Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 17 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 for November 19, 2002

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 17]
[Issue]
[Pages 22937-23288]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 22937]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, November 19, 2002

The House met at noon and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Thornberry).

____________________

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:

Washington, DC,

November 19, 2002.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Mac Thornberry to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Divine Wisdom and Word of God, enlighten our minds and set hearts
free as You lift the burdens of daily routine from the shoulders of
Members of the 107th Congress and their staffs.
Help Your servants to reflect on the accomplishments of this session
and enable them to name the obstacles which impeded progress. May all
learn from their experience and be committed to reconciling any
personal relationships harmed in the course of daily activities.
Through the joint efforts of so many working together on the great
tasks You set before this people, may Your holy will be done.
In Your Divine Providence, guide and protect this Nation and its
elected officials as they look forward to a new day filled with promise
and peace.
To You be glory, honor and thanksgiving, now and forever. Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. BENTSEN led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr. Monahan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed without amendment bills of the
House of the following titles:

H.R. 727. An act to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act
to provide that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer
products subject to such Act.
H.R. 2595. An act to direct the Secretary of the Army to
convey a parcel of land of Chatham County, Georgia.
H.R. 5504. An act to provide for the improvement of the
safety of child restraints in passenger motor vehicles, and
for other purposes.
H. Con. Res. 84. Concurrent resolution supporting the goals
of Red Ribbon Week in promoting drug-free communities.

The message also announced that the Senate has passed with an
amendment in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of
the House of the following title:

H.R. 4070. An act to amend the Social Security Act and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional
safeguards for Social Security and Supplemental Security
Income beneficiaries with representative payees, to enhanced
program protections, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the Senate has passed bills and
concurrent resolutions of the following titles in which the concurrence
of the House is requested:

S. 754. An act to enhance competition for prescription
drugs by increasing the ability of the Department of Justice
and Federal Trade Commission to enforce existing antitrust
laws regarding brand name drugs and generic drugs.
S. 1052. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act and
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to
protect consumers in managed care plans and other health
coverage.
S. 2799. An act to provide for the use and distribution of
certain funds awarded to the Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community, and for other purposes.
S. 2869. An act to facilitate the ability of certain
spectrum auction winners to pursue alternative measures
required in the public interest to meet the needs of wireless
telecommunications consumers.
S. 2949. An act to provide for enhanced aviation security,
and for other purposes.
S. 2951. An act to authorize appropriations for the Federal
Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.
S. 3172. An act to improve the calculation of the Federal
subsidy rate with respect to certain small business loans,
and for other purposes.
S. Con. Res. 94. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that public awareness and education about the
importance of health care coverage is of the utmost priority
and that a National Importance of Health Care Coverage Month
should be established to promote that awareness and
education.
S. Con. Res. 122. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that security, reconciliation, and
prosperity for all Cypriots can be best achieved within the
context of membership in the European Union which will
provide significant rights and obligations for all Cypriots,
and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the Senate agreed to the amendments
of the House to the bill (S. 2237) ``An Act to amend title 38, United
States Code, to modify and improve authorities relating to compensation
and pension benefits, education benefits, housing benefits, and other
benefits for veterans, to improve the administration of benefits for
veterans, and for other purposes.''

____________________

DISPENSING WITH CALL OF PRIVATE CALENDAR ON TODAY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the call of the Private
Calendar shall be dispensed with today.
There was no objection.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

Office of the Clerk

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, November 18, 2002.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on November 18, 2002 at 1:55
p.m.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 2458.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 5708.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 5716.
That the Senate agreed to conference report H.R. 4628.
Withe best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk of the House.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 4 of rule I, the Speaker
signed the following enrolled bills on Monday, November 18, 2002:

[[Page 22938]]

H.R. 2621, to amend Title 18, United States Code, with respect to
consumer product protection;
H.R. 3758, for the relief of So Hyun Jun;
H.R. 3988, to amend Title 36, United States Code, to clarify the
requirements for eligibility in the American Legion;
H.R. 4546, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes;
H.R. 4628, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for
intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the
Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes;
H.R. 4727, to reauthorize the National Dam Safety Program, and for
other purposes;
H.R. 5590, to amend Title 10 United States Code, to provide for the
enforcement and effectiveness of civilian orders of protection on
military installations;
H.R. 5708, to reduce preexisting PAYGO balances, and for other
purposes;
H.R. 5716, to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 and the Public Health Service Act to extend the mental health
benefits parity provisions for an additional year; and
S. 1214, to amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, to establish a
program to ensure greater security for United States seaports, and for
other purposes.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE JOHN LaFALCE, THE HONORABLE ROBERT A.
UNDERWOOD AND THE HONORABLE KEN BENTSEN, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to put in the Congressional
Record the tremendous accomplishments of John LaFalce, who has served
this body with great distinction since 1974.
In 1999, John LaFalce steered the Financial Services Act through
Congress, which began the process of modernizing the financial services
industry, and this year his magnificent leadership brought about tough
comprehensive investor protections that will help preserve pensions for
years to come.
As this record attests, John LaFalce made a great deal of law during
his outstanding career without making a great deal of noise.
I wish John and his family, Pat and Martin, the very best, which is
what he has given his fellow Americans, day in and day, out for nearly
30 years.
As I do so, I observe that I am here on the floor with two very
distinguished colleagues who are departing Congress at the end of this
session.
Congressman Ken Bentsen from Texas, for whom I have a special
recognition, since not only is he a great Member of Congress but he
represents the district where my three grandsons live in Houston,
Texas. His service in the Congress has benefited Americans across the
board, whether we are talking about consumers or issues relating to
financial services and housing. He was a champion in helping get debt
relief for Third World countries that were poor and developing
countries that needed assistance to make the future better for their
children.
There is hardly any area that you can name that Ken Bentsen's
contribution has not been important, distinguished and had an impact on
the American people. It has been an honor to call him colleague. I know
much more will be said in the days and weeks ahead about his
distinguished service.
He comes from a very distinguished family in Texas, Senator Bentsen
being his uncle, but he made his own mark in Congress. I know his
contribution to the public is not over and there is a great deal more
to come. I congratulate him, his wife Tamra and their beautiful
children on the service they have provided to our country.
As far as Mr. Underwood is concerned, he comes all the way from Guam.
His contribution to the Congress has been significant in many ways,
including his participation on the Asian Pacific American Caucus in the
Congress. He taught us every day that he was here about the concerns of
Asian Pacific Islanders and how we could do a better job for them, to
make the future brighter for them, as well as within the Hispanic
Caucus. So these issues of diversity are issues on which Mr. Underwood
has led the way.
He loves his district, he loves his people, and he has served them
very well here every day he was in Congress. It has also been a
privilege to call him a colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I wish them all the best in their future endeavors, and
I know that we will see great things from them down the road, in
addition to the magnificent contributions they have already made.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT TO FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, when the House adjourns
today, it shall stand adjourned until 11 a.m. on Friday, November 22,
2002.
There was no objection.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM THE HON. RICHARD A. GEPHARDT, DEMOCRATIC LEADER

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from Richard A. Gephardt, Democratic Leader:

House of Representatives,

Office of the Democratic Leader,

Washington, DC, November 18, 2002.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 5(g) of Public Law
107-202, I hereby appoint the following individuals to the
Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary commission:
Congressman Robert A. Borski (PA).
Congressman Chakah Fattah (PA).
Yours Very Truly,
Richard A. Gephardt.

____________________

APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CONGRESSIONAL HUNGER
FELLOWS PROGRAM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, and pursuant to Section
4404(c)(2) of the Congressional Hunger Fellows Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
171), the Chair announces the Speaker's appointment of the following
Members on the part of the House to the Board of Trustees of the
Congressional Hunger Fellows Program for a term of 4 years:
Mrs. Jo Ann Emerson, Cape Girardeau, Missouri; and
Mr. David Weaver, Jr., Lubbock, Texas.
There was no objection.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, and under a previous order of the House, the following
Members will be recognized for 5 minutes.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE LATE JESUS SABLAN LEON GUERRERO, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN OF
THE BANK OF GUAM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the
minority whip and soon-to-be minority leader for her kind remarks
earlier today.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a man who has recently passed away
in Guam, the passing of Jesus Sablan Leon Guerrero, the founder and
chairman of the Bank of Guam. A pioneer, a visionary, a businessman, a
local and regional leader, a statesman, a pillar of the community with
a spirit seasoned by true grit, his experience during World War II, and
emboldened with passionate ideals and altruism for Guam, these are the
qualities embodied

[[Page 22939]]

by the late Jesus Sablan Leon Guerrero, founder and chairman of the
Board of the Bank of Guam.
The dream started long before the first cornerstone was laid for
Guam's first locally owned bank. In the 1940s, Jesus Leon Guerrero
worked in the Navy-operated Bank of Guam as a teller and then loan
officer. The naval operation was later sold to the Bank of America in
1950.
During that time, Mr. Leon Guerrero continued his banking career with
the Bank of America and worked his way up to the ranks of senior
management. However, he found out that once he was assistant vice
president of the Bank of America, the Bank of America would not let him
be head of the local branch. They had a prohibition upon local people
rising to that rank. As a consequence, he then left the Bank of America
to start the very successful Bank of Guam.
For months, he personally went door-to-door to families, friends and
people in the business community, in villages throughout the island,
talking to people. He asked them to entrust their financial accounts in
this new venture, the Bank of Guam, and he succeeded.
On March 13, 1972, after selling 100,000 shares at $15 each, the Bank
of Guam was officially chartered and established its first branch in a
humble modular home in Guam's capital, Hatgatna, with 13 employees.
The Bank of Guam has since been come to be known as the People's
Bank, and because of this dedication to the people of Guam and other
islands of the region, he resolved to take the risk of starting a new
locally organized bank.
From its humble beginnings in a prefab building in Hatgatna, the Bank
of Guam quickly grew into one of the island's most prominent success
stories. As Guam's economy expanded, the bank prospered and took an
increasing share of the market for both deposits and loans. Despite the
setbacks of the recessions during the late 1970s and early 1980s, a
more permanent structure replaced the original facility as the bank's
headquarters.
In 1982, the bank opened a San Francisco branch to support trade
financing between California and Guam and to allow daytime interaction
with the Federal Reserve Bank. Then, in the mid-1980s, an opportunity
arose to expand to other markets when the Bank of America restructured
and closed its Pacific Island operations. Suddenly, the Bank of Guam
had an established network of branches throughout the Western Pacific.
The Bank of Guam first introduced the ATM machine in 1984 and rapidly
expanded its electronic banking network over the next few years. As the
economy continued to grow throughout the decade, so did the Bank of
Guam. In 1990, it opened its 10-story headquarters building in
Hatgatna, and the building remains the most prominent structure in
Guam's capital city.
But most of all I think we want to recognize Jesus Sablan Leon
Guerrero for his inspiration to the young people of Guam. He is proof
positive that the people of Guam, the Chamorro people, can be
successful businessmen. Sometimes there is discussion in the society of
Guam that there have not been too many successful local businessmen. He
is one of them. He is also a role model for those of us who, when faced
with difficult challenges, did not take no for an answer. Mr. Jesus
Sablan Leon Guerrero not only took the challenge of opening a
successful bank, but he also indicated that he was not going to let
barriers artificially placed in front of him to impede his service.
He was a philanthropist, he was a contributor to the growth of the
island as a Board of Regents member, as a philanthropist throughout the
island.
His wife Eugenia, his children, Lou Leon Guerrero, who is a member of
the Guam legislature, Tony, who is currently CEO of the Bank of Guam,
and Jesse, also employed in the Bank of Guam, will miss their father,
as we all will miss him. We certainly want to take the time to honor
and celebrate the life of one of Guam's greatest citizens, Jesus Sablan
Leon Guerrero.

____________________

{time} 1215
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION AND GRATITUDE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bentsen) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in what will be my last speech
as a Member of the House to thank the people of Texas' 25th
Congressional District for the privilege they have bestowed upon me to
serve as their representative over these past 8 years.
I want to at the outset thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), the distinguished minority whip and incoming minority leader,
who in fact, as she mentioned, her grandchildren do live in the
district that I have had the honor of representing. She has been a
great whip, she is going to be a great leader for our caucus, and we
can expect some wonderful things from her over the years.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
We have spent many hours together on flights, his flight a lot longer
than mine, but to get to Guam, he had to go through Houston, so we had
a good deal of time to spend together.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, yourself as the Speaker's designee, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my colleague and classmate from
the 104th Congress, and it has been a privilege to serve with him as
well.
I can think of no greater honor than to be elected by one's fellow
citizens to serve as their voice and vote in this, the people's House,
in matters affecting their life, liberty, and property. I consider
myself to be among the fortunate few Americans, less than 10,000
throughout history, who have had the opportunity to serve in this body.
Mr. Speaker, as I have served, I have learned more about my country
and what it means to be an American, and I have learned more about my
heritage and home as a representative of the people of Texas. I often
have told friends at home how in this job it is not just the public
figures with whom one interacts that are the most interesting but
rather it is a chance to meet so many of one's fellow citizens in one's
district who, but for this position, I would have never come to meet or
know. As I leave the House, I do so with a far greater understanding of
my constituency and my roots than when I arrived 8 years ago.
Furthermore, I have had the distinct pleasure of serving with my
colleagues from all across this great Nation, from all walks of life,
and from all points of view for whom I have the greatest respect.
Serving in the House of Representatives gives one a more clear
understanding of just how big and diverse our Nation has really become.
The House is truly a unique national institution in that its Members
are the closest to the people and their whims, and underscore our
cultural, geographical, philosophical, ethnic, and religious diversity.
While ideology and partisan considerations have frequently divided
us, it often seems that geography and culture are paramount. More
importantly, one learns that there is more to our Nation than his or
her district. It is the sum of these districts, their geography and
cultures, that make us whole and strong. Even in this post-modern age,
220 years since the founding of our Nation, what de Touqueville saw in
our democratic experience when he visited the United States in 1831
still holds true today.
Throughout my tenure, I have had the opportunity to witness and
participate in a part of our Nation's history. I arrived with the
Republican takeover of the House, a position I certainly did not
advocate, but that was nonetheless historic. I watched as the
government came to a halt and a presidency was resurrected after a
stinging mid-term defeat. Even as the Congress took a turn to the
right, I was able to participate in the greatest expansion of access to
health care since Lyndon Johnson was President through the Children's
Health Insurance Program and the largest investment in higher education
since Eisenhower was President.

[[Page 22940]]

We went from deficits as far as the eye can see to an era of
surpluses in paying down the Nation's debt, only to see deficits and
debt return. I was here when we dismantled the regulatory barriers
going back to the New Deal in finance and telecommunications and saw
the rise of the new economy. We began making dramatic new investments
in health and in basic science research as we witnessed historic
breakthroughs such as the mapping of the human genetic structure. We
enjoyed the ``best economy in a generation'' and impeached a President,
witnessed the downfall of a Speaker, a tied national election and
Supreme Court intervention for the first time in the history of our
Nation, and saw that even in our time, mankind was still capable of
genocide in Europe and Africa.
Then we suffered a startling and devastating attack, killing nearly
4,000 innocent Americans and others, and found our Nation at war and,
once again, saw the economy go into a free-fall. Yet the American
people and its Congress rallied to the Nation's common defense.
It has been, to say the least, an exciting 8 years. As I take my
leave, I do so with my faith restored in the American democratic
experiment, now more than 220 years old. While elections may come and
go, this body continues to operate. While we may disagree, we continue
to do so in debate, rather than through insurrection and armed
struggle. If I have any concerns, it is that perhaps we do not debate
enough and that we have become less inclined to point out our
differences in philosophy. I fear that frustration from our inability
to compromise is resulting in an unhealthy cleansing of our
philosophical differences under a forced and conceived cloak of
bipartisanship.
Throughout my tenure, I have been willing on more than a few
occasions to walk across the aisle to reach a compromise and achieve a
greater good. We did this with the Budget Act in 1997, the children's
health care program, and just recently with the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Act, to name but a few.
I do not believe that compromise is a four-letter word, but, at the
same time, I have become dismayed with the rising chorus of those who
believe Members should hide their partisan and philosophical
differences as a means to achieving an end. If we become devoid of any
beliefs, can we effectively represent those who have them? Most of us,
if not all of us, were sent here because we believed in something, and
the people who sent us here believed in us. We should not be afraid to
debate our positions and differences any more than we should be afraid
to compromise at the end of a debate, if it is for the good of the
Nation.
Too often, the perfect has been the enemy of the good. The world just
does not operate that way. While I appreciate the position of the
majority under the Rules of the House, I have often been frustrated not
so much by the loss of debate than by the lack of any real debate. It
all too often seems that the majority is more concerned with stifling
debate of issues, rather than the potential altering of their outcome.
Members of the minority and the majority should be concerned with any
curtailment of actual debate. History tells us that our Founders were
not monolithic in philosophy and thought. Jefferson and Adams were
political adversaries, yet they served together in an administration.
Neither compromised their views, but they led a young Nation. The
Congress must again learn to marry its ideological differences, debate,
deliberation, and leadership.
Mr. Speaker, as successful as our Nation has been throughout its
short history, we confront many problems both at home and abroad. In an
amazingly short time, we have lost our fiscal discipline just about at
the time Social Security and Medicare will begin to feel the burden of
the retiring baby boomers. And yet it seems that few are willing to
face the reality of this pending crisis. We still have too many without
adequate access to health care, even though we have the very best
medical assets in the history of the world.
I have had the honor of representing the world's largest medical
center, the Texas Medical Center, with some of the greatest researchers
and institutions on the planet and yet, even with its dedicated staff
and investment, within a mile of these fine people and institutions too
many of our fellow citizens lack access to the benefits of their care.
We still have too many Americans struggling to make ends meet, even
though we have proven to have the most efficient and successful
economic model.
We still face dangers and threats, even though we have the strongest
military, by far. Our democracy and way of life may well face threats
if we do not act, not merely to defend ourselves and our allies, but to
eradicate poverty and tyranny throughout the world. The growing number
of poor throughout the world is immoral and should be unacceptable to a
free and democratic society such as ours. Failure to use our economic
might and commitment to freedom and individual liberty can only result
in a greater threat to our own freedoms.
The challenges are too great to ignore, but I believe the people of
this body possess the ability, if they muster the will. As America
continues to lead, we must confront those issues before they confront
us.
Mr. Speaker, mine has been a tremendous experience for which I am
truly grateful to my constituents. I have always tried my best to
represent not just those who voted for me but those who voted for
someone else and those who did not vote at all. I have had the benefit
of serving alongside some of the finest individuals I will ever meet,
from both parties and Independents, and while their friendship will
endure, more importantly, as I return to private life, I am comforted
in knowing that the leadership of the Nation remains in such competent
and committed hands.
My tenure in the House would not have been at all successful had it
not been for the excellent staff who tirelessly served the people of
the 25th district and our Nation. Often going unnoticed, these
individuals deserve the credit for a job well done, as I know Members
would agree about their own staff. I would like to take a moment to
read their names into the Record, because they deserve to be inscribed
in the history of this body for the work they have done.
Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues permit me, they are as follows: of my
current staff, Ms. Willie Belle Boone, Ms. Jessica de la Torre-Sauceda,
Ms. Bradley Edgell, Ms. Ashley Etienne, Ms. Lisa Hallford, Ms.
Gabrielle Hargrove, Ms. Victoria Johnson, Ms. Amber Moon, Ms. Brenda
Murphy, Mr. Dominic Nguyen, Ms. Hava Rothman, Mr. J.J. Slater, Ms. Pat
Strong, Mr. Andrew Wallace, the Honorable Ed Watson, and Ms. Barbara
Winters.
Of our former staff, Mr. Ron Allen, Mr. Stephen Brown, Ms. Rosemary
Burkland, Mr. Lloyd Chinn, Ms. Rosaline Cohen, Mr. Mark Daley, Ms.
Audrey Duff, Ms. Natalya Estridge, Mr. Ruben Garcia, Ms. Jennifer
Goodman, Ms. Meredith Grabois, Mr. Stephen Hofmann, Mr. Jonathan
Kaplan, Mr. Lincoln Lobley, Thomas Mayo, Ms. Sandy McManus, Mr. Gary
Palmquist, Ms. Sonya Pastor, Ms. Diane Patterson, Mr. Isaac Pesin, Ms.
Sheryl Roppolo, Ms. Patricia Rojas, Ms. Susan Schieffer, Ms. Jessica
Segal, Ms. Lisa Sherrod, Mr. Whet Smith, Ms. Samantha Smoot, Ms.
Barbara Stalder, Ms. Kathryn Tsuchida, Mr. Jeremy Warren, Mr. Vince
Willmore, Ms. Jennifer Winans, Mr. Patrick Woehrle, and Mr. Bobby
Zafarnia.
In addition, Katie Rosenberg who served as a page, and 75, more than
75 interns who served in our offices in Washington and throughout the
district.
These individuals have, in many ways, become an extension of our
family; and we will always be grateful.
I also want to thank the professional staff with whom I have had the
privilege to work with here on the floor, the Parliamentarian, the
Sergeant at Arms, the Chaplain, the Clerk, and the Cloakroom and in
committee. They, too, are among the most dedicated souls I have ever
met. As some may

[[Page 22941]]

know, I, too, was once staff of this institution and I understand the
burdens of their jobs and I leave with nothing but the highest respect.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank my family for allowing me the opportunity
to seek and undertake my position as a Member of the House. As every
Member knows, this job, with all of its glory and grandeur, can be
grueling on our families. No Member is an exception to this rule. But,
at the same time, my wonderful wife, Tamra, who is in the gallery today
and our two beautiful daughters, Louise and Meredith, have found a home
and an extended family in this body.
I can still remember my first day on January 4, 1995, sitting just to
the right of where I stand today with our two girls, then just 2 and 4.
It was a long day with a lot of speeches. The gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney), juggled Meredith, while Louise searched the floor for
something else to do.
Throughout the years, these two girls have grown up in part on this
floor, playing in the cloakroom, wrestling and dozing off in chairs
during late-night debates. They harassed the staff, created havoc, and
always felt at home.
I cannot thank the Members and the staff enough for what you have
done to make my family part of the experience. They have had to put up
with a lot, nights and days away, missed school events and uncertain
schedules.

{time} 1230

All too often Tamra had to play the role of both parents in my
absence. I know it was not easy.
I once heard Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia speak at the National Prayer
Breakfast, and he said, when asked what his greatest accomplishment was
in all those years in the other body, that ``I kept my family
together.'' He was right. But I also know that Tamra, Louise, Meredith,
and I will miss this place, and it will forever be etched upon our
hearts.
Mr. Speaker, 8 years ago I was given the opportunity to serve my
fellow citizens of Texas' 25th Congressional District, my State, and my
Nation. Few get that chance, not only to witness history, but to
participate in its making, even if in a small way. I have had that
chance, and I have tried my hardest every day to do the very best that
I could. We did not win every battle, but I believe we finished ahead
of where we started. I am confident that our efforts have resulted in
the betterment of people's lives.
Most of all, I have had the chance to serve my people, doing the same
that our forefathers did more than 200 years ago in the founding of
this Nation. The people of the 25th Congressional District gave me this
opportunity to be a part of history and the American democratic
experiment, and for that I shall be eternally grateful.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to clause 12 of
rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess until approximately
12:40 p.m.
Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 31 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until approximately 12:40 p.m.

____________________

{time} 1254
AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) at 12 o'clock and 54 minutes p.m.

____________________

REQUESTING SENATE TO RETURN OFFICIAL PAPERS ON S. 1843, EXTENDING
CERTAIN HYDROELECTRIC LICENSES IN THE STATE OF ALASKA

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk of the
House of Representatives be directed to request the Senate to return
the official papers on S. 1843, to extend certain hydroelectric
licenses in the State of Alaska.
The House is requesting the return of these official papers to
correct an inadvertent error that emerged during its post-passage
processing. We are hopeful that the Senate will agree to this request
and allow the will of the House on this bill to be reflected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.

____________________

CONGRATULATING WORLD SERIES BASEBALL CHAMPIONS, THE ANAHEIM ANGELS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the time of the House of
Representatives to bring to our attention the thrilling victory of the
Anaheim Angels in the World Series. Just last week, this House approved
a resolution, which I authored and which was cosponsored by the
congressional delegation from Orange County, California, commending the
Anaheim Angels. That resolution, not surprisingly, passed unanimously.
I would like to just take the time that we did not have, because of
the press of business at that moment, to describe a little bit of what
went on in the run-up to the World Series and just what an
extraordinary group of men won this championship baseball series; what
an extraordinary group of men, women and children throughout Southern
California, and I think ultimately throughout America, were behind them
in their heroic efforts.
I think everyone knows that the Anaheim Angels had a rough start to
their season. They started out losing 14 of their first 20 games. Now,
a lot of us here in the political line of work, a lot of people who
watch baseball as an avocation for sports, understand what it is like
to get behind the 8-ball, what it is like to know that not only are you
not on top of the heap, but you are way behind, and nobody expects you
to win. This did not hold back the Anaheim Angels in the end one wit.
In fact, it was ultimately the source of their strength.
They came from behind not just at the beginning of the season to
overcome this 14 out of 20 deficit, but time after time after time when
they were behind in even the late innings of baseball games. That is
what kind of grit and determination this team had that put them on top
throughout the playoffs and ultimately throughout the best of seven in
the World Series. That is why we were all so proud in this House of
Representatives to congratulate the winning team in this year's World
Series, because they are emblematic of what is so great about American
sport and, ultimately, about American character, this never-give-up,
never-say-die attitude.
As a regular fan of the Angels, particularly because my kids are so
inspired by Angels baseball and such baseball fans and players
themselves, I could not have had more fun this season. I attended a lot
of Angels' games, starting with their first home game and going
throughout the season, ultimately winding up with that exceptional
playoff series against the New York Yankees, then against the Minnesota
Twins, and finally against the San Francisco Giants.
I do not think that there is much in baseball that can compare to it,
particularly since in game six of the World Series we had the greatest
comeback in World Series history. Again, just so typical of the grit
and determination of this Angels team, coming from behind time and time
and time again.
The players on this team work hard. They play the game the way it
should be played. They sacrificed their individual ambitions for the
good of the team. There is so much that we can all take away from this,
so much to learn about what makes success. They did their jobs with
dignity.
The spirit of the team is captured on the words of the ``Thunder
Sticks'' that were used so often during the World Series, ``Yes, we
can!'' It is as good for everybody in America as it was for the fans of
the Anaheim Angels this year.
Nobody can forget the ``Rally Monkey.'' But the rally monkey was
really a way for the players to inspire and honor their team, because
this was all about the team. This was all about the individual players
and how they worked together and contributed to that overall effort.

[[Page 22942]]

Nobody can forget how Tim Salmon came to the plate in game two to hit
two home runs, giving the Angels a crucial home victory before the
series moved to San Francisco for three games.
Nobody can forget how Scott Spiezio hit a three-run homer which
brought the Angels to within two in the bottom of the 7th inning in
game six.
Nobody can forget Darin Erstad and his long ball in the eighth
inning, which carried the Angels to within one run of the Giants; and
Troy Glaus, who sent a double into left field, scoring the tying run
and the go-ahead run that gave the Angels a six-to-five win.
Each one of these players, a different one seemingly every time, rose
to the occasion, and that is what made this such a team effort. There
was David Eckstein, Garret Anderson, and all the rest of the Angels
whose outstanding play put away game seven.
There was always, at the most exciting moment, Troy Percival to close
the game. Percival's remarkable pitching has already become the stuff
of World Series legend. And the Anaheim Angels of 2002 will go down in
history as a team built on character and on heart.
Sure, we have our Gold Glove winners, Ben Molina, the catcher; Darin
Erstad, the center fielder. Sure, we have our stars. In fact,
ultimately everyone on this team was a star. But more than anything it
was a team.

{time} 1300

It was a team of champions. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the
balance of my time to the gentle monkey from California.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Member (at the request of Mr. Underwood) to revise and
extend his remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Underwood, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Member (at his own request) to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Cox, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission to revise and extend remarks was
granted to:
Ms. Pelosi and to include extraneous material, notwithstanding the
fact that it exceeds two pages and is estimated by the Public Printer
to cost $3,023.

____________________

SENATE BILLS REFERRED

Bills and a concurrent resolution of the Senate of the following
titles were taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule,
referred as follows:

S. 754. An act to enhance competition for prescription
drugs by increasing the ability of the Department of Justice
and Federal Trade Commission to enforce existing antitrust
laws regarding brand name drugs and generic drugs; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce; in addition to the
Committee on the Judiciary for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
S. 2799. An act to provide for the use and distribution of
certain funds awarded to the Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Resources.
S. 2869. An act to facilitate the ability of certain
spectrum auction winners to pursue alternative measures
required in the public interest to meet the needs of wireless
telecommunications consumers; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
S. 2949. An act to provide for enhanced aviation security,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure; in addition to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
S. 2951. An act to authorize appropriations for the Federal
Aviation Administration, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Science.
S. 3172. An act to improve the calculation of the Federal
subsidy rate with respect to certain small business loans,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Budget; in
addition to the Committee on Small Business for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
S. Con. Res. 122. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that security, reconciliation, and
prosperity for all Cypriots can be best achieved within the
context of membership in the European Union which will
provide significant rights and obligations for all Cypriots,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on International
Relations.

____________________

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

Mr. Trandahl, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled
bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed
by the Speaker:

H.R. 2621. An act to amend title 18, United States Code,
with respect to consumer product protection.
H.R. 3758. An act for the relief of So Hyun Jun.
H.R. 3988. An act to amend title 36, United States Code, to
clarify the requirements for eligibility in the American
Legion.
H.R. 4546. An act to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2003 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4628. An act to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2003 for intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government, the Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4727. An act to reauthorize the national dam safety
program, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5590. An act to amend title 10, United States Code, to
provide for the enforcement and effectiveness of civilian
orders of protection on military installations.
H.R. 5708. An act to reduce preexisting PAYGO balances, and
for other purposes.
H.R. 5716. An act to amend the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act to
extend the mental health benefits parity provisions for an
additional year.

____________________

SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

The SPEAKER announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate
of the following title:

S. 1214. An act to amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, to
establish a program to ensure greater security for United
States seaports, and for other purposes.

____________________

BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House reports that on November 15, 2002
he presented to the President of the United States, for his approval,
the following bills.

H.R. 1070. ``Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act of 2002.''
H.R. 2546. ``Real Interstate Driver Equity Act of 2002.''
H.R. 3340. To amend title 5, United States Code, to allow
certain catch-up contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan to
be made by participants age 50 or over; to reauthorize the
Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special
Counsel; and for other purposes.
H.R. 3389. ``National Sea Grant College Program Act
Amendments of 2002.''
H.R. 3394. ``Cyber Security Research and Development Act.''
H.R. 4878. To provide for estimates and reports of improper
payments by Federal agencies.
H.R. 5349. To facilitate the use of a portion of the former
O'Reilly General Hospital in Springfield, Missouri, by the
local Boys and Girls Club through the release of the
reversionary interest and other interests retained by the
United States in 1955 when the land was conveyed to the State
of Missouri.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 1 minute
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Friday,
November 22, 2002, at 11 a.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

10077. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the

[[Page 22943]]

Agency's final rule -- Bacillus Cereus Strain BPO1; Exemption
from the Requirement of a Tolerance [OPP-2002-0291; FRL-7277-
3] received November 15, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
10078. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a request to make available emergency
funds for the Department of Treasury's Air Transportation
Stabilization Program; (H. Doc. No. 107--283); to the
Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed.
10079. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, Department
of Defense, transmitting the Department's legislation to
extend through 2003 the authorities necessary to continue the
unified campaign against drugs and terrorism in Colombia; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
10080. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Housing Choice
Voucher Program Homeownership Option: Eligibility of Units
Owned or Controlled by a Public Housing Agency; Correction
[Docket No. FR-4759-C-02] (RIN: 2577-AC39) received November
14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
10081. A letter from the President and Chairman, Export-
Import Bank of the United States, transmitting a report
involving U.S. exports to Romania, pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
635(b)(3)(i); to the Committee on Financial Services.
10082. A letter from the President and Chairman, Export-
Import Bank of the United States, transmitting a report
involving U.S. exports to Ireland, pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
635(b)(3)(i); to the Committee on Financial Services.
10083. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Housing
Finance Board, transmitting the Board's final rule --
Affordable Housing Program Amendments [No. 2002- 52] (RIN:
3069-AB16) received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
10084. A letter from the General Counsel, National Credit
Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule -- Investment and Deposit Activities; Corporate Credit
Unions -- received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
10085. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Investment
Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting
the Commission's final rule -- Disclosure of Costs and
Expenses by Insurance Company Separate Accounts Registered as
Unit Investment Trusts that Offer Variable Annuity Contracts
[Release Nos. 33-8147; IC-25802; File No. S7- 07-02] (RIN:
3235-AI39) received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
10086. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Security Conditions [DOE N 473.8]
received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10087. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Eligibility for Security Police
Officer Positions in the Personnel Security Assurance Program
(RIN: 1992-AA30) received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10088. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Departmental Energy and Utilities
Management [DOE O 430.2A] received November 14, 2002,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
10089. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Georgia: Final Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision [FRL 7409-
2] received November 13, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10090. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans for the State of Montana;
Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana [SIP No. MT-
001-0043, FRL-7397-4] received November 15, 2002, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
10091. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Indiana [IN145-1a; FRL-7398-5] received
November 15, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10092. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State
Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of
Mississippi [MS-200301(a); FRL-7404-2] received November 15,
2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
10093. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District [CA242-0373a; FRL-7395-8] received November 15,
2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
10094. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans for Kentucky: Approval of Revisions to
the Jefferson County Portion of the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan [KY-138; KY-140; KY-141-200303(a); FRL-
7409-1] received November 13, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10095. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in
Progress, Attainment, and Maintenance State Implementation
Plans for Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide;
California [CA-079-SIPS; FRL-7408-5] received November 13,
2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
10096. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating [FRL-
7385-5] (RIN: 2060-AG58) received November 13, 2002, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
10097. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Bureau
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of
Section 73.622(b), Table of Allotments, Digital Television
Broadcast Stations (Tyler, Texas) [MM Docket No. 01-244; RM-
10234]; Amendment of Section 73.622(b), Table of Allotments,
Digital Television Broadcast Stations (Lufkin, Texas) [MM
Docket No. 01-245; RM-10235] received November 14, 2002,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
10098. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Bureau
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of
Section 73.622(b), Table of Allotments, Digital Television
Broadcast Stations, Lewisburg, West Virginia [MB Docket No.
02-178; RM-10456] received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10099. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Bureau
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of
Section 73.606(b), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast
Stations, Topeka, Kansas [MB Docket No. 02-154; RM-10490]
received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10100. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Bureau
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of
Section 73.606(b), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast
Stations, New Iberia, Louisiana [MB Docket No. 02-153; RM-
10454] received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10101. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Bureau
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of
Section 73.606(b), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast
Stations, Wiggins, Mississippi [MB Docket No. 02-152; RM-
10457] received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10102. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Bureau
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of
Section 73.622(b), Table of Allotments, Digital Television
Broadcast Stations, Montgomery, Alabama [MB Docket No. 02-
132; RM-10374] received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10103. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Bureau
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of
Section 73.606(b), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast
Stations; and Section 73.622(b), Table of Allotments, Digital
Broadcast Television Stations, Des Moines, Iowa [MB Docket
No. 02-130; RM-10438] received November 14, 2002, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
10104. A letter from the Legal Advisory, WTB, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's
final rule -- Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules
to authorize the use of 406.025 MHz for Personal Locator
Beacons (PLB) [WT Docket No. 99-366] received November 14,
2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
10105. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of

[[Page 22944]]

State, transmitting certification of a proposed license for
the export of defense articles or defense services sold
commercially under a contract to international waters in the
Pacific Ocean for Sea Launch or to Kourou, French Guiana on
an Ariane Launch Vehicle [Transmittal No. DTC 246-02],
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
10106. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
certification of a proposed export license Agreement with
Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom [Transmittal
No. DTC 282-02], pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the
Committee on International Relations.
10107. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); to the
Committee on International Relations.
10108. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a supplemental report, consistent with
the War Powers Resolution, to help ensure that the Congress
is kept fully informed on continued U.S. contributions in
support of peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo; (H. Doc. No. 107--
282); to the Committee on International Relations and ordered
to be printed.
10109. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Export Administration, Department of Commerce,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Exports and
Reexports to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Lifting of
UN Arms Embargo-Based Controls; Clarification of UN Arms
Embargo-Based Controls on Rwanda [Docket No. 021009232-2232-
01] (RIN: 0694-AC57) received November 14, 2002, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on International
Relations.
10110. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-488,
``Government Sport Utility Vehicle Purchasing Amendment Act
of 2002'' received November 14, 2002, pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1--233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
10111. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-489,
``Mandarin Oriental Hotel Project Tax Deferral Act of 2002''
received November 14, 2002, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--
233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
10112. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-517 ``Medical
Support Establishment and Enforcement Temporary Amendment Act
of 2002'' received November 14, 2002, pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1--233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
10113. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-516,
``District of Columbia Flag Adoption and Design Act of 2002''
received November 14, 2002, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--
233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
10114. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-515,
``Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation
Procurement Amendment Act of 2002'' received November 14,
2002, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
10115. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-497, ``Motor
Definition Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device
Exemption Amendment Act of 2002'' received November 14, 2002,
pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--233(c)(1); to the Committee
on Government Reform.
10116. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-492, ``Square
456 Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act of 2002'' received November
14, 2002, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
10117. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-491,
``Prostate Cancer Screening Insurance Coverage Requirement
Act of 2002'' received November 14, 2002, pursuant to D.C.
Code section 1--233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government
Reform.
10118. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-490, ``Carl
Wilson Basketball Court Designation Act of 2002'' received
November 14, 2002, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--
233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
10119. A letter from the President, African Development
Foundation, transmitting a report in compliance with the
Inspector General Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen.
Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on Government Reform.
10120. A letter from the Director of Engineering,
Maintenance and Operations, American Battle Monuments
Commission, transmitting a report required by the Freedom of
Information Act for FY 2002; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
10121. A letter from the Attorney/Advisor, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
10122. A letter from the Attorney/Advisor, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
10123. A letter from the Executive Director, Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board, transmitting a report in
compliance with the Inspector General Act and the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app.
(Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on Government
Reform.
10124. A letter from the Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting a report
on the Annual Inventory of Commercial Activities; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
10125. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting the Office's legislative proposal,
``Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act
of 2002''; to the Committee on Government Reform.
10126. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a report on plans and recommendations to establish a Dwight
D. Eisenhower memorial, pursuant to Public Law 106--79,
section 8162 (113 Stat. 1275); to the Committee on Resources.
10127. A letter from the Director, Office of Surface
Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Kentucky Regulatory Program [KY-
237-FOR] received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
10128. A letter from the Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries; Atlantic
Bluefin Tuna [I.D. 102202A] received November 14, 2002,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
10129. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Determination of Endangered Status for the Carson Wandering
Skipper (RIN: 1018-AI18) received November 14, 2002, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
10130. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Closure of Fishery
for Loligo Squid [Docket No. 011005244-2011-02; I.D. 102202B]
received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
10131. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Trawl
Gear in the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No. 011218304-1304-01;
I.D. 103102A] received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
10132. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery; Quota Harvested for Maine
Mahogany Quahog Fishery [Docket No. 011004242-2005-02; I.D.
l01102E] received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
10133. A letter from the Acting Assistant General Counsel
for Regulations, Office of the General Counsel, Department of
Education, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation --
received November 13, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
10134. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a
report in response to Section 417 of the USA-Patriot Act,
Public Law 107-56; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
10135. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Amendment to Class E Airspace; Ulysses, KS
[Airspace Docket No. 02-ACE-11] received November 14, 2002,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10136. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Modification of Class E Airspace; Needles
Airport, CA [Airspace Docket No. 01-AWP-15] received November
14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10137. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Revocation of Restricted Area R-5207, Romulus,
NY [Docket No. FAA-2002-13624; Airspace Docket No. 02-AEA-17]
(RIN: 2120-

[[Page 22945]]

AA66) received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10138. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Amendment to Using Agency for Restricted Area
2301W Ajo West, AZ [Docket No. FAA-2002-13525; Airspace
Docket No. 02-AWP-08] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received November 14,
2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10139. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace
LP Model Galaxy and Gulfstream 200 Airplanes [Docket No.
2002-NM-265-AD; Amendment 39-12945; AD 2002-23-01] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10140. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; MORAVAN a.s. Models
Z-143L and Z-242L Airplanes [Docket No. 99-CE-71-AD;
Amendment 39-12925; AD 2002-22-01] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10141. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France
Model AS355N Helicopters [Docket No. 2002-SW-32-AD; Amendment
39-12943; AD 2002-22-16] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received November
14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10142. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France
Model EC 155B Helicopters [Docket No. 2002-SW-26-AD;
Amendment 39-12942; AD 2002-22-15] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10143. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft
Company Models 208 and 208B Airplanes [Docket No. 2002-CE-23-
AD; Amendment 39-12944; AD 2002-22-17] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10144. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter
Textron, Inc. Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, 212, 214B, and
214B-1 Helicopters [Docket No. 2001-SW-42-AD; Amendment 39-
12941; AD 2002-22-14] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received November 14,
2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10145. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Titeflex Corporation
[Docket No. 2000-NE-57-AD; Amendment 39-12938; AD 2002-22-12]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10146. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Textron Lycoming
AEIO-540, IO-540, LTIO-540, O-540, and TIO-540, Series
Reciprocating Engines [Docket No. 2002-NE-31-AD; Amendment
39-12950; AD 2002-23-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received November
14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10147. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Regulated
Navigation Area, Safety and Security Zones; Long Island Sound
Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zone [CGD01-01-187]
(RIN: 2115-AE84, AA97) received November 14, 2002, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
10148. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Industrial Seaway Canal, Gulfport, MS
[CGD08-02-031] (RIN: 2115-AE47) received November 14, 2002,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10149. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Lower Mississippi River, Miles 87.2 to 91.2, Above Head of
Passes, New Orleans, LA [COTP New Orleans-02-022] (RIN: 2115-
AA97) received November 19, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10150. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Artouste
III Series Turboshaft Engines [Docket No. 99-NE-33-AD;
Amendment 39-12937; AD 2002-22-11] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10151. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Methods; Final Rule [FRL 7408-6] (RIN: 2040-
AD73) received November 13, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10152. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for
Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Authorization
of Contractor Use of Interagency Fleet Management System
(IFMS) Vehicles (RIN: 2700-AC33) received November 14, 2002,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Science.
10153. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule --
2002 Base Period T-Bill Rate (Rev. Rul. 2002-68) received
November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
10154. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule --
Certain Exchanges of Insurance Policies (Rev. Rul. 2002-75)
received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
10155. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule --
2003 Limitations Adjusted As Provided in Section 415(d), etc.
[Notice 2002-71] received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
10156. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule --
Qualified Pension, Profit-Sharing, and Stock Bonus Plans
(Rev. Rul. 2002-63) received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
10157. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule --
Substantiation of Incidental Expenses [TD 9020] (RIN: 1545-
BB19) received November 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
10158. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule -- Tax
Treatment of Residential Grants Made by the Lower Manhattan
Development Corporation to Individuals and Families Affected
by the September 11, 2001, Disaster [Notice 2002-76] received
November 15, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
10159. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule --
Information Reporting Relating to Taxable Stock Transactions
[TD 9022] (RIN: 1545-BB40) received November 15, 2002,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
10160. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Commerce, transmitting the Department's draft bill entitled,
``Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 2002''; jointly
to the Committees on Resources, the Judiciary, International
Relations, and Ways and Means.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. OXLEY:
H.R. 5758. A bill to extend the national flood insurance
program; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. OXLEY:
H.R. 5759. A bill to extend the national flood insurance
program; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. CONYERS:
H.R. 5760. A bill to create a commission on Internet
gambling licensing and regulation; to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HYDE (for himself and Mr. Lantos):
H.R. 5761. A bill to provide assistance to foreign
countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on International
Relations.
By Ms. McKINNEY:
H.R. 5762. A bill to provide for the expeditious disclosure
of records relevant to the life and assassination of Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.; to the Committee on
Government Reform.

____________________

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:

[[Page 22946]]

449. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the General
Assembly of the State of Iowa, relative to House Resolution
No. 559 memorializing the United States Congress regarding
Iowa Code 69.14 requiring a special election to fill
vacancies; to the Committee on House Administration.
450. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of New
Jersey, relative to Senate Resolution No. 36 memorializing
the Congress of the United States that the legislature urges
the United States Department of Agriculture to allocate
additional resources to address problems associated with the
resident Canada goose population in New Jersey; jointly to
the Committees on Agriculture and Resources.
451. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Alaska, relative to House Joint Resolution No. 48
memorializing the Congress of the United States that the
legislature hereby requests the Alaska Congressional
delegation, as well as the Congressional delegations of the
several states, to introduce and adopt legislation that would
amend the laws of the United States regarding land managing
agencies; jointly to the Committees on Resources and
Agriculture.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:

H.R. 491: Mr. Royce.
H.R. 536: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 1232: Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 1487: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 1904: Mr. Olver and Ms. Norton.
H.R. 2207: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 2614: Mr. Farr of California.
H.R. 2820: Mr. Cox.
H.R. 3884: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 4032: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 4790: Mr. Jeff Miller of Florida.
H.R. 4916: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 4974: Mr. Platts.
H.R. 5013: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Taylor of
North Carolina, and Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 5194: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 5252: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 5274: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 5441: Mr. Reyes.
H.R. 5462: Mr. Souder and Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 5471: Mr. Ford, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Hill,
and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 5528: Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Jenkins, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Armey, Mr. Hayworth, Mr.
Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Mica, Mr. Herger,
Mrs. Kelly, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, and Mr.
Lipinski.
H.R. 5613: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 5669: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H. Con. Res. 260: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
H. Con. Res. 421: Mr. Cummings and Mrs. Tauscher.
H. Con. Res. 507: Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Kolbe, and Mr.
Sensenbrenner.
H. Con. Res. 511: Mr. Pitts.
H. Con. Res. 514: Mr. Stark.
H. Res. 554: Mr. Frost and Mr. Reyes.
H. Res. 589: Mr. Osborne and Mr. Waxman.
H. Res. 613: Mr. Davis of Illinois.

____________________

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the
clerk's desk and referred as follows:

92. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the National
Nuclear Workers For Justice, relative to a Resolution
petitioning the United States Congress to approve our
``Special Exposure Cohort'' status; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
93. Also, a petition of John Philip Ellis Sr., a Citizen of
Florida, relative to a Resolution petitioning the United
States Congress for a thorough review of the events
enumerating multiple procedural and criminal violations of
law committed by various federal personnel that have occurred
continuously in Palm Beach County, FL and other places within
the State and elsewhere between May 1995 and the present day;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page 22947]]

SENATE--Tuesday, November 19, 2002

The Senate met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Dean M. Barkley, a Senator from the State of Minnesota.
______

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Gracious God, You have called the men and women of this Senate to
glorify You by being servant-leaders. The calling is shared by the
officers of the Senate, the Senators' staffs, and all who enable the
work done in this Chamber. Keep us focused on the liberating truth that
we are here to serve You by serving our Nation. Our sole purpose is to
accept Your absolute lordship over our lives and give ourselves totally
to the work of this day. Give us the enthusiasm that comes from knowing
the high calling of serving in government. Grant us the holy esteem of
knowing that You seek to accomplish Your plans for America through the
legislation of this Senate. Free us from secondary, self-serving goals.
Help us to humble ourselves and ask how we may serve today. We know
that happiness comes not from having things or getting recognition but
from serving in the great cause of implementing Your righteousness,
justice, and mercy for every person and in every circumstance in this
Nation. We take delight in the ultimate paradox of life: the more we
give ourselves away, the more we can receive of Your love. In our
Lord's name. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Dean M. Barkley led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,

President pro tempore,

Washington, DC, November 19, 2002.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Dean M. Barkley, a Senator from the State of Minnesota, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.

Mr. BARKLEY thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is
recognized.

____________________

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2
minutes for debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form,
following the first vote in the sequence of votes already ordered for
today's session.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the 90 minutes begin running and
that the time be charged equally.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we hope to complete action on the homeland
security bill today. Also, as soon as we finish that, hopefully, we
will do the Dennis Shedd nomination, and then the terrorism insurance
conference report. We can complete all that today and, of course, also,
we have the must-do legislation, the continuing resolution that we have
to complete today. So we have a lot of work to do today.
I also note that I have been informed that the minority will allow no
extensions of time during the 90 minutes already ordered.

____________________

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002--Resumed

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 5005) to establish the Department of Homeland
Security, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Thompson (for Gramm) Amendment No. 4901, in the nature of a
substitute.
Daschle (for Lieberman) Amendment No. 4911 (to Amendment
No. 4901), to provide that certain provisions of the Act
shall not take effect.
Daschle (for Lieberman) Amendment No. 4953 (to Amendment
No. 4911), of a perfecting nature.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 10:30 a.m. shall be divided, with 30 minutes under the control of
the two leaders or their designees, and 30 minutes under the control of
the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have under the order?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 28 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thought I had 30 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada asked that
the time in the beginning be charged to both sides.
Mr. BYRD. OK. That is fair enough.
Mr. President, many Senators feel that they are under great pressure
from the administration to pass this bill that is before us--a bill
that contains 484 pages. Here it is. This is the 484-page bill that was
passed by the House of Representatives--a new bill, passed by the House
quickly, without adequate debate, dumped into the laps of Senators, and
we contributed to our own problem by invoking cloture on the amendment
last Friday. We are coming around the final lap of our 30-hour journey
now. We have been unable to call up any amendments, other than the
pending amendment by Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lieberman.
As I say, many of our colleagues feel they are under great pressure
from the administration to support this bill, and the White House is
attempting to say that by adopting the amendment offered by Mr. Daschle
on behalf of Mr. Lieberman--the White House would have us believe and
the Republican-controlled House would have Members believe that if this
amendment by Mr. Daschle is adopted, this would mean the death of the
bill. Well, I would hope that were true because I think this is a
terrible bill. It has some good provisions in it, but it is a bad bill.
So personally, I would hope that were true. But it is not true.
The House has a duty to return. The House has dumped this bill into
the laps of the Senate and then walked away, gone home for
Thanksgiving, gone home for Christmas, gone home for the year--if it
can get by with it. But the House has a duty to come back

[[Page 22948]]

and finish its work. So I hope Senators will not be moved, will not be
pressured into believing that the adoption of this amendment will kill
the bill. That is untrue.
Congress has not adjourned sine die yet. So we all have a duty to
stay here and do our work.
I think we are going to get a pay raise very soon--perhaps early next
year--and so we can stay around and do our work. It is our duty to the
people. We ought to try to improve this bill, and the amendment by Mr.
Daschle will do that.
Do those who believe that the President--whatever party he is,
Democrat or Republican--do those who believe that he is king under our
Constitution--apparently some Senators here vote as though they think
the President is king, although they know better than that. But still
they believe they have to follow the President's direction.
The President did not bring any of us here. The President did not
elect any of the Members of this body. This is an independent body.
This is an independent branch of Government. This is a separate branch
of Government. No President elects any Member of this body. The
President is just the Chief Executive of the land. I say ``just.'' It
is a tremendous office, of course, with great power, but he is no king.
And we are not sent here by our people to let the President or the
White House or any party control us or dictate to us.
As a reminder of what a true Senator should be, I call attention to
that ancient Roman Emperor whose name was Vespasia. He was Emperor of
the Roman Empire from the years 69 to 79 A.D. A great Senator, one of
the truly great Senators, was Helvidius Priscus.
For some reason, this Senator and the Emperor Vespasia got at cross-
purposes, and the Emperor stopped Helvidius Priscus one day outside the
Roman Senate and told him not to come in. ``You can forbid me to be a
Senator,'' said Helvidius Priscus, ``but as long as I am a Senator, I
must come in.''
``Come in then and be silent,'' said the Emperor Vespasia.
``Question me not, and I will be silent,'' responded the Senator.
``But I am bound to question you,'' said the Emperor Vespasia.
``And I am bound to say what seems right to me,'' responded the
Senator.
``But if you say it, I will kill you,'' the Emperor warned.
``When did I tell you that I was immortal? You will do your part, and
I will do mine,'' responded the Senator. ``It is yours to kill and mine
to die without quailing.''
So both did their parts. Helvidius Priscus spoke his mind. The
Emperor Vespasia killed him.
In this effeminate age, it is instructive to read of courage. There
are Members of the Senate and House who are terrified, apparently, if
the President of the United States tells them, urges them to vote a
certain way, which may be against their belief.
So in this day of few men with great courage--relatively few--let us
take a leaf out of Roman history and remember Helvidius Priscus.
The Senate has rolled over with regard to the homeland security bill.
The administration has sold a bill of goods to the American people that
there is an urgency for the Senate to pass this bill before another
terrorist attack. There is no such urgency. The real danger is not when
the reorganization will take effect but whether the reorganization will
distract our homeland security agencies from their primary mission of
protecting the homeland.
The Senate shares in the complicity in pushing this sense of urgency
on the American people. The people who will be protecting the public,
those who will be protecting us, Members of the House and Senate, once
this reorganization is completed a year from now--a year from the date
of passage of this legislation--are the same people who are out there
on the northern border right now, right today. They were there last
night. The same people are already on the southern border. They are
already at the ports of entry. They are guarding the Atlantic coast.
They are guarding the Pacific coast. They are guarding the gulf coast.
They are the same people then who are out on those posts of duty now.
So whether or not we pass this bill does not mean a great deal insofar
as the safety of the American people is concerned.
The Appropriations Committee of the Senate and the Senate itself have
provided funds for the protection of this country, billions of dollars,
which have been turned down by the President of the United States. He
has rejected these funds. He did so earlier this year when Congress
passed an appropriations bill, making $5.1 billion available for use,
with only the flourish of a pen necessary on the part of the President.
These were designated as emergency funds by the Congress, but the
President refused to likewise designate these items as emergency funds.
So those funds have gone begging. Do not let anybody tell you we have
to pass this bill in order to have the security of this country
tomorrow or next week or the next month. The moneys have been there to
provide homeland security for the American people. Those funds have
been passed by this Congress months ago. This President--this President
who is urging the Congress to act quickly on this bill--has not acted
quickly on those funds. As a matter of fact, he has turned the back of
his hand to those funds.
The Senate shares complicity in pushing this sense of urgency on the
American people. Senators have pushed it so often and so hard that they
now believe it. Last Friday, the Senate invoked cloture on the bill
that is before the Senate, a bill that it had hardly read.
Most Senators, I believe, had not read that bill at that time. I had
not been able to read the whole bill at that time.
This cloture limits the ability of the Senate to debate and offer
amendments. We had 30 hours. What happened? One amendment is offered.
Mr. Daschle offered one amendment on behalf of Mr. Lieberman. That was
it. The whole 30 hours have been spent on that one amendment. Our
Republican friends deemed it so, to have one amendment. You are going
to spend the whole 30 hours on it. That is the only amendment you are
going to have.
So Senators can now read it and weep. They voted to invoke cloture on
themselves and they denied themselves the possible opportunity to offer
other amendments. Senators no longer cared what bill passed as long as
they voted for something that would create a new Homeland Security
Department. In the process of trying to build a Homeland Security
Department, this Senate has come dangerously close to building a
massive chamber of secrets. This past weekend, Homeland Security
Director Tom Ridge appeared on several of the Sunday morning talk shows
to assuage concerns that the administration is planning to create a new
domestic spy agency in the United States. When asked about his trip to
London to study the British model domestic spy agency, Governor Ridge
said his trip was very revealing, but that the administration was not
likely to create such a domestic spy agency in the United States.
I must give Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge an A+ for invoking
the Constitution. He mentioned the Constitution more than once. I
compliment him on that. That is the first administration official that
I have heard say anything about the Constitution in all of these
debates with respect to the war on Iraq, the Iraq resolution, and with
respect to homeland security. I am sure something could have been said
that escaped my attention. I cannot hear every administration official.
But for once the U.S. Constitution was mentioned--more than once--by
Mr. Ridge. I almost stood in my family room and applauded him for doing
so.
A number of Senators appeared on the Sunday morning talk shows and
assured the show's viewers that, if such a domestic agency were
created, the Congress would exercise appropriate oversight to ensure
that abuses of power did not occur within it.
I remember hearing these same kinds of comments with regard to the
creation of a new Homeland Security Department. ``A new Department
won't solve anything,'' said the White House

[[Page 22949]]

spokesman. That was not too long ago. The White House spokesman said a
new Department would not solve anything. Then to everyone's surprise,
the President suddenly made the creation of a new Homeland Security
Department his top priority.
The President sought broad authority in the plan he presented to the
Congress. He wanted the authority to reorganize and run this new
Department with limited congressional interference. He wanted to hide
decisionmaking within the new Department from the American public and
the press. He wanted what he called ``managerial flexibility'' to waive
statutory protections, for example, for Federal employees within the
new Department. He wanted to free himself from as much congressional
oversight as possible.
Members of Congress said they would exercise appropriate oversight to
ensure this new bureaucracy could be reigned in, but what has the
Senate actually done? What can it point out in all of these months and
weeks of consideration? This homeland security bill authorizes this new
Department to cloak its actions in secrecy. The President's plan, for
example, for reorganization of this Department, has not been sent to
the Congress. The President probably doesn't even know himself yet what
he plans. He has several months in which to do that. Even then, the
plan will not require congressional approval. The Congress will be
informed by the President what the plan is under this bill. That is it.
Just inform us, Mr. President. Let us know what you will do. No
approval is required of Congress. So we are going to be a pig in a poke
here. We are going to approve the President's plan in advance. Even
before he knows what is in his plan, before he sends it to the
Congress, we are going to approve it when this bill before the Senate
is passed.
It provides broad new authorities to the President without any real
mechanism to ensure that those powers are not abused. I sought to offer
an amendment earlier when Mr. Lieberman brought his bill from his
committee when he and Mr. Thompson had worked in the committee to bring
out a bill and did bring out a bill. I sought to amend it so as to keep
Congress in the loop with respect to the President's organizational
plan. I sought to have Congress continue to stay in the mix. But that
amendment was rejected. It would have been well to have had such an
amendment because it would have provided for an orderly process in the
filling in of the Department by the various agencies. I understand
there are about 28 agencies and offices that will go into the
Department. Even Mr. Lieberman, the author of that, one of the authors
of the bill, and he is here in the Chamber, even he voted against my
amendment.
Today I think that amendment would help. If that amendment had been
adopted, I think it would have assured the American people that their
elected Representatives in Congress were going to stay in the mix, and
it was not going to relegate itself to the sideline. But that is water
over the dam.
This legislation allows the President to rewrite the civil service
code for Federal workers within the new Departments so that most new
rules go into effect without any congressional approval. Congress has
rolled over on almost every issue that would have provided the Congress
with some oversight mechanism and the public with some transparency.
So here we are, on this day, we are going to vote in all likelihood
on final passage, and the Congress has done precious little to make
sure that appropriate safeguards are included in the legislation to
protect the privacy rights and civil liberties of the American public.
What is more, we have endangered the constitutional doctrines of the
separation of powers and checks and balances between the President and
the Congress.
What do we hear from supporters of the bill? The American people
should trust the President, they should trust their elected leaders to
ensure the mass of new bureaucracy will not intrude upon their private
lives. How can Senators make such arguments? The administration has
told us it is not planning to create a new domestic spy agency in the
United States. Yet within this bill, this language would fund the total
information or authorize funding of this total information awareness
program that is being developed by the Pentagon, apparently for one
purpose: to peer into the daily transactions and private lives of every
American.
I urge Senators to vote for this amendment. I hope they will vote for
it, and I hope they will not be cajoled by disingenuous arguments that
a vote for the amendment is a vote against the homeland security bill.
I don't buy that argument. If we amend this bill, it is beyond our
control in the Senate, but it is the Senate's last chance to show the
American people that we are serious about placing some controls over
this massive new bureaucracy.
I hope the Senate will support the amendment, and I urge its
adoption.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I reserve my 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut
Mr. LIEBERMAN. May I inquire how much time the majority leader or his
designee has?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-eight minutes.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask the Chair notify me when I have consumed 15
minutes so I can preserve the rest for the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for the
motion to strike which Senator Daschle and I and others have
introduced.
I do so, as my colleagues know, believing deeply in the urgent need
for a Department of Homeland Security and believing deeply that the
vast majority of the underlying bill rises to the difficult and
critical challenge of organizing and equipping our Government to
protect the American people from terrorism. Of course, there are parts
of the bill that I wish had been somewhat different, but in the nature
of the legislative process one never achieves everything one wants, and
that goes particularly to the long-debated sections on the rights of
Federal workers whom we will now ask to carry out the work of the
Homeland Security Department.
But on balance, the core of this bill is not only urgently necessary,
it is good. The core of the bill is smart, and the core of the bill is
vital. But I must register my strong opposition to a number of
provisions in the bill that now appears before us that have been
inserted at the last moment and that threaten to do serious damage to
this otherwise urgently necessary piece of legislation. I fear that
some of our colleagues have seized upon the likely passage of this bill
as an opportunity to load it up with unwise, inappropriate, and hastily
considered provisions, many of which protect special interests. That is
a shame, and it is an embarrassment.
A common cause as urgent and weighty as homeland security post
September 11, 2001, should not be tainted by a bevy of last-minute
favors, surprises, and slapdash attempts to address controversial
problems, some of which are totally unrelated to homeland security.
That should not be the way business is done in the Congress of the
United States, especially not with so profound an underlying
responsibility as protecting the American people from terrorism.
Let me dispense with two myths that have reared their heads on the
floor of the Senate during this debate on the motion to strike. First,
some opponents of the amendment have suggested that to alter the
underlying bill in any way would be to kill homeland security
legislation in this 107th session of Congress. That is just not right.
The House passed a new homeland security bill, numbered H.R. 5710,
which means they will have to return to act on the version of the bill
sent to them by the Senate whether or not we make any changes. So we
are certainly not killing this bill for this session. We are simply
trying to clean it up.
Second, some of my colleagues are saying that a vote for this motion
to strike is a vote against the President.

[[Page 22950]]

That, unfortunately, reminds me of what became a familiar refrain in
some States during the recently concluded elections, in which some
seemed to suggest that any opposition to anything the President wanted
was unpatriotic. Here is where I borrow from Senator Byrd in saying
that the President is the President, not the king. And to question the
President's judgment on one or another matter should not be described
as a lack of patriotism. It is through free discussion and exchange of
ideas that our Nation grows and that we have always believed we would
achieve the truth. Was it Voltaire who said: I disagree with everything
you said but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it?
So, too, here.
I believe deeply that the seven extraneous provisions our amendment
targets have hurt this bill, and that is why we are striking them. Six
would be struck, and a seventh would be amended. None of these
provisions goes to the heart of the Department that I believe so
urgently should be created. I certainly would not want to do that,
since Senator Specter and I and so many others of both parties have
spent, now, more than a year in trying to achieve the creation of such
a Department.
Let me speak about a few of the seven serious shortcomings in this
current version of the homeland security legislation that our amendment
would strike. First, the one that has received the most attention, is
the one that attacks the childhood vaccine liability. This bill
includes a surprise provision, one that was not in any version of
homeland security legislation, and we have gone through, by my count,
at least six versions: The original bill I cosponsored with Senator
Specter in October 2001; the Governmental Affairs Committee reported-
out bill in May; the President's proposal in June; the revised
Governmental Affairs bill in July; the original House bill; and the
original Gramm-Miller substitute. None of these contains this
legislation which would dramatically alter the way certain vaccine
preservatives are treated for liability purposes under the law.
As my colleagues have said, the bill would take complaints about
vaccine additives out of the courts and require them to be made through
what is called the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which
handles other vaccine-related claims. Incidentally, these provisions of
the bill are retroactive, which would mean that a host of existing
lawsuits would be interrupted, probably terminated, including claims
involving the mercury-based preservative Thimerosal, which some have
charged is related to autism in children.
This is just plain unfair. In the past, I have supported various tort
reform or liability protections for companies--certainly the ones that
design and manufacture lifesaving products. In 1998, for instance,
Senator McCain and I sponsored, and the Senate passed, the Biomaterials
Access Assurance Act. In this Congress, I introduced a bill that would
offer a comprehensive package of incentives to biotech and
pharmaceutical companies that develop vaccines, antidotes, and other
countermeasures for biological and chemical weapons, a package that
included liability protections. But this amendment would strike a
provision in this bill that goes well beyond that and ought to be
pulled out of the underlying bill.
The fact is that committees of the House and Senate have been
struggling to reach a consensus on this question of the childhood
vaccines and liability for some period of time now. They have been
trying to craft a broad and balanced bill on childhood vaccines. This
provision in this bill, which we would strike, would pull the rug right
out from under the committee deliberations, offering a quick but unfair
answer that is sure to do more harm than good.
I received late last night--and we are going to try to distribute it
to our colleagues this morning--a Dear Colleague letter from our friend
and colleague in the other body, Dan Burton, chairman of the House
Committee on Government Reform, really crying out to us to strike from
the underlying bill this provision on childhood vaccines. Congressman
Burton, to whom I have spoken, believes passionately that this is a
terrible mistake and very unfair. I am far from expert on this question
and cannot vouch for all that Congressman Burton asserts, but his
passion cries out from this letter and I wish to cite several excerpts
to illustrate the depth and complexity of this debate. For instance,
Congressman Burton says:

During the past 24 hours, a number of incorrect statements
have been made about the vaccine provisions in the Homeland
Security Act. The facts are simple. These provisions severely
restrict the legal rights of parents who believe their
children have suffered neurological damage due to vaccines.
The scientific debate remains unresolved. These provisions do
not belong in the Homeland Security Act. I hope the following
points will help separate fact from fiction.

Again, from Dan Burton:

In 2001, the respected Institute of Medicine concluded that
a connection between thimerosal and autism, while unproven,
is ``biologically plausible.'' The IOM called for further
research, stating, ``the evidence is inadequate to accept or
reject a causal relationship between exposure to thimerosal
from vaccines and neurological developmental disorders of
autism, ADHD, and speech and language delays.''

Another fiction, according to Congressman Burton, is that the
sections that we intend to strike with our motion from this underlying
bill do not eliminate the rights of vaccine-injured individuals to sue
manufacturers of vaccines and their components. Congressman Burton says
proponents of these provisions have stated that once individuals have
gone through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, they can still
choose to file a civil lawsuit. And Congressman Burton feels very
strongly that is wrong. As he says as a fact, ``for many families who
believe their children were injured by mercury-based Thimerosal, these
provisions do eliminate their right to file suits. The Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program has a narrow 3-year statute of limitations.
Because many families were unaware of the program, they were unable to
file a petition on time. Sections 1714-1717, which we would strike,
take away their only remaining legal recourse.''
I would add that I have received today a statement of opinion from
the staff of the Senate Finance Committee which points out another
problem. It states, ``the Joint Committee on Taxation has advised the
Committee on Finance that absent changes to the Internal Revenue Code,
these changes would not be effective to change the approved
disbursement purposes from the Fund.''
In other words, by keeping this childhood vaccine provision in this
homeland security legislation, we would not only remove the families'
rights to sue, we would force them to go to the compensation fund. But
barring additional changes in the law, they couldn't receive any funds
from that fund.
This is not only wrong but shows how quickly and hastily and
incompletely this provision was put together.
Congressman Burton's words speak loudly to us of how critical it is
to strike this provision from the law.
Some of our colleagues have tried to make the case that the
provisions are necessary to maintain a plentiful vaccine supply in case
of a bioterror attack, including a smallpox attack. Wrong. This has
nothing to do with those bioterrorism provisions of the law, including
one that provides liability protections for the makers of smallpox
vaccines.
Our motion to strike doesn't touch those provisions. It only goes to
the childhood vaccine rights of families of children who are suffering
from autism.
I also want to strongly refute the suggestion about this part of our
motion to strike by the senior Senator from Texas that we will suddenly
have to throw away all of our smallpox vaccine doses if we strike this
narrow provision. With all respect, that bears no relationship to the
amendment. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program doesn't cover claims
against smallpox vaccine or any other vaccine used in the fight against
terrorism--bioterrorism in this case. Moreover, Thimerosal has not been
used at all since 1999, and the NIH confirms that none of the

[[Page 22951]]

stores of smallpox vaccine nationwide contain it.
Excuse the pun on a serious matter, but this provision is an
additive, and it is a harmful additive that ought to be removed from
the bill by this motion to strike.
We in the Senate owe the parents, the children, and frankly, the
companies on all sides of this issue a serious solution--not some last-
minute patchwork change in the law which deprives people of their
rights.
Second, another extremely problematic provision our amendment and
motion to strike would remove is the one involving companies that shift
their headquarters offshore to avoid paying American taxes and then
turn around and seek to do business with the Federal Government.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 15 minutes.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask you to let me know when I have
consumed an additional 3 minutes, and then I will yield the floor.
Mr. President, this is the amendment to our committee bill that was
offered by our esteemed colleague, our dear friend, the late Senator
Paul Wellstone, and accepted by the Senate, which would have barred
companies that set up offshore tax havens from getting Federal homeland
security contracts with the Secretary of the Department retaining the
singular important right to waive the prohibition for national security
reasons. Now the underlying bill, at the last minute, would essentially
nullify Senator Wellstone's provision by expanding the list of criteria
the Secretary can use in granting a waiver beyond national security
reasons to include a host of other provisions that gut the Wellstone
proposal.
It is just wrong that companies that are going out of the way to
circumvent the tax laws of the United States should be allowed to do
business and basically to get the money that the taxpayers who pay
their taxes have put into the Treasury of the United States, unless
there is a national security reason that would be so. Our amendment
would strike that provision as well.
Our amendment would also move to strike from the bill a measure that
would require the Transportation Security Oversight Board to ratify
within 90 days emergency security regulations issued by the
Transportation Security Agency. If the oversight board does not ratify
the regulations, under this bill, they would automatically lapse.
Despite the TSA having decided that they are necessary, 90 days later,
lacking the Board's approval, they'd disappear.
This doesn't make any sense. In the current climate, shouldn't we be
trying to find new ways to expedite and implement TSA rules, not ways
to disrupt and derail them? This bill is contrary to new procedures
that the Senate passed just a year ago in the aviation security bill.
Under that law, regulations go into effect and remain in effect unless
they are affirmatively disapproved by the Board. I think that's a
better system.
My esteemed colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, has claimed that our
amendment would strike from the underlying bill the one-year extension
of the deadline by which all airlines must install new security
scanning equipment. I don't know whether he got that idea based on this
provision or not; regardless, he is mistaken. We keep that extension in
tact, and striking the new cumbersome approval process, as our
amendment seeks to do, would have no effect whatsoever on it.
I urge my colleagues to strike this provision.
Another provision would extend liability protection to companies that
provided passenger and baggage screening in airports on September 11.
But we in the Senate already decided against extending such liability
protection--in at least three different contexts. First, the airline
bailout bill limited the liability of the airlines--but not of the
security screeners, due to ongoing concerns about their role leading up
to September 11. Then, the conference report on the Transportation
Security bill extended the liability limitations to others who might
have been the target of lawsuits, such as aircraft manufacturers and
airport operators, but again not to the baggage and passenger
screeners.
The earlier Gramm-Miller substitute and the bipartisan Governmental
Affairs Committee-approved legislation also left this provision out for
the very same reasons.
Now, somehow, this provision is back again. Like that little mole you
hit with the mallet in a whack-a-mole game, somehow this provision has
reappeared. At this late hour, in this context, it is just
inappropriate to reverse the Senate's carefully considered judgment
without clear justification.
We must strike this provision.
Another unnecessary and overreaching provision our amendment seeks to
strike would give the Secretary of the new Department broad authority
to designate certain technologies as so-called ``qualified anti-
terrorism technologies.'' His granting of this designation--which
appears to be unilateral, and probably not subject to review by
anyone--would entitle companies selling that technology to broad
liability protection from any claim arising out of, relating to, or
resulting from an act of terrorism, no matter how negligently--or even
wantonly and willfully--the company acted.
The bill goes well beyond what Republicans were advocating just last
month in the Gramm-Miller substitute, which would have provided sellers
with indemnification, but wouldn't have left many victims without any
compensation at all, as this bill does. This bill seems to say that in
many cases, the plaintiff can't recover anything from the seller unless
an injured plaintiff can prove that the seller of the product that
injured him or her acted fraudulently or with willful misconduct in
submitting information to the Secretary when the Secretary was deciding
whether to certify the product.
Even in cases where a seller isn't entitled to the benefit of that
protection, the company still isn't fully--or in many cases even
partially--responsible for its actions, even if it knew there was
something terribly wrong with its product . Let me say that again. This
bill gives protection even to those sellers who knowingly put anti-
terrorism products on the market that they know won't work to keep
people safe against an attack. Perhaps worst of all, this measure would
cap the seller's liability at the limits of its insurance policy. In
other words, if injured people were lucky enough to get through the
first hurdle and even hold a faulty seller liable, they still could go
completely uncompensated even if a liable seller has more than enough
money to compensate them.
Again, I ask, is this really the kind of provision we want to fold up
and cram into this vital legislation? I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to stop, carefully consider the consequences, and
then vote for our amendment, which would strike this provision.
The substitute bill also unwisely and unnecessarily allows the
Secretary to exempt the new Department's advisory committees from the
open meetings requirements and other requirements of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). I am well aware that this isn't a
provision that will get big headlines but it ought to raise some
eyebrows.
Agencies throughout government make use of advisory committees that
function under these open meetings requirements. Existing law is
careful to protect discussions and documents that involve sensitive
information in fact, the FACA law currently applies successfully to the
Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the State Department
even the secretive National Security Agency.
So why should the Department of Homeland Security alone be allowed to
exempt its advisory committees from its requirements? Why should its
advisory committees be allowed to meet in total secret with no public
knowledge?
Again, if those rules work for the Department of Defense and the
National Security Agency, I think they can work for the Department of
Homeland Security.
What is the harm? Conceivably, this could allow the Secretary to
create forums that operate in secret in which lobbyists for various
special interests

[[Page 22952]]

could advance their agendas and get back channel access with this and
future Administrations, without concern that the public would ever find
out--and that's regardless of whether their discussions were about
security, business, or anything else. I am not suggesting that this is
what the Administration intends, or what the authors of the bill
intend, but the danger is real and must be recognized.
We all say, and say often, that we're for ``good government''--for
openness, integrity, and accountability. But if we pass this bill
unamended, few of us will be able to say with confidence that the new
Department's advisory committees are designed to be as independent,
balanced, and transparent as possible. I know full well that the
Homeland Security Department will deal with sensitive information
involving life and death, but so does the National Security Agency. So
does the FBI. So does the Department of Defense. Their advisory
committees aren't allowed to hide themselves away from the public.
I hope my colleagues join with me to reject this unfortunate and
short-sighted provision.
Finally, our amendment would alter a provision in the substitute bill
creating a university-based homeland security research center. Now, I
have nothing against creating a university research center focused on
homeland security.
There are currently many effective university center programs--
centers for expertise and excellence--established through competitive
processes by the National Science Foundation and other science
agencies. And the science and technology division in this homeland
security bill closely tracks what we proposed in the legislation that
came out of the Governmental Affairs Committee--which would give the
Department many exciting new tools to harness talent in our
universities and companies and focus it on meeting the unprecedented
challenge we face to out-think and out-innovate our enemies.
But there is a problem with this particular proposal as it is
written. Based on the fifteen criteria outlined in the bill, the
research center that it would create is described so narrowly, through
fifteen specific criteria, that it appears Texas A&M University has the
inside track, to say the least, to get the funding and house the
center. House aides have admitted as much to The Washington Post.
Texas A&M is a fine school that may be perfectly suited to run such a
federal research center--but there are many other fine schools that may
also be well suited to run a homeland security research center, and
Congress should not predetermine the best site.
Science in this country has thrived over the years because, by and
large, Congress has refused to intervene in science decisions. Science
has thrived through peer review and competition over the best
proposals--which are fundamentals of federal science policy. We are
violating them here. This is nothing short of ``science pork.''
This provision was strongly opposed by the Chairman of the House
Science Committee. And it has been roundly criticized by the university
community as an inappropriate Congressional intervention in science
program selection.
My friend, the Senator from Texas, has suggested that a few other
institutions conceivably could assemble the qualifications to meet the
15 criteria that Texas A&M has specified. But I urge him to look at the
list, which is breathtaking in the particularity of its detail. And
even if a handful of schools might meet in theory these requirements,
that does not solve our problem. We face grave dangers here, lives are
at risk. We should all agree that we need to apply the most competitive
possible process, the one that brings our best scientific brainpower
brought to bear on this problem.
Suppose for the sake of argument that a few other schools technically
do qualify. Then think about the agency employee, sitting at his desk
at the new department, who receives the application from Texas A&M. A&M
meets all the criteria specified in the statue, and meets them to a
tee. The employee knows that Representative DeLay wants this done.
Realistically, how do we think this decision will turn out? We know how
it will turn out.
When it comes to making these research funding decisions, we need a
playing field that is truly level--not one that only looks level when
you tilt your head.
Perhaps that is why previous versions of this bill were wise enough
not to include this provision. The bipartisan Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee bill did not make this mistake. Nor did Senator Gramm
include them in his earlier Gramm-Miller substitute. I have worked over
the years on science policy issues and legislation with Senator Gramm,
and I hasten to point out that this provision certainly did not
originate with him. He has a strong understanding of the importance of
strong science to our nation's economic and social well-being, of
strong federal support for science, and of the need for competitive
funding decisions that are based on sound peer review. These provisions
did not originate with him.
Our amendment keeps the university-based science center program.
However, it removes the list of highly-specific criteria that appear to
direct it to a particular university. That is the way we will get the
best science, not by making Congressional allocations to particular
institutions.
I was under the impression that this homeland security bill would be
clean. What does that mean? That it wouldn't be, for lack of a better
word, mucked up with lots of extraneous provisions that are marginally
relevant or irrelevant to the central mission of this department, which
of course is protecting the American people from Twenty- first Century
terrorism with every ounce of talent, every tool, every technology at
our disposal.
I understand the legislative process. I know that, as a wise person
once said, compromise is what makes nations great and marriages happy.
I did not expect this substitute bill to look exactly like the
bipartisan bill approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee I am
privileged to chair.
But I did expect that this bill would be clean--and clean it is not.
I believe passionately in the need to create a Homeland Security
Department. And I recognize and appreciate the many good things in this
bill. It has moved much closer to our vision of how to combine our
strengths and minimize our weaknesses on intelligence to protect the
American people from terrorism. So too has it embraced our creative and
comprehensive vision of the new Department's science and technology
division. And when we step back and look at the big picture, it looks
pretty good. And more important than looking good, it looks and is
necessary to protect the American people.
But these flaws are real. They are serious. And they are utterly
unnecessary.
Luckily, they are easy for us to fix. One amendment, one vote. I once
again urge my fellow Senators to pass this amendment.
There are other colleagues who wish to speak. I would, therefore, ask
for the support of my colleagues for the motion to strike.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 10 minutes 20 seconds
remaining to the majority leader or his designee.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to indicate my support for two
things: No. 1, for the homeland security legislation which I think is
very important. We fought for weeks about what it was going to look
like. We made some suggestions about what should be in the bill with
regard to worker protections in the area of collective bargaining. The
White House was not willing to accept our recommendation. And I
understand that is not going to be possible. I thought that the
bipartisan recommendation we had on collective bargaining was the right
way to go. That did not work out. What we have in the bill is what the
President wanted from the very beginning. I accept that. The concept of
homeland security bringing these agencies together is very important.

