[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19064-19075]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 3036. A bill to establish a commission to assess the performance 
of the civil works functions of the Secretary of the Army; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing, with my 
colleagues Senator Johnson, legislation to investigate and hopefully 
change the culture of disregard for environmental values that infects 
the Corps of Engineers' management of America's great rivers. My own 
experiences in South Dakota and my discussions with many of my 
constituents and others around the Nation have led me to conclude that 
protecting the future health of our Nation's waterways demands that 
Congress consider relieving the Corps of its current river management 
responsibilities.
  For the last decade, I have watched as the Corps has steadfastly 
refused to change its management of the Missouri River to reflect the 
environmental and economic needs of the 21st century. The agency's 
refusal to change the management of the river will further jeopardize 
endangered species, drive river-dependent businesses into bankruptcy, 
and lead to further erosion of Native American burial and cultural 
sites along its banks. As a Senator from South Dakota and as a citizen 
of that State who enjoys hunting and fishing along the Missouri, I 
share the sense of betrayal that so many upstream residents feel 
watching the Corps' management slowly degrade this once thriving river.
  Last spring, just when sport fish were spawning and the State was 
facing its worst drought in decades, the Corps began to drain the 
reservoirs to provide water for navigation downstream. This prompted 
lawsuits by South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana to force the Corps 
to bring common-sense management to the river. Since then, boat ramps 
have become unusable, while some river-based businesses have lost tens 
of thousands of dollars.
  There is no legitimate reason for further delay in reforming 
management of

[[Page 19065]]

the Missouri River. For more than a decade, the Corps has spent 
millions of dollars revising its operating plan for water flows on the 
Missouri River, the Master Manual. An overwhelming amount of scientific 
and technical data all point to the same conclusions: the management of 
the river should more closely mimic the natural flow regime. Flows 
should be higher in the spring, and lower in the summer, just as they 
nature. Yet in June, the Corps indefinitely delayed the release of the 
new Master Manual due to pressure from the White House.
  The mismanagement of the Missouri River is illustrative of a larger 
problem. For example, a study of proposed upper-Mississippi lock 
expansion has to be retooled after the Corps whistle blower showed that 
the study was rigged to provide an economic justification for that 
billion-dollar project. A broad pattern of disregard by the Corps for 
environmental priorities throughout the nation's waterways is now 
evident. In addition, the corps has been shown time and again its 
unwillingness to work effectively with members of the public, States, 
tribes, or stakeholders to resolve ongoing challenges.
  Indeed, more than ever, the Corps appears mired in the past, 
incapable of assimilating new scienfic and economic information into 
its management scheme, and, consequently, failing the people and 
wildlife that depend on the sound stewardship of Ameria's rivers. The 
time has come to ask tough questions about the institutional barriers 
within the Corps, and the influence of special interests, that prevent 
it from effectively meeting the Nation's river management needs. The 
time has come to ask whether those responsibilities are better left to 
others. This ongoing situation presents a compelling case for a 
thorough, independent review of the agency's operations and management, 
and for serious reform. Indeed, many of my Senate colleagues have 
introduced legislation to accomplish certain reforms, and I, along with 
others have made it clear that we will fight any effort to pass 
additional authorizations unless they are accompanied by serious, 
meaningful Corps reform.
  Our Nation needs a river management program that is environmentally 
and economically sound. History does not offer much room for confidence 
that the Army Corps of Engineers can meet this standard under its 
current management structure. The management of the Missouri River, the 
Mississippi River, and other major waterways presents a compelling case 
for a thorough, independent review of the agency's operations and 
management, and for serious reform.
  I am introducing legislation today to establish an independent Corps 
of Engineers River Stewardship Investigation and Review Commission. The 
commission will take a hard and systematic look at the agency's 
stewardship of our Nation's rivers and make recommendations to Congress 
on needed reforms. It will examine a number of issues, including Corps 
compliance with environmental and Indian cultural resource protection 
laws; the quality and objectivity of the agency's scientific and 
economic analysis, the Corps' cooperation with Federal agencies, 
States, and tribes; whether congress needs to amend river planning laws 
and regulations; and, ultimately, whether the Corps' river management 
responsibilities should be transferred to a federal civilian agency.
  I urge my colleagues to review this legislation.
  It is my hope that all those who care about the mission of preserving 
our Nation's waterways will support this effort to identify and 
implement whatever reforms are necessary to fulfill that mission. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3036

       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 ``Corps of Engineers River 
     Stewardship Independent Investigation and Review Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Corps of 
     Engineers River Stewardship Independent Investigation and 
     Review Commission established under section 3(a).
       (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (3) Session day.--The term ``session day'' means a day on 
     which both Houses of Congress are in session.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a 
     commission to be known as the ``Corps of Engineers River 
     Stewardship Independent Investigation and Review 
     Commission''.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of not to 
     exceed 22 members, and shall include--
       (A) individuals appointed by the President to represent--
       (i) the Department of the Army;
       (ii) the Department of the Interior;
       (iii) the Department of Justice;
       (iv) environmental interests;
       (v) hydropower interests;
       (vi) flood control interests;
       (vii) recreational interests;
       (viii) navigation interests;
       (ix) the Council on Environmental Quality; and
       (x) such other affected interests as are determined by the 
     President to be appropriate;
       (B) 6 governors from States representing different regions 
     of the United States, as determined by the President; and
       (C) 6 representatives of Indian tribes representing 
     different regions of the United States, as determined by the 
     President.
       (2) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of 
     the Commission shall be made not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Term; Vacancies.--
       (1) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission--
       (A) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
       (B) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment was made.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the 
     Commission.
       (e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall select a Chairperson 
     and Vice Chairperson from among the members of the 
     Commission.
       (2) No corps representative.--The Chairperson and the Vice 
     Chairperson shall not be representatives of the Department of 
     the Army (including the Corps of Engineers).

     SEC. 4. INVESTIGATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Commission shall complete an investigation and 
     submit to Congress a report on the management of rivers in 
     the United States by the Corps of Engineers, with emphasis 
     on--
       (1) compliance with environmental laws in the design and 
     operation of river management projects, including--
       (A) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 
     et seq.);
       (B) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.); and
       (C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (2) compliance with the cultural resource laws that protect 
     Native American graves, traditional cultural properties, and 
     Native American sacred sites in the design and operation of 
     river management projects, including--
       (A) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.);
       (B) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 
     U.S.C. 470aa et seq.);
       (C) the Native American Graves Protection Act and 
     Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
       (D) Executive Order 13007 (61 Fed. Reg. 26771; relating to 
     Indian sacred sites);
       (E) identification of opportunities for developing tribal 
     cooperative management agreements for erosion control, 
     habitat restoration, cultural resource protection, and 
     enforcement;
       (F) review of policy and guidance regarding nondisclosure 
     of sensitive information on the character, nature, and 
     location of traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; 
     and
       (G) review of the effectiveness of government-to-government 
     consultation by the Corps of Engineers with Indian tribes and 
     members of Indian tribes in cases in which the river 
     management functions and activities of the Corps affect 
     Indian land and Native American natural and cultural 
     resources;

[[Page 19066]]

       (3) the quality and objectivity of scientific, 
     environmental, and economic analyses by the Corps of 
     Engineers, including the use of independent reviewers of 
     analyses performed by the Corps;
       (4) the extent of coordination and cooperation by the Corps 
     of Engineers with Federal and State agencies (such as the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service) and Indian tribes in 
     designing and implementing river management projects;
       (5) the extent to which river management studies conducted 
     by the Corps of Engineers fairly and effectively balance the 
     goals of public and private interests, such as wildlife, 
     recreation, navigation, and hydropower interests;
       (6) whether river management studies conducted by the Corps 
     of Engineers should be subject to independent review;
       (7) whether river planning laws (including regulations) 
     should be amended; and
       (8) whether the river management functions of the Corps of 
     Engineers should be transferred from the Department of the 
     Army to a Federal civilian agency.

     SEC. 5. POWERS.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out this Act.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a 
     Federal department or agency such information as the 
     Commission considers necessary to carry out this Act.
       (2) Provision of information.--On request of the 
     Chairperson of the Commission, the head of the department or 
     agency shall provide the information to the Commission.
       (c) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (d) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or personal property.

     SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--
       (1) Non-federal employees.--A member of the Commission who 
     is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall 
     be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission.
       (2) Federal employees.--A member of the Commission who is 
     an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to the compensation received 
     for the services of the member as an officer or employee of 
     the Federal Government.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--A member of the Commission shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from the home or regular place of business 
     of the member in the performance of the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws (including 
     regulations), appoint and terminate an executive director and 
     such other additional personnel as are necessary to enable 
     the Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
       (2) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of 
     an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     Commission.
       (3) Compensation.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Chairperson of the Commission may fix the compensation of 
     the executive director and other personnel without regard to 
     the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 
     of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of 
     positions and General Schedule pay rates.
       (B) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (d) Detail of Federal Government Employees.--
       (1) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government may 
     be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement.
       (2) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee shall 
     be without interruption or loss of civil service status or 
     privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do 
     not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic 
     pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of that title.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate on the date on which the 
     Commission submits the report to Congress under section 4(a).
                                 ______
                                 
  By Mr. JEFFORDS:
  S. 3037. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
improve protection of treatment works from terrorists and other harmful 
intentional acts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wastewater 
Treatment Works Security Safety Act. This legislation provides for the 
safety and security of our Nation's wastewater treatment works by 
providing needed funds to conduct vulnerability assessments and 
implement security improvements. In addition, this bill will ensure 
long-term safety and security by providing funds for researching 
innovative technologies and enhancing proven vulnerability assessment 
tools already in use.
  Since the terrible events of September 11, we have taken several 
comprehensive steps to protect our water supplies and infrastructure. 
Almost a year ago, I spoke on the many initiatives taking place in the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works and at the Environmental 
Protection Agency. I am pleased to say that we have made some progress.
  EPA worked with State and local governments to expeditiously provide 
guidance on the protection of drinking water facilities from terrorist 
attacks. Based on the recommendations of Presidential Decision 
Directive 63, issued by President Clinton in 1998, the Environmental 
Protection Agency and its industry partner, the Association of 
Metropolitan Water Agencies, established a communications system, a 
water infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, designed 
to provide real-time threat assessment data to water utilities 
throughout the nation.
  Earlier this year, Senator Smith and I worked to include the 
authorization of $160 million for vulnerability assessments at drinking 
water facilities as part of the Bioterrorism bill. Despite our advocacy 
during the conference, we were unable to include a provision in that 
bill for wastewater facilities due to jurisdictional issues in the 
House.
  While these initial efforts are essential, our task is by no means 
finished. We cannot forget the vital importance of protecting our 
Nation's wastewater facilities. Everyday we take for granted the 
hundreds of thousands of miles of pipes buried under ground and the 
thousands of wastewater treatment works that keep our water clean and 
safe. But, like all our Nation's critical infrastructure, the 
disruption or destruction of these structures could have a devastating 
impact on public safety and health.
  The legislation I am introducing today will take us one step further 
by authorizing support of ongoing efforts to develop and implement 
vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans at wastewater 
facilities.
  Using existing tools such as the Sandi Laboratory's vulnerability 
assessment tool or the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage 
Association's Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool, treatment works will 
be able to securely identify critical areas of need. With the funds 
provided by this bill, EPA will also ensure that treatment works remedy 
areas of concerns. Using the results of the vulnerability assessment, 
treatment works will develop or revise emergency response plans to 
minimize damage if an attack were to occur.
  This bill authorizes $185 million for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 
for grants to conduct the vulnerability assessments and implement basic 
security enhancements. The bill also recognizes the need to address 
immediate and urgent security needs with a special $20 million 
authorization over 2003 and 2004.
  In my home State of Vermont, we have only three towns of over 25,000 
people. The small water facilities serving these communities have been 
particularly challenged to meet today's new homeland security 
challenges.

[[Page 19067]]

Many times, water managers operate the town's water facilities as a 
part-time job or even as a free service. We must ensure that they are 
afforded the same consideration under this act as the medium and large 
facilities. This bill authorizes $15 million for grants to help small 
communities conduct vulnerability assessments, develop emergency 
response plans, and address potential threats to the treatment works. 
It also instructs the Administrator of the EPA to provide guidance to 
these communities on how to effectively use these security tools.
  To ensure the continued development of wastewater security 
technologies, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act 
authorizes $15 million for research for 2003 and 2007. It also provides 
$500,000 to refine vulnerability self-assessment tools already in 
existence.
  I am proud to say that the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage 
Agencies has endorsed the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act. AMSA 
represents our nation's wastewater treatment works serving large 
cities. They have been an invaluable partner in the drafting of this 
bill, and I thank them sincerely for their support. I ask unanimous 
consent that their letter of support be entered into the Record.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and 
other efforts to enhance the security of our Nation's water 
infrastructure in the weeks, months, and years to come. We truly have 
something to protect--clean, safe, fresh water is worth our investment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       Association of Metropolitan


                                            Sewerage Agencies,

                                  Washington, DC, October 1, 2002.
     Hon. James Jeffords,
     Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Jeffords: The Association of Metropolitan 
     Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) thanks you for the timely 
     introduction of the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and 
     Safety Act. This legislation marks a critical step toward 
     ensuring the safe, uninterrupted operation of the nation's 
     vital wastewater infrastructure. AMSA will be working 
     throughout the closing days of the 107th Congress to secure 
     the passage of this important legislation.
       Of critical importance to AMSA member utilities is the $200 
     million this bill provides to assess vulnerabilities and 
     enhance security at the nation's more than 16,000 public 
     wastewater treatment works. AMSA also believes that the 
     bill's $2.5 million to develop and distribute vulnerability 
     assessment software upgrades will play a key role in ongoing 
     security improvements. AMSA, in coordination with EPA, has 
     developed a vulnerability self assessment tool 
     (VSATTM) for wastewater utilities in the wake of 
     the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. To this end, the 
     $2.5 million provides much-needed support to continue and 
     improve this important initiative.
       The Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act 
     comes at a pivotal juncture for communities struggling to 
     secure their critical wastewater infrastructure while 
     tackling shrinking municipal budgets. AMSA applauds your 
     commitment to addressing municipal security needs for making 
     your staff accessible throughout the drafting of this 
     important legislation. AMSA looks forward to working with 
     you, your staff and other members of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives to ensure the passage of this legislation 
     before Congress adjourns this year.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Ken Kirk,
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire):
  S. 3038. A bill to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to further 
the conservation of certain wildlife species; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President I rise today with Senator Smith of New 
Hampshire to introduce the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, a firm 
commitment to protect public safety and the welfare of wild cats that 
are increasingly being kept as pets.
  Current figures estimate that there are more than 5,000 tigers in 
captivity in the United States. In fact, there are more tigers in 
captivity in the United States than there are in native habitats 
throughout the range in Asia. While some tigers are kept in zoos, most 
of these animals are kept as pets, living in cages behind someone's 
house, in a State that does not restrict private ownership of dangerous 
animals. Tigers are not the only animals sought as exotic pets. Today 
there are more than 1,000 web sites that specialize in the trade of 
lions, cougars, and leopards to promote them as domestic pets.
  Untrained owners are simply not capable of meeting the needs of these 
animals. Local veterinarians, animal shelters, and local governments 
are ill equipped to meet the challenge of providing for their proper 
care. If they are to be kept in captivity, these animals must be cared 
for by trained professionals who can meet their behavioral, 
nutritional, and physical needs.
  People who live near these animals are also in real danger. These 
cats are large and powerful animals, capable of injuring or killing 
innocent people. There are countless stories of many unfortunate and 
unnecessary incidents where dangerous exotic cats have endangered 
public safety. last year in Lexington, TX, a three-year-old boy was 
killed by his stepfather's pet tiger. In Loxahatchee, FL, this past 
February, a 58 year-old woman was bitten on the head by a 750 pound 
Siberian-Bengal Tiger being kept as a pet. Just last month in Quitman, 
AR, four 600 to 800 pound tigers escaped from a ``private safari.'' 
Parents living nearby sat in their own front yards with high-powered 
rifles scared that the wild lions might hurt their children playing the 
front yard.
  The bill I introduce today would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 
1981 and bar the interstate and foreign commerce of carnivorous wild 
cats, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and cougars. The 
legislation would not ban all private ownership of these prohibited 
species. It would outlaw the commerce of these animals for use as pets.
  This is a balanced approach that preserves the rights of those 
entities already regulated by the Department of Agriculture under the 
Animal Welfare Act such as circuses, zoos, and research facilities. 
This Act specifically targets unregulated and untrained individuals who 
are maintaining these wild cats as exotic pets.
  This bill also preserves the importance of local regulations already 
in existence. I sincerely hope that grass roots level organizing 
continues to direct State and local governments to increase the number 
of States and counties that ban private ownership of exotic cats. Full 
bans are already in place in 12 States and partial bans have been 
enacted in 7 States.
  No one should be endangered by those who cannot properly keep these 
animals. Those exotic cats who are in captivity should be able to live 
humanely and healthfully.
  The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on 
the need for comprehensive federal legislation to regulate what animals 
can be kept as pets. The United States Department of agriculture 
states, ``Large wild and exotic cats such as lions, tigers, cougars, 
and leopards are dangerous animals . . . Because of these animals' 
potential to kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an 
untrained person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious 
risks to family, friends, neighbors, and the general public. Even an 
animal that can be friendly and lovable can be very dangerous.''
  The American Veterinary Medical Association also ``strongly opposes 
the keeping of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes 
that all commercial traffic of these animals for such purpose should be 
prohibited.''
  The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of 
Zoos and Aquariums, the Humane Society of the United States, the Fund 
for Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
  I ask my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to 
working with our partners in the House who have expressed interest in 
passing this bill into law by the end of this session.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 3039. A bill to designate certain conduct by sports agents 
relating to

