``Social Security Act 
     Improvements for the Terminally Ill Act''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF TITLE II WAITING PERIOD FOR TERMINALLY 
                   ILL INDIVIDUALS.

       Section 223(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     423(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``he meets the 
     requirements of paragraph (3), or'' after ``but only if''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), an individual meets 
     the requirements of this paragraph if--
       ``(i) the impairment underlying a finding that the 
     individual is under a disability results in his death prior 
     to the end of the applicable period described in subparagraph 
     (B), or
       ``(ii)(I) in the case where such finding is made before the 
     end of the applicable period, the Commissioner determines 
     that, at the time such finding is made, such impairment is 
     expected to result in the individual's death prior to the end 
     of such period, or
       ``(II) in the case where such finding is made after the end 
     of the applicable period, the Commissioner determines that, 
     at any time during such period, such impairment was expected 
     to result in the individual's death prior to the end of such 
     period.
       ``(B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable 
     period' is the period of the first six consecutive calendar 
     months throughout which such individual is under a disability 
     by reason of such impairment which begins not earlier than 
     the first day of the period described in subsection 
     (c)(2)(B).''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect with 
     respect to applications filed after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Leahy, and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 2943. A bill to amend title 9, United States Code, to provide for 
greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to livestock and 
poultry contracts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Iowa to 
introduce legislation to give farmers options in identifying a forum to 
resolve disputes with agribusinesses.
  This legislation is based on our amendment to the Senate-passed Farm 
Bill that was unfortunately stripped in the conference committee. Our 
amendment passed by a vote of 64-31, yet it was ultimately taken out 
due to objections by large agribusiness companies in the backroom 
negotiations.
  While our effort then was not successful, I am hopeful that we will 
be able to pass this legislation and begin to give farmers a fair shot 
in the marketplace.
  I am deeply concerned that the concentration of power in the hands of 
a few large agribusiness firms, companies that can raise a billion 
dollars on Wall Street at the drop of a hat, is forcing farmers and 
ranchers to be placed at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.
  These large corporations are using their market power to force 
independent producers into a position of weakness through unfair 
contracts and other uses of market leverage.
  In some cases, the domestic marketplace has become almost 
noncompetitive for the family farmer. Farmers have fewer buyers and 
suppliers than ever before. One indication of this dominance is one-
sided contracts that favor agribusinesses at the expense of farmers and 
ranchers.
  It is of paramount importance that we help restore competition in 
rural America. One way to promote competition is to ensure that farmers 
have a choice of forums to resolve disputes with agribusinesses.
  While alternative methods of dispute resolution such as arbitration 
can serve a useful purpose in resolving disputes between parties, I am 
extremely concerned about the increasing trend of stronger parties to a 
contract forcing weaker parties to waive their legal rights and agree 
to arbitrate any future disputes that may arise.
  It recently came to my attention that large agribusiness companies 
often present producers with ``take it or leave it'' contracts, which 
increasingly include mandatory and binding arbitration clauses. This 
practice forces farmers to submit their disputes with packers and 
processors to arbitration.
  As a result, farmers are required to waive access to judicial or 
administrative forums, substantive contract rights, and statutorily 
provided protections. In short, this practice violates the farmers' 
fundamental due process rights and runs directly counter to basic 
principles of fairness.
  Arbitration is billed as an inexpensive alternative to civil 
lawsuits. The opposite, however, is often the case. Filing fees and 
other expenses in arbitration result in much higher costs for the 
parties than civil actions. Attorney fees, whether hourly or 
contingency, are similar regardless of forum.
  For example, in a recent Mississippi case, filing fees for a poultry 
grower to begin an arbitration proceeding were $11,000. This is far 
more than the $150 to $250 cost of filing in civil court. It makes no 
sense for a farmer to seek payment for wrongdoing when he or she has 
lost $10,000, when it costs $11,000 just to get the case before an 
arbitrator.
  The practical result of these mandatory arbitration clauses is that 
farmers have no forum in which to bring their dispute against the 
company. Arbitration clauses require farmers to waive their right to a 
jury trial and bring a dispute only in a forum that my be cost-
prohibitive. Farmers, who likely have substantial debts due to low 
prices and large mortgages on their farms, are often left without any 
recourse even in a case where the agribusiness has plainly acted 
illegally.
  With the litigation option taken away by contract and the arbitration 
forum taken away by economics, the grower has no forum in which to 
bring his or her dispute against the company. The net result of these 
mandatory arbitration clauses is that the farmer always loses.
  If poultry farmers lose their farms as a result of a mis-weighed 
animal, they should have the right to hold the company accountable. 
When farmers are hurt because they have received bad feed, we must 
ensure that they are able to choose the forum through which they can 
resole their concerns.
  If farmers believe they have been provided diseased animals from an 
agribusiness, they should at least have a forum in which to voice their 
concerns.
  In short, we must give farmers a fair choice that both parties to an 
agricultural contract may willingly and knowingly select. This 
legislation therefore does not prohibit arbitration. It simply ensures 
that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights 
and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not waived under 
coercion.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this legislation and give farmers 
options to resolve disputes in the agriculture marketplace.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered printed in the Record, 
as follows:

                                S. 2943

       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 ``Fair Contracts for Growers 
     Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 17. Livestock and poultry contracts

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:

[[Page 16858]]