[[Page 22953]]

It is clear that after 9/11 we found out that the Federal Government
was not working very well together, that agencies were not sharing
information that they should have been sharing with each other, and we
could have been doing a much better job.
Under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut,
Mr. Lieberman, a proposal came about for a homeland security agency.
Quite frankly, at the very beginning the White House didn't think the
idea was a good one. They were worried about it creating too large a
bureaucracy, but they came to the realization that I think all of us
have come to that, yes, this is in fact the right thing to do. That is
where we are right now.
What has happened in the course of this process is interesting but
not unusual. The House loaded up the homeland security bill with a
whole bunch of things that were concocted in the middle of the night
and not the subject of any hearings or not brought through the normal
committee process and not voted on by the House and not voted on by any
committee in the Senate and not passed by the Senate.
But, lo and behold, all of these provisions are now attached to the
bill, and the House announced that they are going out of town, and take
it or leave it.
I understand that some of them may be in Paris or London or Japan or
doing things that are important. But we are not finished yet. This
bill--no matter what happens--is going to have to go back to the House
of Representatives for consideration. It is going to have to go back to
the House for consideration even if this amendment to strike out these
add-ons is not adopted because the bill still has to be--after we adopt
the Thompson substitute--approved by the House. What is wrong with the
House at that time saying we understand that the Senate is not going to
accept these provisions and, therefore, we will pass homeland security
such as the President requested it? The President, himself, in the
White House said don't load this thing up with unnecessary items.
I would suggest that having a homeland security research center at
Texas A&M University is a good idea, if you are from Texas. But how
about the other 49 States that would like to also participate in the
process? LSU would make a great center for homeland security research.
They have already been working on it. But this legislation just cuts
them out, sticks one university in the process, and says: This is it.
Take it or leave it. We're gone. We're out of town.
That is not the way things are supposed to work. It is not the way
they should work. I hope it will not work that way after we vote this
morning.
There is nothing wrong with taking these items out of the legislation
and having the House take the bill up without it and have them pass it.
They can do it by voice vote. We could finish it this afternoon. The
President can get the homeland security bill as he has requested. I
will support that effort.
I think it is very important to do homeland security, but don't let
it become a vehicle for special interest provisions which the Congress
has never considered. I think it is wrong.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Louisiana yield for a question?
Mr. BREAUX. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask the Senator from Louisiana, is one of the
provisions you are describing a provision that makes it easier for a
corporation that has renounced its citizenship, and moved to the
Bahamas in order to save on its tax bill in the United States, to get
contracts with the U.S. Government? Is that one of the provisions they
stuck in at the hour of midnight?
Mr. BREAUX. The Senator makes a good point. In addition to spelling
out one university that all of a sudden will get all the work in the
entire country, the other earmark is it takes away the Wellstone
amendment, which prohibits contracting with corporate expatriates.
What does that mean, expatriates? People who have left the country.
People who said: I don't want to be a citizen of the United States any
longer. I am taking my business overseas. But, oh, by the way, I would
still like to do business with the Federal Government while I am in
another country not paying taxes to the United States.
That really strikes me as being something we should not allow. I
think the Senator is correct in pointing it out. That is not the way we
should do business. If you want to provide homeland security, I would
suggest giving business to companies that have left the United States
is not in the interest of homeland security. It may be in the interest
of the Bahamas, but it is certainly not in the interest of the United
States of America.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for one additional question,
isn't it a fact that the provision that would prevent corporations that
renounce their U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes to the
U.S. Government--the Senate actually passed a provision that said:
Well, if you don't want to be an American citizen, then maybe you ought
not be contracting with the Federal Government. We set a date by which
that would be the case. That was in the legislation that moved out of
the Senate. My understanding is it is the case that the House of
Representatives put one of these special provisions in and said: Oh, we
don't agree with that. We want to weaken that to make it easier for
these companies that renounced their citizenship to get U.S. Government
contracts once again. Isn't that the case?
Mr. BREAUX. The Senator is exactly right. In order to have homeland
security, we need to protect the citizens of this country. Giving
financial assistance to companies overseas that have left this country
because they don't like to be citizens of the United States is the
wrong way to do this.
Let's pass this bill clean. The President will get the homeland
security bill he desires. He will sign it. I will support it. That is
the right way to do business.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I am trying to save time for Senator Daschle.
Mr. DURBIN. For just 30 seconds?
Mr. BREAUX. I will yield.
Mr. DURBIN. The point was made last week that within this bill is a
provision that benefits the Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Company that says
pending lawsuits brought on behalf of parents who believe their
children are suffering ill effects from a preservative which the
company made and put in vaccines, causing harm to these children--
physical and mental harm to these children--that pending lawsuits
against this pharmaceutical company would be wiped away by the language
of this homeland security bill.
Does this amendment we are about to vote on eliminate that provision
and say that these parents and families and children will still have
their day in court against this major pharmaceutical company?
Mr. BREAUX. Just briefly, the Senator is correct in his observation.
It does exactly that. There may be an argument whereby companies that
make a vaccine should not be subject to liability suits. There is a
provision for a fund for people who make vaccinations, that if they are
being sued, they will recover against a fund. That is current law. But
that should be prospective, not retroactive. It should not wipe out
legitimate litigation that has already been filed. It is like saying
here is a legitimate lawsuit, but all of a sudden, by this action, we
wipe out all court proceedings against that particular company. That is
not the right way to proceed.
The company, as I understand it, did not ask for it, did not lobby to
put it in this bill, but all of a sudden, here it is, in the middle of
the night. It should not be in the bill, and this amendment would take
it out.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time is left for Senator Daschle
under the order previously entered?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two minutes twenty seconds.
Who yields time?
If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
The Senator from South Dakota, the majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use leader time to augment the
time

[[Page 22954]]

allotted for me to make some remarks with regard to the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is an order for the
Republican leader to be recognized at 10 o'clock.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak and to complete my speech prior to the time the Republican
leader addresses the Senate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not hear my colleagues speak to one
of the greatest myths that I have heard in the debate about this
amendment. That myth is, if we pass this amendment, somehow it makes it
impossible for us to reconcile this amendment with the House of
Representatives; that somehow it would put some chink in the process.
But I think, as my colleagues have noted already this morning,
regardless or whether this amendment is adopted, this bill must go back
to the House. There will be another vote in the House. So do not let
anyone persuade any colleague, any Senator, that somehow there a
procedural impediment is created if we pass this amendment.
This legislation will go back to the other body. And when it does, if
the House does the right thing, they will accept this language, and we
will send the bill to the President as we should.
I must say, Mr. President, this has been a difficult debate for many
of us, a very difficult debate. All of us, of course, want to do the
right thing. Many of us think perhaps supporting some new
infrastructure with regard to homeland security is right. We have
worked and worked and worked to reach a consensus.
Much of what is in this bill reflects a consensus. But I must say,
this language, these additions to the bill, added at the eleventh hour,
is arrogance, is an atrocious demeaning the legislative process. They
ought to be ashamed of themselves. At the eleventh hour, when nobody
was watching, when most people had gone home, those people with deep
political pockets, those people with the resources to make a
difference, had inserted in this bill items that the House itself had
already voted against.
In July of this year, the House voted 318 to 110 to cut off those
corporations that move offshore to avoid paying taxes--318 to 110, 3
months ago. They said: If you are going to do that, you will not be
able to contract with the new Department. You ought to be ashamed of
yourself. How can you be so unpatriotic?
They did the right thing in July. But what did they do at the
eleventh hour? Well, at the eleventh hour, when nobody was watching--
when they thought nobody was watching--they quietly said: We didn't
mean it. Now the elections are over. Now we will make a mockery of the
tax law. We will make a mockery of the homeland defense bill. We will
reopen the treasury to corporate expatriates, thinking nobody could
possibly call attention to it.
Mr. President, that is just the beginning. Why would we possibly want
to give liability protection to a company that made a pharmaceutical
product that may cause autism in children? Why would we do that?
Why would we possibly slow down the process by which the new
Transportation Security Agency issues new emergency rules to protect
travelers? We do it to help out airlines and other transportation
companies. That is why we are doing it.
The House inserted the liability protection for vaccine additives to
help out a company. The House inserted the expatriate corporate
exemption to help out a lot of companies with deep pockets. Why would
the House put a university earmark in the homeland defense bill,
earmarking Texas A&M for special treatment? Why, because some lobbyist
got the job done at the eleventh hour. That is why it happened.
These items make a mockery of the legislative process. Everybody who
has their fingerprints on these issues ought to be ashamed of
themselves. We have one opportunity to make it right, and that is in
about a half hour. We will have an opportunity to strike these, to send
a bill to the President that better reflects the consensus we have
worked so hard to achieve. We want to do that; some of us want to do
that. But I must say, it is a sad day for the legislative process. It
is a sad day for homeland security. It is a sad day for the
institutions of the House and the Senate when we can insert language
such as this unabashed.
I hope each Senator will think very carefully about the consequences
of this vote. We ought to feel good about passing this bill. We ought
to feel good about making some new contribution to reorganizing the
Government, if indeed that will move us to a better sense of confidence
about our own security.
But how do you feel good, how do you feel positive, how do you feel
that you could in any way explain what the House has done?
I say to my colleagues in a bipartisan way, let's reject these
provisions. Let's ensure we send the clearest message possible that
this kind of legislating will not be tolerated. Let's do it now before
it is too late. Let's not have to explain this weeks or months later.
We have the opportunity to rectify bad decisions made at the last hour,
made without any scrutiny, made without any real public attention, made
for all the wrong reasons. We can do it today. We can do it in a half
hour. I urge my colleagues to join us in getting this right.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from West
Virginia still has 5 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time remains before the vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes, and the Republican
leader has 28 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. And does the time come out of both Senators, if no
unanimous consent request is made?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum call will be charged to the party who
suggests the absence of a quorum. If no quorum call is in place, both
sides are charged.
Mr. BYRD. Does the distinguished majority leader want more time? I
would like to give him my remaining time. I don't want to see that time
whittled away simply because somebody is not taking the floor.
I ask unanimous consent that I may yield my remaining time to the
majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very grateful to the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia. I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized for that time just prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the President and thank the Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, might I have just 30 seconds of my time
back?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from
West Virginia may require.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I thank my leader.
I have just heard from the Budget Committee, CBO has scored the
vaccine amendment as increasing direct spending by $100 million in the
first year, $2 billion over 10 years. In other words, it is a gift to
drug companies by this amount that would increase the deficit by this
amount.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, reserving
the final time, as has been indicated in the previous order, to Senator
Daschle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we are reaching the moment where we are
going to vote on homeland security. I rejoice that we have found our
way here. It has been a long and difficult

[[Page 22955]]

debate. I commend to my colleagues that they vote for the homeland
security bill. There will be an amendment that will be offered prior to
that bill.
I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. GRAMM. I want to take my 10 minutes to talk about the amendment
that we will have prior to the final vote. I remind my colleagues that
over the last weekend, as we tried to bring this 7-week debate toward
cloture, the President reached a compromise with several of our
Democrat Members to give additional power and input to government
employees and their representatives, not the power to veto the
President's decision but the power to have input, the power to have
review. Also, to get a bill we could vote on and hopefully conclude
this debate, we had to meet with Members of the House who had a
separate bill.
What we have before us is the old Gramm-Miller amendment with the
amendments that we adopted; 95 percent of the Lieberman bill is in this
stack of paper. And then we had to reach an agreement with the House.
A great harangue has come forth against that final agreement. There
is an amendment pending that would strike seven provisions. In striking
those seven provisions, we would endanger the bill and, if we were
fortunate, we would have a conference in December.
That is a risk that is not worth taking and, further, I believe the
bill is a better bill with the seven provisions in it. Let me just
address them.
The one that has gotten the most discussion is the provision with
regard to liability on vaccines.
Let me state it in the simplest possible form. We have always had
separate treatment for vaccines because some people react differently
to vaccines.
In 1986, we set up a comprehensive program to compensate people who
are harmed by vaccines that are used for general purposes. We have paid
$1.6 billion out of that fund. Under that fund, you go through a
process of arbitration and, if you settle, you settle; if you don't,
then you can go on to court. The vast majority of people settle.
A loophole has been found in that process. Plaintiff attorneys are
now arguing that damage is being done by a mercury derivative, which is
a preservative in these vaccines. The plaintiff attorneys are arguing
this preservative is not covered under the compensation program. Nobody
has proved scientifically one way or another where the harm comes from.
But plaintiff attorneys have now reached around the arbitration process
and have filed suits that total 10 times the aggregate value of all the
vaccine sales in the world combined.
This bill, recognizing that the stockpiling of new and powerful
vaccines will be important to the war on terrorism, seeks to close that
loophole by making it clear in law these preservatives that have always
been part of vaccines are covered by the current arbitration process.
Now, many people have tried to label this into everything from a
political payoff to you name it. We have a process that is working.
People are satisfied with it. Plaintiff attorneys are trying to go
around this process. Unless some order is brought to it, we are going
to end vaccine production in the world. We don't want to do that. This
is a good government provision that brings this process under the 1986
act, which was written by Senator Kennedy and Congressman Waxman.
Now, the second provision--and there are two that are criticized--has
to do with liability limits. Senator Warner and Senator Allen
introduced an amendment, which we accepted, that puts the taxpayer on
the hook for paying any liability that occurs from items produced for
fighting the war on terrorism. It is something we have done since the
Civil War to try to indemnify manufacturers that are producing cutting-
edge items that are desperately needed on a time-sensitive basis for
the war effort. The House had similar language, but with liability
limits included in the Transportation Safety Act. When it came to a
choice between the taxpayer being at risk or having previously
established liability limits, we accepted those liability limits from
the House bill.
Another provision that has been criticized is a change in the
Wellstone amendment. The Wellstone amendment originally said any
company that has ever been domiciled in the U.S. that is domiciled
somewhere else cannot sell items to be used in the war on terrorism. We
thought there had to be some moderation on this language, so we added
three points. One, if the language produced a situation where you
actually lose American jobs because a product was produced here, even
though the company's headquarters is in France, you could have a
waiver. Two, if you have a sole source bidder and no competition, you
can have a waiver. And three, if the product is cheaper with higher
quality, a waiver can be given under those circumstances.
That is a good government provision. It makes eminently good sense.
If a company in France is producing something in Cleveland and selling
it for the war on terrorism, why should we put people in Cleveland out
of work to buy something produced in Japan by a company that has no
employees in the United States? It makes absolutely no sense. Those
waivers represent good government.
There are two final provisions in the bill. One doesn't matter, and
that is advisory councils. I don't know if they have any value or not.
I don't see jeopardizing the bill to strike them.
The final provision has been referred to as a ``Texas A&M''
provision--a provision I did not write and didn't have anything to do
with, and it doesn't specifically have anything to do with Texas A&M.
I have a letter from the University of California supporting the
provision. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

University of California,

Office of the President,

Washington, DC, July 25, 2002.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Ranking Member, House Select Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Pelosi: As you prepare to vote on H.R.
5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the University of
California encourages your support for provisions in the bill
that aim to strengthen the role of science and technology in
the new Department and that ensure that the capabilities of
the U.S. Department of Energy's National Laboratories are
made available to the new Department. UC supports the
establishment of an Under Secretary for Science and
Technology and provisions to strengthen the important role
that academic research institutions play in protecting our
homeland.
As you are aware, UC is actively engaged in activities
associated with homeland security and our nation's war on
terrorism, including conducting ongoing research and
providing scientific expertise. UC faculty and researchers,
including those at the UC managed national laboratories, have
testified before Congress, developed bio-agent detection
devices, aided in the anthrax clean-up effort on Capitol
Hill, and analyzed the World Trade Center structure, among
many other activities.
Section 307 of H.R. 5005 calls upon the Secretary to
establish university-based centers for homeland security.
This section provides the Secretary with a list of merit
contingent criteria from which to base the selection of
colleges or universities as centers. The criteria range from
strong affiliations with animal and plant diagnostic
laboratories to expertise in water and wastewater operations.
UC would welcome the opportunity to compete for such an
important center. As the public research institution serving
the state of California, the ten-campus UC System, with its
three national laboratories, is uniquely qualified to address
all of the selection criteria. To improve the selection
process, UC would like to work with you and the conference
committee to ensure that the final version of the legislation
provide that the Secretary shall make the designation of
university centers with the advice of an academic peer review
panel.
I commend you for your leadership on this landmark
legislation and for your continued service to the people and
institutions of our state. If you need further information
about the issues raised in this letter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
A. Scott Sudduth,
Assistant Vice President.

[[Page 22956]]

____

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, that provision is similar to provisions we
have at the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy. It
basically says the major research universities in the country will be
eligible to participate in a center or centers. It also says the agency
and the President have the power to set up centers and do research
wherever they want to. This is a provision that provides no money. It
does say major research universities will be part of the process, but
it doesn't say they will be the only part of it.
Let me conclude and then keep the balance of my time, because others
may need it if I have not used it up. The seven amendments that would
be stricken by the Daschle amendment are amendments that improve the
bill. A couple of them didn't have to be there. They do no great harm.
Five of them improve the bill by dealing with problems directly related
to terrorism, and they all trace back to a provision, in one form or
another, that was in both the Senate and House bills.
I know this is going to be a close vote. I urge my colleagues to vote
against the amendment, A, on substance--the bill will be better if the
amendment fails--and, B, I think there is a substantial probability
that we will not get a bill this year, though we will certainly get one
next year. It simply would mean a 3-month delay.
So I urge colleagues to vote no on the amendments and to vote for the
underlying bill. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, how much time do the opponents have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen and a half minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me at the end
of the consumption of 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. THOMPSON. First of all, Mr. President, with regard to the
comments that have been made concerning the inversions, a couple of
colleagues on the other side said our amendment takes out the Wellstone
amendment to bar companies who leave the U.S. to evade taxes.
This doesn't eliminate the Wellstone amendment. That amendment to bar
the Department of Homeland Security from contracting with inverted
companies is included in our amendment. What our amendment does,
though, is give the Secretary of Homeland Security the ability to waive
the bar if U.S. jobs would be lost, or if it would cost the Government
more taxpayer dollars because there would be less competition.
On this issue, I know this is extremely important politically for
many of our colleagues. When you examine it from the standpoint of
social policy, or policy as it affects the U.S., it does not bear
scrutiny. We in the Governmental Affairs Committee, I think on a
bipartisan basis, over the years have tried our best not to interject
social policy in our procurement process.
Our Government needs to be able to get the best and cheapest goods
for the taxpayers. One can think of many different things companies
might do that are totally legal, totally proper, that we might
disapprove of. We wish they were different kinds of companies, had
different kinds of social policies. But if we say, with regard to all
of them, that if there would be a new batch every year under
consideration, we are not going to do business with them, we are going
to cut off our nose to spite our face, even though their products are
better, they are cheaper, and we are trying to protect homeland
security, we are not going to do business with them because we do not
approve of your policies, even though they are perfectly legal, that
would hurt this country.
It is more important to have a viable Homeland Security Department to
protect this country than it is to make a political point or punish
some company. We are punishing, in some cases, companies that have
thousands of domestic employees working in the United States. What we
would be doing is depriving them of contracting with the Department of
Homeland Security and allowing a French company or a German company
that has always been a foreign company, always with foreign employees,
getting the contract.
That makes absolutely no sense. However, it apparently is an idea
whose time is come and is included in the amendment Senator Gramm,
Senator Miller, and myself offered a while back.
What we do is this: We do not necessarily agree with the underlying
policy, but we are going to include it in the amendment. But at least
let's have some exceptions if it really benefits our country in terms
of homeland security, our jobs, our costs. Let's give the Secretary the
discretion to make some exception with regard thereto. It is just
common sense and it focuses where we need to get, not for short term
political gain but to punish some company.
Bermuda, for example, is the home of Intelsat from whom our
Department of Defense gets satellite services. Do we want to cut
ourselves off from that? There are not that many companies like that
around the world. Intelsat is an inversion. Why limit it to homeland
security?
Let's get away from the idea of punishing somebody or punishing some
company when it hurts our country to do so. It does not say you have to
do business with them. It says let them compete. We are not giving them
anything if it is not the best thing for our country. That is the
philosophy behind our approach, and it is incorporated in this
amendment. No one should have to make any apologies for this provision
being in the Thompson amendment the way it is.
With regard to the other point Senator Gramm made concerning
vaccines--and Senator Frist spoke eloquently about this. This is an
incorporation. What the Lieberman amendment seeks to remove is the
incorporation of a portion of a bill that was submitted by Senator
Frist.
If one looks back at the history of vaccines, it is obvious vaccines
have been special cases in this country for years. We have treated them
in a special way because the profit margin on vaccines is lower than
most drugs, and the risk is higher, and we need vaccines. As a part of
our governmental policies, as part of our national policies, it has
always been that way.
We addressed that when the swine flu epidemic came about, and we made
some changes to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Back in the 1950s, an
Executive order was put forward that would provide some indemnification
for companies to produce vaccines. We have a long history of that
practice.
Finally, in 1986, Congress created the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program which said basically this to plaintiffs: Look,
plaintiffs, you are not getting anywhere the way it is in the court
system. Nobody ever gets any recovery off this because you cannot prove
causation. You cannot prove your injuries were actually caused by this
vaccine. So we are going to set up a separate system so you do not have
to prove causation; basically a no-fault situation.
If plaintiffs do not have to prove causation, on the other hand,
there is some limitation to the amount of damages they can get. Instead
of a special court, you go to a special master. If you do not like the
results, then you can go to court. We think that is a pretty sound
deal. Congress thought it was in 1986 when it passed that legislation
and it was signed into law.
Lawyers look at this and say: OK, we are cut out from suing in court
if it has to do with a vaccine. So we will take this particular
additive and say it is not really a vaccine. It is an adulterant, a
pollutant in this vaccine; therefore, it is not covered by this
compensation process. That is the way they got to court.
We have scads and scads of lawsuits as a result of it, and it
resulted in two U.S. companies left producing vaccines in this country.
What Senator Frist was trying to do and what we are trying to do in our
amendment is to effectuate the intent of the 1986 law which was to roll
all this in to the compensation program.

[[Page 22957]]

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMPSON. The intent was to roll these new lawsuits of the future
into this compensation program, so that in the future, not only with
regard to vaccines, but components of vaccines, have a new definition,
a more comprehensive definition of vaccine and make that a part of the
system.
It is not cutting plaintiffs off, it is putting them in the same
position we thought we were putting plaintiffs in in 1986, anyway, and
that is go through a special master and prove your case. You do not
have to prove your injury was actually caused by a vaccine, as one
would in a court of law; on the other hand, there is some limitation on
recovery. Then if you are not satisfied, you can sue in court.
A benefit to a company? When are we going to stop looking at who gets
some little benefit, who is able to survive, and start looking at what
is in the interest of our national security? Sometimes I believe we had
rather make some small point and put some company or group of companies
out of business who are not in favor at the moment, even if it hurts us
as a nation. And vaccines are a classic case. We have to have more.
We are trying to figure out what to do with smallpox. It is not going
to be in our country's interest to drive these companies out of
business, and it does nothing to harm qualified plaintiffs to require
them to go through the compensation program we set up in 1986 and which
most people thought these plaintiffs would be a part of, anyway.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 41 seconds.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Chair interrupt me after 4 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to speak in opposition to the
Daschle Lieberman amendment. There are some provisions that I consider
very important to the Department of Homeland Security and which
Senators Daschle and Lieberman seek to strip from the House-passed
language--thus, in my opinion, making their amendment more about
abusive litigation security rather than homeland defense security.
In order to provide for our homeland defense, we must take necessary
steps to promote research and development of important technologies and
vaccines, and ensure their accessibility. We will have failed the
American people if the development and deployment of needed
technologies and vaccines is prevented by the threat of unreasonable
exposure to overwhelming lawsuits.
To foster quality research, the House established criteria to ensure
that when selecting universities as centers for the development of
homeland security technologies, we partner with the highest quality
programs. Many of these criteria mirror similar provisions routinely
found in current Federal laws funding research and development.
Proponents of the Lieberman-Daschle amendment claim the criteria are
too selective and should be eliminated. Shouldn't we be concerned that
the Department of Homeland Security works with the best and the
brightest when developing technologies intended to protect the American
people? If the Lieberman amendment passes, I caution you that the
university-based centers could become more about pork and which
legislator can deliver the most in government funds to his or her
district, rather than protecting the American people with cutting edge
technologies and programs.
To facilitate the development and deployment of needed technologies,
the House included its SAFETY Act provision, recognizing that we cannot
saddle manufacturers with unreasonable exposure to unlimited lawsuits.
The House-passed SAFETY Act language imposes reasonable provisions to
manage potential legal exposure of those companies that we have asked
to step up to the plate in homeland security. Otherwise we will be
faced with a crisis in homeland security when companies are unwilling
or unable to become involved. Let me be clear, contrary to assertions
by some, the House-passed language does not give blanket immunity to
corporations. What it does is permit companies that manufacture and
deploy designated antiterrorism technologies, approved by the Federal
Government for use in homeland security, to be afforded the
``government contractor defense,'' but only if certain criteria and
precise government specifications are met.
It is important to note that if these criteria are not met, if the
equipment deployed does not meet Government specifications or if the
manufacturer conceals any information regarding the dangers posed by
the equipment--the government contractor defense will not be
successful. Moreover, if a company engages in fraud or willful
misconduct, that are not protected. And if a State imposes additional
requirements which do not conflict with the Federal criteria, the State
law is not preempted. The defense is not a blanket immunity from suit.
If the government contractor defense fails, and the plaintiff
prevails at trial, the subsequent award would be subject to reasonable
limitations which include:
Proportionate liability for non-economic damages--Companies would
only be liable for noneconomic damages according to their portion of
culpability. Under current joint and several liability laws in place in
many States, a defendant that is only 1 percent at fault could be
forced to pay an entire award if payment cannot be obtained from those
responsible for the other 99 percent. It is unconscionable that we
would subject manufacturers that have stepped forward to protect the
American people to unlimited litigation exposure that could result in
their paying damages for which they are not responsible. A crafty
plaintiff's attorney could conceivably add one of the terrorists as a
defendant in a case to inflame the jury. Consequently, even if the jury
finds the terrorist 99 percent liable because he perpetrated the act,
the manufacturer of a device that may have failed one time in 1,000
might be forced to pay a huge, often crippling award. Often these types
of lawsuits become less about culpability and more about the trial bar
extorting huge settlements based on emotions that run high in the
aftermath of a tragedy. Nonetheless, the House-passed language only
remedies this injustice with regard to non-economic damages. Economic
damages would not be subject to proportionate liability and State laws
forcing those less culpable to pay for the damages inflicted by those
who are really responsible, would still apply.
A Ban on Punitive Damages--It is appropriate to ban punitive damages
in lawsuits which we can anticipate could very well be based more on
emotion than legal culpability and are less in line with the real
purpose of punitive damages--to punish bad behavior--and more about
making a statement about a tragedy. Uncontrolled and inflated punitive
damage awards run the risk of drying up defendant resources and
reducing awards to subsequent plaintiffs to pennies on the dollar.
We must provide some stability to the legal process, especially in
the context of terrorist attacks to ensure that private-sector
resources are available for our homeland defense and that plaintiffs
are compensated for their actual damages.
In order to facilitate the development and deployment of essential
vaccines, the House-passed language recognized the importance of this
aspect of our homeland security and included language that would treat
doctors and hospitals who administer certain vaccines and manufacturers
of certain vaccines as Federal employees. This means that the
government will step in under the Federal Tort Claims Act, FTCA, and
defend the lawsuit and pay any damages awarded, subject to the
parameters of the FTCA. Claimants will still be compensated, but those
who partner with us to protect our people will not be overwhelmed by an
unrestrained trial bar. Nobody is arguing with that particular
provision--but we

[[Page 22958]]

must recognize that it works in tandem with the other provisions that I
have addressed.
If we suffer another attack, do my colleagues want to be faced with a
shortage of important vaccines, or the inability to get those
vaccinations to the public in a rapid and orderly manner? As Senator
Frist noted, our vaccine capability is in crisis. Potential exposure to
unlimited lawsuits has made it impossible for most companies to
participate in a vaccine program. We have seen the number of vaccine
manufacturers fall from 12 to 4, only 2 of which are U.S. companies.
Doctors and hospitals are legitimately concerned about their potential
legal exposure should they attempt to partner with the government in
the dissemination of a vaccine. Let me stress that the government
cannot do this alone; we must partner with the private sector or else
we will leave significant portions of our constituents unprotected.
I must note that the last-minute inclusion of sections 1714-1717 in
the House-passed bill dealing specifically with liability for vaccines
that are covered under the current National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, NVICP, has raised many concerns. I have heard from many
parents that feel the process by which this bill was brought to the
floor will deny them a meaningful opportunity to influence legislation
that is important to children and their families. Simply, the process
leaves much to be desired. A piecemeal, unvetted approach to addressing
these specific, very complex vaccine injury compensation and supply
issues is not the best way to protect our children and families.
Without broad debate and consideration of all the issues surrounding
vaccine compensation, the narrow inclusion of certain provisions
regarding NCVIP, such as ``clarification of definition of a
manufacturer,'' removal as ``an adulterant or contaminant any component
or ingredient listed in a vaccine's product license application or
product label,'' and application of these definitions to pending
litigation, without addressing other criticisms of NVICP may not be the
best course of action. What is most troubling is the fact that we have
not been given the opportunity to fully understand the implications of
sections 1714-1717 and develop comprehensive solutions due to a poor
legislative process.
Maintaining a safe, adequate vaccine supply while fairly compensating
vaccine injury is an important issue and deserves far more deliberation
and debate than it was afforded. Americans are rightfully concerned
about the manner in which this important issue has been handled in the
eleventh hour. Clearly, on the one hand, the vast majority of our
children and families have benefited from vaccines. On the other hand,
unfortunately, there are rare adverse events that are caused by
vaccines. Balancing these issues to ensure the health and well-being of
our children requires careful consideration. Legislation introduced by
Senator Frist, S. 2053, the Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act,
which contained the original provisions now included in the Homeland
Security bill, had never been subjected to any legislative scrutiny
such as hearings or markups. Our citizens expect to be heard and their
concerns taken into account when forming legislation, especially when
modifying a current program. I am disappointed that this did not occur.
Ensuring affordable, life saving vaccines while protecting our children
from vaccine injury and fairly and expeditiously compensating the
unfortunate families who suffer harm is not a simple matter, and at the
very least, should be the subject of an open, thoughtful legislative
process. This issue was clearly not afforded the deliberation the
American public deserves.
Though I may not agree with every provision in the House-passed bill,
and I must emphasize my disappointment in the hurried manner with which
some provisions were included, I recognize that if we allow this
amendment to strip the provisions which I feel are vital, we will
threaten overall passage of the bill.
Failure to enact this legislation would be a serious disservice to
the furtherance of our homeland security and the interests of the
American people because it would leave us in danger of being unable to
develop the technologies or vaccines necessary for the defense of our
country in the 21st century. We are in a new type of war, and
litigation that could follow terrorist attacks will not be garden
variety lawsuits. Leo Boyle, president of the Association of Trial
Lawyers conceded as much in a January 9, 2002, Washington Post article,
``Legal Eagles, Beating Back the Vultures,'' where he stated that
lawsuits seeking to blame the effects of the September 11 attacks on
anyone but the terrorists ``deny the essential nature of the attacks''
and should be subject to special rules limiting the liability of
Americans. If that is true, the trial bar should not oppose these
provisions.
Fred Baron, a leading member of the trial bar, was recently quoted as
referring to an article in the Wall Street Journal that stated the
trial bar ``all but controls the Senate.'' Mr. Baron took issue with
the ``all but.'' I took issue with his assertion during a recent
hearing in which he was a witness before the Judiciary Committee on
asbestos litigation, because as I think it is clear to all of us--the
trial bar has so far been successful in preventing us from enacting
essential reforms in the area of asbestos litigation and class actions
which are spiraling out of control and crippling American businesses.
Often these abusive lawsuits have little correlation to any actual
culpability of these companies, and often end up being to the detriment
of claimants deserving of appropriate compensation.
I challenge my colleagues to show the American people that we are
serious about providing them with the technologies and medicines
necessary to protect them in the event of another terrorist attack by
opposing this amendment, and thereby proving that the Senate will not
cow tow to the special interests of the trial bar or their campaign
contributions.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the Daschle-
Lieberman amendment to the homeland security bill. Many people have
pointed out many of the problems this amendment attempts to address.
I share the concerns of my colleagues that the homeland security bill
should not include provisions protecting Eli Lilly from lawsuits over a
vaccine that may be responsible for causing autism in children. The
homeland security bill is no place for these special interest, last
minute provisions.
There are many other such provisions that I am concerned about which
this amendment will address.
In particular, I am extremely disappointed with the provision in the
bill that essentially establishes Texas A&M as a homeland security
research center. This provision was drafted in such a way that many
other universities, such as the University of Las Vegas-Nevada and
University of Nevada-Reno, will not be able to compete fairly for this
important designation.
The war on terrorism will only be won when we utilize all the best
and brightest academic minds all over the country. I am proud of the
universities, colleges, and community colleges in the State of Nevada.
We have some of the best counterterrorism training and research
facilities affiliated with the Nevada universities and colleges. I am
disappointed that the administration and the House decided to support
one facility without taking the time to learn what these other
facilities have to offer.
If this amendment is not successful, I will still work to ensure that
UNLV and UNR will be able to compete for this important distinction. By
doing so, these universities will continue the proud Nevada tradition
of offering up our skills to serve the nation in times of crisis.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it is only after long and careful
consideration, as well as assurances from leadership I and several of
my colleagues have secured which I will detail in a moment, that I have
determined that I will not support the Daschle-Lieberman amendment
before us today.

[[Page 22959]]

This is not a decision I have come to lightly. I am deeply troubled
by a number of eleventh-hour additions to this major piece of
legislation, in the dead of night, as we face adjournment. This is not
the legislative process at its finest.
Even as we speak, unprecedented challenges face our national
security. Counterterrorism officials report that the level of
intelligence ``chatter'', or information, being picked up from al-Qaida
by the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency is approaching the volume
seen in the weeks before September 11, promoting the FBI's recent
warning of ``spectacular'' attacks. That is why the President needs
this new Department, and must have the opportunity to begin its
organization as soon as possible in order to respond to this national
imperative and to secure American soil to the best of his ability.
Yet, here we are, with the House regrettably having adjourned having
sent to us a Homeland Security bill encumbered with stealth provisions
that have prompted considerable and justifiable alarm, particularly the
clarification of vaccine manufacturer liabilities, the criteria by
which colleges and universities will be chosen to undertake work on
behalf of the new Department, and the waiver allowing the use of
inverted domestic corporations as contractors for the purposes of
homeland security.
As to the vaccine program, some argue that the measure included in
the legislation is necessary in order to help ensure the continued
viability of the industry, especially at a time when vaccination
against a host of potential biological attacks has become all the more
critical. Others have serious concerns about the impact of this
provision on pending litigation.
I'm also extremely concerned about the loophole that was opened in
the bill's provision banning homeland security related contracts with
inverted corporations.
It may be one thing to say that exceptions can be made should our
security requirements demand we deal with an inverted corporation
because there simply is no other option. It is quite another to
actually require Federal contracts to be awarded on the basis of the
lowest bid regardless of where the company is incorporated, thereby
rewarding the very companies that moved offshore for the purpose of
avoiding Federal taxation. What kind of message does that send? What
kind of precedent does it set when just 5 months ago in the Finance
Committee we were working to crack down on the most egregious corporate
inversions?
And finally, the under-the-radar provision concerning college and
university work mandated extremely selective and narrow criteria that
effectively excluded the vast majority of institutions of higher
learning in America. The measure offered the new Secretary no
discretion, but rather was tailored to apply to only a handful of
colleges and universities. Why shouldn't the University of Maine be
able to contribute to the cause if the Secretary believes that specific
security needs match with a specific expertise they may possess?
The only reason I will not be supporting efforts to remove these
provisions from this legislation via the Daschle-Lieberman amendment is
because I have been able to obtain assurances from the Republican
Leader, the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader-elect of the
House and the Administration that these objectionable measures will be
addressed with alacrity upon our immediate return in January, through
the first available appropriations vehicle in the 108th Congress.
All of these parties have been in close communications on this
matter. And let me say it is a credit to Leader Lott that he worked
swiftly and decisively to address the concerns I and others raised, as
well as to secure the necessary assurances from House leadership.
I appreciate that our Republican leader came to the floor to speak to
our concerns, agreeing there are items in the bill that cannot stand as
they are and pledging they will be redressed. And I applaud the
leader's initiative to form a committee to remedy the most troublesome
provisions I have outlined, and as a member of that committee I look
forward to achieving that goal so that we can right these wrongs as
part of the first order of business we conduct in January.
As a result of these assurances, we can move forward toward
completion on this bill that can no longer wait. After 6 month of
deliberation, at this sustained period of ``Code Yellow'' elevated
alert status, the time has come for the perpetuity of purpose ensured
by statutory status for a new Department of Homeland Security.
A Department responsible for safeguarding our homeland defense must
not be dependent solely on the relationship between a particular
President and his or her Homeland Security director. Rather, it must be
run as efficiently and effectively as possible under the leadership of
a permanent, cabinet level official. That is the only way to achieve
the kind of ``continuity of urgency'' the security of our homeland
demands.
The fact of the matter is, we cannot afford a descent into
complacency when it comes to this life-or-death obligation to protect
the American people. Under a new cabinet-level department,
responsibility would rest with a Secretary of Homeland Security--a
position created under law--who would manage the vital day-to-day
functioning of the new department. Critically, this person would have
their own budget, while they work closely with the Administration to
develop and implement policy.
The bottom line is, I support the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security--the largest re-organization of our Government since
WWII--because it will centralize our efforts to prevent and respond to
any future terrorist attack. Currently, at least 22 agencies and
departments play a direct role in homeland security, encompassing over
170,000 people. This legislation consolidates these various
responsibilities into one Department which will oversee border
security, critical infrastructure protection, and emergency
preparedness and response.
Every day we wait is another day that we risk having to look back and
wonder, what if we had acted sooner? For this reason, along with the
commitment I have personally received from the Leader that we will
address the issues of vaccine liability, inverted corporations, and
university contracts next year, I will oppose the Daschle-Lieberman
amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tucked away into the Homeland Security bill
is a small provision that no one seems to want to take credit for and
yet it would bestow huge benefits on just one interest group. According
to news accounts, Sections 714 through 716 of the Homeland Security
bill were ``something the White House wanted,'' not necessarily
something the House or Senate wanted.
This explanation hardly clarifies why we are including such a far-
reaching amendment that has nothing to do with homeland security in
this bill. It hardly explains why, in these final days of the 107th
Congress, we have decided so blatantly to put the interests of a few
corporate pharmaceutical manufacturers before the interests of
thousands of consumers, parents and children.
Sections 714, 715 and 716 basically give a ``get out of court free
card'' to Eli Lilly and other manufacturers of thimerasol. Thimerasol
is a mercury-based vaccine preservative that was used until recently in
children's vaccines for everything from hepatitis B to diphtheria.
Unfortunately, while these vaccines were intended to help protect our
children's health, there are many health professionals and parents who
now believe the opposite occurred.
Parents and health professionals are now concerned that using
vaccines with thimerasol has exposed as many as 30 million American
children to mercury levels far exceeding the ``safe'' level recommended
by the Environmental Protection Agency. In 1999, the American Academy
of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service began urging vaccine
manufacturers to stop using thimerosal as quickly as possible. Since
then, parents of autistic children around the country have gone to
court to hold pharmaceutical companies liable for the alleged damage
caused by

[[Page 22960]]

thimerosal. Many of these parents now cite pharmaceutical
manufacturer's own documents to show that they knew of the potential
risk of using mercury-based preservatives back in the 1940s and yet did
not stop its use.
Now tucked away in the Homeland Security bill, we find this small
provision that changes the definition of a vaccine manufacturer to
include those companies that made vaccine preservatives. This small
change to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program cuts the legs out
from under the families involved in pending lawsuits against thimerosal
manufacturers. The amendment is obvious in its attempt to put up
roadblocks to these cases. Those who brought the cases against
manufacturers would lose their option of going to court while the
manufacturers get new protections from large judgments.
Let's be clear about this provision. It has nothing to do with
homeland security. Smallpox and anthrax vaccines do not use thimerosal.
We should not take away the rights of our citizenry under the guise of
trying to protect them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. What is the current time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader has 2 minutes 20
seconds, and the majority leader has 4 minutes 3 seconds.
Mr. DASCHLE. Since the Republican leader is not here, I will use the
time remaining to respond to a couple of the points raised by my
colleagues.
First, with regard to the comments made by the Senator from Texas, I
again reiterate this has nothing to do with support for pharmaceutical
research. This has everything to do with a questionable preservative
used in combination with pharmaceutical vaccines. Thimerosal is an
additive, a preservative. There are those who have made the case that
Thimerosal may cause autism in children. We do not know. All over this
country, there are class action suits by families who have sued to make
the case, who have sued to have their day in court, who want to get
more science and more answers than they have right now. That is what
this is about: Whether those thousands of families will have an
opportunity to be heard in court; whether they will have an opportunity
if, God forbid that there is that connection, to be indemnified. Make
no mistake, this legislation eliminates all of that opportunity.
I heard the Senator say this is good government. I must say, I am
baffled by that expression. How can it be good government to say to
families all over the country who have been victimized, or at least who
think they have been victimized, that they can no longer go to court to
seek redress?
Again, let me say, this has nothing to do with research or with the
vaccines themselves. Thimerosal is no longer being made. We are not
even dealing with future class action lawsuits. We are only dealing
with the ones currently pending. This legislation, let everyone
understand, will wipe out--eliminate--the access to courts by families
who have been injured, whose children have autism, who want the right
to make the case to the courts, and then the courts decide. If the
evidence is not there, they do not get the compensation. But if they
can make the case and if the science will support the connection, then
there is some hope for these families who otherwise have none.
Why at the eleventh hour, why in the dead of night, somebody, even if
they thought they were right, would add legislation without debate,
totally stripping these families of that opportunity, is something I
cannot explain, I cannot understand. That is what we are talking about.
That is not good government; that is shabby government. That should not
be allowed. That is really why we are taking it out.
We can explain, we all know how these targeted amendments get put in
legislation. In the course of any one Senator's career, those occasions
occur. I don't think anyone can justify a Texas A&M earmark for
research. I say to the Senator from Nebraska, the University of
Nebraska should be entitled to that research. The University of South
Dakota might be interested in that research. There ought to be a
bidding process. There ought to be some open opportunity for colleges
to compete. But to earmark, without debate, Texas A&M as the only
university allowed under this legislation--it may be justified; maybe
after all the competition they could win--is not the way to legislate.
That is also an embarrassment. I hope we can avoid that.
I will finally say, because I know I am out of time, for the Congress
to reverse a decision we both have made--passed in the Senate, passed
in the House, passed overwhelmingly in both bodies--to send a clear
message to companies that go overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes, that
will not be tolerated, especially with regard to their ability to deal
with the Homeland Security Department, and now to say we were not
serious, we were just kidding, those votes, as overwhelming as they
were, really did not mean anything; what we really mean is, go ahead
and have that business, do that business, that is OK, you can go
overseas, avoid paying taxes, you can renounce your U.S. citizenship,
but you can still do business with homeland security, that is OK--that
is what we are saying if we oppose this amendment.
I could go on and on. I know I am out of time. I urge my colleagues
to do the right thing. Let's cleanup this bill. Let's not have this
vote and send the wrong message to the people of this country, to the
families who are victimized, to the businesses that have no business
dealing with homeland security. We can do better than that. That is
what this amendment will allow us to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. LOTT. How much time is remaining on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 11 seconds remain.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I need additional time, I will yield
myself leader time so I can wrap up this discussion.
I regret I have not been able to hear all of the debate this morning.
We have had an opportunity to have a long and fruitful debate. A lot of
Senators and Congressmen and the administration have been involved in
this process. There is no use rehashing all of the history. We know we
need a Department of Homeland Security. We know this 484-page bill that
Senator Byrd referred to is not a perfect bill. There are things we
will find out very quickly we will have to add that are not there now.
We will find out some of the provisions are not good. We will have to
revisit that. This is a huge undertaking. We all know this has not been
done for 50 years.
We will bring together 170,000 people and try to make this thing work
out of whole cloth. It will be a tremendous challenge, whether Gov. Tom
Ridge or whoever winds up being the Secretary. They will have to have a
strong Department. They will have to have support from Congress. We
will have to carry out our oversight responsibilities. This will be a
continuing process.
However, if we do not do it now, when are we going to do it? Do I
like this process? No. Is a legislative process like making sausage?
No, it is not pretty and it is not done well, sometimes. Sometimes we
are the problem, individually or collectively. Sometimes it is the
House; sometimes even the administrations make mistakes.
The terrorists are not going to wait for a process that will go on
days, weeks, or months.
We have fought this fight. We need to get this done. And we need to
do it now. If we don't, we don't know when this process would end.
Would we have to go to conference? When would conferees be appointed?
Who would appoint them? When would the conference meet? I don't want to
be singing ``Jingle Bells'' here on December 21. We are all prepared to
do it if that is the right thing for the country.
But we could very well be working on this again next year. And then
you have to get this Department started. It could take a month, 2
months, 3 months, 4 months. Is our homeland going to be secure during
that process? Are we vulnerable still in our ports? How about our
drinking water? Are we at risk? Yes.

[[Page 22961]]

Now, there are some things in this bill that cannot stand, as it
presently is.
We don't like it. Texas A&M University is a great university.
Mississippi State University could do this job. I don't think we ought
to be setting criteria that directs research being done at one place or
another. We have to open that up. We have to make sure everybody has a
shot at it and that the research will be done at universities--if that
is needed, and I am not even sure it is--in the right way. We are going
to change that. You have my commitment we will change that.
And I don't like the language in this expatriate area. I think it is
too broad. However, a little bit of what is at stake here is trust. We
have to have some modicum of trust that the new Secretary and the
President and the Congress are not going to let these things be done in
an irresponsible way. We are not going to grant block waivers to
companies that have left this country for tax purposes. But we also
have to have some common sense.
What if homeland security is at risk? What if a large amount of jobs
is at stake? What if this particular company offers a particular thing
we really need that somebody else can't offer? We are going to have to
deal with the liability. We don't like limiting liability in some
areas--some of our colleagues on both sides. But here is the question:
Are they going to go into this business of homeland security without
some degree of reliability that what they are going to be able to do
will be without the threat of lawsuits going on and destroying them?
We are asking companies to produce items and to deal with this
vaccine problem. Let me tell you, one of the toughest decisions the
President of this United States is going to have to make is are we
going to have a broad-based smallpox vaccination of the population?
That could kill hundreds, thousands of people, but perhaps protect
millions. It is a huge, tough, emotional, personal decision the
President is going to have to make. And liability exposures could be
huge.
But do we want the vaccine? Do we want the inoculation opportunity to
protect our people? Yes.
So I am asking for common sense. I am asking for trust. I am asking
for action now. And we will address some of these issues. I am going to
be specific as the day goes forward about some of the changes that are
going to have to be made. We will find what they are. We will find a
vehicle.
Some people would say: Change it now and let the House deal with it.
But how do you do that? How do they do that? How do we get a
conclusion? How much longer does it delay this? We need to get this
done, my colleagues, and now is the time to do it. We need to work
together to make sure it is implemented in the right way.
We are going to find there are a lot of provisions here that are
going to have to be refined. There are going to have to be technical
corrections. There are going to have to be amendments and they are
probably going to come soon. But I urge the Senate to go ahead and act
now.
As I said earlier, we have fought this fight. Is it perfect? No bill,
no law, ever is. And I am going to ask the President of the United
States to give us some assurances, when he signs this legislation, that
we are going to look at it carefully and we are going to continue to
work to make sure he has the authority and that the Department does the
job in the way we expect them to do it.
In conclusion, I thank Senator Lieberman, the chairman of the
committee, for his work. He was for it before it was cool. And so were
some others on that side and this side. I thank Senator Fred Thompson
for his great effort. This is his swan song. He will be leaving at the
end of this year and we are going to miss him. These are two fine
Senators who have worked on a very difficult job. I think we should
show our appreciation to them and get this work complete.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
4953.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wyden

NAYS--52

Allard
Allen
Barkley
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 4953) was rejected.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4911

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes
equally divided for debate prior to the vote on the next amendment. Who
yields time?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the
yeas and nays on the amendment in the first order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4911.
The amendment (No. 4911) was rejected.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4901

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided prior to
the next vote. Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the amendment that is before the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Thompson substitute amendment is the next
item of business.
Mr. BYRD. Is that the amendment by Mr. Thompson?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I assume someone who is in favor of the
amendment will take 1 minute out of the 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
There are 2 minutes equally divided.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if no proponent wishes to take the 1 minute,
I will take 1 minute.
I say to my colleagues that the Senate had just 48 hours to review
the 484 pages of the House bill before cloture was invoked, before we
stabbed ourselves with the dagger.
In reviewing the details of the bill finally, though, I have had a
chance to do a cursory review. The Congressional Budget Office has
identified three provisions that increase mandatory spending by $3.26
billion. Some of this new mandatory spending has nothing whatsoever to
do with homeland security.

[[Page 22962]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my time has not expired. Senators should pay
attention. I insist that I have the rest of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator ask unanimous consent.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for at least a
half minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, at age 85, I need no hearing aid. I don't
think I will ever need one, but sometimes it is pretty difficult to
hear, even for those who can even hear better.
These additional expenditures are not provided for in the budget
resolution adopted in 2001 for fiscal years 2002 through 2011.
Therefore, the amendment is subject to a point of order under section
302(f) of the Budget Act.
I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. We have debated
this issue for 8 weeks. The American people spoke very clearly on this
issue in the election. It is now time for us to speak.
This is the vote on homeland security and I urge my colleagues to
vote aye.
I would like to thank Richard Hertling, the distinguished staff
member who has been the leader here. I thank Mike Solon of my staff,
and I thank Rohit Kumar of the Republican leader's staff.
Mr. President, I move to waive the budget point of order. I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 246 Leg.]

YEAS--69

Allard
Allen
Barkley
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--30

Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Byrd
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 69, the nays
are 30. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order
falls.
The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent the next two votes be 10-minute
votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Thompson
substitute amendment to the Homeland Security bill. While I have
concerns about the process by which this legislation was put together
and some of the provisions contained in it, I believe that passage of
the Homeland Security bill is a necessary first step in the
Government's effort to secure our nation against future terrorist
attacks.
I want to speak first about the provisions in the bill that will help
my State of New Mexico. First, I am pleased that this legislation
includes many provisions that will ensure that New Mexico's national
laboratories--Sandia and Los Alamos continue to play a key role in the
fight against terrorism. To that end, the Thompson amendment
incorporates a number of science and technology provisions from Senator
Lieberman's Homeland Security bill that I helped write.
In particular, I am pleased that the Thompson amendment allows the
Department of Homeland Security to become a joint sponsor of the
Department of Energy's national laboratories. I believe joint
sponsorship retains the clear lines of authority needed for the
Government to manage the national laboratory system effectively. I am
also happy to see that the bill includes $500 million for the
technology acceleration fund, which represents a good starting point
for our investment in the new technology that will be needed to defend
our homeland against terrorist threats. Finally, the amendment includes
the formation of a Homeland Security Institute, as called for by the
National Academy of Sciences. The Institute will provide vital
technical analysis and policy advice to the new Department. In
particular, I look for the Institute to help the new Department strike
an appropriate balance between the desire for greater information
gathering by law enforcement and intelligence agencies and the
fundamental need to protect the privacy rights of individuals. I
believe we have done the right thing by establishing a not-for-profit
institute to advise the Department on these most important issues.
The bill also transfers the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,
FLETC, to the Homeland Security Department and ensures that the
activities currently underway continue to be carried out at the same
locations. This will ensure that the FLETC division in Artesia, NM,
will continue to play a key role in training Federal law enforcement
personnel who are on the front lines in the effort to keep our country
safe.
The legislation also creates a new Bureau of Border Security within
the Department of Homeland Security, which will include the Customs
Service and Border Patrol, as well as the other enforcement functions
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS. While I would have
preferred that the service and enforcement functions of the INS be kept
under a single directorate, as proposed by Senator Lieberman, I am
hopeful that the consolidation of these border agencies under a single
bureau will enable us to address the efficiency and security problems
that have been experienced at ports-of-entry along the U.S.-Mexico
border in recent years. That said, if we are ever going to ensure the
security of our borders, we must also take steps to improve the
efficiency of the INS with regard to its processing of legal
immigrants. As the new Department takes shape, it is my hope that the
Secretary of Homeland Security will make immigration reform a top
priority.
I would also like to talk briefly about some of the concerns I have
with this bill. First, I was deeply troubled with the process by which
the final legislation was crafted. Senator Lieberman worked for months
in good faith to craft a Homeland Security bill that was well thought
out and included significant input from both the majority and minority
in the Senate. His bill even passed the Governmental Affairs Committee
with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, when the bill came to the
Senate floor, the Republican party and President Bush chose to
politicize the issue and block many good faith efforts to pass the bill
before the election. After the election, the President and the
Republican leadership, with virtually no other input, produced this
484-page bill, which is loaded with numerous special interest
provisions and

[[Page 22963]]

a bad deal for Federal workers. Further, as we considered this bill on
the Senate floor, we were allowed only one amendment. This process of
last minute, backroom deals and limited amendments is not the way the
Senate should conduct its business.
Second, as I mentioned, this bill is loaded with special interest
provisions that were inserted at the eleventh hour by the Republican
leadership at the request of the White House. The one amendment that
was considered would have stricken seven of the most egregious
provisions. One such provision will grant new liability protections for
pharmaceutical companies that make mercury-based vaccine preservatives
that may have caused autism in children. Provisions such as this have
nothing to do with homeland security and have no business being in the
Homeland Security bill. That is why I was greatly disappointed that the
Senate voted against the Daschle/Lieberman amendment to strike these
seven extraneous provisions from the bill.
Finally, I want to emphasize that I remain concerned with the lack of
provisions that address protections for civil service employees. I know
that support for these provisions has been characterized over the last
few weeks as support for the unions. I think that characterization is
overly simplistic, however, and the issue far more complex. I believe
that all employees--whether they be in the public or the private
sector--deserve to be protected against the arbitrary treatment this
so-called ``flexible'' management system will allow. Over the decades
we have established a set of reciprocal principles and practices in
Government service that require both employers and employees to treat
each other with respect and integrity. Those principles and practices
have worked well through national crises of all kinds and a willingness
has always been evident on the part of both employers and employees to
sit down and work through problems that have arisen.
The idea that we need to change that system because it will break
down in this instance is, in my view, a red herring. There is no
evidence that this will occur, and there are no examples when it has
occurred. From where I sit, the brave men and women who work along the
border in the Border Patrol, U.S. Customs, and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service are patriots and are not inclined to take any
action that would harm the national interest. They deserve better than
this bill offers. There are no protections against unlawful
discrimination, political favoritism, and unjust decisions. There are
no protections for whistleblowers. There are no protections against
management that use the ``flexibility'' available in this bill to
settle a personal or professional grudge. There was instead a decision
on the part of the administration to impose its ideological solution to
a problem that begged for discussion and compromise. What we ended up
with was a bill that establishes a system based on individual whims and
not established law. Government employees deserve better than this, and
I believe in the end our capacity to serve the public will be
diminished because we did not find a way to address this issue in a
mutually satisfactory manner. That said, I believe the need for the
creation of a Homeland Security Department outweighed the potential
consequences of these provisions in the bill. As the President takes
steps to establish the new Department, I will be watching his actions
with regard to Federal workers closely, and I hope that we will have
the opportunity to address this matter further during the 108th
Congress.
It may seem like we have finally reached the end of a long and
difficult debate on how best to ensure our homeland security, but
passage of this bill means that our efforts have just begun. It will
take some time to get the Homeland Security Department off the ground.
During the coming transition, I am committed to helping President Bush
make this new Department operational as soon as possible, and I will
continue working to ensure that the new Department has the funds
necessary to carry out its mission effectively. Further, I will
continue working to maintain New Mexico's preeminent position in the
fight against terrorism and to ensure that our national labs remain at
the leading edge of homeland security research and development. At the
same time, I will be monitoring closely the actions of the President
and his administration as this legislation is implemented. We do not
have to sacrifice our civil liberties to maintain homeland security,
and I will be working to ensure that the new Department remains
accountable to the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Thompson
amendment No. 4902.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 247 Leg.]

YEAS--73

Allard
Allen
Barkley
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--26

Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Byrd
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Sarbanes
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 4091) was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, pursuant to rule XXII,
the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on Calendar No.
529, H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security legislation.
John Breaux, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Larry E. Craig, Jon
Kyl, Mike DeWine, Don Nickles, Craig Thomas, Rick
Santorum, Trent Lott, Fred Thompson, Phil Gramm, Pete
Domenici, Richard G. Lugar, Olympia J. Snowe, Mitch
McConnell.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes
of debate equally divided on the cloture vote.
Who yields time?
Do Senators yield back their time?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call under the rule is waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the
Senate

[[Page 22964]]

that debate on H.R. 5005, an act to establish the Department of
Homeland Security, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 83, nays 16, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 248 Leg.]

YEAS--83

Allard
Allen
Barkley
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--16

Akaka
Boxer
Byrd
Corzine
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Jeffords
Levin
Murray
Reed
Reid
Sarbanes
Stabenow
Torricelli

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 83; the nays are
16. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

____________________

RECESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the Senate recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr.
Corzine).

____________________

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture on H.R. 5005.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may soon
make a unanimous consent request that the time be charged against the
pending measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Disaster Relief

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, soon, I am going to ask unanimous consent
to take up the emergency disaster relief bill that the Senate passed
earlier with over 79 votes on September 10, 2002.
The only difference between my consent request today and that
amendment is today's bill reimburses the $752 million of section 32
funds that were used to pay for the livestock compensation program
earlier this year. This all really stems from the agricultural disaster
our country has been facing for the last year and, frankly, in
preceding years.
In 1996, not too many years ago--that is the year before the drought
began in Montana--our producers earned $847 million from wheat sales.
In 2001, 4 years later into the drought--we have had a series of
droughts in Montana--producers made just $317 million from wheat sales,
a 62-percent decline.
That 62-percent decline in sales is through absolutely no fault of
Montana wheat producers. These farmers haven't been cooking the books.
This is not an Enron matter or a WorldCom matter. They have not been
taking exorbitant bonuses at the expense of their shareholders. They
have been farmers and ranchers working the soil and doing their very
best, in many cases, just to survive. They are dedicated, honest, plain
folks, raising livestock for our country and the world, raising
agricultural and grain products to try to make ends meet. They need our
help.
The drought is no longer touching only isolated pockets of our
country; it has become an epidemic that is affecting a majority of our
Nation.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 49 percent of our
Nation's counties were declared an agricultural disaster in 2001; 78
percent of our counties were declared a disaster in 2002; 38 percent of
those counties were declared a disaster in both 2001 and 2002.
So it is in many parts of the country. In fact, a map I displayed in
this body earlier showed that the western half of the United States
basically is experiencing drought conditions, and the eastern United
States as well. Now, there are also pockets. In Montana, for example,
there are some counties where farmers are devastated and other counties
where they harvested a bit of a crop.
In any event, if you are a farmer who has lost his crop continuously
and you are having a very difficult time making ends meet, I say you
deserve our help.
According to the New York Times, on May 3 of this year:

In eastern Montana, more than a thousand wheat farmers have
called it quits rather than try to coax another crop out of
ground that has received less rain in the last 12 months than
many deserts get in a year.

It is anticipated that another 1,300 wheat producers will call it
quits this year if disaster assistance is not provided.
Continuing, Mr. President, that same New York Times article--this is
an eastern newspaper, not Montana:

Those people, small businesses and rural communities have
been devastated by an unpredictable and uncontrollable
national phenomenon.

On September 3, 2002, the Wall Street Journal also printed an
article:

The United States may be looking at the most expensive
drought in its history inflicting economic damage far beyond
the farm belt.

Producers every day hope, plead, ask that Congress help them a little
bit.
I could go on at great length. I am not going to go on at great
length except to say many times we have brought up this measure. It
passed the Senate by a large margin both times, and the other body has
said no, basically because the White House has said no. That is a fact.
Nobody denies that fact. I will ask again today; we still do have time
today or tomorrow, however long we are here, to help our farmers. This
is a disaster payment; it is an emergency disaster payment. This is
what America does. If we have hurricanes, we provide disaster
assistance. If we have floods, we provide disaster assistance. We have
other natural disaster phenomena in this country, and the Government
provides assistance to help the people get back on their feet. That is
all we are asking.
If we pass this legislation today, the other body can take it up and
pass it, and the President can sign it. It is that simple.
As we near the end of this session and approach the holiday season,
the very least we can do is provide disaster assistance to our farmers
and ranchers, many of whom are either going out of business or about to
go out of business because of an agricultural disaster, in most cases,
drought and in some parts of our country it is flooding.
I see our distinguished majority leader on the floor. I am quite
certain he wants to speak on this matter as well. It is a huge issue in
many parts of our country. It is very much hoped we can take disaster
assistance up and pass it at this time. I yield now to my colleague
from South Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from
Montana. He has been at this now for over a year. The very first
conversation I had about drought assistance was with Senator Baucus
over a year ago. I believe it was in connection with

[[Page 22965]]

the economic stimulus package of a year ago. It has been 278 days since
the Senate acted. So he has been at it for over a year. We, as a
Senate, have been at it now for 278 days.
I must say, we can go all the way back to a year ago when Senator
Baucus made the case that if you want economic stimulus in our part of
the country, there is no better economic stimulus than to provide some
drought assistance.
I would use the word economic salvation. This is more than stimulus
in our part of the country. This is salvation. This is the only way we
can provide some salvation to ranchers and farmers who otherwise will
not be here a year from now. We have done everything we know how to do.
We have passed amendments. We have passed legislation in various forms.
We have offered the House an opportunity to negotiate with us. We have
suggested to the White House: Act alone. It does not matter, use
whatever vehicle you will, but get it done.
How in the name of economic stimulus can we ignore a large part of
our geographic population, a large part geographically of our country?
If these people are without this assistance, the rural communities
associated with these people simply cannot survive.
I thank the Senator from Montana for his leadership and for again
coming to the floor to remind our colleagues of the import of this
question, of the urgency that we get something done before we leave.
This may be the last day. We may not be in session after today. If we
do not do it today, we will not do it. What kind of a message does that
send to rural America, to farmers and ranchers who have been waiting
now 278 days for the Congress to complete its work?
We voted, as he said, overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly, Republicans and
Democrats. I would hope we were not doing that just for a political
cover because this is far more important than political cover. This is
economic survival. This will provide the only salvation to the farmers
and ranchers who are desperately looking to Washington for help. Let's
do it right. Let's provide this assistance. Let's agree with this
request. Let's get this assistance to them quickly. Let's save them
before it is too late. I hope we will do that this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are many Senators who wish to speak
on this because it is so important. I ask unanimous consent that I be
able to yield to other Senators without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to my good friend from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator
from Montana for his leadership on this matter. As the majority leader
said, the Senator has been superb in his leadership on this for now
over a year and has been speaking out not only on behalf of Montana
farmers but on behalf of thousands of Minnesota farmers who have also
been devastated over the last 2 years and have not seen $1 of disaster
aid provided to our State.
The message is: If you are a pharmaceutical company and you have that
kind of political clout, you will be taken care of by the Congress. If
you are a company that has run away from this Nation to hide your tax
obligation, you get a special consideration stuck in the bill that came
over from the House of Representatives which we just voted on this
morning. If you are a farmer in Minnesota, however, Montana, or
elsewhere and you have been devastated by conditions beyond your
control, the Congress is going to turn its back on you, the
administration is going to turn its back on you.
As the Senator pointed out, this Senate has not turned its back on
farmers on disaster aid. The 2002 farm bill--and I served with the
Senator from Montana on the Senate Agriculture Committee--had
agriculture disaster assistance in that measure, but, again, the House
and the administration turned a cold shoulder and had no funding
whatsoever, and the conference report came back after many days of
negotiation with the House unyielding and the administration unyielding
in their position of not providing disaster assistance.
The farmers in my State of Minnesota have lost over three quarters of
a billion dollars in crop devastation in the last 2 years--three-
quarters of a billion dollars in 2 years, and not $1 back from the
Federal Government. That is why people lose their faith and trust in
Government because we do the wrong things for the wrong people and we
do not do the right things for the right people. By ``we,'' I mean the
collective bodies, because this Senator and the majority of the Senate
have said again and again: We want to stand with those farmers who are
suffering the greatest losses, who are being wiped out.
Over half the crops in my region have been wiped out over each of the
last 2 years.
I say let's stand with the farmers. I stand proudly with the Senator
from Montana. I thank him for his leadership. Let's make one last plea
to this body and the House and the administration to do what is right
and do what is urgently needed on behalf of farmers in my State and
elsewhere in this country.
I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Montana for yielding
to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I now yield as much time as he consumes to
the Senator from North Dakota, an ardent fighter on behalf of
agriculture, I might add.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for
bringing this issue before the Senate again and again.
It is interesting what people consider a priority in this Congress.
We have voted on this issue of drought relief and disaster assistance
for farmers in the Senate. Seventy-nine Members of the Senate voted to
do something. We passed legislation for $5.9 billion. Let me tell you
why we did that.
This map shows what happened to a major part of the country. A major
part of our country suffered a devastating drought. In my State, we had
that extreme drought in the southwestern corner. We also had extreme
moisture and therefore flooding in the northeastern corner.
Let me show a picture of two farmers in the same State. This farmer
is standing on his land that looks like a moonscape. Put seeds in that
ground and nothing grows. Is that a disaster? It is if you put all your
hopes, dreams, and capital into the ground. We had literally a
moonscape. No pasture, no crops in these areas.
In the same State, flooded land. Drought and flooding. No crop.
Now, when family farmers suffer this circumstance, they cannot make
it from one year to the next. One of my colleagues said we really ought
to name droughts. We do name hurricanes. If a hurricane came through
tomorrow and it took a portion of the country and flattened it,
immediately airplanes would leave Washington, DC, FEMA would be on the
airplane, other governmental offices would be on the plane, and they
would be rushing there. Why? Because Hurricane Andrew, Emma, or
Hurricane Myrtle hit land. We would all understand this was a disaster.
All of the mechanisms of the Federal Government racheting up to try to
deal with disasters would be on the way to help.
But this gripping, relentless drought that occurred in our country,
with flooding in some other parts, is something that happens over time.
So there are enough people in Congress--including the President of the
United States--who decided we do not want to do anything; we want to
block this. We passed disaster assistance by 79 votes in the Senate.
Bipartisan. The Speaker of the House and the President say, We do not
want it, we will not do it.
My colleague from Minnesota made an appropriate point. What did they
have time to do? As to the question of whose side are you on, at least
part of the answer this morning is we are on the side of corporations
who want to

[[Page 22966]]

renounce their citizenship and move offshore to stop paying taxes to
the United States Government, or at least minimize those taxes. We
would like to become citizens of Bermuda, some corporations say. So
this morning the vote in the Senate was to say, at least by the
majority, regrettably, we would like to help those companies. The
Senate already voted to say if you want to renounce your American
citizenship, you ought not be getting American contracts with the
Federal Government.
In the homeland security bill they have stuck in a little piece that
says let's make it easier for corporations that renounce their
citizenship to get these contracts. That was a priority. It was a
priority, for those corporations that renounce their citizenship, to
help them out. We had the time and the will by some in Congress to help
them out.
It is interesting, exactly the same people who do not want to lift a
finger to help family farmers are saying we would like to help out
these poor corporations that renounce their citizenship.
Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. How many family farmers in North Dakota are able to move
offshore to Bermuda and not pay income taxes? How many would you guess
could do this?
Mr. DORGAN. The answer is zero. But the answer would be zero if every
farmer had the opportunity to do it. Do you know why? Because our
farmers are Americans. They do not want to move anywhere. They do not
want to become citizens of Bermuda. They do not want to avoid paying
income taxes. They would love to pay income taxes for a change. They
would like an opportunity to have an income to pay income tax.
There is no income with a moonscape farm or when your crop is under
water. Our farmers would not move to Bermuda for tax purposes.
Mr. BAUCUS. And that means they do not have to pay income tax.
Mr. DORGAN. Yes. They consider that unpatriotic.
The question is, why does Congress have time to help those
corporations that renounce their citizenship but it does not have time
to pass a piece of legislation that deals with disaster?
The point the Senator from Minnesota made is an important point. They
have the opportunity and the will, apparently, to help drug companies
but not family farmers.
It was Tom Paxon a couple of decades ago, when Congress gave some
financial assistance to Poland, who wrote a song that said, ``I'm
changing my name to Poland.''
Well, the question is, What is important to the Congress? Do you have
to change your name to get some help? My farmers are named Johnson,
Olson, Christianson, Larson. And they are out there and they put
everything they have in the ground in North Dakota. They do it on a
hope and a prayer that somehow it will rain enough, not rain too much,
the insects will not come, the disease will not come, and they raise a
crop and take it out of the ground and take it to the elevator for some
money. That is a hope beyond hope with a natural disaster.
We have a responsibility, if we care about rural America, care about
family farmers and care about the special culture they provide for this
country and contribution they make to this country, we have a
responsibility to help in tough times. That is what we ought to do, to
extend a helping hand to say, we would like to help you during these
tough times.
Yet, I regret, in answer to the question, Whose side are you on, too
many decided to block this. They blocked it at the White House, blocked
it at the speaker's office in the other body. The Senator from Montana
has been on the floor before--again and again and again. I am proud to
have been here with him to say this is a priority for us. This is not a
giveaway. It is not something that is not desperately needed. This is a
responsibility as Americans to say to others in this country when they
need help, here is a helping hand.
I am proud to have served in both the House of Representatives and
the Senate. In every circumstance on every occasion where someone in
this country has been injured, hurt, or disadvantaged by fires and
floods and earthquakes and tornados and so many natural disasters, I am
proud to say I have voted to provide disaster assistance to them
because I believe that is the best of what we should do in this
country.
I will never, ever vote against that kind of assistance to people who
are down and out and need help. That is why I would have expected this
Congress and this President to join us, 79 Members of the Senate,
Republicans and Democrats, to provide disaster help now when it is
needed.
I regret we may now, in the waning hours, leave this session with an
objection to the unanimous consent request, after it has already passed
the Senate by 79 votes and after the House is somewhere scattered
across America--done with their business, they will have left this
Congress and left undone a significant piece of legislation that should
have been saying to America's family farmers, beset by disaster, that
this country cares about you and this country wants to help you in a
time of need.
Again, let me say thanks to the Senator from Montana for his effort
today. I fully support him.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I notice my colleagues are coming
over. This is an important matter, and we have an opportunity and we
owe it to our people to get this legislation passed.
I yield to my friend from Michigan, Senator Stabenow.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Montana who has
been such a leader on this issue. We have all joined on the floor time
and time again to talk about the need for emergency assistance, for
disaster assistance in our States. As a member of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, I stand with my colleagues to indicate that
Michigan has been under a disaster from flooding, from drought, from
changing temperatures. We had our cherry growers this past year find
extraordinarily high temperatures in April, only to see freezes just a
few weeks later. This has stopped the ability for practically any
cherries to end up on the trees this year. It is incredible, the fact
that they have essentially been wiped out, not including what has
happened the last 2 years for our grape growers, what has consistently
been the battle for our apple growers, what we have seen from dry beans
in Michigan, asparagus.
I could go on and on. We have had harmed numerous crops in Michigan.
We have seen consistent emergencies come as a result of weather.
This is not only an issue for our family farmers but for the business
community as well. When we do not have the cherries on the trees, our
processors do not have any business. We are seeing processing plants
that are cutting back or closing. This is a ripple effect throughout
the economy in Michigan. I am sure in other States, as well.
This is truly a disaster. As my colleagues have said, if this were a
hurricane, if this were a tornado, if this were another circumstance,
we would all be joined together to help communities that find
themselves in a disaster situation because of no fault of their own.
This is no less a disaster. It is no less a situation out of the
control of our farmers and all of those involved in agriculture.
I thank the Senator from Montana again and stand, as I have
throughout this process, with the Senator. This is our last opportunity
to do this and to indicate to our family farmers, to agriculture across
this country, that we understand what you are going through; that we
support you and we will provide the same assistance we would for any
other disaster and emergency that might occur.
I strongly hope we will be able to prevail in getting some action
today.
Mr. BAUCUS. I might ask a question of the Senator. Did the Senator by
any chance vote for disaster assistance to aid other parts of the
country, such as, say, New York City?

[[Page 22967]]

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. As our leader has just indicated, we are
consistently coming together on a bipartisan basis to support important
efforts. I was proud to stand with all my colleagues in the time of
need of New York and New Jersey and all those who were affected after
9/11. We consistently have requests from FEMA that come forward, to
which it is necessary that we respond, and we do that and we step up
together. Honestly, for the life of me, I do not understand why, when
it comes to our farmers, we do not have the same bipartisan support nor
the same support from the administration. It is deeply concerning.
I very much hope as we come to the end of the session that we could
come together and stand up for those who fight hard every day against
the elements. They are in a tough job. They cannot control whether it
rains or shines. Yet they are putting food on our tables, as well as
around the world, and providing for a very important part of our
economy. I hope we stand up for them at this time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus of Montana;
Senators Dorgan and Conrad of North Dakota; Senator Stabenow of
Michigan; my colleague, Tom Daschle of South Dakota; and others who
have risen on the floor to talk about the urgent need for disaster
relief to the agricultural sector of our economy. It seems
extraordinary to me that at a time when we have passed disaster relief
for earthquakes in California, hurricanes in Florida or New York or
whatever--whenever there is a natural disaster that has occurred, our
country has come together. Our colleague, Ben Nelson of Nebraska,
suggests perhaps we ought to give names to these droughts. If it was
Drought Hugo or Drought Andrew, perhaps there would be a different
perception at the White House.
I was profoundly disappointed this summer when President Bush
traveled all the way to Mount Rushmore, in fact, to announce to the
agricultural sector that there would be no relief other than what
meager amount there might be available in the farm bill. That was never
designed to address natural disasters. We have always dealt with
disasters in the agricultural sector or any other sector of the economy
on an individual basis. Some years we have them, some we do not. There
is no slush fund in the farm bill designed to be utilized for a
disaster relief. It is simply not put together that way.
Yet we know we could do a full $6 billion level of drought relief and
do it in a fiscally responsible fashion because, in fact, the farm
bill, over the course of this next year, is going to be using less
countercyclical payments, and those payments will not be required, and
that will come to around a $6 billion savings. It is not a technical
offset, we know that, but it is a fiscally responsible way we can go
about doing this.
But to single out agriculture for the first time ever in this
unprecedented way strikes me as an extraordinarily bad precedent.
Republican and Democratic administrations alike in the past have
supported disaster relief when disasters occur. It is not like we seek
relief every time we have a little shortage of rain or a little problem
of one kind or another. That is the nature of agriculture. But what we
have here is a devastating circumstance that has damaged agriculture in
a significant way in some 37 different States, at least, across the
country. Yet we have an administration for the first time ever saying
we will help tornado victims, we will help hurricane victims, will help
earthquake victims, but if you are in the agricultural sector, forget
about it. We are not going to be there for you. That is a precedent
that is of profound consequence to the agricultural sector all across
our country.
In South Dakota, the State university tells us the loss to the
economy is already in excess of $2 billion in our small State.
Obviously this ripples up and down every Main Street of every
community. Those who are the least capitalized, the younger producers,
are the first to be forced off the land at a time when we have a
demographic problem as it is in terms of keeping our young people and
young leaders in our rural communities. It has an enormous impact. We
will be feeling the effects for years and years to come. Even if we
were to have this disaster relief, as Senator Baucus well knows, this
would not make people whole. This would not make it as though the
disaster had not occurred. This would simply get people by through the
winter so they can know whether they have to continue to disperse their
herds or whether they would continue to farm at all--they would have
that knowledge. They would be in the hope next year things would turn
better.
As it is, we have had a 2001 and 2002 drought, 2 years back to back.
On top of that, we have unfair trade policy, concentration in the
agricultural sector, and all kinds of conditions at work to lower the
price that our producers get in too many cases and it simply gangs up
on our producers to the point where income is falling off a radical
level this year--down at least 23 percent this year; last year it
wasn't good. What we are going to find is a depopulation of this part
of the country.
If we were seeking something unique and special for the agricultural
sector that no other sector gets, it would be one thing, but what we
are looking for is equity, fairness. I ask my good friend, the Senator
from Montana, who has played such a lead role in helping to raise this
issue, is there any logic, is there any equity in singling out the
agricultural sector to be devoid of any kind of disaster relief as
opposed to any other sector that faces a natural disaster in America?
Why should agriculture be the one sector that is told to drop dead when
you have a natural disaster in your region?
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my friend. Frankly, I was going to ask him
roughly the same question; namely, what possible reason could the
administration have, the other side of the body have, for saying no?
What possible reason? Can you even think of a reason? The only one I
can think of is, perhaps, that it costs money. That cannot be a reason
when we spend so much money in so many areas where there is no
disaster, no emergency. This is black and white. This is so easy. As
the Senator has so articulately said, in so many instances it is the
American way to help parts of the country that suffer natural
disasters, America is there. America has a big heart. We are there. We
are Americans. We work together to help other Americans who suffer
disasters.
The Senator has mentioned earthquakes. We know of the devastating
earthquakes, say in California and we were there. We know of the
devastating hurricanes in Florida or on the eastern coast, and we have
been there. We know of other floods and we have been there. All of us
together have been there. As the Senator said, it has been nonpartisan,
it has just been America.
But for some reason, and I cannot fathom what the reason is, the
White House said no to this disaster; said no. The other body, on the
other side, said no. The only possible reason I can think of, as the
Senator has suggested, for some reason they think they can get away
from it because farmers and ranchers are kind of stoic. They are good
people. They do not raise the rafters. They don't take to the streets.
They are good, solid people.
I think the Senator from Minnesota made a good point earlier. He
said, and frankly this is very poignant, it is ironic: When our beloved
late departed colleague, Senator Wellstone, often said, there are other
people--there are law firms, lobbyists, who can represent big companies
in Washington, DC. But he, Senator Wellstone, was there to represent
the people who don't have big lobbyists and well-heeled people. He,
Senator Wellstone, is there to represent the people. That is our job.
It is the job of both sides of the aisle, to represent the people. It
is the job of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to represent the people.
Now we have our nation's farmers and ranchers, down and out--there
are not better, more decent, hard-working, wonderful, people in America
than our farmers and our ranchers. They don't complain. They work
really hard. They do their very best. Yet the administration and the
other body is turning their backs to them.

[[Page 22968]]

It reminds me sometimes of New York. The current occupant of the
Chair from New Jersey certainly knows this phenomenon. Certainly, when
an administration or Congress says no to something New York wants, the
headlines are: Drop dead. The administration says drop dead.
Clearly this administration, the other party, to our farmers and
ranchers has said: Drop dead.
The Senator made another excellent point; namely, the farm bill is
not designed to take care of natural disasters. You must have a crop to
participate in the Farm Bill. There is no slush fund, the Senator said,
in the farm bill.
The farm bill is irrelevant to this phenomenon, this disaster, we are
facing. For the life of me, I cannot understand. Maybe drought is just
a ``silent killer,'' as some of our colleagues mentioned earlier. It is
not on the front pages. It is the silent killer in different parts of
the country. You do not see it coming slowly, but it just as pernicious
and devastating, if not more so.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his insight
because I think he is exactly right. While the damage is as great as
with any other disaster, it takes a matter of days and weeks and months
for this to occur, as opposed to the headline-grabbing earthquake or
tornado or hurricane that may take a day or two and grab headlines.
I invite my colleagues from the House who have refused to even hold
hearings on this issue, much less have a vote of any kind on disaster
relief, and I invite the administration to come to my part of the
country to look at what has happened to those fields, to those farms,
and to those ranches. The liquidation of herds has already taken place.
The equity built up for generations has been lost over the course of
this last year. Again, we find a stone wall relative to disaster relief
for agriculture.
I applaud the leadership of my colleague from Montana, and my
colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, and Senators Dorgan,
Conrad, Nelson, and others who have done so much to highlight the
equity and the common sense of this action. It is my hope that before
we leave this place, we can in fact see to it that our rural parts of
America get the same kind of attention, the same kind of concern, and
the same kind of compassion that every other part of America and every
other sector gets when they have unmitigated disasters facing them.
I yield my time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have the floor. Before I yield time to
the Senator from North Dakota, I see the distinguished minority leader.
I ask if he can wait for a short while so the Senator from North Dakota
can give his statement, if that is OK with the Senator from
Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would be glad to withhold. I hope it
doesn't take too long.
Mr. BAUCUS. I am giving him in a little nudge.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana. I thank
the Republican leader. I appreciate that.
As you can imagine, this is deadly serious for the people I
represent. This picture says it all. This is what southwestern North
Dakota looks like. It looks like a moonscape. Nothing grew this year.
It is the most devastating drought that many have faced since the
1930s. Many would say it is an even more devastating drought than we
had in the 1930s because absolutely nothing grew this year. It is a
devastation.
One of the newspapers in our State published this headline:
``Disaster Aid Just Common Sense.'' This is my hometown newspaper. They
said: Look, this is a circumstance that demands a response. Always
before, we have given disaster assistance to every other part of the
country in every other circumstance, but not here.
The President of the United States says take the aid out of the farm
bill. There is no disaster aid in the farm bill. That was specifically
precluded. But the farm bill can provide the funding because the
savings from the farm bill will directly provide the amount of money
necessary for disaster assistance.
Here is the circumstance we face, according to the USDA. Net farm
income is going to go down 21 percent even though prices are higher.
Even though farm program payments will be lower, farm income is going
to plunge. It is going to plunge because of natural disasters in every
part of the country. Obviously, it is very acute in the Midwest--
especially Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota.
I end by reminding colleagues of what Senator Wellstone, who so
tragically died, said in his last days. He was fighting for disaster
aid. He said: ``Politics delays aid for northwest Minnesota farmers.''
Senator Wellstone may be prophetic in what he said because he was
afraid that politics would kill the disaster assistance that is so
desperately needed.
In my State, literally hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of farm
families will be forced off the land if we don't do what we have always
done in the past; that is, provide disaster assistance--a disaster
package that can be fully offset and fully funded by savings out of the
farm bill. Because of these natural disasters, and because we have had
drought and floods, production is less and prices are higher. That
means payments are less from the farm bill. That money could be used to
pay for disaster assistance that is so desperately needed.
I plead with my colleagues. I plead with them. Let us do now what we
have always done in the past. When any part of the country suffered a
disaster, we helped. We should do no less now.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. 3099, the bill to provide emergency
disaster assistance to agricultural producers, that the bill be read a
third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements thereon be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, before I ask the Chair to put that question, let me
just say that I plead with my good friend, the minority leader--soon to
become the majority leader--from Mississippi. I know he is about to
object. But I urge him to not object at this point.
Maybe there is a way to work something out here. I say that because
this is not a political gesture. As the Senator well knows, Mississippi
farmers are hurt for various reasons. As a final good-faith, bipartisan
way to work something out with the White House, if he can possibly
figure it out--I don't want to put the Senator on the spot. Believe me.
I don't. I am only putting it this way because this could be the last
day we are in session, and we still have an opportunity here. I wonder
if the Senator might not object. As the Senator from North Dakota
pointed out very well, there really is no cost to this because the farm
bill costs will be about this amount less because of the way the farm
bill works; namely, with the drought we have less production and higher
prices and much less in government payments made to farmers, it works
out to be very close to the amount of disaster assistance to farmers
and ranchers who suffer from a natural disaster.
I know it is a long shot. I am still going to make the request. We
haven't given up around here trying to help our people.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have no
doubt about the seriousness of the sponsors of this effort. Also, I am
sure the administration and the Congress are going to continue to look
at this to find ways to be of assistance in every way that is possible
and that is needed.
There are a couple of serious problems with this, though. First of
all, we do not really know what the cost will be. We are being told it
wouldn't cost anything because it would come out of the agriculture
bill. I thought I heard another Senator say you can't take it out of
the agriculture bill that we passed because it is prohibited. I am not
sure exactly how that would work.
Second, this bill came straight to the floor. It didn't come through
the committee. I have a lot of faith, even

[[Page 22969]]

though I disagree sometimes with the leadership on the Agriculture
Committee. My colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, is certainly
sensitive to agricultural disasters. He will be the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee next year. We will have a chance to revisit this.
But no committee considered it; it was just brought straight to the
floor.
For those reasons and others, and the fact that the House will not
have an opportunity to fully consider it, or even take it up at this
late date, I would have to object. So I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am gravely disappointed that there is
objection.
Our farmers cannot wait, frankly, until next year. It looks like they
are going to have to wait now. Those who are still farming, those who
are still raising livestock are going to have to somehow dig deeper, if
you pardon the pun, to make a living, scratching off the land.
I am baffled. I am totally baffled. This case is so clear. With all
due respect to my colleague from Mississippi, he made two inconsistent
points. I heard no real reason, just an objection, as is any Senator's
right under the rules of the Senate.
But, nevertheless, we have spoken. And I will fight this in January;
that is, we will figure out some way to help our farmers and ranchers
who are suffering from these disasters, just as other people around the
country get aid when they experience disasters.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank you for this
opportunity to speak today regarding the importance of disaster relief
yet this year.
Now, in just the last few minutes it became fairly clear this is now
going to have to carry over. And I respectfully disagree with the
Republican leader that this should be carried over. I do understand the
rules and will have to abide by them, but I think it is important to
point out that while the legislation may wait, the people who need
these funds for their very survival are not going to be able to wait.
They are going to sell off their land. Many are selling their herds
right now. They will not wait because they can't wait. We will have to
wait for this legislation and do the best we can.
But I would like to quickly thank Senator Baucus and certainly
Senator Daschle for their tireless efforts to provide drought
assistance. And I certainly associate myself with the comments made by
Senator Conrad from North Dakota, who I think very eloquently laid out
the numbers and what the implications are relative to the need for this
disaster relief in his State.
Nebraska isn't much different. Much of our land looks like a
moonscape because the pastures have had inadequate precipitation for a
number of months and, in many cases, years, and they do not come back
quickly. Without water, without snow, without the precipitation
required, the grass simply will not grow.
This body has twice passed drought assistance--twice. We first passed
it as drought relief. Then we passed it as part of the Interior
appropriations process. We tried to include it in the farm bill.
Yet as we come to the conclusion of this 107th Congress, the House
has failed to act. We must try one more time to get the point across so
that, as the year turns from 2002 to 2003, there will still be a
recollection that just because the year has changed, the conditions
have not changed; they continue, unfortunately.
We are here not to make a point, although a point must, in fact, be
made, but to get the necessary drought assistance for our farmers and
ranchers in those areas of our country that are experiencing a
continuing drought, a multiyear drought, that is devastating to their
economic well-being today and threatens to be even more devastating in
the days ahead.
Some are worried, apparently, about the cost. I, too, as a fiscal
conservative, am worried about the cost. But I must ask, what would we
do if it was a different kind of natural disaster, let's say a
hurricane or a flood or an earthquake, some other kind of disaster?
It is not that the people in this body are not worried about the
cost; it is that when we have emergencies, we respond to those
emergencies without looking for offsets because we recognize
emergencies are special situations. They cannot be simply provided for
within the current budget or in a future budget.
On disaster relief, the Congressional Budget Office has said
Government spending is down, almost enough to pay for this disaster
relief, because of this year's high commodity prices. Why cannot we see
our way clear, in some manner, before the end of the year, or right
after the beginning of the new year, to put disaster relief on the
continuing resolution or be the first order of business in the next
Congress?
If some believe this drought is really not as damaging as other
natural disasters, I invite them to come to Nebraska and visit with our
farmers and our ranchers and take a look at the landscape and begin to
understand that if our farmers and ranchers are unable to make it
financially, the lenders will require them to sell their land, to sell
their herds, to go into bankruptcy.
This damaging drought is not only a problem for farmers and ranchers,
but it devastates main street Nebraska, main street North Dakota, the
main street in any community that depends primarily for its existence
on successful agriculture. If you talk to the merchants in these small
communities, they will tell you what is happening to their business.
They are going under. They are not making it. They are worried about
not only next year but making it this year. Because if you don't have
money coming from agriculture, these communities are going to wither,
and they are not going to be able to make it.
So I only suggest, half in jest, that we begin to label droughts,
because if this was ``Drought Andrew'' or ``Drought Margaret,'' it
would have some identity that could attract emergency aid for a
disaster. We make a mistake in not having these droughts named after an
individual, as we do with hurricanes, because then these natural
disasters, these natural events, that occur over a continuing period of
time might have a substance that could attract the attention of those
who are today saying: Well, let's put it off until next year.
I can assure you, if we had another type of disaster today, it is
very unlikely it would be put over until next year. If we had had a
hurricane last month or the month before, I can absolutely assure you,
it would not have been put over until next year.
I don't think it can be any more clear to me that America's farmers
and ranchers need this effort in our Senate to go forward. We need the
House to pass disaster relief. I have seen so much of the damage
firsthand. I have been across the State. I see the reports. This summer
I was on a dryland farm that has had crops--some good, some bad--for 70
years. During the Dust Bowl years that farm produced a crop. This year
there is no crop--for the first time in 70 years, and perhaps long
before that, certainly in the recollection of the owners of that farm.
They can only go back 70 years. But they know there has never been a
year until this year where they have not had a crop.
A family farmer in my hometown of McCook, NE, Dale Dueland, whom I
have known since the days he crawled across his family's floor--he is
not going to like me saying that, but I remember when he was that
little boy in that farmhouse, and today he is a man with children, and
with a successful farming operation, except for the drought. It is not
simply because of prices but because it does not matter what the price
is if you do not have a crop.
He does not have a crop. He said he would have a zero yield on his
900 acres of dryland corn. It would not matter if corn went to $5; if
you don't have anything to sell because of a disaster of

[[Page 22970]]

this kind, you are not going to be able to make it. His poor crop
performance is not the result of poor planning or poor farming or
nondrought-related weather. This is the result of a natural disaster
that has been going on in some cases for over 2 years.
For much of my State, this is, in fact, a no-yield year or, at best,
a low-yield year.
Al Davis from Hyannis, NE, told me that ``each day places another
nail in the coffin of many individual ranchers in Nebraska and on the
Great Plains. Many ranchers have already thrown in the towel and are
liquidating portions of their herds,'' which will have an impact not
only today but tomorrow, the next year, and the next year, because
rebuilding herds is not a singular event that occurs in a short
timeframe. It takes years to build a herd. It takes only days to
liquidate a herd.
Annette Dubas, who owns a ranch and farm in western Nance County in
Nebraska, told me that after the third year in a row of drought
conditions, some farmers in her area have already been forced out while
others have been working two jobs just to be able to keep their farm
going. That is neither a happy situation nor is that a good thought
about what the future is going to hold. They are going to have to be
able to sell or they are going to have to be able to have a crop or
they are simply going to go out of business.
These are not big time corporate farms. Nebraska law bans corporate
farming. These are family farmers who are being driven out of business
for the first time in generations. These farms have been in their
families for many generations; in some cases, 100 years or more.
Farmers and ranchers have not only been let down by Mother Nature, they
have been let down by those in the Senate and House who have blocked
efforts to provide disaster relief despite its severity and despite
CBO's savings indications.
We can't keep denying relief to those in need. Maybe the procedure is
that it be put over for another couple months. But it must be one of
the first things, if not the first thing, that this Senate and the
House take up after the beginning of the year in the new Congress. We
cannot allow the House to remain idle on the issue. We need the White
House to support this bill, and we cannot allow objections from those
few who don't understand that this drought is no different than a flood
or a hurricane or an earthquake to stop us from providing relief. We
must, in fact, recognize the savings from the farm bill are there. And
if need be, we need to get it as part of this drought assistance.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to say, before the Senator from
Nebraska leaves the floor, that the statement made by the Senator from
Nebraska, former Governor, should be a primer for someone trying to lay
out a case. He laid out a case as well as I have ever heard. He talked
about the State itself, about individual people. It is compelling.
Nevada, of course, does not have large agricultural interests. We
have some agricultural interests. But the Senator from Nebraska has
done as good a job as I have ever heard in presenting a case.
I hope the people of Nebraska know what an advocate they have in the
Senator from Nebraska. When students study how to lay out a case,
whether it is for farm aid or whether it is for anything else,
reviewing the statement of the Senator from Nebraska makes the case in
point.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada.
The challenge we have in Nebraska is laid out by the fact that this is
about the present but also the future. The future will be dim if we are
not able to take care of the problems that have developed in the past
and continue today. It is about young people, the future of the State,
and the future food needs for the people of this country. Everybody
will be continually adversely affected if we don't remedy this
situation as soon as possible. If it can't be before January 7 of this
coming year, it would still be early enough.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Bay Mills Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss another bill, a
very important bill to communities in Michigan, a bill I introduced
earlier this year, S. 2986, the Bay Mills Indian Community Land Claim
Settlement Act. I also, on a personal note, thank Patty Bouch of my
staff for her excellent work on this issue. She has been diligently
focused for a number of months now in working with all those interested
in this issue.
S. 2986 provides for congressional approval of a land claim
settlement agreement reached earlier this year by the State of
Michigan, Governor Engler, and the Bay Mills Indian community of
Brimley, MI. The agreement settles the tribe's longstanding claim to
over 110 acres of land that was once deeded to the Governor of the
State to hold in trust for the ancestral bands of the Bay Mills Indian
community.
This land, now called Charlotte Beach, MI, was later sold for unpaid
taxes and without the knowledge of the bands or consent of the State.
In agreeing to extinguish the historical land claim in the area, the
Bay Mills Indian community will be granted alternative lands in the
State as outlined in the settlement agreement. These alternative lands
are located in Port Huron, MI, and would become part of the reservation
of the Bay Mills Indian community.
Furthermore, the legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to
take these alternative lands into trust as land obtained in a
settlement of a land claim under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on S. 2986 on October
10 of this year. I am very appreciative of Chairman Inouye's
willingness to hold the hearing, particularly that week, in light of
the fact that the Iraq resolution was being debated at that time on the
floor. It was a very serious week with much happening. I am grateful
for his willingness to hold the hearing and to work with me on this
issue as we have moved through the process.
The hearing afforded me and House colleagues in attendance and my
constituents a forum to explain the merits and the need for the
legislation. I appreciate the fact my House colleagues, Congressman
Bart Stupak and Congressman Dave Bonior, were in attendance. They
testified in support of S. 2986 as it directly affects their current
congressional districts.
Before the committee, Congressman Stupak discussed his past efforts
to remedy this land claim for the Charlotte Beach landowners in his
district. He has worked on the issue for the last 8 years. He has been
trying to resolve it. He believes that S. 2986 will grant the clear
property title to the landowners in Charlotte Beach, MI who have
inadvertently been involved in an issue greater than themselves.
The settlement of this land claim will also greatly benefit a
community in Michigan. Port Huron, MI is a community that is in great
need of new economic development and jobs. The citizens of Port Huron
can look directly across the waters at a casino in Canada--right across
the bridge. There is a large bridge that goes from Port Huron to
Sarnia. They watch every day as people drive across that bridge,
citizens of Michigan and the United States taking their dollars to
Canada where there are more jobs now as a result of that establishment.
On the other side we have a community desperately in need of jobs.
This community has wrestled with economic development and what to do.
In June of 2001, they had a referendum and the voters of that
community, after thoughtful discussion and debate, voted by a 55 to 45
percent margin to show their support for potential gaming activities in
their community.
This was done, as in any community, with thoughtfulness about what
the alternatives are. I know they are very frustrated at the fact that
they can look at job loss, economic loss right across the river from
them.
Should my legislation pass this Congress, Port Huron could be the
last

[[Page 22971]]

U.S.-Canadian border crossing in my State to have gaming, which would
provide some desperately needed economic development and job creation
for a community where the unemployment rate exceeds both the State and
the national unemployment rate.
Unemployment in Port Huron is nearly 12 percent and the community
desperately needs new economic development and jobs. They have a plan
now. Community leaders have come together and developed a plan that
will work for them. It will create jobs in the building and
construction industry, and it will create long-term jobs in the service
industry as it relates to this project. They are urgently asking us to
pass this legislation. They are ready to go to work and get it done.
They ask that we pass this now in the final day of the session. It is
very important to them that this be passed this year and not next year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian
Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2986 and the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill; that the
bill be read the third time, passed; and that the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, let me
say to my dear friend, the junior Senator from Michigan, I don't oppose
Indian gaming. I am responsible for writing the Indian Gaming Act. It
was done many years ago. I am still a member of the Indian Affairs
Committee. I haven't liked the way the law has gone with the Indian
Gaming Act, but I follow what the courts have decreed.
I think there have been some very good things happening in the
country in Indian gaming. They have been taken advantage of on a number
of occasions, but that is the way it is in a lot of different
businesses. I don't oppose Indian gaming, I repeat. While I had some
concerns initially, they basically have been met, and I have had some
very good relations with Indian gaming operators and operations across
the country.
I oppose this legislation that my friend from Michigan has asked be
passed by voice vote today. I oppose it for a number of reasons, not
the least of which is that the legislation would undermine the gaming
compacts that were approved by the Michigan State Legislature after
years of careful and deliberate negotiations.
Senator Stabenow's bill would circumvent the terms negotiated in all
11 tribal-State compacts, including the compact to which Bay Mills is a
party, which prohibits off-reservation gaming in the absence of a
revenuesharing agreement involving all of Michigan's Federally
recognized tribes.
Additionally, in recent gaming compacts, the tribes involved all
agreed to limit themselves to one gaming site for each tribe; yet this
legislation would allow Bay Mills, which already has two gaming
facilities, to open still another facility hundreds of miles from its
reservation and in direct competition with the tribes in the lower
peninsula.
Secondly, allowing a tribe to settle a land claim and receive trust
land hundreds of miles from their reservation for the express purpose
of establishing a gaming facility sets a very dangerous precedent.
This pursuit of off-reservation gaming operations should continue to
follow the procedures outlined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,
Public Law 100-497, which authorizes tribal gaming operations on off-
reservation ``after-acquired lands'' where the land to be acquired has
no relationship to the land upon which the claim was based.
Let me say that the first gaming compact ever approved with an Indian
tribe in the history of the country was done in Nevada. So it is not as
if Nevada is here opposing this request. The first compact ever
approved in the country was in Nevada. That is still an ongoing
operation and a very successful one.
The proposed casino would be located just north of Detroit on a major
link to Ontario that is in the lower corner of the lower peninsula. Bay
Mills is located in the upper peninsula. The legislation is
fundamentally flawed because it allows Bay Mills to establish gaming
facilities under the guise of settling a land claim.
The land claim is simply--and everybody knows this--an excuse to take
land into trust for off-reservation gaming.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to speak for up to 15 minutes and that the time be charged postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Health Care That Works for All Americans Act

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, recently I introduced with Senator Hatch
health care legislation, the Health Care that Works for All Americans
Act. I come to the floor today because I think many Senators are
frustrated about the inability to make more progress on the health care
issue in this session of the Senate. I want to take a few minutes and
talk about what I think the key principles are for this country to make
headway with respect to health care.
The three principles that I believe are central on this health care
issue are, first and foremost, to make sure the public is involved from
the ground floor. Again and again, what we have seen is health care
legislation proposed that is attacked by special interest groups, and
then it goes nowhere. The public gets understandably confused about the
discussion, and the bill dies.
Under the Wyden-Hatch legislation, the public would get the first
crack at looking at the key issues, which are: What are the essential
services that people feel strongly about? How much would they cost? And
who would pay for them?
The second feature of our legislation is that it establishes a
process to ensure that Congress actually votes for meaningful and
comprehensive health reform. The last time Congress took a crack at
this, almost a decade ago, there were not even votes in Congress on the
legislation.
The third principle we ought to zero in on with respect to health
care for the future is that it has to be bipartisan. The Wyden-Hatch
legislation is literally the first bipartisan effort in comprehensive
health reform in a decade.
I come to the Chamber today to say those three principles--involving
the public at the outset, ensuring there will be an actual vote by the
Congress on comprehensive legislation, and that the bill be
bipartisan--ought to be the core of the Senate's effort to reform the
health care system.
Today I wish to take a couple of minutes to talk about a central part
of our legislation, and that is what to do about rising health care
costs in America.
Rising costs in American health care are a runaway train, and the
American people have literally been tied to the track. Again and again,
small businesses come up to us and say they have been subjected to 15-,
20-, 25-percent rate hikes year after year. This is all before the
demographic tsunami comes in 2010 and 2011 when we will have millions
of baby boomers, and right now millions of working families, some with
insurance, some without, that cannot afford doctor visits and disease
treatments and the drugs they need. So certainly at the center of any
effort to reform health care has to be putting the brakes on those
rising costs that are literally a runaway train in our society.
There are going to be tough choices. If resources are limited, we
have to make some tough calls about how to allocate those resources and
to focus on some of the ethical and moral questions that are inherent
in rising costs.