[[Page 19068]]

the signing of contracts with student athletes as unfair and deceptive 
acts or practices to be regulated by the Federal Trade Commission; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about a 
bill I am introducing today, the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust 
Act. The purpose of the bill is simple: to set some basic, uniform 
nationwide rules to prevent unscrupulous behavior by sports agents who 
court student athletes.
  Too often, unscrupulous sports agents prey upon young student 
athletes who are inexperienced, naive, or simply don't know all of the 
collegiate athletic eligibility rules. The agent sees the student 
athlete as a potentially lucrative future client, and wants to get the 
biggest headstart possible on other agents. So the agent tries to 
contact and sign up the student athlete as early as possible, and does 
whatever it takes to get the inside track.
  In some cases, the agent may attempt to lure the student athlete with 
grand promises. In some cases, the agent may offer flashy gifts. To 
make the offer more enticing, the agent may withhold crucial 
information about the impact on the student's eligibility to compete in 
college sports.
  A majority of States have enacted statutes to address unprincipled 
behavior by sports agents, but the standards vary from State to State 
and some States don't have any at all. The University of Oregon tells 
me that this creates a significant loophole. Specifically, Oregon has a 
State law, but it doesn't apply when a University of Oregon athlete 
goes home to another State for the summer and is contacted by an agent 
there. Every time that athlete crosses into another State, a different 
set of rules apply. And if one State's laws on the subject are 
particularly weak, that is where shady sports agents will try to 
contact their targets.
  That is why there ought to be a single, nationwide standard. The bill 
I am introducing today would establish a uniform baseline, enforceable 
by the Federal Trade Commission, that would supplement but not replace 
existing State laws. Specifically, the bill would make it an unfair and 
deceptive trade practice for a sports agent to entice a student athlete 
with false or misleading information or promises or with gifts to the 
student athlete or the athlete's friends or family. It would require a 
sports agent to provide the student athlete with a clear, standardized 
warning, in writing, that signing an agency contract could jeopardize 
the athlete's eligibility to participate in college sports. It would 
make it unlawful to pre-date or post-date agency contracts, and require 
both the agent and student athlete to promptly inform the athlete's 
university if they do enter into a contract.
  Representative Bart Gordon of Tennessee has spearheaded this 
legislation in the House, where the House Commerce Committee has held 
hearings and, most recently, unanimously approved the bill on September 
25. I applaud Congressman Gordon for his leadership on this issue, and 
I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in addressing this matter in the 
Senate.
  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. 3039

       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 ``Sports Agent Responsibility 
     and Trust Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Agency contract.--The term ``agency contract'' means an 
     oral or written agreement in which a student athlete 
     authorizes a person to negotiate or solicit on behalf of the 
     student athlete a professional sports contract or an 
     endorsement contract.
       (2) Athlete agent.--The term ``athlete agent'' means an 
     individual who enters into an agency contract with a student 
     athlete, or directly or indirectly recruits or solicits a 
     student athlete to enter into an agency contract, and does 
     not include a spouse, parent, sibling, grandparent, or 
     guardian of such student athlete, or an individual acting 
     solely on behalf of a professional sports team or 
     professional sports organization.
       (3) Athletic director.--The term ``athletic director'' 
     means an individual responsible for administering the 
     athletic program of an educational institution or, in the 
     case that such program is administered separately, the 
     athletic program for male students or the athletic program 
     for female students, as appropriate.
       (4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Trade Commission.
       (5) Endorsement contract.--The term ``endorsement 
     contract'' means an agreement under which a student athlete 
     is employed or receives consideration for the use by the 
     other party of that individual's person, name, image, or 
     likeness in the promotion of any product, service, or event.
       (6) Intercollegiate sport.--The term ``intercollegiate 
     sport'' means a sport played at the collegiate level for 
     which eligibility requirements for participation by a student 
     athlete are established by a national association for the 
     promotion or regulation of college athletics.
       (7) Professional sports contract.--The term ``professional 
     sports contract'' means an agreement under which an 
     individual is employed, or agrees to render services, as a 
     player on a professional sports team, with a professional 
     sports organization, or as a professional athlete.
       (8) State.--The term ``State'' includes a State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the 
     United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular 
     possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
       (9) Student athlete.--The term ``student athlete'' means an 
     individual who engages in, is eligible to engage in, or may 
     be eligible in the future to engage in, any intercollegiate 
     sport. An individual who is permanently ineligible to 
     participate in a particular intercollegiate sport is not a 
     student athlete for purposes of that sport.

     SEC. 3. REGULATION OF UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES 
                   IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONTACT BETWEEN AN 
                   ATHLETE AGENT AND A STUDENT ATHLETE.

       (a) Conduct Prohibited.--It is unlawful for an athlete 
     agent to--
       (1) directly or indirectly recruit or solicit a student 
     athlete to enter into an agency contract, by--
       (A) giving any false or misleading information or making a 
     false promise or representation; or
       (B) providing anything of value to a student athlete or 
     anyone associated with the student athlete before the student 
     athlete enters into an agency contract;
       (2) enter into an agency contract with a student athlete 
     without providing the student athlete with the disclosure 
     document described in subsection (b); or
       (3) predate or postdate an agency contract.
       (b) Required Disclosure by Athlete Agents to Student 
     Athletes.--
       (1) In general.--In conjunction with the entering into of 
     an agency contract, an athlete agent shall provide to the 
     student athlete, or, if the student athlete is under the age 
     of 18 to such student athlete's parent or legal guardian, a 
     disclosure document that meets the requirements of this 
     subsection. Such disclosure document is separate from and in 
     addition to any disclosure which may be required under State 
     law.
       (2) Signature of student athlete.--The disclosure document 
     must be signed by the student athlete, or, if the student 
     athlete is under the age of 18 by such student athlete's 
     parent or legal guardian, prior to entering into the agency 
     contract.
       (3) Required language.--The disclosure document must 
     contain, in close proximity to the signature of the student 
     athlete, or, if the student athlete is under the age of 18, 
     the signature of such student athlete's parent or legal 
     guardian, a conspicuous notice in boldface type stating: 
     ``Warning to Student Athlete: If you agree orally or in 
     writing to be represented by an agent now or in the future 
     you may lose your eligibility to compete as a student athlete 
     in your sport. Within 72 hours after entering into this 
     contract or before the next athletic event in which you are 
     eligible to participate, whichever occurs first, both you and 
     the agent by whom you are agreeing to be represented must 
     notify the athletic director of the educational institution 
     at which you are enrolled, or other individual responsible 
     for athletic programs at such educational institution, that 
     you have entered into an agency contract.''.

     SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice.--A violation of 
     this Act shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining 
     an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under 
     section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
       (b) Actions by the Commission.--The Commission shall 
     enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and 
     with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all 
     applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into 
     and made a part of this Act.