       ``(1) Livestock.--The term `livestock' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards 
     Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
       ``(2) Livestock or poultry contract.--The term `livestock 
     or poultry contract' means any growout contract, marketing 
     agreement, or other arrangement under which a livestock or 
     poultry grower raises and cares for livestock or poultry.
       ``(3) Livestock or poultry grower.--The term `livestock or 
     poultry grower' means any person engaged in the business of 
     raising and caring for livestock or poultry in accordance 
     with a livestock or poultry contract, whether the livestock 
     or poultry is owned by the person or by another person.
       ``(4) Poultry.--The term `poultry' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
     1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
       ``(b) Consent to Arbitration.--If a livestock or poultry 
     contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a 
     controversy under the livestock or poultry contract, 
     arbitration may be used to settle the controversy only if, 
     after the controversy arises, both parties consent in writing 
     to use arbitration to settle the controversy.
       ``(c) Explanation of Basis for Awards.--If arbitration is 
     elected to settle a dispute under a livestock or poultry 
     contract, the arbitrator shall provide to the parties to the 
     contract a written explanation of the factual and legal basis 
     for the award.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``17. Livestock and poultry contracts.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to a contract 
     entered into, amended, altered, modified, renewed, or 
     extended after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Allen, Ms. 
        Landrieu, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 2945. To authorize appropriations for nanoscience, 
nanoengineering, and nanotechnology research, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 21st Century 
Nanotechnology Act. This bill would authorize a coordinated interagency 
program that will support long-term nanoscale research and development 
leading to potential breakthroughs in areas such as materials and 
manufacturing, nanoelectronics, medicine and healthcare, environment, 
energy, chemicals, biotechnology, agriculture, information technology, 
and national and homeland security. Building on the National 
Nanotechnology Initiative, the bill would authorize appropriations for 
research throughout the government while providing tools for better 
cross-agency management and coordination
  Nanotechnology is the science and technology of building electronic 
circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules on a scale of one 
one-billionth of a meter. It will one day change the way Americans 
live.
  I am convinced that this so-called ``small science'' is the next big 
thing'' in technology. The world is on the cusp of a nanotechnology 
revolution that will change our lives on a scale equal to, if not 
greater than, the computer revolution. The United States could miss 
that revolution if our nanotechnology work remains uncoordinated and 
scattered across a half-dozen Federal agencies. That would be tragic on 
several levels, from scientific to social to economic.
  I am determined that the United States will not miss, but will mine 
the opportunities of nanotechnology. To do this, I want America to 
marshal its various nanotechnology efforts into one driving force to 
remain the world's leader in this burgeoning field. And I believe 
Federal support is essential to achieving that goal.
  The legislation I am pleased to be introducing today with Senator 
Lieberman will provide a smart, accelerated, and coordinated approach 
to nanotechnology research, development, and education. In my view, 
there are three major steps America must take to ensure the highest 
success for its nanotechnology efforts.
  First, a National Nanotechnology Research Program should be 
established to coordinate long-term fundamental nanoscience and 
engineering research. The program's goals will be to ensure America's 
leadership and economic competitiveness in nanotechnology, and to make 
sure ethical and social concerns are taken into account alongside the 
development of this discipline.
  Second, the Federal Government should support nanoscience through a 
program of research grants, and also through the establishment of 
nanotechnology research centers. These centers would serve as key 
components of a national research infrastructure, bringing together 
experts from the various disciplines that must intersect for nanoscale 
projects to succeed. As these research efforts take shape, educational 
opportunities will be the key to their long-term success. As chairman 
of the Commerce Committee's Science, Technology, and Space 
Subcommittee, I have already laid out a challenge to triple the number 
of people graduating with math, science and technology degrees. Today, 
I commit to helping students who would enter the field of 
nanotechnology. This discipline requires multiple areas of expertise. 
Students with the drive and the talent to tackle physics, chemistry, 
and the material sciences simultaneously deserve all the support we can 
offer.
  Third, the government should create connections across its agencies 
to aid in the coordination of nanotechnology efforts. These could 
include a national coordination office, and a Presidential 
Nanotechnology Advisory Committee, modeled on the President's 
Information Technology Advisory Committee.
  I also believe that at these organizational support structures are 
put into place, rigorous evaluation must take place to ensure the 
maximum efficiency of our efforts. The bill would call for an annual 
review of America's nanotechnology efforts from the Presidential 
Advisory Committee, and a periodic review from the National Academy of 
Sciences. In addition to monitoring our own progress, the U.S. should 
keep abreast of the world's nanotechnology efforts through a series of 
benchmarking studies.
  If the Federal Government fails to get behind nanotechnology now with 
organized, goal-oriented support, this nation runs the risk of falling 
behind others in the world who recognize the potential of this 
discipline. Nanotechnology is already making pants more stain-
resistant, making windows self-washing and making car parts stronger 
with tiny particles of clay. What America risks missing is the next 
generation of nanotechnology. In the next wave, nanoparticles and 
nanodevices will become the building blocks of our health care, 
agriculture, manufacturing, environmental cleanup, and even national 
security.
  America risks missing a revolution in electronics, where a device the 
size of a sugar cube could hold all of the information in the Library 
of Congress. Today's silicon-based technologies can only shrink so 
small. Eventually, nanotechnologies will grow devices from the 
molecular level up. Small though they may be, their capabilities and 
their impact will be enormous. Spacecraft could be the size of mere 
molecules.
  America risks missing a revolution in health care. In my home State, 
Oregon State University researchers are working on the microscale to 
create lapel-pin-sized biosensors that use the color-changing cells of 
the Siamese fighting fish to provide instant visual warnings when a 
biotoxin is present. An antimicrobial dressing for battlefield wounds 
is already available today, containing silver nanocrystals that prevent 
infection and reduce inflammation. The health care possibilities for 
nanotechnology are limitless. Eventually, nanoscale particles will 
travel through human bodies to detect and cure disease. Chemotherapy 
could attack individual cancer cells and leave healthy cells intact. 
Tiny bulldozers could unclog blocked arteries. Human disease will be 
fought cell by cell, molecule by molecule, and nanotechnology will 
provide victories over disease that we can't even conceive today.
  America risks missing a host of beneficial breakthroughs. American 
scientists could be the first to create nanomaterials for manufacturing 
and design that are stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and 
safest. Nanoscale devices could scrub automobile pollution out of the 
air as it is produced. Nanoparticles could cover armor to make American 
soldiers almost invisible to enemies and even tend their