[[Page 22972]]

The tough moral and ethical considerations that will be necessary to
contain them are stark realities, but they have to be faced if this
country's health care system is going to work for all.
My colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, and I have proposed in our
legislation, the Health Care that Works for All Americans Act, a
specific plan so that citizens can face those realities and fashion a
better health care system.
Under our proposal, the American people will have a chance--a chance
they have not had in 57 years since health care reform was tackled by
Harry Truman in the 81st Congress--the American people will have a
chance, before the special interest groups have at it, to talk about
the kind of health care system they believe makes sense for them.
Our legislation has two major components: A public participation
process at the outset over a relatively short period of time, and a
guaranteed vote in both Houses of the Congress on the people's
recommendations.
When it comes to health care costs, there is a lot for the public to
examine. We are now spending 15 percent of our gross domestic product
on health care. The last time it was looked at, the country spent more
than $1.4 trillion on medical care, a 10-percent increase from the
previous year.
If you divide $1.4 trillion by the number of people in this country,
it comes to almost $5,000 for every man, woman, and child. Tens of
millions of our citizens, in addition, slip through the cracks every
day, even as our Nation pours more and more money into health care.
We are going to have to take a look at where the money is going. A
study that has now been published on the Web site of the journal Health
Affairs attributes spending increases primarily to higher hospital
costs and prescription drugs. Hospitals are raising prices to make up
for declining insurance, Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement, and the
money they lose treating patients with no insurance at all. Moreover, a
backlash against the tight hospitalization controls of managed care has
clearly contributed to rising costs.
There are a host of relentless forces converging on American health
care. Technological innovations seem to be coming at us from every
area, and each miracle cure comes with a high cost. More and more
health information is available through the Internet through sites such
as WebMD and health.gov. It shows up on the ticker on all the 24-hour
news channels, and each new discovery drives up the demand for care. If
CNN runs a story on a medical breakthrough at 9:30 in the morning, it
seems that an hour or so later we will be getting calls at our offices
asking if Medicare or Medicaid or various insurance plans will pick up
that coverage.
We have an extraordinary appetite for health care, for new
treatments, but sometimes when we order these, we are not sure we are
getting what is medically effective. We are not sure we are getting
services that are worth the money. And most importantly, there is no
way to measure it.
This is all compounded by the baby boomer explosion. Already, elderly
people make up 15 percent of the population and spend 40 percent of our
health care dollars. Folks are not just getting older, they are living
longer. Those additional lives and the care that is necessary is going
to require more funding. Life expectancy has risen more in the last 50
years than it did in the preceding 5,000. In the last months of their
longer lives, Americans are spending more money than ever on health
care. But money does not always give the best results for a suffering
individual.
As a direct result of health spending increases in 2001, the Health
Affair Study that I noted said health insurance costs have risen
sharply, but at the same time coverage is getting harder and harder for
many to get. The costs have gone up two ways. The first is with simple
premium increases. Insurance companies are asking purchasers to pay
more for the policies. The second way is through something called
buydown. Employers who subsidize insurance reduce available benefits
and ask employees to pay a higher share of the subsidized premium.
Employees often get lower wages, even as they pay more for health
insurance, with no guarantee their insurance will meet their needs.
When you combine that significant hike in premiums--12 percent has been
one assessment by the Kaiser Foundation--with a 3-percent increase in
the number of cases of the buydown, the total cost of insurance has
risen about 15 percent this year.
Nationally, businesses are still paying three-quarters or more of
employees' premium costs, but it is harder and harder for companies and
individuals to absorb those cost increases year after year. Fully 60
percent of those who have no insurance work for small businesses. For
the self-employed or for those who have to buy their own insurance,
premium increases at this point have priced many plans out of reach.
If someone is listening today and saying, ``The health care system
works fine for me,'' let's also reflect on the fact that while it may
work for you, it is not working for tens of millions of others. The
fact is, every single day in America those who have no coverage, those
who are going without, in effect, get subsidized by those who do have
coverage.
If an individual listens today and says, ``I am in pretty good shape;
things are going well for me,'' I only point out for the millions who
do not have coverage right now, those people are subsidized by those
who think everything is fine.
The fact is, it is just not right to leave millions of Americans in
this country with a feeling of helplessness and a sense that when they
go to bed at night they can see that train, that runaway train of
health care costs I have mentioned bearing down on them.
The legislation Senator Hatch and I have proposed gives Americans the
power to put the brakes on rising costs. It offers regular citizens the
opportunity to make tough choices about spiraling medical bills. We
will be addressing, if our bill can pass, the tough questions of health
care directly related to our families: The question of what kind of
care do people believe is most essential; how much are people willing
to pay; how do you contain the costs without sacrificing quality of
care; what about the government or private business being required to
pay part of the cost.
My bottom line is pretty simple. It is time, finally, after 57 years
of trying the same thing--writing bills in Washington, DC, only to have
them attacked by special interests--it is time to try something
different, and that is to give the people of this country a chance to
make the judgment on calls with respect to what kind of health services
they want, how much those services are going to cost, and who is going
to pay. The alternative is to continue to spend more and more on a
system that, while scientifically prodigious, is flawed in many of the
administrative ways in which it is carried out.
At a time when America is becoming a nation of health care haves and
have-nots, this country can do better. We have many of our providers
and businesses already making tough choices as they try to deal with
growing costs. I know scores of small businesses in Oregon and across
this country who are dying to offer their people good coverage, and
they have had difficulty offering it without effective policies to
contain those rising costs.
Senator Hatch and I believe with a different approach it will be
possible to reign in the costs, but it all has to begin--and begin in a
fashion that has not been tried for 57 years--with the American people
being given the opportunity to make some of the tough calls. The fact
is, the options in the cost containment area do involve hard calls. The
Kaiser Commission, for example, on the uninsured, on Medicaid, recently
laid out a number of cost containment measures currently employed by
our public health programs. They range from some that I think are
progressive to some that I think would make the problems that we have
today in health care even more serious.
According to Kaiser, the main way public health programs are cutting
costs is by cutting payments to providers. Private insurers then follow

[[Page 22973]]

suit, paying less to providers for each patient seen and for each
procedure performed or for each bed the hospital provides. Then, in
effect, the Robin Hood approach kicks in in a dramatic way with those
who do get payments, in effect, giving services to those who lack it.
But when the cutbacks get severe, when the reimbursements continue to
go down as we have seen in so many facilities, those providers, those
health care facilities that have a great sense of community and caring,
just cannot offer the services anymore. Instead of or even in addition
to cutting provider payments, some insurers and public health programs
are cutting back on what services they will cover, reducing the
availability of some services. Unfortunately, services are often cut
with no regard to their overall effectiveness--only for their cost.
Many types of health care programs are asking patients to pay more at
the time of service--higher copayments. Higher copayments are also
becoming a regular feature at the pharmacy, as prescription drugs are
one of the biggest reasons behind rising costs. Options include those
higher copays, requiring more prior authorization for prescriptions,
requiring or covering only generics, or even limiting the number of
covered prescriptions per month.
I want to pause to note a couple of issues here--first, that
prescription drugs are on the table in the Wyden-Hatch legislation,
just as long-term care and Medicare and Medicaid and private insurance
are. Senator Hatch and I are placing no limits on what the American
people can discuss and decide to change. And second, efforts to cut
rising drug costs are perfect example of the range of choices that
folks will face in this national discussion. Some of the choices for
cutting costs seem good and fair. Some seem punitive and unfair.
Senator Hatch and I just believe that Americans have enough sense to
tell the difference.
People participating in the health care discussion prescribed in our
bill will take a look at some of the toughest cost-cutters being
employed today. In the case of private insurance, companies refuse to
cover pre-existing conditions. They deny policies to people whose care
is likely to be expensive. In the case of public insurance, States make
last-ditch efforts to cut costs by limiting the number of people to
whom coverage is available.
All across America today, mothers will tell their children that you
don't always get everything you want in this life. That's the stark
reality people are going to have to face when it comes to reforming the
health care system. The key will be to find solutions that do the best
job of splitting the difference, cutting costs and providing essential,
effective health care services.
Cost containment is not enough. Our health care dollars must buy
quality care, that not only treats disease but also prevents it
whenever possible. That's the best cost containment. Failing that, care
that manages diseases to slow or prevent their progression may be the
next best thing. Disease management is a growing component of health
care today. Instead of allowing months to go by between doctor visits,
patients with chronic illnesses meet or speak regularly with nurses or
other health care providers to monitor their specific condition.
Doctors have concerns about their patients being treated or advised by
others, and all the kinks aren't worked out of this system yet. But the
result, in many cases, is a reduction in the number of expensive
complications and hospital stays.
I want to see Americans educated about disease management, preventive
care, and every other option available for reforming health care.
That's why the Wyden-Hatch Act calls for the publication of a Citizens'
Guide to the Health Care System. A panel that's a cross-section of
Americans using and running the health care system today will produce
it. It will be designed so folks can be fully informed when the public
participation portion of the process begins.
To me, some of these cost containment methods seem fairer than
others; some seem more sensible than others. The American people should
have the change to decide--because what's being done now isn't working.
Benefits are usually considered in terms of cost-benefit, which
basically measures how much money you save for every dollar you spend.
Another way of looking at procedures and practices is their cost-
effectiveness, which is how much good you do with every dollar.
Let me explain why I believe it is folly to continue to address
questions of health care and health coverage as purely economic
considerations. The problem is, and families know this, it doesn't all
boil down to money. You're not just dealing with a bottom line. You're
talking about maintaining people's health and about the basic care they
have a right to expect. Sometimes you're literally talking about life
and death. It's time America started recognizing its ethical and moral
responsibilities with respect to health care, and acting on them.
This is not the seismic shift it sounds to be. Just as individual
insurers and state health administrators are making choices about how
to contain costs, American citizens are making moral choices around
their kitchen tables every day. People already have to answer questions
like, it okay to put off the colorectal screening my insurance won't
cover because I really need to pay for my mother's prescription
medicines? If we pay for Jennifer's broken arm, does Bobby have to wait
a year to get braces?
Doctors and hospitals are already making ethical choices about what
care to get and give, or how much cost the hospital is willing to
absorb before cutting services. The question that must be answered is
still the same: do Americans want these choices made as they are now,
in a back-door way? Or do they want a chance to discuss these issues at
the front door, decide on them as a community, and then ask Congress to
deliver a health care system based on the country's values?
A better way to make decisions is to look at what we are and are not
able to do on a societal level, instead of deciding what we are and are
not able to do for a give patient at a given time. If that sounds
tough, it is. But Mr. President, I'm here to urge that America tackle
these issues head on and turn them to the advantage of as many people
as possible. That's far better plan then letting back-door decisions
suck away more funds and resources and deny people decent care.
It's time to look at questions on a broader scale. Is $315,000 of
public money better spent on one liver transplant and follow-up care
for a 70-year old man with cirrhosis, or on 3,000 preventive well-baby
visits costing about $100 each? Does a woman with known risk factors
for breast cancer have a right to a mammogram every year even if I have
to help pay for it?
Because these choices are so tough, a variety of think tanks and
great minds have tackled these issues, including Arthur Kaplan at the
University of Pennsylvania, Daniel Callahan at the Hastings Center and
others. I admire their thoughtful work. Their conclusions and study
have provided valuable direction on these issues.
I believe that at the end of the day, only the citizens of this
country can make the fundamental choices that affect their health and
their well-being--and health and well-being of the society in which
they live.
Researchers shows that Americans believe that there are certain basic
rights when it comes to health care and no one should be forced to go
without. If it's been confirmed that the American people feel that way,
the key is to find out what the basics are and go from there. This
country won't get anywhere on health care reform until we do.
Let me explain a little further. Most Americans operate on the idea
that they should have the latest tests and treatments on demand. That's
possible--if America spends more of its dollars on health care and
other budget items like educations take the hit. But spending more
doesn't necessarily buy better health care. More and more people are
being let without even the essential health care services, let alone
the latest drugs and procedures.
Let me be clear. I'm not talking about keeping people from spending
their own money on whatever kind of health care they want. If someone

[[Page 22974]]

wants to rebuild himself limb by limb and has the money to pay for it,
I say go for it. But when it comes to the health care system as a
whole, we can't just spend money for the sake of spending money. Health
care dollars must be used in better ways, or the people of this country
must decide that it's okay to keep spending and keep leaving people
out.
I don't believe that's the way America wants it to work. As Marcia
Angell wrote in the New York Times, there are some essential services
in which we all agree the public has stake, and health care should be
one of them. For example, no one I know thinks of our country as a
place where it's okay for babies to go untreated because Mom and Dad
are in financial straits.
Postponing care sometimes places more strain on the health care
system. If a baby doesn't get treated at the beginning of an ear
infection, he may have to be treated as it goes further along, probably
in the emergency room at a much higher cost than if he'd had a
pediatrician to see in the first place. If he's not treated, and ends
up with hearing damage, the costs will skyrocket not only in the health
care system, but also in the educational system to meet his special
needs.
More than a decade ago, the people in my home State of Oregon
realized the interconnectedness of everyone in the health care system.
Folks realized that no amount of money would ever be enough to pay for
all the health care Oregonians wanted, and that too many people were
doing without health care at all. So the people of my state took on the
tough task of sitting down and deciding what the basics were, what
health care no one should have to do without.
That may sound like an easy task; if you could just sit and make a
list of all the things you'd like health care coverage to pay for, you
would be able to do that without much trouble. But there's a flip side.
The question Oregonians faced over and over again was, okay: if we want
this fundamental service covered, what do we have to give up? What
can't we afford to cover for anyone, if we want everyone to have at
least some help? Those questions sometimes translated into
heartbreaking real-life situations, where people using public health
care couldn't get the latest and greatest innovations on demand. But
lives were saved because people using public health care were able to
get the basic when they needed them. That tradeoff, for the most part,
made the tough choices worthwhile.
Now, Senator Hatch and I are not asking America to come up with a
list of 880 health procedures in order of importance. But we are
looking for a general idea of people's priorities--so that Congress can
act on them when it's time for health care reform.
I believe there are some priorities our people already agree on. I
think they agree that 18,000 Americans shouldn't have to die every year
just because they can't get health insurance and health care. I believe
280 million people will agree they'd rather cover the cost of
preventive services than get stuck with the much higher costs of
preventable diseases that go unchecked. I think with some serious
discussion, they can agree on some basic concepts of how and where our
limited health care dollars should be spent to help the most people. I
believe 280 million people can agree on a lot more than you think.
Some might say Americans aren't going to want to talk about this,
that the idea of not paying for someone's liver transplant to take care
of babies isn't fit talk for the public. But I believe Americans have a
right to this discussion. These choices are going to get made, one way
or the other, and I want them made in the open with the input of the
people I'm here to represent. The stakes are just too high not to
include the American people. And I believe they're up to the task.
To help Americans understand what's at stake, and make informed
decisions, the dissemination of information will be key. I believe the
Citizens' Health Guide will be a real eye-opener for most people--for
instance, when they find out this: Medicare Part A will pay for
prescription drugs when a patient is in the hospital. Part B will pay
nothing for those same drugs on an outpatient basis. Some doctors are
sticking patients in the hospital to the tune of thousands of dollars
just to get their medicine to them. That money can't be spent, then, on
preventive services or any other more beneficial health care concerns.
Don't you think when people see the connection, they will insist on
making a change?
Health care works like an ecosystem in this country. The consequence
of every decision, and every reform effort, snakes through the system
as a whole. Addressing health care properly, that, means addressing it
as a system entire. Ad hoc is not going to work.
Just as a good doctor wouldn't prescribe a medicine that would treat
one symptom but leave the disease to run rampant, it's time to stop
with the piecemeal reforms that put a Band-Aid on the sucking chest
wound of the health care system. To be most effective, you can't just
make decisions on broken bones one day, organ transplants the next and
something else the next day like they don't have any effect on each
other. This country needs a way to consider the moral and ethical
choices already being made that affect not just one person or one
family, but the entire health care system. As hard as it's going to be,
it must be done. The Wyden-Hatch bill provides a path to do that.
Yes, there are economic choices to be made about health care in this
country. The runaway train of rising costs must be stopped somehow. And
there are moral questions underlying every economic decision. The
Wyden-Hatch proposal is built around the idea that these questions are
simply too important to duck any longer. People deserve the chance to
discuss their own moral and ethical priorities when it comes to health
care, and to decide what's best for them and for our society as a
whole. Only then can Congress deliver health care reform that truly
works for all.
That's why our bill, the Health Care that Works for All Americans
Act, centers on that public participation portion, and then guarantees
the people a vote in both houses of Congress.
Perhaps the people of this country will choose one or more cost-
containment measures being used today. Perhaps in examining their own
ethics, they'll come up with new ideas. What Senator Hatch and I want
to guarantee is that their voices will be heard--and that this Congress
will act, with a mandatory vote in both houses--to make the people's
vision for health care come to pass. I believe that if Congress chooses
to put the people in charge, Americans will choose to fight rising
costs, make tough moral choices, and direct this country toward better
health care for everyone.
That is the point at which we have reached. That is why it is not
right to leave so many underserved in so many communities without
adequate health care.
I urge, finally, that as we leave and reflect on what is needed to
reform the health care system in the next session, that the three
principles in the Wyden-Hatch legislation of involving the money,
forcing a vote in the Congress on the reforms that come from the
people, and making it bipartisan guide our work in the next session.
I yield the floor.

Order of Procedure

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time,
postcloture, be considered expired except for the following: 60 minutes
under the control of Senator Byrd, 70 minutes under the control of
Senator Lieberman, 70 minutes under the control of Senator Thompson or
their designees; that 20 minutes of Senator Thompson's time be under
the control of Senator Specter; that 15 minutes of the time of Senator
Lieberman be under the control of Senator Dodd; 15 minutes be under the
control of Senator Sarbanes; 10 minutes under the control of Senator
Carper; and 10 minutes under the control of Senator Clinton; leaving
Senator Lieberman, I believe, 20 minutes.
Again, it will be 70 minutes under the control of Senator Lieberman;
Senator Dodd would have 15 minutes, Senator

[[Page 22975]]

Sarbanes 15 minutes, Senator Carper 10 minutes, Senator Clinton 10
minutes, leaving Senator Lieberman 15 minutes, with Senator Daschle
having the final 5 minutes to close the debate.
That upon the use or yielding back of all time, the bill be read the
third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill;
provided further that the 10 minutes prior to the vote be controlled by
the two leaders, with the majority leader controlling the final 5
minutes, without further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could further ask the Chair to consider
this unanimous consent request.
I ask unanimous consent that upon the adoption of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 3210, the terrorism risk insurance bill, the
Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 762, H.J. Res.
124, the continuing resolution; that no amendments or motion be in
order to the joint resolution; that there be up to 3 hours for debate,
with the time equally divided and controlled between the chairman,
Senator Byrd, and the ranking member, Senator Stevens, of the
Appropriations Committee, or their designees; that upon the use or
yielding back of time, with no intervening action or debate, the joint
resolution be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the
joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the only thing I would ask is I hope,
because I did move quite hurriedly here, that the time, the 70 minutes
that Senator Lieberman has adds up to 70 minutes. I am quite sure that
it does.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does.
Mr. REID. I appreciate everyone's cooperation. I ask unanimous
consent that the time I have just enunciated not start running until 4
o'clock so people have time to get over here. But at 4 o'clock, I ask
that the time I have outlined here would begin to run and that anyone
who has the floor at 4 o'clock, they would have to yield to one of
these individuals who control the time at that hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator might speak for up to 8 minutes.

Honoring the Generosity of Andre Agassi

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, when I was first considering a run for
office almost 10 years ago, I found a quote from Chaplain Lloyd John
Ogilvie to be especially inspirational in helping me make my decision.
Chaplain Ogilvie once said:

You may only make a small difference, but that does not
relieve you of the responsibility to make that difference.

I want to tell you today about a constituent of mine who continues to
raise the standard for how much difference one person can make.
The world knows this man as a top-ranked tennis star whose
personality and success of the court have made him an American
favorite. In Las Vegas, however, he's admired for his generosity and
dedication to making a difference in the lives of our children.
Andre Agassi was born and raised in Las Vegas. Although he started
playing tennis as a toddler, he won his first professional title in
1987. He has won at each of the four major professional tennis
tournaments, and he holds a gold medal from the 1996 Olympics. As much
as Las Vegans love to watch their ``son'' winning on the court, our
hearts hold a special place for his devotion to underprivileged,
abused, and at-risk children in Las Vegas.
You see, a top-ranked tennis player who has won as many tournaments
as Andre has accumulates a good amount of wealth. Throw in a few
lucrative endorsement deals, and you have someone who could live
extremely comfortably for the rest of his life. He could become his own
island with very few cares in the world. Unfortunately, many successful
people do just that.
Andre Agassi, on the other hand, created the Andre Agassi Charitable
Foundation. Its Board of Directors is impressive and is led by another
son of Las Vegas, Andre's best friend and president of Agassi
Enterprises, Perry Rogers. I can't think of many other organizations
that have made the impact that this one has. Its goal is simple:

To assist those underprivileged, abused and abandoned
children who may be deprived of basic options in life. The
foundation funds a combination of emotional, physical and
academic programs designed to enhance a child's character,
self-esteem and career possibilities.

Among the programs funded by the Andre Agassi Charitable Foundation
are the Agassi Center for Education and the Andre Agassi Cottage for
Medically Fragile Children at Clark County's public shelter for abused
and neglected children. The Agassi Boys and Girls Club, which sees over
2,000 members during the year and features a tennis team and a
basketball program, provides a safe after-school facility and a
wonderful learning environment.
The Foundation, through the Assistance League of Las Vegas, provides
the means for new clothes for well over 2,000 destitute and homeless
children; helps to send 20 physically challenged or disadvantaged
children to camp for a week each summer; and introduces fourth and
fifth graders to symphonic music.
There are many more programs funded by the Andre Agassi Charitable
Foundation, but I want to tell you about the Andre Agassi College
Preparatory Academy, known in Las Vegas as Agassi Prep, and located in
the heart of an at-risk community.
Agassi Prep is a charter school that focuses on technology, college
preparation, cultural activities, and expanded involvement in community
affairs. It also seeks to enhance character, respect, motivation, and
self-discipline.
While HUD and the State of Nevada contributed significantly to the
school, the core funding came from Andre Agassi's Foundation. The
school's principal, Wayne Tanaka, is a distinguished educator who, in
line with the goals of the Foundation, will truly impact the students
who are fortunate enough to benefit from Andre Agassi's generosity and
dedication.
I also want to share with you the reach of Andre Agassi's deep-seated
concern for Las Vegas' at-risk children.
Since 1995, the Foundation has held the Grand Slam for Children
concert benefits. The yearly event continues to draw some of the
biggest names in entertainment, hundreds of volunteers, and crowds of
almost 10,000. As someone who looks forward to this event every year, I
can assure you--there is no better show on earth. This year's benefit
featured Elton John, Martina McBride, Carlos Santana, Robin Williams,
Babyface, and Rod Stewart. And that's just the entertainment.
A live and silent auction before the show included sports items from
Shaquille O'Neal, Wayne Gretzky, Greg Maddux, Muhammed Ali, and tennis
lessons from Agassi and his wife, Stefanie Graf. I share these names
with you because they are a testament to the respect that Andre Agassi
and his Foundation have earned from so many different people.
When I tell you that Andre Agassi continues to raise the standard for
how much difference one person can make, I mean it literally. Since its
inception in 1995, the Foundation has raised $23.6 million to help at-
risk children. That includes $5.6 million from this year's Grand Slam
for Children--$1.4 million more than last year.
That's $23.6 million over 7 years, with every penny going to assist
children. All administrative and overhead costs are funded through
contributions made by Andre Agassi or Agassi Enterprises, Inc. When you
step back and think about the enormous impact that this man has had in
Las Vegas, it is incredible.
I share the story of Andre Agassi's impact on Las Vegas with the hope
that it will challenge and inspire other successful people to make
their own difference in this world. We all have a responsibility to
leave this world a better place, even if--as Chaplain Ogilvie stated--
we make only a ``small difference.''
Words are not enough to thank Andre for the way he has changed the
lives of

[[Page 22976]]

so many children. But Andre, your acts of loving kindness will touch
not just the children you help today. They will make a difference for
generations to come. Thank you for making a difference in our community
and for setting an example for us all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Might I inquire of the business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes remaining on general
debate.
Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the time I use be a part of
the Thompson amendment of the homeland security bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Homeland Security

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today after talking with staff and
going through what we are going to do with homeland security. This
legislation provides the framework of the largest reorganization of
Government in many, many years; in fact, going all the way back to the
Depression days in the 1930s. But it is done because we are facing one
of the greatest security challenges that this country has faced in its
26-year history from an enemy that identifies with no specific nation,
an enemy that has shown us that fear is really something that erodes
our freedoms--and we learn how fragile they are and how fragile our
economy is.
Is it a perfect piece of legislation to leave the Congress and go
downtown to be signed by the President? It is legislation that he has
wanted and it has taken us too long to pass.
There are parts of this piece of legislation that concern most of us.
We have been around here long enough to know that once we pass a piece
of legislation--no matter what the subject might be--we find that the
administrative rule writers interpret it differently than we do.
Sometimes the net result is not exactly how we envisioned it, and maybe
not even how the President envisioned it.
There are sections in here which I am very concerned about. I think
as legislators in this body we must pay attention to how the
administrative rules are written and how some of the Departments are
moved into one called Homeland Security.

Drought Assistance

I was interested a while ago in the statement on the floor about
drought assistance to our farmers. No State has been hit harder than my
State of Montana. No one can argue that there is a need. In fact, we
have worked for over a year and a half with our colleagues here in the
Senate, in the House of Representatives, and with the administration to
get relief to our farmers and ranchers. We have been unsuccessful to
date for a variety of reasons.
There is drought assistance already in the appropriations process
that this Senate this year did not get passed--some $500 billion in
rounded figures. But it wasn't allowed to move because of the debate on
forest health.
Maybe this is the wrong place to talk about forest health.
Nonetheless, I could see no logic at all in every night turning on the
television, looking at the news, and watching America's forests go up
in flames, and then denying the money and the change in policy--a
change in policy that would have allowed us to prevent or at least take
away some of the possibilities for such catastrophic fires as we have
experienced in the last 2 years.
We were denied that--commonsense things, the relatively minor
commonsense things that we have to do to our forests in order to make
them healthy and productive and beautiful, as America envisions its
national forests.
I am reluctant to raise false hopes for our farmers right now and say
this is going to be done in the closing hours of the 107th Congress--
unless it is done in January, or whenever we take up the appropriations
bills. We have 11 more of them to pass. I imagine we will again try to
develop some drought assistance for those States that have been hit
hard this year by drought, and to help my farmers who are in the fifth
year of drought in that part of the country.
We see a little bit of posturing going on here on the floor today. I
do not like it. That wasn't the reason I was going to stand up here and
talk in the first place. Nonetheless, I had to discuss this topic.
I notice that my friend from Kansas has come to the floor, and he has
a problem, too, in Kansas. I think his State was probably the hardest
hit this year of any State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, would the distinguished Senator from
Montana yield for a question?
Mr. BURNS. I will.
Mr. ROBERTS. The Senator really alerted me to this. And I apologize
for not watching on our closed-circuit television. Apparently some of
our distinguished colleagues across the aisle are thinking about
resurrecting the $6 billion emergency disaster relief package and
putting it on the continuing resolution. Is that the case?
Mr. BURNS. That was the case, plus I think there have been a couple
of suggestions made by our colleagues across the aisle. That is part of
it. With the House being gone and not coming back, it would seem that
this would be an exercise that could not be successful.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I would like to ask if the Senator
would yield for another question.
Mr. BURNS. I will yield.
Mr. ROBERTS. How on Earth do you take a $6 billion disaster relief
bill, which I happened to vote for, that was part of the Interior
appropriations bill, as I recall--and, as I recall, the majority
leadership filled the legislative tree and basically prevented this
Senator from introducing an alternative to the $6 billion package that
this Senator thought might stand a chance of approval from the
administration, might stand a chance in regard to the hurdle that any
disaster bill faces to get through the House Agriculture Committee.
I am going to be very candid. There were certain farm groups and
certain commodity organizations that did not want to consider any
disaster legislation for fear of opening up the farm bill and having
something happen to their payment limits. So you had the leadership of
the House Agriculture Committee saying no. You had the administration
saying no in regard to further expenditures over and above the $180
billion we spent on a 10-year farm bill. You had the emergency
assistance bill--not on Agriculture appropriations but on Interior
appropriations.
Then, all of a sudden, we couldn't get any action on the Interior
appropriations bill because there was a controversy in regard to forest
management. Is that not the case?
I know the Senator worked very hard, because of the State he
represents, in regard to forest management as part of that Interior
appropriations bill. But the disaster relief money was attached to the
Interior appropriations bill, and then we couldn't move it. We couldn't
get any action on this floor.
Is that about correct?
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, the Senator is correct. I am ranking
member on that Interior Appropriations Committee. There was money to
replenish the U.S. Forest Service for the moneys they had expended on
firefighting. That was also in there and needed, and would have passed.
But we got into a situation on forest health, and the other side would
not budge on some very commonsense recommendations to the Forest
Service on how we go about cleaning up our forests. I am sorry it
happened that way.
I would say to my Agriculture leaders, to my farmers, and to the
farmers in Kansas who, by the way, are not really interested in inside
baseball here in Washington, DC--a 17-square-mile logic-free
environment--they are interested in not only what the farm legislation
that we passed late last spring would do for them but also how we deal
with disasters. None of those issues were covered.
But the Senator from Kansas is right on. We have all voted for
disaster assistance until we have just run our little fingers to the
bone only to find it blocked by other legislation or parliamentary
procedures.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I would like to ask the Senator to
yield

[[Page 22977]]

for several additional questions. I am a little confused about this.
Mr. BURNS. I yield.
Mr. ROBERTS. I have a bone to pick. I want to see if the Senator from
Montana shares the same bone.
Let us go back to the original problem of why in the Great Plains and
the great States of Montana, Wyoming--and move over into South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, which, yes, this year was the hardest hit State. Many
other States incurred bad weather and disaster conditions. But why did
this happen? The Good Lord was not willing. The Good Lord sometimes
doesn't have the creeks rise too much, or there is too much water in
terms of the creeks. From time to time we have disaster bills. They
tend to come during even-numbered years, by the way.
We have made a lot of progress in crop insurance. There has been crop
insurance reform. But when you have a total disaster, and you lose your
grain crop throughout the grain-producing areas, you would think you
would have a disaster bill.
Now, let me back up. I know one Senator from Kansas--this Senator
from Kansas--who said, as we go through the consideration of the new
farm bill, $180 billion--make that $200 billion really over 10 years
because the budget was 10 years long--that you would at least think
there would be some provision in there for a farmer who had no crops,
no crops to harvest. The Senator knows that. You have gone through that
up in Montana, how many years--1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years maybe?
Now, what did the new farm bill, I would ask the Senator, have? We
had four different components, four different payments, four different
ways to invest in agriculture.
We changed the old farm bill, which was a direct income supplement,
to a price support farm bill, and there were four ways your farmers
could be helped. No. 1, we increased the loan a tad. We decided the
loan rate would become an income protection device but--guess what--the
prices over the loan rate do not do you any good.
Then you had something called a loan deficiency payment. That means
if the price were below the loan rate, you would get that amount.
Well--guess what--the price is above the loan rate, so you don't get
the loan deficiency payment.
Then you also had a target price deficiency payment. It is a little
confusing, all this gobbledygook, with all the agricultural acronyms
and everything to do with farm bills.
But--guess what--the price was above the target price, so he did not
get or the farmer did not get or she did not get or that person did not
get any help from the target price deficiency payment. So we are zero
for three.
Then we had a direct payment.
Now, in the wisdom of the farm bill conference, of which this member
did not serve--I am not going to get into that, as to how that ratio
came down, and who was prevented from being on the conference, and who
was not; I could, but I will not--but in the wisdom of the conference,
they said: We are going to keep a direct payment just to make sure that
if these other things don't work, and the farmer still wouldn't have a
crop, the price is increased. We are going to have a direct payment.
That was 6 cents a bushel in regard to wheat. And the corresponding
numbers were true in regard to corn and other crops--6 cents.
Why do I mention that? Because all the way through this, both you and
I said--Senator Cochran said, most of us on this side said--don't go
down this road with this new farm bill and apply it to the 2002 crop
year because any farm bill is too complex to really figure out, with
all the fishhooks and all the saddle burrs, to try to get it in place
for 2002.
What we would have had under the old farm bill--much maligned by the
other side, constantly, day after day after day, for 4 or 5 years--the
Freedom to Farm Act was a direct payment called an AMTA payment. Then
we were going to double that because of the problems we were having.
That was 60 cents a bushel. Now, there is a big difference between 6
cents and 60 cents.
I have given this speech to my farmers. Why do I give it to my
farmers? Because they are desperate. We had the worst drought since the
1930s. It may have been hotter in some years, and it may have been
dryer in some years, but it has never been hotter and dryer in the same
year. So they lost all their crops. Now, we were able to get some
livestock assistance, but disaster assistance, as compared to the old
farm bill, which would have provided them 60 cents a bushel, it did not
happen.
So all the critics on our side of the aisle, and some on the other
side, who say, well, we have a new farm bill, we are going to give the
farmer four mailboxes to open--the loan rate; nope, nothing there. The
loan deficiency payment; nope, nothing there. Are we going to have the
target price deficiency payment? No, nothing there. We are going to
have a direct payment--6 cents, as compared to the 60 cents we would
have had if we applied the new farm bill to 2003.
Now, that is my bone to pick because my farmers are hurting. And now
after having a $6 billion emergency disaster bill that I voted for, in
regards to the Interior Appropriations Committee, we have those with
the temerity and chutzpah who will come to the continuing resolution
and say, we are going to do it now, unless we shut down Government?
You know the administration is not going to support that. You know
the House has already left town. You know the House Agriculture
Committee, representing certain interests in agriculture, does not want
to mess with the payment limitations. This is a horse going nowhere--
nowhere.
The handling of this has been highly political. The election is over.
There are some who wanted an issue and not a bill. They got the issue.
And I guess the result in South Dakota proved that. OK, it is over. But
why you bring up this particular effort for disaster assistance during
this particular time is beyond me. It is not going anywhere. People
crawl out of train wrecks faster than this bill will ever get passed
and signed and provide real relief. And the farmers are not interested
in this.
The Senator pointed out a long time ago, our farmers are not
interested in politics or agriculture gobbledygook or legislative
parliamentary gobbledygook as well.
I urge my colleagues who are thinking about this, don't do this. Now,
when can we do this? We can do it in the omnibus bill.
We had some indication from the administration they will be a little
bit more forward thinking. I don't want to leave them out of my tirade
here. I am not happy with this administration. I tried to explain that
wheat country was in a dire situation, that the farm bill didn't work.
And it was sort of: Oh, well, you know. And we are saving money we are
not spending on the farm bill, so I think we could score it. But there
is no way they are going to do that.
So I just don't see why we are going through this exercise. And it
has obviously got me mighty exercised because my farmers are hurting.
Land values are starting to decline. Their lenders have already told
them they hit their cap.
We have farmers who are mortgaging their place and their equipment in
order to stay in business, and we sit here and introduce an emergency
disaster relief bill to the tune of $6 billion that is not going
anywhere. That is not right, especially in a lame duck session.
So I would ask the Senator, finally, a question. You are going to
work with me, I know. I just talked to the majority leader about this,
and I will talk to the minority leader about this. He is a good man. He
has been on the Agriculture Committee on the House side. He has been
the driving force in regards to the Agriculture Committee and the farm
program policy in this session.
Let's get it done in the omnibus bill when we have a chance to get it
done. If we need offsets, we will find offsets. Otherwise, we are
putting at great risk a lot of farmers in this part of the country on
the Great Plains. Quite frankly, other people, other farmers, other
farm groups, other commodity groups apparently don't care--apparently
don't care. Well, by golly, I care.

[[Page 22978]]

I know the Senator from Montana cares. So let's don't go down this
road.
What is going to happen is, you are going to have to vote against a
$6 billion bill in a lame duck session of Congress, when the election
is over, with no hope of actually getting the thing done. Farmers are
damned tired of that, and so am I.
So my question is, to the distinguished Senator from Montana, let's
work together with the plan we have already put together during the
omnibus bill.
I just talked to the chairman-to-be of the Appropriations Committee,
Senator Stevens, and he said, yes, he will work with us. The
administration said they will work with us. And we can get some real
help to farmers at the appropriate time.
So would the Senator work with me in that regard? That is the
question.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I would be glad to work with him. But I
am sure glad we didn't get him stirred up where he is really excited
about this issue. No one gets exercised more than the good Senator from
Kansas.
That is the common-sense way to approach it. There is no question
about it. I would like to see it happen that way.
I just wish that we could do something on forest health. I think
there is a chance of doing that this time.

Homeland Security

Madam President, before I relinquish the floor, though, I just want
to express my concerns again about homeland security, and in some
areas.
As you know, we have spent the last 3 years trying to pass a privacy
bill. We have worked with Senator Hollings, the chairman of the
Commerce Committee, and also working with the Judiciary Committee. I
would hope we can now do a privacy bill coming up in the next Congress.
I notice the Senator from New York is on the floor, and I am looking
forward to working with her on the E-911 caucus because we know we have
a lot of work to do on spectrum and spectrum management and how we
apply our emergency first responders in the days to come because of
this challenge we have before us. So I will be watching very closely as
the administration rules are written on this piece of legislation.
There it is right there. I can't even pack it back to the office. I
probably couldn't understand most of what I read in there, if I did.
But, nonetheless, those are the issues I think are very important.
Americans value their freedom. They value the privileges of living in
this country, but they also value something else; that is, their
personal privacy. A database or anything else that could be done in
this is a great mistake. Whenever we start doing R&D on technologies
that would allow us to invade the privacy of an individual citizen,
whether it be in wireless communications or in the Internet or the
firewalls we might burn, and before that technology is transferred into
the agency that is in charge of gathering intelligence, there should be
a firewall in there.
I hope whenever they write the administrative rules they will be
sensitive to that and will allow congressional oversight before that
technology is transferred. It is very sensitive.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

Homeland Security

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I want to associate myself with the
remarks of the Senator from Montana about the importance of the
implementation of the Homeland Security Department, particularly as it
affects the privacy issues that will be raised going forward. Further,
I would like to add a few other cautionary notes to the legislative
record as we are about to, in a few hours, vote on this Department.
My friend from Montana raises some of the important issues, and there
are indeed others as well that we will have to be vigilant about and
hopefully involved in going forward.
Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield so I could correct a terrible
mistake I just made?
Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly, I am happy to yield.
Mr. BURNS. I think I identified her as the Senator from Arkansas when
I should have said the Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. I appreciate that correction.
Mr. BURNS. I would like to correct it, if I could.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator. I appreciate that.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mrs. CLINTON. I must confess I thought he was referring to the
Senator from Arkansas who perhaps was in the Chamber.
As I said, I appreciate the Senator's yellow, flashing lights about
some of the issues we are about to contend with going forward in the
Homeland Security Department. In the months following September 11,
which are really the time period that has brought us to this day, we
knew as a Nation we had to take some additional steps, some
unprecedented steps to protect ourselves. I believe we have attempted
to do so certainly with respect to our men and women in military
uniform.
I am very proud of the support we have given to our armed forces. I
am proud to represent the 10th Mountain Division in upstate New York.
When I go there, when I speak with the young officers and enlisted men
who come to see me or when I go to Fort Drum to see them, I feel
confident I can look them in the eye and tell them we are doing all we
know to do to make sure they are ready, well equipped, and compensated
appropriately. They are trained to the best of their abilities, and we
are doing all as a Nation we can to support them.
I do not have that same level of confidence when I go to my
firehouses, my police stations, my emergency rooms throughout New York.
I cannot look into the eyes of our firefighters, our police officers,
our emergency responders and tell them we have done all we need to do
to make sure they are as well prepared, well trained, and safe in their
defense here in the homeland.
So are we safer today than we were on the morning of September 11,
2001? The answer is only marginally. Because somewhere along the way,
we have not kept that laser-like focus we needed to match our will and
our resources and to get those resources to the front lines at home as
we have around the world.
The people who we are going to count on to make our homeland safer
are the ones who will pick up the phone when we dial 911. They will
respond to the call. They will leave the firehouse and the police
station. They will leave the emergency room. They will be there in
order to protect us.
The votes we cast this afternoon for the creation of a Homeland
Security Department are just that. They are votes to create a
Department here in Washington.
My hope is the approval of this bill will set into motion a necessary
reorganization process that will ultimately result in improved
coordination, information sharing, and a stronger, safer America.
But we have to be absolutely clear to the American people about what
it is we are voting for. This bill has to do with structural
reorganization. There are many things in this bill we absolutely need
to make us safer. Unfortunately, there are many things in this bill
that have absolutely nothing to do with our security.
I am concerned that Americans will believe, because we have passed
this bill, our Nation is safer. But when we pass it and when Americans
read about it or see coverage about it on television, they need to know
this measure does not increase patrols or technology along our northern
borders. It does not give our firefighters, police officers, and
emergency personnel the resources, training, and equipment they
desperately need. It does not increase security measures at our ports,
our railroads, our public transportation systems. It does not increase
our capability of detecting biological, chemical, radiological, and
nuclear weapons.
What this bill does is fall short on many important measures. We had
the opportunity to do this right, to do more than create a Department.
The Senate's original bill coming out of the

[[Page 22979]]

Governmental Affairs Committee under Senator Lieberman's leadership, on
a bipartisan vote, would have included critical measures that would
make our country safer today. In the end, we failed to act on those
critical measures.
There is a lot in this bill that secures the future for special
interests at the expense of the security of the American people. I
believe those who are using this legislation as a vehicle for their own
particular commercial or special interest have done this country a
grave disservice.
That is why Congress cannot stop with this vote. As the distinguished
Senator from Montana said: We have to watch this process with
vigilance. We have to be involved in the rulemaking. We have to ask the
hard questions about resources. We have to continue to fight to make
sure every substantive measure we need to enhance our security gets
passed in the next Congress.
Let's start with the obvious. Let's support our first responders.
They are the ones who are our front line soldiers at home. We need to
do what we have been asked to do by mayors and police and fire
commissioners. They have asked us for direct funding that they can best
utilize to make sure those firehouses stay open, those hazardous
material suits and equipment are bought and available. That is why I
still believe we should pass legislation I introduced last November
that would provide direct funding to local communities--the Homeland
Security Block Grant Act.
We also know the recent report by former Senators Hart and Rudman,
the terrorism panel's report, clearly states we are not doing enough to
support our first responders. That report expressed grave concern that
650,000 local and State police officers still operate without close
U.S. intelligence information to combat terrorists.
We have not done enough to help local and state officials detect and
respond to biological attacks. The report expressed concerns that our
firefighters and local law enforcement agencies still--more than a year
later--do not have the proper equipment to respond to a chemical or
biological attack. And they don't even have the communications systems
that will let them talk to each other--police departments, fire
departments--across municipal and county lines in an emergency.
Madam President, I was also greatly disappointed that the SAFER Act,
which would have allowed our Nation to hire 25,000 more firefighters
over the next couple years, was completely eliminated from the bill.
This is the time to do more for our first responders, not less.
We also have to act immediately to secure our Nation's nuclear power
infrastructure. While the homeland security bill creates a new
Department, it does not adequately address the real threat of terrorist
capabilities and desires to destroy our nuclear powerplants. Last year,
Senators Jeffords, Reid, and I introduced the Nuclear Security Act. We
moved that act through the committee. It is unfortunate the bill does
not address nuclear security, particularly with respect to our nuclear
powerplants. We clearly have a problem there, as we do with
radiological attacks from a a so-called dirty bomb.
Every day that goes by without us having those resources available in
local communities around our country to respond is a day I cannot look
into the eyes of my constituents and say, yes, we are safer today than
we were.
We have all gone over the many provisions in the bill that have
absolutely nothing to do with security. I regret deeply that they were
included in this bill, and the impact of them will be known for years
to come.
Madam President, this bill, which does some good by helping us better
focus here in Washington, does not do nearly enough of what needs to be
done out in our country. I am particularly concerned that New York does
not have a specific coordinator as the bill provides for Washington,
DC. We know from every intelligence report that New York City is still
a high-risk area.
This bill has much that perhaps can make us safer, but nothing that
will immediately do so; and it does not address the most serious issues
with respect to the resources that are needed.
There is an article in this day's Washington Post about how the fact
that we have not funded the war on terrorism here at home means that
money--even if it passes in January--will not get to the people who
need it the most for quite some number of months.
This is, unfortunately, a day where we have adopted a piecemeal
approach to homeland security without the resources and the
comprehensive strategy that many experts have recommended. I hope we
will come back in January and address the gaps in our homeland defense
strategy going forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Idaho?
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I yield myself time from Senator
Thompson's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I came to the floor for two purposes this
afternoon. I will briefly speak about H.R. 5005, our homeland security
legislation, which will become law in a reasonable time, possibly
today, to suggest I am really not going to play the political game that
has been played with this bill for the last 2 months, and that is being
caught up again in the rhetoric of the hour--that somehow you don't
need to structurally change the way Government thinks, that you can
spend billions of dollars ahead of time to get it done.
You do need to change the way Government thinks. You do need to
change the culture of the Federal bureaucracy. You do need to
coordinate. That is what we are doing because, clearly, to anyone on
this floor, or anyone in any of the committees that have spent the last
several years analyzing what happened prior to 9/11, and following 9/
11, it became very clear our agencies did not connect, they did not
coordinate, they did not communicate, and the culture of the day--and
probably a prevailing attitude--was somehow what happened would not
happen here, didn't allow us to come to attention.
Well, we are now at attention. We have already spent billions of
dollars getting there--both in the fine city of New York, which was
tragically hit, and across this country. My State of Idaho alone--a
State of 1.2 million people--for its first responders is going to get a
couple million dollars more this year. That is significant money for
beginning the process of coordinating and training and communicating,
right hand to left hand, local responders to State responders to
Federal responders.
There is a long way to go, but to suggest that the step we are taking
today is unnecessary, or for 2 months did not prevail and, therefore,
the bill is no good, shame on those who want to play the politics of
the moment, because the politics of the moment is this country has
decided to make a major step in the right direction.
I will tell you that I can pick the bill apart and say there are bits
and pieces in there I don't like. I agree, in part, with the Senator
from New York and the Senator from Montana that it will take due
diligence, that we should not suspect that what we pass today goes on
autopilot. My guess is we will be back next year making refinements in
it. I am not quite confident that it protects the privacy of the
citizens of our country in our pursuit for security in a fashion I
would want to see happen.
I am glad we gave the President the flexibility not to be tied up in
the bureaucracy of the public employees unions, but to give them an
ample opportunity to express their concern; but in the end, in a
national crisis, to give the chief executive of our country the
latitude he or she should have and must have to make this system work.
That is what we finally won the day over.
I am sorry the other side lost that fight, but the country won, and
the legislation we bring today is a significant and appropriate step
forward. I will probably be here on the floor within a couple of months
offering some amendments, and my guess is my colleagues

[[Page 22980]]

from both sides of the aisle will be doing the same. But to demagog our
way into a new form of Government in the context of homeland security,
shame on us.
The politics of that day is over. The reality of what we must do is
now at hand and this Senate is stepping forward, as it should, to get
the job done.
I said I came to the floor to talk about a couple of other issues. I
have been watching from my office the great politics of agricultural
drought disaster. What I heard on the floor was in itself a bit of a
disaster. For one full month, we had a bill on the floor with drought
assistance in it. When the bill was controlled by the other side, which
had the majority, I innocently came to the floor and said, hey, why
don't we add an amendment on forest health? Why don't we get to the
business of thinning and cleaning the seven or eight million acres of
land that is desperately in need of our caretakership and our
stewardship that, by every estimation, is a tinderbox waiting to
explode, like the seven million acres that burned this year across our
public forest lands, that burned up 2,800 homes and cost us 25 lives.
But for one full month, the other side refused to vote on it. Why?
Because of the November 5 election. They didn't want to put their
people at risk, or what they thought was risk, to vote for a good piece
of legislation that would have passed the Interior bill and would have
put forth the drought legislation and the money that was talked about
on the floor.
What I witnessed over the last hour is raw politics that won't get
done. The Senator from Kansas came down a bit exercised a few moments
ago, and he had every right to say, shame on them, it is politics, it
won't happen--and it won't happen. What will happen is we are going to
come back to a new Congress on the 7th of January called the 108th
Congress. We are going to swear in some new Senators and convene, and
we are going to have a new organizational resolution; we are going to
have chairmen. And already, at that moment on the 8th, 9th, 10th, and
beyond, we are going to move, I believe, 11 appropriation bills that
didn't get cared for this year, that somehow, on their watch, didn't
happen. In those, we are going to take care of drought and a lot of
other things that should have been done a long time ago. Sure, we have
anxious farmers. They have every reason to be anxious. But now to blame
us and bog up the works and put our Government in a stall at this
moment, all in the name of agricultural politics, is, in itself, wrong.
I have farmers who have suffered from drought. I want to help them, and
we will help them. We will help them in January. Why do we come to the
Chamber today and play the politics of the game that will not happen? I
think we all know. It makes for good rhetoric and probably a few
headlines back home. But it will not accomplish the mission at hand,
and the mission at hand is to solve our agricultural drought problems,
and to do so in a responsible, meaningful way that actually produces
policy so the farmer can go to the farm service office and say: I have
a problem and here is my loss. And that farm service officer can say:
And here is the program, and here is how we can help you.
That is not going to occur probably until we legislate it in January
and it becomes law sometime in early February. Then, I say to my
colleagues on the other side, pick up the phone and call your farmer
and say: Go to the farm service office, take your records and your
losses, and they will calculate what you deserve based on the program
at hand. That is how one delivers a message home. That is how one
solves a problem that exists.
What has happened in this Chamber is the last moments of the last
hour of the last day of the 107th, is that somehow a great amount of
politics got played out. Some of it worked and some of it did not work,
and we just heard some of it that will not work.
We are about to vote, though, on homeland security, and in the end,
over the course of the next 3 to 4 years, it will work because it must
work. We must be able in a real way, in a material way, to say to our
friends and neighbors and civilian populations at home that the world
is a safer place, and we made it safer by the ability to craft a
government a good deal more sensitive to the reality of our current
circumstances, to change the culture of the CIA, the FBI, the Border
Patrol, and the INS in a way that creates a level of communication that
knows what the right hand and the left hand are doing in concert. Yes,
allows us a level of training and expertise at the very local of levels
so when that first responder goes out on the line, they have every bit
the skill and the equipment necessary to determine if they and/or the
population they serve are at risk because of a potential terrorist act.
That is our charge. We do not do it overnight. It should have been
done 2 months ago. The politics of the day would not have allowed that,
but November 5 changed that, and that is why we are here and why we
will pass this bill today in its whole form, and it will go to the
President's desk for his signature.
Then, frankly, the hard work begins. If I were the administrator
selected to craft a homeland security agency out of the bureaucracies
that will fight down to their very last bureaucratic breath to hang on
to some authority, I would say it is a monstrous task. But we will be
here helping that administrator along because we know it is so
necessary for our country to have an agency that can respond to a new
threat to this Nation and to freedom-loving people all around the
world.
I hope out of the frustration of the day and the rhetoric that has
occurred that, in the end, we will pass legislation and get on with the
business at hand, but I thought it was incumbent upon myself to come to
the Chamber to talk briefly about the idea that a drought has occurred,
not just on farmlands across this country, but in the reality of the
politics right here. And that drought is, we only have so much we are
going to get done, and we better return come January and finish the
work that should have been done months ago. This side is up to it, and
I trust my colleagues on the other side will join us in a fair and
bipartisan way to make that happen.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I am pleased to see that the Senate is
finally ready to pass legislation creating a Department of Homeland
Security. My colleagues and I on the Governmental Affairs Committee,
under Senator Lieberman's leadership, began this process more than a
year ago. When we first started out, I must admit that I had some
reservations about making such dramatic changes to the way the Federal
Government is organized. The hearings Senator Lieberman chaired during
the first half of this year, however, showed me how truly ill prepared
we really are to face the threat of terrorism. That is why I supported
the original version of Senator Lieberman's homeland security bill when
it came before the Governmental Affairs Committee on May 22, 2002, some
time before President Bush released his proposed reorganization plan. I
supported it again on July 24 after we incorporated a number of the
President's recommendations into our original draft.
I believe we need to create a strong Department of Homeland Security
that brings together under one roof the various Federal agencies
charged with preventing and responding to terrorist attacks. I am a
little disappointed, however, that we appear ready to do so in a way
that disregards a good deal of the hard work that went into the
bipartisan bill we reported out of Governmental Affairs.
Among other things, the bill before us today abandons a compromise
arrived at in committee on information sharing and the Freedom of
Information Act and includes INS restructuring language that is
different from anything included in the President's proposal, the
House-passed bill or anything that we have debated here in the

[[Page 22981]]

Senate. It also includes some controversial provisions we have never
seen before that seemingly appeared overnight. In the 108th Congress,
we can and should have a debate on tort reform. We can and should have
a debate on the safety of childhood vaccines. What we should not have
done is hastily slip brand new provisions into this critically
important bill without debate at the behest of special interests. There
are three changes, however, that are of the most concern to me.
First, there is the new personnel language. This bill gives the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) almost total authority to rewrite Federal
civil service laws for Department of Homeland Security employees
related to hiring and firing, job classification, pay, rules for labor-
management relations, performance appraisal and employee appeals to the
Merit Systems Protection Board. Thinking that the Secretary and OPM
could not possibly know what kind of personnel system was needed at the
new Department before they were able to start putting it together, our
committee maintained current law and asked the Secretary to report on
his or her progress in setting the Department up at least every 6
months and to ask Congress for specific changes in civil service
protections to meet specific Department needs.
As a former Governor who had to reorganize parts of his own State's
government, I can appreciate President Bush's desire to have as much
flexibility as possible when creating something as large, complex and
important as a Department of Homeland Security. However, I do not
believe it's necessary to give him or his new Secretary the power to
unilaterally change or waive workplace rules over the objections of
Department employees and Congress. That is why I supported the
compromise put forward by Senators Nelson, Breaux, and Chafee before we
adjourned for the election. That language would have left the most
important civil service protections related to union rights and
employee appeals untouched and set up a system of binding arbitration
so that the Secretary and OPM would have to work out any personnel
system they draft with the employees who will be required to work under
it. I wish that the personnel language in this bill was closer to that
contained in Nelson-Breaux-Chafee bipartisan compromise.
The second issue that is of concern to me in this bill is the
language on collective bargaining rights. It says that the President
can only use the authority he currently has to remove employees'
collective bargaining rights on employees transferred into the new
Department if their agency's mission materially changes and their
duties involve intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative work
directly related to a terrorism investigation. It gives him broad
authority to waive this test, however, and to use his authority
regardless of whether or not the mission of the relevant agency has
changed. Our committee-passed bill would have required the
administration to go through the Federal Labor Relations Authority to
remove employees' collective bargaining rights. I was comfortable with
that provision, but even more so with the Nelson-Breaux-Chafee
compromise on this issue, which includes the same restrictions on the
President's authority included in this bill but which gives Department
employees the assurances that their collective bargaining rights will
not be taken away arbitrarily simply because they are working in
something called the Department of Homeland Security. I wish this bill
offered future employees of the Department of Homeland Security as much
assurance that their rights would be protected.
My greatest disappointment with this bill is the glaring omission of
any meaningful provisions to improve the security of our Nation's
railroads. It is inexplicable that we stand ready to create a
Department of Homeland Security that does nothing to protect the
millions of Americans who travel by rail every day. After the tragedy
of September 11, this Congress and the President moved quickly to
stabilize and secure our aviation system and to create the
Transportation Security Administration with the mission of protecting
all transportation modes.
The Congress followed suit with the Maritime Transportation Security
Act of 2002 to protect our ports and maritime industry, which
successfully passed in the Senate last week. And now it seems that the
Over-the-Road Bus Security legislation is poised to pass this body. Yet
in all these efforts, we have done little to protect rail from
terrorist attacks and security threats, creating an Achilles heel in
our Nation's efforts to secure our transportation system. For all of
our commendable focus and attention on preventing future attacks
against the aviation industry, it is unconscionable that we would not
work to ensure that the roughly 25 million intercity passengers and
many millions more that commute aboard our trains are as safe as the
ones in our skies.
How can we ignore the FBI warnings made a few weeks ago that al-Qaida
is considering directly targeting U.S. passenger trains and that
operatives may try to destroy key rail bridges and sections of track to
cause derailments? How could the Senate have voted to appropriate $2
million to remove jars of formaldehyde and alcohol from the
Smithsonian's buildings here on the Mall because of their threat to the
Capitol and yet leave the rail tunnel traveling under the Senate and
House office buildings and the Supreme Court unprotected from terrorist
attack? How can we end the 107th Congress having approved increased and
strengthened security programs for every single transportation mode
except rail, a mode we know that al-Qaida may currently be targeting?
In creating the Department of Homeland Security, we had the chance to
address this omission. We could have included provisions to secure the
nation's critical rail infrastructure and facilities and augment the
mission of the Transportation Security Administration. Recognizing the
obvious need for greater rail security early on, Senators Hollings,
McCain and others worked within the Commerce Committee to produce a
bipartisan rail security bill to protect Amtrak and our vital rail
infrastructure from attack or sabotage. This bill, S. 1550, was
supported by the Bush Administration and reported unanimously out of
the committee.
They understood the important role that Amtrak played immediately
following the tragic events of September 11, when, with the aviation
system shut down and our highways clogged or closed, Amtrak kept people
safely moving in the northeast and across the country. They know it is
essential that we provide Amtrak with the means to harden their
physical assets and protect the safety and security of the traveling
public if we want to ensure that Amtrak can serve the nation in the
future as it did after September 11. They realized that more people use
Amtrak's Pennsylvania Station in one day than use all of New York's
three airports combined. They recognized that, like our other modes,
our rail network is essential to the mobility, defense, and economic
vitality of our nation. Yet their efforts have been blocked in this
body and our railroads remain largely unprotected.
Following the Commerce Committee's good work and seeing the logical
role for rail security within the new Department, I offered, and the
Committee voted to accept, a rail security amendment to Senator
Lieberman's homeland security bill during the our markup in July. My
amendment authorized funds through the Secretary of Homeland Security
for critical security and safety needs across Amtrak's national
network. Totaling $1.2 billion, my amendment authorized funds to assist
the diligent efforts already being made by Amtrak's police force and
other law enforcement agencies, giving them the tools to focus on real
threats beyond the harmless rail fans police were chasing away as
described in an article on the front page of the Washington Post last
week. The amendment included: $375 million to finance systemwide
security and safety enhancements. These funds would have been used to
immediately address serious security risks by protecting
infrastructure, stations, and facilities across the

[[Page 22982]]

entire Amtrak system. Amtrak's top priorities to be addressed with
these funds include:
No. 1, securing tunnels, bridges, interlockings, towers, and yard and
station facilities with surveillance equipment, perimeter fencing,
security lighting, bomb detection equipment and bomb resistant
trashcans for stations, vehicle barriers and other measures.
No. 2, investing in passenger information systems to allow the
creation of watch lists and passenger manifests for tracking purposes
and data sharing between Amtrak Police Department and the FBI.
Currently, Amtrak does not have the realtime ability to track who is
onboard its trains.
No. 3, communications and command/control upgrades to track and
locate trains enroute, to ensure adequate radio coverage across the
Amtrak system, and to provide automated data for incident response and
crisis management;
$778 million for life-safety and security improvements to the Amtrak
tunnels in New York, Baltimore and Washington. The life-safety problems
with the tunnels on the northeast corridor are well documented and
require immediate action. The tunnels in New York, 1910, Baltimore,
1872, and Washington 1904 are nearing, or are over 100 year olds and
constitute safety hazards due to problems with emergency exits and
ventilation. Of specific concern, is a possible terrorist action
involving these tunnels, which have limited evacuation capacity,
antiquated stairwells, and poor lighting. The results could be
catastrophic. The funds will enhance life safety features within the
tunnels, including:
No. 1. Washington, $40 million: upgraded emergency access and egress,
improved ventilation and communications. This tunnel sees 50 Amtrak/VRE
trains a day and 2 million passengers annually. Additionally, these
tunnels pass directly under the Supreme Court and House and Senate
Office Buildings.
No. 2, Baltimore, $60 million: New fire standpipes; improved lighting
and communications, egress improvements; and a preliminary design study
of tunnel replacement options. This tunnel sees 125 Amtrak/MARC trains
a day.
No. 3, New York, $678 million, 6 tunnels: upgraded ventilation,
access, and egress through new stairways and shafts; structural
rehabilitation for tunnel access, and improved lighting and signage.
The 6 New York Amtrak tunnels provide access to Penn station for
Amtrak, New Jersey Transit and the Long Island Railroad. They are
gateway to New York and the heart of the Northeast Corridor. Work on
the tunnels has already begun with $220 million from the Long Island
Railroad and the FRA, through $100 million from FY '02 DOD supplemental
Appropriations Act. Funds authorized in this amendment would complete
work on 3 of the 4 rebuilt ventilation and escapes shafts, dramatically
improving the safety of passengers should an emergency occur in the
tunnels;
$55 million for wrecked equipment repair to ensure Amtrak adequate
fleet capacity in the event of a national security emergency. At the
time of my amendment, 96 damaged and wrecked cars and five locomotives,
or nearly one out of every fifteen Amtrak cars, were sitting idle, out
of service, and awaiting repair. Without these cars, Amtrak is in
serious danger of being able to provide adequate equipment to service
its current routes, let alone offer additional service should there be
another national emergency. With these funds, Amtrak could have
repaired about half of these, and have some equipment up and running
again within 90 days. In our effort to strength the security of the
homeland, that we must provide Amtrak with the equipment it needs to
serve the existing routes and to handle increased traffic should
another security crisis occur.
After the Governmental Affairs markup and the inclusion of this
amendment to the Lieberman substitute, I worked with Senators Hollings
and McCain to create a bipartisan rail security package based on the
previous Committee work and my amendment that would authorize needed
resources while ensuring proper oversight and accountability. We agreed
to work together to add this package to the homeland security
legislation, in whatever form it took. I believe that Senator McCain
spoke briefly about his commitment to enhancing the security of our
railroads on the floor last week, and I want to thank him for working
with us to create a sound security proposal. I know that he and Senator
Hollings share my disappointment that we have not been able to get this
package included in the current homeland security bill. Though we were
unable to achieve success today, we are committed to doing so next
year, and I urge my colleagues to join this effort. Until we have
passed a rail security package, we cannot honestly say that we have
secured our national transportation system.
In conclusion, today we missed a tremendous opportunity to truly
secure our entire transportation network. Surely, we all agree that
doing so is one of the Federal government's chief responsibilities.
Debates about the future of Amtrak should not stand in the way of this
effort. The fact is that, today, several thousands of riders are on
Amtrak trains and hundreds of thousands more use Amtrak's tracks for
their daily commute to work. Securing these facilities and these
services is not an issue that can wait. As the intelligence community
has already warned, the risks to America's railroads are real and exist
as we speak. We have a responsibility to act to protect our people and
our nation. We must pass rail security legislation as soon as possible.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise to discuss two provisions of the
Homeland Security bill, those substantially transferring the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ``ATF,'' to the Department of Justice
and modifying and improving our explosives laws.
A driving force behind the President's blueprint for the reorganized
Government is the need for the various agencies and bureaus charged
with enforcing Federal law to work more cooperatively and effectively
in defending the country against terrorism. The President's plan
shifted several agencies charged with different aspects of Federal law
enforcement to the proposed Department of Homeland Security, including
the Secret Service and the Bureau of Customs, both formerly housed in
the Department of the Treasury.
Unfortunately, this realignment of Treasury's law enforcement
agencies left out one vitally important bureau, one that has as its
primary mission the enforcement of the explosives and firearms laws.
The ATF has been the cornerstone of the Federal law enforcement
functions at Treasury for decades, but now under the President's plan,
it would be left as the only major law enforcement presence in the
entire Department.
The Department of the Treasury is entrusted with responsibilities
primarily in the area of monetary policy such as budgets, taxes, and
currency production and circulation. In contrast, the ATF's mission
consists of enforcing the firearms, arson, and explosives laws as well
as the criminal and regulatory functions of the alcohol and tobacco
laws. Clearly, these two missions do not jibe.
ATF serves an important role not only in the enforcement of the
criminal laws regarding firearms, explosives, alcohol and tobacco, but
also in waging the war on terrorism. We only need to remember the
litany of terrorist bombings from the first attack on the World Trade
Centers to Beirut in 1982, the East Africa embassies, the U.S.S. Cole,
Khobar Towers, and Oklahoma City, among others, to understand the
importance of the ATF's expertise in explosives and firearms on the war
on terrorism. Indeed, in the last 20 years, the vast majority of
terrorist attacks with Americans as targets have used explosives or
firearms. Any effort to strengthen our homeland security that does not
take note of this fact is a half measure.
This bill understands ATF's importance in the war on terrorism by
moving it to the Department of Justice where it can coordinate its
efforts more easily with the FBI, DEA, and

[[Page 22983]]

the other premier Federal law enforcement agencies. In addition, the
bill authorizes the ATF for the first time as the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATFE, and refocuses its mission. It
will no longer be responsible for collecting alcohol and tobacco fees,
but instead will focus entirely on the criminal enforcement of the
explosives, firearms, arson, and tobacco and alcohol smuggling laws.
The amendment makes clear that along with the transfer of enforcement
of the explosives, firearms, and arson laws, the new ATFE will have
jurisdiction over the criminal statutes in title 18 of the United
States Code as they relate to tobacco or alcohol laws. These few
criminal statutes are the extent of ATFE's jurisdiction over alcohol
and tobacco. All alcohol and tobacco revenue collection and related
regulatory functions performed by the current ATF will remain under the
jurisdiction of the Tax and Trade Bureau of the Treasury Department.
The renaming of the Bureau is more than simply symbolic. The addition
of the ``E'' to the name of the Bureau demonstrates the importance of
explosives in their mission. To coordinate better law enforcement
training in explosives, we created the Explosives Training and Research
Facility at Fort AP Hill, VA, where Federal, State and local law
enforcement agents from around the country will be trained to
investigate bombings.
We trust that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice in
conjunction with the Department of the Treasury will make ATFE's
transition as efficient as possible. Moving a large law enforcement
agency is not easily done. For that reason, the Homeland Security bill
permits a sufficient time frame for the transitions to occur both to
the new Department of Homeland Security as well as the ATFE's
transition to the Department of Justice. It is our intent that the ATFE
be permitted as much time to complete its transition as the other
bureaus and agencies being shifted to the Department of Homeland
Security.
At the Department of Justice, the ATFE will have primary
responsibility for the enforcement of the firearm, arson and explosives
laws as well as criminal alcohol and tobacco laws. In that role, the
ATFE will be able to work cooperatively with the FBI and the DEA in
enforcing the criminal law while at the same time taking the lead when
the case under investigation is primarily within their jurisdiction.
According to recent news reports, the FBI and the ATF do not always
have the best of relations. In fact, despite a long-standing memorandum
of understanding between the two agencies allocating responsibilities,
there is still a fair amount of competition between the two when it
comes to areas where their respective jurisdiction overlaps. Now, with
the ATFE working under the same leadership as the FBI, the Attorney
General will be able to sort out these differences and maximize the
cooperation between the two agencies. More cooperation will lead to a
better focus on the war on terrorism.
The establishment of the ATFE at the Department of Justice gives the
Government a dynamic weapon in the war on terrorism and in the every
day battle against violent crime involving explosives, firearms and
arson. We look forward to the ATFE joining the Department of Justice
and its other law enforcement agencies. We also look forward to the
ATFE maximizing its capabilities in enforcing the explosives, firearms,
and arson laws and fighting the war on terrorism.
In addition to transferring ATF to the Department of Justice, this
measure contains a subtitle that modifies our explosives laws. This
provision is an amended version of S. 1956, the Safe Explosives Act,
which was introduced earlier this year by Sen. Orrin Hatch and me and
H.R. 4864, the Anti-Terrorism Explosives Act, which was introduced
earlier this year by Chairman Sensenbrenner.
The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the measure this
summer. I want to explain some of the provisions in this title of the
bill and provide a more detailed section by section analysis of it.
Following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, we have had a growing sense that Congress
needs to close numerous gaps in Federal law to help prevent future
disasters. The current explosives laws are effective, but the Safe
Explosives Act closes some loopholes and significantly improves its
administration.
The Safe Explosives Act effects two major changes in our explosives
laws: first, it creates a systematic method of enforcing our laws
regarding who can and cannot purchase and possess explosives; and
second, it makes some commonsense additions to the list of people who
are barred from purchasing and possessing explosives.
Creating a systematic method for enforcing our laws makes sense in
the current environment. Most Americans would be stunned to learn that
in some States it is easier to get enough explosives to take down a
house than it is to buy a gun, get a driver's license, or even obtain a
fishing license. Currently, it is too easy for would-be terrorists and
criminals to obtain explosive materials. Although permits are required
for interstate purchases of explosives, there are no current uniform
national limitations on the purchase of explosives within a single
state by a resident of that State. As a result, a patchwork quilt of
State regulations covers the intrastate purchase of explosive
materials. In some States, anyone can walk into a hardware store and
buy plastique explosives or a box of dynamite. No background check is
conducted, and no effort is made to check whether the purchaser knows
how to properly use this deadly material. In at least 16 States, there
are little to no restrictions on the intrastate purchase of explosives.
By addressing the intrastate sale and possession of explosives, the
Safe Explosives Act would help close one such loophole that allows
potential terrorists and criminals easy access to explosive materials.
Let me elaborate. As I said, under current law anyone who is involved
in interstate shipment, purchase, or possession of explosives must have
a Federal permit. This legislation creates the same requirement for
intrastate purchases. It calls for two types of permits for these
intrastate purchasers: user permits and limited user permits. The user
permit lasts for 3 years and allows unlimited explosives purchases. The
limited user permit also expires after 3 years, but only allows six
purchases per year. We created this two-tier system so that low-volume
users would not be burdened by regulations. The limited permit, like
the user permit, imposes commonsense rules such as a background check,
monitoring of explosives purchases, secure storage, and report of sale
or theft of explosives. However, the Safe Explosives Act does not
subject the limited user to the record keeping requirements currently
required for full permit holders.
In addition to closing the intrastate loophole, this measure expands
slightly the class of people who are barred from purchasing or
possessing explosives. Current federal law prohibits certain categories
of people from purchasing and possessing explosives. However, some
important categories, such as people in the United States on a tourist
visa, are not included in current federal explosives law. The committee
feels that in addition to being barred from obtaining a firearm, these
people should also be prohibited from purchasing and possessing
explosive materials.
Overall, this measure strikes a reasonable balance between stopping
dangerous people from getting explosives and helping legitimate users
obtain and possess explosives. Most large commercial users already have
explosives permits because they engage in interstate explosives
transport. These users would not be significantly affected by our
legislation. The low-volume users will be able to quickly and cheaply
get a limited permit. And high-volume intrastate purchasers who are
running businesses that require explosives should easily be able to get
an unlimited user permit. Also, the measure will not affect those who
use black or smokeless powder for recreation, as the legislation does
not change current

[[Page 22984]]

regulations on those particular materials.
Our goal is simple. We must take all possible steps to keep deadly
explosives out of the hands of dangerous individuals seeking to
threaten our livelihood and security. The Safe Explosives Act is
critical legislation, supported by the administration. It is designed
solely to the interest of public safety. It will significantly enhance
our efforts to limit the proliferation of explosives to would be
terrorists and criminals. It will close a loophole that could
potentially cause mass destruction of property and life.
Let me thank the many people who assisted us in drafting these
provisions. Senators Hatch and Leahy and Chairman Sensenbrenner were
vital, as were Senators Baucus and Grassley. The staff and leadership
of the Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice and the ATF
were invaluable. We all worked together cooperatively and in close
collaboration, and I believe that the finished product reflects the
professionalism and dedication of the staff of those agencies. They are
all to be congratulated.
I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the
measure be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis of Title XI, Subtitle C