[[Page 19069]]



     SEC. 5. ACTIONS BY STATES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney 
     general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of 
     the residents of that State has been or is threatened or 
     adversely affected by the engagement of any athlete agent in 
     a practice that violates section 3 of this Act, the State may 
     bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State 
     in a district court of the United States of appropriate 
     jurisdiction to--
       (A) enjoin that practice;
       (B) enforce compliance with this Act;
       (C) obtain damage, restitution, or other compensation on 
     behalf of residents of the State; or
       (D) obtain such other relief as the court may consider to 
     be appropriate.
       (2) Notice.--
       (A) In general.--Before filing an action under paragraph 
     (1), the attorney general of the State involved shall provide 
     to the Commission--
       (i) written notice of that action; and
       (ii) a copy of the complaint for that action.
       (B) Exemption.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with 
     respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of 
     a State under this subsection, if the attorney general 
     determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice 
     described in that subparagraph before filing of the action. 
     In such case, the attorney general of a State shall provide 
     notice and a copy of the complaint to the Commission at the 
     same time as the attorney general files the action.
       (b) Intervention.--
       (1) In general.--On receiving notice under subsection 
     (a)(2), the Commission shall have the right to intervene in 
     the action that is the subject of the notice.
       (2) Effect of intervention.--If the Commission intervenes 
     in an action under subsection (a), it shall have the right--
       (A) to be heard with respect to any matter that arises in 
     that action; and
       (B) to file a petition for appeal.
       (c) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil 
     action under subsection (a), nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from 
     exercising the powers conferred the attorney general by the 
     laws of that State to--
       (1) conduct investigations;
       (2) administer oaths or affirmations; or
       (3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of 
     documentary and other evidence.
       (d) Actions by the Commission.--In any case in which an 
     action is instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for a 
     violation of section 3, no State may, during the pendency of 
     that action, institute an action under subsection (a) against 
     any defendant named in the complaint in that action--
       (e) Venue.--Any action brought under subsection (a) may be 
     brought in the district court of the United States that meets 
     applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 
     of title 28, United States Code.
       (f) Service of Process.--In an action brought under 
     subsection (a), process may be served in any district in 
     which the defendant--
       (1) is an inhabitant; or
       (2) may be found.

     SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.

       (a) Notice Required.--Within 72 hours after entering into 
     an agency contract or before the next athletic event in which 
     the student athlete may participate, whichever occurs first, 
     the athlete agent and the student athlete shall each inform 
     the athletic director of the educational institution at which 
     the student athlete is enrolled, or other individual 
     responsible for athletic programs at such education 
     institution, that the student athlete had entered into an 
     agency contract, and the athlete agency shall provide the 
     athletic director with notice in writing of such a contract.
       (b) Civil Remedy.--
       (1) In general.--An educational institution has a right of 
     action against an athlete agent for damages caused by a 
     violation of this Act.
       (2) Damages.--Damages of an educational institution may 
     include losses and expenses incurred because, as a result of 
     the conduct of the athlete agent, the educational institution 
     was injured by a violation of this Act or was penalized, 
     disqualified, or suspended from participation in athletics by 
     a national association for the promotion and regulation of 
     athletics, by an athletic conference, or by reasonable self-
     imposed disciplinary action taken to mitigate actions likely 
     to be imposed by such an association or conference.
       (3) Costs and attorneys fees.--In an action taken under 
     this section, the court may award to the prevailing party 
     costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
       (4) Effect on others rights, remedies and defenses.--This 
     section does not restrict the rights, remedies, or defenses 
     of any person under law or equity.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that States should enact the 
     Uniform Athlete Agents Act of 2000 drafted by the National 
     Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, to protect 
     student athletes and the integrity of amateur sports from 
     unscrupulous sports agents. In particular, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that States should enact the provisions relating 
     to the registration of sports agents, the required form of 
     contract, the right of the student athletic to cancel an 
     agency contract, the disclosure requirements relating to 
     record maintenance, reporting, renewal, notice, warning, and 
     security, and the provisions for reciprocity among the 
     States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 3041. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on new technology 
payments under the Medicare prospective payment system for hospital 
outpatient department services; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since Utah is the home of many medical 
device and pharmaceutical companies, I have taken a special interest in 
legislation affecting the development of cutting-edge technologies and 
the ability of patients to have access to these innovative products. 
Three years ago, I authored legislation to ensure that Medicare 
patients have prompt and appropriate access to the abundant benefits of 
medical breakthrough products. Prior to the enactment of that law, 
these innovative technologies were not being properly reimbursed by the 
Medicare program or, in some cases, were not even being reimbursed by 
Medicare at all. As a result, patient care suffered.
  And, while the 1999 law was a giant step in the right direction, many 
problems continue to exist regarding the methodology that Medicare has 
used in developing its hospital outpatient reimbursement payments for 
these new devices and medicines.
  I have been working throughout the year with all parties who have a 
stake in improving the hospital outpatient prospective payment system 
methodology for new medical devices, drugs, biologicals, and other 
technologies. I have listened to the arguments from both the Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and the industry and recognize 
that there are problems with this methodology from all perspectives.
  And while, in my opinion, a legislative solution would be ideal, so 
far, we have been unable to draft legislation that would be acceptable 
to both CMS and industry representatives. Therefore, I now believe that 
authorizing a comprehensive study through the Department of Health and 
Human Services is the appropriate next step toward defining the flaws 
within the current system and developing consensus on how to address 
them. For this reason, I now advocate that CMS undertake such a study, 
and also provide recommendations to Congress on how to improve Medicare 
reimbursement for these products.
  This matter is a serious one which needs to be reviewed and analyzed 
by HHS so that a more equitable reimbursement system may be created. We 
all agree that Medicare beneficiaries deserve access to most innovative 
medical technologies. In my opinion, this HHS study will help us 
accomplish two very important goals, fair and equitable Medicare 
reimbursement for innovative technology and therapies and, most 
important, beneficiary access to these cutting-edge products.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 3043. A bill to provide for an extension of the social health 
maintenance organization (SHMO) demonstration project; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Social Health Maintenance Organization 
Demonstration Project is due to expire in the next year. I have been a 
strong supporter of extending the SHMO demonstration project, because 
these plans help keep seniors independent and out of nursing homes. 
SHMOs provide beneficiaries with expanded Medicare benefits, including 
prescription drugs, care coordination and community-based services. 
While many of us are working toward making this a permanent program, it 
has now become clear that we will not be able to accomplish this goal 
this year because of budget constraints. Therefore, I offer as the next 
best solution extending the SHMO demonstration project for five more 
years. This way, SHMOs will continue to operate, and, those 
beneficiaries who receive their Medicare coverage

[[Page 19070]]

through SHMOs will continue to receive important services and benefits.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 3044. A bill to authorize the Court Services and Offender 
Supervision Agency of the District of Columbia to provide for the 
interstate supervision of offenders on parole, probation, and 
supervised release; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague from 
Ohio, Senator George Voinovich, to introduce the Court Services and 
Offender Supervision Agency Interstate Supervision Act of 2002, to 
enhance the authority of the Court Services and Offender Supervision 
Agency for the District of Columbia.
  The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, CSOSA, was 
established by Congress as part of the District of Columbia 
Revitalization Act of 1997. CSOSA combines under one helm the 
previously disparate local functions of pretrial services, parole, 
adult probation, and post-conviction offender supervision. Following 
three years of operation as a trusteeship, CSOSA was certified as an 
independent Federal agency within the executive branch on August 4, 
2000.
  CSOSA, with 950 employees, an annual budget of $132 million, and 
responsibility for monitoring 21,000 pretrial release defendants 
annually, 8,000 at any one time, and 15,338 post-conviction offenders 
on probation or parole, is directed by Paul A. Quander, Jr., who was 
confirmed by the Senate on July 25, 2002.
  The legislation we introduce today aims to clarify CSOSA's authority 
to provide for supervision of offenders from other jurisdictions who 
chose to live in the District of Columbia and to arrange with other 
States for supervision of District of Columbia probationers who seek 
residence in other jurisdictions, including authority to enter into a 
new Interstate Compact.
  Among the functions CSOSA absorbed after it was established were the 
supervision of probationers and parolees from other jurisdictions once 
their transfer to the District of Columbia was approved. Although not 
explicitly stated in the law, CSOSA also performs the related function 
of arranging for the supervision of District of Columbia Code offenders 
on probation and parole who seek to move from the District of Columbia 
to reside in other States. Our legislation would add that specific duty 
to CSOSA's statutory responsibilities.
  The movement of adult parolees and probationers across State lines is 
currently controlled by an interstate compact dating back to 1937, 
which has all 50 States and territories as signatories. A new 
agreement, the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, has 
been drafted to improve accountability, coordination, and enforcement 
mechanisms among the participating states. As of June 19, 35 States had 
signed on to the new compact. The District has not done so, primarily 
because the City itself no longer performs the functions since Congress 
created CSOSA to do so.
  Our legislation would provide CSOSA with clear authority to enter 
into this new compact or any other agreements for interstate 
supervision with any States which may not become signatories to the new 
compact. Because a new Compact Commission is now being formed and 
scheduled to meet in November to begin developing the procedural rules 
for the new Compact, our legislation will enable CSOSA to actively 
participate in that process.
  For this reason, we urge our colleagues to support this bill and vote 
for enactment this year. 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. 3044

       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 ``Court Services and Offender 
     Supervision Agency Interstate Supervision Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. INTERSTATE SUPERVISION.