[[Page 16859]]

wounds. Nanotechnology could grow steel stronger than what's made 
today, with little or no waste to pollute the environment.
  Moreover--and this is key--America risks missing an economic 
revolution based on nanotechnology. With much of nanotechnology 
existing in a research milieu, venture capitalists are already 
investing $1 billion in American nanotech interests this year alone. 
It's estimated that nano-
technology will become a trillion-dollar industry over the next ten 
years. As nanotechnology grows, the ranks of skilled workers needed to 
discover and apply its capabilities must grow too. In the 
nanotechnology revolution, areas of high unemployment could become 
magnets for domestic production, engineering and research for nano-
technology applications--but only if government doesn't miss the boat.
  The Federal Government is already making some efforts with regard to 
nanotechnology. The U.S. does have a National Nanotechnology 
Initiative. This nation has already committed substantial funds to 
nanotechnology research and development in the coming years. But here's 
my bottom line. It is essential to build on this foundation of funding 
with a framework for sound science over the long term. That is the 
reason for the legislation I am issuing today. On the framework it 
provides, of national coordination and strategic planning, scientists 
will be able to meet the grand challenges of nanotechnology. Over the 
long term, with Federal support, they will be able to plumb the depths 
of its capability, and scale the heights of its potential.
  In 1944 the visionary President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested a 
leading American scientist's opinion on advancing the United States' 
scientific efforts to benefit the world. Dr. Vannevar Bush offered his 
reply to President Harry S Truman the next year, following FDR's death. 
In his report to the President, Dr. Bush wrote, ``The Government should 
accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific 
knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These 
responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they 
vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security. It is 
in keeping also with basic United States policy that the Government 
should foster the opening of new frontiers and this is the modern way 
to do it.''
  Those principles, so true nearly sixty years ago, are truer still 
today. With the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development 
Act, I propose that the government now accept new responsibilities in 
promoting and developing nanotechnology. I hope that the Senate can act 
swiftly on this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2945

       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 ``21st Century Nanotechnology 
     Research and Development Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The emerging fields of nanoscience and nanoengineering 
     (collectively, ``nanotechnology''), in which matter is 
     manipulated at the atomic level (i.e., atom-by- atom or 
     molecule-by-molecule) in order to build materials, machines, 
     and devices with novel properties or functions, are leading 
     to unprecedented scientific and technological opportunities 
     that will benefit society by changing the way many things are 
     designed and made.
       (2) Long-term nanoscale research and development leading to 
     potential breakthroughs in areas such as materials and 
     manufacturing, electronics, medicine and healthcare, 
     environment, energy, chemicals, biotechnology, agriculture, 
     information technology, and national security could be as 
     significant as the combined influences of microelectronics, 
     biotechnology, and information technology on the 20th 
     century. Nanotechnology could lead to things such as--
       (A) new generations of electronics where the entire 
     collection of the Library of Congress is stored on devices 
     the size of a sugar cube;
       (B) manufacturing that requires less material, pollutes 
     less, and is embedded with sophisticated sensors that will 
     internally detect signs of weakness and automatically respond 
     by releasing chemicals that will prevent damage;
       (C) prosthetic and medical implants whose surfaces are 
     molecularly designed to interact with the cells of the body;
       (D) materials with an unprecedented combination of 
     strength, toughness, and lightness that will enable land, 
     sea, air, and space vehicles to become lighter and more fuel 
     efficient;
       (E) selective membranes that can fish out specific toxic or 
     valuable particles from industrial waste or that can 
     inexpensively desalinate sea water; and
       (F) tiny robotic spacecraft that will cost less, consume 
     very little power, adapt to unexpected environments, change 
     its capabilities as needed, and be completely autonomous.
       (3) Long-term, high-risk research is necessary to create 
     breakthroughs in technology. Such research requires 
     government funding since the benefits are too distant or 
     uncertain for industry alone to support. Current Federal 
     investments in nanotechnology research and development are 
     not grounded in any specifically authorized statutory 
     foundation. As a result, there is a risk that future funding 
     for long-term, innovative research will be tentative and 
     subject to instability which could threaten to hinder future 
     Untied States technological and economic growth.
       (4) The Federal government can play an important role in 
     the development of nanotechnology, as this science is still 
     in its infancy, and it will take many years of sustained 
     investment for this field to achieve maturity.
       (5) Many foreign countries, companies and scientists 
     believe that nanotechnology will be the leading technology of 
     the 21st century and are investing heavily into its research. 
     According to a study of international nanotechnology research 
     efforts sponsored by the National Science and Technology 
     Council, the United States is at risk of falling behind its 
     international competitors, including Japan, South Korea, and 
     Europe if it fails to sustain broad based funding in 
     nanotechnology. The United States cannot afford to fall 
     behind our competitors if we want to maintain our economic 
     strength.
       (6) Advances in nanotechnology stemming from Federal 
     investments in fundamental research and subsequent private 
     sector development likely will create technologies that 
     support the work and improve the efficiency of the Federal 
     government, and contribute significantly to the efforts of 
     the government's mission agencies.
       (7) According to various estimates, including those of the 
     National Science Foundation, the market for nanotech products 
     and services in the United States alone could reach over $1 
     trillion later this century.
       (8) Nanotechnology will evolve from modern advances in 
     chemical, physical, biological, engineering, medical, and 
     materials research, and will contribute to cross-disciplinary 
     training of the 21st century science and technology 
     workforce.
       (9) Mastering nanotechnology will require a unique skill 
     set for scientists and engineers that combine chemistry, 
     physics, material science, and information science. Funding 
     in these critical areas has been flat for many years and as a 
     result fewer young people are electing to go into these areas 
     in graduate schools throughout the United States. This will 
     have to reverse if we hope to develop the next generation of 
     skilled workers with multi-disciplinary perspectives 
     necessary for the development of nanotechnology.
       (10) Research on nanotechnology creates unprecedented 
     capabilities to alter ourselves and our environment and will 
     give rise to a host of novel social, ethical, philosophical, 
     and legal issues. To appropriately address these issues will 
     require wide reflection and guidance that are responsive to 
     the realities of the science, as well as additional research 
     to predict, understand, and alleviate anticipated problems.
       (11) Nanotechnology will provide structures to enable the 
     revolutionary concept of quantum computing, which uses 
     quantum mechanical properties to do calculation. Quantum 
     computing permits a small number of atoms to potentially 
     store and process enormous amounts of information. Just 300 
     interacting atoms in a quantum computer could store as much 
     information as a classical electronic computer that uses all 
     the particles in the universe, and today's complex encryption 
     algorithms, which would take today's best super computer 20 
     billion years, could be cracked in 30 minutes.
       (12) The Executive Branch has previously established a 
     National Nanotechnology Initiative to coordinate Federal 
     nanotechnology research and development programs. This 
     initiative has contributed significantly to the development 
     of nanotechnology. Authorizing legislation can serve to 
     establish new technology goals and research directions, 
     improve agency coordination and oversight mechanisms, help 
     ensure optimal returns to investment, and simplify reporting, 
     budgeting, and planning processes for the Executive Branch 
     and the Congress.
       (13) The private sector technology innovations that grow 
     from fundamental