Section 1121--Short title
The short title of this bill is the ``Safe Explosives
Act.''
Section 1122--Permits for purchasers of explosives
First, the following terms referenced in the bill are
defined: permittee, alien, and responsible person.
Second, this section would require all purchasers of
explosives to obtain a permit from the Treasury's Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), a process that includes
a background check, thereby reducing the availability of
explosives to terrorists, felons, and others prohibited by
law from possessing explosives. Although permits are now
required for interstate purchases, there are no current
Federal limitations on the purchase of explosives within a
single state by a resident of that state.
The new permit requirement would significantly enhance the
government's ability to prevent the misuse and unsafe storage
of explosives. As part of the permit application and renewal
process, ATF would conduct background checks on all
individuals wishing to acquire or possess explosives
materials. Applicants would also be required to submit
photographs and fingerprints along with their applications,
to ensure that a thorough background check can be completed.
Fingerprints are not necessary to conduct a background check,
however it significantly reduces the work and amount of time
for the positive identification of applicants, and therefore
will greatly reduce the application turnaround time and
workload for ATF.
In the case of a corporation, partnership or association,
the applicant would be required to submit fingerprints and
photographs of responsible persons, meaning those individuals
who possess the power to direct the management and policies
of the corporation, partnership or association pertaining to
explosive materials. Consistent with ATF's current policy,
this section does not require corporate applicants for
explosives licenses to list every single corporate director
or officer as a ``responsible person'' on its application for
a license or permit. Those officials within the corporation
who have no power to direct the management and policies of
the applicant with respect to explosive materials need not be
listed on the application. For example, in a large
corporation that uses explosives in just one of many business
activities, there may be many corporate officials who have no
responsibilities or authority in connection with the
explosives aspects of the company's business. These officials
would not be listed as ``responsible persons'' on the
application, and would not need to submit fingerprints or
photographs to ATF. Furthermore, if corporate bylaws provide
that certain high-level corporate officials do not have the
power or authority to direct the management and policies of
the corporation with respect to explosive materials, then
such officials will not be considered to be responsible
persons.
We encourage the Secretary to strive for balanced
enforcement. In so doing, the Secretary should avoid imposing
unnecessary burdens on applicants for explosives licenses and
permits. There is no reason to require background checks for
corporate officials who have no responsibilities or authority
in connection with the explosives aspect of a company's
business. By the same token, companies have an obligation to
be forthright with the ATF, and we expect them to err on the
side of overinclusiveness in deciding who may be a
responsible person.
This section will also require applicants to list the names
of all employees who will have possession of the explosive
materials, so that the ATF can verify that these individuals
are not prohibited from receiving or possessing explosives.
In order to prevent an overload of employee background checks
all at once for the ATF, current licenses and permits will
remain valid until that license or permit is revoked,
expires, or until a timely application for renewal is acted
upon. Under current law, it is too easy for would-be
terrorists and criminals to obtain access to explosive
materials by obtaining jobs (such as driving trucks) with
explosives licensees. These expanded requirements would also
apply to entities seeking to obtain a license to sell
explosives.
It is the Committee's intention that ATF should work
closely with the regulated industry to develop guidance as to
which employees are considered to be in ``possession'' of
explosive materials in the course of their employment.
Applicants for explosives licenses or permits are not
required to list every single employee of the business.
Instead they are only required to list employees who are
expected to possess explosive materials as part of their
duties.
In developing these standards, ATF should be guided by the
case law interpreting the term ``possession'' under the Gun
Control Act of 1968, GCA, as amended. It is well established
that possession under the GCA may be demonstrated through
either actual or constructive possession. Actual possession
exists when a person is in immediate possession or control of
an object, and includes instances where a person knowingly
has direct physical control over the object at a given time.
Thus, employees who physically handle explosive materials
would clearly be in possession of those materials. This would
include, among others, employees who handle explosive
materials, as defined by the law as part of a production
process; employees who handle explosive materials in order to
ship, transport, or sell them; and employees who actually use
the explosive materials. All of these employees, as well as
any other employees who actually possess explosive materials
as part of their duties, must be listed on the application
for a license or permit.
Where direct physical contact is lacking, a person may
nonetheless have constructive possession where he or she
knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to
exercise dominion and control over the explosives, either
directly or through others. Accordingly, this section would
require applicants for licenses or permits to list all
employees who will have constructive possession of explosive
materials as part of their duties. For example, an employee
who drives a truck with an explosives load is in constructive
possession of the explosives even though he may not
physically handle them. This individual has dominion and
control over the explosives while he transports them;
furthermore, he could easily divert them from their intended
destination. Such an individual should be subject to the
background check requirements of the amended law. Similarly,
a supervisor at a construction site who keeps the keys for
the building in which the explosives are stored, and directs
the use of explosives by other employees, would be in
constructive possession of those explosives.
Finally, this section recognizes the distinction between
small individual users of explosives and large commercial
users by creating a new ``limited permit'' for those
infrequent purchasers. The limited permit allows a purchaser
to make no more that six purchases of explosives within a 12-
month period, and the permit is only valid for purchases
within the purchaser's state of residence. While limited
permit holder must pass the background check like all other
permit applicants, they are not subject to spot inspections
imposed on full permit holders. To ensure that holders of
limited permits are not violating law by acquiring explosive
materials more than six times a year, this section requires
anyone selling explosives to a limited permit holder to
report the sale to the ATF. This allows the ATF to monitor
misuse by limited permit holders, and investigate suspicious
volume purchases by such individuals, while allowing
infrequent users to access more than enough for their needs.
Holders of limited permits would also be required to report
their distribution of excess stocks of explosives to other
permittees or licensees.
All permittees, limited or otherwise, are subject to
inspection by the ATF to ensure that the explosives are being
properly stored. In the interest of minimizing the turnaround
time for approval of licenses and permits, and in order to
avoid overburdening ATF with an onrush of inspections
immediately after this act takes effect, the bill gives ATF
the discretion to defer immediate inspection of license and
permit applicants at the time of application. However,
because of concern for public safety, a provision requires
ATF to inspect both permitees and licensees within three
years of issuing a license or permit. Specifically, ATF must
inspect limited permitees prior to a third consecutive
renewal, and licensees or user permitees prior to the first
renewal. It also increases the amount of time ATF has to
approve or deny an application to 90 days. This will allow

[[Page 22985]]

ATF ample time to conduct thorough background checks,
especially important immediately following enactment of the
bill when there will likely be a surge in applications. These
provisions were put in the bill at the request of the House.
This section also includes an important measure that
ensures privacy for employees or potential employees of a
company that applying for a user permit that are subject to a
background check. The provision requires the Secretary of the
Treasury to notify the employer as to whether or not an
employee passes the background check. However, should an
individual not pass the employer will not be told the reason
why. Rather, the employee will be notified as to the
reason(s) for not passing.
Section 1123--Persons prohibited from receiving or possessing
explosive materials
This proposal expands the list of those people who are
prohibited from purchasing or possessing explosives to
include: mental incompetents, aliens other than lawful
permanent resident aliens, people dishonorably discharged
from the military, and Americans who have renounced their
citizenship. The addition of such categories to the list of
prohibited persons recognizes the potential for terrorists or
other criminals to use explosives to carry out their attacks
and brings the explosives law in line with most categories of
prohibited people in the Gun Control Act.
Congress has already determined that the possession of
firearms by the above categories of people is dangerous to
society. In order to combat terrorism and other violent
crime, it is essential that Federal law prohibit the receipt
or possession of explosive materials by such individuals
already deemed too dangerous to possess firearms. The
language relating to non-immigrant aliens differs slightly
from that in the Gun Control Act, as technical changes have
been made to improve the clarity of the provision.
Section 1124--Requirement to provide samples of explosive
materials and ammonium nitrate
This section would enhance the ATF's ability to solve cases
involving explosives by requiring Federally licensed
explosives manufacturers and importers and persons who
manufacture or import ammonium nitrate to provide to ATF,
upon request, with samples of, or chemical information on,
the products they manufacture or import. The ATF fulfills a
critical investigative role in the solving of crimes or acts
of terrorism committed by explosives. Such information is
essential to ATF's ability to prevent and solve bombings and
to trace explosive materials that are used in terrorist
activities and other violent crimes by matching residue with
the manufacturers' samples. Also, the ability to evaluate
such samples as well as information on the chemical
composition of these products will allow the ATF to
familiarize themselves with products that may be diverted to
criminal misuse.
Section 1125--Destruction of property of institutions
receiving federal financial assistance
This section expands ATF's authority to investigate
destruction of property by fire or explosion if the property
receives federal assistance.
Section 1126--Relief from disabilities
This section allows for a person who is prohibited from the
above mentioned explosive material possession, purchase, etc.
to apply to the Attorney General for relief from
disabilities. The Attorney General may grant that relief if
the circumstances regarding the disability are such that the
applicant is not likely to be dangerous to the public if
allowed to work with the above mentioned explosive materials,
and that it would not be contrary to the best interest of the
public.
Section 1127--Theft reporting requirement
According to this section, all licensees and permittees are
required to report the known theft of explosive materials
from that user no later than 24 hours after the discovery of
theft. Failure to do so can result in a fine not more than
$10,000, or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both. It
is essential that ATF investigate theft of explosives in
order to prevent accidental or criminal misuse.
Sec. 1128--Authorization of appropriations
This section authorizes the appropriation to carry out the
provisions of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. I yield myself 5 minutes from the time of Senator
Thompson and 5 minutes from the time of the leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, this legislation to create a new
Department of Homeland Security will result in the most significant
transformation of the executive branch in over 50 years and is of
fundamental importance to our national security. I believe that
Congress has the responsibility to establish a new Department of
Homeland Security this year, before we adjourn for we know that those
wishing to do our nation harm will not wait for us to act.
The longer we delay, the longer we leave vulnerabilities in place,
the longer we consciously rely upon a fragmented system to guard our
homeland. While creating a new department in and of itself will not be
sufficient to safeguard our homeland, it will bring much needed focus
and coordination to the task.
In the year since the terrorist attack, much has been done to make
our nation more secure. Congress has approved billions of dollars to
secure our borders, protect critical infrastructure, train and equip
first responders, and better detect and respond to biological or
chemical attacks. Our brave men and women in uniform have fought
valiantly in the war against terrorism and have secured important
victories in Afghanistan.
The creation of the Department of the Homeland Security is the next
step in our efforts to secure our nation against another terrorist
attack. The task before us is daunting. This sweeping reorganization
dwarfs any corporate merger. It involves some 170,000 employees and a
budget of nearly $40 billion.
Despite the magnitude and challenge of the task, there should be no
doubt about the need for this new cabinet department. Currently, as
many as 100 Federal agencies are responsible for homeland security, but
not one has homeland security as its primary mission. When that many
entities are responsible, nobody is really accountable, and turf
battles and bureaucratic disputes are inevitable.
If we are to overcome these problems and create a workable national
security structure, then we must unite the current patchwork of
governmental entities into a new Department of Homeland Security. The
new agency will work to secure U.S. borders, ports, and critical
infrastructure. It will synthesize and analyze intelligence from
multiple sources, lessening the possibility of intelligence
communication breakdowns. And it will coordinate security activities
now undertaken separately by agencies like the Customs Service, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service so that the resulting effort will be greater
than the sum of its parts. The new Department for Homeland Security
will help to remedy many of the current organizational weaknesses and
to protect us against future attacks.
As a member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which held
extensive hearings on the reorganization, I had the opportunity to
consider carefully myriad ideas and concepts about the creation of the
Department. We heard testimony from Governor Ridge, from Director
Mueller of the FBI, from Director Tenet of the CIA, and from numerous
other experts. They all shed light on the problems that have impaired
our ability to defend our homeland, and on the threats that we now face
and that will inevitably challenge us in the future.
While strongly supporting the creation of the Department, I believe
that we also must protect the traditional roles of institutions and
agencies that are important to America's economic and social fabric. In
particular, the Coast Guard's traditional functions--such as search and
rescue and marine resource protection--must be maintained.
Since the attacks of September 11, the Coast Guard's focus has
shifted to homeland security. The Coast Guard plays an essential role
in homeland security, and I believe that it should play a leading role
in the new Department. If, however, the current resource allocation is
maintained, and the Coast Guard continues to assume new
responsibilities, its traditional missions may be jeopardized.
Prior to September 11, port security accounted for approximately 2
percent of the Coast Guard's resources. Immediately following the
terrorist attacks, the Coast Guard deployed 59 percent of its resources
to port safety and security missions. As a result, many of the aircraft
and vessels used for search and rescue were far removed from their
optimal locations for search and rescue. Even after the immediate
impact of September 11 attacks subsided, its impact on the resources of
the Coast

[[Page 22986]]

Guard remained. Indeed, the Coast Guard continues to devote fewer hours
to its traditional functions than it did before 9/11.
Because of the Coast Guard's importance to coastal areas throughout
our Nation, any reduction in its traditional functions is of great
concern. Last year alone, the Coast Guard performed over 39,000 search
and rescue missions and saved more than 4,000 lives. On a typical day,
the Coast Guard saves 10 lives, interdicts 14 illegal immigrants,
inspects and repairs 135 buoys, and helps more than 2,500 commercial
ships navigate into and out of U.S. ports. In short, the Coast Guard's
traditional missions are of vital importance and must be preserved.
Let me take a minute to talk about the Coast Guard's importance in my
home State of Maine. Each year, the Coast Guard performs about 300
search and rescue missions in my State. These missions are literally a
matter of life and death. Just a few weeks ago, the Coast Guard saved
two Maine fishermen from their burning boat off the coast of
Massachusetts after a 12 hour search.
Since October 1999, fourteen fishermen have lost their lives off the
coast of Maine. Commercial fishing is one of the most dangerous of
occupations. How many more fisherman or recreational boaters would have
died or been injured if the nearest Coast Guard cutter were not in
port? How many more will lose their lives if the local Coast Guard
stations must devote the majority of their time to homeland security
alone? I agree that the Coast Guard must perform homeland security
functions. But it is critically important that it not do so at the
expense of its traditional missions.
Senator Stevens and I addressed these concerns during the
Governmental Affairs Committee's mark-up of the original homeland
security bill. We offered a successful amendment to preserve the
traditional functions of the Coast Guard.
The compromise bill ensures that the Coast Guard's non-homeland
security functions will be maintained after its transfer into the new
Department, and also provides for flexibility to ensure our national
security. As our amendment provided, the compromise homeland security
bill has the Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the
Secretary of Homeland Security, thus ensuring direct access for the
Commandant's views. The protections for the Coast Guard will help
safeguard our coastal communities' economies, way of life, and loved
ones, while Americans, wherever they live, can rest assured that the
Coast Guard will perform its necessary and vital homeland security
functions.
Similarly, I am pleased that the compromise bill incorporates a
provision that Senator Levin and I proposed to create a Special
Assistant position in the Secretary's office to promote public/private
partnerships and to ensure that the business community has a place to
go to ask questions, voice concerns, and provide feedback. It is
important to bear in mind that our homeland security and economic
security are closely linked, and that the failure of one jeopardizes
the other. Our economic vitality makes us strong and capable of
defending our nation against external and internal threats.
The issue of personnel and management flexibility, unfortunately,
became the most controversial issue in this homeland security debate.
The creation of the new Department will transfer approximately 170,000
current Government employees who are covered by a large number of
different work rules, personnel systems, and labor agreements from
other departments and agencies. Given the pressing importance of the
new Department, and the vital functions it will perform, we need to
grant the new Secretary appropriate but not unlimited authority to
create a flexible, unified new personnel system that meets the
Department's unique demands.
This legislation strikes the right balance. Initially, the
Administration sought power for the Secretary to unilaterally modify
all of the civil service laws which I opposed. The administration
compromised and will have flexibility in only those areas it deemed
vital to the Department's efficient functioning.
Also, I would note that there are many safeguards to prevent abuse of
this authority that we are granting the Department, including a
requirement I authored requiring that any changes made to the appeals
rights of the Department's employees be made only to ``further the
fair, efficient and expeditious resolution'' of workers' appeals.
Additionally, any changes made will now be subject to mediation, unlike
the Administration's initial proposal, which only called for
notification.
As we create a new Department of Homeland Security, it is critically
important that we remember those on the front lines of any emergency:
our police, our firefighters, our EMS personnel. I am disappointed that
the compromise bill fails to include important amendments that I
offered with Senators Feingold and Carper, and that were adopted both
in committee and on the Senate floor.
The compromise bill includes an Office for State and Local Government
Coordination, but it lacks the provisions needed to ensure that the new
Department coordinates and communicates adequately and efficiently with
state and local first responders. Senators Feingold, Carper and I would
have placed a Department liaison in each State, thereby enhancing the
Department's ability to work effectively with first responders, who
perform such a critical role in our homeland defense. In my role as
chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I plan next year to
revisit this issue to ensure that the new Department and our first
responders can work efficiently together not at cross purposes when
emergencies arise.
The new Department of Homeland Security is an essential component of
our response to current and future threats. As the brutal attacks of
September 11th demonstrated, distance from our enemies and the barrier
of oceans no longer suffice to protect our nation. The bill that we are
considering today is an important step in making our homeland more
secure.
I reserve any unused time for Senator Thompson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I will yield myself 15 minutes off the majority side. I
would like to be notified by the Chair when 5 minutes have expired. I
would like to separate the remarks: 5 minutes spent on the homeland
security issue, and then 10 minutes on terrorism insurance, of which I
will be yielding some brief time to colleagues who want to be heard on
that matter. Senator Sarbanes, the chairman of the Banking Committee,
will be coming to the floor at which time he will also have 15 minutes
to talk about terrorism insurance or other matters he may want to
raise, in which case we will try to have our remarks appear
continuously, if we can, regarding terrorism insurance.
On the issue of homeland security, I am going to vote for this bill
in the end when we are called upon, in several hours, to do so.
First of all, let me commend my colleague from Connecticut, who has
been the manager of this bill along with Senator Thompson of Tennessee
for the last number of weeks and months since this bill has been part
of the debate in the Senate.
I want to commend Joe Lieberman. My colleagues should know--and I am
sure they remember this--he introduced this legislation in October of
last year. The committee marked up that bill, I think, with just
Democratic votes out of the Government Affairs Committee to bring a
homeland security bill to this Chamber.
I am delighted to hear that we now have strong bipartisan support for
this effort. But let us be clear about the history. The history is that
Joe Lieberman offered this idea to this body. It was his committee
under his leadership that marked up that bill and sent it to the floor
on a partisan vote, unfortunately. We are now going to vote on it.
I will vote for passage of the bill before the Senate today, but I
will do so with deep reservations. I believe that

[[Page 22987]]

the bill before us does far too little to adequately protect average
Americans from the dangers posed by terrorists. And regrettably, it
does far too much to protect special interests favored by the majority
party in the other body. That having been said, I believe that, on the
whole, the bill will make America marginally more secure and I would
rather err on the side of improving security than on the side of
inaction. I will to look for every opportunity to make improvements in
Department of Homeland Security in the months ahead.
This bill does take a step in the right direction by creating a
unified department that can focus on security. Effectively reorganizing
parts of the federal government can improve our security. The bill will
allow the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate activities that
have previously been conducted by two dozen separate agencies. This
bill will allow the Administration to consolidate layers of government
and if the Administration does this well, it should improve the way our
government collects and shares information. By eliminating redundancy
and conflicts within the government, the new department can make it
easier to identify and respond quickly to threats as they emerge.
Further, if the Administration wisely uses the authority granted to
it in this bill, it should be able to improve security at our borders.
This bill authorizes the administration to completely revamp our
immigration and naturalization services. If the Administration uses
this authority to truly modernize immigration services, it will be able
to avoid problems like those we have all read about cases where the
immigration and naturalization services issued student visas improperly
because of computer errors, poor record-keeping, and lax analysis of
information.
Still, despite these and several other constructive provisions, this
bill could have done more to strengthen homeland security. For example,
it could have done more to foster better coordination and to better
prepare local communities to respond to emergencies that may occur. I
offered an amendment that would have authorized the Department of
Homeland Security to establish a grant program to help local fire
departments address the chronic understaffing problems that plague so
many local departments. The International Association of Firefighters
and the International Associate Fire Chiefs have estimated that we need
at least 75,000 additional firefighters in this country just to meet
pre-9/11 staffing needs. Since 9/11, firefighter labor shortages have
become even more of a problem across the country. Senator Warner and I
recognized the full extent of the problem of firefighter understaffing
shortly after September 11, 2001, and we wrote legislation to help
solve the problem. The amendment I offered was based on the bill that
Senator Warner and I wrote. The amendment also built on the FIRE Act,
which Senator DeWine and I authored in 2000. The FIRE Act, which became
law thanks in large part to the effort of Senators Warner and Levin,
has provided more than $400 million to train and equip tens of
thousands of firefighters around the country. Understaffing has become
such a problem, that according to the International Association of
Firefighters, nearly \2/3\ of all fire departments cannot meet minimum
safety standards.
I also attempted to offer a second amendment to provide equitable pay
for federal law enforcement officers. This amendment would have ensured
that the federal government could retain highly-qualified and
experienced law-enforcement professionals. All over the country,
federal law enforcement officers are retiring from the federal service
because they can make more money working in the private sector or for
state and local governments. In New York, San Francisco, and Los
Angeles, where living expenses are high, the FBI reported that 65% of
its agents have been on the job for less than 5 years. This statistic
reflects the fact that experienced officers would rather leave the
Federal service than accept transfers to these expensive cities where
they cannot provide adequately for their families.
Don't get me wrong, all of the men and women who serve as Federal law
enforcement officers do an outstanding job. But I also believe that
experience is an invaluable asset and I think we need to make sure that
the talent that comes with experience is available to the Federal
government. Our Federal law enforcement services should be more than
just a training ground--our law enforcement officers should be among
the most experienced and highly skilled in the world so that they can
provide the high degree of protection that the American people so
rightly deserve.
The bill before us would have been far better if it had more fully
addressed the critically important needs of firefighters and federal
law-enforcement officers. Sadly, however, their needs are all but
ignored in this legislation. I intend to seek any and every opportunity
in future to remedy this shortcoming. A homeland security bill that
largely ignores the needs of these dedicated civil servants can only be
considered a partial success.
Instead of focusing on the interests of the American people and those
of firefighters and law officers, the bill before us contains numerous
special interest provisions that help large corporations and do nothing
to ensure the safety of the American public. In fact, I believe that
some of the provisions in this bill could potentially cause harm to the
public.
One provision of particular concern will bar parents from seeking
legal redress from pharmaceutical companies whose drugs may have caused
autism in their children. Parents would be barred from pursuing
complaints through the courts and instead would be forced into the
Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which limits damages to
$250,000. I have supported reasonable tort reform in the past, but this
provision changes the rules in the middle of the game for people who
are already before the courts. Under this provision, pending lawsuits
that have absolutely nothing to do with homeland security will likely
be dismissed and parents who claim their children have become autistic
due to corporate malfeasance will be denied their day in court.
The homeland security bill before us also guts an amendment offered
by Senator Wellstone, which would have prohibited the government from
contracting with companies that have moved their headquarters overseas
to avoid taxes in the United States. Under the current bill, the
Secretary of Homeland Security has broad authority to contract with
these corporate expatriates. This provision is a welcome relief to
those companies that would dodge their patriotic duty at a time of war
by relocating to foreign shores.
I am concerned about another provision in the bill that exempts the
new Department's advisory committees from the open meetings
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Agencies
throughout government use advisory committees that function under open
meetings rules and the open meetings law is careful to protect
discussions and documents that involve sensitive information. The law
currently applies to the Department of Defense, the Department of
Justice, the State Department, the National Security Agency, and
others. In my view, the administration has failed to make the case for
exempting the Homeland Security Department from the requirement that
records for committee meetings should make available to the public.
Another blatantly unnecessary and misguided element of the bill would
create a very narrow university-based homeland security research center
program. Based on the criteria outlined in the bill, the research
center that would be created is described so narrowly that it appears
that only a handful of universities--including Texas A&M University--
might qualify to host the center. This provision amounts to Congress
intervening to pick winners and losers in the field of science. The
Democratic amendment would have eliminated the list of highly specific
criteria that appears to direct the science center program to
particular universities. This bill would have been

[[Page 22988]]

better if that amendment had succeeded.
I invite anyone who may be interested to call up the Web site at the
White House to get an idea about what the homeland security bill looks
like. This is what it looks like. It is 35 pages long. This is the bill
the White House submitted as the homeland security bill. That is what
you will get if you call up the Web site. What we are actually going to
vote on is this. The bill I just showed you is 35 pages long. The bill
we are going to vote on is 484 pages long. Once the House leadership
got their hands on this bill, it grew by 450 pages. Most of the
extraneous material has nothing to do with homeland security. It has a
lot to do with special interests, but not homeland security. When you
call up that White House Web site and you ask for the bill, you are
going to get the short version, but we are going to vote on this
monstrosity of 484 pages.
I am told that the White House and others are going to clean this up
in the coming Congress. They have a major job to do.
There are provisions in this bill that have no bearing and no
relationship whatsoever to homeland security that were stuck in here in
an act of arrogance by the leadership in the other body. They assumed
they could put anything they wanted in here and then send it over and
we would have to support it. Most of us know that these matters have no
business being in this bill.
There are a number of provisions, of course, in the bill that Senator
Lieberman authored that are included here and therefore deserving of
support.
That is the quandary in which we find ourselves. There are good
pieces here that truly deal with the necessity of bringing agencies of
Government together so we can respond more effectively and efficiently
to terrorists--a matter we have to confront. But it is a tragedy they
have taken language and then added to it all of these other provisions
in these 484 pages.
There are some things that are left out as well. I want to commend my
colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, as did our colleague from New
York, Senator Clinton, for talking about the absence of dealing with
first responders. It seems unfair, to put it mildly, that we are not
dealing here with the police, firefighter, and emergency medical
services personnel. We're not giving them the kind of support and
backing that will be necessary if we are struck with another terrorist
attack.
I am hopeful as we reconvene the 108th Congress in January that we
will be getting on with the business of doing what we can to see to it
that those provisions to help first responders are going to become the
law of the land.
There have been provisions passed already that deal with homeland
security, but, unfortunately, the President decided to sequester those
funds.
For those who may not understand what sequester is, that is
tantamount to a veto--about $150 million--sitting down there just
waiting for the President's signature which would become available to
deal with homeland security.
But again, there are good provisions in the original Lieberman
proposal and many of those provisions remain intact. For those reasons,
despite the fact that the bill includes a lot of things that do not
deserve to be in here, and on the commitments we have received from the
Republican leadership as well as the White House to scrub this
legislation and get rid of a lot of these things that have been added
on here, I will support this bill.
But when you call up that Web site, you might ask them where the
other 450 pages are which you won't get.
In closing, I would have preferred to lend my support to a more
focused, more effective, homeland security bill. I tried to improve
this bill, but at the end of the day this is the best we could do given
the opposition we faced. I presume that this is not the last
opportunity Congress will have to address homeland security. In the
months ahead, I will continue to fight for improvements to the
department we are creating. I will continue to fight for cops, not
corporations; firefighters, not firms. America's security from
terrorism depends on the men and women who wake up every morning, put
on uniforms from state and local agencies across the country, and place
themselves at risk for our nation. We owe them--and the Americans they
are sworn to protect--more than this bill provides. But to do nothing
would be to provide even less, and that is not wise under the present
circumstances. This bill is a start toward a more rational and
effective approach to strengthening security for all Americans here at
home. For that reason I will support this homeland security bill.

the terrorism risk insurance act

Madam President, I rise today in support of the conference report on
the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. This conference report
represents a truly bipartisan, bicameral compromise. The Senate
overwhelmingly supported the underlying legislation, which I
introduced, along with Senators Sarbanes, Reid, and Schumer, in June of
this year by a vote of 84-14.
This conference report closely mirrors the Senate-passed bill, and in
many regards has been improved by negotiations with the House.
Late last week, the House passed this conference report by voice
vote. It is my fervent hope that the Senate will move shortly to
support it as well.
In the 14 months since September 11, 2001, Congress has taken many
important steps to protect our Nation from the new threat of terrorism.
Most of these measures have focused on protecting our Nation's physical
security--such as our new anti-terrorism laws, airport security
legislation, and other initiatives to shore up our ``homeland
defense.''
But we cannot, and must not, fail to respond to the effects that the
new threat of terrorism are having on our Nation's economic security.
The goal of the September 11 terrorists was not simply to cause an
enormous loss of life--it was also to derail America's economy; to
undermine the consumer and investor confidence that serves as the
cornerstone of our free enterprise system.
It is, therefore, by no means an overstatement to say that a robust
American economy, and continued American prosperity, are as vital to
defeating the aims of terrorists as is protecting American lives.
As a result of the September 11 attacks, during the past year,
several critical sectors of the economy--real estate, commercial
lending, aviation, construction, and others--have experienced
significant disruptions because of the difficulty in finding terrorism
insurance. By some estimates, this has cost American workers thousands
of jobs and cost our economy tens of billions of dollars in economic
growth activities--at a time our economy can surely use responsible
economic stimulus.
The bottom line is that the insurance which protects America's
buildings, businesses, homes, and workers from terrorist acts is no
longer readily available or affordable. The impact on our economy of
the shortage and expense of terrorism insurance has been detrimental.
According to the Real Estate Roundtable, over $15 billion worth of
new real estate projects across the country have been stalled or
canceled because of a continuing scarcity of terrorism insurance during
the past year.
The Risk Insurance Management Society, RIMS, recently released a
survey which revealed that 71 percent of its membership found it very
difficult or impossible to obtain adequate terrorism insurance. Also,
84 percent felt that their companies were inadequately covered against
a future terrorist attack, while nearly 70 percent had no terrorism
coverage whatsoever.
Rating agencies like Moody's have downgraded the credit ratings of
nearly $5 billion in commercial mortgage backed securities because
terrorism insurance could not be obtained on the underlying properties.
It has estimated that the lack of terrorism insurance has caused
construction workers to potentially lose up to 300,000 jobs because
projects couldn't get financing without such insurance. According to
Edward Sullivan, President of the Building and Construction

[[Page 22989]]

Trades, AFL-CIO, ``The unavailability of terrorism risk insurance is
hurting the construction industry by making the cost and risk of
undertaking new building projects prohibitive. Building projects are
being delayed or canceled for fear that they may be future terrorist
targets. Lenders are refusing to go forward with previously planned
projects where terrorism insurance coverage is no longer available. As
a result, construction workers are losing job opportunities.''
Just last week, a survey conducted by the New York City Comptroller
cited the ``dramatic'' increases in commercial insurance premiums
coupled with a ``significant decline'' in the availability of insurance
since the September 11 attacks. The comptroller has urged the passage
of federal legislation--such as that contained in this conference
report.
Without Federal action, the General Accounting Office has warned that
another terrorist attack would seriously impact America's economy by
exposing businesses and property owners to potentially enormous
losses--losses that could wipe out those businesses as well as the
businesses that insure them.
No one wants to think about another terrorist attack. However, our
free market system, in order to function efficiently, has to factor the
risk of such an attack into its economic thinking.
The fact is, experts are estimating that, should another attack
comparable to the September 11 attacks take place, only about 20
percent of the losses would be covered. This exposes our economy--and
our entire country to a significant--and in the opinion of many, an
unacceptable level of vulnerability.
We are here today to address this vulnerability. The passage of this
conference report will go a long way toward calming our nervous
insurance marketplace, and allow American businesses to continue to
invest, and expand--in short, to continue business as usual.
This conference report makes sense because it calls upon the Federal
Government to act only as an insurer of last resort. The private
insurance industry will maintain front-line responsibility to do what
it does best: calculate risk, assess premiums, and pay claims to
policyholders.
The insurance industry is paying off the losses from the September 11
attacks, estimated to be roughly $30 billion--$40 billion. And the
industry has made clear that despite this unprecedented loss, it
remains strong and solvent.
Insurance isn't something we think about every day, yet it is vital
to the overall health of our economy. By protecting people and
property, goods and services in every sector of America's $10 trillion
economy, insurance provides the stability and certainty required to
keep our economic engine humming. Every prospective homeowner needs
insurance to obtain a mortgage from a bank. Similarly, industries as
diverse as commercial real estate, shipping, construction,
manufacturing, and even ``mom and pop'' retailers require insurance to
obtain credit, loans, and investments necessary for their normal
business operations.
So although insurance isn't something we can touch and feel, its
availability is as vital to rebuilding our economy in the aftermath of
September 11 as bricks and beams will be to rebuilding lower Manhattan.
But the private insurance market cannot at this time bear the full
risks of future attacks. As part of our defense against terrorism, and
specifically to maintain the strength of America's economy, our
government must share, at least temporarily, some of the risk
associated with damage from terrorist acts.
And that's what the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 does--by
establishing a temporary Federal program under which the government
would share the risk of future terrorist attacks with the insurance
industry for up to three years.
In order to protect the American taxpayer, federal cost-sharing would
become available only if total losses from terrorist attacks exceed $10
billion in the first year of the program. Insurers and policyholders
would retain responsibility for the initial $10 billion in losses. This
industry retention increases gradually throughout the life of the
program.
For losses between $10 billion and $100 billion, the government would
assume responsibility for 90 percent of the costs. Should losses top
$100 billion, Congress would determine the appropriate mechanism for
ensuring payment.
For payments made by the federal government for insured losses during
the course of a year, the Treasury Secretary will recoup the difference
between total industry costs and $10 billion. The recoupment will be
accomplished through a surcharge on policyholders.
In order to insure that insurance consumers are both adequately
informed and able to take full advantage of this program, several key
consumer protections are included. Insurance companies are prohibited
from discriminating amongst consumers in their offering of terrorism
coverage. This conference report, like the Senate-passed bill, requires
that insurers offer terrorism coverage in all of their property and
casualty policies during the first 2 years of the program.
Additionally, at the time that policies are offered, purchased, or
renewed, insurers must provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure of
the premiums charged for terrorism insurance. Insurance consumers may
not be charged for coverage that is not explicitly disclosed.
Lastly, nothing in this legislation prohibits state insurance
regulators from retaining full authority to disapprove any rates or
forms that violate state laws.
Simply put, our bill would ensure that the federal government would
provide a temporary backstop to bring stability to a part of the
economy that was seriously destabilized on September 11, 2001 against
future terrorist attacks. This is the only way to bring full confidence
back into the insurance markets that are so vital to our Nation's
overall economic health.
This conference agreement is based on three important principles.
First, it makes the American taxpayer the insurer of last resort. The
insurance industry maintains front-line responsibility to do what it
does best: calculate risk, assess premiums, and pay claims to
policyholders.
Second, it promotes competition in the current insurance marketplace.
Competition is the best way to ensure that the private market assumes
the entire responsibility for insuring against the risk of terrorism,
without any direct government role, as soon as possible.
Third, it ensures that all consumers and businesses can continue to
purchase affordable coverage for terrorist acts.
Some say such a plan would be an unwarranted ``bailout'' of the
insurance industry. Far from it. Not only will this measure be
temporary, but any money the Federal Government spends through the
program will go to victims of terrorism, not insurance companies. This
conference report is needed to protect insurance consumers--consumers
who need and deserve the stability promoted by this conference report.
America will win this war on terrorism. But to do so, our economic
front must remain strong. Preserving the availability of terrorism
insurance will act as ``homeland defense'' for our economy.
We must remember, on September 11 the terrorists did not target just
the World Trade Center and Pentagon--they targeted our entire Nation.
And we must have a national response. This conference report is part of
that response.
Madam President, I would like to particularly thank, of course, the
chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, for his leadership
and support.
I would also like to thank the President of the United States. We
would not be passing terrorism insurance were it not for the efforts of
the White House that weighed very significantly in trying to bring this
bill to closure and fruition.

[[Page 22990]]

This bill has been around for a long time--since October of last
year. We have dealt at a number of levels with the physical security of
our Nation since 9/11. But our Nation's security is complete without
dealing with our economic security, and this terrorism insurance
conference report is designed to do just that.
As a result of the efforts of Senator Sarbanes, of Senator Corzine,
and of my colleague, Senator Schumer from New York, Senator Jack Reed
of Rhode Island as well as others who have worked on this legislation.
Additionally, I would like to thank Congressman Mike Oxley of Ohio,
chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and John Lafalce,
the ranking member for their efforts on this front as well.
I thank the Members who worked so diligently on this legislation. We
spent a great deal of time on liability issues. In the end, we were
able to strike a fair compromise. It is truly a bipartisan bill. It is
bicameral in that both Chambers have been involved in the structure of
this language. At lot of hours were spent--until the wee hours of the
morning on one particular night until 5 a.m. working with the House and
Senate staff to work out the differences and come to a final agreement
on a conference report.
I know there are those in the other Chamber and some here who would
have liked this bill to become the vehicle for tort reform. But the
reality is we needed to deal with terrorism insurance and this
legislation does just that.
Again, I thank the President of the United States. I have been
critical of the President on numerous occasions. He deserves
commendation here. But for his efforts and his staff to pull this
together, we would not be talking about a final product. I am very
grateful to him and to my colleagues and staff for their work.
I would like to particularly thank Alex Sternhell of my staff who
worked tirelessly on this product for the past year to try to get us to
a point where we can pass terrorism insurance.
Again, I thank those who have contributed so much to this conference
report.
Senator Sarbanes, Chairman of the Banking Committee, has played an
invaluable role. Other conferees, Senators Schumer and Jack Reed, were
critical to reaching consensus on this important legislation. Senators
Corzine, Clinton, and Ben Nelson also make important contributions.
I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of Senators Daschle
and Reid, who tirelessly shepherded this bill through the legislative
process. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House, Mike Oxley
and John LaFalce.
Also, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Undersecretary Peter Fisher
and other members of the Treasury Department--Pat Cave, Laura Cox, Ed
DeMarco, Mario Ugoletti--who put in long hours in order to ensure that
the mechanics of the Federal backstop created in this conference report
are sound.
And lastly, I would like to thank the staffs of the Senate and House
who played a critical role in this conference report:
Sarah Kline, Aaron Klein, Didem Nasanci, Polly Trottenberg of the
Senate Banking Committee.
Terry Hains, Robert Gordon, Charles Symington, Michael Paese, and
Lawranne Stewart of The House Financial Services Committee.
I would also like to recognize two members of the Legislative
Counsel's office Laura Ayoud and Paul Callen, who have performed their
duties so capably and in a nonpartisan fashion that is so important to
the legislative process.
This conference report is about economic security. As important as
our physical security is, our economic security is critically
important. This conference report is an important piece of ensuring our
nation's economic security. I look forward to the coming hours and days
when the President will sign this bill into law.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I understand I have 15 minutes on this
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Does the Senator also seek to speak on this bill?
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if I may respond, I will seek
recognition. I will be glad to wait until the Senator from Maryland
concludes. I do intend to seek recognition to speak on the homeland
security bill.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator allow us to use up the time that we
have on this bill--I have 15 minutes and Senator Dodd has 5 left--so we
can complete the consideration of that?
Mr. SPECTER. I would be agreeable to that. If I might propound a
unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of the 20 minutes referred to
by the Senator from Maryland, I be recognized for 20 minutes which I
have on homeland security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. And I thank my colleague from
Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, let me try to parcel out the time
here.
The Senator needs 3 minutes, as I understand it.
Mr. SCHUMER. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. And the Senator from New Jersey needs 3 minutes. And
the Senator from Rhode Island?
Mr. REED. Three minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. That is 9 minutes. And the Senator from Nebraska, 3
minutes?
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes each to Senators
Schumer, Corzine, Reed, and Nelson of Nebraska, and reserve the other 3
minutes for myself. And then Senator Dodd, I think, still has just
under 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SARBANES. I will use my time at the end.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam President.
I thank my chairman of the Banking Committee for yielding. I want to
make a few brief points both on terrorism insurance and on homeland
security.

Homeland Security

First, on homeland security, briefly, I will vote for the bill. I
think it is a far-from-perfect measure. In fact, reorganizing the
Government does not really do most of the job we need to do. It will
not make the computers at the INS put those on a terrorist watch list
on that list. It will not make the Coast Guard patrol out to 200 miles.
We are going to have to spend some dollars. And we are going to have
to do some work within the agencies after we reorganize them.
So it is a first step. It is better than nothing, but I hope and pray
that this Nation will understand that if we just do this on homeland
security, and nothing else, we are woefully unprepared. When we come
back in January, it ought to be our highest priority.

Terrorism Insurance

Madam President, on terrorism insurance, I, first, thank my
colleagues from Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island,
Nebraska, and everyone else who worked so long and hard on this
legislation. This is vital to our cities and our country.
Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of construction jobs not
filled because there is no terrorism insurance. There are billions of
dollars worth of construction projects not being undertaken because we
do not have terrorism insurance. And there are higher costs for even
those who can get terrorism insurance, putting a large crimp in the
economy.
Right now, when our economy is swishy soft, this insurance bill is
the shot in the arm the economy needs. Thankfully, at this last hour,
after the perils-of-Pauline voyage that took over a year, this bill is
about to pass this Chamber, be put on the President's desk, and be
signed into law.
It comes none too soon because we desperately need it. We need to
allow our companies to know that if, God forbid, there is a second
terrorist incident--we hope and pray there isn't--

[[Page 22991]]

the Government will be there as a backup.
To some of the ideologues who have opposed this bill, I would suggest
to them that the Government has always been behind insurance in times
of war. We have always had that. And this new terrorism is a time of
war.
To those who say, well, let the market take over, we never did that
under huge and new circumstances out of the control of individuals,
without any predictive ability. So insurance companies have no
knowledge of what they face.
We are going to have to do more. We are going to have to deal with
life insurance. We are going to have to deal with workers' compensation
insurance. All of these things, in this brave, new post-9/11 world,
need some Government help and Government involvement or the economy
will come to a standstill.
So I want to say, thank God we passed this bill. My city and State,
many of the larger cities and States throughout the country,
desperately need it. We hope it will move to the President's desk
quickly and be signed into law and remove a major roadblock on the path
to recovery that this country needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam President. Again, I thank the Senator
from Maryland for his generous yielding of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I thank Chairman Sarbanes for yielding me
time. But also I thank and commend my colleagues who worked so
diligently on this important legislation: Senators Schumer, Corzine,
and Nelson of Nebraska, and particularly Senator Dodd. Senator Dodd
really led the charge on this important effort, and together with his
electoral reform legislation, he has made major contributions in this
session. I commend him and thank him for his leadership.
This is a vitally important issue. After September 11, the reaction
of the insurance industry to the potential of terrorist attack was
contraction coverage. Premiums went up, coverage has shrunk, and many
organizations, particularly many properties, could not secure
insurance. That inhibited economic growth, and that inhibition
continues to weigh on our economy.
This legislation, we hope, and I hope, will go a long way to start
reviving activity, particularly construction activity and real estate
activity. But the effects of this legislation go beyond simply the
property market and the real estate market.
One of the interesting aspects of the 9/11 attacks was the fact that
workers' compensation insurance was put at risk because, as you
realize, workers' compensation, under law, must cover practically all
injuries to workers. And if there is a terrorist event in a particular
locale, it is likely that hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of workers
could be injured. Those liabilities fall on very few companies. Without
reinsurance, those companies cannot operate.
In my home State of Rhode Island, there is one workers' compensation
insurance company which is actually a quasi-governmental entity. It is
supported by the State. If that company failed, literally the State of
Rhode Island would be on the hook to provide the resources to pay
workers' compensation claims. It would be a great blow to my State.
This legislation also provides help and reinsurance for workers'
compensation claims. So it is legislation whose effect, and beneficial
effect, will go throughout our entire economy. It will help, I hope, to
stimulate economic activity. And it certainly will give, I hope,
business men and women the confidence to, once again, undertake real
estate projects, undertake economic activity, and do those things which
are so essential for our continued economic prosperity.
Once again, this has been a long and arduous process. It has taken
months. It has been the result of great effort and great diligence and
great patience by my colleagues, again, particularly by Senator Dodd.
I am pleased we are passing it this evening. I hope the President
will sign it quickly. I hope we can get on to other legislation that
will assist our economy in a material way, in a positive way.
I thank the Senators, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Homeland Security

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I, too, want to speak to the terrorism
insurance legislation, but I also would like to make a brief comment
with regard to homeland security.
I will be voting to support the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security. Like many of my colleagues, this was a close call.
Unfortunately, there were far too many adds to what was presented to us
in this 484-page document, things that were really special interests,
not the people's interests. They have been enumerated with regard to
pharmaceuticals, colleges and universities, et cetera. It is
unfortunate. And there are many details that are left out with regard
to chemical plant security, nuclear powerplants, railroads, other
issues that I think are vital.
Finally, we really have not dealt with the appropriations process to
make sure that our first responders, the people who really are fighting
the war on terrorism day to day have the resources to do their job. It
is not even dealt with in this 484-page effort, and it is a serious
shortcoming. It will move the ball down the field, but we are not where
we should be. We have a lot of work to do. It is unfortunate that we
have done it, in my view, in a halfhearted way here.

Terrorism Insurance

Madam President, with regard to terrorism insurance, this is about
the economy. It really is quite simple. This was never about the
insurance industry. This was about making sure that investments would
go forward in the construction, commercial real estate field. It was
about making sure there was not a tax on the consumer, on everything
from whether you went to a football game, or any kind of process you
needed to have terrorism insurance to make sure that our economy is
working efficiently. This was missing since September 11. And it is
absolutely essential that we got to this compromise.
I cannot tell you, cannot tell my colleagues, how proud I am to have
seen the tremendous work that both Senators Sarbanes and Dodd performed
to try to get a compromise.
The holdup on this was never about the need to push forward to
protect our economy, to support our industry. This was about tort
reform, issues that really were relevant to protecting the economic
security of the American people. Their tenacity, their effectiveness in
negotiating compromise has led to a great result. I can only say
congratulations to them, to the others who helped bring it about. The
President was certainly at the forefront.
I hope my colleagues will support the terrorism insurance
legislation. I am very appreciative of the help of my senior
colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Terrorism Insurance

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank my esteemed colleague from Maryland
for the opportunity to rise today in strong support of the conference
report to S. 2600. I commend Senator Dodd and all those who have worked
to bring this together after having passed it earlier. It is now a
great opportunity for us to come back and pass it in its final form.
It is about the economy; it is not simply about insurance. The
economic impact of the events of September 11 have had a continuing
devastating impact on our commercial real estate market, mortgage
lenders, the construction industry, the investment community, and other
segments of our economy. Many of these areas have yet to recover and do
not look for recovery for a long time.
Fundamentally, this is a jobs bill. It is just one small step
Congress can take to help stimulate our weak economy by providing this
Federal backstop--not a bailout--for catastrophic losses resulting from
acts of terrorism in the future.

[[Page 22992]]

It is estimated that the property damage alone from the attack on the
World Trade Center is about $50 billion. While the carriers involved in
this loss have indicated they could cover these losses while
maintaining their solvency, we can only speculate as to where and when
the next attack might come and the nature and extent of the damages.
Without this backup, all insurers providing this coverage, if they do
provide it, will only risk not being able to respond to the next loss.
The underlying premise of insurance is the ability of the insurer to
assess the nature and the extent of the loss, applying actuarial
principles, the historical approach to determine the likelihood of
loss, and then calculating the premiums necessary to build reserves
sufficient to cover that loss. Clearly, under these circumstances,
without a historical perspective, there is no way for insurers to
realistically underwrite for the risk of terrorist attack.
Who among us knows where or when the next event might occur, what the
nature of the attack might be, and what type and extent of loss might
be sustained? Will it be primarily property damage? Will it be massive
loss of life in a concentrated area such as we had with the World Trade
Center? Will it be a chemical or biological agent released or will it
be a dirty bomb? These are the questions to which we don't know the
answers.
The fact is, we cannot make those decisions without knowing what the
opportunity will be for the next terrorist attack. We all hope there
won't be one, but insurance is against that kind of loss that you don't
necessarily expect but you anticipate could in fact happen. The long-
term effect on our industry would be devastating.
I hope we will all rise today in support of this important
legislation. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I am pleased that we will shortly, I
assume, be passing this legislation, although I understand we have to
go through a cloture vote prior to reaching the legislation itself. I
wanted to underscore that this represents an extraordinary effort on
the part of many people. I particularly recognize the leadership my
able colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, provided on this issue.
We have been working at this now for about a year. So it has been a
long time coming. It is fair to say that we would never have reached
this point without Senator Dodd's commitment to this issue and his
tireless efforts with respect to this legislation.
I also thank the majority leader, Senator Daschle, who was
consistently trying to get terrorism insurance legislation, despite
efforts by many to turn it into something over and above that.
Senators Schumer and Reed, our colleagues on the conference
committee, made significant efforts to move the bill forward. And also
Senator Corzine, although he wasn't on the conference committee, was
very closely involved in developing this legislation. Of course,
Chairman Oxley and Congressman LaFalce, our colleagues in the House,
were obviously instrumental in moving the legislation through the other
body.
I also want to take a moment to underscore the outstanding work done
by staff on this legislation. We come to the floor and, of course,
Members are deeply involved. And I particularly underscore Senator
Dodd's efforts in this regard. But there are staff who back us all up.
I particularly want to recognize from the Banking Committee staff
Sarah Kline, Aaron Klein, and Alex Sternhell, who worked literally day
and night on this matter. Also Steve Harris, Marty Gruenberg and Steve
Kroll, and the staff of our conferees: Didem Nisanci from Senator
Reed's office, and Polly Trottenberg from Senator Schumer's office; and
while he was not a conferee, Senator Corzine's staffer, Roger
Hollingsworth, also participated throughout.
I also want to recognize the hard work and the professionalism that
our legislative counsels brought to this process: Laura Ayoud from the
Senate legislative counsel's office, who is just an outstanding
professional and renders great service to this body, and Paul Callen
from the House legislative counsel's office. Laura Ayoud stayed up all
night working on this legislation. I simply want to underscore that.
We have had strong support for this legislation from the
administration. The President has indicated that he will sign it. The
administration was instrumental in dealing with some of the objections
that were actually raised more with respect to items that are not in
the legislation rather than items that are in it. In the course of
this, we have developed a piece of legislation which I believe will
address the challenge that confronts us.
We have had troubling reports about the availability of terrorism
insurance, and the impact of that upon the economy.
Since the tragic attacks of September 11th, many property and
casualty insurers are excluding coverage of losses from acts of
terrorism from the policies they write. In those cases where terrorism
insurance is available, it is often unaffordable, and very limited in
the scope and amount of coverage. The Banking Committee explored this
issue in two days of hearings shortly after the attacks, in which we
heard from Treasury Secretary O'Neill, CEA Chairman R. Glenn Hubbard,
insurance regulators, business and insurance leaders, and outside
experts. The testimony of these witnesses helped to define the scope of
the problem in the insurance marketplace and to shape our thinking on
the appropriate solution.
The fact that so many properties are uninsured or underinsured
against the risk of terrorism could have a negative effect on our
economy and our recovery if there were to be another terrorist attack.
In the event of another attack, many properties would have to absorb
any loses themselves, without the support of insurance. As a result,
the GOA has observed, ``another terrorist attack similar to that
experienced on September 11th could have significant economic effects
on the marketplace and the public at large.''
But even in the absence of another attack, the lack of insurance can
hinder economic activity. The GAO has found example of ``large projects
canceling or experiencing delays . . . with a lack of terrorism
coverage being cited as a principal contributing factor.''
Most industry observes are of the opinion that, given time, the
insurance industry will develop the capacity and the experience that
will allow them to underwrite the terrorist risk. However, those
conditions do not appear to exist today. In the interim experts believe
that a Federal reinsurance backstop of limited duration would give the
insurance markets the necessary time to stabilize.
The conference report before us establishes a temporary, three-year
backstop under which the Federal Government will share the risk of loss
from future terrorist attacks with the insurance industry. The program
is triggered when the Secretary of the Treasury, in concurrence with
the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, certifies that an
event meets the definition of an act of terrorism provided in the
legislation.
The Terrorism Insurance Program requires that insurers pay a share of
losses before Federal assistance becomes available. Each insure that
suffers losses in a terrorist attack will be responsible for paying out
a certain amount in claims--an insurer deductible--based on a
percentage of that insurer's direct earned premiums from the previous
calendar year. Beyond their deductibles, insurance companies will
continue to have `skin in the game,' as they will be liable for a
copayment for additional losses. For losses above an insurer's
deductible, the Federal government will cover 90 percent while the
insurer will pay 10 percent.
These provisions are intended to create partnership between insurers
and the Federal Government in the event that losses occur. By requiring
companies both to cover initial losses and to continue to share in
additional losses, this program provides the coverage and

[[Page 22993]]

the certainty of the Federal backstop while also providing incentives
to promote a healthy private market. And while no system is perfect,
the legislation grants the Treasury Secretary certain powers, such as
the ability to audit and inspect claims, that are necessary to protect
the government against unscrupulous behavior. It is our intent that
insurers do not alter their behavior in an attempt to procure more
value from this program than they would otherwise receive from the
course of their natural business practices.
In addition to limiting the exposure of individual insurance
companies, the legislation also includes certain mechanisms to limit
the exposure of the Federal Government, first by requiring the
insurance marketplace as a whole to absorb a prescribed amount of any
terrorism losses--$10 billion for year 1; $12.5 billion for year 2; and
$15 billion for year 3--and second, by capping total losses covered by
the program at $100 billion per year. Any Federal payments made before
the prescribed insurance marketplace retention is reached must be
recouped by the Secretary of the Treasury through a policyholder
surcharge.
One of the guiding principles of this bill is that, to the extent
possible, state insurance law should not be overridden. To that end,
the bill respects the role of the state insurance commissioners as the
appropriate regulators of policy terms and rates. Each state
commissioner currently has the responsibility to ensure that insurance
rates are not inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or excessive, and
this legislation does not change that responsibility.
At the same time, in order to ensure that the Federal program will
work as intended, certain Federal requirements are needed to ensure
that consumers of terrorism insurance will benefit from this program.
For example, insurance companies will be prohibited from
discriminating amongst their policyholders by picking and choosing
which ones to cover for terrorism. The bill requires that insurance
companies must offer terrorism coverage in all of their property and
casualty policies during the first two years of the program. The
Secretary has discretion to extend their important requirement to the
third year of the program.
In addition, insurers must provide policyholders with clear and
conspicuous disclosure of the premium charged for terrorism coverage
and the existence of a sizeable Federal backstop. This disclosure is
intended to enhance the competitiveness of the marketplace by allowing
consumers to comparison-shop for the best rate on terrorism insurance.
In addition, the disclosure is intended to make policyholders aware
that the Federal Government will be sharing the costs of terrorism
losses with their insurers, to help the policyholders assess the
appropriateness of the premium being offered.
Moreover, the bill ensures that the State regulators and the Federal
Government will have access to the information needed to assess the
impact of this program on insurance consumers. The Secretary is
required to compile annually information on the terrorism risk premiums
being charged by insurers].
This is a limited bill in duration. Of course, the objective is that
by the end of that time, the insurance market will have come fully back
into play and that these matters can be dealt with in a more
traditional way.
But as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out frequently, as we
have addressed the issue over the course of this last year, we face
extraordinary circumstances created by the risk of terrorism. This
legislation represents a reasonable and rational response to this
challenge.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 2 minutes.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I have 2 minutes remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and a half minutes remaining.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me again thank my colleagues for their
work. I mentioned Mike Oxley of Ohio, chairman of the House Banking
Committee, and John LaFalce. John LaFalce and I were elected to
Congress together back in the 1970s. He has made a decision to retire
from his service in the Congress. I thank him for a remarkable record
of public service over the more than 2\1/2\ decades.
I also thank some of the White House staff in addition to our own
staff here. I include all the names in the remarks I have already
submitted. I want to thank Nick Calio and Matt Kirk of the White House
legislative operations. I commend them for their efforts.
They helped to broker this final agreement. You need to have people
at the executive branch who are willing to try to put pieces together.
They are two very professional staff people. The President is fortunate
to have them working with him. I know that in the process of doing so,
they disappointed some. I know how they strongly agreed with some of
the people they disappointed on substantive matters but believe they
are serving their President and the country well in coming to a final
conclusion that is fair to all. I thank them for their professionalism
and straightforwardness in dealing with these difficult matters.
I thank Senator Daschle and Senator Lott for their leadership as
well. Both leaders have done a very fine job.
Mark Childress of Senator Daschle's staff was tremendously helpful on
this legislation. Senator Sarbanes is absolutely correct that we don't
often give those staff members who put in countless hours on matters
like this the credit they deserve. But were it not for Mark and Senator
Daschle's other staff members working with Alex Sternhell of my office,
and Senator Sarbanes' staff, we would not have been able to achieve
this result.
This conference report is about economic security. As important as
our physical security is, our economic security is critically
important. This conference report is an important piece of ensuring our
nation's economic security. I look forward to the coming hours and days
when the President will sign this bill into law.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment
about the legislation on homeland security, which I believe the Senate
is about to pass. It has been accurately characterized as historic
legislation. It reorganizes the Government of the United States of
America to meet the threat of terrorism.
On September 11, 2001, this country sustained a devastating loss, a
loss deeply emblazoned on the minds of all Americans. With the attacks
on the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon, and the plane
that went down in Somerset County, PA, it was obvious that we faced a
very extraordinary threat.
We should have taken action against al-Qaida long before September
11. There were many warning signals available. Osama bin Laden was well
known for his jihad against the West, against our values, against our
civilization. Osama bin Laden was indicted for killing Americans in
Mogadishu in 1993. Osama bin Laden was indicted for blowing up the U.S.
embassies in Africa in 1998. He was known to have been involved with
al-Qaida and the terrorism against the destroyer Cole, and he had made
his announcement of his worldwide jihad.
But the United States has historically been reluctant to take
preemptive action. We did little in responding to the attacks on the
embassies of August 20, 1998. When we sent a missile to Afghanistan, it
went to an empty factory. When we put a missile in a factory in the
Sudan, it may or may not have been a factory with chemical weapons. But
then, with the events of 9/11, it became apparent that we had to
respond, and we had to respond very dramatically and emphatically.
Senator Lieberman and I introduced legislation on October 11, 2001--
exactly 1 month after the 9/11 attack. It was apparent to many of us at
that time that we needed to have an office of homeland defense and a
Secretary with power to deal with the many agencies

[[Page 22994]]

that would be involved. First and foremost among those agencies, in my
view, was the coordination of activities among our intelligence
agencies.
When I was chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the 104th
Congress, I introduced legislation in 1996 to bring all of the
intelligence agencies under one umbrella, under the Director of Central
Intelligence. That had been the spot that was supposed to coordinate
all of the intelligence activities.
But the fact of the matter was that the Director of the CIA did not
have that authority because there were too many independent agencies--
the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the
counterintelligence of the FBI, intelligence units in the State
Department, and intelligence units spread throughout the Government--
and there were fierce battles on turf, and the coordination was not
undertaken.
As a result of not having all of the intelligence agencies under one
umbrella, the United States paid a very heavy price. It is my view that
had all of the dots been on the board, had there been coordination at
all of these intelligence agencies under one umbrella, we might well
have prevented September 11.
After the fact, we learned that in July there was a very important
FBI report coming out of Phoenix, AZ, about a suspicious man taking
flight training, and he had a big picture of Osama bin Laden in his
living quarters. That memorandum was buried somewhere in the FBI
headquarters. We found out after the fact that the CIA had information
on two al-Qaida agents at Kuala Lumpur. The CIA did not tell the FBI or
the Immigration and Naturalization Service that those agents came into
the United States, and they were two of the suicide bombers on 9/11.
There was information about a man named Zacarias Moussaoui. The FBI
field office in Minneapolis made an effort to get a warrant under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They never got the warrant. They
were using the wrong standard. They were using a standard of probable
cause of 51 percent. The FBI agent testified that the U.S. attorney in
Minneapolis thought he had to have a 75- to 80-percent probability.
The fact is that, under the law, Gates v. Illinois, an opinion by
Justice Rehnquist--now the Chief Justice, then an Associate Justice on
the Court--says that probable cause is judged by the totality of the
circumstances and suspicion, and had the warrant been obtained under
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the computer of Zacarias
Moussaoui was a virtual treasure trove of information.
Then a man named Murad, a Pakistani, a member of al-Qaida, gave a
statement in 1995 that al-Qaida had plans in 1995 to load explosives on
an airplane and fly them into the White House or into the CIA. Then you
had the experience with the trade towers themselves, attacked in 1993
by al-Qaida's agents. They had made an effort to blow up one of the
towers to try to topple into the other tower to destroy them both. It
was known that they were very unhappy about their failure.
So the risks were present, but there was not coordination. We didn't
bring all of those dots onto one screen. When FBI Director Mueller
testified before the Judiciary Committee in early June, I asked him
about all of these facts and concluded that there was a veritable
blueprint had all of these dots been put together. That is what we have
an opportunity to do now with homeland security, under the direction of
the Secretary of Homeland Security.
I had submitted an amendment, which would have given the Secretary
greater authority than is present in the existing bill. The Secretary
of Homeland Defense, under the existing legislation, may request that
the agencies coordinate, but the Secretary does not have the authority
to direct, and I believe that is a significant failing in this bill.
When the House of Representatives passed a homeland security bill
last Wednesday and, in effect, left town, sending a bill to the Senate,
it was pretty much a matter of take it or leave it. If I had pressed my
amendment to do what I thought was a very important improvement, to
give the Secretary authority to direct all of these agencies, the bill
would have had to go back to conference, and the Members of the House
of Representatives had dispersed. They are present only in pro forma
session. They can take some technical amendments without reconvening,
but to press a substantive amendment would have sent the matter back
for a conference, and it would have delayed the matter perhaps as long
as April of next year.
I had a long discussion on this matter with homeland security
adviser, former Governor Tom Ridge, and pressed the point. Then I
discussed the matter with Vice President Cheney and sought some sort of
a commitment that the administration would look favorably upon this
kind of an amendment when we reconvened. The Vice President said he
could not speak for the President. I talked to President Bush, who
urged me not to press the amendment, and I told him I would not because
I did not want to tie up the bill. I did not want to put on a
substantive amendment that would have required a conference.
Early in the 108th Congress, I will refile that amendment to give the
Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to direct these agencies
because I am still concerned about their turf battles. Turf battles in
Washington, DC are endemic and epidemic. It is too serious a matter to
engage in turf battles any longer. Now is the time where we have to use
all of our resources to prevent another attack.
We have made very significant advances on a number of lines--on the
Border Patrol, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. We put up $3
billion last year on serums to deal with smallpox and anthrax, such as
Cipro. That came through the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human
Services, and Education. Senator Harkin, then the chairman, and I,
ranking member, took the lead in putting up that money. All of these
precautions in building up the hospital infrastructure and giving
assistance to the fire departments is vital. Having coordination with
Federal, State, and local authorities is vital, but if we have to
respond to an attack, if we do not prevent an attack, then we will be
in very bad shape. That is why I do believe our efforts have to be
directed to preventing another attack.
I discussed also with the administration, with Governor Ridge, Vice
President Cheney, and President Bush the labor-management relations
issue. I believe we could have worked out an accommodation which would
have been satisfactory to all parties.
When we had the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr.
Nelson, cosponsored by Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux, there was
initial confusion as to whether the two paragraphs of the Breaux
amendment, which incorporated the so-called Morella amendment from the
House bill, was in place of, substituted for, or in addition to.
In a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, we
established the amendment was in addition to and did not remove the
President's national security authority to take steps if national
security was endangered. That model could have been applied to the
other five chapters on flexibility.
The Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education will
schedule hearings promptly when we reconvene the 108th Congress to go
into these issues, to have a thorough airing, have people from the
Office of Personnel Management come in and explain what they need; to
have labor representatives come in and explain what they have in mind,
in order to work out an accommodation which is satisfactory for all
parties to maintain a high level of morale.
We also have to be concerned about provisions in this bill which
could have the effect of trampling on civil liberties and
constitutional rights. There is no doubt about the danger posed by al-
Qaida, but there is similarly no doubt that we cannot give up our civil
liberties and our constitutional rights

[[Page 22995]]

in our efforts to combat al-Qaida. If we do that, if we give up our
civil liberties, al-Qaida would have, in effect, won.
There is an ongoing responsibility for oversight, and that
responsibility will fall on the shoulders of the Governmental Affairs
Committee and the Judiciary Committee to see to it that the detention
of aliens is based upon some reason; to see to it that if American
citizens are tried in a military court that there is an observance of
constitutional rights. There is grave concern in America that we be
protected from another terrorist attack, but there is also grave
concern that we be careful in the preservation of our civil liberties.
Madam President, how much of my 20 minutes remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes and 26 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I notice the Senator from Connecticut
has come to the Chamber. In his absence, I had commented that the
Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and I, had introduced
homeland security back on October 11, 2001.
There was resistance in many quarters to having a Department of
Homeland Security. Governor Ridge, at that time, and I had discussed
the matter. I have worked very closely with Tom Ridge for many years--
12 years in the Congress and two terms as Pennsylvania's distinguished
Governor. Governor Ridge said he was sure the people would not say no
to the President; he could walk down the hall, and he could solve the
problems.
I had a view, having been chairman of the Intelligence Committee and
knowing what goes on in the CIA, that it was not going to be that easy;
that the man in charge of homeland security really needed some muscle.
Having worked on the Judiciary Committee chairing the oversight
committee on the FBI, I knew the problems there. I knew the turf
battles, and I thought the adviser in charge of homeland security
needed some muscle.
Senator Lieberman and I constructed that bill, when we had hearings.
We reintroduced an updated version last May, and it has had a number of
developments. I do believe it is going to be necessary to revisit some
provisions. I mentioned two--the authority of the Secretary to direct
the intelligence agencies to consolidate under one umbrella, and a
refinement of some of the provisions on labor-management relations.
Then the House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday and sent
it to the Senate on Thursday. Senator Lieberman offered an amendment to
strike which was voted upon earlier today.
I agreed with a great deal of what Senator Lieberman had to say. I
felt it necessary to vote against Senator Lieberman's amendment because
that would have called for a conference, the appointment of conferees,
and great delay. It could have been delayed until April.
We have been asked a lot of questions about this. Yesterday in
Pennsylvania in a number of meetings, a number of people asked me about
it. I told them about the old statement: You never want to see
legislation or sausage made. If you saw what the House of
Representatives did, the bill they sent over here and some of its
provisions gave sausage a bad name. But we are going to work through
it. We are going to pass the bill.
It is not unusual for the Congress, for the Senate to be confronted
with a bill which has a lot of clunkers, which has a lot of problems, a
lot of major disadvantages. Then we have to make a public policy
determination as to whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
In my judgment, it is not even a close call at this point. We have to
have a Department of Homeland Security to protect America.
Again, I compliment my colleague from Connecticut. I compliment the
Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, for the tremendous job he has
done on the bill, and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and his swan
song. It is a tough legislative battle, but before the stroke of
midnight, I believe we will have moved ahead. I am told by the White
House that the President intends to sign this bill early next week. He
is not going to let any grass grow under anybody's feet. We are going
to do our best to protect America and try to prevent another terrorist
attack.
I yield the floor.

The safety act

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I would like to thank the Republican
Leader for his willingness to address concerns raised by me and our
colleagues from Maine regarding certain provisions in H.R. 5005, the
Homeland Security Act of 2002.
In the interests of clarity, I wanted to discuss one aspect of the
Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act
of 2002, which is included in H.R. 5005. The SAFETY Act provides that
the ``government contractor defense'' will be available to certain
sellers of anti-terrorism technology. In Boyle v. United Technologies
Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S. Ct. 2510 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court
recognized that the government contractor defense offers relief to
certain defendants from liability for design defects. It is my
understanding that the drafters of the SAFETY Act were aware of the
Boyle decision and intended for the government contractor defense to
apply solely to design defect claims, rather than offering blanket
relief to any and all causes of action.
Mr. LOTT. I concur with the Senator from Rhode Island. It is clear
that the government contractor defense contained in the SAFETY Act
could be raised only in response to design defect claims.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Republican Leader, and look forward to the
opportunity to correct three other provisions of the Homeland Security
Act when the 108th Congress convenes in January.

First Responders

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I would like to speak about a very
important first responder matter which, I hope, the Senate will include
in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
By definition, emergency management usually occurs in crisis. The
incident managers must assess the emergency, organize the staff, and
direct their responses under very difficult conditions. Currently,
however, many first responders are not fully prepared for attacks like
September 11, 2001.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 includes provisions to improve the
preparedness of emergency response providers. It is also designed to
improve the Federal Government's response to terrorist attacks and
other major disasters.
To date, however, most of the homeland security training and
consulting contracts have been awarded to Fortune 500 companies.
Postsecondary educational institutions have been left out of the
process. It is essential that our country's colleges and universities
also collaborate on the design of homeland defense-integrated emergency
management and training systems. Demonstration programs should train
first responders to use new technologies that would reduce the
devastations from terrorist attacks. They can integrate these
technologies into management procedures that will improve
accountability, command, and control. The results of those
demonstration programs could then be disseminated nationwide.
Am I correct to assume that funding for colleges and universities to
develop homeland defense-integrated emergency management and training
systems could be provided through provisions in the Homeland Security
Act of 2002?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will request that the new Secretary of the Homeland
Security Department give attention to the concerns about emergency
management raised by the Senator from Minnesota, and I hope that
homeland defense-integrated emergency management and training systems
will be given due consideration for funding through grants from the
extramural programs.
Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator for his consideration and support.

Background Checks for Truck Drivers

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, last November, Congress included a
provision in section 1012 of the USA Patriot

[[Page 22996]]

Act, P.L. 107-56, which requires all commercial truck drivers who haul
hazardous materials to undergo a background records check before
receiving or renewing their Commercial Driver's License, CDL,
endorsement to haul hazmat. Unfortunately, over a year has passed and
regulations to promulgate this requirement have not been issued.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I want to associate myself with the concerns raised by
my colleague. This is a very important issue to both of us. In fact, we
worked together in a bipartisan fashion on S. 1750, the Hazmat
Endorsements Requirements Act, which would clarify existing law and
guide the process for administering the checks. The Senate Commerce
Committee approved S. 1750 in April without objection. However, the
Senate has not taken up this legislation, nor has the Department of
Transportation issued a rulemaking to implement Section 1012.
Last week, we took an important step forward in addressing Port and
Maritime Security when we passed S. 1214. That important measure
includes requirements for background records checks for many port
workers, and clarifies that if a driver holds a valid CDL with a
hazardous materials endorsement obtained after a background records
check, the driver would not need to have a duplicative check to access
secure port areas. Unfortunately these checks are not being performed
and it is unlikely that will change until the DOT issues a rule or the
Congress approves legislation to address concerns regarding the hazmat
endorsement background records check requirements enacted last year.
Mr. McCAIN. That is correct. We have not fully addressed the issue of
background checks for commercial drivers and more work remains.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I hope we can continue our bipartisan work on this
important issue early next year to ensure the requirements in the USA
Patriot Act will be carried out and that truck drivers are afforded a
right to a formal appeals process.
Mr. McCAIN. I agree that the issue must be addressed. In the absence
of any regulatory action by DOT, I will certainly want to continue our
joint efforts to provide the appropriate guidance to DOT and the states
on this important security matter.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleague and look forward to working with
him on this issue during the next Congress.

AGRICULTURAL PROVISIONS

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, I want to enter into a colloquy
with the ranking minority member of the Committee, Senator Lugar,
regarding the agricultural provisions in the compromise homeland
security legislation.
Mr. LUGAR. I am pleased to join with my colleague to discuss some of
the agricultural provisions in this legislation. A provision in Section
421 dealing with the transfer of certain agricultural inspections from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture--USDA--to the new Department of
Homeland Security--DHS--needs clarification. This section requires that
USDA and DHS enter into a transfer agreement and stipulates that the
agreement shall address USDA supervision of training of employees who
will be carrying out agricultural inspection functions at the new DHS
and the transfer of funds from USDA to the new DHS. We want to make
clear that we expect that the transfer agreement shall include these
components and that USDA will be responsible for agricultural
inspection training and that appropriate funds would be transferred
from USDA to the new DHS.
Mr. HARKIN. I agree with your interpretation of that provision. I
also want to provide additional explanation about a section that
originated from our mutual concern about the safety of food that enters
our country. Like you, I have been concerned that agencies that inspect
foods and food products that come through our borders do not have the
ability to share information in order to jointly track shipment and
other crucial information. As a result, we crafted a provision, now
included in this legislation, to ensure that information systems--i.e.,
computers--will be coordinated across agencies with border security
responsibilities. This includes agencies that will be housed in the new
DHS as well as those like the Food and Drug Administration and the Food
Safety Inspection Service--that will not, but have a homeland security
function.
Mr. LUGAR. That is an important provision in this legislation. I also
want to clarify a provision related to the transfer of the Plum Island
Animal Disease Center from USDA to the new DHS. Due to a technical
error, there appears to be a contradiction between Section 303(3) and
Section 310 of the House passed bill. The intent of this bill is to
transfer the assets and liabilities of this center, which is now part
of USDA, but not the USDA personnel or functions. While I am fairly
confident this technical error will yet be rectified, in implementing
this new law, I would expect that the language in Section 310 would
govern.
Mr. HARKIN. Thank you for that clarification. Finally, we are aware
that the Chairman and ranking minority member of the House Agriculture
Committee, during consideration of this legislation in the House,
entered into the Record their understanding of how these agricultural
provisions would be implemented. While I question whether or not it is
necessary to transfer Plum Island to the new DHS at this time, I concur
with the House's interpretation of the provisions that are included.
Mr. LUGAR. I also concur with their interpretation which follows and
would expect that these agricultural provisions be carried out
consistent with this description. I ask unanimous consent it be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Sec. 310. Transfer of Plum Island Animal Disease Center,
Department of Agriculture. Transfers the Plum Island Animal
Disease Center from the Department of Agriculture to the
Department of Homeland Security and requires the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of Homeland Security, upon
completion of the transfer, to enter into an agreement
providing for continued access by USDA for research,
diagnostic and other programs.
The Committee recognizes the critical importance of the
Plum Island Animal Disease Center to the safety and security
of animal agriculture in the United States. The Committee
expects that the transfer of this foreign animal disease
facility to the new DHS shall be completed in a manner that
minimizes any disruption of agricultural research, diagnostic
or other USDA activities. Likewise, the Committee expects
that funds that have and continue to be appropriated for the
maintenance, upgrade, or replacement of agricultural
research, diagnostic and training facilities at the Plum
Island Animal Disease Center shall continue to be expended
for those purposes.
The Committee shares the goal of expanding the capabilities
of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Likewise, the
Committee supports the accompanying goal of building agro-
terrorism prevention capabilities within the new DHS. With
this in mind, the Committee fully expects that in the absence
of alternative facilities for current USDA activities, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall make every possible
effort to expand and enhance agricultural activities related
to foreign animal diseases at the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center.
Sec. 421. Transfer of Certain Agricultural Inspection
Functions of the Department of Agriculture.
(a) Transfers to the Secretary of Homeland Security the
functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to
agricultural import and entry inspection activities.
The Committee is aware that the Agricultural Quarantine and
Inspection Program of the Department of Agriculture's Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) conducts numerous
activities with respect to both domestic and international
commerce in order to protect the health of agriculturally
important animals and plants within the United States. Within
the new DHS will be created a mission area of Border and
Transportation Security. In order that the new streamlined
border security program operates efficiently, the Committee
has transferred to the new DHS the responsibility for certain
agricultural import and entry inspection activities of the
USDA conducted at points of entry. This transfer will include
the inspection of arriving passengers, luggage, cargo and
means of conveyance into the United States to the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security. In addition
to inspection at points of entry into the United States,
responsibility for inspections of passengers, luggage and
their means of conveyance, at points of departure outside the
United States, where agreements exist for such purposes,
shall be the responsibility

[[Page 22997]]

of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The provision allows
the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise authorities
related to import and entry inspection functions transferred
including conducting warrantless inspections at the border,
collecting samples, holding and seizing articles that are
imported into the United States in violation of applicable
laws and regulations, and assessing and collecting civil
penalties at the border. The Committee intends that USDA will
retain the responsibility for all other activities of the
Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Program regarding
imports including pre-clearance of commodities, trade
protocol verification activities, fumigation activities,
quarantine, diagnosis, eradication and indemnification, as
well as other sanitary and phytosanitary measures. All
functions regarding exports, interstate and intrastate
activities will remain at USDA.
(b) Delineates the laws governing agricultural import and
entry inspection activities that are covered by the transfer
of authorities.
The Committee is aware that the authority to inspect
passengers, cargo, and their means of conveyance coming into
the United States is derived from numerous statutes that date
back, in some cases, more than 100 years. The Committee does
not intend that the reference to these statutes should be
construed to provide any authority to the Secretary of
Homeland Security beyond the responsibility to carry out
inspections (including pre-clearance inspections of
passengers, luggage and their means of conveyance in such
countries where agreements exist for such purposes) and
enforce the regulations of USDA at points of entry into the
United States.
(c) Excludes quarantine activities from the term
``functions'' as defined by this Act for the purposes of this
section.
While agricultural inspection functions, as well as those
related administrative and enforcement functions, shall be
transferred and become the responsibility of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, the legislation retains all functions
related to quarantine activities and quarantine facilities
within USDA. Although the Committee has excluded quarantine
activities from those functions transferred to the new DHS,
the Committee does not intend to preclude the Secretary of
Homeland Security from taking actions related to inspection
functions, such as seizure or holding of plant or animal
materials entering the United States. These authorities fall
within the purview of inspection related enforcement
functions that shall be transferred to the Secretary of
Homeland Security.
(d) Requires that the authority transferred to the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall be exercised in
accordance with the regulations, policies and procedures
issued by the Secretary of Agriculture; requires the
Secretary of Agriculture to coordinate with the Secretary of
Homeland Security whenever the Secretary of Agriculture
prescribes regulations, policies, or procedures for
administering the covered laws related to the functions
transferred under subsection (a); provides that the Secretary
of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
Agriculture, may issue guidelines and directives to ensure
the effective use of personnel of the Department of Homeland
Security to carry out the transferred functions.
One intention of this legislation is to create a
streamlined Border and Transportation Security program at
points of entry into the United States. With regard to the
protection of animal and plant health, the Committee does not
intend or expect the new DHS to make the determination of
what animals, plants, animal or plant products, soils, or
other biological materials present an unacceptable risk to
the agriculture of the United States. Policies and procedures
regarding actions necessary to detect and prevent such
unacceptable risks shall remain the responsibility of the
Secretary of Agriculture. Likewise, policies and regulations
defining restrictions on movement into the United States of
substances that would pose a threat to agriculture shall
continue to be the responsibility of the Secretary of
Agriculture.
The Committee has provided authority for the Secretary of
Homeland Security to issue directives and guidelines in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture in order to
efficiently manage inspection resources. When exercising this
authority, the Committee expects that the agricultural
inspection function at points of entry into the United States
shall not be diminished, and as a result, the Committee
expects that Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that
necessary resources are dedicated to carrying out the
agricultural inspection functions transferred from the
Department of Agriculture.
(e) Requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary
of Homeland Security to enter into an agreement to effectuate
the transfer of functions. The agreement must address the
training of employees and the transfer of funds. In addition,
the agreement may include authority for the Secretary of
Homeland Security to perform functions delegated to APHIS for
the protection of domestic livestock and plants, as well as
authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to use employees
of the new DHS to carry out APHIS functions.
The Committee is aware of the unique nature and the
specialized training necessary for effective and efficient
border inspection activities carried out by the Agricultural
Quarantine and Inspection Program. The Committee expects that
the training of personnel and detector dogs for this highly
specialized function will continue to be supervised by the
Department of Agriculture. While a large proportion of the
personnel employed by the Agricultural Quarantine and
Inspection Program is permanently stationed at one of 186
points of entry into the United States, the Committee is
aware that the Secretary of Agriculture commonly redeploys up
to 20% of the border inspection force in order to manage
agricultural pests and diseases throughout the United States.
In completing the transfer of Agricultural Quarantine and
Inspection Program border inspectors to the DHS, the
Committee expects that the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of Homeland Security will enter into an agreement
whereby inspection resources, where possible, would continue
to be made available to the Secretary of Agriculture in
response to domestic agricultural needs.
(f) Provides that the Secretary of Agriculture shall
transfer funds collected by fee authorities to the Department
of Homeland Security so long as the funds do not exceed the
proportion of the costs incurred by the Secretary of Homeland
Security in carrying out activities funded by such fees.
Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the unobligated balance of
the Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Fund will be
transferred to other accounts within USDA and will be used to
carry out import and domestic inspection activities, as well
as animal and plant health quarantine activities, without
additional appropriations. Fees for inspection services shall
continue to be collected and deposited into these accounts in
the manner prescribed by regulations issued by the Secretary
of Agriculture. In effectuating the transfer of agricultural
import inspection activities at points of entry into the
United States, the Committee intends that funds from these
accounts shall be transferred to the DHS in order to
reimburse the DHS for the actual inspections carried out by
the Department. The Committee expects that the Secretary of
Agriculture shall continue to manage these accounts in a
manner that ensures the availability of funds necessary to
carry out domestic inspection and quarantine programs.
(g) Provides that during the transition period, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer to the Secretary of
Homeland Security up to 3,200 full-time equivalent positions
of the Department of Agriculture.
(h) Makes conforming amendments to Title V of the
Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 related to the
protection of inspection animals.

federal alcohol and tobacco statutes

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, it is clear that the Secretary of the
Treasury presently possesses the authority to administer the Federal
alcohol and tobacco statutes referenced in the bill before us. These
authorities currently are delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms and now will be delegated to the new Tax and Trade Bureau.
I appreciate this colloquy to confirm that the language in section
1111(c) (1) concerning the transfer to the Department of Justice not
only excludes the authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that will be retained within
the Department of the Treasury as set forth in paragraph (2) of this
section, but also excludes the functions of the Secretary of the
Treasury that relate to these retained authorities, functions,
personnel, and assets.
Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I also wanted to confirm that section 1111(b) as it
relates to alcohol and tobacco only invests the Bureau of Alcohol
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives at the Department of Justice with the
responsibility to investigate with respect to the Title 18 laws
pertaining to the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco. All other
investigatory responsibilities pertaining to alcohol and tobacco remain
at the Department of the Treasury under the new Tax and Trade Bureau,
or as otherwise delegated under existing law.
Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct and his reading is consistent with
the provisions of this legislation.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Finally, I wish to confirm that Treasury retained the
authority to audit or investigate violations such as false or
inaccurate records of production, false or inaccurate tax returns,
failure to respond to delinquency notices, unlawful transfers in bond,
and the unlawful production, labeling, advertising and marketing of
alcoholic beverages.

[[Page 22998]]

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct, and I appreciate my good friend from
Iowa for clarifying these points.