       Section 11233(b)(2) of the National Capital Revitalization 
     and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (sec. 24-
     133(b)(2), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (G) to read as follows:
       ``(G) arrange for the supervision of District of Columbia 
     offenders on parole, probation, and supervised release who 
     seek to reside in jurisdictions outside the District of 
     Columbia;'';
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(I) arrange for the supervision of offenders on parole, 
     probation, and supervised release from jurisdictions outside 
     the District of Columbia who seek to reside in the District 
     of Columbia; and
       ``(J) have the authority to enter into agreements, 
     including the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender 
     Supervision, with any State or group of States in accordance 
     with the Agency's responsibilities under subparagraphs (G) 
     and (I).''.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Illinois, Senator Richard Durbin, as a co-sponsor of the Court Services 
and Offender Supervision Agency Interstate Supervision Act of 2002. I 
thank my colleague from Illinois for his initiative in advancing this 
legislation.
  As my colleague noted, Congress created the Court Services and 
Offender Supervision Agency, CSOSA, as part of the 1997 National 
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act to absorb 
the responsibilities of three local D.C. agencies. In accordance with 
that law the Federal Government assumed responsibility for many of the 
city's judicial functions, including all pre-trial services and the 
post-conviction supervision of parolees and probationers.
  With the support of the District and CSOSA, our bipartisan 
legislation seeks to clarify that CSOSA is the entity responsible for 
all offenders, whether on parole, probation, or supervised release, who 
reside in the District of Columbia or those convicted in District Court 
and choose to relocate outside of the District of Columbia.
  When CSOSA was established, it was expressly charged with the 
responsibility to arrange for the supervision of District of Columbia 
paroled offenders who wish to move outside the boundaries of 
Washington, D.C. Today, however, a growing number of offenders are 
placed on probation or supervised release, not parole. Our legislation 
clarifies that CSOSA is the agency responsible for arranging for their 
supervision.
  The original legislation also did not address directly the issue of 
supervision of offenders who relocate to the District of Columbia. 
Since CSOSA absorbed the local agency that previously held this 
responsibility, it has been acting in that capacity. Again, our 
legislation clarifies that CSOSA is the entity with this 
responsibility.
  Finally, our legislation clearly grants CSOSA the authority to enter 
into agreements with other states and territories to establish 
guidelines for offender relocation. An interstate compact, signed by 
all the states and territories, has established guidelines for the 
movement of adult offenders. The compact was created originally in 1937 
and the states are in the process of revising it to enhance 
accountability for all offenders on parole, probation, or supervised 
release. More than half of the states already have signed this revised 
Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. The District of 
Columbia has not signed it, however, primarily because they do not have 
responsibility for offenders. Our legislation expressly grants CSOSA 
the authority to do so in their capacity of providing offender 
supervision.
  This legislation clarifies CSOSA's mission, a mission critical to the 
public safety of our nation's capital. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill.
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 3045. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
provide for the protection and enhancement of the environmental 
integrity and the social and economic benefits of the Finger Lakes 
Region in the State of New York; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, it is an honor to introduce the 
Finger Lakes Initiative Act of 2002. The Finger Lakes are the heart of 
New York.

[[Page 19071]]

They stretch across most of the State and nurture an endless supply of 
natural and economic resources. They attract visitors from across the 
country, and they deserve our support to maintain and strengthen the 
quality of life in the entire region.
  The Finger Lakes Region of New York State is a land of rolling hills, 
beautiful lakes, pastoral firms, and incomparable fish and wildlife 
resources. A critical environmental resource, the Lakes are also vital 
to the region's economy, generating a tremendous amount of tourism and 
commerce. Fishing, boating, hunting, wineries, farmers markets and the 
arts attract visitors from around the nation to the Finger Lakes 
region. The Finger Lakes region also includes some of the Northeast's 
most productive agricultural lands.
  While Central New York is truly blessed with the environmental, 
economic, and cultural benefits that the Finger Lakes provide, the 
health of the Finger Lakes can no longer be taken for granted. Recent 
reports have confirmed what many residents in New York already know, 
the Finger Lakes are under environmental stress. In many of the lakes, 
water quality has suffered. Fluctuating water levels and flooding north 
of the lakes has also increased. In addition, a significant amount of 
fish and wildlife habitat is being lost and threats are being posed by 
the introduction of invasive species.
  Local, State, and Federal officials have recognized the seriousness 
of these threats, and have worked to address these concerns. Local 
stakeholders have joined forces and are working to protect the lakes, 
developing management plans, implementing best management practices, 
and doing what they can to protect the resource that is truly their 
backyard. Yet there is still no comprehensive, regional action plan to 
address collective environmental protection and economic development 
goals for the region.
  In recent years, Congress has recognized that our Nation's 
environmental resources are best protected on an ecosystem or watershed 
basis, with the federal government providing funds and expertise to 
assist with protection efforts that are shaped by State and local 
interests. This approach has been taken with great success in 
Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the Long Island Sound, and the 
California Bay Delta, just to name a few.
  Just as the Federal Government has supported these national 
treasures, it is time for the Finger Lakes to be recognized as a region 
to be protected and enhanced for the economic and environmental benefit 
of all who live, work, farm, play, and visit the Finger Lakes.
  Under the Finger Lakes Initiative Act of 2002, which I am introducing 
today with Senator Schumer, a new program will be established within 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect and enhance the 
environmental integrity and cultural and economic benefits of the 
Finger Lakes. The Initiative will assist Finger Lakes stakeholders in 
achieving their goals for the region through technical, scientific, and 
financial assistance and coordination of relevant Federal programs.
  To best serve the interests of the region and build upon the 
knowledge, expertise, and ongoing efforts of local stakeholders, the 
legislation establishes an official stakeholder group to aid in 
developing and implementing the Initiative. The stakeholder group will 
be comprised of representatives from local businesses, regional 
planning agencies, academic institutions, homeowners associations, 
environmental organizations, agricultural interests, economic 
development interests, the tourism industry, and tribes, as well as 
representatives of Federal, State, and local governments.
  This stakeholder group will have three years to develop a 
comprehensive plan to provide for the protection and enhancement of the 
environmental integrity and the social and economic benefits of the 
Finger Lakes. The plan will be made available for public review and 
comment, including a number of public meetings throughout the Finger 
Lakes region. Once approved by the EPA Administrator, with the 
concurrence of the Governor, the plan will become the blueprint for 
federally supported activities in the region.
  Furthermore, there will be an interdisciplinary research and 
education program established as part of the Finger Lakes Initiative, 
including $5 million in federal support authorized for a Finger Lakes 
Institute, such as the Institute that was recently announced at the 
Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, NY.
  Overall, the bill authorizes $50 million in federal support over five 
years for efforts to protect and enhance the environmental, economic 
and cultural benefits of the Finger Lakes. And to ensure proper 
involvement and coordination among all federal agencies in addressing 
the needs and challenges in the Finger Lakes, appropriate financial, 
technical, and scientific assistance will be provided for the Finger 
Lakes Initiative by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. 
Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National 
Park Service, the U.S. Department of Agricultural, the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration, the Economic Development 
Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
  For decades, the Finger Lakes region has held its own in the world. 
The lakes, the farms, the towns, the wildlife, and the recreational 
opportunities have all pulled people toward this part of the State. I, 
myself, was drawn there in August and spent time in Auburn, Seneca 
Falls, Hammondsport, and Geneva. Seeing the potential of this region, I 
can just imagine the possibilities when we finally reach out to the 
Finger Lakes Region--when we finally provide this region with the 
resources and the attention and the planning it deserves. The 
possibilities are endless.
  There is room in our Nation for another natural wonder, the Finger 
Lakes Region of New York State.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 3046. A bill to provide for the conveyance of Federal land in 
Sandpoint, Idaho, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Sandpoint 
Land and Facilities Act of 2002.'' This bill is a unique opportunity to 
meet the facility needs of the Forest Service in Sandpoint, ID and to 
provide facilities for the local county government. This bill will 
transfer ownership of the local General Service Administration building 
currently housing the Forest Service to that agency. The bill also 
provides authority for the Forest Service to work with Bonner County, 
Idaho to exchange the existing building to Bonner County in exchange 
for a new and more functional building to the Forest Service. This 
transfer of ownership will not only provide the opportunity for the 
local Forest Service office to obtain a facility that best meets their 
needs but also will meet the facility needs of Bonner County.
  The transfer of this facility will allow the Forest Service to 
improve service to the public, improve public and employee safety, make 
the Idaho Panhandle National Forest more financially competitive, and 
allow increased spending on resource programs that contribute to 
healthier ecosystems. In turn, Bonner County will benefit by providing 
to them a building that consolidates county offices so that better 
services can be provided to the local public, including ADA compliant 
access to the county courtrooms.
  Additionally, the GSA will dispose of a building that is only 
partially occupied and is remotely located from other GSA facilities.
  This is a win-win situation for the Forest Service, Bonner County, 
GSA, and the taxpayers and an outstanding example of the federal 
government at the local level working with the county government to 
create common sense solutions that result in more efficient operations 
and better service to the public.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 3047. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or 
exchange all or part of certain parcels of National Forest System land 
in the