[[Page 16860]]

     nanotechnology research are dependent on a haphazard, 
     expensive, and generally inefficient technology transition 
     path. Strategies for accelerating the transition of 
     fundamental knowledge and innovations in commercial products 
     or to support mission agencies should be explored, developed, 
     and when appropriate, executed.
       (14) Existing data on the societal, ethical, educational, 
     legal, and workforce implications and issues related to 
     nanotechnology are lacking. To help decision-makers and 
     affected parties better anticipate issues likely to arise 
     with the onset and maturation of nanotechnology, research and 
     studies on these issues must be conducted and disseminated.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act to authorize a coordinated 
     inter-agency program that will support long-term nanoscale 
     research and development leading to potential breakthroughs 
     in areas such as materials and manufacturing, 
     nanoelectronics, medicine and healthcare, environment, 
     energy, chemicals, biotechnology, agriculture, information 
     technology, and national and homeland security.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) National Nanotechnology Research Program.--The 
     President shall establish a National Nanotechnology Research 
     Program. Through appropriate agencies, councils, and the 
     National Coordination Office, the program shall--
       (1) establish the goals, priorities, grand challenges, and 
     metrics for evaluation for Federal nanotechnology research, 
     development, and other activities;
       (2) invest in Federal research and development programs in 
     nanotechnology and related sciences to achieve those goals; 
     and
       (3) provide for interagency coordination of Federal 
     nanotechnology research, development, and other activities 
     undertaken pursuant to the program.
       (b) Goals of the National Nano-
     technology Research Program.--The goals of the program are as 
     follows:
       (1) The coordination of long-term fundamental nanoscience 
     and engineering research to build a fundamental understanding 
     of matter enabling control and manipulation at the nanoscale.
       (2) The assurance of continued United States global 
     leadership in nanotechnology to meet national goals and to 
     support national economic, health, national security, 
     educational, and scientific interests.
       (3) The advancement of United States productivity and 
     industrial competitiveness through stable, consistent, and 
     coordinated investments in long-term scientific and 
     engineering research in nanotechnology.
       (4) The development of a network of shared academic 
     facilities and technology centers that will play a critical 
     role in accomplishing the other goals of the program, foster 
     partnerships, and develop and utilize next generation 
     scientific tools.
       (5) The development of enabling infrastructural 
     technologies that United States industry can use to 
     commercialize new discoveries and innovations in nanoscience.
       (6) The acceleration of the deployment and transition of 
     advanced and experimental nanotechnology and concepts into 
     the private sector.
       (7) The establishment of a program designed to provide 
     effective education and training for the next generation of 
     researchers and professionals skilled in the multi 
     disciplinary perspectives necessary for nanotechnology.
       (8) To ensure that philosophical, ethical, and other 
     societial concerns will be considered alongside the 
     development of nanotechnology.
       (c) Research and Development Areas.--Through its 
     participating agencies, the Nanotechnology Research and 
     Development Program shall develop, fund, and manage Federal 
     research programs in the following areas:
       (1) Long-term fundamental research.--The program shall 
     undertake long-term basic nanoscience and engineering 
     research that focuses on fundamental understanding and 
     synthesis of nanometer-size building blocks with potential 
     for breakthroughs in areas such as materials and 
     manufacturing, nanoelectronics, medicine and healthcare, 
     environment, energy, chemical and pharmaceuticals industries, 
     biotechnology and agriculture, computation and information 
     technology, and national security. Funds made available from 
     the appropriate agencies under this paragraph shall be used--
       (A) to provide awards of less than $1,000,000 each to 
     single investigators and small groups to provide sustained 
     support to individual investigators and small groups 
     conducting fundamental, innovative research; and
       (B) to fund fundamental research and the development of 
     university-industry-laboratory and interagency partnerships.
       (2) Grand challenges.--The program shall support grand 
     challenges that are essential for the advancement of the 
     field and interdisciplinary research and education teams, 
     including multidisciplinary nanotechnology research centers, 
     that work on major long-term objectives. This funding area 
     will fund, through participating agencies, interdisciplinary 
     research and education teams that aim to achieve major, long-
     term objectives, such as the following:
       (A) Nanomaterials by design which are stronger, lighter, 
     harder, self-repairing, and safer.
       (B) Nanoelectronics, optoelectronics, and magnetics.
       (C) Healthcare applications.
       (D) Nanoscale processes and environment.
       (E) Energy and energy conservation.
       (F) Microspacecraft.
       (G) Bio-nanodevices for detection and mitigation of 
     biothreats to humans.
       (H) Economical, efficient, and safe transportation.
       (I) National security.
       (J) Other appropriate challenges.
       (3) Interdisciplinary nanotechnology research centers.--The 
     appropriate agencies shall fund 10 new centers in the range 
     of $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 per year each for 5 years. A 
     grant under this paragraph to a center may be renewed for 1 
     5-year term on the basis of that center's performance, 
     determined after a review. The program, through its 
     participating agencies, shall encourage research networking 
     among centers and researchers and require access to 
     facilities to both academia and industry. The centers shall 
     assist in reaching other initiative priorities, including 
     fundamental research, grand challenges, education, 
     development and utilization of specific research tools, and 
     promoting partnerships with industry. To the greatest extent 
     possible, agencies participating in the program shall 
     establish geographically diverse centers including at least 
     one center in a State participating in the National Science 
     Foundation's (NSF) Experimental Program, to Stimulate 
     Competitive Research (EPSCoR), established under section 113 
     of the NSF Authorization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1862(g)).
       (4) Research infrastructure.--The program, through its 
     participating agencies, shall ensure adequate research 
     infrastructure and equipment for rapid progress on program 
     goals, including the employment of underutilized 
     manufacturing facilities in areas of high unemployment as 
     production engineering and research testbeds for micron-scale 
     technologies. Major research equipment and instrumentation 
     shall be an eligible funding purpose under the program.
       (5) Societal, ethical, educational, legal, and workforce 
     issues related to nanotechnology.--The Director of the 
     National Science Foundation shall establish a new Center for 
     Ethical, Societal, Educational, Legal, and Workforce Issues 
     Related to Nanotechnology at $5,000,000 per year to 
     encourage, conduct, coordinate, commission, collect, and 
     disseminate research on the societal, ethical, educational, 
     legal, and workforce issues related to nanotechnology. The 
     Center shall also conduct studies and provide input and 
     assistance to the Director of the National Science Foundation 
     in completing the annual report required under paragraph 
     7(b)(3) of this Act.
       (6) Transition of technology.--The program, through its 
     participating agencies, shall ensure cooperation and 
     collaboration with United States industry in all relevant 
     research efforts and develop mechanisms to assure prompt 
     technology transition.