Preserving Coast Guard Mission Performance

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would like to thank the chairman of
Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senator from Connecticut, for his
tireless efforts and leadership concerning the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security. Our country is facing a range of
threats that we must address--from port and airport security to cyber
terrorism. We need funding for a new organizational structure to reduce
these risks.
I also would like to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of
the Committee on Appropriations, the Senior Senator from Alaska,
regarding the Coast Guard. The men and women of our Coast Guard make
significant contributions to our nation each and every day, and they
deserve our support and admiration.
Last week, our colleague from Alaska addressed an important section
in this legislation, Section 888, which governs the Coast Guard's role
in the new Department of Homeland Security. His statement clearly
established that it is the intent of this provision that the Coast
Guard's non-homeland security missions and capabilities must be
maintained without significant reduction when the Service transfers to
the new Department.
As the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and
as a Senator from a coastal state, I emphatically agree with my Alaska
colleague's remarks about the intent and effect of Section 888. I also
would like to ask him some questions about the Coast Guard and its role
in the Homeland Security Department.
Does my colleague from Alaska agree that the United States Coast
Guard is integral to the security of this country, and that the Coast
Guard provides a wide range of services to our nation? Does he also
recognize that some of these services are related to homeland security
while others are not? For instance, the Coast Guard provides vital
services in the areas of marine safety, search and rescue, aids to
navigation, fisheries enforcement, marine environmental protection, and
ice operations. While these traditional missions do not directly
contribute to national security, they do ensure the safety of our
citizens and our environment.
Mr. STEVENS. I firmly agree with my colleague from Washington about
both the Coast Guard's role in securing our nation and the importance
of its non-homeland security missions and capabilities.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, does the Senator from Alaska believe
that it is imperative that these essential non-homeland security
missions be maintained, and that the language in the bill clearly
identifies the need to protect these critical services?
Mr. STEVENS. I strongly agree with this imperative and with my
colleague's interpretation of Section 888. Indeed, Section 888 mandates
this protection.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, as the Senator from Alaska has
previously indicated, the essential non-homeland security missions are
to be protected pursuant to Section 888. It is also my understanding
that the Coast Guard organizational structure shall be maintained. To
ensure that we achieve our objectives, the Inspector General of the
Department shall conduct an annual review to assess the Coast Guard
performance of all its missions, with a particular emphasis on
examining the non-homeland security missions. Is this the understanding
of the Senator from Alaska?
Mr. STEVENS. I share my colleague's understandings on these matters.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, does the Senator from Alaska agree that
any significant changes to the authorities, functions, missions and
capabilities of the Coast Guard can be implemented only if they are
specified in subsequent legislation? And to that end, does he believe
the language contained in the bill will serve to protect the non-
homeland security missions of the Coast Guard while moving the
organization into an important homeland security role?
Mr. STEVENS. I do agree. Section 888 is a clear statement that
Congress will play a major role in deciding whether there would be any
significant changes to the Coast Guard in these areas. The language
also preserves the Service's non-homeland security missions while
permitting it to perform important homeland security missions.
Mrs. MURRAY. As the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee,
the Senator from Alaska is aware that, as part of the fiscal year
Transportation Appropriations bill reported unanimously in July, the
Committee mandated that the Coast Guard submit quarterly mission hour
reports detailing precisely how the Coast Guard has allocated its human
and capital resources by mission for the preceding quarter.
The Committee also granted the Commandant unprecedented budget
flexibility with the dramatically increased funds provided above the
fiscal year 2002 level to address simultaneously his homeland security
needs while ensuring that his other critical missions return to their
pre-September 11, 2001 levels.
Finally, the Committee required the Commandant to submit a detailed
plan as part of his fiscal year 2004 budget request to show us
precisely how he would maintain such mission balance. I am sure that
the Senator from Alaska agrees with me that, notwithstanding the fact
that the fiscal year 2003 Transportation Appropriations bill has been
entangled in the larger delay in the Appropriations process, the
bipartisan leadership of the Appropriations Committee expects the
Commandant to move forward with the submission of these reports.
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I concur with the Senator that the Committee should
begin receiving these reports without delay so that we can monitor the
Coast Guard's progress in complying with not only the Appropriations
Committee's directives but with the requirements articulated under
Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act.
Mrs. MURRAY. It is with great disappointment that I have to tell the
Senator from Alaska that I am greatly concerned by some preliminary
indications from the Department of Transportation Inspector General,
IG, that the Coast Guard may not have fulfilled its statutory
obligations to fully fund mandated improvements to its Search and
Rescue Program in fiscal year 2002.
As part of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2002, the Committee mandated that not less than
$14,541,000 be used solely to address the many deficiencies that the IG
found with the Coast Guard's readiness in the area of Search and
Rescue. We also mandated that the Inspector General monitor the Coast
Guard's compliance with this directive.
While the Inspector General's office has not yet finalized its
report, I am greatly concerned by preliminary indications that the
Coast Guard did not, I repeat ``not fulfill the requirement in the law.
This is precisely the kind of concern that makes it essential that we
continue to monitor the Coast Guard's compliance with Appropriations
Committee directives as well as with Section 888 of the Homeland
Security Act. Again, I commend your leadership in this area and look
forward to working with you and Admiral Collins, the Commandant, on
these issues in the future.
I also want to thank the Chairman of the Governmental Affairs
Committee again for his foresight and leadership in the efforts to
create the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, as the Ranking Member of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I strongly agree with the
remarks made by my distinguished colleague from Alaska last week
regarding the Coast Guard and its treatment in the Homeland Security
legislation. I commend his leadership to preserve the traditional role
of the Coast Guard as it becomes an agency of the Department of
Homeland Security.
The unique strength of the Coast Guard in its multi-mission
operational capability--the ability to perform a variety of missions
for the nation. It is

[[Page 22999]]

one of several agencies to be subsumed into the new Department that has
both on-homeland security and homeland security missions. It is
critical to maintain all of the Coast Guard's missions and capabilities
instead of allowing one mission area to eclipse any other. Section 888
takes a significant step forward in preventing that from happening by
preventing assets, personnel, and budget resources from being diverted
away from the Coast Guard's traditional missions, including rescuing
mariners in distress.
Madam President, I share the concerns expressed by the Senator from
Alaska about the utmost importance of maintaining the Coast Guard's
non-homeland security missions and capabilities. When I became Chairman
of the Subcommittee in the next Congress, I shall look forward to
working closely with him as the Full Appropriations Committee Chairman
to ensure that Section 888 is implemented as Congress intends.
Ms. COLLINS. I would like to thank the Senior Senator from Alaska for
the leadership he has shown in helping to preserve the traditional
functions of the Coast Guard after it becomes part of the new
Department of Homeland Security. Maine and Alaska share a common
interest in preserving the Coast Guard's traditional functions,
including its search and rescue mission, which are so critical to our
fishing communities.
The Senior Senator from Alaska and I teamed up in the Governmental
Affairs Committee to ensure that, when we transfer the Coast Guard to
the Department of Homeland Security, we do not leave its traditional
missions behind. Our language ensured that the authorities, functions,
assets, and personal of the Department would be maintained intact and
without reduction after its transfer to the new Department except as
specified in subsequent Acts.
I am pleased that the fundamental elements and purposes of our Coast
Guard amendment are included in the final compromise homeland security
bill. Section 888 of the final compromise measure is intended to
preserve the traditional functions of the Coast Guard such as marine
safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, living marine resources,
and ice operations. The Coast Guard will also be a separate and
distinct entity in the new Department, and the Commandant of the Coast
Guard will report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, thus
preventing a demotion from the Commandant's current status in the
Department of Transportation.
There is, however, a question that I would like to address to my
friend from Alaska. It is my understanding that Section 888 of the
final compromise bill is intended to prohibit changes in the Coast
Guard's personnel, assets, or authorities that would adversely impact
the Service's capability to perform its non-homeland security
functions. Is that also the Senator's understanding of this provision?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is my understanding also.
Ms. SNOWE. I would like to enter into a colloquy with several of my
colleagues from coastal States regarding Section 888 of the final
version of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The provisions of Section
888 were drafted to preserve the traditional roles and missions of the
Coast Guard and ensure they are not altered or diminished.
Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has taken on additional
homeland security responsibilities resulting in its largest peacetime
port security operation since World War II. While our new reality
requires the Coast Guard to maintain a robust homeland security
posture, these new priorities must not diminish the Coast Guard's focus
on its other traditional missions such as marine safety, search and
rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries law enforcement, and marine
environmental protection.
As a Senator from a coastal State, and as the ranking member on the
Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce
Committee, I can attest that all these missions are critically
important and that the American people rely on the Coast Guard to
perform them each and every day.
The language in Section 888, which I developed with Senators Stevens
and Collins, strikes the proper balance and ensures the Coast Guard's
non-homeland security missions will not be compromised or decreased in
any substantial or significant way by the transfer to the new
Department of Homeland Security.
First and foremost, it ensures that the Coast Guard will remain in
distinct entity and continue in its role as one of the five Armed
Services. The Coast Guard plays a unique role in our government, in
which it serves as both an armed service as well as a law enforcement
agency, and this must not be changed or altered.
This language in Section 888 maintains the primacy of the Coast
Guard's diverse missions by establishing the Coast Guard as a distinct
agency under the Secretary of Homeland Security and mandates that the
Coast Guard Commandant will report directly to the Secretary, rather
than to or through a Deputy Secretary.
Additionally, this section prevents the Secretary of this new
Department from making substantial or significant changes to the Coast
Guard's non-homeland security missions or alter its capabilities to
carry out these missions, except as specified in subsequent Acts. It
also prohibits the new department from transferring any Coast Guard
missions, functions, or assets to another agency in the new Department
except for personnel details and assignments that do not reduce the
Service's capability to perform its non-homeland security missions.
This section also requires the Inspector General of the new
Department to review and assess annually the Coast Guard's performance
of its non-homeland security missions and to report the findings to the
Congress.
I also am pleased to see the inclusion of my amendment requiring the
new Homeland Secretary, in consultation with the Commandant, to report
to Congress within 90 days of enactment of this Act on the benefits of
accelerating the Coast Guard's Deepwater procurement time line from 20
years to 10 years. The Deepwater project, which will recapitalize all
of the Coast Guard assets operating 50 or more miles from our coasts,
is already underway. However, the Coast Guard must wait up to 20 years,
in some instances, to acquire already existing technology. I believe
that we must accelerate the Deepwater acquisition project and acquire
these much-needed assets for the Coast Guard now, not 20 years down the
road.
Madam President, Section 888 is a strong statement by the Congress
that the Coast Guard is an essential component of the new Department
and that its non-homeland security missions and capabilities must be
maintained due to their overriding importance, not only to coastal
States such as Maine, but also to the entire nation.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, as manager of the legislation to
create a Department of Homeland Security, I want to share with the
Senate my views on the meaning and intent of several key provisions in
H.R. 5005, the final homeland security legislation approved by the
Senate on November 19, 2002. These provisions have been through several
iterations and they have been debated extensively.
H.R. 5005 is the result of over a year of deliberations begun last
October when I introduced legislation (S. 1534) with Senator Specter to
create a Department of Homeland Security. That legislation was
subsequently combined with legislation by Senator Graham (to create a
White House Office for Combating Terrorism) and became S. 2452, which
was reported out of the Committee on Governmental Affairs on May 22,
2002.
Before the Senate had a chance to consider that bill, however, the
President announced his support for a Department of Homeland Security.
The Administration's bill, first submitted to Congress on June 18,
2002, encompassed almost all of S. 2452's organizational elements
regarding the Department. The Governmental Affairs Committee held
hearings to consider the administration's proposals, and, I prepared an
amendment to S. 2452 that

[[Page 23000]]

was considered, and adopted, at a July 24-25 business meeting of the
Committee. That expanded version of S. 2452 went a considerable way to
incorporate the administration's proposals.
In late July, the House of Representatives passed its version of the
Homeland Security bill, H.R. 5005. This House bill became the base bill
for floor consideration in the Senate, and the amended version of S.
2452 was offered on the Senate floor as SA 4471 to H.R. 5005.
The following statement will discuss various provisions in H.R. 5005
and, where appropriate, their relationship to similar provisions in SA
4471. It is intended to supplement a statement and other material I
submitted for the Record on September 4, 2002, (S8159-S8180) which
interpreted key provisions in SA 4471 (also referred to as the
Committee bill).

Intelligence

Title II, Subtitle A, Section 201 of H.R. 5005, establishes a
Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.
This is a critical provision that goes to the heart of the weaknesses
that have been exposed in our nation's homeland defenses since
September 11, 2001--that is, the lack of information sharing related to
terrorist activities between intelligence, law enforcement, and other
agencies. This directorate stems from the President's legislative
submission in June, which included a proposal to create an information
analysis and infrastructure protection directorate in the Department.
However, the President's concept has been altered and expanded in
response to testimony before the GAC and input from key Senators. The
version in H.R. 5005, while not exactly what the GAC recommended,
represents a substantial improvement over the President's June 18th,
2002 proposal. If fully implemented, and if the new department and the
various agencies responsible for gathering and providing intelligence
properly interpret its provisions, it will improve our capacity to fuse
that intelligence in order to prevent terrorist attacks before they
occur.
S. 2452, as originally reported on May 22, 2002, and based largely on
recommendations by the bi-partisan Hart-Rudman Commission, included
directorates for critical infrastructure, emergency preparedness, and
border security. The President's June 18th proposal added a fourth
directorate for ``information analysis and infrastructure protection.''
SA 4471 was developed after examining the President's proposal and
hearing from expert witnesses on the critical need for a national level
focal point for the analysis of all information available to the United
States to combat terrorism. On June 26 and 27, the GAC held hearings on
how to shape the intelligence functions of the proposed Department of
Homeland Security--to determine how, in light of the failure of our
government to bring all of the information available to various
agencies together prior to September 11, 2001, the government should
receive information from the field, both foreign and domestic, and
convert it, through analysis, into actionable information that better
protects our security.
The GAC's hearings focused specifically on the relationship between
the Department of Homeland Security and the Intelligence Community. The
hearings featured testimony from some of our country's most noted
experts in intelligence issues, including Senators Bob Graham and
Richard Shelby, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate
Intelligence Committee. Other witnesses included Lt. Gen. Patrick M.
Hughes, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; Jeffrey
Smith, former General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency; Lt.
Gen. William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency;
Chief William B. Berger, President of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police; and Ashton B. Carter, former Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Policy. Finally, CIA Director George
Tenet and FBI Director Robert Mueller also testified.
Senator Graham's written testimony stated that the Intelligence
Committee's hearings thus far have uncovered several factors that
contributed to the failures of Sept 11--one of which is ``the absence
of a single set of eyes to analyze all the bits and pieces of relevant
intelligence information, including open source material.'' Senator
Shelby's written testimony stated that ``most Americans would probably
be surprised to know that even nine months after the terrorist attacks,
there is today no federal official, not a single one, to whom the
President can turn to ask the simple question, what do we know about
current terrorist threats against our homeland? No one person or entity
has meaningful access to all such information the government possesses.
No one really knows what we know, and no one is even in a position to
go to find out.'' General Patrick Hughes, former director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency, echoed these points. His testimony stated
that, ``in our intelligence community, we currently have an inadequate
capability to process, analyze, prepare in contextual and technical
forms that make sense and deliver cogent intelligence to users as soon
as possible so that the time dependent operational demands for
intelligence are met.''
These hearings made it clear that: (1) there is currently no place in
our government where all intelligence available to the government is
brought together to be analyzed, (2) the Department of Homeland
Security requires an all-source intelligence analysis capability in
order to effectively achieve its mission of preventing, deterring, and
protecting against terrorist attacks, (3) the intelligence function
should be a smart, aggressive customer of the intelligence community,
(4) the intelligence function must have a seat at the table when our
nation's intelligence collection priorities are determined, (5) the
Department is already a significant collector of intelligence-related
information, through such agencies such as the Customs Service and the
Coast Guard being transferred into the Department, and (6) the
Department must have sufficient access to information that is collected
by intelligence, law enforcement, and other agencies. This final point
was underscored by Senator Shelby, who testified that the relatively
limited ``access to information'' provisions in the President's
proposal were unacceptable, and that it would be a mistake if they were
adopted.
The President's proposal was to create an ``information analysis and
critical infrastructure protection division''--whose most important
role, as CIA Director Tenet testified at the GAC hearing on June 27,
2002, would be ``to translate assessments about evolving terrorist
targeting strategies, training, and doctrine overseas into a system of
protection for the infrastructure of the United States.'' Its purpose
would be to focus the intelligence function on detecting and mitigating
against threats to critical infrastructure rather than the entire range
of potential threats. Consequently, the intelligence analysis function
in the Department of Homeland Security would not be designed to uncover
terrorist plots or prevent acts of terrorism before they occurred. The
Governmental Affairs Committee rejected this more limited approach and
subsequently approved a more robust intelligence directorate, along
with a separate directorate for critical infrastructure protection,
which were incorporated in SA 4471. Some of these improvements are now
incorporated in H.R. 5005.
Most importantly, like SA 4471, H.R. 5005 makes it clear that the
purpose of the information analysis function in the Department goes
beyond critical infrastructure protection to encompass disseminating
intelligence in order to deter, prevent, and respond to all terrorist
threats. Section 201(d) of H.R. 5005, which describes responsibilities
of the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection, at paragraph (1), states: ``to access, receive, and analyze
law enforcement, intelligence information, and other information from
agencies from the Federal Government, State and local government
agencies), and private sector entities, and to integrate such
information in order to--(A) identify and assess the nature and scope
of

[[Page 23001]]

terrorist threats to the homeland; (B) detect and identify threats of
terrorism against the United States; and (C) understand such threats in
light of actual and potential vulnerabilities of the homeland.'' Clause
(B) especially establishes that the information analysis function must
be designed in order to ``detect and identify'' threats of terrorism.
In addition, Section 201(d)(9) states that the responsibilities of
the Under Secretary (for information analysis and infrastructure
protection) shall include the following: ``to disseminate, as
appropriate, information analyzed by the Department within the
Department, to other agencies of the Federal Government with
responsibilities relating to homeland security, and to agencies of
State and local governments and private sector entities with such
responsibilities in order to assist in the deterrence, prevention,
preemption of, or response to, terrorist attacks against the United
States.'' Again, it is important that the new information analysis
division focus on doing everything within its power to deter, prevent
and preempt, acts of terrorism, while also ensuring that our nation is
adequately prepared to respond.
As noted earlier, the President's June 18th proposal would have
established a more limited function primarily designed to assess
threats and vulnerabilities to our critical infrastructure. This is an
important task and will clearly be a major focus of the Department of
Homeland Security, but the Department's information analysis role will
now encompass all terrorist threats, not just those to critical
infrastructure. Many potential terrorist attacks--for example a bomb in
a shopping mall and attacks using weapons of mass destruction--are not
directed at critical infrastructure, but at producing mass casualties.
Thus, the intelligence analysis function in the Department can and must
focus on the full range of threats that we face. And it must have the
capacity to access and properly analyze all of the information about
terrorist attacks that our government possesses.
Secondly, though it falls short of the Committee's recommendation,
the final legislation does establish dedicated leadership for both the
information analysis and infrastructure protection functions. SA 4471
established separate, Senate confirmed Under Secretaries for
``intelligence analysis'' and ``critical infrastructure protection.''
This was to ensure that focused leadership--with sufficient clout--was
provided for each of these complex, and major challenges facing our
government. With 85 percent of our critical infrastructure owned by the
private sector, it is clear that full time leadership will be required
to ensure that adequate protective measures are identified and put in
place. Similarly, the tremendous challenge of overcoming barriers to
information sharing within the intelligence community and establishing
a robust intelligence analysis division will likely occupy a
significant amount of time of the Secretary and Under Secretary.
H.R. 5005 takes a somewhat different approach: like the President's
June 18th proposal, it establishes a single Under Secretary with
overall responsibility for both information analysis and infrastructure
protection. However, in Title II, Section 201, (b)(1) and (b)(2) it
also creates two Assistant Secretaries to lead information analysis and
infrastructure protection, respectively. Earlier, Title I, Section 103
of the legislation establishes several officers who shall be appointed
by the President ``with the advice and consent of the Senate,''
including not more than 12 Assistant Secretaries (Sec. 103 (a)(8)). The
Assistant Secretaries for information analysis and infrastructure
protection will clearly occupy two of the most critical positions in
our government: consequently, Congress' expectation is they will be
among the 12 Assistant Secretaries who will be appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Third, responding to the testimony of Senator Shelby and others, the
SA 4471 provided broad, routine access to information for the Secretary
of Homeland Security. The assumption behind the Committee's approach
was that, unless the President determined otherwise, all information
about terrorist threats, including so-called ``unevaluated
intelligence,'' possessed by intelligence agencies would be routinely
shared by intelligence agencies and other agencies with the Department
of Homeland Security. In contrast, the President's proposal would
curtail the Secretary's access to unanalyzed information. The Secretary
would have routine access to reports, assessments and analytical
information. But, except for vulnerabilities to critical
infrastructure, the Secretary would receive access to unanalyzed
information only as the President may further provide.
H.R. 5005 has wisely moved towards SA 4471. In Section 202 (a), H.R.
5005 states that, ``except as otherwise directed by the President, the
Secretary shall have such access as the Secretary considers necessary
to all information, including reports, assessments, analyses, and
unevaluated intelligence relating to threats of terrorism against the
United States and to other areas of responsibility assigned by the
Secretary, and to all information concerning infrastructure or other
vulnerabilities of the United States to terrorism, whether or not such
information has been analyzed, that may be collected, possessed, or
prepared by any agency of the Federal Government.'' This is crucial
because the Secretary must have access to the information he or she
deems necessary to protect the American people, and cannot simply rely
on agencies that have historically been reluctant to share information
to determine what the Secretary should have.
In Section 202(b)(1) the legislation provides that the Secretary may
enter into cooperative agreements with agencies to provide access to
such information. At the same time, if no request has been made, or no
agreement has been entered into, agencies are still required to provide
certain information that is specified in the legislation. This
includes, at Section 202(b)(2) (A) all reports (including information
reports containing intelligence which has not been fully evaluated),
assessments and analytical information relating to threats of terrorism
against the United States and to other areas of responsibility assigned
by the Secretary; (B) all information concerning the vulnerability of
the infrastructure of the United States, or other vulnerabilities of
the United States, to terrorism, whether or not such information has
been analyzed; (C) all other information relating to significant and
credible threats of terrorism, whether or not such information has been
analyzed; and (D) such other information or material as the President
may direct.
These provisions require agencies to provide significant amounts of
information to the Secretary, even in the absence of a cooperative
agreement. With respect to the information required in Section
202(b)(2)(C); in many cases, it may be impossible for agencies to know
if certain information is related to ``significant and credible
threats'' of terrorism precisely because that can only be determined
once the information is fused with information from others.
Consequently, to meet the statutory requirement, agencies should
clearly endeavor to collect requested information, even if it is not
already available, and they should err on the side of providing more,
rather than less, information that is already on hand to the
Department's analysts. This is clearly the best way to help ensure that
the Department can effectively carry out its mandate to prevent, deter,
and preempt terrorist attacks.
Finally, like SA 4471, H.R. 5005 makes the Department responsible for
working with the Director of Central Intelligence to protect sources
and methods and with the Attorney General to protect sensitive law
enforcement information (Section 201(d)(12)). Also, as the Committee
recommended, the substitute formally includes the elements of the
Department concerned with analysis of foreign intelligence in the
``intelligence community'' (Section 201(h)) while also empowering the
Secretary to consult with the Director of

[[Page 23002]]

Central Intelligence and other agencies on our nation's intelligence
gathering priorities (Section 201(d)(10)). These provisions will ensure
that the Department becomes a full partner with the Central
Intelligence Agency and other agencies in our intelligence community,
and that is has a crucial seat at the table in all proceedings where
intelligence-gathering priorities are established.
Though H.R. 5005 is not exactly what the Governmental Affairs
Committee recommended in SA 4471, it does contain key aspects of the
Committee's approach and establishes a single point in our government
with the responsibility for receiving and assessing all information
about terrorist threats to our homeland. Thus, it does represent a very
significant improvement over the Administration's proposal. As a
result, the information analysis and infrastructure protection function
in the Department, assuming it is properly implemented, will greatly
improve our nation's overall capacity to prevent, deter, protect
against, and respond to terrorist threats against our homeland.

Science and Technology

The Department will have profound scientific and technological needs,
and both the immediate and long-term success of its mission will
require the implementation of a broadly-coordinated, tightly-focused,
and sustained effort to invest in critical areas of research,
accelerate technology development, and expedite the transition and
deployment of such technologies into effective use. H.R. 5005 attempts
to meet this objective by creating a strong, coherent, and well-funded
Directorate of Science and Technology. The Directorate established in
this legislation follows directly from the model embodied in the
homeland security bill passed by the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, SA 4471, and explicated in the Chairman's Statement on
September 4, 2002 (Congressional Record, pages S8162-S8164). In keeping
with that model, the Directorate will be headed by a Senate-confirmed
Under Secretary for Science and Technology with expansive
responsibilities, as outlined in Section 302, for directing and
managing homeland security research, development, demonstration,
testing, and evaluation (RDDT&E) activities; coordinating the federal
government's civilian efforts, as well as developing a national policy
and strategic plan, for meeting homeland security R&D needs; advising
the Secretary and supporting the Department's efforts to analyze risks
and threats; ensuring the rapid transfer and deployment of technologies
capable of advancing homeland security objectives; and conducting
research on countermeasures for biological and chemical threats.

Research, Development, Demonstration, Testing & Evaluation

With respect to his RDDT&E responsibilities, the Under Secretary will
act through an array of mechanisms and authorities established in H.R.
5005. The primary driver of innovation within the Directorate will be a
Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), which is
conceived to be similar in purpose and organization to the highly
successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) within the
Department of Defense (DOD). Over the past five decades, DARPA has been
recognized as one of the most productive engines of technological
innovation in the federal government. Its success has been grounded in
its ability to recruit outstanding scientific and technical talent,
promote creativity and adaptability under a lean, flexible
organizational structure, and entice collaboration from other R&D
entities by leveraging an independent source of funds. Because the
HSARPA created in H.R. 5005 is purposefully patterned after the nearly
identical Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (SARPA) contained
in SA 4471, the legislative intent concerning the missions, roles,
Acceleration Fund, and structure of that organization (see Chairman's
Statement on September 4, 2002, Congressional Record, pages S8162-8163)
are, of course, straightforwardly applicable to HSARPA.
In order to enable HSARPA to achieve parallel success to DARPA,
Section 307 of H.R. 5005 provides HSARPA with a $500 million
Acceleration Fund to support key homeland security R&D both within and
outside of the federal government, leverage collaboration from R&D
entities external to the Department, and accelerate the development,
prototyping, and deployment of homeland security technologies. The
Secretary is likewise provided with DARPA's flexible authority to hire
and manage top-flight personnel. Although SA 4471 placed limits on this
authority by setting a ceiling of 100 personnel who may be hired
pursuant to this authority and instituting a 7-year sunset provision
[SA 4471, Section 135(c)(3)(C)], those limits have been eliminated in
H.R. 5005 to allow the Secretary greater discretion in exercising such
authority commensurate with need [Section 307(b)(6)]. In a later
section, Section 831, H.R. 5005 also confers the Secretary with another
important authority currently available to the DOD--the ability to
engage in ``other transactions'' for both research and prototype
projects. This flexible contracting authority for such projects has
been integral to DARPA's success, and HSARPA will therefore have the
same authority. While the legislation vests this authority directly in
the Secretary, it is clearly and specifically contemplated that such
authority will be delegated appropriately to other officials within the
Department, particularly the Under Secretary for Science and Technology
and the Director of HSARPA, for use in connection with R&D and
prototyping activities under their direction or management, including
extramural RDDT&E projects and projects supported by the Acceleration
Fund. Nothing in this legislation should be construed as requiring or
encouraging HSARPA to adopt or replicate any specific programs within
DARPA, such as the Total Information Awareness Program, or as
conferring HSARPA with any additional authority to overcome privacy
laws when developing technologies for information-collection.
Separate provisions for the Department's other extramural and
intramural RDDT&E activities are set forth in Section 308. These
provisions are not intended to supercede the specific provisions
established for HSARPA under Section 307, and should not be in any way
limiting on HSARPA. Regarding the university-based center or centers
for homeland security described in Section 308(b)(2), legislative
intent regarding the need for flexible application of this provision in
order to avoid unfairly favoring one or more particular institutions
was clarified in the November floor statements of the Republican
manager of the final bill, Senator Phil Gramm. It should therefore be
emphasized that the criteria listed under Section 308(b)(2)(B) should
not be considered absolute or dispositive in nature, but rather, as
factors that should be considered in the context of national homeland
security needs and the relative strengths of candidate institutions in
meeting those needs. Consistent with this intent, Section 308(b)(2)(C)
specifically provides the Secretary and the Under Secretary with full
``discretion'' in determining whether, how, and when to implement these
provisions. Consideration of additional relevant criteria to supplement
(and, within their discretion, to supercede) those delineated under
Section 308(b)(2)(B) is specifically contemplated in Section
308(b)(2)(C). This subsection anticipates as the Secretary and Under
Secretary exercise their discretion that they actively engage in a
comprehensive, dispassionate, and competitive review of available
institutions to determine the optimal selection for serving national
interests. It is contemplated that consortia of universities capable of
meeting particular areas of required expertise would be eligible to
serve as a university center or centers; therefore, there is no
restriction on such consortia being considered under Section 308(b)(2).
To assure full oversight of the fairness of the selection process, the
Secretary is required to report to Congress under Section 308(b)(2)(C)
on the full details of the selection and implementation of the
university centers.
Regarding the headquarters laboratory described in Sections
308(c)(2)-(c)(4), it deserves reiterating that the

[[Page 23003]]

establishment of such a headquarters laboratory is not mandatory under
the legislation. The Secretary and the Under Secretary should use their
discretion in determining whether the designation of such a laboratory
is necessary and would better assist the Directorate in fulfilling its
functions. It is the intent of H.R. 5005 that the Directorate
coordinate and draw broadly upon the full range of S&T resources and
expertise available in the federal government rather than creating new,
duplicative stovepipes. Accordingly, the risks attaching to the latter
should be weighed carefully against the potential benefits of
establishing a single headquarters laboratory. As an alternative, the
Secretary could certainly opt to select a group of institutions and
laboratory elements with expertise in a variety of fields to fill the
pertinent need.
Consequent to the principle of affording the Department with rapid,
non- bureaucratic, expansive, and flexible access to existing federal
S&T capabilities, the legislation in Section 309 provides the Secretary
with authority to utilize any of the Department of Energy (DOE)
laboratories and sites through a variety of mechanisms, most notably,
joint sponsorship agreements, and in Section 309(g), establishes an
Office for National Laboratories within the Directorate to create a
networked laboratory system among the DOE laboratories to support the
missions of the Department. With regard to Section 309(c), it should be
clarified that this provision is limited to those programs and
activities that are transferred from the DOE to the Department under
this legislation. There is no general requirement or obligation within
this or any other provision to execute or maintain separate contracts
for work commissioned by the Department to non-transferred DOE
laboratories or sites or their operators.

Interagency Coordination and the National Policy and Strategic Plan

Notwithstanding the mechanisms described above for enabling the
Department to engage and support important homeland security R&D, H.R.
5005 recognizes that the vast bulk of research and development relevant
to homeland security will continue to occur outside the direct control
of the Department--in other agencies, in academia, and in the private
sector. A critical challenge, therefore, will be to ensure that the
Department has the proper tools and mechanisms to elicit cooperation
across a wide range of disparate R&D entities, each with their own
missions and priorities, and to coordinate their collective efforts in
service to homeland security goals.
A key coordination mechanism envisioned by the legislation is the
development of a national policy and strategic plan as described in
Section 302(2). This national policy and strategic plan integrates the
concepts of the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism and the
technology roadmap articulated in SA 4471 [Title III and Section
135(c)(2)(B)] into a single national blueprint for meeting S&T goals
and objectives for homeland security. It is intended that a
comprehensive technology roadmapping exercise (which is commonly
accepted within the S&T community as a prerequisite to optimal
organization and coordination of large-scale R&D projects) serve as a
basis for, and central component of, the larger policy and plan, and
that the resulting roadmap, policy, and plan provide the framework
within which all relevant stakeholders, both within and outside of
government, will coordinate on a common homeland security RDDT&E
agenda.
Effective coordination will also require a forum and body through
which intensive communication and collaboration may occur. Along these
lines, the legislation in Section 311 establishes a Homeland Security
Science and Technology Advisory Committee (``Advisory Committee'')
consisting of representatives from academia and the private sector to
both advise the Department and coordinate with communities outside the
federal government in conducting homeland security R&D. The utility of
having an external, independent entity to inform and guide intra-
Department and interagency S&T efforts has been previously demonstrated
by the advisory group assembled by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) in response to the September 11th attacks. This group, which
published a prominent review of the government's homeland security R&D
efforts in June 2002 (Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and
Technology in Countering Terrorism), played an important and
constructive role in identifying and stimulating much needed
improvements. Section 311 requires a similar entity to be established
that may, among other things, advise the Department by continuously
critiquing homeland security S&T efforts in a ``red team'' capacity or
function, and recommending new approaches for the Department and
outside agencies. It is specifically anticipated that the National
Research Council of the NAS, drawing on its extensive network of S&T
contacts and the expertise it developed in compiling its June 2002
report, will select appropriate candidates for membership onto the
Advisory Committee [Section 311(b)(2)], as well as support the Advisory
Committee's work on an ongoing basis. The Advisory Committee is
initially authorized for three years, which is a reasonable time period
to permit the Secretary to meaningfully assess the Advisory Committee's
efficacy in fulfilling its defined purpose. Should the Secretary
determine after the initial authorization period that the Advisory
Committee has provided, or is likely to provide, useful support and
functionality to the Department, it is anticipated that the Secretary
will reconstitute or re-establish the Advisory Committee pursuant to
his authority under Section 871(a).
With respect to R&D coordination among the federal agencies, H.R.
5005 does not specifically carry over the Homeland Security Science &
Technology Council (``S&T Council'') from SA 4471 given that it may be
unnecessarily redundant to create a new interagency council when
interagency coordination mechanisms already exist in the form of the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and its various
subcommittees. This does not diminish the importance of such an
interagency body to the homeland security R&D effort. To the contrary,
an active interagency coordination entity must be considered
fundamental to enabling the Secretary and the Under Secretary to
fulfill their core responsibilities of coordinating the federal
government's civilian homeland security R&D efforts [Section 302(2)]
and carrying out the Department's S&T agenda through coordination with
other federal agencies [Section 302(13)]. The omission of the
interagency S&T Council from H.R. 5005 assumes that the NSTC and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), working with the
Secretary and the Under Secretary, will establish and promote the
strong interagency coordination mandated in Sections 302(2) and
302(13). Consequently, the Secretary, the Under Secretary, the OSTP,
and all members of the NSTC are expected to commit to ensuring the
viability of the NSTC as a productive coordination mechanism. In the
event that such faith proves to be misplaced, a separate interagency
group composed of senior R&D representatives from relevant federal
agencies and officials from the Executive Office of the White House
should be immediately constituted by the Secretary and the Under
Secretary based on the authorization for interagency S&T coordination
contained in Sections 302(2) and 302(13). These provisions also
constitute a directive to agencies with S&T expertise in areas
pertinent to homeland security to fully and actively participate in
such interagency efforts.

scientific and technical support, risk analysis, and the homeland
security institute

Another major set of responsibilities assigned to the Under Secretary
relates to providing specialized advise, expertise, and support to
other actors within the homeland security organization [Sections 302
(1), (2), and (3)]. Perhaps the most critical of such responsibilities
is supporting the Department with respect to assessing, analyzing, and
mitigating homeland security

[[Page 23004]]

threats, vulnerabilities, and risks. Section 302(2) calls for including
coordinated threat identification within the national policy and
strategic plan, and Section 302(3) specifically calls for the
assessment and testing of ``homeland security vulnerabilities and
threats.'' Although primary responsibility for coordinating and
integrating risk analysis and risk management resides with the
Secretary and the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection, the highly complex and technical issues
inherent to modern risk analysis methods demand substantial scientific
and technical expertise. Section 302(3) mandates that the Under
Secretary for S&T support the Under Secretary for Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection in this regard. Therefore, Section 305
addresses the problem of obtaining the necessary S&T expertise by
giving the Secretary broad authority to establish or contract with
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), which could
perform functions not only related to R&D, but extending to risk,
threat, and vulnerability analysis. While this authority is
discretionary, H.R. 5005 anticipates that it will be exercised actively
in accordance with need. In fact, so compelling was the NAS's
recommendation in its June 2002 report to create an independent, non-
profit institution for critical analysis and decision support, that
H.R. 5005 includes another provision to trigger immediate exercise of
the broad FFRDC authority. Specifically, Section 312 mandates the
creation of a Homeland Security Institute (``Institute'') focusing
expressly on capabilities related to risk analysis, scenario-based
threat assessments, red teaming, and other functions relevant to
homeland security. The Institute is initially authorized for three
years, which is a reasonable time period to permit the Secretary to
meaningfully assess the Institute's efficacy in fulfilling its defined
purpose. Should the Secretary determine after the initial authorization
period that the Institute has provided, or is likely to provide, useful
support and functionality to the Department, it is anticipated that the
Secretary will, pursuant to his authority under Section 305, renew,
reconstitute, or re-establish the Institute with appropriately expanded
or modified functions to service the Department's ongoing and expanding
risk assessment mission.

technology transition

The Under Secretary is responsible for ensuring that technologies
capable of supporting homeland security are quickly tested, evaluated,
transitioned, and deployed to appropriate users within or outside the
Department. Section 302(6) explicitly requires the Under Secretary to
establish a system for transferring such technologies. This system
should include processes and mechanisms for identifying homeland
security actors and entities with unmet technological needs; matching
such entities and needs with available technologies or, if none are
readily available, assisting in the development, testing, evaluation,
and deployment of new technologies to meet identified needs; ensuring
viable technology transition paths for products of homeland security
R&D, including HSRAPA-derived technologies; aligning internal R&D
priorities and programs to technological needs inside or outside the
Department; communicating externally with both technology developers
and users to promote alignment of extra-Departmental R&D efforts with
homeland security-related technological needs; providing technology
developers with information and guidance on interfacing with
governmental customers of homeland security technologies; and providing
technical assistance to potential governmental users of homeland
security technologies. To support the Under Secretary in executing
these responsibilities, Section 313 establishes a Technology
Clearinghouse (''Clearinghouse'') to serve as a national point-of-
contact for both technology developers and potential users. The
Clearinghouse must coordinate with the Technical Support Working Group
(TSWG), and may fully integrate with the TSWG. In light of the fact
that the mission of the TSWG dovetails with, and is fully embraced by,
that of the Directorate, it is contemplated that the Under Secretary
may assume full or joint management, technical, and/or policy oversight
of the TSWG.

testing and evaluation of technologies for internal acquisition and
deployment

With respect to technologies being considered for internal use
Department-wide or within one or more of its constituent entities,
intelligent and well-coordinated testing, evaluation, procurement, and
deployment will be crucial given that the new Department will have
extensive technological needs, requirements, and dependencies. Too
often, government agencies are hampered and distracted from their
fundamental missions as a result of unstructured, technically
unsophisticated approaches to technology acquisition and deployment
that generate interoperability problems downstream. In order to
effectively carry out the requirement for the Under Secretary to
comprehensively conduct, direct, integrate, and coordinate the
demonstrating, testing, and evaluation activities of the Department as
articulated in Sections 302(4), 302(5), and 302(12), the Secretary and
the Under Secretary should implement procedures to ensure that new
technologies being considered for acquisition will be compatible and
interoperable with other existing or anticipated technologies. New
technologies should not be permitted to move to acquisition without the
Under Secretary's sign off on the prior stages in the innovation
process, particularly the demonstration, testing, and evaluation
stages. The Under Secretary is understood to occupy the role of the
Department's chief technology officer, and it is anticipated that he
will be provided with responsibilities and authorities befitting that
role. Accordingly, the Secretary shall act through the Under Secretary
to operationally test and evaluate all major systems targeted for
potential acquisition by any entity within the Department, and grant
the Under Secretary authority to approve or reject such systems in his
discretion. Nothing in this provision is to be construed as proscribing
other Departmental entities from undertaking testing and evaluation
activities so long as they do so in coordination with, and subject to
the final approval of, the Under Secretary. The Under Secretary should
also coordinate with the Department's Chief Information Officer, the
Under Secretary for Management, and other federal agencies in promoting
government-wide compatibility and interoperability of homeland security
technologies and systems.
By vesting in the Under Secretary the full and broad authority to
manage the Department's full spectrum of innovation, from basic
research [Sections 302(4), 302(5), 302(11), and 302(12)] through
demonstration, testing, and evaluation [Sections 302(4), 302(5), and
302(12)] to transition and deployment [Section 302(6)], the Under
Secretary will have the means and mandate to initiate a powerful,
systematic approach to innovation that generates new technologies for
combating terrorism and ensures integrated acquisition and use of such
technologies. Placing control of all the key innovation stages with the
Under Secretary is critical to assuring that research, development,
demonstration, testing, evaluation, and deployment in the Department do
not become disjointed and fractured so that a coherent innovation
process can prevail.

Research on Countermeasures for Biological and Chemical Threats

True preparation for future biological, chemical, radiological, and
nuclear attacks will depend upon the development of vaccines and
medicines to combat the most likely threats. At present, our nation is
woefully unprepared for this type of attack. In his June 28, 2002
testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Dr. J.
Leighton Read discussed the barriers to the development of a national
medical arsenal to combat terrorism. The federal government has a long
and successful history in conducting basic biomedical research. The
National Institutes of Health within the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) have served as an international

[[Page 23005]]

model for funding and conducting human health-related research.
However, in facing biological and chemical terrorism, we face a new
challenge. In addition to encouraging basic research and training the
next generation of scientists, the federal government will have to
deliver actual pharmaceutical products and will have to deliver them
quickly. Unlike the traditional pharmaceutical market, companies that
choose to develop drugs to fight bioterrorist attacks that may never
occur will not be able to rely on an existing market. Yet producing
actual products to meet biological and chemical threats will depend
upon private sector involvement. As a result, the Under Secretary
should incorporate the goal of engaging the private sector into develop
biothreat countermeasures into every level of his strategy, and adopt
plans and policies to enable such private sector participation to
occur.
H.R. 5005 provides tools to accomplish this task. While Section
302(4) states generally that the Under Secretary's responsibilities do
not extend to human health-related research and development activities,
this provision should be construed consistent with other specific
provisions in H.R. 5005 ascribing the Under Secretary a major role in
addressing biological and chemical threats related to terrorism, a role
which will require the Under Secretary to conduct specific types of
human health-related research and development activities. Section 302,
therefore, does not circumscribe the Under Secretary's authority to
conduct research necessary to implement the major biothreat-related
functions delineated in Sections 302(2) (requiring the Under Secretary
to develop a national policy and plan that addresses, among other
things, chemical and biological terrorist threats, and further
requiring the Under Secretary to coordinate the Federal Government's
civilian efforts to identify and develop countermeasures to chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and other emerging terrorist
threats), 302(5) (requiring the Under Secretary to direct, fund, and
conduct national research and development for detecting, preventing,
protecting against, and responding to terrorist attacks, which perforce
include those involving biological or chemical agents), 302(8)
(requiring the Under Secretary to collaborate with the Secretary of
Agriculture under the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of
2002), 302(9) (requiring the Under Secretary to collaborate with the
Secretary of HHS in determining biological agents and toxins to be
listed as select agents), 303(1)(A) (transferring control and
management of certain chemical and biological national security
programs within the Department of Energy into the Department of
Homeland Security), and Sections 303(2) and 1708 (establishing and
transferring into the Department a National Bio-Weapons Defense
Analysis Center).
The National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center (``Center'')
established and transferred in H.R. 5005 will, in particular, require
the Under Secretary to engage in extensive human health-related R&D.
The Center is intended to lead the Department's research efforts on
bioterrorism by developing ``countermeasures to potential attacks by
terrorists using weapons of mass destruction'' (Section 1708). The
Center will conduct research on bioterrorism, and by definition, this
should include study of the pathogenesis of bioterrorist agents, the
immune response to these pathogens, and research on vaccines, drugs,
and other medical antidotes. Since the Center is placed under the
direction and management of the Directorate, the Under Secretary is
conferred with substantial obligations to conduct human health-related
R&D.
While the Secretary clearly has the authority to conduct the type of
R&D discussed above internally, H.R. 5005 contemplates that the
civilian human health-related countermeasures research carried out by
HHS shall remain under the direction of the Secretary of HHS. Sections
304(a) and (b) mandate that while the Secretary of HHS shall retain
authority for such research, he shall collaborate with the Secretary of
Homeland Security in developing between the two Departments a
coordinated strategy and outcome measurements for these research
activities. As outlined in H.R. 5005, it is crucial that such research
reflect the overall national policy and strategic plan developed by the
Secretary and the Under Secretary under Section 302(2), and that the
efforts of the two Departments be fully in concert. In the biothreat
and chemical threat areas, the Secretary should work to ensure the
resulting policy, plan, and benchmarks mandated under Section 302(2)
reflect what is most needed and what pharmaceutical products can be
timely developed against the most likely and dangerous threats to the
public. Since this will require participation from the private sector,
the policy and plan, which will include a technology roadmap, must
necessarily include a strategy for translating basic science results
into product development within the private pharmaceutical and
biotechnology sectors.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

The Department will coordinate the federal response to disasters.
This responsibility will encompass natural and manmade disasters,
terrorist attacks and all incidents involving weapons of mass
destruction, and other large-scale emergencies. In addition, the
Department will assist the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and
the Department of Agriculture in responding to public health and
agricultural emergencies. The Directorate for Emergency Preparedness
and Response was designed to spearhead this effort within the
Department.
In order to accomplish these tasks the Department will need an
interdisciplinary, well funded, and well-organized Directorate of
Emergency Preparedness and Response. The initial design of this
directorate was established by the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee in S. 1534. This original design was refined by the
Governmental Affairs Committee amendment, SA 4471, and further
explained by the Chairman's statement on September 4, 2002
(Congressional Record, pages S8162-S8164). Consistent with this
original design, H.R. 5005 establishes a Directorate that includes the
essential federal emergency response agencies and offices.
The Directorate shall build and direct a comprehensive national
incident management system and consolidate existing federal emergency
response plans into a single, coordinated national plan as outlined in
H.R. 5005, Sections 502(5), 502(6), and 507(b)(1-2). States and
localities should have access to and information about these systems
and plans to ensure optimal coordination during an emergency. These
plans should encompass all affected governmental entities and reflect
both local and national needs. The consolidated federal response plan,
outlined in Sections 502(6) and 507(b)(1-2), must interface with state
and local response plans and should utilize local resources wherever
possible.

Interoperability

The planning responsibilities of the Under Secretary shall include
the development of a comprehensive plan and effort for improving
communication interoperability during emergency response (H.R. 5005,
Section 502(7)). In developing the communication technology and
interoperability, the Under Secretary must pay particular attention to
the development, support and utilization of effective telemedicine
networks, as well as the application of advanced information technology
to effective training for and delivery of emergency medical services.

Standards

In order to implement the missions delineated in Section 502, the
Directorate shall establish and disseminate standards for equipment,
personnel, training, resources, and the resulting emergency response.
Standards shall be used as benchmarks for training and acquisition to
ensure a uniform quality and interoperability during a response. The
Under Secretary shall use these standards to provide recommendations
and guidance to state and local governments.

Public Health and Agricultural Emergencies

The Secretaries of Health and Human Services and the Department of
Agriculture shall retain the authority to

[[Page 23006]]

oversee the federal response to public health and agricultural
emergencies, respectively. This authority includes the authority to
declare such emergencies. However, these agencies shall fully
collaborate with the new Department which shall support these agencies
in their response, especially with regards to chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear weapons. The Department should serve as an
active and involved resource during bioterrorist and agroterrorist
attacks. As outlined in Section 887 of H.R. 5005, the Department shall
work in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other engaged federal agencies
to optimize information sharing between agencies commencing forthwith,
as well as before and after the declaration of a public health
emergency. This provision was intended to ensure that all involved
agencies have all the information necessary to effectively perform
their role in the federal response. See also, Section 892.

Training

In order to help ``ensure the effectiveness of emergency response
efforts'' as required in Section 502(1) of H.R. 5005, the Directorate
shall lead federal efforts to train first responders in disaster
response. The term, first responder, shall include law enforcement,
fire fighting, emergency medical, health care, and volunteer personnel.
To be effective, training shall encompass exercises, on-line computer
simulations, drills, courses, and other interactive learning
environments. Personnel should be trained in every aspect of emergency
response, including prevention/preparation, mitigation, active
response, and recovery efforts. Training should include utilization of
the Noble Training Center, transferred to the new Department as part of
the Office of Emergency Preparedness (Section 503(5)) and other
training sites and campuses within the Federal Emergency Management
System, as well as full coordination with the National Guard. Finally,
the Directorate shall improve, and train first responders in use of,
governmental on-line resources to ensure they have the latest
information available during a response.

Strategic National Stockpile

Authority to oversee the Strategic National Stockpile shall be
transferred to the new Department. In H.R. 5005, this transfer of
authority is described in Sections 502(3)(B), 503(6), and 1705. This
language clarifies that the existing structure of the Stockpile
program, as described in Section 121 of the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
188), shall remain intact. The Stockpile shall continue to be a multi-
agency effort, with significant roles for the Department of Veterans
Affairs and the Department of Health and Human Services. In particular,
the Department should continue to incorporate the recommendations of
the Centers for Disease Control and Preparedness (CDC) and the Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Public Health Emergency Preparedness
(OPHEP), within the Department of Health and Human Services, in
determining the composition of the stockpile and the parameters for its
use. The Department shall consult the CDC and OPHEP in deciding which
medications, vaccines, and medical supplies are most appropriate for
the Stockpile (Section 1705(a)(1)(C)). The Department shall also
coordinate with the Secretary of Health and Human Services in
determining the need to deploy the stockpile, on an incident-by-
incident basis. The Under Secretary should continue to use the
resources of Department of Veterans' Affairs in procuring and storing
the contents of the Stockpile (Section 1705(a)(1)(B)). And the Under
Secretary shall call upon the Department of Defense and the National
Guard to help transport and secure the contents of the stockpile as
appropriate.

The Office of Emergency Preparedness

SA 4471 described, in detail, the transfer of the Office of Emergency
Preparedness (OEP) from the Department of Health and Human Services to
the Department. The transfer of OEP was retained in H.R. 5005 in
sections 502(3)(B) and 503(5). Since the Office of Emergency
Preparedness is not defined in statute, it should be clarified that the
transfer of OEP shall include the Office and all of its component
agencies. This includes the National Disaster Medical System, the
Metropolitan Medical Response System, the Noble Training Center, the
Special Events Disaster Response program, and all other programs
directed by OEP. Of course, nothing in the final legislation should be
construed to mean that the transfer of the OEP programs shall result in
the transfer of personnel whose primary duties reside outside of OEP.

The National Disaster Medical System

For example, the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) is an inter-
agency program. It involves personnel, facilities, and equipment from
the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, the Department of Defense, and other federal agencies. The
personnel and assets from these departments that are deployed by NDMS
during the an emergency response, but whose primary day to day roles
are central to the missions of agencies outside of the Department,
shall remain part of their home agencies. This includes members of the
Disaster Medial Assistance Teams (DMATs), the Disaster Mortuary
Assistance Teams (DMATs), and the Veterinary Medical Assistance Teams
(VMATs). The transfer of the NDMS component of OEP shall be restricted
to the management, organizational, and coordinating personnel,
functions, and assets.

The Metropolitan Medical Response System

Similarly, the transfer of the Metropolitan Medical Response System
(MMRS) does not include transfer of member hospitals. Rather it shall
consist of a transfer of the grant programs and related personnel. The
MMRS grants have been used to improve hospital and first responder
preparedness in select metropolitan regions across the country.
Administration of these ongoing grants will become part of the new
Department.
Although H.R. 5005 transfers the authority of the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Assistant Secretary for
Public Health Emergency Preparedness for OEP (Section 503(5)), the
Under Secretary shall at all times attempt to maximize communication
and interaction between OEP and its component programs and the
Department of Health and Human Services, which will be crucial in
meeting the Directorate's mission requirements. As the preceding
discussion illustrates, OEP will have to coordinate efforts of
personnel from several different agencies. But in addition, OEP and its
programs must remain integrated into the larger national public health
infrastructure. Particular efforts should be made to coordinate OEP
programs with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Health
Emergency Preparedness. This office, within the Department of Health
and Human Services, is charged with coordinating intra and interagency
health preparedness efforts. OEP should remain a part of this larger
whole.

Conduct of Certain Public Health-Related Activities

Section 505 of H.R. 5005 addresses two critical issues. First, it is
imperative that the efforts to improve our public health infrastructure
and their emergency preparedness remain under the control of the
Secretary for Health and Human Services, although coordinated with the
Secretary. On June 28, 2002 the Governmental Affairs Committee heard
testimony from several public health experts. In their testimony, the
witnesses concurred that in order to be functional during an emergency,
public health preparedness efforts had to be integrated into the larger
public health system. This ``dual-use'' improves underlying public
health efforts while ensuring health providers remain familiar with
emergency preparedness networks and programs. Their testimony pointed
out that dual-use was particularly important during a response to a
biological attack. In this case, the terrorist attack may not be
immediately apparent and detection may depend upon the ability of
normal health care systems to detect unusual patterns of illness. H.R.
5005 also stressed this important theme through Section 505 and

[[Page 23007]]

language in Section 887, which calls for interaction between the
agencies before and after the declaration of a public health emergency.
Section 505 stipulates that the Department of Health and Human
Services shall retain primary authority over efforts to improve State,
local, and hospital preparedness and response to chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear and other emerging terrorist threats
``carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services.'' In this
regard, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall have authority
to set priorities and preparedness goals. However, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, working through the Assistant Secretary for
Public Health Emergency Preparedness, must develop a coordinated
strategy for these activities in collaboration with the Secretary
(Section 505(a)). In doing so, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services will also collaborate with the Secretary in establishing
benchmarks and outcome measures for success. Nothing in Section 505
should be interpreted as disrupting ongoing preparedness efforts within
the Department of Health and Human Services. All ongoing emergency
preparedness grants should continue. Selection criteria and the
evaluation of grant application shall continue to be determined by the
Department of Health and Human Services, consistent with Section 505
provisions.

Human Resources Management

H.R. 5005 contains two key provisions relating to employees at the
new Department--section 841, which governs the establishment of a human
resources management system, and section 842, which deals with labor-
management relations at the Department. These provisions have been
among the most contentious in debate on this legislation.
The Administration has consistently sought what it calls
``flexibility'' in the personnel area, by which it means a carte
blanche to waive civil service protections and union rights of the
employees at the Department. Sections 841 and 842 of H.R. 5005 are
significantly more protective in this regard than the provisions in the
President's original proposal (i.e., the one released June 18, 2002),
but these sections remain a major disappointment. A risk remains of
politicization, arbitrary treatment, and other personnel abuses in the
federal government, in a way that may damage the merit-based workplace
federal employees and the American people have come to depend on. I
hope what I fear does not come to pass, and that this Administration
and future Administrations will not overstep bounds, overexert
authority, and thereby undermine the effectiveness of the new
Department. I have summarized below the protections that sections 841
and 842 do provide.
Establishment of Human Resources Management System. Section 841
authorizes the Secretary, jointly with the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), to prescribe a ``human resources management
system'' (HRMS) for the Department. The section provides that the HRMS
may waive certain provisions of the civil service statutes, and
specifies required procedures by which the system is to be developed,
negotiated, and adopted.
When it comes to the creation of a HRMS, the law still requires that
employees in the new Department will be hired, promoted, disciplined,
and fired in conformity with all merit system principles and in
violation of no prohibited personnel practices. If and when existing
civil service rights and protections come up for consideration in the
development of a HRMS, the Administration may waive, modify, or
otherwise affect such rights and protections only to the extent it can
clearly demonstrate that they clearly conflict with the homeland
security mission, and that they are not being waived merely in the
interest of administrative convenience. Fair and independent procedures
must be maintained for employees with grievances, such as those who
allege abuse or corruption within the Department. Changes to the system
must be carefully crafted through negotiation and collaboration with
employees and their representatives; and, if a disagreement arises, the
period of at least 30 days that section 841 requires for bargaining and
mediation between the Administration and the employee representatives
must be substantial and in good faith, not cosmetic.
The provisions in section 841 that allow a HRMS to waive statutes are
precisely drawn, detailing which parts of the United States Code may be
waived, modified, or otherwise affected and which parts may not. For
example, the legislation specifically forbids waiver of merit system
principles or prohibited personnel practices. Furthermore, as to
provisions referred to in 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2302(b)(1), (8) and (9),
the legislation forbids waiver not only of the provisions themselves,
but also of provisions implementing those protections through
affirmative action or through any right or remedy. Sections 2302(b)(1),
(8) and (9) include laws against discrimination, against reprisal for
whistleblowing, and retaliation for exercising rights. Section 841 thus
assures that the HRMS will not affect employees' ability to appeal a
personnel action to the Merit Systems Protection Board, under existing
law, in a case where the employee alleges a discrimination,
retaliation, or reprisal covered and referred to by
Sec. Sec. 2302(b)(1), (8) and (9). Section 841 also requires the HRMS
to ensure that employees may organize and bargain collectively, subject
only to exclusion from coverage or limitation on negotiability
established by 5 U.S.C. chapter 71 or other law.
Furthermore, the grant of waiver authority under section 841 refers
explicitly and only to part III of title 5, United States Code. Section
841 thus grants no authority to waive any provision of law outside of
part III. This means, for example, that the HRMS may not waive, modify,
or otherwise affect such government-wide employee rights and
protections as, for example: (1) the Office of Special Counsel's
authority to investigate any prohibited personnel practice and seek
corrective action or disciplinary action from the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB) (5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1211 et seq.); (2)
employees' right to seek corrective action from the MSPB in a case of
reprisal for whistleblowing (5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1221-1222); (3) the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-521, as amended; printed
as an appendix to 5 U.S.C.); (4) Veterans benefits (including appeal
rights to MSPB) (38 U.S.C.); and (5) the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 (29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 201 et seq.). Likewise, some of the right and
protections applicable to particular agencies or groups of employees
being transferred to the Department are set forth in portions of the
United States Code outside of part III of title 5, or were not enacted
by Congress as incorporated into the United States Code at all, and
these rights and protections may not be waived by the HRMS.
While the waiver authority granted by section 841 is broad, the
provisions noted above and other provisions that may not be waived
under section 841 can afford significant protections against
politicization, arbitrary action, and abuse. The Secretary and the
Director must be scrupulous in not attempting to waive, modify, or
otherwise affect any provisions of law that are beyond the express
waiver authority, because such an attempt would violate section 841.
Labor-Management Relations. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7103(b)(1) states that the
President may issue an executive order excluding any agency from
coverage under the Federal Sector Labor-Management Relations Statute
(FSLMRS) if the President determines: that the agency has a primary
function in intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or
national security work, and that the provisions of the FSLMRS cannot be
applied consistent with national security. Section 842 of H.R. 5005
builds on that existing provision by stating that, for the President to
issue an executive order excluding an agency transferred to the
Department, not only must the criteria in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7103(b)(1) be
satisfied, but also two additional clarifying criteria must be
satisfied: that the mission and responsibilities of the agency
materially changed, and that a majority of the employees in the agency
have as their primary

[[Page 23008]]

duty intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative work directly
related to terrorism investigation.
That provision would provide employees at the Department some
appropriate measure of stability in their labor relations, although the
provision is subject to a subsequent provision of section 842. The
President can override the earlier provision if he determines that the
earlier provision would have a substantial adverse impact on the
Department's ability to protect homeland security, and provides
Congress a detailed written finding explaining the reasons for the
determination. The President has to give the Congress 10 days' advance
notice by submitting the written explanation. At the expiration of the
ten day period, the President would then have the power to issue an
executive order under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7103(b)(1) under the criteria of
that section only.
I still fail to understand why any President would need to remove
collective bargaining rights from federal employees, whose union rights
are very limited in comparison with the private sector, and who have a
long history of helping to protect the homeland and continue to do the
same protective work in the new Department. But if and when this
President or a future President does move to eliminate collective
bargaining within a unit of the Department, the President can take this
step only if it is truly essential to national security and homeland
security and not merely a convenience to management. This requires that
the Department's leadership must first make good-faith efforts to work
cooperatively with the unions before the President can determine that
union representation is incompatible with national security or homeland
security.
And the written explanation that the President is required to provide
to Congress must of course be thorough and specific. The requirement
reflects a bipartisan concern that this Administration and future
Administrations must make the case for stripping workers of their right
to bargain collectively before issuing an Executive Order. The
President must provide Congress a comprehensive and specific
explanation on the threshold issue of how and why the right of workers
in a particular agency or subdivision to collectively bargain would
have a substantial adverse impact on homeland security.
Other provisions. Two other provisions of H.R. 5005 relating to human
resources management warrant comment.
Section 881 requires that the Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of OPM, shall review the pay and benefit plans of each agency
transferred to the Department and, within 90 days, submit a plan to
Congress for ensuring the elimination of disparities, especially among
law enforcement personnel. Nothing in section 881 provides for how the
elements of the plan shall be put into effect, however, so I believe it
would be desirable for the plan to identify the specific changes to
law, regulation, and policy that would be needed to eliminate the
disparities, and make specific recommendations for effecting those
changes.
Section 1512(e) states that the Secretary, in regulations prescribed
jointly with the Director of OPM, may adopt the rules, procedures,
terms and conditions established by statute, rule, or regulation before
the effective date of the Act in any agency transferred to the
Department under the Act. This section 1512 contains the Savings
Provisions for the reorganization effected by the Act, and subsection
(e) is intended to enable the Secretary to keep a transferred agency
subject to the same rules, procedures, terms and conditions that
applied to the agency before the transfer. This provision does not, of
course, provide authority to the Secretary to take a provision that was
applicable to one agency before the effective date and apply it to
another agency or other part of the Department.
Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, putting a significant piece of
legislation like this bill together is a difficult and time-consuming
task. Many Senators have played important roles in this legislation,
but the contributions of our staff members have also been of great
significance. Without the aid of our staff members, little would get
done in this institution. I would like to take a moment to recognize
the hard work and dedication of just a few of the staff members who
contributed significantly to this legislation.
For the Majority, I want to recognize the contributions of Chairman
Lieberman's staff, especially his staff director, Joyce Rechtschaffen,
and Laurie Rubenstein, Mike Alexander, Kiersten Coon, Holly Idelson,
Kevin Landy, Larry Novey, and Susan Propper. Also, let me acknowledge
the contributions of staff to the other members of the Governmental
Affairs Committee and of Sarah Walter of Senator Breaux's staff, David
Culver of Senator Ben Nelson's staff, and Alex Albert of Senator
Miller's staff.
On the Republican side, I must single out the work of Rohit Kumar of
Senator Lott's Leadership staff. He has been the linchpin around whom
everything got done. We would have no bill without his persistence,
diligence, and intellect. Mike Solon of Senator Gramm's staff also
placed a crucial role in developing the Gramm-Miller amendment on which
much of the final legislation is based. David Morgenstern of Senator
Chafee's staff was also helpful.
Finally, let me recognize my own staff on the Governmental Affairs
Committee, who provided me with outstanding support. The successful
adoption of this legislation is due to their hard work and constant
efforts. Almost my entire staff was involved in some way or another
with this bill. I want to recognize the efforts of Richard Hertling, my
staff director on the Governmental Affairs Committee, who led the
effort, and Libby Wood Jarvis, my legislative director. Other members
of my staff whose assistance I wish to recognize are Ellen Brown, Bill
Outhier, Mason Alinger, Alison Bean, John Daggett, Johanna Hardy,
Stephanie Henning, Morgan Muchnick, Jayson Roehl, Jana Sinclair, and
Elizabeth VanDersarl, along with Allen Lomax, a fellow in my office
from the General Accounting Office.
Our staff members toil diligently and well, largely in anonymity. I
think it appropriate on occasion to recognize their work publicly, so
that Americans may share the knowledge of the members of this
institution about how well served they are by our staff members.
I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to take this brief time
to recognize the efforts of some of the staff members responsible for
this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, soon after the vicious attacks of
September 11, it became clear that Congress needed to act on a
bipartisan basis to win the war on terrorism and protect the country
from future attack. Congress quickly approved strong bipartisan
legislation authorizing the use of force against the terrorists and
those who harbor them. It also enacted bipartisan legislation to
provide aid to victims and their families, to improve airport security,
to give law enforcement and intelligence officials enhanced powers to
investigate and prevent terrorism, to improve border security, and to
strengthen our defenses against bioterrorism.
The September 11 attacks also demonstrated the need to consolidate
overlapping functions and establish clear and efficient organizational
structures within the Federal Government. I fully support these goals.
Reorganization without reform, however, will not work. It is not enough
to consolidate different agency functions, if the underlying problems
relating to management, information sharing, and coordination are not
also addressed. And we do the Nation a disservice if, in the course of
reorganizing the Government, we betray the ideals that America stands
for here at home and around the world.
We know that our Nation faces a very serious threat of terrorism. To
protect our national security in today's world, we need an immigration
system that can carefully screen foreign nationals seeking to enter the
United States and protect our Nation's borders. Our current Immigration
and Naturalization Service is not up to these challenges. For years,
INS has

[[Page 23009]]

been unable to meet its dual responsibility to enforce our immigration
laws and to provide services to immigrants, refugees, and aspiring
citizens.
The Lieberman homeland security bill included bipartisan immigration
reforms that were carefully designed to correct these problems and
bring our immigration system into the 21st century. It untangled the
overlapping and often confusing structure of the INS and replaced it
with two clear lines of command--one for enforcement and the other for
services. It also included a strong chief executive officer to ensure
accountability, a uniform immigration policy, and effective
coordination between the service and the enforcement functions.
On these key issues, the Republican bill moves in exactly the wrong
direction. It transfers all immigration enforcement functions to the
Border and Transportation Security Directorate. Immigration service
functions are relegated to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services, which lacks its own Under Secretary. These agencies will have
authority to issue conflicting policies and conflicting interpretations
of law. The formulation of immigration policy--our only chance to
achieve coordination between these dispersed functions--will be subject
to the conflicting views of various officials spread out in the new
Department. With its failure to provide centralized coordination and
lack of accountability, the Republican bill is a blueprint for failure.
The Republican bill also eliminates needed protections for children
who arrive alone in the United States. Often, these children have fled
from armed conflict and abuses of human rights. They are traumatized
and desperately need care and protection. The Lieberman bill included
safeguards, developed on a bipartisan basis, to ensure that
unaccompanied alien children have the assistance of counsel and
guardians in the course of their proceedings. Under this bill,
immigration proceedings will remain the only legal proceedings in the
United States in which children are not provided the assistance of a
guardian or court-appointed special advocate.
Finally, the Republican bill will seriously undermine the role of
immigration judges. Every day, immigration courts make life-altering
decisions. The interests at stake are significant, especially for
persons facing persecution. We need an immigration court system that
provides individuals with a fair hearing before an impartial and
independent tribunal, and meaningful appellate review. The Republican
bill undermines the role and independence of the courts and the
integrity of the judicial process.
It vests the Attorney General with all-encompassing authority,
depriving immigration judges of their ability to exercise independent
judgement. Even more disturbing, the bill gives the Attorney General
the authority to change or even eliminate appellate review. This result
is a recipe for mistakes and abuse. An independent judicial system is
essential to our system of checks and balances. Immigrants who face the
severest of consequences deserve their day in court.
Today, many Americans are concerned about the preservation of basic
liberties protected by the Constitution. Clearly, as we work together
to bring terrorists to justice and enhance our security, we must also
act to preserve and protect our Constitution. Unfortunately, the
Republican bill undermines the civil rights and privacy safeguards that
Senator Feingold and I worked to include in the Lieberman bill. In
particular, I am disappointed that the civil rights officer in the new
Department will not be subject to Senate confirmation, and that there
will not be a designated official in the Inspector General's Office to
investigate civil rights violations.
These changes to the civil rights and privacy safeguards are
particularly disturbing in light of the fact that the bill explicitly
authorizes the new Department to engage in the controversial practice
of data mining. This practice allows the Government to establish a
massive data base containing public and private information, with files
on every American. The bill provides no language ensuring that the
Government acts in compliance with Federal privacy laws and the
Constitution.
On the issue of worker rights, we should remember that union members
risked and lost their lives and saved countless others through their
actions on September 11. We will never forget the fine example that
firefighters, construction workers, and many Government workers set
that day. Union workers have also shown great bravery and sacrificed
mightily in the service of homeland security since September 11. The
postal workers and the hospital worker killed as a result of
bioterrorism were all union members. The brave flight attendant whom
the President recognized in the State of the Union Address for
preventing terrorism was a member of a union.
The dedication and resolve of these union members truly represents
the best of America. Over 43,000 of the Federal workers affected by the
proposed Government reorganization are currently union members. On
September 11, unionized Federal workers played critical roles at both
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as they worked round the clock
to make our homeland secure. These are the workers who risk their lives
each day to protect our Nation's borders.
This bill completely undermines the collective bargaining rights of
the unionized employees transferred to the new Department on whom our
security depends. It gives the President unlimited and unchecked
authority to eliminate those collective bargaining rights. He only
needs to claim that continued union rights would interfere with
homeland security. Federal workers will also have no opportunity to
meaningfully participate in creating the personnel system for the new
Department. Moreover, this bill does not include any Davis-Bacon
protections, despite longstanding Federal policy that workers should be
paid prevailing wages on Federal construction projects. This bill
displays a contempt for the Federal workers who serve with dedication
every day to keep our Nation Safe.
Denying Federal workers fundamental rights will also undermine our
Nation's homeland security at a time when we can ill afford it. Among
the many lessons we have learned since September 11 about lapses in
intelligence efforts connected with those events is that Federal
workers need protection to be able to speak out when they believe our
Nation's security is at risk. Without the protections afforded by a
union, Federal workers will be far less likely to speak out and protect
the public for fear of unjust retaliation.
The Republican bill's fundamental flaws were compounded to by the
last-minute addition of numerous special-interest provisions. These
provisions include the creation of new procedural barriers for the
issuance of emergency security rules deemed essential to protect
travelers by the Transportation Security Agency; an earmark for a new
homeland security research center program at Texas A&M; and an
exemption from the open-meetings requirement of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. The bill gives broad liability protection to
manufacturers of ``anti-terrorism technology'' for claims arising from
acts of terrorism. This provision will reduce the incentive of industry
to produce effective antiterrorism products and limit the ability of
victims to recover if future terrorist acts occur. It also shields from
liability pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccine additives such
as Thimerosal--the subject of pending litigation initiated by parents
of autistic children. This provision has nothing to do with
bioterrorism preparedness or homeland security--and everything to do
with rewarding a large contributor to the Republican Party.
While I agree with my Republican colleagues that we need to
reorganize the Government in responses to the challenges that we now
face, I cannot support the deeply flawed bill now before the Senate. In
too many aspects, it misses the opportunity for real reform and is
likely to undermine, not strengthen, the security of our homeland.

[[Page 23010]]

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
reject the pending Lieberman amendment to the homeland security bill.
This amendment will prevent the President from gaining the authorities
he needs to effectively deal with the very real and growing threat to
our homeland. We should act, and act quickly. to give the President
this authority.
The current amendment would keep the President from addressing a key
issue in providing protection to our homeland, that is, the issue of
liability risk which must be resolved if the private sector is to
actively provide innovative homeland defense technologies and
solutions. Some form of indemnification or limitation of lability has
been a part of U.S., war efforts since World War II, as evidence by
congressional passage of the War Power Act of 1941 2 weeks after Pearl
Harbor, and, since 1958, the use of the National Defense Contracts Act,
or Public Law 85-804, to indemnify contracts issued by the Department
of Defense and other national security agencies.
To address the current terrorist threat, I have worked on the
liability issue with the High Technology Task Force under the
leadership of Senators Allen and Bennett to fashion various solutions
to enable America to access the best private sector products and
technologies to defend our homeland. This is particularly important to
those innovative small businesses who do not have the capital to
shoulder significant liability risk.
The Lieberman amendment would nullify the compromise recently worked
out with the House to limit this liability risk through limited tort
reform. The Lieberman amendment would not provide any alternative to
address the underlying problem. If this amendment passes what would be
the incentives for This amendment is contractors to provide innovative
solutions to our homeland security? For example, contractors will not
sell chemical/biological detectors already available to DOD to other
Federal agencies and State and local authorities because of the
liability risk. Some of our Nation's top defense contractors will not
sell these products because they are afraid to risk the future of their
company on a lawsuit. There is an urgent need for authority to address
this situation.
While my earlier proposal on indemnification, which is another
approach to addressing liability risk, is not included in the current
bill, I believe that the compromise language will go a long way to
addressing the problem. If it appears that additional authorities are
necessary to complement the language in this bill, I pledge to work in
the coming Congress to provide any necessary authority that the Present
needs to ensure that innovative homeland defense technologies and
solutions are available to the Federal State and local governments, as
well as to the private sector.
I would also like to remark on the importance of Section 882 in the
homeland security legislation to create an Office for National Capital
Region Coordination within the new Department. This office will enable
the Washington metropolitan region to prevent and respond to future
terrorist attacks by coordinating the efforts of the Federal Government
with state, local and regional authorities.
The September 11 attacks underscored the unique challenges the
National Capital Region faces. As the seat of our Nation's Government,
the location of many symbolic structures, the venue for many public
events attended by large numbers of people, a key tourism destination
point and home to thousands of Federal workers and lawmakers, it has
been and may continue to be a prime location for potential future
terrorist attacks.
The Washington metropolitan region needs a central Federal point of
coordination for the many entities in the region which must deal with
the Federal Government on issues of security. These authorities include
the Federal Government, Maryland, Virginia and the District of
Columbia, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority, the Military District of Washington, the
judicial branch, the business community and the U.S. Congress. In no
other area of the country must important decisionmaking and
coordination occur between an independent city, two States, seventeen
distinct local and regional authorities, including more than a dozen
local police and Federal protective forces, and numerous Federal
agencies.
A central Federal point of contact compliments the work of the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, COG, which established
a comprehensive all-sector task force to improve communication and
coordination when an incident of regional impact occurs. Currently,
several Federal agencies have been involved in the task force,
including the Office of Homeland Security, FEMA, the Office of
Personnel Management, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Military
District of Washington, the Department of Health and Human Services,
the U.S. Public Health Service, and the Centers for Disease Control.
Without a central Federal point of contact, it has been difficult, if
not impossible, for effective coordination to occur among the region
and these many entities.
For example, the Continuity of Operations Plans for several federal
agencies are instructing employees to use Metrorail and Metrobus
service in the event of an emergency. There is not a central Federal
contact, however, for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority, WMATA, to work with to ensure that the Federal Government's
needs are met and Federal employees are fully protected.
This new office within the Department of Homeland Security will
resolve this problem by providing a much needed central Federal point
of coordination. It will give all entities in the region a one-stop
shop for dealing with the Federal Government on security issues,
including plans and preparedness activities, including COG, WMATA, the
Greater Washington Board of Trade and the Potomac Electric Power
Company, PEPCO, whose statements have appeared in previous versions of
the Congressional Record.
On behalf of the region's 5 million residents, I commend the House
and Senate for recognizing the unique needs of our nation's capital in
preventing and responding to terrorism by supporting creation of the
Office for National Capital Region Coordination.
Passage of legislation to create a new Department of Homeland
Security is crucial to our Nation's ability to respond to and prevent
possible future terrorist attacks.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the idea of coordinating homeland
security functions in a cabinet-level department is a constructive one
and a sound one. In large part it originated in this body with
legislation offered by Senator Lieberman and Senator Specter, who
deserve great credit for their work. President Bush, after initially
opposing this idea, also deserves credit for coming to understand its
value and for reversing his administration's resistance to it.
In the several months that the Congress has spent in writing and
debating this complex bill, the issue has not been whether such a
department should be created, but how it should be created. The
Judiciary Committee, which I chair, has played a constructive role in
examining these issues in our hearings and in providing guidance in the
writing of this bill, and I have supported and helped to advance the
key objectives envisioned for this new department. The fact that we are
on the verge of enacting a charter for the new department is good for
the Nation and our efforts to defend the American people against the
threats of terrorism. Many of the ``hows'' that have found their way
into this bill, and the process by which that has happened, are a
needless blot on this charter. As we act to approve this charter, we
should also feel obligated to remedy many of these ill-advised and ill-
considered provisions in succeeding congressional sessions, through
corrective steps and through close oversight.
As they come to understand some of the imprudent extraneous additions
to

[[Page 23011]]

this bill, many Americans will feel that their trust and goodwill have
been abused, and I share their disappointment about several elements of
this version of the bill that has been placed, without due
consideration, before the Senate. This deal, negotiated behind closed
doors by a few Republican leaders in the House and Senate and the White
House, has been presented to us as a done deal. It includes several
blatant flaws that should at the very least be debated. That is why I
could not vote for cloture to end debate on a bill almost 500-pages
long that was presented to us for the first time only five days ago, on
November 14.
The bill undertakes a significant restructuring of the Federal
Government by relocating in the new Department of Homeland Security
several agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
the U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
Office of Domestic Preparedness, the Transportation Security
Administration, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Coast Guard. In
addition, many functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives would be transferred to the Department of Justice.
Overall I support the President's conclusion that several government
functions should be reorganized to improve our effectiveness in
combating terrorism and preserving our national security, although he
has been responsible for leading all of these agencies and fulfilling
their responsibilities since assuming the Presidency in January 2001,
and the President himself opposed significant reorganization until
recently. Homeland security functions are now dispersed among more than
100 different governmental organizations. Testimony at a June 26, 2002,
Judiciary Committee hearing illuminated the problem of such a confusing
patchwork of agencies with none having homeland security as its sole or
even primary mission. I had thought that the Department of Justice and
FBI were the lead agencies responsible for the country's security in
2001 and 2002, but I understand why the President has come to realize
that the lack of a single agency responsible for homeland security
increases both the potential for mistakes and opportunities for
terrorists to exploit our vulnerabilities.
The bill will bring under one cabinet level officer agencies and
departments that share overlapping missions for protecting our border,
our financial and transportation infrastructure and responding to
crises. Having these agencies under a single cabinet level officer will
help coordinate their efforts and focus their mission with a single
line of authority to get the job done.
This is something that I support.
The bill also encourages information sharing. Our best defense
against terrorism is improved communication and coordination among
local, State, and Federal authorities; and between the U.S. and its
allies. Through these efforts, led by the Federal government and with
the active assistance of many others in other levels of government and
in the private sector, we can enhance our prevention efforts, improve
our response mechanisms, and at the same time ensure that funds
allotted for protection against terrorism are being used most
effectively.
The recent sniper rampage in the Washington, DC area demonstrated the
dire need for such coordination among Federal, State and local law
enforcement agencies. Fortunately, we were able to see the productive
results of effective information sharing and coordination with the
arrests of the two alleged snipers on October 31.
While we all support increased sharing of relevant information with
the new Department of Homeland Security by and among other Federal,
State and local agencies, we must be careful that information sharing
does not turn into information dumping. We want our law enforcement
officials to have the information they need to do their jobs
effectively and efficiently, with communications equipment that allows
different agencies to talk to each other and with the appropriate
training and tools so that multiple agencies are able to coordinate
their responses during emergencies. We know that large amounts of
information were collected, but never read or analyzed, before
September 11, and we know that translators and resources are what we
need to help make the already-gathered information useful.
There is no dispute that information sharing is critical, but we have
to make sure we do not go overboard. Information dumping is harmful to
our national security if the information is not accurate, complete, or
relevant, or if it is dumped in such a bulk fashion that end-users are
unable to determine its reliability. The legislation before us provides
very broad authority for information collection from and sharing with
not just Federal, State and local law enforcement authorities, but also
other government agencies, foreign government agencies and the private
sector. Highly sensitive grand jury information, criminal justice, and
electronic, wire, and oral interception information is authorized to be
shared to not just across this country but also around the world.
Without clear guidance, this sweeping new authority can be a recipe for
mischief. The Congress now will have an imperative to monitor
vigilantly and responsibly the implementation of this new authority to
ensure that the risks to the privacy of the American people and the
potential for abuse do not become a reality.
This bill contains several constructive provisions, including
establishment in the new Department of a Privacy Office and an Office
for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. The bill also includes the
Sessions-Leahy bill, S. 3073, and whistleblower protections that the
administration's original proposal rejected. In addition, as I will
discuss in more detail in these remarks, the bill includes a
prohibition on both the TIPS Program and a national identification
system or card.
I am pleased the bill, in section 880, forbids the creation of
Operation TIPS, a proposed citizen reporting program theoretically
designed to prevent terrorism. The ill-designed program threatened to
turn neighbors into spies and to discredit valuable neighborhood watch
programs. When I questioned the Attorney General about the program
earlier this year, I found his answers to be incomplete and far from
reassuring. As such, I was prepared to offer an amendment in the Senate
to bar Operation TIPS, and I welcome the House's strong opposition to
the program that has made my amendment unnecessary.
Under the plan originally announced by the Justice Department,
Operation TIPS would have enlisted millions of Americans as volunteers
who would report their suspicions about their neighbors and customers
to the government. This plan was criticized by Republicans and
Democrats alike, and Justice Department officials then said they
planned to make the program smaller than originally anticipated. But
the Department never made clear how the program would work, what it
would cost, or how the privacy interests of American citizens would be
protected.
Indeed, the administration offered a constantly shifting set of
explanations to Congress and the public about how Operation TIPS would
work, leaving Congress unable even to evaluate a program that could
easily lead to the invasion of the privacy of our fellow Americans.
Even the Operations TIPS website offered differing explanations of how
the program would work, depending on what day a concerned user accessed
it. For example, before July 25, the web site said that Operation TIPS
``involving 1 million workers in the pilot stage, will be a national
reporting system that allows these workers, whose routines make them
well-positioned to recognize unusual events, to report suspicious
activity.'' By contrast, the July 25 version declared that ``the
program will involve the millions of American workers who, in the daily
course of their work, are in a unique position to see potentially
unusual or suspicious activity in public places.'' It was unclear
whether these changes reflected actual changes in the Justice
Department's plans, or whether they were simply cosmetic differences
designed to blunt opposition to the program raised by concerned
citizens, newspaper editorials, and Members of Congress.