[[Page 19072]]

State of Idaho and use the proceeds derived from the sale or exchange 
for National Forest System purposes; to the Committee on Energy Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Idaho 
Panhandle National Forest Improvement Act of 2002. This bill is an 
opportunity to provide lands for local benefits and to meet the 
facility needs of the Forest Service in the Silver Valley of Idaho. 
This bill will offer for sale or exchange administrative parcels of 
land in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest that the Forest Service has 
identified as no longer in the interest of public ownership and that 
disposing of them will serve the public better. The proceeds from these 
sales will be used to improve or replace the Forest Service's Ranger 
Station in Idaho's Silver Valley.
  The Forest Service administrative parcels identified for disposal 
include the land permitted by the Granite/Reeder Sewer District on 
Priest Lake, Shoshone Camp in Shoshone County, and the North-South Ski 
Bowl, south of St. Maries.
  The bill also directs the Forest Service to improve or construct a 
new ranger station in the Silver Valley. The current ranger station is 
in dire need of repair or replacement, and this will ensure my 
commitment to a continued and increased presence of the Forest Service 
in the Silver Valley.
  This is a win-win situation for the taxpayers, the Forest Service, 
the residents of the Silver Valley, and the permittees on the parcels 
of land to be disposed of.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Johnson, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Roberts).
  S. 3048. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to add 
requirements regarding trauma care, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, each year, nearly 1 out of 4 Americans 
sustain an injury requiring medical attention. In 1995, injuries were 
responsible for 148,000 deaths, 2.6 million hospitalizations, and over 
36 million emergency room visits.
  The direct and indirect cost of injury is estimated to be about $260 
billion a year, and the death rate from unintentional injury is more 
than 50 percent higher in rural areas than in urban areas. It is 
essential that every American have access to a trauma system that 
provides definitive care as quickly as possible.
  In recent years, Congress has worked to address this issue through 
the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act, which authorizes 
Federal grants to States for the purpose of planning, implementing, and 
developing statewide trauma care systems. However, this important 
program expires this year. Therefore, I am introducing bipartisan 
legislation today, along with Senators Kennedy and Enzi to reauthorize 
this important program.
  Among Americans younger than age 44, trauma is the killer. While 
injury prevention programs have greatly reduced death and disability, 
severe injuries will continue to occur. Given the events of September 
11, 2001 and our Nation's renewed focus on enhancing disaster 
preparedness, it is critical that the Federal Government increase its 
commitment to strengthening programs governing trauma care system 
planning and development.
  Despite our past investments, one-half of the States in the country 
are still without a statewide trauma care system. Clearly we can do 
better. We must respond to the goals put forth by the Institute of 
Medicine in 1999, that Congress ``support a greater national commitment 
to, and support of, trauma care systems at the Federal, State, and 
local levels.''
  Today's bill, the ``Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act 
of 2002'' reauthorizes this program and includes several key 
improvements: first, it improves the collection and analysis of trauma 
patient data; second, the bill responds to State budget difficulties by 
decreasing the requirement for State matching funds to the Federal 
grants; third, the legislation provides a self-evaluation mechanism to 
assist States in assessing and improving their trauma care systems; 
fourth, it authorizes an Institute of Medicine study on the state of 
trauma care and trauma research; and finally, it doubles the funding 
available for this program to allow additional States to participate.
  I appreciate the assistance of Senators Kennedy and Enzi on this 
important legislation, and look forward to working to see this bill 
passed this year.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to join Senator Frist, 
Senator Johnson, and Senator Murray in introducing the Trauma Care 
Systems Planning and Development Act. Our goal in this bipartisan 
legislation is to enable all States to develop effective trauma care 
systems.
  Trauma is the number one killer of Americans under the age of 44. 
Traumatic injury robs our Nation's youth, devastates families, and 
costs the Nation more than $260 billion every year. In 1995 alone, 
injuries were responsible for 148,000 deaths, 2.6 million 
hospitalizations, and over 26 million emergency room visits.
  Despite trauma's toll, we have done little in recent years to prevent 
trauma or improve the chance of recovery following traumatic injury. 
Part of the problem is the misunderstanding that trauma is an accident, 
an unfortunate, but sometimes unavoidable chance event. But the facts 
reveal that this is not the case.
  Trauma is very similar to a disease. It has definable causes with 
established methods of treatment and prevention. Frequent forms of 
trauma include motor vehicle accidents, firearm accidents, and natural 
or man-made disasters. Proven preventative measures could save up to 
25,000 lives every year. Putting effective trauma care systems in place 
would provide victims with the best chance of recovery, by delivering 
quality care as quickly as possible.
  A trauma system is an organized, coordinated effort to provide the 
full range of care to all injured patients. Intervention begins in the 
field, at the site of injury, and proceeds along the continuum of care 
from prehospital to hospital to rehabilitative services. An effective 
system ensures that resources, supporting equipment, and personnel are 
ready and trained to go into action.
  The skills and knowledge of health care experts alone are not enough. 
Optimal care is the result of advance planning, preparation, and 
coordination to produce smooth transitions and the proper sequence of 
interventions. A comprehensive trauma system accomplishes all this and 
has been proven to save lives and decrease costs.
  Much of the progress in developing trauma systems has occurred as a 
result of Federal funding and involvement. In 1973, Congress passed the 
Emergency Medical Services Act, providing $300 million to States and 
communities over an eight year period. Without that funding, patients 
in 304 emergency medical service regions in the United States might not 
have had ready access to emergency care. Even today, there are areas of 
the United States without 9-1-1 access and prompt emergency 
transportation.
  In 1990, Congress passed the original Trauma Care Systems Planning 
and Development Act, authorizing Federal grants to States to develop 
integrated statewide trauma care systems. Funding for this program has 
been inadequate. From 1995 to 2000, States received no funding under 
the Act. Last year, only $3.5 million was appropriated for the entire 
country. As a result, only half of all States have fully functional 
statewide trauma systems. Clearly, we must do better in providing 
needed trauma care.
  This legislation reauthorizes and enhances the trauma care program to 
establish comprehensive trauma systems in all States. The bill also 
addresses the urgent need for improved trauma data and research. 
Surprisingly, given the burden of trauma on society, only 1 percent of 
resources at the NIH are devoted to trauma research. The legislation 
asks the Institute of Medicine to investigate the quality of trauma 
care and identify areas for improvement.