     SEC. 5. PROGRAM COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The National Science and Technology 
     Council shall oversee the planning, management, and 
     coordination of the Federal nanotechnology research and 
     development program. The Council, itself or through an 
     appropriate subgroup it designates or establishes, shall--
       (1) establish a set of broad applications of nanotechnology 
     research and development, or grand challenges, to be met by 
     the results and activities of the program, based on national 
     needs;
       (2) submit to the Congress through the Senate Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House of 
     Representatives Committee on Science, an annual report, along 
     with the President's annual budget request, describing the 
     implementation of the program under section 4;
       (3) provide for interagency coordination of the program, 
     including with the Department of Defense;
       (4) coordinate the budget requests of each of the agencies 
     involved in the program with the Office of Management and 
     Budget to ensure that a balanced research portfolio is 
     maintained in order to ensure the appropriate level of 
     research effort;
       (5) provide guidance each year to the participating 
     departments and agencies concerning the preparation of 
     appropriations requests for activities related to the 
     program;
       (6) consult with academic, industry, State and local 
     government, and other appropriate groups conducting research 
     on and using nanotechnology;
       (7) establish an Information Services and Applications 
     Council to promote access to and early application of the 
     technologies, innovations, and expertise derived from 
     nanotechnology research and development program activities to 
     agency missions and systems across the Federal government, 
     and to United States industry;
       (8) in cooperation with the Advisory Panel established 
     under subsection (b), develop and apply measurements using 
     appropriate

[[Page 16861]]