[[Page 23012]]

The administration originally proposed Operation TIPS as ``a
nationwide program giving millions of American truckers, letter
carriers, train conductors, ship captains, utility employees, and
others a formal way to report suspicious terrorist activity.'' In other
words, the administration would recruit people whose jobs gave them
access to private homes to report on any ``suspicious'' activities they
discovered. Nor would this program start small; the Administration
planned a pilot program that alone would have enlisted 1 million
Americans.
We also never received a full understanding of how the Administration
planned to train Operation TIPS volunteers. The average citizen has
little knowledge of law enforcement methods, or of the sort of
information that is useful to those working to prevent terrorism. Such
a setup could have allowed unscrupulous participants to abuse their new
status to place innocent neighbors under undue scrutiny. The number of
people who would have abused this opportunity is undoubtedly small, but
the damage these relatively few could do would be very real and
potentially devastating. In addition, it was crucial that citizen
volunteers receive training about the permissible use of race and
ethnicity in their evaluation of whether a particular individual's
behavior is suspicious, but the Justice Department seemed not to have
considered the issue.
Even participants acting in good faith may have been prone to report
activity that would not be suspicious to a well-trained professional.
One law enforcement agencies are already operating under heavy burdens,
and I questioned the usefulness of bombarding them with countless tips
from millions of volunteers. As the Washington Post put it in a July
editorial: ``It is easy to imagine how such a program might produce
little or no useful information but would flood law enforcement with
endless suspicions that would divert authorities from more promising
investigative avenues.''
The administration's plan also raised important questions about how
and whether information submitted by TIPS volunteers would be retained.
Many of us were deeply concerned about the creation of a TIPS database
that would retain TIPS reports indefinitely. When he testified before
the Judiciary Committee in July, the Attorney General said that he,
too, was concerned about this. He told us that he had been given
assurances that there would be no database, but he could not tell us
who had given him those assurances. Many months later, the
administration's plans on this issue still are unclear. We simply
cannot allow a program that will use databases to store unsubstantiated
allegations against American citizens to move forward.
Opposition to Operation TIPS has been widespread. Representative
Armey, the House Majority Leader, has led the fight against it in the
House. The Postal Service refused to participate. The Boston Globe
called it a scheme Joseph Stalin would have loved. In an editorial, The
New York Times said: ``If TIPS is ever put into effect, the first
people who should be turned in as a threat to our way of life are the
Justice Department officials who thought up this most un-American of
programs.'' The Las Vegas Sun said that ``Operation TIPS has the
potential of becoming a monster.'' The Washington Post said that the
Administration ``owes a fuller explanation before launch day.''
In evaluating TIPS, we need to remember our past experience with
enlisting citizen informants on such a grand scale. During World War I,
the Department of Justice established the American Protective League,
APL, which enrolled 250,000 citizens in at least 600 cities and towns
to report suspicious conduct and investigate fellow citizens. For
example, the League spied on workers and unions in thousands of
industrial plants with defense contracts and organized raids on German-
language newspapers. Members wore badges and carried ID cards that
showed their connection to the Justice Department and were even used to
make arrests. Members of the League used such methods as tar and
feathers, beatings, and forcing those who were suspected of disloyalty
to kiss the flag. The New York Bar Association issued a report after
the war stating of the APL: ``No other one cause contributed so much to
the oppression of innocent men as the systematic and indiscriminate
agitation against what was claimed to be an all-pervasive system of
German espionage.'' No one wants to relive those dark episodes or
anything close to them.
I am pleased that we have achieved bicameral and bipartisan agreement
that Operation TIPS goes too far, infringing on the liberties of the
American people while promising little benefit for law enforcement
efforts. If the administration comes to Congress with a limited,
common-sense proposal that respects liberties, Congress will likely
support it. But Congress cannot simply write a blank check for such a
troubled program.
I am also pleased that the bill, in section 1514, states clearly that
nothing in the legislation shall be construed to authorize the
development of a national identification system or card. Given the
other provisions in the bill that pose a risk to our privacy, this at
least is a line in the sand which I fully support.
The House-passed bill also includes, in section 601, a provision that
Senator Sessions and I introduced last month as S.3073. This provision
will facilitate private charitable giving for servicemen and other
Federal employees who are killed in the line of duty while engaged in
the fight against international terrorism. Under current law,
beneficiaries of members of the U.S. Armed Forces get paid only $6,000
in death benefits from the government, over any insurance that they may
have purchased. Moreover, these individuals may not be eligible for
payments from any existing victims' compensation program or charitable
organization. The Session-Leahy provision will provide much-needed
support for the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice
for their country. It encourages the establishment of charitable trusts
for the benefit of surviving spouses and dependents of military, CIA,
FBI, and other Federal Government employees who are killed in
operations or activities to curb international terrorism. This
provision also authorizes Federal officials to contact qualifying
trusts on behalf of surviving spouses and dependents, pursuant to
regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. This will
help to inform survivors about benefits and to ensure that those who
are eligible have the opportunity to access the money. It will also
spare grieving widows the embarrassment of having to go to a charity
and ask for money. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, this provision
makes clear that Federal officeholders and candidates may help raise
funds for qualifying trusts without running afoul of federal campaign
finance laws.
I am also pleased that, unlike the President's original, the current
bill would ensure that employees of the new Department of Homeland
Security will have all the same whistleblower protections as employees
in the rest of the Federal Government. As we saw during the many FBI
oversight hearings that the Judiciary Committee has held over the last
15 months, strong whistleblower protection is an important homeland
security measure in itself.
Indeed, it was whistleblower revelations that helped lead to the
creation of this Department. The President was vehemently opposed to
creating the new Department of Homeland Security for 9 months after the
September 11 attacks. Then, just minutes before FBI whistleblower
Coleen Rowley came before the Judiciary Committee in a nationally
televised appearance to expose potential shortcomings in the FBI's
handling of the Zacarias Moussaoui case before 9/11, the White House
announced that it had changed its position and that the creation of a
new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security was vital. Of course,
that made it all the more ironic that the President's original proposal
did not assure whistleblower protections in the new Department.
In any event, although the new Department has the same legal
protections as those that apply in the rest of

[[Page 23013]]

the government, the protections will mean nothing without the vigorous
enforcement of these laws by the administration. The leadership of the
new Department and the Office of Special Counsel must work to encourage
a culture that does not punish whistleblowers, and the Congress--
including the Judiciary Committee--must continue to vigorously oversee
the new and other administrative departments to make sure that this
happens.
While I am glad that the many employees of the new Department will
have the same substantive and procedural whistleblower protections as
other government employees, I wish that we could have done more.
Unfortunately, a Federal court with a monopoly on whistleblower cases
that is hostile to such claims has improperly and narrowly interpreted
the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Senators Grassley,
Levin, Akaka and I had proposed a bipartisan amendment to this measure
that would have strengthened whistleblower protections in order to
protect national security. The amendment was similar to S. 995, of
which I am a cosponsor, and our amendment would have corrected some of
the anomalies in the current law. It is unfortunate for the success of
the Department and for the security of the American people that the
amendment was not part of the final measure, and I hope that we can
work to pass S. 995 in the 108th Congress.
The administration was slow to accept the idea for a cabinet-level
department to coordinate homeland security, but experience in the
months after the September 11 attacks helped in the evolution of the
Administration's position. Soon after the President invited Governor
Ridge to serve as the Director of an Office of Homeland Security within
the White House, I invited Governor Ridge in October, 2001, to testify
before the Judiciary Committee about how he would improve the
coordination of law enforcement and intelligence efforts and about his
views on the role of the National Guard in carrying out the homeland
security mission, but he declined our invitation at that time. The
administration would not allow Director Ridge to testify before
Congress.
Without Governor Ridge's input, the Judiciary Committee continued
oversight work that had begun in the summer of 2001, before the
terrorist attacks, on improving the effectiveness of the U.S.
Department of Justice, the lead Federal agency with responsibility for
domestic security. This task has involved oversight hearings with the
Attorney General and with officials of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In the
weeks immediately after the attacks, the committee turned its attention
to hearings on legislative proposals to enhance the legal tools
available to detect, investigate and prosecute those who threaten
Americans both here and abroad. Committee members worked in partnership
with the White House and the House to craft the new anti-terrorism law,
the USA PATRIOT Act, which was enacted on October 26, 2001.
We were prepared to include in the new anti-terrorism law provisions
creating a new cabinet-level officer heading a new Department of
Homeland Security, but we did not do so at the request of the White
House. Indeed, from September, 2001, until June, 2002, the
administration was steadfastly opposed to the creation of a cabinet-
level department to protect homeland security. Governor Ridge said in
an interview with National Journal reporters in May, 2001, that if
Congress put a bill on the President's desk to make his position
statutory, he would, ``probably recommend that he veto it.'' That same
month, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer also objected to a new
department, commenting that, ``You still will have agencies within the
Federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is:
Creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything.''
In one respect, the White House was correct: Simply moving agencies
around among departments does not address the problems inside agencies
like the FBI or the INS--problems like outdated computers, hostility to
employees who report problems, lapses in intelligence sharing, and lack
of translation and analytical capabilities, along with what many have
termed ``cultural problems.'' The Judiciary Committee and its
subcommittees have been focusing on identifying those problems and
finding constructive solutions to fix them. We have worked hard to be
bipartisan and even nonpartisan in this regard. To that end, the
Committee unanimously reported the Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act, S.
1974, to improve the FBI, especially at this time when the country
needs the FBI to be as effective as it can be in the war against
terrorism. Unfortunately, that bill has been blocked on the Senate
floor since it was reported by the Judiciary Committee in April, 2002,
by an anonymous Republican hold.
The White House's about-face on June 6, 2002, announced just minutes
before the Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing with FBI Special
Agent Coleen Rowley, telegraphed the President's new support for the
formation of a new homeland Security Department along the lines that
Senator Lieberman and Senator Specter had long suggested.
Two weeks later, on June 18, 2002, Governor Ridge transmitted a
legislative proposal to create a new homeland security department. It
should be apparent that knitting together a new agency will not by
itself fix existing problems. In writing the charter for this new
department, we must be careful not to generate new management problems
and accountability issues. Yet the administration's early proposal
would have exempted the new department from many legal requirements
that apply to other agencies. The Freedom of Information Act would not
apply, nor would the conflicts of interest and accountability rules for
agency advisors. The new department head would have the power to
suspend the Whistleblower Protection Act and the normal procurement
rules and to intervene in Inspector General investigations. In these
respects, the administration asked us to put this new department above
the law and outside the checks and balances these laws are there to
ensure.
Exempting the new department from laws that ensure accountability to
the Congress and to the American people makes for soggy ground and a
tenuous start--not the sure footing we all want for the success and
endurance of this endeavor.
We all wanted to work with the President to meet his ambitious
timetable for setting up the new department. Senate Democrats worked
diligently to craft responsible legislation that would establish a new
department but would also make sure that it was not outside the laws.
We all knew that one sure way to slow up the legislation would be to
use the new department as the excuse to undermine or repeal laws not
liked by partisan interests, or to stick unrelated political items in
the bill under the heading of ``management flexibility.''
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership and the White House have been
unable to resist that temptation, even as they urge prompt passage of a
bill unveiled for the first time only 5 days ago.
This bill has its problems. As I will discuss in more detail in the
balance of my remarks, this legislation has five significant problems.
It would: (1) undermine Federal and State sunshine laws permitting the
American people to know what their government is doing, (2) threaten
privacy rights, (3) provide sweeping liability protections for
companies at the expense of consumers, (4) weaken rather than fix our
immigration enforcement problems, and (5) under the guise of
``management flexibility,'' it would authorize political cronyism
rather than professionalism within the new department. These problems
are unfortunate and entirely unnecessary to the overall objective of
establishing a new department of homeland security. Republican leaders
and the White House have forced on the Senate a process under which
these problem areas cannot be substantively and meaningfully addressed,
and that is highly regrettable and a needless blot on this charter.
Though I will support passage of this legislation in order to get the
new department up and running, the flaws in

[[Page 23014]]

this legislation will require our attention next year, when I hope to
work with the administration and my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to monitor implementation of the new law and to craft corrective
legislation.
First, the bill guts the FOIA at the expense of our national security
and public health and safety. This bill eliminates a bipartisan Senate
provision that I crafted with Senator Levin and Senator Bennett to
protect the public's right to use the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA,
in order to find out what our Government is doing, while simultaneously
providing security to those in the private sector that records
voluntarily submitted to help protect our critical infrastructures will
not be publicly disclosed. Encouraging cooperation between the private
sector and the government to keep our critical infrastructure systems
safe from terrorist attacks is a goal we all support. But the
appropriate way to meet this goal is a source of great debate--a debate
that has been all but ignored by the Republicans who crafted this
legislation.
The administration itself has flip-flopped on how to best approach
this issue. The administration's original June 18, 2002, legislative
proposal establishing a new department carved out of FOIA exemption, in
section 204, and required non-disclosure of any ``information''
``voluntarily'' provided to the new Department of Homeland Security by
``non-Federal entities or individuals'' pertaining to ``infrastructure
vulnerabilities or other vulnerabilities to terrorism'' in the
possession of, or that passed through, the new department. Critical
terms, such as ``voluntarily provided,'' were undefined.
The Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to query Governor Ridge
about the administration's proposal on June 26, 2002, when the
administration reversed its long-standing position and allowed him to
testify in his capacity as the Director of the Transition Planning
Office.
Governor Ridge's testimony at that hearing is instructive. He seemed
to appreciate the concerns expressed by Members about the President's
June 18th proposal and to be willing to work with us in the legislative
process to find common ground. On the FOIA issue, he described the
Administration's goal to craft ``a limited statutory exemption to the
Freedom of Information Act'' to help ``the Department's most important
missions [which] will be to protect our Nation's critical
infrastructure.'' (June 26, 2002 Hearing, Tr., p. 24). Governor Ridge
explained that to accomplish this, the Department must be able to
``collect information, identifying key assets and components of that
infrastructure, evaluate vulnerabilities, and match threat assessments
against those vulnerabilities.'' (Id., at p. 23).
I do not understand why some have insisted that FOIA and our national
security are inconsistent. The FOIA already exempts from disclosure
matters that are classified; trade secret, commercial and financial
information, which is privileged and confidential; various law
enforcement records and information, including confidential source and
informant information; and FBI records pertaining to foreign
intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism. These
already broad exemptions in the FOIA are designed to protect national
security and public safety and to ensure that the private sector can
provide needed information to the government.
Current law already exempts from disclosure any financial or
commercial information provided voluntarily to the government, if it is
of a kind that the provider would not customarily make available to the
public. Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir.
1992) (en banc). Such information enjoys even stronger nondisclosure
protections than does material that the government requests. Applying
this exception, Federal regulatory agencies are today safeguarding the
confidentiality of all kinds of critical infrastructure information,
like nuclear power plant safety reports (Critical Mass, 975 F.2d at
874), information about product manufacturing processes land internal
security measures (Bowen v. Food & Drug Admin., 925 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir.
1991), design drawings of airplane parts (United Technologies Corp. by
Pratt & Whitney v. F.A.A., 102 F.3d 6878 (2d Cir. 1996)), and technical
data for video conferencing software (Gilmore v. Dept. of Energy, 4 F.
Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Cal. 1998)).
The head of the FBI National Infrastructure Protection Center, NIPC,
testified more than 5 years ago, in September, 1998, that the ``FOIA
excuse'' used by some in the private sector for failing to share
information with the government was, in essence, baseless. He explained
the broad application of FOIA exemptions to protect from disclosure
information received in the context of a criminal investigation or a
``national security intelligence'' investigation, including information
submitted confidentially or even anonymously. [Sen. Judiciary
Subcommittee On Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information,
Hearing on Critical Infrastructure Protection: Toward a New Policy
Directive, S. HRG. 105-763, March 17 and June 10, 1998, at p. 107]
The FBI also used the confidential business record exemption under
(b)(4) ``to protect sensitive corporate information, and has, on
specific occasions, entered into agreements indicating that it would do
so prospectively with reference to information yet to be received.''
NIPC was developing policies ``to grant owners of information certain
opportunities to assist in the protection of the information (e.g.,
`sanitizing the information themselves') and to be involved in
decisions regarding further dissemination by the NIPC.'' Id. In short,
the former administration witness stated: ``Sharing between the private
sector and the government occasionally is hampered by a perception in
the private sector that the government cannot adequately protect
private sector information from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). The NIPC believes that this perception is
flawed in that both investigative and infrastructure protection
information submitted to NIPC are protected from FOIA disclosure under
current law.'' (Id.)
Nevertheless, for more than 5 years, businesses have continued to
seek a broad FOIA exemption that also comes with special legal
protections to limit their civil and criminal liability, and special
immunity from the antitrust laws. The Republicans are largely granting
this business wish-list in the legislation for the new Department of
Homeland Security.
At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Governor Ridge, I
expressed my concern that an overly broad FOIA exemption would
encourage government complicity with private firms to keep secret
information about critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, reduce the
incentive to fix the problems and end up hurting rather than helping
our national security. In the end, more secrecy may undermine rather
than foster security.
Governor Ridge seemed to appreciate these risks, and said he was
``anxious to work with the Chairman and other members of the committee
to assure that the concerns that [had been] raised are properly
addressed.'' Id. at p. 24. He assured us that ``[t]his Administration
is ready to work together with you in partnership to get the job done.
This is our priority, and I believe it is yours as well.'' Id. at p.
25. This turned out to be an empty promise.
Almost before the ink was dry on the administration's earlier June
proposal, on July 10, 2002, the administration proposed to substitute a
much broader FOIA exemption that would (1) exempt from disclosure under
the FOIA critical infrastructure information voluntarily submitted to
the new department that was designated as confidential by the submitter
unless the submitter gave prior written consent, (2) provide limited
civil immunity for use of the information in civil actions against the
company, with the likely result that regulatory actions would be
preceded by litigation by companies that submitted designated
information to the department over whether the regulatory action was
prompted by a confidential disclosure, (3) preempt State sunshine laws
if the designated information is shared with State or local

[[Page 23015]]

government agencies, (4) impose criminal penalties of up to one year
imprisonment on Government employees who disclosed the designated
information, and (5) antitrust immunity for companies that joined
together with agency components designated by the President to promote
critical infrastructure security.
Despite the administration's promulgation of two separate proposals
for a new FOIA exemption in as many weeks, in July, Director Ridge's
Office of Homeland Security released The National Strategy for Homeland
Security, which appeared to call for more study of the issue before
legislating. Specifically, this report called upon the Attorney General
to ``convene a panel to propose any legal changes necessary to enable
sharing of essential homeland security information between the
government and the private sector.'' (p. 33)
The need for more study of the administration's proposed new FOIA
exemption was made amply clear by its possible adverse environmental,
public health and safety affects. Keeping secret problems in a variety
of critical infrastructures would simply remove public pressure to fix
the problems. Moreover, several environmental groups pointed out that,
under the administration's proposal, companies could avoid enforcement
action by ``voluntarily'' providing information about environmental
violations to the EPA, which would then be unable to use the
information to hold the company accountable and also would be required
to keep the information confidential. It would bar the government from
disclosing information about spills or other violations without the
written consent of the company that caused the pollution.
I worked on a bipartisan basis with many interested stakeholders from
environmental, civil liberties, human rights, business and government
watchdog groups to craft a compromise FOIA exemption that did not grant
the business sector's wish-list but did provide additional
nondisclosure protections for certain records without jeopardizing the
public health and safety. At the request of Chairman Lieberman for the
Judiciary Committee's views on the new department, I shared my concerns
about the administration's proposed FOIA exemption and then worked with
Members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, in particular Senator
Levin and Senator Bennett, to craft a more narrow and responsible
exemption that accomplishes the Administration's goal of encouraging
private companies to share records of critical infrastructure
vulnerabilities with the new Department of Homeland Security without
providing incentives to ``game'' the system of enforcement of
environmental and other laws designed to protect our nation's public
health and safety. We refined the FOIA exemption in a manner that
satisfied the Administration's stated goal, while limiting the risks of
abuse by private companies or government agencies.
This compromise solution was supported by the administration and
other members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs and was
unanimously adopted by that Committee at the markup of the Homeland
Security Department bill on July 24, 2002. The provision would exempt
from the FOIA certain records pertaining to critical infrastructure
threats and vulnerabilities that are furnished voluntarily to the new
Department and designated by the provider as confidential and not
customarily made available to the public. Notably, the compromise FOIA
exemption made clear that the exemption only covered ``records'' from
the private sector, not all `'information'' provided by the private
sector and thereby avoided the adverse result of government agency-
created and generated documents and databases being put off-limits to
the FOIA simply if private sector ``information'' is incorporated.
Moreover, the compromise FOIA exemption clearly defined what records
may be considered ``furnished voluntarily,'' which did not cover
records used ``to satisfy any legal requirement or obligation to obtain
any grant, permit, benefit (such as agency forbearances, loans, or
reduction or modifications of agency penalties or rulings), or other
approval from the Government.'' The FOIA compromise exemption further
ensured that portions of records that are not covered by the exemption
would be released pursuant to FOIA requests. This compromise did not
provide any civil liability or antitrust immunity that could be used to
immunize bad actors or frustrate regulatory enforcement enforcement
action, nor did the compromise preempt state or local sunshine laws.
Unfortunately, the new Republican version of this legislation that we
are voting on today jettisoned the bipartisan compromise on the FOIA
exemption, worked out in the Senate with the administration's support,
and replaced it with a big-business wish-list gussied up in security
garb. The Republican FOIA exemption would make off-limits to the FOIA
much broader categories of ``information'' and grant businesses the
legal immunities and liability protections they have sought so
vigorously for over 5 years. This bill goes far beyond what is needed
to achieve the laudable goal of encouraging private sector companies to
help protect our critical infrastructure. Instead, it will tie the
hands of the federal regulators and law enforcement agencies working to
protect the public from imminent threats. It will give a windfall to
companies who fail to follow Federal health and safety standards. Most
disappointingly, it will undermine the goals of openness in government
that the FOIA was designed to achieve. In short, the FOIA exemption in
this bill represents the most severe weakening of the Freedom of
Information Act in its 36-year history.
In the end, the broad secrecy protections provided to critical
infrastructure information in this bill will promote more secrecy which
may undermine rather than foster national security. In addition, the
immunity provisions in the bill will frustrate enforcement of the laws
that protect the public's health and safety.
Let me explain. The Republican FOIA exemption would allow companies
to stamp or designate certain information as ``Critical Infrastructure
Information'' or ``CII'' and then submit this information about their
operations to the government either in writing or orally, and thereby
obtain a blanket shield from FOIA's disclosure mandates as well as
other protections. A Federal agency may not disclose or use
voluntarily-submitted and CII-marked information, except for a limited
``informational purpose,'' such as ``analysis, warning,
interdependency, study, recovery, reconstitution,'' without the
company's consent. Even when using the information to warn the public
about potential threats to critical infrastructure, the bill requires
agencies to take steps to protect from disclosure the source of the CII
information and other ``business sensitive'' information.
The bill contains an unprecedented provision that threatens jail time
and job loss to any Government employee who happens to disclose any
critical infrastructure information that a company has submitted and
wants to keep secret. These penalties for using the CII information in
an unauthorized fashion or for failing to take steps to protect
disclosure of the source of the information are severe and will chill
any release of CII information not just when a FOIA request comes in,
but in all situations, no matter the circumstance. Criminalizing
disclosures--not of classified information or national security related
information, but of information that a company decides it does not want
public--is an effective way to quash discussion and debate over many
aspects of the Government's work. In fact, under this bill, CII
information would be granted more comprehensive protection under
Federal criminal laws than classified information.
This provision has potentially disastrous consequences. If an agency
is given information from an ISP about cyberattack vulnerabilities,
agency employees will have to think twice about sharing that
information with other ISPs for fear that, without the consent of the
ISP to use the information, even a warning might cost their jobs or
risk criminal prosecution.

[[Page 23016]]

This provision means that if a Federal regulatory agency needs to
issue a regulation to protect the public from threats of harm, it
cannot rely on any voluntarily submitted information--bringing the
normal regulatory process to a grinding halt. Public health and law
enforcement officials need the flexibility to decide how and when to
warn or prepare the public in the safest, most effective manner. They
should not have to get ``sign off'' from a Fortune 500 company to do
so.
While this legislation risks making it harder for the Government to
protect American families, it will make it much easier for companies to
escape responsibility when they violate the law by giving them
unprecedented immunity from civil and regulatory enforcement actions.
Once a business declares that information about its practices relates
to critical infrastructure and is ``voluntarily'' provided, it can then
prevent the Federal Government from disclosing it not just to the
public, but also to a court in a civil action. This means that an
agency receiving CII-marked submissions showing invasions of employee
or customer privacy, environmental pollution, or government contracting
fraud will be unable to use that information in a civil action to hold
that company accountable. Even if the regulatory agency obtains the
information necessary to bring an enforcement action from an
alternative source, the company will be able to tie the government up
in protracted litigation over the source of the information.
For example, if a company submits information that its factory is
leaching arsenic in ground water, that information may not be turned
over to local health authorities to use in any enforcement proceeding
nor turned over to neighbors who were harmed by drinking the water for
use in a civil tort action. Moreover, even if EPA tries to bring an
action to stop the company's wrongdoing, the ``use immunity'' provided
in the Republican bill will tie the agency up in litigation making it
prove where it got the information and whether it is tainted as ``fruit
of the poisonous tree''--i.e., obtained from the company under the
``critical infrastructure program.''
Similarly, if the new Department of Homeland Security receives
information from a bio-medical laboratory about its security
vulnerabilities, and anthrax is released from the lab three weeks
later, the Department will not be able to warn the public promptly
about how to protect itself without consulting with and trying to get
consent of the laboratory in order to avoid the risk of job loss or
criminal prosecution for a non-consensual disclosure. Moreover, if the
laboratory is violating any State, local or Federal regulation in its
handling of the anthrax, the Department will not be able to turn over
to another Federal agency, such as the EPA or the Department of Health
and Human Services, or to any State or local health officials,
information or documents relating to the laboratory's mishandling of
the anthrax for use in any enforcement proceedings against the
laboratory, or in any wrongful death action, should the laboratory's
mishandling of the anthrax result in the death of any person. The bill
specifically states that such CII-marked information ``shall not,
without the written consent of the person or entity submitting such
information, be used directly by such agency, any other Federal, State,
or local authority, or any third party, in any civil action arising
under Federal or State law if such information is submitted in good
faith.'' [H.R. 5710, section 214(a)(1)(C)]
Most businesses are good citizens and take seriously their
obligations to the government and the public, but this ``disclose-and-
immunize'' provision is subject to abuse by those businesses that want
to exploit legal techniques to avoid regulatory guidelines. This bill
lays out the perfect blueprint to avoid legal liability: funnel
damaging information into this voluntary disclosure system and pre-empt
the Government or others harmed by the company's actions from being
able to use it against the company. This is not the kind of two-way
public-private cooperation that our country needs.
The scope of the information that would be covered by the new
Republican FOIA exemption is overly broad and would undermine the
openness in government that FOIA was intended to guarantee. Under this
legislation, information about virtually every important sector of our
economy that today the public has a right to see can shut off from
public view simply by labeling it ``critical infrastructure
information.'' Today, for example, under current FOIA standards, courts
have required Federal agencies to disclose (1) pricing information in
contract bids so citizens can make sure the government is wisely
spending their taxpayer dollars; (2) compliance reports that allow
constituents to insist that government contractors comply with federal
equal opportunity mandates; and (3) banks' financial data so the public
can ensure that federal agencies properly approve bank mergers. Without
access to this kind of information, it will be harder for the public to
hold its Government accountable. Under this bill, all of this
information may be marked CII information and kept out of public view.
The Republican FOIA exemption goes so far in exempting such large
amount of material from FOIA's disclosure requirements that it
undermines Government openness without making any real gains in safety
for families in Vermont and across America. We do not keep America
safer by chilling Federal officials from warning the public about
threats to their health and safety. We do not ensure our nation's
security by refusing to tell the American people whether or not their
federal agencies are doing their jobs or their Government is spending
their hard earned tax dollars wisely. We do not encourage real two-way
cooperation by giving companies protection from civil liability when
they break the law. We do not respect the spirit of our democracy when
we cloak in secrecy the workings of our Government from the public we
are elected to serve.
Notably, another part of the bill, section 892, would further
undermine Government sunshine laws by authorizing the President to
prescribe and implement procedures requiring Federal agencies to
``identify and safeguard homeland security information that is
sensitive but unclassified'' The precise type of information that would
be covered by this new category of ``sensitive'' information that is
not classified but subject to carte blanche executive authority to keep
secret is not defined and no guidance is provided in the Republican
bill as to how far the President may go.
As the Rutland Herald so aptly put it in an editorial on November 16,
the Republicans ``are moving to cloak the Federal Government in an
unprecedented regime of secrecy.'' The argument over the scope of the
FOIA and unilateral executive power to shield matters from public
scrutiny goes to the heart of our fundamental right to be an educated
electorate aware of what our government is doing. The Rutland Herald
got it right in explaining. ``The battle was not over the right of the
government to hold sensitive, classified information secret. The
government has that right. Rather, the battle was over whether the
government would be required to release anything it sought to
withhold.''
Second, extraneous provisions added by the House also pose
significant privacy risks. As I noted before, increased information
sharing is necessary but also poses privacy risks if the government is
not properly focused on the information necessary to collect, the
people appropriate to target for surveillance and the necessary
controls to ensure that dissemination is confined to those with a need
to know.
Recent press reports have warned that this bill will turn it into a
``supersnoop's dream'' because it will allow creation of a huge
centralized grand database containing a dossier or profile of private
transactions and communications that each American has had within the
private sector and with the government. Indeed, in section 201, the
bill authorizes a new Directorate for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection to collect and integrate information from
government and private sector entities and to ``establish and utilize .
. . data-mining and

[[Page 23017]]

other advanced analytical tools.'' In addition, in section 307, the
bill authorizes $500,000,000 next year to be spent by a new Homeland
Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, HSARPA, to make grants to
develop new surveillance and other technologies for use in detecting,
preventing and responding to homeland security threats.
We do not want the Federal Government to become the proverbial ``big
brother'' while every local police and sheriff's office or foreign law
enforcement agency to become ``little brothers.'' How much information
should be collected, on what activities and on whom, and then shared
under what circumstances, are all important questions that should be
answered with clear guidelines understandable by all Americans and
monitored by Congress, in its oversight role, and by court review to
curb abuses.
Other provisions added in haste to the Republican House-passed bill
raise serious concerns about privacy protections for the sensitive
electronic communications of law-abiding Americans. In particular, the
so-called ``emergency disclosure'' amendment in section 225(d) would
greatly expand the ability of Internet service providers to reveal
private communications to Government agencies without any judicial
authority or any evidence of wrongdoing.
As Americans move their lives online, the privacy of their sensitive
e-mails, instant messages, and web traffic is of growing concern.
Current law protects the privacy of electronic communications by
prohibiting service providers from revealing the contents of those
communications to anyone without proper lawful orders. Emergency
disclosure provisions exist in the current law based on the reasonable
premise that ISPs who encounter an imminent threat of death or serious
injury should be able to reveal communications to law enforcement
agencies on an emergency basis, even without judicial oversight. We
just recently expanded that emergency exception a year ago in the USA
PATRIOT Act to provide even more flexibility for service providers.
In practice, however, the emergency disclosure authority is being
used in a different way. Reports in the press and from the field
indicate that ISP's university and libraries are approached by
Government agents and asked to disclose communications ``voluntarily''
for ongoing investigations. Providers are then faced with a terrible
choice--turn over the private communications of their customers without
any court order, or say ``no'' to a government request. Of course, many
comply with the requests. Small providers have few legal resources to
challenge such requests. The agents who are making the requests may be
the same agents to whom the providers will have to turn for help in the
event of hacking attacks on other problems. So without proper
restrictions, such ``voluntary disclosure'' provisions risk becoming a
major exception to the law. Section 225(d) takes this exception even
further and turns it into a loophole big enough to drive a truck
through. It would allow literally thousands of local, State and Federal
employees to seek private e-mails, instant messages, and other
sensitive communications without any judicial orders ad even a
subpoena. ISPs could turn over those communications based on vague
concerns of future injury to someone, even if those concerns are
totally unreasonable.
Section 225(d) makes three important changes to the already very
generous authorities for these extraordinary disclosures, which
Congress gave to law enforcement in the USA PATRIOT Act just one year
ago. First, it would remove the requirement that there be ``imminent''
danger of injury or death. Instead it would allow these extraordinary
disclosures when there is some danger, which might be far in the future
and far more hypothetical. As the Attorney General and the President
have warned us consistently over the last year, the entire country
faces some risk of future attack. Under this new language, there will
always be a rationale for using the so-called ``emergency'' disclosure
provision.
Second, section 225(d) would remove even the low hurdle that there be
a ``reasonable belief'' in danger on the part of the ISP. Instead, this
new provision would allow these sensitive disclosures if there is any
good faith belief--even if totally unreasonable--of danger. Vague,
incoherent, or even obviously fictitious threats of future danger could
all form the basis for disclosing our most private electronic
communications under this new provision of law.
Finally, section 225(d) would allow disclosure of sensitive
communications to any local, State or Federal Government entity, not
just law enforcement agents. That could include literally hundreds of
thousands of Government employees. The potential for abuse is enormous.
More importantly, in cases of real threats of death or serious injury,
it is law enforcement agencies--trained to deal with such situations
and cognizant of legal strictures--who should be the first contact
point for concerned citizens.
As a result of Section 225(d), many more disclosures of sensitive
communications would be permitted without any court oversight.
Moreover, these disclosures would happen without any notice to people--
even after the fact--that their communications have been revealed. It
would allow these disclosures to be requested by potentially thousands
of government employees, ranging from cotton inspectors to dogcatchers
to housing department administrators.
The public's most sensitive e-mails, web transactions, and instant
messages sent to love ones, business associates, doctors and lawyers,
and friends deserve the highest level of privacy we can provide. The
provisions of section 225(d) make a mockery of our privacy laws, and
the carefully crafted exceptions we have created in them, by allowing
disclosure of our most private communications to thousands of
Government officials based on the flimsiest of excuses. These
provisions were never approved by any committee in the Senate, are not
in the interests of the American people, and should not now be finding
there way into the law of the land.
Third, the bill provides liability protections for companies at the
expense of consumers. I am disappointed that the measure also contains
sweeping liability protection for corporate makers of vaccines and any
other products deemed to be ``anti-terrorism technology'' by the
Secretary of Homeland Security. This unprecedented executive authority
to unilaterally immunize corporations from accountability for their
products is irresponsible and endangers the consumers and our military
service men and women.
These provisions, for example, would apply to negligence, gross
negligence and even willful misconduct in producing vaccines, gas
masks, airport screening machines and any other ``anti-terrorism
technology'' used by the general public and our service men and women.
In addition, the bill would completely eliminate punitive damages
against the maker of such a defective product. Without the threat of
punitive damages, callous corporations can decide it is more cost-
effective to continue cutting corners despite the risk to American
lives. This would let private parties avoid accountability in cases of
wanton, willful, reckless, or malicious conduct.
There is no need to enact these special legal protections and take
away the rights of victims of defective products. At a time when the
American people are looking for Congress to take measured actions to
protect them from acts of terror, these ``tort reform'' proposals are
unprecedented, inappropriate, and irresponsible. At the very moment
that the President is calling on all Americans to be especially
vigilant, this legislation lets special interests avoid their
responsibility of vigilance under existing law.
I am disappointed that some may be taking advantage of the situation
to push ``tort reform'' proposals that have been rejected by Congress
for years. This smacks of political opportunism. I strongly oppose
rewriting the tort law of each of the 50 States for the benefit of
private industry and at the expense of consumers and our service men
and women, and their families.

[[Page 23018]]

Further, I am saddened that this so-called compromise provides
retroactive liability protection for some private airport security
firms involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks. Last year,
Congress explicitly excluded private airport security firms from the
liability limits for airlines in the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act because we did not know if any airport screening firm may
have contributed to the September 11th attacks through willful
misconduct or negligence. Unfortunately, we still do now know all the
facts regarding the 9/11 attacks because the Bush Administration has
opposed Congressional oversight and an independent commission to
investigate the attacks.
This special-interest provision in the so-called compromise is a
travesty to the families of the victims of September 11th. Indeed, I
have already been contacted by a family member of a 9/11 victim
outraged by this retroactive liability protection. I share their
outrage.
I also find it particularly galling, that just because ``the White
House wants it,'' this bill includes a provision that balantly puts the
interests of a few corporate pharmaceutical manufacturers before the
interests of thousands of consumers, parents, and children. Sections
714 through 716 give a ``get out of court free card'' to Eli Lilly and
other manufacturers of thimerasol. Let's be clear, this provision has
nothing to do with homeland security. Smallpox and anthrax vaccines do
not use thimerosal. Thimerasol is a mercury-based vaccine preservative
that was used until recently in children's vaccines for everything from
hepatitis B to diphtheria. By making changes to the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program sought by the pharmaceutical industry, this
provision cuts the legs out from under thousands of parents currently
in court seeking compensation for the alleged harm caused by
thimerosal.
For years, I have been working to remove sources of mercury from our
environment because of the neurological effect of mercury on infants
and children. Although Eli Libby's own documents show that they knew of
the potential risks from mercury-based preservatives in the 1940s, its
use was not stopped until 1999 when pediatricians and the Public Health
Service acted. Instead of looking into why pharmaceutical companies and
the Federal Government failed to act for so long or improving the
current compensation system, the Homeland Security bill takes away the
legal options of parents and gives pharmaceutical companies new
protections from large penalties.
Fourth, the bill weakens immigration enforcement just when we need it
the most. The Republican House-passed bill fails to take important
steps to help fix and restructure our immigration agencies. This
Republican package abandons the close coordination between immigration
enforcement and immigration services that was included in the Lieberman
amendment to the Homeland Security bill. Instead, immigration
enforcement falls under the Undersecretary for Border and
Transportation Policy, while immigration services are relegated to a
bureau that lacks its own undersecretary. Apparently, the
Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security is expected to be
an expert in immigration enforcement, FEMA, agriculture, and other
issues. Meanwhile, there is no one figure within the Homeland Security
Department who is responsible for immigration policy. Testimony before
the Judiciary Committee showed clearly the numerous links between the
enforcement of our immigration laws and provision of immigration
benefits--it is unfortunate that this bill fails to acknowledge those
links.
Unfortunately, this legislation fails to codify the Executive Office
of Immigration Review appropriately. Instead of defining the functions,
shape, and jurisdiction of the EOIR as the Lieberman amendment did, it
simply says there shall be an EOIR and the Attorney General shall have
complete discretion over it. It is critical that both immigrants and
the Government have a meaningful opportunity to appeal adverse
decisions, and we should have done more through this legislation to
guarantee it.
In addition, I am disappointed that provisions designed to guarantee
decent treatment for unaccompanied minors were not included in the
Republican amendment. Through Senator Feinstein's leadership, the
Lieberman substitute assured that unaccompanied alien minors received
counsel. The Judiciary Committee heard earlier this year from children
who had been mistreated by the immigration system, and we had a real
opportunity to solve that problem through this bill. We have failed to
take advantage of that opportunity.
I will continue to work to ensure that the reorganization of our
immigration service proceeds in as orderly and appropriate a fashion as
possible. I have spoken often about the valuable service provided by
employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Vermont, and
the need to retain their expertise in any reshuffling of the agency's
functions. We will not make our nation safer by alienating,
underutilizing, or discarding knowledgeable employees, and I will do
what I can to prevent that outcome.
Finally, the bill undermines the professionalism in favor of the
``management flexibility'' to engage in political cronyism at the new
Department. Although it has already received substantial comment, I
want to add my voice to those who have criticized the administration
for its heavy-handed and wrong-headed approach to the rights of
employees who will come under the new Department. At the same time we
are seeking to motivate the Government workers who will be moved to the
new Department with an enhanced security mission, the administration is
insisting on provisions that threaten the job security for these
hardworking Government employees.
The administration should not use this transition as an excuse to cut
the wages and current workplace security and rights of the brave
employees who have been defending the Nation. That is not the way to
encourage retention or recruitment of the vital human resources on
which we will need to rely.
I represent some of those employees and have firsthand knowledge of
their dedication to our nation and their jobs. Contrary to the
administration's pre-election rhetoric, where disputes over employment
conditions have had potential effects on the public safety, they have
been resolved quickly. I am disappointed that the bill we consider
today contains so few protections for these vital employees, and that
the White House chose to use these valuable public servants in an
election year tactic.
So our vote today will help answer the question of whether a new
Department of Homeland Security will be created--a question that has
never really been at issue or in doubt. Perhaps there are members of
the Senate who oppose creation of this Department, though I am not
aware of such opposition. But many troubling questions remain about the
``hows'' as we move forward to charter this massive new agency. A
process has been imposed on the Senate that prevents addressing them
adequately in the remaining hours of this session. But answering and
resolving these questions, in the interest of the security and privacy
and well-being of the American people, will be an imperative that the
administration and the next Congress must not shirk.

OFFICE OF DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, one of the Senate's highest priorities,
and one of my own personal priorities, has been ensuring that State and
local first responders are prepared to handle a terrorist attack,
especially one involving weapons of mass destruction. One of the
principal ways I have tried to do this is through the Office of
Domestic preparedness at the Department of Justice. Through the
Appropriations subcommittee that Senator Hollings and I oversee, the
Senate built ODP from a $5 million program into an $800 million program
in just five years. Since 1998, ODP has been the focal point within the
Federal Government for State and local jurisdictions to receive
equipment grants, training, technical assistance, and exercise support
for combating terrorism.

[[Page 23019]]

The original legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security
would have combined the preparedness functions of ODP and the response
functions of FEMA into a single Directorate, the Directorate of
emergency Preparedness and Response. The problem with this framework is
that the much larger FEMA would have dominated the new Directorate, and
its priorities and philosophies would have obscured those of ODP. ODP
possesses unique experience and expertise when it comes to preparing
the State and local jurisdictions to handle terrorism. FEMA has very
little experience with this side of the equation: its role has always
been to respond after an event occurs.
FEMA employs something called the ``all-hazards'' approach to
disaster response. Under the all-hazards approach, all disasters are
handled the same way. But we cannot treat terrorism the same way we
treat other disasters. The attack on the World Trade Center provides an
excellent case in point. On September 11, New York City first
responders treated the first explosion as a high-rise fire and set up
their command center in Tower II. Because the responders employed a
generic, all-hazards response, they did not anticipate the second
explosion in Tower II. Our approach to terrorism must be different from
our approach to natural disasters--it must be innovative and adaptive.
It must anticipate a predatory adversary that constantly devises new
ways to get around each new set of measures we take.
There are four key components, or ``pillars'', involved in combating
terrorism: prevention, preparedness, crisis management, and consequence
management. Justice has traditionally been responsible for
preparedness, and FEMA has traditionally been responsible for
consequence management, or disaster response. The Homeland Security
legislation, as originally written, would have lumped these components
together. However, the people who are responsible for responding in the
immediate aftermath of an attack cannot also be responsible for
carrying out sustained training, equipment, and exercise programs.
These are programmatic initiatives that must be executed day in and day
out. FEMA is a response agency. It will not be able to give terrorism
preparedness the time and attention it deserves because it must
constantly respond to disasters around the country.
The amendment I offered to the Homeland Security bill acknowledged
the importance of consolidating the preparedness and response functions
in the new Department of Homeland Security. However, the amendment set
them apart in order to preserve both FEMA's and ODP's areas of
expertise. The amendment created the Office for Domestic Preparedness
under the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security and
transferred terrorism preparedness functions to this new office from
both the Justice Department and FEMA. Specifically, the new Office for
Domestic Preparedness includes Justice's current Office for Domestic
Preparedness and parts of FEMA's Office of National Preparedness. ODP
will be responsible for all of our preparedness activities and FEMA
will continue to have the lead for consequence management. Under this
framework, the preparedness and response functions will be preserved,
yet will be closely coordinated by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
This is the best way to prevent FEMA's and ODP's critical functions
from being blurred within the Department of Homeland Security.
The responsibilities of the new Office for Domestic Preparedness will
be similar to what they are now under the Department of Justice:
coordinating terrorism preparedness at the Federal level; assisting
State and local jurisdictions with their preparedness efforts;
conducting strategic and operational planning; coordinating
communications at all levels of government; managing the preparedness
grants to State and local jurisdictions; and assisting them in the
implementation of the President's National Strategy. This is, in fact,
one of the key reasons why I have pushed for the creation of the Office
for Domestic Preparedness within the new Department. It ensures the
continuity of preparedness assistance for State and local
jurisdictions. The office they have looked to for the last five years
for equipment, training, and exercise assistance will continue to
exist, but under the leadership of the Undersecretary for Border and
Transportation Security.
If not for this amendment, ODP would most likely have been subsumed
by FEMA, and all of the work ODP has accomplished would have been lost.
ODP's successful methodologies for providing assistance to State and
local jurisdictions would have been scrapped in favor of FEMA's
undeveloped and untested approach. An example of one such successful
methodology is the system of accountability ODP established by
requiring States to have a terrorism preparedness strategy before they
could receive Federal funding. The State strategies have allowed ODP to
make informed and strategic decisions about how to allocate funding for
equipment, training, and exercises. FEMA has no such system in place.
By keeping ODP's and FEMA's activities distinct, we preserve the
progress each has made in their respective areas of expertise.
The amendment permits FEMA to concentrate on a mission that it is
uniquely equipped to perform: disaster response. This is extremely
important, especially in light of the fact that there is an average of
34 major disaster declarations per year in the U.S. I know that my
coastal State colleagues were very concerned that FEMA's natural
disaster responsibilities, in particular its mission of responding to
hurricanes, would be eclipsed by its new homeland security
responsibilities. I am certain that this concern is shared by Senators
from States that face the threat of earthquakes, floods, and wildfires.
This provision makes it clear that FEMA is out of the preparedness
business.
This was one of the primary reasons why I felt such an amendment was
necessary. It will help prevent competition between terrorism response
and natural disaster response within the new Department. Under the
original legislation, the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and
Response would have been pressured on the one hand to focus its
resources and attention on natural disasters, and on the other hand on
combating terrorism. This competition would have weakened our level of
preparedness for either type of disaster. By setting them apart within
the new Department, we have built in a natural balance between these
two critical areas.
I was disappointed to learn that some at FEMA are already busy
planning ways to avoid having to execute the directive. I am told that
FEMA intends, during the next few weeks, to re-designate all of the
preparedness staff at the Office of National Preparedness as ``all-
hazards staff''. By renaming them all-hazards, FEMA could retain its
preparedness functions. These actions come despite the fact that at
least 38 U.S. Senators believe those functions should reside at the
Office for Domestic Preparedness and not at FEMA. These actions come
despite our having negotiated in good faith with the White House. These
actions come despite agreement among the Office of Homeland Security,
the House of Representatives, and the Senate.
On a different note, it has recently come to my attention that the
Office of Management and Budget is considering requiring State and
local jurisdictions to match the Federal preparedness grants. OMB
should not impose this requirement on State and local jurisdictions.
They do not have the fiscal resources to support such a requirement.
The equipment, training, and exercise initiatives that I have here
discussed are part of a comprehensive National preparedness program.
State and local jurisdictions will not be able to achieve the standards
or readiness that are required, especially at this time of increased
threat to our Nation, if they are forced to comply with matching
requirements. In point of fact, State and local governments already
bear most of the burden in protecting our Nation from terrorism. They--
the first responders, who willingly and courageously put themselves in
harm's

[[Page 23020]]

way--protect the American people. Just after September 11, the
President duly acknowledged how critical first responders are to our
National security. We cannot shortchange them now. We are at war and
the Federal Government must fully support our State and local first
responders.
ODP has provided training to approximately 114,000 first responders
and exercise support to more than 100,000 first responders nationwide.
It has given out nearly $600 million in equipment grants to State and
local jurisdictions since its creation in 1998. It also executed the
largest terrorism exercise in U.S. history, TOPOFF. I have heard
reports that those who participated in the multi-venue TOPOFF were the
only ones truly prepared to handle the challenges presented on
September 11. The amendment acknowledges that we do have an effective
system in place and it preserves what has been accomplished.
The amendment I submitted acknowledges that the Office of Domestic
Preparedness and FEMA both perform critical roles and must work closely
together. I commend the administration for recognizing the need and
working with the Senate to get the job done. I would also like to thank
Senator Lott for his excellent work on this bill, as well as his
counsel Rohit Kumar. Finally, I would like to recognize Dean Kueter,
Jr., of the National Sheriffs Association for his tireless work in
generating grassroots support on this important issue.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, there is nothing more important than
America's national security. I will vote for the Homeland Security Act
because it organizes our Government to better detect, prevent and
respond to acts of terrorism.
This bill organizes twenty-two very different agencies into a one-
stop-shop for homeland security a single, mission-driven agency whose
primary goal is protection of the homeland. Why is this important?
Because it will improve our ability to detect terrorism before it
occurs, by strengthening immigration systems, better coordination of
intelligence. It will improve our ability to prevent terrorism, through
stronger port security, border security, transportation security. It
will improve our ability to respond to acts of terrorism through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Yet I am disappointed that this legislation has been politicized in
addressing an issue as important as national security. Congress and the
President shouldn't be Democrats or Republicans. We should be the Red,
White, and Blue Party. In recent weeks, I've seen some cynical actions.
I've seen Federal employees treated as if they're the enemy. I've seen
a Vietnam War hero's patriotism questioned. I've seen this
administration claim that the creation of a Department of Homeland
Security was its idea and its priority, though we all know they long
opposed it--just as they opposed the creation of a national commission
to look at what went wrong on September 11. I've seen a package of
special interest goodies forced into a bill for no other reason than
pay-back politics.
Let's consider some of these issues. First, on Federal employees, I
resent that I am being forced to chose between Homeland Security and
protecting the rights of those who guard the homeland--our Federal
employees who have the constitutional right to organize, to have
freedom of assembly, to do collective bargaining. In standing up for
America, why aren't we also standing up for those who are protecting
America? Our brave and gallant Federal employees who are out there
every day on the front line wanting to do their job, whether they are
customs inspectors, border agents or FEMA's emergency workers.
Federal workers stand sentry every day to protect America. When our
firefighters ran up those burning buildings at the World Trade Center,
nobody asked if they were union. They didn't look at the clock or check
their work rules. When our emergency workers from Maryland dashed over
to be part of the mutual aid at the Pentagon, they were mission driven.
They were there because they were union members. They belong to a
union. They belong to a union called the United States of America.
That's the union that they belong to, and that's the union they put
first.
America is in the midst of a war against terrorism. We have a long
way to go. Yet instead of focusing on the war effort, we're waging war
on Federal employees. The administration must use this new flexibility
responsibly and judiciously. It is not a blank check. If anyone takes
undue advantage of this new flexibility, I will lead the charge to
change it. But it is sad and disgraceful that the rights of our Federal
employees were held hostage in an effort to make our Nation secure
against terrorism.
I'm also disappointed with the special interest provisions that were
added to this bill. The late Senator Wellstone added a provision on
companies that move overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes. His amendment
would have prevented these corporations from being able to contract
with the new Department of Homeland Security. Why does the House of
Representatives insist on helping those companies who make their money
in the U.S. but then turn their backs on the U.S.? What about their
responsibility to the U.S.?
This legislation also provides immunity from liability for
manufacturers of products or technologies that harm Americans. Why did
the House think it's important to protect companies that are grossly
negligent, and how does this improve the security of Americans?
Another special interest provision would provide liability protection
for pharmaceutical companies that are being sued for using vaccine
preservatives that some people believe have caused autism. This should
be decided by scientists and the courts: not by Members of the House of
Representatives trying to sneak unrelated provisions into a bill on
homeland security. The list of special interest pay backs goes on and
on.
I strongly oppose the provisions of this bill that limit the rights
of Federal employees, as well as the administration's plan to privatize
much of the Federal workforce. I will continue to fight these
proposals. I'm also disappointed that the House Republicans have used
the need for homeland security to sneak so many special interest give
backs into the bill.
Yet despite the serious problems with this bill, I will vote for it
because it will enable our government to better detect, prevent and
respond to terrorism. Nothing the Senate does is more important than
providing security for America. That is why I will vote to create the
Department of Homeland Security--for America's national security.
I'm tired of the cynical manipulation of the legislative process. I'm
tired of the politicization of something as important as Homeland
Security. I hope this is the last time that an issue of national
security is politicized. Let's put these politics and hard feelings
behind us. Let us get our act together, and let's show America we can
govern. Let's show the bullies of the world we're willing to take them
on.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I strongly support the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security. I am a cosponsor of the Gramm-Miller
substitute and the President's proposal, and have consistently voted to
overcome Democratic roadblocks to create a Homeland Security
Department. I want this legislation to be enacted, but the House-passed
bill includes a number of egregious special interest riders that should
not be part of this landmark measure.
If the legislative process had allowed us an opportunity to vote on
many of the provisions Senators Daschle and Lieberman are now seeking
to strike, I believe most of them would have been rejected.
Unfortunately, we now find ourselves in a ``take it or leave it''
situation. This is an artificial and unnecessary construct. The
Homeland Security legislation effectuates the most dramatic
restructuring of the Federal Government in half a century. With the
goal of safeguarding our citizens, it creates a 170,000-person cabinet-
level department that encompasses almost every governmental function
that contributes to protecting Americans

[[Page 23021]]

against terrorism in the United States. That the Senate is being told
that the House will effectively kill the entire bill if this body dare
remove politically motivated riders signals to me that the other
chamber's priorities have become grossly confused.
I do not approach this vote lightly, but I must vote my conscience,
just as each of my colleagues must do. I sincerely hope that upon
resolution of the vote, we can move forward expeditiously with the
House to resolve the differences and still send a bill to the President
by the end of the week.
The Daschle-Lieberman amendment would strike seven special interest
provisions that were included in this 484- page bill by the House.
Texas A&M: among them, the amendment proposes to strike a provision
that many believe is designed to provide an earmark for Texas A&M
University. Specifically, the House-passed bill requires the Secretary
to designate a university-based center or centers for homeland
security. However, the bill further stipulates 15 specific criteria to
be used in making this designation, criteria that many suspect are
tailored to describe only one university--Texas A&M. While the
provision allows the Secretary to expand the criteria, it doesn't
permit the Secretary to eliminate or alter the 15 criteria set forth in
the bill.
How many colleges have ``strong affiliations with animal and plant
diagnostic laboratories, expertise in water and wastewater operations,
and demonstrated expertise in port and waterway security,'' not to
mention 12 other requirements?
I have long opposed attempts in Congress to by-pass competitive,
merit-based selection processes. There is absolutely no justification
for attempting to do so in the Homeland Security bill for a function as
important as the one to be fulfilled by the university-based centers.
The Safety Act: the Daschle-Lieberman amendment strikes a provision
in the House-passed bill titled ``The SAFETY Act'', which purports to
provide reasonable liability protections for antiterrorism technologies
that would not be deployed in the absence of these protections.
I believe that real harm has been inflicted on our economy by trial
attorneys' abuse of our tort system. I have seen the unfathomable greed
of certain attorneys who use ``consumer protection'' as an excuse to
extort billions of dollars from corporations, and ultimately, the same
consumers they claim to protect. Outrageous awards that may benefit
only the lawyers have stifled innovation, kept products off the market,
and hurt consumers.
As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I have advanced legislation to
reform products liability litigation, and overseen the enactment of a
law to limit litigation and damages that might have arisen from the Y2K
bug. Despite its potential to kill the bill because of opposition from
trial lawyers, I voted to cap attorneys' fees on the comprehensive
tobacco legislation that I sponsored. I am appalled that the demise of
that bill opened the door for a private settlement under which a
handful of lawyers have received literally billions of dollars, and I
intend to ensure that these fees are closely examined in the Commerce
Committee next year. In addition, I have repeatedly voted for
limitations on damages for medical malpractice.
In short, I appreciate the need for legal reform and have long
supported it. Despite this, I cannot support the ``SAFETY Act'', which
never received a hearing in either chamber, and which was inserted into
the House Homeland Security bill late in that chamber's process when
Members decided that the government indemnification provisions
previously considered would be too costly.
This ill-considered ``SAFETY Act'', which I understand is supported
by defense contractors and others seeking liability protection, does
not provide reasonable limitations on liability. Intentionally or not,
it appears to eliminate all liability in tort claims against Sellers
for the failure of any ``antiterrorism technology.'' Whereas previous
tort reform measures have sought to limit the abuse of our system by
avaricious lawyers, while protecting plaintiffs' rights to obtain a
quick and reasonable award, no such balance is reflected in the
``SAFETY Act.''
While many of my Democratic colleagues object instinctively to
liability limitations such as those in the SAFETY Act, including the
creation of a Federal cause of action, the prohibition on punitive
damages, and the requirement for proportional liability for non-
economic damages, I have supported these concepts in the past, and
continue to support them in this context. What I find objectionable,
however, fatally so, is that the SAFETY Act was never the subject of
any hearing, was never considered by a committee in either chamber,
and, perhaps as a consequence, is to confused in its wording and
concepts as to be almost incomprehensible.
While the need for liability protection for manufacturers and sellers
of antiterrorism technologies may be very real, this is an issue of
significant import that deserves more careful consideration. At a
minimum, the SAFETY Act must be rewritten to ensure that its language
is consistent with what I understand to be its intent. At present, it
is not.
One particularly troublesome provision in the SAFETY Act appears to
transform a common law doctrine known as the ``government contractor's
defense,'' into an absolute defense to immunize the seller of an
antiterrorism technology of all liability. This is a dramatic departure
from current law and one that does not seem to have been well thought-
out.
Currently, the ``government contractor's defense'' provides immunity
from liability when the federal government has issued the
specifications for a product; the product meets those specifications;
and the manufacturer does not have any knowledge of problems with the
product that it does not share.
While I am told that the House advocates of the SAFETY Act did not
intend to provide protections for products whose specifications are not
issued by the government, or which do not meet these specifications,
the bill language indicates otherwise. It says ``Should a product
liability or other lawsuit be filed for claims . . . and such claims
result or may result in loss to the Seller, there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that the government contractor defense applies to such
lawsuit. This presumption shall only be overcome by evidence showing
that the Seller acted fraudulently or with willful misconduct in
submitting information to the Secretary during the course of the
Secretary's consideration of such technology under this subsection.''
What happens if the Seller submits proper information to the
Secretary, and the Secretary certifies a technology, such as a vaccine
or chemical detection device, but a year later there is a gross defect
in the manufacturing process, and as a result, the product doesn't work
and Americans are injured or killed in a terrorist attack. The language
in the bill suggests that the Seller still is not liable. But who is?
Can the injured victim seek compensation under the Federal Tort Claims
Act? The SAFETY Act does not say. Should they be able to? This is one
of many questions affecting plaintiffs that does not seem to have been
contemplated or considered when the SAFETY Act was included on the
House bill.
Clearly, Congress as a whole should work to address the legitimate
liability concerns that may be keeping protective technology off the
market. We should do this, however, thoughtfully, if swiftly, and
ensure that the language reflects our considered intent.
Prohibition on Contracts with Corporate Expatriates: the Homeland
Security bill prohibits the Secretary from contracting with any
``inverted domestic corporation'', which is an American corporation
that has reincorporated overseas. More and more U.S. companies are
using this highly profitable accounting scheme that allows a company to
move its legal residence to offshore tax havens such as Bermuda, where
there is no corporate income tax, and shield its profits from taxes.
I applaud efforts to discourage this practice. Already, at least 25
major

[[Page 23022]]

corporations have reincorporated or established themselves in Bermuda
or the Cayman Islands in the past decade. Although I understand that
American tax policy has encouraged them to do so, corporations that
have moved their legal headquarters offshore to avoid taxes give the
appearance of ingratitude to the country whose sons and daughters are
risking their lives today to defend them.
This provision, however, has not escaped untouched by special
interests. Although the Senate adopted an amendment offered by the late
Senator Wellstone that flatly barred the Secretary of Homeland Security
from contracting with inverted domestic corporations unless doing so
was in the interest of national security, the measure being offered to
us on a ``take it or leave it'' basis contains loopholes you could
drive a truck through or an entire fleet of trucks to be supplied by a
relocated corporation. Although it generally prohibits the Secretary
from entering into contracts with inverted domestic corporations, the
House-passed measure allows the Secretary to waive this prohibition in
the interest of homeland security, or to ``to prevent the loss of any
jobs in the United States or prevent the Government from incurring any
additional costs that otherwise would not occur.''
The Daschle-Lieberman amendment tightens this loophole by permitting
the Secretary to waive the contracting limitation only in the interest
of homeland security. That is what this bill is about, it is not a jobs
bill, or a fiscal belt-tightening bill. The Senate determined, in
adopting the Wellstone amendment, that it was important to stop more
corporations from adopting corporate ``flags of convenience.'' We
should honor this.
Childhood Vaccines: among the most inappropriate provisions that the
Daschle-Lieberman amendment strikes is a modification to the Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The language included in the House-passed
bill has far-reaching consequences and is wholly unrelated to the
stated goals of this legislation. Inserted without debate in either
chamber, this language will primarily benefit large brand name
pharmaceutical companies which produce additives to children's vaccines
with substantial benefit to one company in particular. It has no
bearing whatsoever on domestic security.
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation, VIC, Program, established
under the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, set up a no-fault
compensation program as an alternative to legal action to compensate
children injured or killed by a vaccine. The VIC Program was adopted in
response to a flood of plaintiffs' suits in the early 1980s which
ravaged the vaccine industry. Incentives, such as limitations on
damages, were established to encourage manufacturers to continue to
produce safer vaccines, while education programs and an adverse
reaction reporting system were established to ensure prevention of
future vaccine injuries.
The 1986 law did not define ``vaccine,'' and suits emerged between
families and manufacturers of vaccine additives, many of which are
still ongoing. The language contained within the House-passed Homeland
Security Act would modify the definition of a ``vaccine'' to include
additives. Originally contained within a well-rounded bill written by
my friend, Senator Frist, this language served a sound purpose.
However, I am concerned that the passage of these select provisions
which benefit pharmaceutical manufacturers will eliminate the incentive
to continue negotiations on the important reforms within Senator
Frist's bill which has been negotiated in the HELP Committee for close
to a year. Additionally, unlike the bill in Committee, this language
would intervene in ongoing litigation without modifying the statute of
limitations for bringing a claim under the Vaccine Act, and in so
doing, would leave families of some injured children with no available
recourse.
As I stated earlier, I am not opposed to reasonable legal reform. I
support a comprehensive reform package such as the bill sponsored by
Senator Frist, and hope that such a measure will pass early in the next
Congress. It is wrong, however, to cherry pick provisions beneficial to
industry and insert them in a Homeland Security bill and to leave for
another day those provisions that protect children.
Special interests have no place in any congressional action, least of
all one of this magnitude. For this reason, I am compelled to support
the Daschle-Lieberman amendment. This administration has worked
tirelessly with the House and Senate to produce an extraordinary
restructuring of Government to better protect the American people. They
have accomplished an amazing feat. Legislation of this gravity should
not be sullied by a few special interest riders. I urge my colleagues
to join me in striking them.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I voted for the Thompson
substitute amendment to the Homeland Security Act--the largest
restructuring of the Federal Government in over 50 years and perhaps
the most important legislation considered in this Congress.
This historic legislation would create a new department combining
some 22 Federal agencies with what would amount to about 200,000
Federal employees.
The bill would create one of the biggest departments in the U.S.
Government, with an initial annual budget of at least $37 billion.
I voted for this legislation because our current terrorism policy is
terribly disjointed and fragmented. I have long supported additional
efforts to consolidate and coordinate our terrorism policy.
Currently, homeland security functions are scattered among more than
100 different Government organizations. There is much unnecessary
overlap and duplication. There is also a failure to communicate and
share information--making it hard to for the law enforcement and
intelligence community to ``connect the dots'' to prevent a terrorist
attack.
I also voted for the bill because I believe our country is currently
at great risk. Terrorists are doing all they can to launch a
catastrophic attack on our homeland.
The status quo is simply unacceptable. For example, just last week, I
chaired a subcommittee hearing on a new report released by Senators
Hart and Rudman.
Their report is chilling--and its conclusion distributing. It reads:

A year after September 11th, America remains dangerously
unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist
attack on U.S. soil. In all likelihood, the next attack will
result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption
to American lives and the economy.

The creation of a Homeland Security Department is critical to our
efforts to try to prevent another devastating terrorist attack against
us.
Now, for the first time in our history, this Nation will have one
Federal agency charged with the primary mission of preventing terrorist
attacks within the United States, reducing the vulnerability of the
U.S. to terrorism at home, and minimizing damage and assisting in the
recovery from any attacks that may occur.
The new department will have four major divisions: border
transportation and security, emergency preparedness and response,
science and technology, and information analysis and infrastructure
protection.
The border directorate will include a number of key homeland security
agencies, including Customs and the Transportation Security Agency.
The emergency preparedness directorate will include FEMA and some
other smaller response agencies.
The science directorate will include a number of programs and
activities of the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, and
some agencies.
The information analysis directorate will synthesize and analyze
homeland security information from intelligence and land enforcement
agencies throughout the government.
This crucial division will identify and assess terrorist threats and
vulnerabilities, issue warnings, and act to prevent terrorist acts
against critical infrastructures such as bridges, dams, and electric
power grids.

[[Page 23023]]

Other agencies such as the Coast Guard and Secret Service will be
moved to the new department, and there will be an office to coordinate
with state and local governments. The legislation also creates a
Homeland Security Council in the White House to coordinate the domestic
response to terrorist threats.
I am very pleased that this legislation does not neglect State and
local law enforcement and first responders. No homeland security
solution can be just federal. The reality is the 650,000 State and
local law enforcement officers are additional eyes and ears in the war
on terrorism. They cannot operate deaf, dumb, and blind.
Moreover, in the event of a terrorist attack, the first people on the
scene will be local firefighters, emergency medical technicians,
National Guardsman, and other people in the local community. The need
proper information, organization, training, and equipment.
Thus, I am pleased that this legislation includes a measure I
introduced to increase state and local access to federally collected
terrorism information.
This legislation directs the President to establish procedures for
sharing homeland security information with state and local officials,
ensures that our current information sharing systems and computers are
capable of sharing such information, and increases communications
between government officials.
The bill also includes a broad exemption under the Freedom of
Information Act for cybercrime and cyberterrorism information. This
exemption will encourage the private companies that operate over 85
percent of our critical infrastructure to share information about
computer break-ins with law enforcement--so criminals and terrorists
can be stopped before they strike again and severely punished. I have
long advocated for such an exemption, and am pleased that it ended up
in the final bill.
While I strongly support the creation of a Homeland Security
Department, I am disappointed that the bill we passed today includes a
number of extraneous special interest provisions and lacks language to
ensure appropriate oversight and transparency.
In addition, there is nothing in this legislation addressing what is
perhaps the most pressing homeland security problem we face today: the
vulnerability of our ports to terrorism.
The issue of port security was left to separate legislation that was
passed last Thursday. In my view, that legislation does not go far
enough. I believe that Congress needs to return to this issue next year
and pass more comprehensive legislation.
The Hart-Rudman Independent Terrorism Task Force, for example,
recently issued a report describing major holes in the security of our
ports and endorsed such a comprehensive, layered approach.
This new comprehensive legislation would be based on S. 2895, the
Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002, which I
introduced last summer with Senators, Kyl, Hutchinson, and Snowe.
The Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002 is the
result of hearings we have had in the Technology, Terrorism, and
Government Information Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee
as well as my testimony two years ago to the Interagency Commission on
Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports.
The main section in the bill would create a Container Profiling Plan
that would focus our nation's limited inspection resources on high-risk
cargo.
In addition, the bill also contains provisions requiring: earlier and
more detailed container information; comprehensive radiation detection;
heightened container security measures--including high-security seals;
restricted access to ports; increased safety for sensitive port
information; enhanced inspection of cargo at foreign facilities;
stronger penalties for incorrect cargo information; improved crime data
collection; upgraded Customs service facilities; and better regulation
of ocean transport intermediaries.
Unfortunately, we were not able to get much of this Bill included in
the conference legislation that passed last week. Indeed, the
Conference Bill even omits a number of security provisions included in
S. 1214 as it passed the Senate.
That is why, in my view, we will need to revisit this issue early in
the 108th Congress. I plan to work with my colleagues to fine-tune my
legislation and reintroduce it. I hope that my colleagues will support
it.
I am also disappointed with this bill because it does not contain the
entire ``Unaccompanied Child Protection Act,'' bipartisan legislation I
introduced at the beginning of this Congress and that was included as
Title XII of the Lieberman substitute to H.R. 5005.
I have spoken on this issue in some detail already, but feel
compelled to reiterate a few points.
Last year, over 5300 children came to this country unaccompanied by a
parent or guardian and were held by the INS, many of them in detention
facilities. these children have no rights. Many of them can't speak
English, they can be detained for years, they have no resort to
counsel, and they don't understand the process.
We all remember the Elian Gonzalez case. Every year, there are
thousands of Elians. But unlike Elian, these children have no family
members to help them navigate the immigration process. They are
completely at the mercy of a complex bureaucratic and legal system they
cannot begin to understand.
The good news is that this bill transfers authority over the care and
custody of unaccompanied alien children from the INS to the Office of
Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human
Services.
The bad news is that almost all the ``help'' provisions for these
children are left out. This bill is lacking because it does not provide
either for a guardian ad litem, or pro bono legal assistance.
This is insufficient, and it is my full intention to reintroduce
legislation in the next session to redress this, and to include pro
bono counsel and guardian ad litem provisions.
Protecting children, on the one hand, must not prevent us from
devising an immigration policy that protects us from those that would
do America harm.
We do not want to burden the Secretary of Homeland Security with
policy issues unrelated to the threat of terrorism. The Department will
have a daunting mission as it is, and must never lose that focus.
Two positive steps regarding immigration include the transfer of the
visa issuance process from the State Department to the Department of
Homeland Security, thereby giving it the regulatory and oversight
authority over issuances and denials.
It also prohibits third-party visa processing, referred to as ``Visa
Express'', to ensure closer scrutiny of visa applications and to
preserve the integrity of the visa issuance process. These reforms are
essential.
Overall, while this legislation's shortcomings cause me serious
concern, I believe that they pale in comparison to the dangers facing
America, both immediately and in the long-term, at home and abroad.
The terrorist threat to the United States is far too real, and in our
freedom-loving country we must now do everything we can to protect our
people.
And this, after all, is the Federal Government's paramount task--
protecting our citizens. Further delay in creating a Department of
Homeland Security would only leave us increasingly vulnerable--and this
is something we simply cannot afford.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today in support of this
bipartisan legislation creating a new Department of Homeland Security.
Since the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, we have acted
to increase our efforts to counter terrorism by strengthening borders,
improving information sharing among agencies, and giving our law
enforcement agencies the legal tools to investigate and prosecute
terrorists and those that help terrorists financially.
Congress has considered and passed both the USA PATRIOT Act and the

[[Page 23024]]

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act which have both
changed laws to ensure that providing for our national security in
order to prevent future terrorist attacks is a top priority. This bill
also ensures that the 22 agencies with a substantial role in protecting
our homeland have the materials and resources they require.
This legislation is recognition that homeland security has taken on
an entirely new meaning since 9/11. What was once a concern with
terrorists acting against U.S. interests overseas has been realized and
expanded to include those same acts happening right here at home. The
war has been brought to the U.S. and we are now rising to the
challenge.
This was precisely the type of thinking demonstrated by President
Bush in the summer of 2001, when he instructed the intelligence
community to provide an assessment of the threat posed by al-Qaida
domestically rather than overseas. And President Bush did exactly the
right thing in the wake of last year's horrific attacks when he
established the Office of Homeland Security, now headed by Governor
Ridge, to coordinate counter-terrorism activities by the various U.S.
agencies and departments as well as develop an overall strategy. This
strategy has culminated in the proposal of a new Department of Homeland
Security.
As the principal advisor to the President on homeland security
issues, the service of Governor Ridge has been exemplary. The time has
come, however, for the perpetuity of purpose ensured by statutory
status for a new Department of Homeland Security.
A Department responsible for safeguarding our homeland defense must
not be dependent solely on the relationship between a particular
President and his or her Homeland Security director. Rather, it must be
run as efficiently and effectively as possible under the leadership of
a permanent, cabinet level official. That is the only way to achieve
the kind of ``continuity of urgency'' the security of our homeland
demands.
The fact of the matter is, we cannot afford a descent into
complacency when it comes to this life-or-death obligation to protect
the American people. If ever there were a Federal responsibility, this
is it.
And while my fervent hope and prayer is that we do not suffer another
attack on or anywhere near the scale of 9/11, the reality is that,
absent future tragedies and absent a cabinet-level homeland security
department, we don't know what kind of attention the issue will receive
5, 10, 20 years down the road. Because the tendency is to focus on the
most visible, pressing issues of the day, but we cannot allow ourselves
to let down our guard, not for a moment, not a decade from now, not a
quarter century from now, never.
So this initiative is not a knee-jerk reaction. It is not a passing
whim--far from it. There is no serious debate about the fact that we
are now in a new age that will not quickly pass. The threat will be
pervasive, and enduring. The level of our vigilance must be equally so.
Under a new cabinet-level department, responsibility would rest with
a Secretary of Homeland Security, a position created under law, who
would manage the vital day-to-day functioning of the new department.
Critically, this person would have their own budget, while they work
closely with the administration to develop and implement policy. It is
vital that this budgetary authority be granted--otherwise, the
department will become a paper tiger, without the teeth that we all
know a separate budget provides in terms of authority as well as the
ability to get things done.
The bottom line is, I support the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security--the largest re-organization of our Government since
WWII--because it will centralize our efforts to prevent and respond to
any future terrorist attack.
Currently, at least 22 agencies and departments play a direct role in
homeland security, encompassing over 170,000 people. This legislation
consolidates these various responsibilities into one Department which
will oversee border security, critical infrastructure protection, and
emergency preparedness and response.
Overall, the new Department, with the Secretary's leadership, will
integrate the vast number of government agencies that formulate,
support and carry out the functions critical to homeland security such
as the border patrol, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA,
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
This new and dynamic Department will utilize all tools and resources
of our Government to enhance our homeland security by strengthening and
augmenting the preparation, communication, coordination and cooperation
of not only the agencies that will be included, but the rest of the
government including States and localities.
First, it is important to keep in mind that the functions of many of
the agencies that will soon become a part of the new Homeland Security
Department are integrated so that dividing them would be detrimental to
the purpose of that agency, many of which have non-homeland security
functions.
For example, as a member of the Finance Committee, I shared the
concerns raised by other members of the committee about any division of
the Customs Service when it relocates to the new Department. I
supported the Finance Committee's position that Customs move into
Homeland Security but that the Secretary of the Treasury maintain the
legal authority to issue regulations relating to the customs revenue
function.
Defending the country's borders and facilitating legitimate trade are
intertwined functions that should not be separated. By moving Customs
in its entirety into the Border and Transportation Directorate, this
legislation recognizes that the personnel who perform trade enforcement
and compliance activities at the border are the same personnel who
perform inspections for security and other enforcement purposes. In
addition, the information Customs receives from trade compliance
examinations and manifests is the same information used to assess
security risks for shipments. This information is the cornerstone of
many of Custom's counter-terrorism efforts.
This bill also maintains a cohesive and complete Border and
Transportation Security Directorate by transferring all key border and
transportation security agencies to this directorate, including the
Coast Guard, Customs, and TSA. This includes the Border Patrol and a
restructured INS which is not included in the Lieberman bill where it
is part of a separate Immigration Directorate. Thus, the Directorate
responsible for border security is not responsible for the Border
Patrol or inspecting aliens arriving at ports of entry.
The same is true for the Coast Guard. Since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, the Coast Guard has conducted its largest port security
operation since World War II to protect and defend our ports and
waterways. But this significant amount of effort is simply not enough.
The Coast Guard needs to be positioned with the other transportation
and border security agencies if we are going to improve interagency
coordination, maximize the effectiveness of our resources, and ensure
the Coast Guard receives the intelligence it needs. I strongly believe
the Coast Guard is an outstanding role model for Homeland Security and
will serve as a cornerstone upon which this new Department will be
built.
At the same time, these new priorities must not diminish the Coast
Guard's focus on its other traditional missions such as marine safety,
search and rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries law enforcement, and
marine environmental protection which are all critically important.
The legislative solution I developed with Senators Stevens and
Collins, that is included in the bill, strikes the proper balance and
ensures the Coast Guard's non-Homeland Security missions will not be
compromised by the transfer.
To the contrary, our language maintains the primacy of the Coast
Guard's diverse missions by assuring the Coast

[[Page 23025]]

Guard Commandant will report to the new Secretary of Homeland Security,
rather than to a deputy secretary; assures no Coast Guard personnel or
assets will be transferred to another agency; and provides a mechanism
to annually audit the Coast Guard's performance of its non-homeland
security missions.
I am pleased to see the inclusion of my amendment requiring the
administration to report to Congress within 90 days outlining the
benefits of accelerating the Coast Guard's Deepwater procurement
timeline from 20 years to 10. The Deepwater project, which will
recapitalize all of the Coast Guard assets used off of our coast, is
already underway. However, the Coast Guard must wait up to 20 years, in
some instances, to acquire already existing technology. We must
accelerate the Deepwater acquisition project and acquire much needed
assets for the Coast Guard now, not 20 years down the road.
Of course, securing our homeland requires that we figuratively ``push
out our borders'' as far as possible, and that means we must consider
the issuance of visas at our overseas embassies as another vital area
to be addressed by legislation. After all, consular officers represent
the first line of defense against terrorists seeking entry to the U.S.
Entering the U.S. is a privilege, not a right, and this must be the
attitude of those reviewing visa applications.
That is why I am pleased that this bill grants the Department of
Homeland Security the authority to determine regulations for issuing
visas and provides Homeland Security supervision of this process
through the stationing of Homeland Security Department personnel in
diplomatic and consular posts abroad.
This legislation also builds on a provision I included in the
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act establishing
Terrorist Lookout Committees. These committees, comprised of law
enforcement and intelligence agency personnel in our embassies, meet
once a month to discuss names of terrorists or potential terrorists to
be added to the lookout list. The inclusion of Homeland Security
personnel to the Terrorist Lookout Committees will ensure that our
first line of defense also has the input of this new Department.
I introduced Terrorist Lookout Committee legislation in 1995 as part
of my efforts to strengthen our borders and increase information
sharing. This, and legislation I introduced to modernize the State
Department's antiquated microfiche lookout system, were a result of a
trail of errors by our agencies with regard to Sheikh Rahman, the
radical Egyptian cleric and mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing.
In working on terrorism and embassy security issues on the House
Foreign Affairs International Operations Subcommittee, what we
discovered was startling. We found that the Sheikh had entered and
exited the country five times totally unimpeded, even after the State
Department formally revoked his visa and even after the INS granted him
permanent resident status. In fact, in March of 1992, the INS rescinded
that status which was granted in Newark, New Jersey about a year
before.
But then, unbelievably, the Sheikh requested asylum in a hearing
before an immigration judge in the very same city, got a second hearing
and continued to remain in the country even after the bombing with the
Justice Department rejecting holding Rahman in custody pending the
outcome of deportation proceedings and the asylum application, stating
that ``in the absence of concrete evidence that Rahman is participating
in or involved in planning acts of terrorism, the assumption of that
burden, upon the U.S. government, is considered unwarranted.''
Securing our visa process is the reason why legislation I have
introduced that requires the new Department to conduct a national
security study of the use of foreign nationals in handling and
processing visas has been included in this bill.
As was shown in Qatar this summer, foreign nationals handling visas
are entrusted with a great responsibility and we must make sure that
does not compromise our security. For instance, in July it was
discovered that several foreign employees at the U.S. Embassy in Qatar
may have been involved in a bribery scheme that allowed 71 Middle
Eastern men, some with possible ties to al-Qaida, to obtain U.S. visas.
To strengthen security, my provision requires the Department of
Homeland Security to review the specific role that foreign nationals
play in handling visas and determine the security impact this has at
each overseas mission and make recommendations as to the role foreign
national should have with regard to visas.
On this same note, I am also pleased that another provision of mine
to stop ``visa shopping'', the practice of a foreign national traveling
to different U.S. Embassies in order to find one that will grant a
visa, has also been included in this bill.
Now, current State Department regulations calling on consular
officers to enter a visa denial into the lookout list database so it
can be accessed by other Embassies will be codified in law. Seeing that
a foreign national has traveled to another Embassy and been denied will
make the decision of a consular officer on whether to grant a visa that
much simpler.
Ensuring that the new Department has its own capabilities to analyze
intelligence is critical to the functioning of the Directorate of
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. The Directorate
will be responsible for accessing, receiving, and analyzing information
such as intelligence, law enforcement and other information from
agencies from Federal, State and local governments to detect and
identify threats to homeland security. The legislation also will ensure
that threat analysis, vulnerability assessments, and risk assessments
is the responsibility of one Directorate.
Also, the bill contains specific language authorizing the Secretary
to provide a staff of analysts with ``appropriate expertise and
experience'' to assist the Directorate in reviewing and analyzing
intelligence as well as making recommendations for improvements.
Moreover, the legislation contains specific language I advocated
authorizing the Department to hire its own analysts.
It is vital that clear language be included to ensure that the new
Department has its own people and does not rely solely on detailees
from other agencies. The bill also permits the new Department to have
personnel detailed for analytical duties from the intelligence
community. It is clear that in the beginning, intelligence analysts
will have to be detailees from other agencies until additional people
can be fully trained. However, this must not be a permanent situation.
That is why I worked with Senator Gramm to ensure the new Department
has its own intelligence analysts.
Finally, one of the most challenging hurdles to overcome in passing
this legislation was a provision of law that has been in statute for
almost a quarter-century. This provision referred to as the President's
``national security exclusion authority'' allows the President to
exclude agencies, or smaller subdivisions within agencies, from
collective bargaining agreements if he determines that the agency or
subdivision as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence,
investigative or national security work.
During this debate, attempts to rescind the President's authority
which has been in place since President Kennedy first allowed Federal
employees to unionize in 1962 and put into statute by President Carter
in 1978 stalled the consideration of the entire bill. I am pleased,
however, that both sides were ultimately able to come together to find
a workable solution that allows the President to maintain the national
security exclusion authority that every President has had since
President Kennedy.
Once again, the President was right to create a new Department of
Homeland Security and I applaud the efforts of Governor Ridge to
formulate this proposal and present it to Congress. We need to come to
grips with the reality that a repeat attack could happen at any time
and, accordingly, not only

[[Page 23026]]

work to prevent it but also be prepared to respond. The new Department
of Homeland Security will bring us closer to bringing all of our
Nation's resources to bear in securing our homeland.
This defining time, as the President has stressed, requires constant
vigilance as our permanent condition. Because in our war against
terrorism, to quote Churchill, ``Now is not the end. It is not even the
beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.''
We have now begun a ``new normalcy'' and we can never again let down
our guard. We owe taking this historic step to the American people and
to future generations of Americans to ensure an enduring level of
security.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, there is not a person in this Chamber
who questions the importance of homeland security or the need to
improve the Federal Government's ability to protect our people from
terrorism. We all saw what happened on September 11th of last year:
There was not enough anticipation or coordination, and not enough
accountability. We can and must do better.
What happened last September 11th was a tragedy on a monumental
scale. It is a date that we will always remember. It is an anniversary
that we will always somberly commemorate.
But, as I have said before, we must learn from the tragedy of
September 11th and ensure that our Nation is never again subjected to
such horror. The events of that dark day should spur us to take the
necessary steps to establish the instruments and institutions that will
provide real protection for the American people. The lessons of
September 11th will mean little if we are unable to craft a concrete
response to terrorism that demonstrates our unwavering resolve to those
who would do us harm.
Since shortly after September 11, I have argued that we needed a
Cabinet-level Department to address these concerns. That is why, I have
decided to vote for the legislation now before the Senate.
We are faced with the choice of either this bill or no bill. And I
believe that we must move the process forward, and send the all-
important message to the people we represent that we are serious about
protecting them that we are serious about having better cooperation,
coordination, and preparation in the fight against terrorism.
That is not to say that I do not have reservations. This bill should
have been written differently. I supported an amendment proposed by
Senator Byrd that would have made the new department less bureaucratic
and would have provided more accountability, not less. It also would
have ensured that Congress played a greater role as the department got
up and running. Unfortunately, the Byrd amendment was defeated.
I was also shocked to see that several special interest riders were
added to this bill at the last minute, in the dark of night. I am
especially troubled by the new provision that holds harmless any
company that makes mercury-based preservatives for vaccines. One
example is Thimerosal, which, evidence shows, may be responsible for
causing autism in children.
What in the world does such a provision have to do with homeland
security? I believe this provision will create insecurity in our
homeland by sending a message to thousands and thousands of families
that their children's health takes a distant second place to the
interests of large corporations. This bill should be about homeland
security, not family insecurity.
With one call from the White House, these special interest additions
to the bill could have been eliminated. But that did not happen, and
the Daschle amendment to strip them from the bill, which I strongly
supported, was defeated. As a result, this bill has been perverted from
its original meaning and intent. I expect to work with my colleagues
next year to reverse these special interest riders.
I am troubled by this bill's treatment of the new department's
workers. It gives the President virtually unfettered authority to strip
even the most minimal worker protections affecting everything from job
classification, pay rates, rules for labor management relations, and
the process for firing and demoting employees. These provisions were
unnecessary and unfair.
Finally, I am concerned about the effect this legislation will have
on my State of California on matters that have nothing to do with
homeland security. Many existing Federal agencies will be moved lock,
stock and barrel into this new department, with little regard to the
services that those agencies provide to the American people and to the
people of California. The Department of Homeland Security is largely
about protection and enforcement. When vital services for the people of
this country such as FEMA disaster assistance and the Coast Guard's
search and rescue role are thrown into an agency whose mission and
purpose is primarily enforcement, I fear that these much-needed
services will suffer.
However, despite these reservations, I will vote for this bill. We
must move forward on protecting the American people from another
possible terrorist attack. And creating a new Cabinet-level Department
of Homeland Security, which I have supported for the past year, is an
important step in that direction.
Through my committee assignments and by enlisting the support of my
colleagues, I will keep a sharp eye on the new Department of Homeland
Security and work to make sure we take the additional steps necessary
to truly protect the security of the American people.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the homeland
security bill. I believe that today we are taking definitive action to
put the Government in a better position to prevent and respond to acts
of terrorism. The creation of a Department to oversee homeland security
has been a tremendous undertaking for the White House and Congress. It
has forced all of us to face multiple challenges, including overcoming
the various agencies' desire for self-preservation and the longstanding
turf battles we are all too familiar with. Regardless of these
difficulties, we have no choice but to strengthen our national
security. A Department of Homeland Security is our best answer, and I
have tried to do all that I could to enhance the effectiveness of the
New Department.
This new Department will have to improve and coordinate our
intelligence analysis and sharing functions, as well as our law
enforcement efforts. Our Nation needs to do everything possible to make
sure the attacks of a year ago never happen on American soil again. The
creation of the Department will help coordinate our homeland security
efforts and better protect the United States from terrorist attack.
The new Department will also identify and destroy barriers to
effective communication and cooperation between the many entities
involved in America's national security. It will identify our security
and intelligence shortcomings and resolve them appropriately. It should
also guarantee that the various infrastructure protection agencies
moving to it have a smooth and seamless transition, and that whistle
protections are given to each and every employee, without exception.
I was glad to have an opportunity to work with the sponsors of the
bill to secure adequate whistleblower rights for Department employees.
Because rights are worthless unless you have a process by which those
rights can be addressed, I worked with the sponsors to ensure that
whistleblowers have procedural remedies. The bill's whistleblower
protection language grants the Department's employees the same
Whistleblower Protection Act rights that are currently enjoyed by
almost all other Federal employees.
Another big part of (the homeland security bill includes provision to
restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The new
Department will be instrumental in securing our border, but we will
have to steadily implement changes to improve the agency's service and
enforcement functions. Improvements to this agency are long overdue and
cannot be ignored after this bill passes. Just because we have
streamlined their management, the INS's performance will be scrutinized
in the years to come. The INS

[[Page 23027]]

will be accountable to the American people, and I look forward to
seeing some changes in the way they do their business.
I am pleased that I was able to work on an immigration reform measure
that will strengthen the Secretary's visa issuance powers. This
provision authorizes the DHS Secretary to put DHS agents at consular
posts or requires a finding that DHS agents aren't needed, and it gives
the DHS Secretary influence in the State Department personnel matters
relating to visa issuance. It also requires annual reports to the
Congress on security issues at each consular post. These changes will
help us avoid dangerous programs like visa express that let terrorists
in without any real screening.
I am also pleased that the homeland security bill we are considering
today incorporates a number of our recommendations to ensure that the
international trade functions of the Customs Service are not subsumed
by the need for strong law enforcement under the Department of Homeland
Security. In order to achieve this, we included a number of procedural
protections. However, even with these safeguards, I am somewhat
concerned that an attitude could prevail over time in which the trade
function of the Customs Service become nothing more than a tool for the
enforcement functions. I do not think this is an insignificant concern.
Today, Customs operates under the umbrella of the Treasury Department,
whose core mission it is to serve as a steward of the economy. Moving
the 200 year old agency to Homeland Security could fundamentally alter
the traditional mission and culture of the U.S. Customs Service. As the
ranking member of the Finance Committee, I plan to exercise my
oversight function diligently to make sure that this does not happen.
Another provision that I worked hard to secure, along with Senator
Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, is the transfer of ATF agents to the Justice
Department. The firearms and explosives experts will work alongside the
FBI and the DEA at Justice Department. The firearms and explosives
expert will work alongside the FBI and the DEA at Justice, and the
revenue-collection experts and auditors will stay at the Treasury
Department. This move will help coordinate criminal and antiterrorism
investigatives at the DOJ, but will keep the ATF's revenue-collection
duties at Treasury where they belong. So I thank the leadership for
making sure these important changes were made.
I also applaud the inclusion of language that I advocated requiring
the new Secretary to appoint a senior official to be responsible for
ensuring the adequacy of resources of drug interdiction. The smuggling,
transportation, and financing organizations that facilitate illegal
drug trafficking can just as easily smuggle terrorists or terror
weapons into the United States. Many of the agencies being moved into
the new Department were previously focused on the fight against
narcotics. By coordinating counternarcotics policy and operations, this
new official will ensure that our efforts to respond to future acts of
terrorism will not come at the price of relaxing our efforts against
the dehumanizing and painful effects of drug use on society and
families.
I was also pleased to work with Senators Lott and Bennett on FOIA
provisions that encourage the private sector to alert government
officials about risks to our critical national infrastructures. While
public disclosure laws such as FOIA are central to the policy of
preserving openness in government, they sometimes serve to inhibit our
ability to receive vitally important national security-related
information from information from businesses that fear unwarranted loss
of public confidence and use by competitors, criminals, and terrorists.
This new language will strike the dedicate balance between ``sunshine''
in government and the responsibility that we have to collect and share
sensitive information about infrastructure vulnerabilities in an
atmosphere of trust and confidence.
The ultimate goal here before us is to help our intelligence and law
enforcement communities at being the best they can be at protecting our
nation and the American people. But we can't build a new house with
broken blocks. If we don't fix the problems at the various agencies
that will make up the new Department, we won't see real homeland
security. A lot of work has been done, and I believe we are on the
right track. I believe this plan is indeed the answer for effective
homeland security, now and for the future. Let's move forward from here
and get it done.