[[Page 19073]]

  This legislation is supported by the Coalition for American Trauma 
Care, the American College of Surgeons, and the American Trauma 
Society. Its enactment is vitally important to public safety, and I 
urge the Senate to approve it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 3054. A bill to provide for full voting representation in Congress 
for the citizens of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues 
Senators Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Edward Kennedy, Jim Jeffords, and 
Charles Schumer in introducing legislation that would end a terrible 
injustice suffered by 600,000 American citizens--that is, the denial of 
full Congressional representation to the citizens of the District of 
Columbia. This injustice is nothing less than a stain on the fabric of 
our democracy. To right this wrong, we are introducing the No Taxation 
Without Representation Act of 2002 today in order to extend full 
Congressional representation to the citizens of our Capital City.
  This is the second bill I have introduced to this Congress in order 
to achieve this important goal. It is embarrassing that ours is the 
only democracy in the world in which citizens of the Capital are not 
represented in the national legislature. I can only wonder what 
visitors from around the world must think when they come to see our 
beautiful landmarks, our monuments, and our Capitol dome, proud symbols 
of the world's greatest democracy, and then learn that the people who 
live in this great city have no voice in Congress. What would we do if, 
for some reason, the residents of Boston, Nashville, Denver, Seattle, 
or El Paso had no voting rights? All those cities are roughly the same 
size as Washington, D.C., and I know we as a Nation wouldn't let their 
citizens go voiceless in Congress.
  Citizens of Washington, D.C. pay income taxes, and yet they have no 
say in how high those taxes will be or how their tax dollars will be 
spent. Citizens of Washington, D.C. serve their fellow Americans both 
here at home and in wars abroad, and yet inhabitants of the District of 
Columbia cannot choose representatives to the legislature that governs 
them. This city's people and institutions have been the direct target 
of terrorists, and yet citizens of the District have no one who can 
cast a vote in Congress on policies to protect their homeland security.
  The vote is a civic entitlement of every tax-paying citizen of the 
United States. It is democracy's most elemental and essential right, 
its most useful tool. The citizens who live in our Nation's capital 
deserve more than a non-voting delegate in the House. Notwithstanding 
the strong service of the Honorable Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton 
and her ability to vote in committee, a representative without the 
power to vote on the floor of the House simply isn't good enough.
  The name of this bill is intended as a reminder of the inextricable 
link in this Nation's history between the power to tax and the right to 
vote. Our forebearers went to war rather than pay taxes without 
representation. The principles for which our Nation's revolutionary 
heroes fought so hard more than 200 years ago apply just as forcefully 
to the citizens of the District of Columbia today as they did for the 
men and women who founded this great Nation.
  Despite its title, ``No Taxation Without Representation,'' this bill 
does not relieve the District residents of their tax obligations, given 
their non-voting status. The people of D.C. are not looking to avoid 
paying their fair share of taxes. Instead, the bill grants the citizens 
of the District of the Columbia their much-belated birthright: the 
right to vote for and be represented by two Senators and a full Member 
of the House of Representatives. Further the bill increases the 
permanent membership of the House of Representatives by one, a symbolic 
acknowledgment that all along a member was missing: the Representative 
casting her vote for the people of Washington, D.C.
  This legislation is no less than our broadly-held American values 
demand for our fellow citizens. In fact, a recent national poll shows 
that a majority of Americans believe D.C. residents already have 
Congressional voting rights. When informed that they do not, 80 percent 
say that D.C. residents should have full representation.
  In righting this wrong, we won't just be following the will of the 
American people. We will be following the will of history. When the 
framers of the Constitution placed our Capital, which had not yet been 
established, under the jurisdiction of the Congress, they placed with 
Congress the responsibility of ensuring that D.C. citizens' rights 
would be protected in the future, just as Congress protects the rights 
of all citizens throughout the land. For more than 200 years, Congress 
has failed to meet this obligation. And I, for one, am not prepared to 
make D.C. citizens wait another 200 years.
  In the words of this city's namesake, our first President, George 
Washington, ``Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of 
government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every 
violation of the Constitution be reprehended: If defective, let it 
amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an 
existence.''
  The people of the District of Columbia have suffered this 
Constitutional defect far too long. Let's reprehend it and amend it 
together.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the No Taxation Without 
Representation Act of 2002 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3054

       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 ``No Taxation Without 
     Representation Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The residents of the District of Columbia are the only 
     Americans who pay Federal income taxes but are denied voting 
     representation in the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       (2) The residents of the District of Columbia suffer the 
     very injustice against which our Founding Fathers fought, 
     because they do not have voting representation as other 
     taxpaying Americans do and are nevertheless required to pay 
     Federal income taxes unlike the Americans who live in the 
     territories.
       (3) The principle of one person, one vote requires that 
     residents of the District of Columbia are afforded full 
     voting representation in the House and the Senate.
       (4) Despite the denial of voting representation, Americans 
     in the Nation's Capital are second among residents of all 
     States in per capita income taxes paid to the Federal 
     Government.
       (5) Unequal voting representation in our representative 
     democracy is inconsistent with the founding principles of the 
     Nation and the strongly held principles of the American 
     people today.

     SEC. 3. REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       For the purposes of congressional representation, the 
     District of Columbia, constituting the seat of government of 
     the United States, shall be treated as a State, such that its 
     residents shall be entitled to elect and be represented by 2 
     Senators in the United States Senate, and as many 
     Representatives in the House of Representatives as a 
     similarly populous State would be entitled to under the law.

     SEC. 4. ELECTIONS.

       (a) First Elections.--
       (1) Proclamation.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Mayor of the District of Columbia 
     shall issue a proclamation for elections to be held to fill 
     the 2 Senate seats and the seat in the House of 
     Representatives to represent the District of Columbia in 
     Congress.
       (2) Manner of elections.--The proclamation of the Mayor of 
     the District of Columbia required by paragraph (1) shall 
     provide for the holding of a primary election and a general 
     election and at such elections the officers to be elected 
     shall be chosen by a popular vote of the residents of the 
     District of Columbia. The manner in which such elections 
     shall be held and the qualification of voters shall be the 
     same as those for local elections, as prescribed by the 
     District of Columbia.
       (3) Classification of senators.--In the first election of 
     Senators from the District of Columbia, the 2 senatorial 
     offices shall be

[[Page 19074]]

     separately identified and designated, and no person may be a 
     candidate for both offices. No such identification or 
     designation of either of the 2 senatorial offices shall refer 
     to or be taken to refer to the terms of such offices, or in 
     any way impair the privilege of the Senate to determine the 
     class to which each of the Senators elected shall be 
     assigned.
       (b) Certification of Election.--The results of an election 
     for the Senators and Representative from the District of 
     Columbia shall be certified by the Mayor of the District of 
     Columbia in the manner required by law and the Senators and 
     Representative shall be entitled to be admitted to seats in 
     Congress and to all the rights and privileges of Senators and 
     Representatives of the States in the Congress of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 5. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--Upon the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the District of Columbia shall be entitled to 1 
     Representative until the taking effect of the next 
     reapportionment. Such Representative shall be in addition to 
     the membership of the House of Representatives as now 
     prescribed by law.
       (b) Increase in Membership of House of Representatives.--
     Upon the date of enactment of this Act, the permanent 
     membership of the House of Representatives shall increase by 
     1 seat for the purpose of future reapportionment of 
     Representatives.
       (c) Reapportionment.--Upon reapportionment, the District of 
     Columbia shall be entitled to as many seats in the House of 
     Representatives as a similarly populous State would be 
     entitled to under the law.
       (d) District of Columbia Delegate.--Until the first 
     Representative from the District of Columbia is seated in the 
     House of Representatives, the Delegate in Congress from the 
     District of Columbia shall continue to discharge the duties 
     of his or her office.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 3056. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to increase 
penalties for individuals who operate motor vehicles while intoxicated 
or under the influence of alcohol; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President today, along with Senator DeWine, I am 
introducing legislation that addresses the serious national problem of 
drunk driving. This bill, ``The Higher-Risk Impaired Driver Act,'' 
would help protect the public from those intoxicated drivers who pose 
the greatest threat to our safety.
  This bill would target a specific population of drivers who pose a 
special danger on our roads. These are drivers who are convicted of 
driving while intoxicated within 5 years of a prior conviction; drivers 
who are convicted of driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol 
content of .15 or greater; drivers who are convicted of driving while 
their license is suspended, when the suspension happened due to a 
driving while intoxicated offense; and drivers who refuse a blood 
alcohol concentration test while under arrest or investigation for 
involvement in a fatal or serious injury crash.
  The statistics documenting the threat posed by these drivers are 
startling. Nationally in 2001, about 1,461 fatalities that occurred in 
crashes involving alcohol-impaired or intoxicated drivers who had at 
least one previous driving while intoxicated conviction, according to 
the National Institute of Highway Safety, NHTSA. Further, the AAA 
Foundation for Traffic Safety, in an analysis of NHTSA data from 1982 
to 1999, found that over half the drivers who were arrested or 
convicted of driving while intoxicated during that period and 64 
percent of drunken drivers who were fatally injured had a blood alcohol 
level of .15 or greater.
  There are tragic stories behind these statistics: In my own State of 
New Jersey, for example, Navy Ensign John Elliott was killed by a 
driver who had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal 
limit. In that case, the driver had been arrested and charged with 
driving while intoxicated just three hours before the crash. After 
being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody 
of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind 
the wheel.
  The legislation I am introducing today would require states to enact 
a law that penalizes these higher risk offenders, reduces the threat 
that they pose, and gets offenders into appropriate substance abuse 
programs. The penalty provisions in such a law would include the 
suspension of an offender's drivers license for no less than one year 
and the requirement that the offender pay both a $1000 minimum fine as 
well as restitution to any victims of the offense. The reduction of the 
threat occurs through the requirement that the offender's motor vehicle 
be impounded for no less than 90 days and the requirement that the 
offender be imprisoned for a period of time and then shall either wear 
an electronic bracelet or be assigned to a DWI specialty facility. The 
treatment provision requires the assessment of the offender for 
placement into a substance abuse program.
  This legislation follows the recommendations of Mothers Against Drunk 
Driving, MADD, in their Higher-Risk Driver Program. I look forward to 
working with the members of MADD nationwide to see this legislation 
enacted into law. 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. 3056