     metrics for evaluating program performance and progress 
     toward goals; and
       (9) identify research areas which are not being adequately 
     addressed by the agencies' current research programs.
       (b) President's Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.--
       (1) Establishment.--The President shall establish a 
     National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.
       (2) Selection procedures.--The President shall establish 
     procedures for the selection of individuals not employed by 
     the Federal government who are qualified in the science of 
     nanotechnology and other appropriate fields and may, pursuant 
     to such procedures, select up to 20 individuals, one of whom 
     shall be designated Chairman, to serve on the Advisory Panel. 
     Selection of individuals for the Advisory Panel shall be 
     based solely on established records of distinguished 
     fundamental and applied scientific service, and the panel 
     shall contain a reasonable cross-section of views and 
     expertise, including those regarding the societal, ethical, 
     educational, legal, and workforce issues related to 
     nanotechnology. In selecting individuals to serve on the 
     Advisory Panel, the President shall seek and give due 
     consideration to recommendations from the Congress, industry, 
     the scientific community (including the National Academy of 
     Sciences), scientific professional societies, academia, the 
     defense community, the education community, State and local 
     governments, and other appropriate organizations.
       (3) Meetings.--The Advisory Panel shall meet no less than 
     twice annually, at such times and places as may be designated 
     by the Chairman in consultation with the National 
     Nanotechnology Coordination Office established under 
     subsection 5(c) of this Act.
       (4) Duties.--The Advisory Panel shall advise the President 
     and the National Science and Technology Council, and inform 
     the Congress, on matters relating to the National 
     Nanotechnology Program, including goals, roles, and 
     objectives within the program, its capabilities and research 
     needs, guidance on achieving major objectives, and 
     establishing and measuring performance goals using 
     appropriate metrics. The Advisory Panel shall issue an annual 
     report, containing the information required by subsection (d) 
     of this section, to the President, the Council, the heads of 
     each agency involved in the program, the Senate Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House of 
     Representatives Committee on Science, on or before September 
     30 of each year.
       (c) National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.--The 
     President shall establish a National Nanotechnology 
     Coordination Office, with full-time staff, to provide day-to-
     day technical and administrative support to the Council and 
     the Advisory Panel, and to be the point of contact on Federal 
     nanotechnology activities for government organizations, 
     academia, industry, professional societies, and others to 
     exchange technical and programmatic information. The Office 
     shall assure full coordination of research efforts between 
     agencies, scientific disciplines, and United States industry.
       (d) Program Plans and Reports.--
       (1) Annual evaluation of nano-
     technology research development program.--The report by the 
     Advisory Panel, required pursuant to subsection (b)(4), shall 
     include--
       (A) a review of the program's technical success in 
     achieving the stated goals and grand challenges according to 
     the metrics established by the program and Advisory Panel;
       (B) a review of the program's management and coordination;
       (C) a review of the funding levels by each agency for the 
     program's activities and their ability to achieve the 
     program's stated goals and grand challenges;
       (D) a review of the balance in the program's portfolio and 
     components across agencies and disciplines;
       (E) an assessment of the degree of participation in the 
     program by minority serving institutions and institutions 
     located in States participating in NSF's EPSCoR program.
       (F) a review of policy issues resulting from advancements 
     in nanotechnology and its effects on the scientific 
     enterprise, commerce, workforce, competitiveness, national 
     security, medicine, and government operations;
       (G) recommendations for new program goals and grand 
     challenges;
       (H) recommendations for new research areas, partnerships, 
     coordination and management mechanisms, or programs to be 
     established to achieve the program's stated goals and grand 
     challenges;
       (I) recommendations for new investments by each 
     participating agency in each program funding area for the 5-
     year period following the delivery of the report;
       (J) reviews and recommendations regarding other issues 
     deemed pertinent or specified by the panel; and
       (K) a technology transition study which includes an 
     evaluation of the Federal nanotechnology research and 
     development program's success in transitioning its research, 
     technologies, and concepts into commercial and military 
     products, including--
       (i) examples of successful transition of research, 
     technologies, and concepts from the Federal nanotechnology 
     research and development program into commercial and military 
     products;
       (ii) best practices of universities, government, and 
     industry in promoting efficient and rapid technology 
     transition in the nanotechnology sector;
       (iii) barriers to efficient technology transition in the 
     nanotechnology sector, including, but not limited to, 
     standards, pace of technological change, qualification and 
     testing of research products, intellectual property issues, 
     and Federal funding; and
       (iv) recommendations for government sponsored activities to 
     promote rapid technology transition in the nanotechnology 
     sector.
       (2) Office of management and budget report.--
       (A) Budget request report.--Each Federal agency and 
     department participating in the program shall, as part of its 
     annual request for appropriations, submit a report to the 
     Office of Management and Budget which--
       (i) identifies each element of its nanotechnology research 
     and development activities that contributes directly to the 
     program or benefits from the program;
       (ii) states the portion of its request for appropriations 
     that is allocated to each such element; and
       (iii) states the portion of its request for appropriations 
     that is allocated to each program funding area.
       (B) OMB review and allocation statement.--The Office of 
     Management and Budget shall review each report in light of 
     the goals, priorities, grand challenges, and agency and 
     departmental responsibilities set forth in the annual report 
     of the Council under paragraph (3), and shall include in the 
     President's annual budget estimate, a statement delineating 
     the amount and portion of each appropriate agency's or 
     department's annual budget estimate relating to its 
     activities undertaken pursuant to the program.
       (3) Annual nstc report to congress on the nanotechnology 
     research development program.--The National Science and 
     Technology Council shall submit an annual report to the 
     Congress that--
       (A) includes a detailed description of the goals, grand 
     challenges, and program funding areas established by the 
     President for the program;
       (B) sets forth the relevant programs and activities, for 
     the fiscal year with respect to which the budget submission 
     applies, of each Federal agency and department, participating 
     in the program, as well as such other agencies and 
     departments as the President or the Director considers 
     appropriate;
       (C) describes the levels of Federal funding for the fiscal 
     year during which such report is submitted, and the levels 
     proposed for the fiscal year with respect to which the budget 
     submission applies, for each of the program funding areas of 
     the program;
       (D) describes the levels of Federal funding for each agency 
     and department participating in the program and each program 
     funding area for the fiscal year during which such report is 
     submitted, and the levels proposed for the fiscal year with 
     respect to which the budget submission applies, and compare 
     these levels to the most recent recommendations of the 
     Advisory Panel and the external review of the program;
       (E) describes coordination and partnership activities with 
     State, local, international, and private sector efforts in 
     nanotechnology research and development, and how they support 
     the goals of the program;
       (F) describes mechanisms and efforts used by the program to 
     assist in the transition of innovative concepts and 
     technologies from Federally funded programs into the 
     commercial sector, and successes in these transition 
     activities;
       (G) describes coordination between the military and 
     civilian portions, as well as the life science and non-life 
     science portions, of the program in technology development, 
     supporting the goals of the program, and supporting the 
     mission needs of the departments and agencies involved;
       (H) analyzes the progress made toward achieving the goals, 
     priorities, and grand challenges designated for the program 
     according the metrics established by the program and the 
     Advisory Panel; and
       (I) recommends new mechanisms of coordination, program 
     funding areas, partnerships, or activities necessary to 
     achieve the goals, priorities and, grand challenges 
     established for the program.
       (4) Triennial external review of nanotechnology research 
     and development program.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall enter into an arrangement with the National 
     Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to 
     conduct a triennial evaluation of the Federal nanotechnology 
     research and development program, including--
       (i) a review of the technical success of the program in 
     achieving the stated goals and grand challenges under the 
     metrics established by the program and the nanotechnology 
     Advisory Panel, and under other appropriate measurements;
       (ii) a review of the program's management and coordination 
     across agencies and disciplines;

[[Page 16862]]