Homeland Security

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will vote for the bill before us
today, but I do so with some serious reservations.
First, and most importantly, I do not want the American public to
conclude that by passing this one bill we do not need to do anything
else in order to protect our homeland. While housing such agencies as
FEMA, the Customs Department, and the Border Patrol under one roof will
be advantageous, especially in the long run, little in this bill goes
the heart of what went wrong leading up to September 11. Simply put,
our country has been plagued, and we continue to be plagued, by a
myriad of intelligence shortcomings. We have not done an effective job
of gathering intelligence on al Qaeda cells residing right now in our
country, and, perhaps even more importantly, our intelligence agencies
have not been effectively sharing intelligence with each other. We hear
story upon story about a lack of analysts with language skills,
outdated computer systems, and turf battles.
And now we hear, for the first time, that the administration is
considering the need to create a new domestic intelligence agency. We
hear that our Nation's top national security officials met for 2 hours
this past Veterans Day to discuss this issue. Clearly, we need a plan
to deal with domestic terrorism surveillance and to implement systems,
procedures, and oversight to make sure that our intelligence agencies
are talking to each other. Unfortunately, the current bill is largely
silent on these issues.
Second, I have serious concerns that the administration will be
undertaking the most massive government reorganization in over 50 years
while we are in the middle of our war against terrorism. Osama Bin
Laden is still at large, and just last week he threatened new attacks.
Indeed, the administration recently has warned us about ``spectacular''
attacks against our country. We must take great care that this massive
reorganization does not compromise any of our ongoing efforts in our
campaign to protect our homeland.
Finally, I cannot stand silent about the egregious, superfluous,
special-interest giveaways put into this bill at the very last minute
by the administration acting in concert with Republican leaders in the
House and Senate, everything from shutting the courtroom doors to
families injured by pharmaceutical companies to allowing offshore tax
haven companies to compete for homeland security contracts.
So while I support the bill before us today, it is certainly not a
perfect bill. Even more importantly, our work has just begun. The
administration now needs to ensure that in creating this massive new
Department it does so in a way that does not compromise the vital and
ongoing work of the agencies involved. It is also imperative that we
fix the central problem with our Nation's homeland security defenses,
that of the lapses in our Nation's intelligence gathering and sharing
efforts, and that we do so now. I wish we would have dealt with this
more gaping security hole first, but all we can do now is to redouble
our efforts in this most vital pursuit.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate today took an important step
to combat domestic terrorism and improve safety at home. The Department
of Homeland Security will help protect our communities by coordinating
prevention and response efforts throughout the country.
The legislation also maintains the integrity of the Coast Guard, so
that the important function of search and rescue, drug interdiction,
and environmental protection will not be degraded.

[[Page 23028]]

Throughout his tenure, I have found Governor Tom Ridge to be a
responsive member of this Administration, and I look forward to
continuing to work with him in a constructive manner.
While much of this legislation is important and necessary, I am
concerned about several of the provisions.
First, are the special interest gifts to the pharmaceutical and
manufacturing industries that House Republican leaders slipped into the
bill last week.
Second, are the new surveillance powers granted to the Federal
Government, and the potential impact on Americans' civil liberties. The
Administration has assured Congress and the American people that the
new authority will be used judiciously, and the Administration now must
act responsibly and prudently.
Third, I believe that men and women who serve their country in
uniform are entitled to the same civil service protections as other
federal workers, and I am disappointed that because of this bill, some
workers will lost important rights.
I intend to work with the new Department to protect Washington
State's interests and will continue to monitor the implementation of
this bill.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, our world has changed dramatically since
the tragic events of September 11, and by passing this bill, we are
taking a momentous step forward in providing for the security of
Americans at home. But I am concerned we might be missing an integral
component to this secure system. We have outlined parameters for
information security, privacy and authentication. But, how can we truly
ensure someone is who he/she says they are before we give them these
high-tech credentials? We have gone to great lengths to ensure the
security of these counterfeit-proof credentials, but we need to also
account for the validity of the information used to establish identity
in the first place. What happens if we give someone a secure document
with a biometric under a false name?
The events of September 11 were orchestrated by a group of foreign
individuals who used false information to receive legitimate U.S.
identification documents like visas, passports, driver's licenses, and
illegally entered this country. Identity fraud is no longer just a
crime perpetrated by a common criminal to steal a credit card. Identity
theft is now a tool employed by terrorist organizations to infiltrate
America and harm our citizens. Terrorists have been able to take
advantage of our ineffective and antiquated systems and assume false
identities.
In this bill, we establish an Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security with the charge of preventing terrorists from
entering this country. We need to make sure he or she has the tools
necessary to authenticate a person's identity. Authentication of non-
U.S. citizens entering the United States must be a top priority. We
have bipartisan support for such an effort and we must establish a
system that ensures the identity of foreign individuals upon initial
entrance into this country.
For years, identity authentication systems have been used in the U.S.
to prevent fraud in the consumer banking industry. Following the
terrorist attacks on September 11, these systems have been adapted for
national security purposes. These systems access a wide number of
identifiers in domestic public records and use scoring and modeling
methods to determine whether a particular person is who they say they
are. These systems must be expanded to include publicly available
information on individuals from foreign countries.
The President has said, ``This nation, in world war and in Cold War,
has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course.
Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and
help others to find freedom of their own.'' Let me be clear. There are
people who deserve to enter this country and there are people who don't
deserve to enter any country. We must have the ability to verify an
individual is who they say they are the first time they apply for a
visa. As we move forward, we must establish an identity authentication
system that targets the 26 nations designated by the State Department
as state sponsors of terrorism.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to discuss the legislation before
the Senate to create a Department of Homeland Security. I have said
throughout the debate on this legislation that I support the creation
of a homeland security department, and despite my strong reservations
about many of the specific provisions in the bill, I intend to support
final passage today. The Senate has expressed its will through the
amendment process, and while I have been disappointed with the outcome
of many of the votes, the bill before us has the potential to improve
our government's ability to combat terrorism against our people.
Insuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense are
among the most sacred Constitutional duties our constituents sent us
here to fulfill, and on that basis alone this bill, while far from
perfect, deserves to move forward.
I will discuss many of the positive aspects of this legislation
shortly, but first I want to outline some of my concerns with the bill.
First, I am deeply disappointed that the House Republican leadership
inserted into this must-pass legislation to protect our homeland a host
of special interest giveways. The bill creates new liability protection
for pharmaceutical companies by wiping out pending litigation; guts the
Wellstone amendment that prohibited contracting with corporate
expatriates; reverses the aviation security bill by providing special
immunity to the companies that provided passenger and baggage screening
in airports--companies that may have violated numerous security
regulations on September 11; allows the Department to hold secret
advisory committee meetings with hand picked industry advisors, even on
non-sensitive matters, waiving the Federal Advisory Committee Act; and
provides immunity from liability for manufacturers of products or
technologies that cause harm to Americans.
I also have concerns about provisions in this bill that would
undermine the basic rights of federal employees to belong to unions and
to bargain collectively with management over working conditions.
Forty years ago, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988
granting federal employees the right to organize and bargain
collectively. President Nixon expanded employees' rights in 1969, and
these rights were subsequently codified in the 1978 Civil Service
Reform Act. These fundamental rights have never interfered with the
provision of government services, including homeland security, and in
fact I would argue they have strengthened our government by helping us
to recruit and retain highly qualified employees who might otherwise
look elsewhere for work. Union members are among our nation's most
patriotic, dedicated and selfless public servants. When the World Trade
Center was burning on September 11, the unionized firemen, police
officers, and emergency medical personnel in New York did not stop and
ask for a collective bargaining session. They went up the stairs, into
the fire, and gave their lives so that others might be saved.
Of the 170,000 federal employees who would likely be moved to the new
Department of Homeland Security, at least 40,000 belong to unions and
possess collective bargaining rights, including employees of the
Customs Service, Border Partrol, and other important agencies. Our
goal, as was proposed in the bill drafted by Senator Lieberman and
reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, was to ensure
that no federal employee who currently has the right to join a union
would lose that right under the homeland security reorganization.
Agencies where employees currently do not have collective bargaining
rights, such as the Transportation Security Administration and the
Secret Service, would not have been affected.
To maintain the existing rights of union members transferred into the
new Department, the Governmental Affairs Committee bill included a
bipartisan provision that would update this

[[Page 23029]]

formula. Under that bill, management could deprive transferred
employees of their collective bargaining rights if their work is
``materially changed'' after the transfer; their ``primary job duty''
is ``intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative duties
directly related to the investigation of terrorism''; and their rights
would ``clearly'' have a substantial adverse effect on national
security.'' This provision was carefully crafted on a bipartisan basis
to give the new Secretary of Homeland Security the flexibility he or
she needs while preserving the rights of tens of thousands of employees
who have possessed collective bargaining rights for decades and will be
performing exactly the same work under a different letterhead.
Unfortunately, the House drafted bill before us today does away with
these protections. Under this bill, the President may waive existing
union rights if he determines they would have a substantial adverse
impact on the Department's ability to protect homeland security. He
must send a written explanation to the House and Senate at least 10
days in advance, but no Congressional approval is required.
Furthermore, the bill allows the Administration to waive existing civil
service protections over union objections. Although he would be
required to notify Congress and engage in a 30-day mediation
administered by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, if
mediation is not successful the President could waive civil service
provisions notwithstanding union objections and act without
Congressional approval.
I am also concerned about the provisions related to the Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program, VICP. The VICP is a no-fault alternative
to the tort system for resolving claims resulting from naturally
occurring, adverse reactions to mandated childhood vaccines.
Over the years, the VICP has proven to be a successful component of
our National Immunization Program. It has protected vaccine
manufacturers, who play a critical role in the protection of public
health against unlimited liability while also providing injured parties
with an expeditious and relatively less contentious process by which to
seek compensation.
However, the provisions contained in this homeland security bill
consist of one page of a 26-page bill introduced by Senator Frist
earlier this year, S. 2053, the Improved Vaccine Affordability and
Availability Act. While it has been argued that these provisions are
needed to protect vaccine manufacturers, the fact is that manufacturers
are already protected under VICP.
Senator Frist's bill contains a number of provisions related to
increasing vaccine rates among adolescents and adults, bringing greater
stability to the vaccine market through the creation of a rigorous
stockpile of routine childhood vaccines and reforms to the Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program. Letters of support that have been cited on
the Senate floor, from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Vaccines and
the American Academy of Pediatrics, expressed support for these
provisions, but only in the context of the comprehensive legislation
set forth by Senator Frist, not on their own. The three sections that
have been inserted simply have no place in a homeland security bill.
These sections lack the thoughtful and comprehensive approach that is
required to address the myriad challenges facing our childhood
immunization program.
Finally, I am concerned with the immigration provisions in this
legislation. There is general agreement on the proposal to transfer all
functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service into the new
Department. However, rather than establishing a single, accountable
director for immigration policy, the bill calls for enforcement
functions to be carried out by the new Bureau of Border Security within
the Border and Transportation Security Directorate, while immigration
service functions will be in a separate Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services that reports directly to the Deputy Secretary.
While the bill does call for coordination among policymakers at each of
the bureaus, they will ultimately establish their own immigration
policy and interpretation of laws. I urge the Administration to ensure
that policy coordination among the enforcement and services bureaus is
comprehensive and consistent, so that the result for the nation's
immigration system is real reform and not a new period of disarray.
Nothwithstanding all of the concerns I have summarized, I believe
that this legislation and the new department it creates have the
potential to make the American people safer. The legislation will
consolidate more than two dozen disparate federal agencies, offices,
and programs into a focused and accountable Department of Homeland
Security. The bill will bring together into a single Border and
Transportation Security Directorate our Customs Service, the border
quarantine inspectors of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the new Transportation Security
Administration, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Within
this directorate, the bill also creates an Office of Domestic
Preparedness to oversee our preparedness for terrorist attacks and to
provide equipment, exercises, and training to states. The Coast Guard
will also be in the new department, reporting directly to the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
The Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection will enable the Department to ``connect the dots'' by
organizing analyzing, and integrating data it collects at ports and
points of entry with intelligence data from other parts of the
government. The bill also provides the Department with access to
unevaluated intelligence. It establishes separate Assistant Secretaries
for information analysis and infrastructure protection, and has
language making it clear that the Directorate's intelligence mandate is
broader than infrastructure protection and including deterring,
preempting, and responding to terrorist attacks.
The Directorate for Science and Technology will conduct and promote
long-term homeland security research and spearhead rapid technology
development and deployment. It will bring together scientific
capabilities now spread throughout the federal government to identify
and develop countermeasures to chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, and other emerging terrorist threats.
In addition, the bill establishes a directorate of Emergency
Preparedness and Response, with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA at its core, which will help to ensure the effectiveness
of emergency response to terrorist attacks,major disasters and other
emergencies by bringing under the Department's directorate several
federal programs in addition to FEMA: the Domestic Emergency Support
Teams of the Department of Justice, and the Strategic National
Stockpile and the National Disaster Medical System of the Department of
Health and Human Services. The Department will also have the authority
to coordinate the response efforts of the Nuclear Incident Response
Team, made up of elements of the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of Energy. One of most important responsibilities of
this directorate will be to establish comprehensive programs for
developing interoperative communications technology, and to ensure that
emergency response providers acquire such technology.
These are all laudable and important goals, but because we have been
blocked from passing the appropriations bills that would provide the
resources the Department needs to perform its mission, our work is far
from complete. Providing these resources will be our task on homeland
security in the months ahead, and I hope my colleagues and the
President give this task the same attention and effort they gave to
creating a Department of Homeland Security.
Madam President, because I believe the people of Rhode Island and
Americans everywhere want to see the creation of a Homeland Security
Department that will improve our ability to prevent and respond to
terrorist attacks, I intend to support this legislation despite my
concerns about many

[[Page 23030]]

of the specific provisions included in the House draft of the bill
before us today.
Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I am pleased the Senate is able to pass
legislation to establish the Department of Homeland Security before
Congress adjourns the 107th Congress sine die. After the terror attacks
on September 11, 2001 it has been the mission of President Bush and
many in Congress to create this new Department, and it is particularly
pleasing to get this done now rather than waiting until Congress starts
up the 108th Congress in January of 2003. And I know as well the
American people are supportive of getting this legislation passed now
rather than later.
Those who oppose this legislation before us may have some legitimate
and principled concerns as to why they do not support this bill. By all
means, the bill is not entirely perfect and I think most members of
Congress would attest to that. But neither were the original bills to
create any other federal department or agency perfect on the first try.
That is why we have committee hearings on these issues, and I am sure
we will pass supplemental and technical bills over the years to
legislatively mold the new Department of Homeland Security so that it
is stronger and more efficient.
But we needed to get this bill rolling now. Every day is vital as we
fight this new war on terrorism. Delaying the creation of this new
department another three or four months could set America back in her
defenses. Every day that goes by without work being done to create and
organize this new department simply puts us back further and further.
We just can't afford to let that happen. This is serious business.
Although this bill may not be perfect and some may disagree with a
few of its provisions, it is not so controversial that the bill
deserves nor needs to be killed outright. We can come back and revisit
those extraneous provisions some of my colleagues have been talking
about. But we need to get the ball rolling. Agencies need to be
realigned. We need to get rid of some of the duplicity amongst some of
these agencies. Communication and information channels need to be
streamlined. There is a lot of work to be done and every day counts.
Earlier in this debate I came to the floor and spoke about the need
for President Bush and future presidents to be able to have the
authority and flexibility to hire and transfer employees, and even be
able to terminate some employees, within the new Department of Homeland
Security to ensure its mission can be undertaken. For weeks we had a
real disagreement on this issue. Some wanted to ensure that workers
were protected and preserved in their employment regardless of their
performance or real need.
Fortunately, in the end we have a piece of legislation that frees the
hands of the president by giving him the necessary management and
personnel flexibilities to integrate these new agencies into a more
effective whole. While providing this flexibility, we still preserve
the fundamental worker protections from unfair practices such as
discrimination, political coercion, and whistle-blower reprisal. This
flexibility and authority will better serve our president, the homeland
and Americans.
New provisions are also added to this bill to help protect our
borders. We do this by moving the Coast Guard, Customs Service,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and border inspectors at Animal
Plant Health Inspection Services all under the new Department of
Homeland Security. This action is long overdue and a reminder to us
that the first step in defending America is to secure her borders.
As well, this bill helps to ensure that our communities and first
responders are prepared to address threats. This bill does this by
moving FEMA and the Secret Service under the new Department of Homeland
Security. By moving FEMA, we are clarifying who's in charge, and
response teams will be able to communicate clearly and work with one
another. We will also benefit by the Department of Homeland Security
being able to depend on the Secret Service's protective functions and
security expertise.
Some have voiced concerns that we are limiting and not protecting the
freedoms and privacy of Americans in this bill. I would say to my
colleagues that at the core, the real reason for this bill is to ensure
just the opposite, to provide security and protect our freedoms. We
have in this bill specific legal protections to ensure that our freedom
is not undermined. This bill prohibits the federal government from
having the authority to nationalize drivers' licenses and other ID
cards.
Also, the bill establishes a privacy officer. This is the first such
officer established by law in a cabinet department. Working as a close
advisor to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, this
privacy officer will ensure technology research and new regulations
respect the civil liberties Americans enjoy.
There are many other vital provisions in this bill which are needed
to better protect our freedom and the homeland. It is a good and solid
bill. It may not be perfect, but rarely are there any perfect pieces of
legislation we pass here in the Senate. I am sure we will revisit this
legislation and issue again, in committee hearings as well as
considering technical and supplemental homeland legislation on the
Senate floor.
But it is imperative we pass this legislation now. We have worked
hard on this bill, too hard to just let it die in the 107th Congress.
We need to get it to President Bush's desk before we adjourn sine die.
The sooner we get it to him, the better it is for the protection of the
homeland and Americans.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the
creation of a Cabinet level Department of Homeland Security that better
enables our border security agencies to coordinate and work together. I
believe that if properly implemented such a Department will better
protect our country from the threat of terrorism.
The tragedy of September 11 demonstrated that our homeland security
apparatus is dangerously disorganized, and that our vulnerabilities
were real; we learned that we need organizational clarity and
accountability to face the crucial challenge of improving homeland
security.
On balance, the new Department of Homeland Security will reduce our
vulnerability to the terrorist threat and minimize the damage and help
recover from any attacks that do occur. However, we need to recognize
that this is only a first step. The challenge of homeland security will
require more than bureaucratic reorganization, we need to ensure that
our efforts are bolstered with a real commitment to the attention and
funding necessary to implement some of the goals of this legislation.
Although I will ultimately support the homeland security bill, I do
so with the recognition that no legislation is perfect. This
legislation is, indeed, not perfect and it will demand continued
attention and oversight by Congress to ensure that it lives up to its
aspirations in ensuring our homeland security, while not betraying our
principles of governance and freedom.
One area that I have particular concerns is in regards to our
continued efforts to address the issue of information and information
sharing within the careful balance of security goals and civil liberty
protections.
I am particularly concerned with provisions of the bill that fail to
explicitly address the broader concerns of privacy for American
citizens and that reduce our access to public information through the
FOIA process. I am particularly frustrated because both of these
troubling provisions, provisions to enhance sharing of information
about suspected terrorist activity with local law enforcement, and
provisions to limit access to sensitive information available under the
Freedom of Information Act, were negotiated and careful compromises
were arrived at in the earlier version of the Gramm-Miller Senate
substitute and in Senator Schumer's bill, S. 1615, the Federal-Local
Information Sharing Partnership Act.
The timely sharing of investigative information between various
enforcement and intelligence agencies can

[[Page 23031]]

provide necessary improvements in our nation's security. Unfortunately,
the version that is contained in this legislation provides absolutely
no limitations on how this information can be used or disseminated.
This is particularly troubling because we have already expanded the
type and amount of personal information available in federal databases.
To greatly expand access to personal information without providing any
protections on its use is a dangerous erosion of our valued right to
privacy and has the potential to eviscerate the protections that the
Constitution guarantees Americans against unfettered government
intrusion into privacy. I support greater access to information, and I
believe that it is primarily through appropriate use of information
technology that we are likely to make real improvements in our domestic
security, but greater access to personal information cannot come
without offsetting protections against its misuse.
The very broad language, inserted for the first time by the House,
offers no procedural mechanisms to assure the government adheres to
protections of privacy or civil liberties. Information sharing without
citizen recourse or correction, without adequate procedural safeguards,
has the potential to undermine the privacy of every citizen. The Senate
has already acted on this issue and language exists that can better
provide access to local law enforcement while also providing real
protections to our citizens. This legislation has already passed the
Judiciary Committee and I am committed to working with Senator Schumer
to passing this legislation next year.
In addition, this bill previously contained carefully crafted
language that protected sensitive information from discovery through
the Freedom of Information act. The Freedom of Information act is a
valuable tool in assuring open and accountable government and I believe
that any effort to alter it must be carefully considered. This careful
consideration produced the language in the original bill, a compromise
crafted by Senators Bennett, Levin and Leahy. As the editorial board of
the Olympian wrote today ``The public is already leery of government
and understands that public records are one means of keeping elected
and appointed officials in check'' Unfortunately, this bill contains a
very broad exemption which has the potential to protect much
information from public scrutiny. We must be cautious in taking steps
that reduce open access to government and I am concerned about the
broad nature of this language.
I am also very disappointed by how the Immigration and Naturalization
Service is reorganized within the Homeland Security Agency. By
completely separating the service and enforcement functions of the INS,
I believe that we will only be compounding the problems that already
plague this moribund agency. Coordination between the service and
enforcement arms of the INS is required to make the agency more
efficient and to ensure that its dual missions of enforcing the law
against those here illegally and facilitating residence and citizenship
for those here legally achieve the same level of support.
Last, a major stumbling block in passing this legislation has been
the concern with the rights of many talented employees already employed
by agencies who will be moving into the Homeland Defense Department. I
do not believe this legislation provides adequate safeguards for these
employees and I believe that the Congress will need to perform a great
deal of oversight to make certain that abuses do not occur in this
arena.
As I said before, no legislation is perfect, and our job in Congress
is not over with the passage of this bill. We need to remain dedicated
and focused in our task of ensuring that the implementation of this
bill is accomplished effectively and consistent with the principles and
rights that have made this country great.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to discuss the bill before us dealing
with the creation of a department of Homeland Security.
I applaud Senator Lieberman for developing this idea of a new
department to protect our Nation against the horrible specter of
terrorist attacks on our cities and citizens.
The people of Nevada look to the Federal Government to make sure that
our State and our Nation are secure.
We all agree that our Federal Government can, and should, do much
better at preventing attacks, defending against attacks, and mitigating
the consequences of attacks.
In Nevada, we have already begun to help. The Nevada Test Site has
established itself as one of the premier centers for emergency
responder training. Under the new Department, this facility will only
flourish. The new Department will also help develop the burgeoning
counterterrorism programs at Nevada's major research institutions,
including the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and the University of
Nevada-Reno. The people of Nevada have a proud history of providing the
nation with the necessary skills, hard work and vision to protect our
Nation. I know Nevada will do the same for the war on terrorism.
A new department of Homeland Security will be a good start, but this
new Department is by no means the finish line in the effort to defense
our nation.
More important, this new Department must not be a distraction from
the job of protecting our Homeland. If it turns our that the
consolidated departments, agencies and bureaus are spending more time
looking for their new desks instead of hunting down Osama Bin Laden, I
will be the first one to work on legislation to fix it.
We must not believe that establishing this Department ends the need
for vigilant oversight, and we must not give in to the false security
that a new Department could provide. Protecting our Nation from the
horrors of terrorist attacks involves more than changing the name,
moving offices and shuffling desks around.
Protecting our Nation requires strengthening our intelligence
gathering and analysis--it means improving the communication between
many Federal departments and agencies--it means providing the funding
we need for research and technology investments--it means tapping the
resources of the American entrepreneur and the soul of the American
worker.
The proposed Department will address many of these concerns, but not
all of them.
I am voting to support this legislation, because the President claims
that it will be more than just a name change. I will be watching very
closely to make sure that it is.
There are several areas that I plan to keep a close eye on.
First, this new Department, though it has some new intelligence
sharing responsibilities, will not fix the problems at either the
Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Central Intelligence Agency or
the lack of coordination and cooperation between the two. Those
agencies were left out of the Department of Homeland Security, even
though they share tremendous responsibility for the Administration's
failure to properly interpret the intelligence warnings before
September 11.
Second, this bill gives tremendous authority to the executive branch
of the Government. With that authority comes tremendous responsibility.
In particular, this new strong authority presents a tremendous
potential for abuse and misuse. I am disappointed that such an
important piece of legislation would be used to weaken important
provisions of our law. This bill makes unnecessary attacks on the
ability of the American people to access Federal documents, and on the
protections afforded the people who work for the Federal Government.
The labor provisions of this bill still fall far short of what I'd
like to see. I still believe that it is entirely possible to reorganize
our homeland defense efforts and dramatically improve the state of our
Nation's security without stripping dedicated and loyal workers of
basic protections in their jobs. All across the country, there are
union members holding jobs that require flexible deployment, immediate
mobilization, quick response, and judicious use of sensitive
information. Police

[[Page 23032]]

and firefighters have union protections, and their ability to bargain
collectively actually improves our ability to fight crime and fires.
The union protections make the jobs attractive enough for talented
individuals to want to stay in the positions for long periods of time.
We as a society gain because we are able to retain skilled people to
work on our behalf.
Senator Lieberman's bill was able to preserve a fair balance in this
respect. His legislation retained most labor rights, but in cases where
national security might otherwise be compromised, the President would
have the flexibility to do whatever was necessary to protect the
country.
This bill, on the other hand, will drive many talented individuals to
look for employment elsewhere, in positions that afford at least a
minimal level of job security and due process. I fear that over time we
will see a deterioration in the caliber of employees that join this
department, and I expect to revisit the labor provisions before many
years have passed.
I am also deeply troubled by the efforts to allow this department to
operate in secrecy. We have seen the unfortunate impacts of secrecy in
the development of a national energy policy by the administration. This
bill would continue this dangerous trend on the part of the
administration. The administration appears to be more concerned with
protecting the corporations' bottom-line than defending the citizens
right-to-know.
I also have strong concerns about many of the provisions included in
this bill that do not relate directly to the creation of the department
of security.
A tax loophole has allowed dozens of U.S. corporations to move their
headquarters, on paper only, to tax haven countries to avoid paying
their fair share of U.S. taxes. Several months ago, Paul Wellstone and
I offered an amendment to bar the Department of Homeland Security from
awarding government contracts to these corporate tax runaways. The
Senate adopted that amendment unanimously, but this bill guts that
agreement. It is a sad reality that these corporate expatriations are
technically legal under current law. But legal or not, there is no
reason why the U.S. government should reward tax runaways with
lucrative government contracts.
Paul and I felt that if these corporations want Federal contracts so
badly, they should come home. Just come back to the United States, and
they'd be eligible to bid on homeland security contracts. And if they
didn't want to do that, then they should go lobby the Bermuda
government for contracts there. It should have been a priority of this
legislation to guarantee that the Department of Homeland Security
conduct its business with corporations who do their share to bear the
burdens of protecting this country. This legislation is more concerned
with window-dressing on this issue.
Although I agree that the agency primarily responsible for the
security and safeguarding of nuclear material, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, should not be in the new Department, the bill does not
address the important issues of chemical and nuclear power plant
security. Protecting our energy infrastructure involves challenges
related to the appropriate sharing of responsibility between the
private companies who own and operate these facilities and the Federal
Government. Our existing laws do not considered fully the implications
a terrorist attack would have on our ability to prevent and respond to
terrorist attacks on these facilities.
These concerns are real. In fact, the President raised the specter of
a terrorist attack on one of our nation's nuclear power plants in his
State of the Union address. And just a few days ago we were warned
again that these facilities are potential targets. The Department of
Homeland Security should work quickly with other federal agencies to
improve their security, until the Congress is able to enact appropriate
legislation to protect them.
Many of my colleagues have eloquently described the outrageous
special interest provisions that were included in this bill, so I won't
repeat many of those points. I do want to say that I am disappointed
that the administration chose to include these provisions. They knew
that this bill would pass, because it is so important to our country.
They knew they could try to sneak these outrageous provisions in. This
is not the way to increase the security of our country following the
horrendous attacks of September 11.
There are several provisions I am particularly pleased will be
enacted into law. These provisions deal primarily with the aviation
industry in the aftermath of September 11.
I am pleased that a provision to allow the Transportation Security
Administration flexibility to extend the baggage claim deadline for
airports was included in the legislation. This is extremely important
to Las Vegas McCurran and Reno/Tahoe International Airports in Nevada.
Las Vegas is the second leading airport in the nation for origination
and destination passengers. Only Los Angeles International airport
handles more. In fact, Las Vegas handles more luggage than most of the
nation's larger airports. Allowing TSA to work with selected airports
to implement the 100 percent baggage screening requirement over a
reasonable time period will in the long run be the most secure course
for the traveling public.
This legislation also includes language extending the time frame and
expanding the scope of War Risk Insurance made available to commercial
airlines under the FAA's War Risk Insurance program. This was a top
priority for the airline industry, described by leading industry
officials as the single most important and cost effective action
Congress could take at a time when commercial airlines are facing
enormous financial challenges. The provision in the bill should help
stabilize the insurance crisis resulting from the terrorist attacks of
September 11th. The War Risk Insurance provision of the bill mandates
extension of coverage through August 31st, with an option to extend War
Risk coverage through December 31, 2003. It also calls for expansion of
the scope of War Risk Insurance made available to airlines, adding
coverage for passengers and crew and loss of aircraft to the coverage
for third party liability currently made available by the FAA.
Finally, the bill reinstates a short term limitation of third party
liability in cases of terrorist acts involving commercial aircraft.
Last year's airline stabilization bill capped third party liability at
$100 million where the Secretary of Transportation certifies that an
air carrier was a victim of an act of terrorism. This short term
limitation of liability expired in March, however, and has now been
reinstated through the end of 2003.
Today I am supporting the creation of the Department of Homeland
security. Establishing a new department is an important way to ensure
we have a coordinated Federal response to potential terrorist attacks.
This legislation may have flaws, but the principle is correct. So
today I am choosing to support the legislation, but I will keep a close
eye on its implementation. If there are changes that need to be made, I
will work hard to fix the flaws.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, in the months following September 11,
a new reality took hold in every corner of our country. We saw the
National Guard standing guard at our airports and in front of
Government buildings. Bioterrorism and border security were discussed
every day. The skies over New York and Washington, DC were patrolled by
our military. And every American believed that these new measures made
our Nation stronger and protected us against terrorist attacks.
But time has passed and that vigilance has faded. Not by our police
officers, firefighters, or emergency response personnel. Not by the
brave men and women who are serving in Afghanistan. Not by the workers
along our borders and in our ports. But by the Federal Government. We
have slipped into an almost piecemeal approach to Homeland Security and
that has to change, starting today.
``Are we safer today than we were on the morning of September 11,
2001?''

[[Page 23033]]

The answer is only marginally, because somewhere along the line, we
lost our way.
Those individuals who are sacrificing and working to do their best
and secure our country want to do more. But each day, despite some of
our efforts, we do less and less for them. We issue warnings about new
threats. We expect people and cities and towns to react accordingly,
but we do not provide enough funding, support, or guidance for them to
do their jobs. We need to redefine our focus on Homeland Security, and
one way to do that is to reorganize the way our Government works.
The votes we cast today for the creation of a new Homeland Security
Department are just that-votes for the creation of a department. Our
Nation and particularly the people I represent in New York, learned the
hard way on September 11, 2001--the status quo is unacceptable.
My hope is that approval of this bill sets in motion a necessary
reorganization process that will ultimately result in improved
coordination, information sharing, and a stronger and safer America. We
need to send a clear message that our Government is doing more than
simply talking about strengthening our homeland security; that we are
once again focused on concrete steps that will defeat the terrorists
and protect our people.
But we must be clear about what we are voting on today--this bill has
much to do with structural reorganization and very little to do with
enacting real steps that will protect our Nation against terrorist
attacks. There are many things in this bill that should not be; and
there are many things that should be in this bill that are not.
I am concerned that the American people will think that simply
because we have passed this bill that our Nation is safer. They need to
know that this measure does not increase patrols along our northern
borders.
It does not give our firefighters, police officers, and emergency
personnel the resources, training, and equipment they need to protect
our frontlines at home. It does not increase security measures at our
ports, along our railroads, and public transportation systems. It does
not increase our capabilities of detecting biological, chemical, and
nuclear weapons. What this bill does is it falls short on many counts,
especially when it comes to real measures that would improve our
security.
We had the opportunity to do this right. We had the opportunity to do
more than create a department, but we missed it. The Senate's original
bill included critical measures that would make our country safer today
than it was yesterday. But in the end, this Congress failed to put
safety first and special interests last.
There is a lot in this bill that secures the future for the special
interests and very little that secures our country. Those who are using
this legislation--this legislation that's about the security of our
Nation--as a vehicle for the special interests have done this country a
great disservice.
That is why Congress must not, cannot, stop here. Our job is far from
over. We must continue to fight to make sure that every substantive
part of the old bill that increased our security gets passed in the
next Congress.
Let's start with the obvious-supporting our first responders. They
are a critical part of our Homeland Security. Our firefighters, police
officers, and emergency personnel need direct funding, training, and
additional equipment to keep our Nation safe.
When it comes to Homeland Security, we need to listen to the
experts--our mayors, police commissioners, fire chiefs, and our public
health workers.
They continue to ask for direct funding, and that is why I proposed
legislation that would provide direct funding to local communities, the
Homeland Security Block Grant Act.
Since we began the war on terrorism, we have done everything to
ensure that our men and women in the military have the resources,
equipment and training they need to fight the war on terrorism, and
that's how it should be. But we are not doing the same at home. It is
unconscionable to me that a Homeland Security Bill such as this one
would not include support for our Nation's frontline defenders.
At the end of October, Senators Hart and Rudman released the
Terrorism Panel's report that clearly states that we are not doing
enough to support our first responders and keep our country safe. They
expressed grave concern that 650,000 local and state police officers
still operate without adequate US Intelligence information to combat
terrorists. We haven't done enough to help local and State officials
detect and respond to a biological attack. The report expressed concern
that our firefighters and local law enforcement agencies still do not
have the proper equipment to respond to a chemical and biological
attack. Their radios are outdated and do not allow them to communicate
in an emergency.
What kind of tribute is this to the heroes who lost their lives in
last September? What would the firefighters, police officers, and
emergency response workers who did not think twice about rushing to
Ground Zero to save lives say about the lack of progress that's been
made?
Additionally, the SAFER Act, a provision that allows our country to
hire 25,000 firefighters over the next couple of years has been
eliminated from this bill. This is the time for us to do more for our
first responders, not less. They are the most important link in our
Homeland defense, and to shortchange them in these difficult times is
incredibly shortsighted.
We must also act to better secure our Nation's nuclear power
infrastructure. While the Homeland Security Bill will create a new
department, it does not adequately address the very real threat of
terrorists' capabilities and desire to destroy our nuclear power
plants. Our efforts to protect our infrastructure is moving much too
slow. Last year, Senators Jeffords, Reid, and I introduced the Nuclear
Security Act. This summer, we succeeded in moving the Act through
Committee.
It is a shame that the Homeland Security Bill does not address
nuclear security and it should. These protections should be included in
this discussion, and the new Congress must work together to pass the
Nuclear Security Act promptly.
We must also better protect ourselves against the very real threat of
terrorists detonating a dirty bomb in our country. It is imperative
that we better secure our domestic radioactive materials. Every year,
highly active sources used in industrial, medical and research
applications are lost or stolen in America. This is why I introduced
the Dirty Bomb Act to strengthen these security measures and enhance
our security.
And, while we work in the Congress to pass security measures like
these, we will have to also work to get rid of provisions that do not
belong here.
As I described on the Senate floor and in a press conference last
week, this bill includes unrelated vaccine liability provisions.
Protecting manufacturers from liability can be appropriate as part of a
comprehensive vaccine bill that addresses a balanced range of important
goals, including strengthening vaccine supply and addressing families'
interest in compensation. But plucking out industry liability
protections and addressing only that side of the issue clearly
prioritizes manufacturers over families, and puts politics ahead of
homeland security.
The provisions protect one particular manufacturer by dismissing
existing lawsuits brought by parents of autistic children who believe
there may be some connection between the mercury-based preservative and
their child's illness. There may or may not be a connection, and the
tort system may or may not be the right solution.
However, enacting only provisions that help manufacturers, while
ignoring families concerns for compensation, and children's needs for a
strong vaccine supply not only fail to protect homeland security, they
fail to adequately protect children from preventable disease. All they
do is protect vaccine manufacturers against lawsuits and undermine our
bipartisan efforts to assure that every child is vaccinated safely.
While I believe the Congress should debate issues of tort reform and
reasonable arguments have been made, I

[[Page 23034]]

am also concerned that some of the tort provisions included in this
legislation have nothing to do with homeland security and have not been
debated by the Senate. One provision is the ``Support Anti-Terrorism by
Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002,'' ironically named the
``SAFETY Act.''
This measure lowers standards by giving manufacturers immunity from
liability for the products they make that our first responders will
use. How will this help America build a stronger homeland defense? It
doesn't--it just makes it easier for manufacturers to get away with
indefensible actions.
There is a provision in this bill that upsets the balance between the
public's right to know and the Government's responsibility to protect
certain information so that it can better secure our country.
The House-passed bill contains significant loopholes that would
provide protections for certain information by limiting access,
prohibiting its use in court, and even making it a crime to make such
information available. It appears that the bill may even allow
companies to decide for themselves what information should be afforded
such protections. This means certain protections could potentially be
extended to information that doesn't even have anything to do with
security, thereby shielding potentially damaging information from the
public and the courts.
While private entities should be encouraged to provide critical
infrastructure information to the Government in order to help assess
and address vulnerabilities to future terrorist attacks, it should not
come at the expense of the public's right to know.
I am also troubled by the so-called compromise over the civil service
and labor provisions in the new bill. The bill gives the President the
authority to waive civil service protections in six key areas including
rules for labor-management relations and appeals to the Merit Systems
Protection Board.
I am concerned that this will hinder the ability of the new
department to recruit and retain civil service employees who have
expertise in the agencies that will be shifted to the new Department.
This shortchanges the workers and shortchanges all Americans who
believe we should have the most qualified individuals working in this
new department.
The bill will also allow the Administration to strip workers of their
collective bargaining rights through a waiver authority. I must say
that we have every reason to believe that this Administration will take
advantage of this authority. It has already taken away these rights
from secretaries at the U.S. Attorney's offices. And I fully expect
that it will use this authority, if it is granted, to strip away the
rights from the more than 50,000 workers who will make up the newly
formed Department of Homeland Security.
As a Senator from New York, I have a particular interest in this new
department and have some specific concerns on behalf of my State. When
it comes to protecting New York and New York City, I do not believe
that this bill goes far enough and I will work to fix these provisions
so that they do. The bill ensures a special coordinator of homeland
security in the Capitol Region, DC, Maryland and Virginia, but does not
establish a similar coordinator for New York City's metropolitan
region.
Intelligence reports indicate that like Washington, DC, New York City
is a high-risk area, still a target for terrorists and a symbol of our
Nation. Even as we recover, we are still vulnerable, and the New York
region needs its own coordinator.
In the aftermath of September 11, FEMA was able to respond to an
unprecedented kind of disaster, precisely because it was a highly
functioning, well-run agency. All of us in New York are indebted to
Director Allbaugh and his staff for their good work. I am concerned
that transferring FEMA into the new department could force a highly
competent independent agency into a new bureaucracy that will have
challenging integration issues and thus diminish the effectiveness of
FEMA's ability to respond to crises of all kinds.
I also oppose moving Plum Island from the Department of Agriculture
into the new Department. Also, I fear that this move could be a
precursor to raising the biosafety level at the Plum Island facility.
This would allow research on life-threatening exotic animal diseases
and these harmful materials could be transmitted through the air. This
would pose too many risks to those in my State who live near the
facility, and I will strongly oppose any efforts to raise the biosafety
level at Plum Island.
As I have said throughout the last fourteen months, we need this new
department to better coordinate and share information. There is no
question we must change the way things work in Washington so that we
adapt to the post 9/11 world. There are many problems with this bill,
some of which I have outlined here. These problems will need to be
addressed in the months and years ahead.
Today, the Senate will also vote on a continuing resolution to fund
the Government at last year's funding levels from now through January
11th. While it is imperative we keep the Government running, it is
shameful, not to mention ironic, that we will depart without ensuring
that we fund homeland security. It is not enough to create a new
Department without investing in the necessary funding to protect
against bioterrorism, increase our port inspections, secure our
Nation's nuclear weapons plants, invest in technology so that our first
responders can communicate in a disaster.
At best, we are sending mixed messages to the American people about
our priorities; even more troubling is that these actions reflect what
actually are the Government's present priorities.
But at the end of the day, we must move forward with this bill.
Hopefully, it will spur us to focus once again with the same commitment
and vigilance we had in those weeks and months after that tragic day in
September. The threats continue to come in. Attacks occurred in Bali,
Yemen, and in Kuwait. A new tape reveals that Osama Bin Laden is most
likely alive. And al-Qaida is plotting all the while.
We do not have the time or the luxury to remain in this status quo.
This bill is the smallest step forward we can take, but it is a step
forward nonetheless and that is why I support it.
On its own, it will not make us safer but it pulls us out of this
piecemeal approach to Homeland Security and directs our Government to
pursue one fundamental goal--to make sure that we do everything in our
power to make America stronger and safer so that no other American life
is taken by the hands of a murderous few.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am voting against the legislation
before the Senate to institute a new Department of Homeland Security.
The President says we need a Department to prevent another September
11, but all this legislation does is produce an elephantine
bureaucracy. It does nothing to fund the people on the front lines, who
really could fight terrorism; instead funds will be spent in Washington
by bureaucrats for bureaucrats.
The proposed department excludes the very entities that failed on
September 11, but includes all the ones that did not. On September 11
the CIA dropped the ball on intelligence it possessed. So did the FBI.
Yet they aren't included. But the Coast Guard did not mess up on
September 11th, nor did FEMA, nor did the Agriculture Department's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service yet they are all included.
This is a game of musical chairs. It shuffles and reorganizes 170,000
employees, at 22 different agencies, involving more than 100 bureaus or
branches. Yet roughly 110,000 of the personnel scheduled to be moved
are already together. Airport, seaport, rail security, and the Coast
Guard are already part of the Transportation Department.
The legislation is loaded with items purporting to be helpful to our
national security, but which may have little effect or would even
hinder security. It rolls back the deadline for all airports to check
every passenger's luggage, not just the few dozen that may need some
additional time. It is crazy to call for the urgency of a new

[[Page 23035]]

Homeland Security Department, and then say to our highest profile
targets, ``take your time.''
It lets pilots carry guns in cockpits, but doesn't require
impenetrable cockpit doors, which the Senate agreed was critically
needed. What more proof do we need then on Sunday, when the locked door
on an El Al airplane helped prevent the hijacker from flying into
skyscrapers in Tel Aviv?
The bill is full of payoffs and surprises the House leadership
included at midnight, right before they left town. Suddenly, we are
helping Eli Lilly--why? Suddenly, we are helping American companies
that went to Bermuda to avoid taxes. Suddenly, we are absolving private
aviation screening companies from liabilities related to their
September 11 failures. What does any of that have to do with homeland
security?
This legislation is supposed to create an independent commission to
determine what went wrong on September 11. Incredibly, the very
provisions Congress inserted to establish this Commission, freeing the
investigation from political hand wringing in the Select Committee on
Intelligence, were dropped by House leaders after the elections. The
so-called independent commission is now anything but independent.
And in nearly 500 pages, the legislation fails to contain a very
important item that would be immediately helpful. No where is the
National Security Council re-organized. September 11 was an
intelligence failure. It was not due to lack of information. As soon as
the terrorists struck we knew who they were. Immediately, we rounded up
suspects here and moved into Afghanistan. Instead, the problem was a
failure on the part of the National Security Council to coordinate,
analyze, and deliver the intelligence to the President.
The President should be able to get well-analyzed reports of domestic
threats on a timely basis. But how can he when his own National
Security Council does not even include the Attorney General or the
Director of the FBI? If Congress wants to re-organize, we should re-
organize the Council to include law enforcement and to make certain
intelligence is shared with Customs, INS, the Coast Guard, and the
others who need to know. Equally important, intelligence should be
shared with and received from state and local officials, but it's not
here in this bill.
Right to the point: this Senator has not waited for a behemoth bill
to take action on homeland security. In the Commerce Committee, we
moved several concrete measures to improve our transportation security,
insofar as air and sea ports, and trains and buses that criss-cross the
country.
When Americans fly this holiday, they will see huge improvements in
the way security is provided. Congress just passed our legislation to
close the gaps that exist at ports along America's coasts, for the
first time creating a national system for securing our maritime
borders.
Is there more this Senator wants this Congress to do for those on the
front-lines of homeland security? Absolutely. We should provide for the
security of Amtrak's 23 million passengers. We should improve security
on buses and freight rail. We should finish the job at our airports and
at our seaports. We should prepare our hospitals and other first
responders to react to an act of bioterrorism.
But how can we when we are going to throw billions to shuffle
bureaucrats from one side of Washington to the other. Designing a new
logo is not going to help secure our homeland. Nor is renting office
space, or buying more desks, and everything else like that. We will be
paying more for nonsense redecorating than arming those on the front
lines.
We have our priorities messed up. A new Department of Homeland
Security is unnecessary. And the worse case is for the Department to be
set up and our country lulled into thinking we are all safe and secure.
A September 11 could still easily happen again.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I regret that I am unable to support
the Department of Homeland Security bill. While this reorganization may
make sense, it should not have come at the expense of unnecessarily
undermining our privacy rights or weakening protections against
unwarranted government intrusion into the lives of ordinary Americans.
We need to be better able to review and identify critical
information, take more rapid steps to address terrorist threats and,
when necessary, share information quickly with local law enforcement. I
had hoped that the proposed creation of a new Department of Homeland
Security would have focused on those priorities.
Protecting the American people is the number one responsibility of
our government. As a result of the tragic events of September 11, we
all recognized that a major review of our government was needed. As we
have debated the need for, and the details of, the new Department of
Homeland Security, I have been guided by two principles: Will this
reorganization make all of us safer? And will it preserve our liberties
as Americans? Unfortunately, while there is much that is good in this
bill, there are a number of critical areas where the bill simply goes
too far, or falls short.
After careful review, I must conclude that this bill is not well
thought out. The American people would benefit from the Congress paying
closer attention to the details of this new version of the bill. This
proposal threatens to erode the fundamental civil liberties and privacy
of all Americans. It does not ensure that the new Department will be
able to effectively communicate and share information with agencies
like the FBI. It is weighed down with special interest provisions that
have nothing to do with the creation of the new department. It does not
give our first responders all of the tools and information necessary to
protect our communities. It lacks adequate civil rights oversight, and
it needlessly undermines the employment rights of the dedicated workers
in this new Department who will be protecting all Americans. At times,
the proposal reads like a dusted off copy of an earlier administration
wish list, much of which has nothing to do with our fight against
terrorism.
We need not unnecessarily sacrifice treasured civil liberties and
privacy in order to be secure. I fear that the bill we are voting on
today will authorize the federal government to maintain extensive files
on each and every American without limitations. The data mining
provisions in the bill encourage retired Rear Admiral John Poindexter's
massive government effort to create a computer file on the private life
of every American. The Total Information Awareness system now under
development needs active congressional oversight, particularly in these
early days of the program. Rather than giving further authorization to
this kind of effort in this bill, we should be demanding that the
administration immediately suspend the Total Information Awareness
initiative until Congress has conducted a thorough review and refrain
from implementing this program in the new Department.
In addition, the present proposal, in a section about cyber-security,
actually creates a sense of insecurity for all of us. The Federal
Government would have the right to obtain the contents of our private
computers without adequate judicial oversight. This bill weakens
important safeguards on government access to our e-mails and
information about what we do on the Internet without the need for a
court order. The Department should be focused on protecting us from our
enemies, not on snooping on innocent activity.
While the bill does make some progress toward enhancing communication
among many agencies that are charged with protecting Americans, it
falls short in ensuring that the essential work of agencies like the
FBI will be adequately shared with and utilized by the new department.
Overall, the proposal fails to enable the new department to be a full
participant in the intelligence community.
While our public safety must be our highest priority, we should not
turn a blind eye to the bottom line. And we

[[Page 23036]]

should not aggravate our budget problems by adding expensive special
interest provisions that have nothing to do with this new department.
Special interest provisions in the bill would cap liability for drug
companies for vaccine additives, give the Secretary of the new
department broad authority to designate certain technologies as so-
called ``qualified anti-terrorism technologies,'' thus entitling the
seller of that technology to broad liability protection no matter how
negligent the seller, and apparently earmark the university-based
homeland security research center for Texas A&M.
All of us know that local law enforcement, fire fighters, and other
first responders are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism.
The Department of Homeland Security needs to ensure that Federal, State
and local law enforcement agencies, fire fighters, and other first
responders are able to work together to adapt and respond to the
evolving challenges of terrorism. Unfortunately, the new department is
not organized in a manner that provides the maximum possible help to
those on our front lines. A Department of Homeland Security must ensure
that it provides our local first responders with the necessary
information, tools, and resources that are required to adapt and
respond to the evolving challenges facing our First Responders.
I am disappointed that my bill, the First Responder Support Act,
introduced with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, is not part of the
present proposal. It had been included in the Lieberman bill, but was
stripped out of the bill last week without any warning by the House
leadership. The First Responder Support Act will help first responders
get the information and training they need from the Department of
Homeland Security, and that measure will be a top priority for me in
the next Congress.
I am also concerned with the proposal's disdain for the public's
right to open government. The bill would undermine the protections of
the Freedom of Information Act and exempt the proposed department's
advisory committees from the open meetings requirements of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. Current law already provides adequate
protection for sensitive information. The broad language of this bill
is far too sweeping.
Finally, I believe that while this bill includes some civil rights
oversight, it offers weaker protections than are found in other federal
agencies. Steps should have been taken to strengthen the Civil Rights
Office in the new department by requiring that the head of that office
be subject to confirmation by the Senate and therefore accountable to
the Congress and the American people. The bill should have designated
an official in the office of the Inspector General to fully investigate
allegations of civil rights violations. This bill also should have
included stronger protections for the Americans who will be working in
this new Department and protecting our Nation. Congress owes these
Americans the same employment rights that other public servants enjoy.
We must not forget that we are having this debate because of what
happened on September 11. We need to learn from September 11 and ensure
that we do not fall victim to a similar tragedy in the future. I
believe that we could have given the American people a Department of
Homeland Security that would ensure their safety and security, and
protect their civil liberties. Unfortunately, this bill has too many
provisions that unnecessarily jeopardize our basic freedoms, and I
cannot support it.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise tonight to strongly support the
creation of a Department of Homeland Security. By consolidating the
agencies responsible for protecting our borders and infrastructure, we
can make significant progress in ensuring the security of the American
people, and this body would be remiss if we were to fail in passing
this critical legislation before we adjourn.
Just this week we've learned that Osama bin Laden is still alive and
still posing a threat to American interests at home and abroad. Recent
activity and communications by his al-Qaida terrorist network, which we
have seen reported in the media, suggest that the threat is as serious
today as it was 14 months ago. These are glaring reminders that the War
on Terrorism is far from finished and that we must be vigilant both at
home and abroad to protect and defend this Nation.
I also want to reassure all Arkansans that the creation of this
Department is not the only step in the protection of this Nation.
Homeland security must be an ongoing process as we respond to new
threats and the inevitable needs to correct deficiencies in this
legislation--including modifications to this department over time. I
intend to continue to seek any and all ways that we can increase the
security of our homeland.
As I said in remarks on the Senate floor last week, I would like to
state for the record my disappointment with some provisions that were
added by the House of Representatives in the final hours without any
opportunity for debate.
Three provisions in particular give me pause: waivers that the
administration will be able to use to grant Federal contracts to
companies that reincorporate offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes;
provisions that would broaden limits on lawsuits against vaccine makers
to manufacturers of other vaccine components, covering still-pending
litigation; and highly specific criteria that would be used to
designate universities as part of a homeland security research system.
A few of other provisions added by the House have merit, but they
deserve an open debate. For example, I believe that we need to limit
the liability of companies that make ``qualified anti-terrorism
technology'' against claims arising from acts of terrorism, but this
issue deserves more debate. We also ought to limit lawsuits against
companies that manufacture aviation security equipment. It's
unfortunate that these provisions, which may be perfectly worthy
legislative remedies, have been slipped in to the bill without full
consideration by Congress. I certainly hope each of these provisions
will be revisited and fully debated next year.
Again, I'm deeply disappointed by some special interest provisions
that were added to the homeland security bill. However, I believe that
the necessary creation of a Department of Homeland Security outweighs
the special interest provisions added to this legislation and I am
proud to aid in its creation. I'm casting my vote in order to serve the
higher good of protecting the American people from present and future
terrorist threats.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am a strong supporter of creating a new
department for homeland security, and I was glad to be able to
cosponsor the bipartisan legislation that passed out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee in July of this year. But this
legislation, now, falls so short of the promise of that committee-
passed bill, that I am compelled to vote no. The legislation the Senate
will pass tonight has numerous unrelated and inappropriate special
interest provisions, omits numerous related and appropriate homeland
security provisions, and fails to address probably the most central
question to our security the coordination and sharing of information
between the CIA and the FBI.
The homeland security bill that we are debating today is a dramatic
departure from the bipartisan legislation that passed out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee.
The new bill now has numerous provisions that no one had seen until
the Thompson amendment was presented to the Senate late last week, and
too many of the provisions have less to do with homeland security and
more to do with the access of special interests.
One of these provisions provides liability protection for
pharmaceutical companies that make a mercury-based vaccine preservative
that may cause autism in children.
Another provision guts the Wellstone amendment, which would prohibit
Federal agencies from contracting with corporations that have moved
offshore to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes--taxes that are
used for important security agencies such as the FBI,

[[Page 23037]]

Coast Guard, Customs Service, the INS, and the Border Patrol.
Another provision provides an earmark to Texas A&M University for
research.
At the same time the Thompson amendment added weakening and special
interest provisions like these, it deleted important provisions that
would enhance our homeland security--including a grant program for
additional firefighters, a program to improve the security and safety
for the Nation's railroads, and a program to improve information flow
amongst key Federal and State agencies with responsibility for homeland
security. The bill completely removes key areas that we had come to
bipartisan agreement on at the committee level such as important
language relative to foreign intelligence analysis and the Freedom of
Information Act, FOIA.
Finally, it hands the President a blank check with regard to so-
called reforms of the civil service.
The over-reaching by the Republicans to include special interest
provisions and to exclude strong bipartisan provisions is nothing less
than shocking. The exclusion of strong bipartisan provisions addressing
key issues with respect to homeland security is nothing less than
dangerous to our security.
Let's back up and look how we got to where we are today. Senator
Lieberman initiated legislation to create a new Department of Homeland
Security last year shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. We
had hearings on the proposal and the first committee markup, and at
that time, President Bush opposed the creation of a new Department. As
a result, the vote to report the bill we reported from Governmental
Affairs was along party lines, with all of the Democrats, including
myself, voting for it and the Republicans voting against it.
In the spring, President Bush changed his mind and put forth his own
proposal for a new department. We in the Governmental Affairs Committee
then worked on a compromise committee amendment, merging most of what
the President wanted with the committee-passed bill. We reported that
to the floor at the end of July. A great deal of time went into
crafting that bill. Chairman Lieberman held 18 hearings on various
issues dealing with homeland security. We had a two day mark-up; we
considered dozens of amendments; and we passed the bill out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee by a 12-5 vote. We ultimately came up
with what I believe was a good bill.
However, the bill before us today takes some major step backwards.
For one, this bill muddles the issue of responsibility for foreign
intelligence analysis at precisely the time we should be clarifying it.
The intelligence issues we face are some of the most important issues
in this reorganization. Many of us on the Intelligence Committee have
been taking a hard look at possible intelligence failures before 9/11.
Whether or not these failures, if they hadn't occurred, could have
avoided 9/11 could be the subject of endless speculation, and that is
not the point. The point is, we need to do a better job of coordinating
our intelligence. We need to give those who do coordinate our
intelligence the resources that they need, and we need to better define
their roles and responsibilities. The Governmental Affairs Committee
passed bill contains language I offered with respect to the new
Department's role in gathering and analyzing intelligence on possible
terrorist attacks in the United States. My language clarified the
intelligence gathering functions and assigned responsibility. The
language in the Thompson amendment leaves the intelligence community
without clearly defined roles and creates the possibility for
unnecessary and costly duplication of efforts. We cannot afford that
kind of situation post 9/11.
Let me explain. Right now we have an office at the CIA called the
Counter Terrorist Center or CTC, where all information, regardless of
source, about international terrorism is sent and analyzed. Whether it
is obtained overseas or in the U.S., the CTC is the central place for
counter terrorism intelligence.
The CTC, which has 250 analysts, receives 10,000 incoming
intelligence reports a month about international terrorism from the
State Department, Customs, local law enforcement, FBI, INS, and a range
of other sources. Representatives from the FBI, Department of Defense,
Department of State, Department of Justice and other agencies that are
involved in collecting and receiving information about international
terrorism, work at the CTC with CIA analysts. One of the questions we
faced in the Governmental Affairs Committee was how the
responsibilities of the new Department in terms of intelligence
gathering and analysis related to the ongoing role of the CTC.
My language in the Governmental Affairs passed bill kept the
principal responsibility for analyzing information about international
terrorism at the CTC. Under my language, the CTC would receive all
foreign intelligence, regardless of source, and would be primarily
responsible for its analysis. As defined by the National Security Act,
50 U.S.C. 401(a), ``foreign intelligence'' is ``information relating to
the capabilities, intentions or activities of foreign governments or
elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or
international terrorist activities.'' My language makes it clear that
the principal responsibility for collecting and analyzing information
about international terrorism would be at the CTC.
Under the Committee-passed bill the new Department of Homeland
Security would have a directorate of intelligence that would be
responsible for the receipt and analysis of all information relating to
acts of terrorism in the United States including the foreign
intelligence analyses from the CTC, as well as information and analyses
relating to terrorist activities of U.S. persons or organizations. The
new directorate would be responsible for linking all that information
and analyses to an assessment of vulnerabilities to acts of terrorism
on U.S. soil.
Under the Governmental Affairs Committee bill, the new Department
would, therefore, not only be responsible for the domestic terrorism
intelligence analyses, but it would fuse foreign intelligence analyses
with the domestic intelligence analyses and obtain an assessment of
vulnerabilities to terrorism existing in the U.S. In other words, the
new Department would, as many have used the phrase, ``connect the
dots''--intelligence analyses, foreign and domestic, and U.S. vulnera-
bilities.
By maintaining the role of the CTC in international intelligence and
adding the role of the new Department in the overall analytical
responsibility with respect to terrorism in the United States, we would
avoid duplication and redundancy.
The Thompson amendment includes language that would appear to
duplicate the CTC at the new Department, and I cannot support that.
Duplicating the responsibility of analysis of foreign intelligence
would only waste valuable and limited resources and undermine our
objective of getting the best counter terrorism intelligence we can
get. According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of
experienced and trained analysts ``tends to be in short supply.'' We
just don't have the resources or the people to duplicate analyses of
foreign intelligence. It is important not to duplicate the CTC's
capability, but to strengthen it and keep the primary responsibility
for the analysis of information about international terrorism, from
wherever obtained, in one place.
Another reason that I am voting against this bill is because the
Bennett-Levin-Leahy compromise with respect to the Freedom of
Information Act, a compromise that the administration supported at the
Governmental Affairs Committee mark-up, is not in this bill.
One of the primary functions of the new Department will be to
safeguard the Nation's infrastructure, much of which is run by private
companies. The Department will need to work in partnership with private
companies to ensure that our critical infrastructure is secure. To do
so, the homeland security legislation asks companies to voluntarily
provide the new Department

[[Page 23038]]

with information about their own vulnerabilities, the hope being that
one company's problems or solutions to its problems will help other
companies with similar problems.
Some companies expressed concern that current law did not adequately
protect the confidential business information that they may be asked to
provide to the new Department from public disclosure under the Freedom
of Information Act. They argued that without a specific statutory
exemption they would be less likely to voluntarily submit information
to the new Department about critical infrastructure vulnerabilities.
We crafted a compromise to put into statute important protections
established in case law. The resulting compromise would protect from
public disclosure any record furnished voluntarily and submitted to the
new Department that:
First, pertains to the vulnerability of and threats to critical
infrastructure, such as attacks, response and recovery efforts;
Second, the provider would not customarily make available to the
public;
Third, are designated and certified by the provider as confidential
and not customarily made available to the public.
The Bennett-Levin-Leahy compro-
mise made clear that records that an agency obtains independently of
the Department are not subject to the protections I just enumerated.
Thus, if the records currently are subject to disclosure by another
agency, they would remain available under FOIA even if a private
company submits the same information to the new Department. The
language also allowed the provider of voluntarily submitted information
to change a designation and certification and to make the record
subject to disclosure under FOIA. The language required that the new
Department develop procedures for the receipt, designation, marking,
certification, care and storage of voluntarily provided information as
well as the protection and maintenance of the confidentiality of the
voluntarily provided records.
The Bennett-Levin-Leahy com-pro-mise is not included in the Thompson
amendment. Instead, the bill cuts back on FOIA access by the public by
expanding the type of information that the new department can keep from
the public. The language in this bill could result in the issuance of
rules by the new Department based on information not included in the
rule making record. It could prevent the Federal Government from using
critical infrastructure information in a civil suit seeking to protect
public safety. Finally, the language in the Thompson amendment could
result in a criminal penalty against a whistle blower who leaks the
kind of information presented to the new Department on critical
infrastructure.
The principles of open government and the public's right-to-know are
cornerstones upon which our country was built. With this bill, we are
sacrificing them in the name of protecting them. The Bennett-Levin-
Leahy compromise would have balanced the need between openness and
security to protect these principles.
I will also be voting against this bill because of the civil service
provisions that President Bush is calling ``flexibility'' but that I
consider an unnecessary blank check. There are really two issues here,
one concerns collective bargaining, and the other concerns the civil
service in general.
Under existing law, the President can issue an executive order
excluding any agency or subdivision of an agency from collective
bargaining if it is involved in a matter of ``national security.'' For
example, in January of this year, the President issued an executive
order which took collective bargaining rights away from hundreds of
Department of Justice employees, many of them clerical workers involved
in civil issues under the label of ``national security.''
But even without the national security exception, under current law,
in an emergency, the new Department could waive collective bargaining
rights, because under 5 U.S.C. 7106, ``nothing, in the chapter
establishing collective bargaining rights, shall affect the authority
of any management official of any agency . . . to take whatever actions
may be necessary to carry out the agency mission during emergencies.''
In addition, current law prohibits federal employees from striking
under any circumstances.
The Thompson bill would allow the President to waive collective
bargaining rights, whether or not there is an emergency, as long as he
gives 10 days notice and sends a written explanation to Congress. This
provision does not provide a standard under which the President's
authority is to be exercised. So in the most extreme example, under
this provision, the President could remove the collective bargaining
rights of every single employee who was transferred into the new
Department. That is unacceptable. What we tried to do in the
Governmental Affairs Committee bill was to allow workers with
collective bargaining rights transferred into the new Department to
maintain those rights if their job descriptions did not change. Given
the President's authority to act in an emergency under current law, I
believe that protected our national security without unnecessarily
trampling on rights of employees.
The Thompson amendment also allows the Secretary of the new
Department to alter civil service rules. If the Secretary does so, then
the employee unions would have 30 days to review the changes and make
recommendations to the Secretary. If the Secretary doesn't agree with
those suggestions, he or she could declare an impasse and send the
dispute to federal mediators. After another 30 days, the Secretary
could go ahead with the changes, regardless of what the mediator
suggests. The President argues that this process gives the unions a say
in any changes, but the reality is that the unions have no real
substantive remedy to the Secretary's proposed changes. No matter how
much the employees and unions oppose the new rules, how much they fight
against them, in the end, the Secretary has unilateral power to issue
the rules under the Thompson amendment.
I supported creating a Department of Homeland Security from the
beginning--like many of my Democratic colleagues well before the
President came on board. It's disheartening that the President and the
Republican leadership couldn't accept the bipartisan bill reported by
the Governmental Affairs Committee and work with that to develop a bill
without the major flaws described above. It's also distressing indeed
that the President and the Republican leadership chose to use the
Homeland Security Department legislation as a vehicle for unrelated
special interest legislation while leaving behind a number of very
important security-related provisions.
I would have been happy to stay here to work out the differences in
this legislation and develop the strongest legislation possible. But
with this vote, now, that is an impossibility. So, I hope in the next
Congress to work with my colleagues who share my views on some of these
provisions to make some needed changes to this legislation.
Let me add one more thing about how far astray we have gone with this
legislation. While the President has been holding out on passage of
this legislation in order to get the authority to waive collective
bargaining rights for employees at the new Department, the key agencies
in the Federal Government that are at the front lines of protecting our
homeland have gone underfunded in this fiscal year. According to the
House Appropriations Committee Staff: while we have authorized $38
billion for homeland defense, we have actually appropriated only $640
million to the new Department and other agencies; while we have
authorized an additional 200 immigration inspectors and 200 immigration
investigators, to date we have appropriated no money for these
positions; and while we have authorized $520 million for hospital
emergency rooms, we have only appropriated $135 million. The Republican
leadership in the House has failed to send us the appropriations bills
for fiscal year 2003 that would increase funding for the Customs
Service, the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, the FBI, the CIA--all of
the agencies

[[Page 23039]]

we need to have additional resources to stave off or adequately respond
to a terrorist attack. That is the unfortunate final chapter to this
story. By not taking up the appropriations bills for next year, we are
delaying the delivery of desperately needed dollars to the very
agencies charged with protecting us from terrorist attacks. The
misdirection of priorities involved is harrowing.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, today the Senate will finally pass a
homeland security bill. This debate began in the Senate with Senator
Lieberman's efforts in the Government Affairs Committee last Spring,
and it ends today with the Senate left with no choice but to pass the
House of Representative's version of the bill. This is an imperfect
bill, and it has come to this point through an imperfect process. The
desire to create a domestic agency capable of protecting Americans from
terrorism is bipartisan--even universal. Unfortunately, the creation of
the bill to do that has been partisan and destructively political.
Few of us have had a chance to consider this new proposal carefully.
And what we have found has not been encouraging. The House version of
the homeland security bill includes too many special interest
provisions slipped in at the last minute. The Daschle-McCain amendment,
which I supported, would have eliminated the most egregious of these,
but the Senate narrowly rejected it. It is shameful that some used this
vital Government reorganization legislation to pay back unrelated
political debts.
I also must go on record strongly in opposition to the bill's
provisions on Federal employees and their rights to organize a union
and exercise their rights as members of a union. The President's
authority to manage the Federal workforce has never been an issue
before now. No one claimed that if the President had more flexibility
over the Federal workforce that the September 11 attacks would have
been avoided or that new work rules would have made it easier for the
CIA and FBI to exchange information. Again, these unprecedented
restrictions on workers' rights were inserted in must-pass legislation.
Again, it is shameful that this vehicle was used to pursue a political
agenda.
The House bill, however, at its core does take some needed steps to
make us all safer. The United States must better focus its counter-
terrorism efforts if we are to avoid future attacks. Too many agencies
and organizations inside the Government share responsibility for
responding to terrorism domestically. The old saying has been quoted on
the floor many times during this debate, but is worth doing it one more
time: ``When every one is in charge--no one is in charge.'' By making
one Cabinet level agency in charge of Homeland Security we will have
only one person in charge. The bureaucracy underneath the Secretary
will have only one unifying priority. The advantages of that change
cannot be overestimated.
However difficult the crafting of the homeland security legislation
has been, it was the easy part. Now we face the difficult and
monumental task of actually putting the parts together into a whole
greater than its sum. The offices that make up the Department of
Homeland Security cannot forget the other important missions they
perform. Organizations like the Coast Guard and the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service have valuable missions outside of their
homeland security function that cannot be overlooked.
The Congress's work on homeland security should not stop here. As the
transfer of offices begins, there will no doubt be changes necessary.
Congressional oversight is more important now than ever. With this bill
Congress has decided that the Executive Branch needs to take homeland
security more seriously. But Congress needs to take it seriously, too.
That means giving up our short-term political games in order to work
together--Republican and Democrat, White House and Congress--to build a
bipartisan, functioning agency that will deliver all Americans the
security they deserve.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, since September 11, 2001, many in
Congress have been assiduously working to create a Department of
Homeland Security, and I am pleased that today we are finally
completing our work. After the terrorist attacks on New York and
Washington it became clear that to thwart future attacks on the United
States the Federal Government would have to do a better job gathering
and coordinating intelligence. Since September 11 I, along with several
colleagues, have believed that a reorganization of the Federal
Government is critical to improving the security of this country.
Though the President and many Congressional Republicans initially
opposed this major reorganization, there is now consensus on the need
to create a new department.
It is imperative that we move quickly and urgently to reorganize the
Federal Government. Vulnerabilities exist in our homeland security
infrastructure and we should not squander a single day addressing them.
An independent task force, chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and
Warren Rudman, recently advised that ``America remains dangerously
unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S.
soil.'' There is also new evidence that Osama bin Laden is alive and
recently recorded an audio tape. We must act now to create this agency
and to ensure that the United States Government is doing everything in
its power to better protect its borders, coasts, cities, and towns.
The Transportation Security Agency continues to play a vital role in
our domestic security policy under this legislation. At no time in our
Nation's history has increased security for our transportation
infrastructure been as critical, and I am confident that as part of
this new department the TSA will perform up to task and help ease the
fears many Americans have concerning the safety of our airports,
trains, and ports.
The legislation also address the impending baggage screening
deadline. Although the Congress mandated a December 31, 2002 deadline
for screening all baggage at airports, deploying and installing the
necessary devices for the over 400 airports has proved to be a
monumental challenge and it is clear that many airports are unable to
meet this requirement. I am pleased that this legislation includes a
common sense provision to extend the deadline for the major airports
and strictly monitor their progress in screening baggage. The extension
through December 31, 2003 will also give the TSA more time to properly
train and deploy the 22,000 federal baggage screeners necessary to
staff the devices and oversee the screening process. Rushing this
process in anticipation of the deadline would have seriously
compromised the effectiveness of the enhanced security measures.
Also included in this legislation is a provision that will allow
financially strapped airlines to purchase ``war risk'' insurance from
the Government at a reasonable cost, alleviating some of the costs the
industry has incurred after September 11. This provision is critically
important, as many airlines have been forced to spend upwards of $100
million to insure their planes against war and the continued threat of
terrorism. Tens of thousands of aviation workers have lost their jobs
because of the financial crisis in the industry. It is my hope that
Government issued insurance will help expedite the recovery of this
important sector of our economy.
As Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee,
which has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, I want to make a few
comments about the Coast Guard provisions in the legislation. The Coast
Guard is comprised of approximately 36,000 military personnel, roughly
the size of the New York City Police Department. Recently passed
legislation will expand the Coast Guard to 45,500 military personnel by
the end of this fiscal year. Expansion is important to homeland
security when you consider that the Coast Guard must patrol and protect
more than 1,000 harbor channels, and 25,000 miles of inland, intra
coastal, and coastal waterways that serve more than 300 ports. The
Coast Guard is also responsible for a number of non-homeland security
missions such as search

[[Page 23040]]

and rescue, maintaining aids to navigation, marine safety, marine
environmental protection and fisheries law enforcement.
I am pleased that this legislation does not split up the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency with personnel and assets
that are capable of performing a variety of missions with little or no
notice. The legislation preserves this flexibility by keeping the Coast
Guard in tact. In addition the bill ensures that the Coast Guard
receives the proper attention it deserves in the new Department by
requiring the commandant of the Coast Guard to report directly to the
new Secretary. The commandant has this authority within the Department
of Transportation, clearly he should have the same authority in the
Department of Homeland Security.
Since September 11, the Coast Guard has had to divert resources from
its non-homeland security missions in order to beef up homeland
security. I asked the General Accounting Office to document the change
in Coast Guard missions since September 11 and to make recommendations
on how best for the Coast Guard to operate under the ``new normalcy''
post September 11. The GAO just released its report and they note that
many of the Coast Guard's core missions, including enforcement of
fisheries and other environmental laws, are still not back to pre-
September 11 levels. The GAO recommends that the Coast Guard develop a
long-range strategic plan for achieving all of their missions, as well
as a means to easily monitor progress in achieving these goals.
Many of us are concerned, that the traditional non-homeland security
missions of the Coast Guard will suffer once the agency is transferred.
In response to these concerns this bill contains safeguards that will
ensure that non-homeland security missions will get done. I look
forward to working with the Coast Guard to ensure these missions are
getting done. Search and rescue, oil spill response and fisheries law
enforcement are important and we cannot afford to ignore or under fund
these missions.
This bill also includes a study on accelerating the Integrated
Deepwater System, a long overdue modernization of Coast Guard ships and
aircraft that operate off-shore in the deepwater environment. The Coast
Guard is operating World War II-era cutters in the deepwater
environment to perform environmental protection, national defense, and
law enforcement missions. Coast Guard aircraft, which are operated in a
maintenance intensive salt water environment, are reaching the end of
their useful lives as well. Besides high operating costs, these assets
are technologically and operationally obsolete. The Integrated
Deepwater System will not only reduce operational and maintenance
costs, but will significantly improve upon current command and control
capabilities in the deepwater environment. I support this study. I look
forward to reviewing the results of this study next year and if
acceleration makes sense, supporting that well.
While I support much of what this legislation does and while I
believe we should quickly move forward to create the Department, I have
serious concerns with particular provisions of the bill. First, I am
extremely disappointed that this legislation provides the
administration with the authority to rewrite civil service laws without
guaranteeing that Federal workers will receive fair treatment without
regard to political affiliation, equal pay for equal work, and
protection for whistleblowers. The hallmark of civil service is
protection from political influence through laws designed to ensure the
independent hiring, promotion, and firing of employees based
exclusively on merit. And by allowing the administration to rewrite the
civil service laws without guaranteeing these protections and without
meaningful labor union participation, we are putting these important
protections at risk.
I am also troubled by a provision in this legislation that gives the
President essentially unfettered discretion to forbid Department of
Homeland Security employees to belong to unions if he determines that
is necessary not only for the interest of national security but also to
protect the Department's ability to protect homeland security. I do not
object to working to reform how government operates, to make it easier
to manage and more effective. But what has been proposed in this
legislation is not an improvement in the system, it just takes rights
away from workers.
One of the most troubling provisions in this legislation deals with
protecting critical infrastructure information that is voluntarily
submitted to the Department, a worthy goal and one that I strongly
support. After all, companies will be unwilling to turn over
information about possible vulnera-
bilities if doing so would make them subject to public disclosure or
regulatory actions. To encourage companies to provide this valuable
information to the Department, the legislation would exempt the
information from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information
Act. The reason for my concern, is that the definition of information
is so broad that it could include any information that a company turns
over to Department of Homeland Security. What this means is that
information that is currently available to the public would be barred
from release if it is labeled by the company as critical
infrastructure. One can easily imagine a company turning over
incriminating documents to the Government so that it would not be
accessible by anyone else. I am discouraged by inclusion of this
provision, because earlier in this debate we developed a compromise
that more narrowly defined what information could be exempt from FOIA,
one that protected critical infrastructure information without opening
up a loophole for companies to avoid Government regulation and public
disclosure.
I am concerned by how the Immigration and Naturalization Service will
be treated in the new Department under this legislation. For years the
INS has been badly in need of reform and it seemed that creating the
Department of Homeland Security would provide an opportunity to make
improvements in enforcement and provide better visa and processing
services. Under the Lieberman proposal to create the Department of
Homeland Security, there was an Under Secretary for Immigration Affairs
who would act as a central authority to ensure a uniform immigration
policy and provide effective coordination between the service and
enforcement functions. The Republican legislation unfortunately does
not include an elevated immigration function headed by one under
secretary, and instead buries the immigration enforcement function
within the ``Border and Transportation Security'' division and places
the immigration services function with the Deputy Secretary of Homeland
Security.
There is no easy split between border enforcement and services. For
example, countering schemes for wrongful entry is not just a border
challenge, it requires close coordination among all units within
immigration responsibilities. Both functions rely on shared information
and intelligence. I am afraid, that with two people interpreting
immigration law and policy there are likely to be conflicting
interpretations, a situation that could exacerbate the current
coordination and communications problems that exist within INS.
I am extremely concerned that this legislation includes liability
protections inserted by the House for manufacturers of anti-terrorism
technology and childhood vaccines. The new provisions allow the
Secretary to designate equipment and technology used by the Department
as official ``anti-terrorism technology.'' In the event of a terrorist
attack this designation will prevent injured parties from seeking
compensation against manufacturers of such technology, even if a
manufacturer exercised gross negligence in marketing its product. The
same is true for manufacturers of childhood vaccines who will be exempt
from liability if a child dies or sustains injury as a result of
negligence stemming from the inclusion of a ``component or ingredient''
in any vaccine listed under the Vaccine Injury Table. This provision is
absolutely unconscionable. We should not

[[Page 23041]]

give manufacturers an incentive to experiment with questionable
formulas or risky ingredients for vaccines which are intended to
immunize children from disease. Likewise, we should not give
manufacturers of anti-terrorism technologies any incentive to sell a
product they know to be below par.
Another provision added by the House would remove Senate-approved
legislation to bar Government contracts with corporations that have
moved their headquarters offshore to avoid U.S. taxes. The Republicans
say that this provision will unnecessarily interfere with our national
security. Well, I believe that it also affects our national security
when corporate use of tax havens and loopholes is at an all-time high.
Various estimates show that this sort of tax evasion is costing the
government tens of billions of dollars a year which means that tax
burdens must be higher on law-abiding citizens and small businesses
that pay by the rules. To remove this sound provision at the last
minute is not only bad policy, it also insults the memory of Senator
Wellstone, who worked so hard to ensure that this provision was passed.
Despite my concerns with particular provisions in this legislation, I
do support the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and
believe it is an important element in our efforts to protect the
American people from terrorism.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, providing for homeland security and
securing our Nation against the threat of terrorism must continue to be
our foremost challenge. However, many of my Senate colleagues and I
recognize the budgetary strains caused by the mounting expenditures of
our limited resources--and the potential future costs--of responding to
the multiple and varied threats of terrorism. Our State, county, and
local agencies are struggling to fund the prevention and mitigation of
every imaginable attack on our citizens and our critical
infrastructure. Further, providing multi-million dollar allocations at
the Federal level to prevent or mitigate all perceived threats to
homeland security, or to respond to each terrorism incident, could in
itself bankrupt our national economy.
The best management decisions at all levels of Government and
industry on allocating scarce resources to the war on terrorism need an
effective analytical approach to help understand the risks and to help
improve the strategic and operational decisions to address those risks.
Most current approaches to analyzing the ``terrorist threat'' are
limited to addressing the vulnerability of--or what will happen to--
critical infrastructure if it is attacked. These ``vulnerability
analyses'' generally produce long lists of security-related
deficiencies and equally long checklists of expensive things to do to
correct the deficiencies, but they do not help communities
appropriately allocate scarce resources, people, time, and money, in
the context of an organization's strategic-level goals and objectives.
A more robust approach is needed to support decision-making, one that
can enable Government officials and private company executives to
characterize the risks of rare, high-consequence events; to identify
those that pose the greatest threats; and to best evaluate mitigation
alternatives.
Mr. GRAHAM. Would Senator Crapo yield a minute of his time?
Mr. CRAPO. Yes.
Mr. GRAHAM. Recognizing the need for better decision support, the
leaders of Miami-Dade County established late last year a team
comprised of representatives from the departments of police, fire,
emergency management, general services, computer and communications
services, seaport, aviation, and administration. They were tasked to
work in concert with a consultant and a national laboratory to develop
a process for defining, identifying, and evaluating physical and
cyberterrorism threats and vulnerabilities; developing a consistent
basis for making meaningful comparisons among risks to county assets so
that the most important risks can be addressed first; using the
structure of the process to develop strategies and associated tactics
for mitigating threats and vulnerabilities; and prioritizing mitigation
activities so that the biggest gains for the resources spent are
implemented first, resulting in the fastest possible reduction in risk
for the limited resources available, including not only dollar
resources, but the key resources of people and time. The initial work
of the team, a pilot project, has been successfully completed, and it
has generated considerable interest both in Florida and in Washington.
Mr. DURBIN. Would Senator Graham yield a minute of his time?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. Argonne National Laboratory, The DecisionWorks, Inc.,
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and Miami-Dade
County would like to build upon the results of the pilot project to
fully develop and to implement a comprehensive, risk-based
prioritization process that decision-makers could use to allocate
scarce national, State, and local resources to the War on Terrorism.
The development of this risk-based prioritization process would be
based on the methodology and results of the successful pilot project,
and the capability developed in the original pilot would be further
enhanced by the physical security, cybersecurity, critical
infrastructure, homeland security, decision analysis, and systems
engineering expertise resident in the project team.
Specifically, the purpose of the proposed risk-based prioritization
program for Homeland Security would be to develop and deliver a process
for helping decision-makers in both the public and private sectors to
assess the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack on critical
infrastructure and other assets; to understand the safety, economic,
and other consequences of a successful attack; to formulate and
evaluate alternatives for reducing or mitigating the risk of a
successful attack; and to select a portfolio of alternatives that
prioritizes the allocation of scarce resources to meet the threat of
terrorism. Using risk-based prioritization to manage non-traditional
risks like terrorism would have four important benefits. It would
provide an objective, defensible method for deciding how to allocate
resources, people, time, and money, across all risks and organizational
units. It would align resource allocations with an organization's
strategic objectives and its willingness and capacity to accept risk.
It would provide a way to evaluate the costs and benefits associated
with various alternatives for mitigating risk, from physically removing
the source of risk to actively retaining the risk internally. It would
improve the quality and relevance of information available to managers
at all levels of the organization.
Mr. CRAPO. Would Senator Durbin yield a minute of his time?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mr. CRAPO. The original amendment that Senator Lieberman submitted to
the underlying bill, H.R. 5005, to establish the Department of Homeland
Security, contained a section that would have established an Office of
Risk Analysis and Assessment within the Directorate of Science and
Technology. Recognizing the successes of this Miami-Dade County pilot
project and the tremendous contribution that a comprehensive, risk-
based prioriti-
zation process that decision-makers could use to allocate scarce
national, State, and local resources to the War on Terrorism, Senator
Durbin and I offered an amendment that would have enhanced and
strengthened this risk assessment function. This amendment would have
required the Department of Homeland Security to establish a
comprehensive, risk-based process for prioritizing and allocating the
Federal, State, and local activities and resources necessary to combat
terrorism and to provide for homeland security response. It also would
have authorized $15 million in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003, and
such sums as necessary in subsequent years, for the development of the
risk-based prioriti-
zation process. Unfortunately, the current version of the Homeland
Security Act before the Senate does not contain our amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Would Senator Crapo yield a minute of his time?
Mr. CRAPO. Yes.