       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 ``Higher-Risk Impaired Driver 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASED PENALTIES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter I of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 165. Increased penalties for higher risk drivers for 
       driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Blood Alcohol concentration.--The term `blood alcohol 
     concentration' means grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of 
     blood or the equivalent grams of alcohol per 210 liters of 
     breath.
       ``(2) Driving while intoxicated; driving under the 
     influence.--The terms `driving while intoxicated' and 
     `driving under the influence' mean driving or being in actual 
     physical control of a motor vehicle while having a blood 
     alcohol concentration above the permitted limit as 
     established by each State.
       ``(3) License suspension.--The term `license suspension' 
     means the suspension of all driving privileges.
       ``(4) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means a 
     vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured 
     primarily for use on public highways but does not include a 
     vehicle operated solely on a rail line or a commercial 
     vehicle.
       ``(5) Higher-risk impaired driver law.--
       ``(A) The term `higher-risk impaired driver law' means a 
     State law that provides, as a minimum penalty, that an 
     individual described in subparagraph (B) shall--
       ``(i) receive a driver's license suspension for not less 
     than 1 year, including a complete ban on driving for not less 
     than 90 days and for the remainder of the license suspension 
     period and prior to the issuance of a probational hardship or 
     work permit license, be required to install a certified 
     alcohol ignition interlock device;
       ``(ii) have the motor vehicle driven at the time of arrest 
     impounded or immobilized for not less than 90 days and for 
     the remainder of the license suspension period require the 
     installation of a certified alcohol ignition interlock device 
     on the vehicle;
       ``(iii) be subject to an assessment by a certified 
     substance abuse official of the State that assesses the 
     individual's degree of abuse of alcohol and assigned to a 
     treatment program or impaired driving education program as 
     determined by the assessment;
       ``(iv) be imprisoned for not less than 10 days, have an 
     electronic monitoring device for not less than 100 days, or 
     be assigned to a DUI/DWI specialty facility for not less than 
     30 days;
       ``(v) be fined a minimum of $1,000, with the proceeds of 
     such funds to be used by the State or local jurisdiction for 
     impaired driving related prevention, enforcement, and 
     prosecution programs, or for the development or maintenance 
     of a tracking system of offenders driving while impaired;
       ``(vi) if the arrest resulted from involvement in a crash, 
     the court shall require restitution to the victims of the 
     crash;
       ``(vii) be placed on probation by the court for a period of 
     not less than 2 years;
       ``(viii) if diagnosed with a substance abuse problem, 
     during the first year of the probation period referred to in 
     clause (vii), attend a treatment program for a period of 12 
     consecutive months sponsored by a State certified substance 
     abuse treatment agency and meet with a case manager at least 
     once each month; and
       ``(ix) be required by the court to attend a victim impact 
     panel, if such a panel is available.

[[Page 19075]]

       ``(B) An individual referred to in subparagraph (A) is an 
     individual who--
       ``(i) is convicted of a second or subsequent offense for 
     driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence 
     within a minimum of 5 consecutive years;
       ``(ii) is convicted of a driving while intoxicated or 
     driving under the influence with a blood alcohol 
     concentration of 0.15 percent or greater;
       ``(iii) is convicted of a driving-while-suspended offense 
     if the suspension was the result of a conviction for driving 
     under the influence; or
       ``(iv) refuses a blood alcohol concentration test while 
     under arrest or investigation for involvement in a fatal or 
     serious injury crash.
       ``(6) Special dui/dwi facility.--The term `special DUI/DWI 
     facility' means a facility that houses and treats offenders 
     arrested for driving while impaired and allows such offenders 
     to work and/or attend school.
       ``(7) Victim impact panel.--The term `victim impact panel' 
     means a group of impaired driving victims who speak to 
     offenders about impaired driving. The purpose of the panel is 
     to change attitudes and behaviors in order to deter impaired 
     driving recidivism.
       ``(b) Transfer of Funds.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2006.--Beginning on October 1, 2006, if a 
     State has not enacted or is not enforcing a higher risk 
     impaired driver law, the Secretary shall transfer an amount 
     equal to 2 percent of the funds apportioned to the State on 
     that date under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of 
     section 104(b) to the apportionment of the State under 
     section 402 solely for impaired driving programs.
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2007.--On October 1, 2007, if a State has 
     not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired driver 
     law, the Secretary shall transfer an amount equal to 4 
     percent of the funds apportioned to the State on that date 
     under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) 
     to the apportionment of the State under section 402 to be 
     used or directed as described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Fiscal year 2008.--On October 1, 2008, if a State has 
     not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired driver 
     law, the Secretary shall transfer an amount equal to 6 
     percent of the funds apportioned to the State on that date 
     under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) 
     to the apportionment of the State under section 402 to be 
     used or directed as described in paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Derivation of amount to be transferred.--The amount 
     to be transferred under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) may be 
     derived from 1 or more of the following:
       ``(A) The apportionment of the State under section 
     104(b)(1).
       ``(B) The apportionment of the State under section 
     104(b)(3).
       ``(C) The apportionment of the State under section 
     104(b)(4).
       ``(5) Transfer of obligation authority.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary transfers under this 
     subsection any funds to the apportionment of a State under 
     section 402 for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall transfer 
     an amount, determined under subparagraph (B), of obligation 
     authority distributed for the fiscal year to the State for 
     carrying out impaired driving programs authorized under 
     section 402.
       ``(B) Amount.--The amount of obligation authority referred 
     to in subparagraph (A) shall be determined by multiplying--
       ``(i) the amount of funds transferred under subparagraph 
     (A) to the apportionment of the State under section 402 for 
     the fiscal year; by
       ``(ii) the ratio that--

       ``(I) the amount of obligation authority distributed for 
     the fiscal year to the State for Federal-aid highways and 
     highway safety construction programs; bears to
       ``(II) the total of the sums apportioned to the State for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     (excluding sums not subject to any obligation limitation) for 
     the fiscal year.

       ``(7) Limitation on applicability of obligation 
     limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     limitation on the total of obligations for highway safety 
     programs under section 402 shall apply to funds transferred 
     under this subsection to the apportionment of a State under 
     such section.
       ``(c) Withholding of Funds.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2009.--On October 1, 2008, if a State has 
     not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired driver 
     law, the Secretary shall withhold 2 percent of the amount 
     required to be apportioned for Federal-aid highways to the 
     State on that date under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) 
     of section 104(b).
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2010.--On October 1, 2009, if a State has 
     not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired driver 
     law, the Secretary shall withhold 4 percent of the amount 
     required to be apportioned for Federal-aid highways to the 
     State on that date under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) 
     of section 104(b).
       ``(3) Fiscal year 2011.--On October 1, 2010, if a State has 
     not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired driver 
     law, the Secretary shall withhold 6 percent of the amount 
     required to be apportioned for Federal-aid highways to the 
     State on that date under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) 
     of section 104(b).
       ``(4) Compliance.--Not later than 4 years after the date 
     that the apportionment for any State is reduced in accordance 
     with this section the Secretary determines that such State 
     has enacted and is enforcing a provision described in section 
     163(a), the apportionment of such State shall be increased by 
     an amount equal to such reduction. If at the end of such 4-
     year period, any State has not enacted and is not enforcing a 
     provision described in section 163(a) any amounts so withheld 
     shall be transferred to carry out impaired driving programs 
     authorized under section 402.

                          ____________________