       (iii) a review of the funding levels by each agency for the 
     program's activities and their ability with such funding to 
     achieve the program's stated goals and grand challenges;
       (iv) recommendations for new or revised program goals and 
     grand challenges;
       (v) recommendations for new research areas, partnerships, 
     coordination and management mechanisms, or programs to be 
     established to achieve the program's stated goals and grand 
     challenges;
       (vi) recommendations for investment levels in light of 
     goals by each participating agency in each program funding 
     area for the 5-year period following the delivery of the 
     report;
       (vii) recommendations on policy, program, and budget 
     changes with respect to nanotechnology research and 
     development activities;
       (viii) recommendations for improved metrics to evaluate the 
     success of the program in accomplishing its stated goals; and
       (ix) a review the performance of the Information Services 
     and Applications Council and its efforts to promote access to 
     and early application of the technologies, innovations, and 
     expertise derived from program activities to agency missions 
     and systems across the Federal government and to United 
     States industry.
       (B) Evaluation to be transmitted to Congress.--The Director 
     of the National Science Foundation shall transmit the results 
     of any evaluation for which it made arrangements under 
     subparagraph (A) to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Science upon receipt. The first such evaluation 
     shall be transmitted no later than 12 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, with subsequent evaluations 
     transmitted to the Committees every 3 years thereafter.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) National Science Foundation.--
       (1) General authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Director of the National Science 
     Foundation to carry out the Director's responsibilities under 
     this Act--
       (A) $221,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       (B) $254,150,000 for fiscal year 2004.
       (2) Specific allocations.--
       (A) Interdisciplinary nanotechnology research centers.--Of 
     the amounts described in paragraph (1), $40,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, shall be 
     available for grants of up to $5,000,000 each for 
     multidisciplinary nanotechnology research centers.
       (B) Center for societal, ethical, educational, legal, and 
     workforce issues related to nanotechnology.--Of the sums 
     authorized for the National Science Foundation each fiscal 
     year, $5,000,000 shall be used to establish a university-
     based Center for Societal, Ethical, Educational, Legal, and 
     Workforce Issues Related to Nano-
     technology.
       (C) National nanotechnology coordination office.--Of the 
     sums authorized for the National Science Foundation each 
     fiscal year, $5,000,000 shall be used for the activities of 
     the Nanotechnology Coordination Office.
       (D) Gap funding through the science and technology policy 
     institute.--Of the sums authorized for the National Science 
     Foundation each fiscal year, $5 million shall be for the 
     Science and Technology Policy Institute, in consultation with 
     the Office of Science and Technology Policy, for use in 
     competitive grants to address research areas identified by 
     the council under section 5(a)(9) of this Act. Such grants 
     may be made to government or non-government awardees.
       (b) Department of Energy.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to carry out the 
     Secretary's responsibilities under this Act--
       (1) $139,300,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       (2) $160,195,000 for fiscal year 2004.
       (c) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration to carry out 
     the Administrator's responsibilities under this Act--
       (1) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       (2) $25,300,000 for fiscal year 2004.
       (d) National Institutes of Health.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Director of the National Institutes to 
     carry out the Director's responsibilities under this Act--
       (1) $43,200,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       (2) $49,680,000 for fiscal year 2004.
       (e) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology to carry out 
     the Director's responsibilities under this Act--
       (1) $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       (2) $50,600,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (f) Environmental Protection Agency.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to carry out the Administrator's 
     responsibilities under this Act--
       (1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       (2) $5,750,000 for fiscal year 2004.
       (g) Department of Justice.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Director of the National Institute of 
     Justice to carry out the Director's responsibilities under 
     this Act--
       (1) $1,400,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       (2) $1,610,000 for fiscal year 2004.

     SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL REPORTS, STUDIES, AND PLANS.

       (a) International Benchmarking Studies.--
       (1) United States standing to be monitored.--In order to 
     maintain world leadership in nanotechnology, the program 
     established under section 4(a) shall monitor the United 
     States' standing in the key research fields that support 
     technological innovation.
       (2) Biennial nstc study of relative united states 
     position.--Not later than 3 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President, through the Council, 
     shall enter into an arrangement with the National Research 
     Council of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
     biennial study of the relative position of United States 
     compared to other nations with respect to nanotechnology 
     research and development.
       (3) Issues to be addressed.--The study required by 
     paragraph (2) shall address, among other issues--
       (A) the current and likely future relative position of 
     United States private sector, academic, and government 
     research in nanotechnology relative to other nations;
       (B) niche nanotechnology research areas where the United 
     States is trailing other nations;
       (C) critical research areas where the United States should 
     be the world leader to best achieve the goals of the Federal 
     nanotechnology research and development program;
       (D) key factors influencing relative United States 
     performance in this field; and
       (E) institutional, funding, and human-resource factors that 
     are critical to maintaining leadership status in this field.
       (4) Action plan.--Not less than 6 months after receipt of 
     each study, the Council shall develop a plan for addressing 
     the issues raised in the study. The plan shall include--
       (A) investment strategies for addressing the issues raised 
     in the report;
       (B) strategies for promoting international research 
     cooperation to leverage international niches of excellence 
     identified by the report; and
       (C) institutional and human-resource changes to be made to 
     achieve or maintain leadership status in this field.
       (5) Transmittal to congress.--The Council shall submit the 
     study required by paragraph (2) and the plan required by 
     paragraph (4) to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee 
     on Science, not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and every 2 years thereafter.
       (b) Societal, Ethical, Education, Legal, and Workforce 
     Issues Related to Nanotechnology.--
       (1) Studies.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall encourage, conduct, coordinate, commission, 
     collect, and disseminate studies on the societal, ethical, 
     educational, and workforce implications of nanotechnology 
     through the Center for Societal, Ethical, Educational, and 
     Workforce Issues established under section 4(c)(5). The 
     studies shall identify anticipated issues and problems, as 
     well as provide recommendations for preventing or addressing 
     such issues and problems.
       (2) Data collection.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall collect data on the size of the anticipated 
     nanotechnology workforce need by detailed occupation, 
     industry, and firm characteristics, and assess the adequacy 
     of the trained talent pool in the United States to fill such 
     workforce needs.
       (3) Annual report.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall compile the studies required by paragraph 
     (2) and, with the assistance of the Center for Ethical, 
     Societal, Educational, Legal, and Workforce Issues Related to 
     Nanotechnology established by paragraph 4(c)(5) if this Act, 
     shall complete a report that includes a description of the 
     Center's activities, which shall be submitted to the 
     President, the Council, the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation, and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Science not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Advisory panel.--The term ``Advisory Panel'' means the 
     President's National Nanotechnology Panel.
       (2) Fundamental research.--The term ``fundamental 
     research'' means research that builds a fundamental 
     understanding and leads to discoveries of the phenomena, 
     processes, and tools necessary to control and manipulate 
     matter at the nanoscale.
       (3) Grand challenge.--The term ``grand challenge'' means a 
     fundamental problem in science or engineering, with broad 
     economic and scientific impact, whose solution will require 
     the application of nanotechnology.
       (4) Interdisciplinary Nanotechnology Research Center.--The 
     term ``interdisciplinary nanotechnology research center'' 
     means a group of 6 or more researchers collaborating across 
     scientific and engineering

[[Page 16863]]

     disciplines on large-scale long-term research projects that 
     will significantly advance the science supporting the 
     development of nanotechnology or the use of nanotechnology in 
     addressing scientific issues of national importance, 
     consistent with the goals set forth in section 4(b).
       (5) Nanotechnology.--The term ``nano-
     technology'' means the ability to work at the molecular 
     level, atom-by-atom, to create large structures with 
     fundamentally new molecular organization.
       (6) Program.--The term ``program'' means the national 
     nanotechnology research program established under section 4.
       (7) Research infrastructure.--The term ``research 
     infrastructure'' means the measurement science, 
     instrumentation, modeling and simulation, and user facilities 
     needed to develop a flexible and enabling infrastructure so 
     that United States industry can rapidly commercialize new 
     discoveries in nanotechnology.
                                  ____

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, our Nation has long prided itself on 
being the world's premier innovator of new ideas. Over the last two and 
a half centuries, the uniquely American willingness to experiment with 
novel concepts and to chart bold directions has placed us at the 
forefront of scientific and technological progress. Our ability to 
engage in scientific exploration and to marry research findings with 
the development of practical applications has, in turn, enabled us to 
set the benchmark on virtually every indicator of human progress, from 
longer lifespans, to higher standards of living, to unparalleled 
economic productivity.
  However, while past accomplishments may confer a present competitive 
advantage, it does not guarantee future success. We cannot afford to 
rest on our laurels in a world that is becoming increasingly 
characterized by the speed with which scientific paradigms shift and 
technological revolutions occur. In a global economy in which ideas and 
technology are the new currency, every new breakthrough represents an 
opportunity to claim, or, in our case, lose, global leadership.
  The emerging field of nanotechnol-
ogy constitutes such an opportunity. It is not just any opportunity, 
however, but one whose magnitude and significance locates it on the 
scale of harnessing electricity, creating antibiotics, building 
computers, or wiring up the Internet. It is, in short, a new frontier 
in science and technology that has the potential to transform every 
aspect of our lives. Nanotechnology, in fact, may have even greater 
potential to affect the way we live since it has such broad prospective 
applications in so many different areas, from medicine, to electronics, 
to energy. Nano-
technology is what scientists and technologists often call an 
``enabling'' technology, a tool that opens the door to new 
possibilities constrained only by physics and the limits of our 
imaginations.
  Yet, despite the enormous potential that nanotechnology offers, it is 
not an area in which we have assumed uncontested leadership. From an 
international prospective, the United States faces the danger of 
falling behind its Asian and European counterparts in supporting the 
pace of nano-
technological innovation. Other nations have grasped the fact that the 
first players to fully capitalize on the promise of nanotechnology have 
the potential to leap frog in productivity and precipitate a 
reshuffling in the economic, and perhaps aspects of the military, 
pecking order. Accordingly, they have undertaken substantial efforts to 
invest in nanotechnology research, and to accelerate technology 
transfer and commercialization. While our Nation certainly possesses 
the raw resources and talent to lead the world in developing this 
technology, it is also clear that a long-term focus and sustained 
commitment, as well as new collaborations between government, academia, 
and industry, will be needed to ensure our place at the head of the 
nanotechnological universe.
  This is why I am so proud today to join my colleague, Senator Ron 
Wyden of Oregon, in introducing the 21st Century Nanotechnology 
Research and Development Act. This Act will build on the efforts of the 
National Nano-
technology Initiative, NNI, which was started under President Clinton 
and has received continued support under President Bush, to establish a 
comprehensive, intelligently coordinated program for addressing the 
full spectrum of challenges confronting a successful national science 
and technology effort, including those related to funding, 
coordination, infrastructure development, technology transition, and 
social issues.
  I feel it is appropriate at this point to give credit to President 
Clinton for having the prescience and initiative of creating the NNI, 
and to applaud President Bush for expanding support for nanotechnology 
R&D from $270 million in FY 2000 to the $710 million targeted in his 
budget request for FY 2003. The NNI has been a key driver of 
nanotechnology in this country by bringing coherence and organization 
to what had previously been a scattered set of research programs within 
the federal government. It has, in no small part through the efforts of 
its spokespersons. Dr. Mike Roco and Dr. Jim Murday, achieved a higher 
profile for nanotechnology both within and outside the government, and 
gathered national attention to the importance of this field.
  The time is now ripe to elevate the U.S. nanotechnology efforts 
beyond the level of an Executive initiative. Funding for nanotechnology 
will soon reach $1 billion a year, and the NNI currently attempts to 
coordinate programs across a wide range of Federal agencies and 
departments. This level of funding and the coordination challenges that 
arise with so many diverse participants strongly recommend having a 
program based in statute, provided with greater support and 
coordination mechanisms, afforded a higher profile, and subjected to 
constructive Congressional oversight and support.
  Our bill closely tracks the recommendations of the National Research 
Council, NRC, which completed a thorough review of the NNI this past 
June. The NRC report stated how impressed the reviewers were with the 
leadership and multi-agency involvement of the NNI. Specifically, it 
commended the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, NSET, 
subcommittee, which is the primary coordinating mechanisms of the NNI, 
as playing a key role in establishing research priorities, identifying 
Grand Challenges, and involving the U.S. scientific community in the 
NNI. To improve the NNI above its current level of success, the NRC 
made a number of recommendations. These recommendations have largely 
been incorporated into our bill, including establishing an independent 
advisory panel; emphasizing long-term goals; striking a balance between 
long-term and short-term research; supporting the development of 
research facilities, equipment, and instrumentation; creating special 
funding to support research that falls in the breach between agency 
missions and programs; promoting interdisciplinary research and 
research groups; facilitating technology transition and outreach to 
industry; conducting studies on the societal implications of 
nanotechnology, including those related to ethical, educational, legal, 
and workforce issues; and the development of metrics for measuring 
progress toward program goals. This legislation will also complement 
the provision that I authored in this year's Senate defense 
authorization bill, S. 2514, establishing a nanotechnology research and 
development program in the Department of Defense. If this provision is 
supported in conference, we will have matching pieces of legislation 
that will encompass and coordinate both civilian and defense 
nanotechnology programs, establishing a truly nationwide effort that 
leverages the expertise residing in every corner of our government.
  If history teaches us anything, it is that once the wheels of 
innovation have stopped and stagnation has set in, mediocrity will soon 
follow. Nowhere in the world are those wheels of innovation spinning 
more rapidly than in the area of nanotechnology. This legislation 
provides a strong foundation and comprehensive framework that elicits 
contributions from all three sectors of our society in pushing 
nanotechnology research and development to the next level. I look 
forward to supporting Senator Wyden in getting this important bill 
through the Congress, and encourage my colleagues to join us in setting

[[Page 16864]]

the stage for U.S. economic growth over the next century.

                          ____________________