[[Page 23042]]

Mr. DURBIN. Although our amendment was not included, clearly the
risk-based prioritization process we have described has significantly
benefitted the local community in which it has been tested. Would
Senator Thompson concur that a comprehensive, risk-based process for
prioritizing and allocating the Federal, State, and local activities
and resources necessary to combat terrorism and to provide for homeland
security response should be given serious attention by the new
Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. THOMPSON. Would Senator Durbin yield a minute of his time?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mr. THOMPSON. As ranking member on the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, I appreciate your bringing this project to the committee's
attention. I am confident that the Department of Homeland Security will
give it fair consideration when reviewing grant applications in the
coming years.
Mr. CRAPO. Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, and I thank the Senator
for his consideration and support.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, it has long been obvious that homeland
security was the most critical issue facing our nation today. I am
pleased and proud to speak today on the compromise that this body has
struck to approve of this measure through landmark legislation. We are
finally in a position to give the President the tools he needs to fight
the war against terrorism with every resource that this great nation
can muster. Our country will be safer because of the enormous hard work
and patriotism shared by members on both sides of the aisle.
The final bipartisan compromise is something that we can all be proud
of. It incorporates a crucial compromise on labor rights. I always have
believed that the President must be given the ability to hire and
retain the very best people to do the work of keeping our country safe.
While the final version of the bill gives the President sufficient
flexibility to effectively manage the employees in the new Department
of Homeland Security, it also provides sufficient procedures to protect
the rights of workers. This strikes, in my view, an appropriate
balance.
I also am pleased to note that the bill maximizes the new
Department's ability to take advantage of the tremendous resources and
expertise of America's private sector. It is perfectly clear that
America's businesses will play a vital role in enhancing our nation's
security. Private businesses, after all, own and operate most of our
infrastructure, and provide most of the cutting edge technologies that
will support our nation's defense efforts. The bill helps the private
sector help our nation by crafting some reasonable protections from
frivolous tort litigation, and such a measure will ultimately save
lives.
This legislation incorporates my proposal to stiffen the criminal
penalties for cyberterrorism and to provide law enforcement agencies
with new tools to use in emergency situations involving immediate
threats to our national security interests. The cyberterrorism section
of the bill also provides statutory authorization for the Office of
Science and Technology located within the National Institute of Justice
of the Department of Justice. The bill strikes language, contained in
earlier versions, that would have provided OST to be ``independent of
the National Institute of Justice.'' Accordingly, I understand subtitle
D to place operational authority over OST--as authorized by the bill--
in the NIJ Director in the same manner and to the same extent that the
NIJ Director currently exercises over OST--as it currently exists--and
that the NIJ Director's authority over grants, cooperative agreements,
and contracts for science and technology research and development, and
the publications that disseminate the results of that research and
development remain unchanged by this bill. Furthermore, I wish to make
clear that I do not understand the administrative language in the bill
that provides that certain publications decisions ``shall rest solely''
with the Director of the Office to affect the bill's overarching--and
controlling--provision that expressly places the new Office ``under the
general authority of the Assistant Attorney General.''
The bill likewise incorporates a drastic reorganization of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, abolishing the INS as it
currently exists and separating the enforcement and service
responsibilities within the new Department. This new structure
recognizes the importance of both functions, allows for coordination,
and confers appropriate funding and management to both enforcement and
services. This top-to-bottom reorganization of INS is something that
numerous members of the Judiciary Committee have worked tirelessly with
me to do and to do right. The Homeland Security Bill also includes a
valuable provision that will significantly reduce the availability of
explosives to certain prohibited persons, including terrorists and
felons. Senator Kohl and I have worked hard on this provision, which
will improve law enforcement's ability to track explosives purchases
and help prevent the criminal use and accidental misuse of explosives
materials.
I want to conclude by taking a moment to discuss the ban on the TIPS
program that was inserted in the final version of the Homeland Security
Bill. Let me make clear that none of us wants an Orwellian version of
Big Brother watching over us at all times. I made my own concerns on
this issue very clear to Attorney General Ashcroft during an oversight
hearing a few months ago, as did other members of the Judiciary
Committee. I was concerned, for example, that the Department would keep
a historical database of such information, but the Attorney General
assured the Committee that this would not occur. Since then, I have
been gratified to learn that the Attorney General has taken our
concerns to heart, implementing fundamental changes to the program that
are designed to protect our privacies in a balanced manner. In fact,
the Department of Justice now has committed to not include within the
TIPS program any workers, such as postal or utility workers, whose work
puts them in contact with homes and private property.
I think all of us can agree that some type of voluntary reporting
program that permits but does not require concerned citizens to report
information is appropriate. This is, of course, exactly what drives the
highly successful results obtained by the popular TV program,
``America's Most Wanted.'' In fact, John Walsh, the host of that
program, has publicly endorsed the concept of a TIPS program. Moreover,
I fully support the Amber Alert Program, which was created in 1996
after a 9-year-old girl, Amber Hagerman, was kidnapped and murdered in
Texas. This program is a voluntary partnership between law-enforcement
and broadcasters to create a voluntary reporting program in child-
abduction cases. The Amber Alert system recently led to the rescue of
two teenage girls who were abducted in California; an anonymous tip
from a motorist who responded to the program ultimately led to the
girls' safe return. I am so convinced of this program's effectiveness
that I recently co-sponsored legislation to create a national Amber
Alert system.
In sum, we need to structure the TIPS program in a way that is
responsible and effective. We do not want big government to enlist
millions of Americans to snoop into the daily affairs of ordinary
citizens. But, just as importantly, we need to provide an avenue for
citizens to voluntarily alert law enforcement when they see things that
cause them concern. It very well may be the case that the next 9/11 is
averted because an accountant out walking his dog sees something
unusual in his neighborhood park. We need to let that person know who
he can call to report that information. As the Chairman-designate of
the Judiciary Committee, I think that we will need to consider what
type of voluntary reporting system would be acceptable to meet the real
concerns posed by terrorist activity when we return for the 108th
Congress.
We have debated this measure for many days now. I am delighted that
we have finally--and successfully--come to the end of the road. By
passing this legislation, we are taking a big step forward in helping
to defend our nation

[[Page 23043]]

from terrorism. I support the final compromise version of the Homeland
Security Bill and hope that all of my colleagues will do the same.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to support the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, but must register my disappointment with the
scope of this bill's ban on granting Federal contracts to corporate
inverters.
In October of this year, Senator Baucus and I introduced the
Reclaiming Expatriated Contracts and Profits, RECAP, Act to address the
issue of inverting corporations that are awarded contracts by the
Federal Government. Inverting corporations set up a folder in a foreign
filing cabinet or a mail box overseas and call that their new foreign
``headquarters.'' This allows companies to escape millions of dollars
of federal taxes every year. In April of this year, Senator Baucus and
I introduced the Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore, REPO,
Act to shut down these phony corporate inversions. Today, our REPO bill
has still not been enacted by the Senate.
You would think that the ``greed-grab'' of corporate inversions would
satisfy most companies, but unfortunately it is not enough. After these
corporations invert and save millions in taxes, they then come back
into the United States to obtain juicy contracts with the Federal
Government. They create phony foreign headquarters to escape taxes and
then use other peoples' taxes to turn a profit.
Chairman Baucus and I offered our bipartisan RECAP bill as a
complement to our earlier REPO bill on corporate inversions. For future
corporate inversions, our RECAP bill will bar the inverting company
from receiving Federal contracts. For the inversions that have already
gotten out before the REPO bill can be enacted, our RECAP bill will
make them send back their ill-gotten tax savings by forcing them to
lower their bids in order to obtain Government contracts.
Unfortunately, the Government contracting ban in the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 only applies prospectively to a narrow band of
inversions where 80 percent of the shareholders are the same before and
after the inversion. The homeland security ban bill does not address
the broader range inversion transactions involving less than 80 percent
of the shareholders. It also does not touch inverters that have gotten
out under the wire. This omission allows companies which have already
inverted to avoid millions in U.S. taxes while easily reducing their
taxable profits from Federal contracts by creating phony deductions
through their inversion structures. This failure to address inverted
companies gives them an unfair cost advantage over competing Federal
contractors that choose to stay and pay in the U.S.A.
So let me be clear. The Government contracting ban in the homeland
security bill is merely a down payment on this issue, and it isn't good
enough for me. The Homeland Security ban isn't half a loaf--it's barely
two slices of bread. So to everyone developing or contemplating one of
these inversion deals, you proceed at your own peril. We will continue
to pursue corporate expatriation abuse, and the abusers who seek fat
Government contracts while skirting their U.S. tax obligations. I will
continue this issue in the 108th Congress and beyond. I look forward to
enlisting the support of my colleagues with the Committee on
Governmental Affairs as we march forward to shut down this abuse in all
its forms.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, like many important decisions in the
Senate, we are today faced with something of a Hobson's choice. I agree
that the consolidation of agencies currently responsible for securing
the homeland will, if done right, result in greater security for the
Nation and I support establishing a Department of Homeland Security.
But, in my view, it would be better for us if we were implementing this
massive government reorganization more gradually. We are shifting close
to 200,000 workers under the new homeland security umbrella in this
bill, and it would make more sense to do so in stages. Here we are
trying to do too much at once and, if history is any guide, we will be
back at this department many, many times in the years to come with
amendments designed to fix what we enacted in haste this year.
What we are left with is the choice of doing nothing, or taking the
next best option of passing this bill and launching a new Federal
agency. After careful thought, I come to the conclusion that passing
this flawed bill is better than doing nothing. Consider our current
structure. Today, homeland security responsibilities are spread among
over 100 different government agencies. The structure of the Treasury
Department provides a good example of the problem. That agency houses
the U.S. Customs Service, an agency tasked with monitoring the shipping
containers that come into our country. Keeping the Customs Service in
the agency concerned primarily with fiscal matters makes little sense
when Customs' primary mission should know be safeguarding those
imports. Or consider the Coast Guard, an agency in charge of patrolling
our borders. The Coast Guard currently reports to the Secretary of
Transportation. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is tasked
with enforcing our immigration laws and securing our borders, yet its
director reports to the Nation's chief law enforcement officer, the
Attorney General. These examples are just the beginning. The need for
reorganization is clear.
Modern management principles teach that the agencies and functions of
government should be grouped together based on their major purposes and
missions, and the bill before us accomplishes that goal. Once it is
fully implemented, the Department of Homeland Security will be the one
Federal agency with the responsibility of securing our borders,
safeguarding our transportation systems, and defending our critical
infrastructures. One agency will be charged with synthesizing and
analyzing intelligence related to homeland security. One agency will be
responsible for equipping and training the police officers,
firefighters, and emergency medical technicians who are often the first
to respond to a terrorist incident.
These are constructive organizational changes, ones that I am hopeful
will help us better defend the country against attack. But should we be
rushing their implementation without thoughtful consideration? During
debate on this measure I voted in favor of an amendment offered by
Senator Byrd that would have required the Congress and the
Administration to work together to develop a staged implementation of
the new homeland security agency, an implementation far more deliberate
than the one we consider today. I am sorry Senator Byrd's amendment was
not adopted.
Without Senator Byrd's approach, I fear we are doing things in
reverse and I predict we will have to revisit this new Department's
structure several times before we get it right. The government
reorganization most similar to the one we consider today provides a
guide. In 1947, we enacted the National Security Act and created the
Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National
Security Council. That approach still had to be revisited several more
times, in 1949, 1953, 1958, and 1986, to perfect the structure.
Given the choice we now face, between the current state of homeland
security disorganization and this bill's approach, I am forced to vote
in favor of the bill. I do so with the understanding that vigorous
congressional oversight of the new agency will be critical to insure it
is not only accomplishing its primary mission of protecting our Nation
but also to guarantee that the vast new authorities we give to the
President here are not abused.
I will be watching to see if the administration abuses its authority
over workers in this new Department. We must be wary of the potential
politicization of our workforce. The employees of the new Department
must be highly dedicated professionals, free from political pressure.
We must be certain that the most expert and experienced employees are
free to speak their minds and to act quickly and aggressively to defend
our national security. They must not be looking over

[[Page 23044]]

their shoulders, concerned about the ins and outs of Washington
politics. They must be safe from the kinds of influence that could
cause them to slant their analysis or trim their opinions to fit what
is popular. I will be watchful that the employees of the new Department
are free from the threat of political retaliation, and secure in their
jobs so that they can perform their important tasks to the highest
professional standards.
I support the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, and I
will vote in favor of this bill today. The increased coordination and
communication that may result from the new governing structures created
in this bill could, if properly implemented, provide the Nation with
vastly improved security. But because of the speed with which we
considered this proposal, the rapid, sweeping reorganization it
immediately envisions, and the prospect for abuse in several of its
provisions, I fear this bill will need to be revisited several times
and its implementation will need to be closely monitored by Congress if
we hope to get it right. I will be closely watching the new agency's
creation, and I hope each of my colleagues does the same.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are finally about to vote on a bill
to create a new Homeland Security Department. Many Senators worked long
and hard to get us to this point. But one man was indispensable. He is
the chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, Joe Lieberman.
Under his leadership, the Government Affairs Committee held its first
hearing on homeland security 10 days after September 11. It was at that
hearing that former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, the co-chairs
of a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission, shared their recommendation
that the Government should create a permanent, cabinet-level Department
to protect the American people from terrorism. Three weeks later, on
the one-month anniversary of September 11, Senator Lieberman announced
his plan to create such a department. He had the vision to see what
needed to be done and the patience and flexibility to work through
disagreements and come up with workable, bipartisan alternatives. He
also had the courage to stand his ground for months while the President
threatened to veto any Homeland Security bill. I also want to thank
Democrats on the Governmental Affairs Committee for standing with
Chairman Lieberman.
There are some who would like to rewrite the history of this effort.
They want the American people to believe that Democratic opposition is
the reason it has taken this long for Congress to pass a Homeland
Security bill. That is simply not so. Creating a Homeland Security
Department was a Democratic idea to begin with. It was disturbing to
see that truth twisted in the recent campaigns. There are some who are
threatening publicly to try to exploit homeland security again for
partisan political advantage in the Louisiana Senate race next month.
For the sake of our Nation, I hope they do not. Our war is with
terrorism, not each other.
In the months since Senator Lieberman introduced his bill, we have
heard countless chilling reasons why a Homeland Security Department is
needed. We have heard about dots that were not connected, intelligence
reports that weren't shared and urgent warnings that were not heeded. I
will vote for this bill because I believe a Homeland Security
Department is right and necessary. I have thought so for more than a
year. But we need to be honest with the American people about what this
means.
I am very concerned about what I fear are false hopes and false
assurances being given by some of those who came late to this cause.
Many of the same people who claimed just a few months ago that
creating a Department of Homeland Security would detract from the war
on terrorism now seem to want the American people to believe that
creating this Department will solve the war on terrorism. They seem to
want people to believe that, once we pass this bill, there is nothing
else that needs to be done--no other changes that need to be made--to
prevent another September 11. This is worse than wishful thinking. It
is dangerous thinking. And it is not true.
Reorganizing parts of our Government in order to better connect the
dots is only part of the solution. A much greater and far more
comprehensive effort is still needed to protect America from terrorism.
That effort will be difficult, it will be complicated, it will be
costly. To pretend otherwise is a disservice to the American people.
Our public health system is still dangerously under-prepared for the
possibility of future biological or chemical attacks. Our borders are
still not secure as they need to be. Neither are our seaports; we still
search only 2 percent of the roughly 6 million containers that are
unloaded every year at America's ports. The U.S. has 150,000 miles of
train track plus rail yards, bridges, tunnels, and switches that are
all still vulnerable to terrorist attacks. This bill does not provide
the resources to secure them. Our food supply--domestic and imported--
remains highly vulnerable to biological attacks. This bill does not
change that fact.
A study last year by the Army Surgeon General warned that a terrorist
attack on a toxic chemical plant in a densely populated area could kill
2.4 million people. There are more than 120 such plants in America.
Even after we pass this bill, those plants will remain vulnerable to
terrorist attacks. The Department of Energy estimates that there are
603 tons of weapons-grade material inside the former Soviet republics--
enough to build 41,000 nuclear weapons. So far, only about a third of
this material has been properly secured. This bill alone won't keep
that deadly material out of the hands of terrorists who want to use it
to build ``dirty bombs.'' Last year, the President's budget cut the
programs that safeguard weapons of mass destruction. Fortunately, the
Senate reversed that decision. It is urgent that we continue to work
with Russia and with other nations to shut down the nuclear black
market. In addition, we know that there were intelligence failures
leading up to September 11. Yet, unlike the bill introduced by Senator
Lieberman and passed by the Governmental Affairs Committee, this bill
leaves most critical intelligence functions outside of the Homeland
Security Department. We need to do a much better job of coordinating
intelligence efforts regarding terrorism--or critical pieces of
information will continue to fall between cracks.
Nearly as troubling as what was left out of this bill is what was
added to it at the eleventh hour. The American people should know that
this is not the same Homeland Security bill that Congress was debating
before the election. It was re-written in secret after the election. It
has been stripped of a number of bipartisan, workable solutions that
had been worked out on difficult problems. It has also been used as a
Trojan horse for special interest giveaways that have little or nothing
to do with making America safer from terrorism.
We offered an amendment to strip out seven of these last-minute
changes--changes that have not been debated publicly. But the White
House lobbied hard to keep them, and the White House won. As a result,
this Homeland Security bill now rewards US companies that use Carribean
tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes by allowing those
companies to compete for Government contracts with the Department of
Homeland Security. It says to those companies: Even if you refuse to
help pay for the war on terrorism, you can still profit from it. What
does that say about this administration's commitment to corporate
responsibility? You tell me. Better yet, tell the American people.
This bill now guts a critical part of the aviation security bill the
Senate passed last year by a vote of 100 to nothing. It does so by
providing special immunity for private companies that perform passenger
and baggage screening at airports. It is likely to slow enactment of
other new emergency transportation security rules that the
Transportation Security Administration has said are essential to
protect air and rail passengers, as well.

[[Page 23045]]

In the name of protecting Americans, this bill actually eliminates
some legal protections for ordinary Americans. It grants legal immunity
to countless private companies. All the Federal Government has to do is
designate a company's product an ``anti-terrorism technology'' and the
company can't be sued--even if it acts in ways that are grossly
negligent. This bill also provides special legal protections to the
maker of a mercury-based, vaccine additive that has been alleged to
harm children. For parents who are involved in class-action lawsuits
against the makers of that additive, this bill slams the courthouse
door in their face.
This bill abandons the bipartisan effort to make workplace rules in
the new Department more flexible without trampling worker protections
and making workers more vulnerable to partisan political pressure.
History has already shown that no one--no one--sacrificed more on
September 11th than did public workers. I believe history will also
show that using September 11 to justify taking away public employees'
basic rights is a mistake. I regret deeply that it is part of this
bill.
This bill also undermines the Federal Freedom of Information Act and
community right-to-know laws. It says that any information a company
offers voluntarily to the Homeland Security Department--or any
information a company gives to another government entity, which is then
turned over to the Homeland Security Department--is classified. And it
makes releasing such information a criminal offense. You don't have to
worry about shredding damaging documents anymore. If a company wants to
hide information from the public, all it has to do is give the
information to the Federal Government and releasing it becomes a
criminal offense. This is not necessary. The Freedom of Information Act
already allows exceptions for national security reasons. We will not
make America safer by denying people critical information or throwing
conscientious whistle-blowers in prison.
Finally, this bill authorizes the creation of a university-based
homeland security research center. That sounds like a good idea. But
this bill is now written in such a way that only one university in all
of America is eligible to compete for the research center: Texas A&M.
We shouldn't have to be here, working on this bill, on November 19.
It has been nearly 14 months since Senator Lieberman first proposed
creating a Department of Homeland Security. The Senate could have
passed a strong Homeland Security bill, and President Bush could have
signed it into law, long before the election. Democrats tried five
times to break the Republican filibuster on homeland security. The
reason we couldn't break the filibuster is because Republican leaders
wanted to use homeland security as an election issue. They wanted to be
able to blame Democrats for the impasse they created, and question the
patriotism of good and decent people. As I said, for the sake of the
American people and their security, I hope we have seen the last of
those tactics.
I will vote for this bill because there is no doubt that we need to
create a Department of Homeland Security. But we must be honest with
the American people. Passing this bill does not solve the problem of
terrorism on American soil. Creating a new Department of Homeland
Security is only one part of the solution. A much greater and far more
comprehensive effort is still needed to prevent future terrorist
attacks. That effort will be difficult, it will be complicated, it will
be costly. We should not pretend otherwise.
Last year, after September 11, this Senate put aside partisan
differences and acted quickly to protect America from terrorism. It is
deeply regrettable that much of that unity seems to have been lost, or
sacrificed for partisan advantage, in the closing months of this
Congress. We are capable of better. The American people deserved
better. And I hope that in the next Congress, we will give them better.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, it is a happy
twist of fate that the Senator from Pennsylvania is on the floor as I
rise to support final passage of this legislation, which would create
the unified and accountable Department of Homeland Security that the
American people urgently need to protect them.
It is a happy twist of fate because the legislative journey that
brings us to the eve of adoption of this critically important
legislation began on October 11, 2001, more than a year ago, but
clearly a month after September 11, 2001, when I was privileged, along
with Senator Specter, to introduce the first legislation that would
authorize the creation of this Department. I thank him for joining me
on that occasion and for working with us right through the road we have
traveled, which has been long and taken twists and turns we never could
have foreseen. We have even run into a few potholes along the way.
The important point is we are about to reach the destination, and we
are going to reach it together--in a broad, bipartisan statement of
support for this critically necessary new Department.
Giving credit where it is due, the journey actually began before
October 11 and September 11, more than 18 months ago, when the
visionary Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, led by
our former colleagues Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, warned us of our
vulnerabilities to terrorism with a painful prescience, and urged the
creation of exactly the kind of new consolidated federal department to
fight terrorism that we are about to adopt.
As I say, we have reached our destination, and that, I believe, is
testament to the power of the basic idea underlying this legislation.
It is also a reflection that our history changed on September 11, our
vulnerabilities were exploited by our terrorist enemies, and we can
never let that happen again. Those vulnerabilities remain,
notwithstanding the improvements that have been made over the last
year.
We recognize that protecting ourselves from terrorism will take an
unprecedented commitment of people and resources. Building this
Department will involve no shortage of problems, as any massive
undertaking of this kind would--but we, after this initial act of
creation, must be ready to improve, to support, and ultimately to
protect the American people with this Department. We have no choice.
Obviously, as I have said earlier today and at other times in the
debate on the bill, the measure before us is not perfect. No
legislation ever is. There are parts of the legislation before us that
I think are not only unrelated to homeland security and unnecessary,
but unwise and unfair. Of course, we made an attempt to eliminate those
provisions with the motion to strike that came very close to passing
earlier today. But this is the legislative process here on Earth, not a
perfect process such as that which might exist in a heavenly location.
We do not always get what we want here.
Hopefully, though, through compromise, steadfastness, and hard work,
the American people will get what they need. And that, I think, is what
is happening with the adoption of this bill, which will occur in just a
few hours.
We must remember also--to say what is clear--that this bill will be
written in the law books. It is not written in stone. If we need to
make changes down the road, we can and we will.
Nonetheless, all of those caveats, conditions, and concerns about
certain elements of the legislation notwithstanding, we are about to be
part of an historic accomplishment. It is the largest reorganization of
the Federal Government since 1947, probably the most complex Federal
reorganization in history, but that is what our present circumstances
require to sustain our security.
When we pass this bill, we in Congress must then not turn away but
turn our attention toward overseeing the Department, with a clear
vision and commitment. We must provide the necessary resources, which
we still have not done, not just to this Department but to all of those
throughout America, the Federal, county, State,

[[Page 23046]]

and local governments who will partner with us to protect the security
of the American people.
Early next year, we will have to confirm the Department's leaders and
begin to review its strategies and objectives. I look forward to
playing an active oversight role under the new leadership of the new
chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Collins of
Maine, and in the Senate at large. Part of that oversight role must be
taking great care to make sure this administration and future
administrations use the authorities this bill gives them in a
constructive and constitutional manner.
The important thing to say is we are ending this journey mostly
together, certainly with a strong bipartisan vote. Though we have made
the twists and turns and had the obstacles along the way I have
referred to, the fact is, once we end this part of the journey, we
begin the next phase. On that phase, I hope and believe nonpartisanship
will be the rule, not the exception. I hope and believe that we will
oversee and support the historic new effort to achieve homeland
security in our new circumstances with as little partisanship as has
been demonstrated by those of us who have been privileged to work as
members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where there are
disagreements, but rarely are they partisan.
That, I hope and believe, will characterize our work in support of
the new Department of Homeland Security.
I want to speak to some of the conditions this legislation will
correct. As I said earlier, we have made some progress over the past 14
months in trying to close the vulnerabilities September 11 revealed.
The Office of Homeland Security has been created. The FBI and CIA have
begun the process of reform. FEMA has focused more resources on
countering terrorism. Smallpox vaccines are stockpiled around the
country. We have begun efforts to link Federal law enforcement
authorities to State and local police and to give community first
responders some of the guidance, if not yet the resources, they so
critically need. But the fact is we remain fundamentally and
unacceptably disorganized, and that is why we need to restructure in
exactly the way this legislation will require.
Today, there are a lot of people and agencies in the government whose
responsibilities include homeland security. Their duties often overlap.
Everyone is in charge of their own domain and, therefore, no one is in
charge of the overall homeland security effort.
A year ago, we came to understand tragically, painfully, that the
status quo was untenable. We knew we had these gaps in preparedness,
but in the aftermath of September 11, there was no agreement on how to
move forward. Our Governmental Affairs Committee held 18 hearings, and
over time we grew more convinced our weaknesses were so profound they
cried out for fundamental reorganization.
We saw border patrol agencies that seemed unable to communicate with
each other, let alone to stop dangerous goods and people from entering
the United States of America.
We saw intelligence agencies, despite strong signals about a
potential terrorist attack of the type we sustained on September 11,
failing to put those pieces together.
We saw first responders around the country spread thinner than ever.
And we saw deviously creative terrorists acquiring and applying
technology to advance their own ends--but an American government that
had not yet sought to marshal the most innovative people, our people,
in the history of the world to meet this life-or-death challenge.
We did not like what we saw.
So we worked hard to better organize it, to make it more efficient,
to make it more focused, to create a bill that would empower a
Secretary with budget authority to get the agencies involved in
homeland security to work together. That is what led to our
introduction of the bill with Senator Specter and others, including
Senator Cleland, and ultimately to report the bill out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee in May.
I don't think we can count the ups and downs since then. The finished
product we are prepared to vote on today is, notwithstanding the
concerns I have expressed, a great leap forward for the security of the
American people. It is a great achievement to have reached agreement on
a governmental reorganization of this magnitude.
This is, after all, a very turf-conscious town, one in which we often
speak volumes about the need for change, but just as often, probably
more often, fail to deliver change. This bill will deliver change.
Former Senators Hart and Rudman, who ably led that commission I
referred to, this year were asked again to head an independent task
force created by the Council on Foreign Relations. The final report of
the task force, released October 24, 2002, was entitled titled
``America Still Unprepared--America Still in Danger.'' I read from the
conclusion.

Quickly mobilizing the nation to prepare for the worst is
an act of prudence, not fatalism. In the 21st century,
security and liberty are inseparable. The absence of adequate
security elevates the risk that laws will be passed
immediately in the wake of surprise terrorist attacks that
will be reactive, not deliberative. Predictably, the
consequence will be to compound the initial harm incurred by
a tragic event with measures that overreach in terms of
imposing costly new security mandates and the assumption of
new government authorities that may erode our freedoms.
Accordingly, aggressively pursuing America's homeland
security imperatives immediately may well be the most
important thing we can do to sustain our cherished freedoms
for future generations.

That is exactly what we will do when we adopt this legislation in a
few hours.
And pursuing America's homeland security imperatives is not only
critically important for future generations of Americans; let us also
realize that, as we adopt and create this new Department, we set a
powerful example for the nations of the world. Terrorists threaten
innocent lives everywhere. When we demonstrate that we are willing and
able to earn both security and more freedom, we will show free nations
that they can preserve their way of life without living in fear of
terror. And, equally important, we will demonstrate to those nations
remaining in the world whose people are not free that they can embrace
freedom and tolerance and democracy without compromising their safety.
There are few more important signals we can send by our example to
the nations of the world.
In 1919, Henry Cabot Lodge said famously: ``If the United States
fails, the best hopes of mankind fail with it.''
I add today, when the United States succeeds, the best hopes of
mankind succeed with it. When we succeed in protecting our homeland
security and preserving our freedom, we will show the way to nations
throughout the world.
This evening we say to the people of America: have confidence, your
government is organizing itself to protect your security. We need not
accept another September 11 type terrorist attack as inevitable. It is
not.
We are the strongest nation in the world. If we marshal our strength
as this new Department can, no future terrorist attack such as
September 11 will ever occur again.
Finally, I give credit and thanks to the Members of the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, and to the majority staff for their
passion, precision, and persistence. They were tireless, working day
and night, through recesses, weekends, and holidays, and they have
every right to be proud of this product of their labor: a new
Department that will better protect the American people for
generations. The names of the staff members, from both the Committee
and from my personal staff, are:
Holly Idelson, Mike Alexander, Larry Novey, Susan Propper, Kevin
Landy, Josh Greenman, Bill Bonvillian, Michelle McMurry, Kiersten Todt
Coon, Joyce Rechtschaffen, Laurie Rubenstein, Leslie Phillips, Fred
Downey, Adrian Erckenbrack, Yul Kwon, Thomas Holloman, Donny Williams,
Janet Burrell, Darla Cassell, Wendy Wang, Megan Finlayson, and Adam
Sedgewick.

[[Page 23047]]

I thank them all for their commitment.
I would also like to thank the numerous staff for other members who
have been so helpful throughout the process. On the Governmental
Affairs Committee, so many staff played an important role in this bill.
On Senator Durbin's Staff, Marianne Upton and Sue Hardesty. On Senator
Akaka's staff, Rick Kessler, Nanci Langley, Sherri Stephan and Jennifer
Tyree. On Senator Levin's staff, Laura Stuber. On Senator Cleland's
staff, Donni Turner. On Senator Carnahan's staff, Sandy Fried. On
Senator Carper's staff, John Kilvington. On Senator Dayton's staff, Bob
Hall. Senator Daschle's staff also has contributed greatly to the
enactment of this legislation; I'd like to thank in particular Andrea
LaRue.
From the Office of Legislative Counsel, I'd like to thank Tony Coe
and Matthew McGhie for their assistance and guidance.
I thank Senator Thompson, who is leaving the Senate soon--tonight,
presumably--for the pleasure of his company on this journey, and the
contributions he made to the historical accomplishment this legislation
represents.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from West Virginia
has 60 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Kansas, Mr.
Brownback, wishes some time.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, yes, I
would like 5 minutes, if that is possible, to speak on the homeland
security bill.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator gets his time from whom?
Mr. BROWNBACK. From Senator Thompson. I believe he has some time
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I seek 5 of those 7 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I promised to yield 5 minutes of my time to Mr. Jeffords,
after which I would yield for whatever time the Senator from Kansas
desires, after which, then, I will speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Mark Twain once said. ``Always do
right--this will gratify some people and astonish the rest.'' I rise
today to explain why I believe voting against this bill is the right
thing to do.
Of the may reasons to vote against the bill, I will focus on three--
the bill's treatment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
bill's treatment of the Freedom of Information Act, and the process
used to create this new Department.
With the passage of this Homeland Security legislation, we will
destroy the Federal Emergency Management Agency, losing years of
progress toward a well-coordinated Federal response to disasters.
As it now exists, FEMA is a lean, flexible agency receiving
bipartisan praise as one of the most effective agencies in government.
But it hasn't always been that way.
Throughout the 1980s, FEMA's focus on Cold War civil defense
preparedness left the Agency ill-prepared to respond to natural
disasters.
The Congressional chorus of critics decried the Agency's misguided
focus and reached a crescendo after bungled responses to Hurricane Hugo
in 1989 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992.
One of FEMA's leading Congressional critics, then-Representative Tom
Ridge said in 1988, ``I was convinced that somewhere along the way, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency had lost its sense of mission.''
Over the last decade, refocusing the agency's mission and priorities
on natural disasters has left the agency well-equipped to respond to
all types of disasters. FEMA's stellar response to September 11th
provided this.
I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and failure, we
would jeopardize the Federal government's effective response to natural
disasters by dissolving FEMA into this monolithic Homeland Security
Department.
I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to
hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes, begging the question, who
will?
Also of great concern to me are the new Freedom of Information Act
exemptions contained in the latest substitute.
Unfortunately, the current Homeland Security proposal chokes the
public's access to information under the Freedom of Information Act. I
ask, are we headed toward an Orwellian society with an all-knowing,
secretive big brother reigning over an unknowing public?
The bill defines information so broadly that almost anything
disclosed by a company to the Department of Homeland Security could be
considered secret and kept from the public. Although I believe the
current law contains an adequate national security exemption, in the
spirit of compromise I supported the carefully crafted bipartisan
Senate language contained in both the Lieberman substitute and the
Gramm-Miller substitute. The current bill ignores this compromise.
The process by which we received this substitute seems eerily similar
to the way the White House sprung its original proposal on Congress
some time ago. Late last week we received a bill that had magically
grown from 35 pages to an unwieldy 484 pages. There was no compromise
in arriving at the current substitute, only a mandate to pass the
substitute or be branded as weak on homeland security or, worse yet,
unpatriotic.
Still more troubling, the current bill places little emphasis on
correcting what went wrong on September 11, or addressing future
threats. Correcting intelligence failures should be our prime concern.
Instead, this bill recklessly reshuffles the bureaucratic deck.
Furthermore, as my colleague Senator Corzine stated earlier this
week, this bill does not address other vitally important issues such as
security at facilities that store or use dangerous chemicals. Without
provisions to address yet another gaping hole in our Nation's security,
why are we now being more deliberate in our approach?
In closing, I feel it is irresponsible to divert precious limited
resources from our fight against terrorism to create a dysfunctional
new bureaucracy that will only serve to give the American people a
false--false sense of security. I will vote against this bill because
it does nothing to address the massive intelligence failure that led up
to the September 11 attacks, it dismantles the highly effectively
Federal Emergency Management Agency, and creates dangerous new
exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act that threaten the
fundamental democratic principle of a well-informed citizenry.
I am sorry for having to take this position, but I believe so deeply
in what I have said that I must do it.
I am pleased to have been able to express myself, and I thank the
Senator from West Virginia, my faithful friend.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from West Virginia allow me to direct a
statement, through the Chair, to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has the floor.
Mr. REID. I am sorry, the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I want to say, because the opportunity may not be right at
a subsequent time, how much I appreciate the days the Senator from West
Virginia has spent on the floor on this issue. Because of my having
responsibility to help move legislation along here, sometimes I was
concerned it was taking so much time. But in hindsight, this
legislation we are going to soon pass--it will pass sometime tonight--
is better legislation. And while it may not be--484 pages may not be
better, the knowledge of the American people of this legislation is so
much better than if we had passed this as people wanted on September
11.
So I want to commend and applaud the Senator from West Virginia for
educating the Senate and the American public about what is in this bill
and what is not in this bill. As I said, this legislation will pass.
But as a result of what the Senator has done over these many months
about this legislation, everyone is going to be looking at what is
taking place in this new agency that

[[Page 23048]]

would not have taken place but for the persistence of the Senator from
West Virginia. The American public owe you a tremendous debt of
gratitude for your knowledge about legislation and, most of all, for
understanding what the Constitution is all about and the role, in that
Constitution, of the legislative branch of Government.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may just respond: First of all, I thank
the distinguished Senator, who is the majority whip in this body. I
deeply appreciate what he has said. I appreciate very much what he has
said.
May I say, in turn, that the American people don't owe me anything.
But I will say this, that the American people are listening. And with
respect to the resolution dealing with a war with Iraq, the American
people were listening. The American people heard what we said. As a
result of speeches--I made two or three speeches in that instance--as a
result of those two or three speeches that I made, my office received
21,000 telephone calls, and my office received over 50,000 e-mails.
That is an indication that there is somebody out there listening,
somebody cares, somebody is paying attention. That is gratifying to me.
So somebody heard. And I don't pay all that much attention to the
polls. I don't think they ask the right questions. What are the right
questions? I don't know what the right questions are. But those polls
reflect responses to questions. And whether they are the right
questions or the questions that ought to be asked, I cannot say.
But I can say the American people do listen. And somebody has to
fulfill the duty Woodrow Wilson was speaking about when he said the
informing function of the legislative branch is as important, if not
more so, than the legislative function.
I thank the Senator. I am well paid.
When Plato was about to pass away from this earthly sphere, he said:

I thank the Gods that I was born a man.

He said:

I thank the Gods that I was born a Greek.

And he said:

I am grateful to the Gods for the fact that I live--I live
in the same era in which Sophocles lived.

So, I am thankful to God, and to my angel mother and my father, and
to the people of West Virginia, for the fact that I have had this great
privilege to work in this body, now, for 44 years and I have been able
to contribute. God gives me my faculties almost as they were 50 years
ago, except for my feet. I was always told the first place will be your
feet; your feet and legs will give way. I am finding that to be pretty
true. But I thank heaven that I was able to be here, to say what I have
been able to say about the resolution dealing with Iraq and the
homeland security legislation.
I think we have performed a service. I said what I thought. I am on
no man's payroll. I am on the people's payroll. And I wear no man's
collar but my own. That may be kind of a small collar.
But, anyhow, I do what I think. I could leave here any moment and get
just as big a check as I get as being a Senator because I have paid in
the system, now, 50 years this coming January 3.
I am doing what I want to do. I don't have to do this. I probably
ought to be home with my wife. We will be married, in another 6 months,
66 years, if the Good Lord lets me live.
But I do think the Senator from Nevada, has made a tremendous
contribution himself. He has listened to what we had to say, to what
Paul Sarbanes and I and the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr.
Jeffords, and others have said. We have warned about this measure. We
have not been in agreement with the administration in connection with
this homeland security agency. We think we have legislated too fast. We
think we have been in too big a hurry. We think we have paid too much
attention to the polls, and that we ought to have taken more time in
this body.
It is said to be the greatest deliberative body in the history of the
world. It hasn't been very deliberative in this case. But I am glad
that, although the intent was to pass this bill in a hurry--I was told
down at White House, I say to the distinguished Senator from Maryland,
Mr. Sarbanes--I went down there at the invitation of the President. I
am not invited very often down there. But on this occasion the
President invited me down. He said:

I have got to go to St. Louis. I can only be here a few
minutes. So we had a picture taken. All the cameras came in
and took pictures. Then he sat down and said: I have this
package here. I thank the congressional leaders for their
input into this package.
I scratched my head. What input is he talking about? I knew the
congressional leaders had not had one ounce of input into it--not one.
This thing was patched together down in the bowels of the White House
by four eminent public servants--not quite perhaps up to the caliber of
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Who else was on that committee
that wrote the Declaration of Independence? Robert Livingston. And who
else? There was John Adams, and one more: Roger Sherman. So they
weren't quite up to that caliber.
But this bill was the egg that was hatched down at the White House. I
can just picture them walking around there with their shadows on the
walls of the subterranean caverns, walking around with lanterns or
candles. And they hatched this great idea down there all of a sudden to
get ahead of this Mack truck that was coming down upon them fast in the
appropriations bills which provided that the Director of Homeland
Security would have to be confirmed by the Senate. The purpose of that
was, as Senator Stevens and I intended, Mr. Director, when the Senate
confirms you, you will come before the Senate Appropriations Committee.
So much for that.
The thing that is being missed probably most in this deliberation is
the fact that the Appropriations Committee and the Senate and the
Congress have appropriated moneys for homeland security that will make
the country far more safe than will this piece of legislation. It is
going to take a year or 2 years for this legislation to be implemented
and to get this thing going. In the meantime, the people who are now
out there on the borders, who are protecting the nuclear facilities of
the country, the food lines, and the clean water are the same people
who will be here a year or two from now when this agency is supposed to
be full blown.
But the President has a year in which to send up his plan as to how
this organization is to be implemented. Imagine that--a year. He has a
year. In the meantime, I am afraid that the people who are out there
now at midday and midnight working to secure the safety of the American
people will be distracted. They are going to be worrying about where
their offices are going to be; What is going to be the label over my
office? Where will my typewriter be? Where is the telephone going to
be? What is going to be the vision and the objective of this new
agency?
These people are going to be distracted. I am afraid that is what
gives the terrorist a good opportunity to work havoc in some way.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada for his kind words. I
also thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont who summed up in a
few words, in 5 minutes, what I could say in 30 minutes, the very good
reasons that we should oppose this bill. I admire him for that. I
admire him for his courage, his pluck, and for his good sense. He has
made my speech for me. I can just sit down. I thank the Senator from
Vermont.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his unlimited
patience and for his consideration and always for his good humor.
I yield while he speaks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia for allowing me to take time previously
allocated on the floor to speak.
I want to make a couple of comments about homeland security, and in
particular about the INS.
I have been privileged to serve for the last couple of years as
ranking member

[[Page 23049]]

on the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. Immigration
is a subject on which we have focused.
We passed two major pieces of legislation already in this Congress
dealing with immigration issues--trying to strengthen our borders and
trying to give the enforcement agencies some better information, and
also better information for the INS and the State Department about
terrorists abroad before they get here. There are two good pieces of
legislation that we passed.
What we are attempting to do in this bill is to restructure the INS.
The reason I want to talk about the INS is that it is a troubled
agency, by anybody's definition--whether you are pro-immigration or
anti-immigration. I hear everybody complaining about the INS. It just
does not function well from any perspective that you look at. It may be
an impossible task. Some people may look at it as just impossible. We
have too many people seeking entry into the country each year. The
number varies. There are over 250 million entries into the country each
year by people who are legally seeking entry into the country. And 1
person may come in and out 10 times. That is 10 entries. But still, you
are talking about a large number of entries by people, who are not U.S.
citizens, into this country each year, making this a difficult job. It
is a troubled agency. It is not functioning well. We need to change it.
A lot of that is put in the bill.
I am pleased about some of the ideas that I and several others put
forward that are incorporated into the INS restructuring that is in the
homeland security bill. There is a clear distinction between the
enforcement and services functions at the INS. We recognize the
importance of keeping immigration enforcement and services in the same
department. Some people wanted to split them. I think that would work
poorly. I think you need to have the same functions together. They are
there. There are clear distinctions between the enforcement and
services functions, which clearly need to be delineated, but they need
to work together. Those are two positive features of this
reorganization.
I must be frank as well. I think there is some failing that we want
corrected in the INS restructuring portion of this homeland security
bill. I am concerned that the new Department be true and coordinated
well--both in the enforcement and services functions. It looks to me as
if some of the restructuring may not have good lines of clear
distinction in organization and functioning in the enforcement services
functions the way it is set up.
I am concerned about the services component of the Department of
Homeland Security being effectively coordinated with the enforcement. I
am troubled about how this is set up. I have communicated those
concerns to Governor Ridge, and I am hopeful that those concerns are
going to be taken seriously.
I think we need strong leadership at the head of the immigration
services office. It has to be a strong leader. That is a function of
who is picked--not a function of how it is structured. But if we weaken
that services component of it, and if we don't have somebody who has
knowledge, stature, and ability to communicate this going forward, I
think we are going to be left with a continuing troubled agency.
I think the leadership has to have the ear of the Secretary of the
new Department. Part of my concern is this is built to the side--not
built into the positive agency--to the side of the Secretary. If you do
not have a strong voice there, if they do not have the ear of the
Secretary, I think we are going to have some real problems in this
immigration portion.
We want strong and effective immigration enforcement. We don't want
the invaluable services of citizenship, family, and business petitions,
asylum, and the many public service components of immigration to be
forgotten. We don't want that. We want a strong enforcement, and we
want to provide homeland security. But we also are a nation of
immigrants. We need to take people who are legally here and build this
society.
We want strong security. We should never compromise our values or
lose sight of the immigration benefits to our culture or to our
economy. It is critical that we monitor the development of this new
Department to ensure the immigration services component receive the
attention and resources it deserves.
I have shared these concerns with Governor Ridge. I am comforted by
the fact that he is aware of those facts.
One of the other aspects I want to make note of is the issue of the
immigration courts. I want to quickly commend this legislation for
keeping the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the
Department of Justice. It didn't move over homeland security. I think
permitting the Attorney General to retain control of the immigration
court system is going to be positive.
I think those are some problems we need to revisit. We should do so
in the future.
It is time we pass the homeland security legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we have come to the end of a long, long
road. For nearly 5 months, this Chamber has engaged in discussions
about homeland security. But for nearly as long a time as that, this
Congress has not engaged in seeing to it that there is actual funding
to make our people any safer from the threat of another horrific
terrorist attack. It has been over 4 months--over 4 months--since the
House of Representatives has seen fit to pass a single regular
appropriations bill.
Now, God created all of creation. He created the universe. He created
the Earth. He created man in 7 days, in the Book of Genesis. The
greatest scientific treatise that has ever been written can be found in
that first chapter of Genesis. Go to it. Those of you who are
scientists, look over that one, the first chapter of Genesis. Do you
have any problem with the chronological order in which the creation was
made possible, as set forth in that chapter? No. The scientists won't
have any objection to that chronological order, not any. I have four
physicists in my own family, and they agree with that, that
chronological order.
So 6 days, and God rested on the Sabbath.
How long has it taken for us to pass a regular appropriations bill?
The last regular appropriations bill came out of the House 4 months
ago. It has been over 4 months since the House of Representatives has
seen fit to pass a single regular appropriations bill.
Now, God would not have gotten very far in the creation of this
universe, would He, if it had taken Him that long at that pace?
We have talked a lot about homeland security. We have plenty of talk.
We just open our mouths, and it just rolls out--rolls out. So talk is
cheap.
But we have done very little. We have not given the cities and
municipalities, the police, the firemen, the hospital workers, the
first responders who are on the front line, we have not given these
people one red cent--I will say, one copper cent--not one, to help them
keep us safer from the madmen within our midst--in 4 months. Now, get
that.
Nothing was said about that during the campaign. The President went
all over this country--from the Pacific to the Atlantic, to the
Canadian border, to the Gulf of Mexico--talking about this great bill
here, this magnificent product of human genius in the bowels of the
White House. Not one word was said about these appropriations that have
been passed by the Senate and the House that have been on the
President's desk--$5.1 billion, in one instance, made available to the
President for homeland security. All that was needed was the President
to flourish the pen, attach his signature, and designate that money as
an emergency. The Congress has already done it. He said no.
So homeland security has gone wanting. That money has been there--
$2.5 billion for homeland security. That is two and a half dollars for
every minute since Jesus Christ was born, two and a half dollars for
every minute.

[[Page 23050]]

So it has been a little over a year and 2 months now since America
was jolted from its tranquility by the noise, the smoke, the flames of
two exploding commercial airlines as they smashed into the Twin Towers
in New York City. Yet in these intervening months--except for the
initial help that we provided to New York and to Washington to aid in
closing the hemorrhaging wounds of economic disruption and human
devastation caused by the terrorist attacks--not enough has changed
here at home.
It is true that we have chased bin Laden across the landscape of
Afghanistan. We have spent over $20 billion chasing him around in
Afghanistan. And now we don't actually know where he has been chased
to. We have chased bin Laden across the landscape of Afghanistan and
probably cleansed that nation of the training camps for terrorists, for
now.
We have made some progress, I am sure, in some disruption of the al-
Qaida network worldwide, but no one in this Chamber, and no one in this
city, can look the American people in the eye and say to them: ``Today
you are much safer here at home than you were 14 months ago.'' I can't
do it.
This Government continues to send out first one alert and then
another. Practically the whole litany of top people in this
administration has been out there at one time or another saying:
Something may happen here tomorrow. Something may happen here within
the next week. So the Nation has been put on alert after alert. So I
ask the question: Are you better off than you were a year ago?
Because of reckless disregard for the reality of the threat to our
domestic security, this administration and many in this Congress have
taken part in an irresponsible exercise in political chicanery.
The White House has pressured its Republican colleagues in the
Congress--and some of the Democrats as well--to reject billions of
dollars in money which could have added to the tangible safety of the
American people.
This White House has stopped--stopped--this year's normal funding
process in its tracks. I have never seen such action before. This White
House has stopped this year's normal funding process in its tracks.
This year--since 1976, when the beginning of the fiscal year was
changed from July 1 to October 1--only two appropriations bills have
passed the Congress and been sent to the White House--only two. That is
the most dismal record since 1976; the most dismal record, only two
bills. What a lousy record.
But this Senate Appropriations Committee reported out all 13
appropriations bills to the Senate no later than July--the best record
in years. And yet only two bills have been signed by the President.
Why? Because this administration, down there in the White House--we all
know who is in the White House--has told the Republican leadership in
the other body: Don't let any more appropriations bills pass.
This White House has stopped this year's normal funding process in
its tracks and even turned back funds for homeland security in
emergency spending bills that could have shored up existing mechanisms
to prevent or respond to another devastating blow by fanatics who hate
the United States.
They do not hate the United States because of its freedoms. The
President says they hate us because of our freedoms. I do not believe
that. I think they hate us because of our arrogance.
They have done this plain disservice to the people. They have done
this plain disservice to the people in order to gain some perceived
political advantage in a congressional election year, and in order to
be able to say that they were holding down spending.
So they kept 11 of the appropriations bills from coming down to the
White House. But you watch this administration after the turn of the
new year. You will never see such fast operating on appropriations
bills as we will see then. We have done our work on these bills. But
for the most part they have not been sent to the White House because
the administration said: We don't want them.
The administration told the Republican leadership in the other body:
We don't want them. Hold them up.
But once this new leadership takes over in January, you watch how
quickly they will say: Now send those bills on down. We want to show
the American people how fast we can appropriate money, how fast we can
move appropriations bills--when all the while the ``we'' they are
thinking about is the ``we'' that has held up those appropriations
bills and not let them come to the White House.
In order to avoid criticism of the too meager dollars for homeland
security, this White House suddenly did an about-face and embraced the
concept of a Department of Homeland Security. Don't send us your
appropriations for homeland security. Send that bill up there because
that is a great political hat trick. Send us the bill on homeland
security. Make the people think they are going to have more security in
their schools and their homes and their businesses and on their farms.
So the people are being offered a bureaucratic behemoth complete with
fancy top-heavy directorates, officious new titles, and noble sounding
missions instead of real tools to help protect them from death and
destruction. How utterly irresponsible. How utterly callous. How
cavalier.
With this debate about homeland security, politics in Washington has
reached the apogee of utter cynicism and the perigee of candor. No one
is telling our people the plain, unvarnished truth. It is simply this:
This Department is a bureaucratic behemoth cooked up by political
advisors to the President to satisfy several inside Washington agendas.
One, it is intended to protect the President from criticism and fault
should another attack occur.
Two, it is intended to eliminate large numbers of dedicated, trained,
experienced, loyal, patriotic Federal workers so that lucrative
contracts for their services may be awarded to favored private
entities. Watch. Watch and see.
Three, it would be used to channel Federal research moneys and grants
to big corporate contributors without the usual Federal procurement
standards that ensure fair competition and best value for the tax
dollar.
Four, it will foster easier spying and information gathering on
ordinary citizens which may be used in ways which could have nothing
whatsoever to do with homeland security. And now with this new bill,
with the blue ribbon that will be tied around it, the fancy trimmings
that will be around that bill when it goes down to the White House and
then to be invited--how wonderful, how glorious that will be, to be
invited. I haven't been down there in so long. It is called the Rose
Garden--into that Rose Garden, just to be there in the presence of the
chief executive, the Commander in Chief, when he signs this bill into
law, this new bill which showed up only last week on the doorstep of
the Senate, how wonderful that will be, how utterly wonderful that will
be.
Insult has been added to injury by provisions that further exploit
the already shamefully exploited issue of homeland security with pork
for certain States and certain businesses. My, my, my, how low we have
sunk.
Senators seem to be unaware or unconcerned about the transfer of
power that will take place under this bill. Some of the Senators who
have walked down to that table and who have voted aye on this bill and
who voted no on amendments that have been offered to improve it, they
will have room, they will have time to remember. They will have time to
remember how they were stampeded into voting without asking questions.
The most glaring example can be found in title XV of the bill which
requires the President to submit a reorganization plan to the Congress
which would outline how he plans to transfer to the new Department 28
agencies and offices authorized by the Congress. The authority granted
to the President under this title is very broad. The President can
reorganize, streamline, or consolidate the 28 agencies and offices
being transferred.
The President can determine which functions of the agencies being
transferred will be moved to the new Department and which will be left
behind. The

[[Page 23051]]

President can determine how the functions transferred to the new
Department will be delegated among the officers within the new
Department. The President can set any effective date he wants for
transferring these agencies within a 12-month transition period. The
President can change his plan at any time before the plan takes effect.
The only requirement placed on the President is that heavy charter,
that great burdensome charge; namely, that he inform the Congress of
his plans before those plans take effect. My, what a heavy burden. The
Congress does not have the opportunity to approve or disapprove of the
President's plan. We have no mechanism by which to object to the
President's plan. The Congress is locked out by our own doing, forced
to watch from the sidelines as the administration implements this new
Department.
What a great Senate this is, in this hour of God. The Senate, I have
to say, has let the people down. The Senate has grown timid. It has
lost its nerve. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Congress
would cut itself out of the loop like that. Congress is authorizing the
President to reorganize, consolidate, or streamline any one of the 28
agencies and offices being moved to the new Department and to delegate
functions among the officers however he wishes. And the only
requirement placed on the President, as I say, is that he humble
himself enough just to let the Congress know what he plans to do.
After we pass this bill, the Congress will have abdicated its role in
the implementation of the new Department. We might as well just dive
under the bed and say: Here goes nothing.
I find this to be unacceptable and unwise. Other Senators should
agree.
Last September I offered an amendment that would have allowed the
Congress to stay involved and to help provide for a more orderly,
efficient, effective transition of agencies to this new Department. The
Congress would have had a mechanism in place to guard against abuses of
this authority that we are granting to the President, if my amendment
had been adopted.
The distinguished Senator from Minnesota, presently sitting in the
chair, voted for my amendment. But the Senate rejected my amendment--
incidentally, the Senator who sits in the chair had, I will say, a
kinsman who signed the Constitution of the United States. How many
signers were there? Thirty-nine. He was one of the signers; his name
was Jonathan Dayton. How old was he? He was the youngest member of the
convention, the youngest, younger than Charles Pinckney. I believe
Charles Pinckney was the next youngest. Dayton was the youngest, 24
years old, I believe, 25 or 26--24, I believe--choosing instead to
trust the administration to handle the implementation of the new
Department without congressional input.
That decision, in my view, was a disservice to our States and the
people who sent us here to look out for them. With passage of the new
House bill, we have in effect washed our hands of any further ability
to affect decisions regarding the way the Department is organized or
the functions that it will perform.
The Nation will have this unfortunate creature, this behemoth
bureaucratic bag of tricks, this huge Department of Homeland Security,
and it will hulk across the landscape of this city, touting its noble
mission, shining up its new seal, and eagerly gobbling up tax dollars
for all manner of things, some of which will have very little to do
with protecting or saving the lives of the American people.
Maybe in 5 years or so it will sort out its mission and shift around
its desks enough to actually make some real contribution to the safety
of our people. I sincerely hope so. But if the latest tape from bin
Laden is to be believed, we won't have time for all of that.
If the latest threat assessment from the FBI can be believed, we will
experience something catastrophic before that new Department even
finishes firing all of the Federal workers it wants to get rid of.
What does it take to wake us up? What does it take to make the
gamesmanship cease? When will we stop the political mud wrestling and
begin to wrestle with the most potentially destructive force ever to
challenge this Nation?
Let us hope that when the gavel bangs to close down this session of
Congress, it will awaken us to all of the dreadful consequences of
continued posturing and inaction.
I know that this administration, with its newfound majorities in both
Houses of Congress, will quickly pass the remaining 2003 bills, which
will provide at least some modicum of real security for our people as
soon as Congress reconvenes in January of the new year. They will want
to claim that they can get things done.
Although I deplore the motivation and the gamesmanship behind such
tactics, I wish them well and pledge my help. It is long past time for
us to finally do our best to prevent another deadly strike by those who
hate us and wish us ill. Terrorism is no plaything. Political service
is no game. Political office is no place for warring children.
The oath of office which we take is no empty pledge to be subjugated
to the tactics of election year chicanery perpetrated on a good and
trusting people.
Yesterday, a Federal appeals court upheld broad, new powers given to
the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute people suspected of
terrorism. The ruling of the special appeals court, which was created
by Congress to oversee secret Government actions involving national
security, will make it easier for the Justice Department to spy on U.S.
citizens by circumventing traditional constitutional protections. This
court decision gives the executive branch a green light to run
roughshod over the civil liberties of innocent Americans in the name of
national security.
The Justice Department argued that the expanded authority it is
claiming is nothing more than what Congress authorized in last year's
USA Patriot Act, in which Congress tore down the protective walls that
had previously separated foreign intelligence and domestic law
enforcement activities. A three-judge appeals panel agreed with the
Justice Department, concluding that the new antiterrorism law did have
the effect of weakening procedures that safeguard our civil liberties.
The Justice Department now wields dangerous, new power to conduct
secret surveillance on American citizens for potential criminal
prosecutions. This expanded power is a license for abuse, and Senators
should be concerned about the consequences for our constitutional
system.
But any of us who wants to point his finger at the administration for
overreaching its authority should also place that blame squarely on
himself or herself, because it was the actions of this Senate that set
the wheels in motion.
As the Washington Post points out in an editorial entitled ``Chipping
Away at Liberty'' from this morning's paper:

The fault for the problem . . . lies not with the court,
but with Congress, for the carelessness and haste with which
it passed the USA Patriot Act in the wake of the September 11
attacks, and for its unwillingness to push back against Bush
administration excesses.

The editorial goes on to explain that this new authority grants the
Government one more sphere in which it gets to unilaterally choose the
rules under which it will pursue the war on terrorism. . . .Which parts
of this system need to be reigned in is a profoundly difficult
question, one that Congress seems depressingly uninterested in asking.
This is a war, the administration has said, without a foreseeable end,
so the legal regime that handles these cases may become a permanent
feature of American justice. Such a regime should be enacted
deliberately, after careful inquiry by legislators--an inquiry that has
so far scarcely begun.
Mr. President, this Senate passed the USA Patriot Act in October of
2001 by a vote of 98 to 1. I voted for it. Ninety-eight Senators,
including myself, this Senator from West Virginia, voted for the bill.
Perhaps many of us now realize that we may indeed have acted too
hastily to hand over this unchecked power to the executive branch.

[[Page 23052]]

During the debate on that bill, one Senator stood up and pleaded with
us to take the time to consider the legislation more carefully before
we unleashed such a dangerous and uncontrolled threat to our civil
liberties. Senator Feingold stood alone in the path of that Mack truck
that was barreling through the Senate, warning that many of us would
come to regret our decision to stand out of the way and cheer on the
rumbling big rig.
I believe that Senator Feingold was right to caution the Senate
during that debate. I believe we did pass the Patriot Act too hastily.
As the media continue to uncover more stories about the lengths to
which this administration will go to shroud its actions in secrecy, I
hope other Senators will also come to the conclusion that these issues
deserve more attention from this Congress.
During this debate on homeland security, I have tried to convince the
Senate to slow down and look closely at this legislation before giving
the executive branch such a broad grant of virtually unchecked
authority. I have tried to draw attention to some of the problems in
this bill in the short time that we have had to examine it. I have
tried to persuade Senators not to give into the political pressures
that have loomed over our consideration of this bill before and after
this year's election.
So I hope that Senators will heed the warnings and vote against this
bill, although I do not really believe that will happen. I have seen
the handwriting on the wall, and I know that this bill has the votes to
pass. But I hope that those Senators who worry that we are acting too
hastily will have the courage to vote against the bill.
There will be a lot of work to be done in the next Congress to clean
up the mess we will make by enacting this homeland security
legislation. Congress will have already cut itself out of the loop with
regard to the implementation of this new Department. It will be
incumbent upon individual Members of the Senate to attempt to shed
light on the administration's actions whenever possible. It will be the
responsibility of individual Members to fight to defend the
constitutional powers of Congress and the constitutional protections of
our personal privacy and civil liberties.
There will be a lot left to do in the name of homeland security
during the next Congress. I hope each Senator will remember that when
he or she votes on this bill, and I hope the Senators do not treat this
vote as something to put behind them. When Senators cast their votes on
final passage of this homeland security legislation, I hope that they
will understand and think about what that vote will mean a year from
now when their voters ask them: Where were you when the Senate approved
this bill?
I urge those Senators who are troubled by this legislation, as I am,
to vote with me against the bill. I know where I will be when the
Senate votes to hand over this power, and my people will know that I
did what I could to put the brakes on this process. I hope that other
Senators will also send a message to the people they represent about
where they stand by voting against the final passage of the homeland
security bill.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). There are 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. BYRD. I reserve that time.

Farewell To Senator Fred Thompson

Mr. President, with the closing of the 107th Congress, the Senate
will be saying farewell to a very talented and successful and effective
colleague, a Senator who in a relatively short period of time has made
important contributions to this Chamber and to our country.
Senator Fred Thompson has accomplished so much that it is difficult
to realize he has only been here since 1995. As a Senator, he has
served on the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, and the National Security Working Group. In 1997, he
became chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs where he
conducted a number of important and controversial investigations.
As a national lawmaker, Senator Fred Thompson has played an important
role in developing this Nation's trade policies, including pushing for
an export control policy to protect our country's national security and
proposing legislation to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. He has been an active and important advocate for campaign
finance reform. He has authored legislation to protect Government
computers from outside infiltration. He has been a major force for
regulatory reform.
As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, he helped lead the
fight to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in Government, and along with
Senator Frist, Senator Thompson secured funding to establish a School
of Government at the University of Tennessee named in honor of
University of Tennessee graduate and one of my favorite Senators of all
time, Senator Howard Baker.
He is one of my favorite Senators of all time. He is a statesman. He
is not just a politician. He is a statesman. If it had not been for
Howard Baker, for his statesmanship, the Senate would never have
approved the Panama Canal treaties. It would never have done it. It
required a two-thirds vote, and all the polls showed the Senate was
swimming upstream. The majority of the people were against those
treaties. But Howard Baker stepped to the plate, at a political
sacrifice to himself, and stood for those treaties.
I was majority leader of the Senate at that time. Howard Baker was
the minority leader. I could not have gotten those treaties approved
but for the strong support of Howard Baker. It was kind of the same way
for Howard Baker as his father-in-law, Everett Dirksen. If Everett
Dirksen had not stepped to the plate, the Senate would never have
passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was Everett Dirksen who joined
with Mike Mansfield and that legislation was passed.
I should point out that Senator Thompson has not always been
successful in his efforts. At times, his has been a lonely voice and a
lonely vote against popular measures that went against his sense of
federalism and his concern that the National Government was encroaching
upon the rights of the States. Even when I opposed him on some of these
issues, I admired the strength of his convictions.
I will miss him and his courage, and so will the people of Tennessee.
In 1996, the people of Tennessee cast more votes for him than for any
previous candidate for any office in the history of the State. Now how
about that? That is pretty remarkable.
In addition to his many legislative accomplishments, perhaps the
reason Senator Thompson seems to have been with us for a longer period
of time than is reflected by his actual years as Senator is that he is
so associated in the public mind with politics.
In 1973, when I was the majority whip in the Senate, Fred Thompson
served as minority counsel on the Senate Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities, known as the Watergate Committee. He
was a very effective staff person. I can remember his work.
Many people have also seen him on the silver screen portraying a CIA
chief, an FBI Director, a White House Chief of Staff. I am not about to
ask which of these roles best prepared him for his real-life role as a
Senator.
This has truly been a remarkable career for the son of a used car
salesman who worked his way through law school while raising a family.
I applaud Fred Thompson, and I congratulate him. We will miss Senator
Thompson.
I have watched him during this short time when he has been in the
Senate. I have admired him. I admire his bearing, his manner of
talking, moving about the Senate and doing his work. He is not a show
horse here in the Senate, but he has been a workhorse. I do not know of
any enemies he has made in this Senate on either side of the aisle.
We will miss him. I understand he will be resuming an acting career.
I can only say that the Senate's loss is Hollywood's gain. All of us
look forward to seeing him as he resumes his earlier career as a fine
actor. I do not watch TV much, and I have not been to a movie

[[Page 23053]]

in the 50 years I have been in Congress. I have not been to a movie,
not one. I have watched some good movies on television. Alistair Cooke,
for example, used to have good movies. If I know Fred Thompson is going
to play, I will make a point to go and see him.

Retirement Of Senator Phil Gramm

Mr. President, seldom in all my years in the Senate have I
encountered a Senator for whom my feelings and attitudes have covered
such a wide spectrum as they have for Senator Phil Gramm. They have
ranged from intense opposition, as they did in our battles over the
Gramm-Rudman legislation, to close cooperation as we worked together
during his 6 years on the Appropriations Committee.
Always prepared, always thoughtful, he was always ready to speak on
any subject at the drop of a hat. Phil Gramm was always ready to talk
and, oh, was he ready to talk. I quickly learned he can talk about
anything, everything, and do so intelligently, and always with a good
humor, in the best of good humor.
It was during our years together on the Appropriations Committee that
I learned of his respect for the Senate and its role in our democratic
Republic. He once referred to his work in the Senate as doing the
Lord's work. He has often referred to it as doing the Lord's work. I
liked that. I wish I had said that first.
He has also demonstrated an understanding that fundamental power of
Congress is the power of the purse. For that, I applaud Senator Gramm,
and I thank him.
In addition to our work together on the Appropriations Committee, we
have worked together on important national legislation, including the
highway reauthorization bill, TEA-21. I saw that he has a remarkable
talent for grassroots organizing.
I watched him here today as he moved around the Chamber. I knew what
he was doing. He was talking with some of these Democratic Senators. I
knew what he was talking with them about. Someone said: That Senator,
you see Senator Gramm, that Democratic Senator will vote against the
amendment by Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lieberman. I knew what he was doing,
but I respected that.
During a difficult struggle on that highway bill, TEA-21, Phil and I
met with representatives from a number of organizations interested in
highway construction. I believe my friend from New Mexico was in on
some of those meetings.
Mr. DOMENICI. I was opposed.
Mr. BYRD. He was opposed. When the Senator from New Mexico is
opposed, I pay even more attention to him. Anyhow, after each meeting,
our friends would walk away with plans for spreading the good word in
favor of our plan, charged up with a pep talk by Phil Gramm. He also
has a talent, a great talent, for negotiating. Even when he wins a
negotiation and you have lost everything, he can make you feel like you
prevailed and he lost everything. Suddenly, on the way home you will
pinch yourself and say, wait a minute, that is not quite the way it
was.
So this is Phil Gramm, a biting, partisan bulldog one minute, and a
gentle, cuddly puppy the next. At times, it is difficult to decide if
you should jump back in fright or reach out and pet him.
He is one of those rare Members of Congress who has had a powerful
impact not only upon this institution but on our country and its
policies. Just last year, the National Review pointed out that no
Member of Congress--not Jack Kemp, not Newt Gingrich, not Bob Dole--
played a more decisive role in launching the Reagan agenda.
Phil Gramm is perhaps this country's most consistent and strongest
promoter of smaller taxes and smaller government. The legislation he
has authored, sponsored and promoted, from Gramm-Latta to Gramm-Rudman,
to the Bush tax cuts, give the lie to Emerson's observation that a
``foolish consistency is the hobgoblin'' of little minds. It is also
the hobgoblin of big minds.
Phil Gramm definitely has a big mind. I have learned so much from
him. I certainly learned a lot about his ``mamma.'' Among other things,
I learned she receives Social Security, that she carries a gun, and she
knows how to use it. That is what Phil says.
I certainly learned more than I ever wanted to know about Dicky
Flatt, the hard-working print shop owner in Mexia, TX, and how the
Government keeps taking away his money to spend on someone else.
I learned do not mess with Phil Gramm. He has an intellect second to
none. He has a tenaciousness and he has a razor tongue second to none.
But throughout it all, let me assure my colleagues that my
disagreements have never lessened my respect and my admiration for the
man and Senator. He was always straightforward and fair and always
sincerely dedicated to the cause he was espousing or supporting, and
that no doubt was because his positions on the most important issues
facing our Nation were always deeply thought out and heartfelt
convictions; not simply political calculations. That is why I came to
respect his integrity, his wisdom, and his courage.
In his book, ``Profiles in Courage,'' Senator John F. Kennedy wrote:

Surely in the United States of America, where brother once
fought brother, we did not judge a man's bravery under fire
by examining the banner under which he fought.

Senator Gramm and I have fought under different banners, but we have
always fought under and for the same flag. Whatever he did, whatever he
said, whatever he promoted, it came from his deep, undeviating love of
the United States of America. While he is always ready to tell you what
is wrong with our country, he will never hesitate to tell you what is
right with it. We will miss him.
There he is. I did not realize that while I was talking about the
man, he was sitting here listening, but I can say to the Senate that on
more than one occasion, Senator Phil Gramm has come to my office on
difficult matters, in which I may have had some interest, as in
mountaintop mining or the highway bill, whatever it was, and in many
instances he has proposed a compromise which enabled us to get over a
mountain, get over a hump, and get on with the business.
I appreciate the contributions he has made to legislation in this
body. I do not know of any Senator who has been a more knowledgeable
and able legislator. The Senator has exemplified reverence for the
Constitution, respect for the Senate, and an unbounded love for his
country.
While he will no longer be my colleague, Phil Gramm will always be my
friend.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, what is the order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has 5 minutes. The
minority retains 2 minutes of time.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will have more to say about our
departing colleagues tomorrow, but let me share as well my admiration
for our colleague Senator Gramm. He is a hardened legislative
adversary, but I have a great deal of respect for his ability and the
manner with which he conducts himself on the floor. I have fond
memories of the many years we have served together.
I recall so vividly our first days together riding a bus as freshmen
Congressman in 1979. So we wish him well. As I said, I will have much
more to say about him and about our colleagues tomorrow.
I wanted to come to the floor simply to express what I have said on
several occasions. It is with some misgivings that I will cast my vote
tonight in favor of the creation of this Department. I do so, fearful
we have not done the kind of work on this legislation I wish we could
have. I do so even though language has been inserted in the bill I
think we are going to regret, but I do so recognizing we have to start
rebuilding our infrastructure, reorganizing our Government, recognizing
more consequentially the threat that is now posed by terrorism within
our borders as well as without. I intend to support this legislation
with every expectation that this is the first in a long series of steps
which must be taken to

[[Page 23054]]

better prepare our country and our Government. I have no doubt we will
be back next year addressing many of the shortcomings we will be
incorporating in this legislation tonight.
This bill still needs work. This Department needs work. But as much
work as it needs, not to have done anything in recognition of the
tremendous challenges we face as a country is something I could not
accept either. So I will support it, recognizing as well that it is
critical for us to provide the funding--and there is no funding. In
fact, if I have any regret about what we are doing tonight, it is that
we are not passing the requisite resources needed to get started in an
earnest and successful way. We are going to have to wait until next
year. The more we wait, the harder it will be. The more we wait, the
more complicated our mission. The more we wait, the more underfunded
will be our effort in so many other ways.
I regret we are not willing to commit the resources that match the
infrastructure we will be authorizing tonight.
Finally, let me say there are many people who deserve recognition and
thanks. I acknowledge especially the leadership of Senator Joe
Lieberman, the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee. He and
others on the committee have done an outstanding job getting us to this
point, whether or not you agree with all of the components of the bill.
I congratulate Senator Thompson as the ranking member. They worked
oftentimes together, and where they could not work together, they
worked in a way that was not disagreeable.
I thank the whole Governmental Affairs Committee for the work they
did in getting us to this point over the many months they have been
involved.
Let me say I also thank Senator Byrd. He and I may come down on
different sides tonight, but he has done the Senate and the country a
real service. I have admired him for many reasons for many years. But
his powerful advocacy of his position, the extraordinary effort he has
made to enlighten us, to educate us, to sensitize us, and to ensure
that we are fully aware of all of the concerns he has about the
creation of this Department is something for which we all ought to
express our deep indebtedness to him. I thank him for what he has done
in adding to the debate, acknowledging as he has the inevitability of
our consideration and ultimately the passage of this legislation
tonight. There are many others, including Senator Harry Reid, our
extraordinary deputy Democratic leader, all the work he has done to
allow this opportunity to complete our work tonight.
As I said, we will be in session tomorrow and we will have much more
to say about many of these issues, reflecting back, but I close simply
by thanking our colleagues for the work they have done. I hope we can
complete our work and pass this legislation tonight.
I also ask, following the first vote, all subsequent votes be limited
to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is my understanding we have 2 minutes
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mr. GRAMM. I could hardly say what I feel in my heart in 2 minutes.
Too often, as people leave the Senate, they talk about things they are
unhappy about. I want people to know I am not discouraged; I am not
disillusioned; I am not disappointed. I am proud and I am honored. I am
proud to have had an opportunity to serve the greatest country in the
history of the world. I am proud to have served with extraordinary men
and women. I think we are so close to them and what they have done here
that it is hard to put it all in perspective. But someday when I am
sitting in a nursing home talking to my grandchildren, I think I will
have that perspective right and there will be names such as Senator
Byrd, Senator Domenici, and others that will flow from my lips as men I
was honored to know and to love.
I thank the people of Texas for giving me an opportunity to serve. I
conclude by reading a remark by, of all people, Aaron Burr. Senator
Byrd is familiar with it. It is wonderful and I want to conclude by
reading it. Aaron Burr was leaving the Senate, and he concluded with
these remarks:

. . . this house is a sanctuary and a citadel of law, of
order, of liberty--and it is here--it is here--in this
exalted--refuge, here, if anywhere will resistance be made to
the storms of popular phrenzy and the silent arts of
corruption:--And if the Constitution be destined ever to
perish by the sacrilegious hands of the demagogue of the
Usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies will be
witnessed on this floor.

I am honored to have served here. I am honored to have served with
those who will be sure, in their efforts, in their work, that the
Constitution never expires.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on the
engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
Mr. GRAMM. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 9, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]

YEAS--90

Allard
Allen
Barkley
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--9

Akaka
Byrd
Feingold
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Levin
Sarbanes

NOT VOTING--1

Murkowski

The bill (H.R. 5005), as amended, was passed, as follows:
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives
(H.R. 5005) entitled ``An Act to establish the Department of
Homeland Security, and for other purposes.'', do pass with
the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland
Security Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Construction; severability.
Sec. 4. Effective date.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Sec. 101. Executive department; mission.
Sec. 102. Secretary; functions.
Sec. 103. Other officers.

TITLE II--INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

Subtitle A--Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection; Access to Information

Sec. 201. Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection.
Sec. 202. Access to information.

[[Page 23055]]

Subtitle B--Critical Infrastructure Information

Sec. 211. Short title.
Sec. 212. Definitions.
Sec. 213. Designation of critical infrastructure protection program.
Sec. 214. Protection of voluntarily shared critical infrastructure
information.
Sec. 215. No private right of action.

Subtitle C--Information Security

Sec. 221. Procedures for sharing information.
Sec. 222. Privacy Officer.
Sec. 223. Enhancement of non-Federal cybersecurity.
Sec. 224. Net guard.
Sec. 225. Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002.

Subtitle D--Office of Science and Technology

Sec. 231. Establishment of office; Director.
Sec. 232. Mission of office; duties.
Sec. 233. Definition of law enforcement technology.
Sec. 234. Abolishment of Office of Science and Technology of National
Institute of Justice; transfer of functions.
Sec. 235. National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers.
Sec. 236. Coordination with other entities within Department of
Justice.
Sec. 237. Amendments relating to National Institute of Justice.

TITLE III--SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Sec. 301. Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
Sec. 302. Responsibilities and authorities of the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology.
Sec. 303. Functions transferred.
Sec. 304. Conduct of certain public health-related activities.
Sec. 305. Federally funded research and development centers.
Sec. 306. Miscellaneous provisions.
Sec. 307. Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Sec. 308. Conduct of research, development, demonstration, testing and
evaluation.
Sec. 309. Utilization of Department of Energy national laboratories and
sites in support of homeland security activities.
Sec. 310. Transfer of Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Department of
Agriculture.
Sec. 311. Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee.
Sec. 312. Homeland Security Institute.
Sec. 313. Technology clearinghouse to encourage and support innovative
solutions to enhance homeland security.

TITLE IV--DIRECTORATE OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Subtitle A--Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security

Sec. 401. Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security.
Sec. 402. Responsibilities.
Sec. 403. Functions transferred.

Subtitle B--United States Customs Service

Sec. 411. Establishment; Commissioner of Customs.
Sec. 412. Retention of customs revenue functions by Secretary of the
Treasury.
Sec. 413. Preservation of customs funds.
Sec. 414. Separate budget request for customs.
Sec. 415. Definition.
Sec. 416. GAO report to Congress.
Sec. 417. Allocation of resources by the Secretary.
Sec. 418. Reports to Congress.
Sec. 419. Customs user fees.

Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 421. Transfer of certain agricultural inspection functions of the
Department of Agriculture.
Sec. 422. Functions of Administrator of General Services.
Sec. 423. Functions of Transportation Security Administration.
Sec. 424. Preservation of Transportation Security Administration as a
distinct entity.
Sec. 425. Explosive detection systems.
Sec. 426. Transportation security.
Sec. 427. Coordination of information and information technology.
Sec. 428. Visa issuance.
Sec. 429. Information on visa denials required to be entered into
electronic data system.
Sec. 430. Office for Domestic Preparedness.

Subtitle D--Immigration Enforcement Functions

Sec. 441. Transfer of functions to Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security.
Sec. 442. Establishment of Bureau of Border Security.
Sec. 443. Professional responsibility and quality review.
Sec. 444. Employee discipline.
Sec. 445. Report on improving enforcement functions.
Sec. 446. Sense of Congress regarding construction of fencing near San
Diego, California.

Subtitle E--Citizenship and Immigration Services

Sec. 451. Establishment of Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
Sec. 452. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.
Sec. 453. Professional responsibility and quality review.
Sec. 454. Employee discipline.
Sec. 455. Effective date.
Sec. 456. Transition.
Sec. 457. Funding for citizenship and immigration services.
Sec. 458. Backlog elimination.
Sec. 459. Report on improving immigration services.
Sec. 460. Report on responding to fluctuating needs.
Sec. 461. Application of Internet-based technologies.
Sec. 462. Children's affairs.

Subtitle F--General Immigration Provisions

Sec. 471. Abolishment of INS.
Sec. 472. Voluntary separation incentive payments.
Sec. 473. Authority to conduct a demonstration project relating to
disciplinary action.
Sec. 474. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 475. Director of Shared Services.
Sec. 476. Separation of funding.
Sec. 477. Reports and implementation plans.
Sec. 478. Immigration functions.

TITLE V--EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

Sec. 501. Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response.
Sec. 502. Responsibilities.
Sec. 503. Functions transferred.
Sec. 504. Nuclear incident response.
Sec. 505. Conduct of certain public health-related activities.
Sec. 506. Definition.
Sec. 507. Role of Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Sec. 508. Use of national private sector networks in emergency
response.
Sec. 509. Use of commercially available technology, goods, and
services.

TITLE VI--TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE TRUSTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 601. Treatment of charitable trusts for members of the Armed
Forces of the United States and other governmental
organizations.

TITLE VII--MANAGEMENT

Sec. 701. Under Secretary for Management.
Sec. 702. Chief Financial Officer.
Sec. 703. Chief Information Officer.
Sec. 704. Chief Human Capital Officer.
Sec. 705. Establishment of Officer for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties.
Sec. 706. Consolidation and co-location of offices.

TITLE VIII--COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL;
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Coordination with Non-Federal Entities

Sec. 801. Office for State and Local Government Coordination.

Subtitle B--Inspector General

Sec. 811. Authority of the Secretary.
Sec. 812. Law enforcement powers of Inspector General agents.

Subtitle C--United States Secret Service

Sec. 821. Functions transferred.

Subtitle D--Acquisitions

Sec. 831. Research and development projects.
Sec. 832. Personal services.
Sec. 833. Special streamlined acquisition authority.
Sec. 834. Unsolicited proposals.
Sec. 835. Prohibition on contracts with corporate expatriates.

Subtitle E--Human Resources Management

Sec. 841. Establishment of Human Resources Management System.
Sec. 842. Labor-management relations.

Subtitle F--Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility

Sec. 851. Definition.
Sec. 852. Procurements for defense against or recovery from terrorism
or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack.
Sec. 853. Increased simplified acquisition threshold for procurements
in support of humanitarian or peacekeeping operations or
contingency operations.
Sec. 854. Increased micro-purchase threshold for certain procurements.
Sec. 855. Application of certain commercial items authorities to
certain procurements.
Sec. 856. Use of streamlined procedures.
Sec. 857. Review and report by Comptroller General.
Sec. 858. Identification of new entrants into the Federal marketplace.

Subtitle G--Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies
Act of 2002

Sec. 861. Short title.
Sec. 862. Administration.
Sec. 863. Litigation management.
Sec. 864. Risk management.
Sec. 865. Definitions.

Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 871. Advisory committees.
Sec. 872. Reorganization.
Sec. 873. Use of appropriated funds.

[[Page 23056]]

Sec. 874. Future Year Homeland Security Program.
Sec. 875. Miscellaneous authorities.
Sec. 876. Military activities.
Sec. 877. Regulatory authority and preemption.
Sec. 878. Counternarcotics officer.
Sec. 879. Office of International Affairs.
Sec. 880. Prohibition of the Terrorism Information and Prevention
System.
Sec. 881. Review of pay and benefit plans.
Sec. 882. Office for National Capital Region Coordination.
Sec. 883. Requirement to comply with laws protecting equal employment
opportunity and providing whistleblower protections.
Sec. 884. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Sec. 885. Joint Interagency Task Force.
Sec. 886. Sense of Congress reaffirming the continued importance and
applicability of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Sec. 887. Coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services
under the Public Health Service Act.
Sec. 888. Preserving Coast Guard mission performance.
Sec. 889. Homeland security funding analysis in President's budget.
Sec. 890. Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act.

Subtitle I--Information Sharing

Sec. 891. Short title; findings; and sense of Congress.
Sec. 892. Facilitating homeland security information sharing
procedures.
Sec. 893. Report.
Sec. 894. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 895. Authority to share grand jury information.
Sec. 896. Authority to share electronic, wire, and oral interception
information.
Sec. 897. Foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 898. Information acquired from an electronic surveillance.
Sec. 899. Information acquired from a physical search.

TITLE IX--NATIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY COUNCIL

Sec. 901. National Homeland Security Council.
Sec. 902. Function.
Sec. 903. Membership.
Sec. 904. Other functions and activities.
Sec. 905. Staff composition.
Sec. 906. Relation to the National Security Council.

TITLE X--INFORMATION SECURITY

Sec. 1001. Information security.
Sec. 1002. Management of information technology.
Sec. 1003. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Sec. 1004. Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board.
Sec. 1005. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 1006. Construction.

TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONS

Subtitle A--Executive Office for Immigration Review

Sec. 1101. Legal status of EOIR.
Sec. 1102. Authorities of the Attorney General.
Sec. 1103. Statutory construction.

Subtitle B--Transfer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to
the Department of Justice

Sec. 1111. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Sec. 1112. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 1113. Powers of agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives.
Sec. 1114. Explosives training and research facility.
Sec. 1115. Personnel management demonstration project.

Subtitle C--Explosives

Sec. 1121. Short title.
Sec. 1122. Permits for purchasers of explosives.
Sec. 1123. Persons prohibited from receiving or possessing explosive
materials.
Sec. 1124. Requirement to provide samples of explosive materials and
ammonium nitrate.
Sec. 1125. Destruction of property of institutions receiving Federal
financial assistance.
Sec. 1126. Relief from disabilities.
Sec. 1127. Theft reporting requirement.
Sec. 1128. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE XII--AIRLINE WAR RISK INSURANCE LEGISLATION

Sec. 1201. Air carrier liability for third party claims arising out of
acts of terrorism.
Sec. 1202. Extension of insurance policies.
Sec. 1203. Correction of reference.
Sec. 1204. Report.

TITLE XIII--FEDERAL WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT

Subtitle A--Chief Human Capital Officers

Sec. 1301. Short title.
Sec. 1302. Agency Chief Human Capital Officers.
Sec. 1303. Chief Human Capital Officers Council.
Sec. 1304. Strategic human capital management.
Sec. 1305. Effective date.

Subtitle B--Reforms Relating to Federal Human Capital Management

Sec. 1311. Inclusion of agency human capital strategic planning in
performance plans and programs performance reports.
Sec. 1312. Reform of the competitive service hiring process.
Sec. 1313. Permanent extension, revision, and expansion of authorities
for use of voluntary separation incentive pay and
voluntary early retirement.
Sec. 1314. Student volunteer transit subsidy.

Subtitle C--Reforms Relating to the Senior Executive Service

Sec. 1321. Repeal of recertification requirements of senior executives.
Sec. 1322. Adjustment of limitation on total annual compensation.

Subtitle D--Academic Training

Sec. 1331. Academic training.
Sec. 1332. Modifications to National Security Education Program.

TITLE XIV--ARMING PILOTS AGAINST TERRORISM

Sec. 1401. Short title.
Sec. 1402. Federal Flight Deck Officer Program.
Sec. 1403. Crew training.
Sec. 1404. Commercial airline security study.
Sec. 1405. Authority to arm flight deck crew with less-than-lethal
weapons.
Sec. 1406. Technical amendments.

TITLE XV--TRANSITION

Subtitle A--Reorganization Plan

Sec. 1501. Definitions.
Sec. 1502. Reorganization plan.
Sec. 1503. Review of congressional committee structures.

Subtitle B--Transitional Provisions

Sec. 1511. Transitional authorities.
Sec. 1512. Savings provisions.
Sec. 1513. Terminations.
Sec. 1514. National identification system not authorized.
Sec. 1515. Continuity of Inspector General oversight.
Sec. 1516. Incidental transfers.
Sec. 1517. Reference.

TITLE XVI--CORRECTIONS TO EXISTING LAW RELATING TO AIRLINE
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Sec. 1601. Retention of security sensitive information authority at
Department of Transportation.
Sec. 1602. Increase in civil penalties.
Sec. 1603. Allowing United States citizens and United States nationals
as screeners.

TITLE XVII--CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

Sec. 1701. Inspector General Act of 1978.
Sec. 1702. Executive Schedule.
Sec. 1703. United States Secret Service.
Sec. 1704. Coast Guard.
Sec. 1705. Strategic national stockpile and smallpox vaccine
development.
Sec. 1706. Transfer of certain security and law enforcement functions
and authorities.
Sec. 1707. Transportation security regulations.
Sec. 1708. National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center.
Sec. 1709. Collaboration with the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 1710. Railroad safety to include railroad security.
Sec. 1711. Hazmat safety to include hazmat security.
Sec. 1712. Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Sec. 1713. National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
Sec. 1714. Clarification of definition of manufacturer.
Sec. 1715. Clarification of definition of vaccine-related injury or
death.
Sec. 1716. Clarification of definition of vaccine.
Sec. 1717. Effective date.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Each of the terms ``American homeland'' and
``homeland'' means the United States.
(2) The term ``appropriate congressional committee'' means
any committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate
having legislative or oversight jurisdiction under the Rules
of the House of Representatives or the Senate, respectively,
over the matter concerned.
(3) The term ``assets'' includes contracts, facilities,
property, records, unobligated or unexpended balances of
appropriations, and other funds or resources (other than
personnel).
(4) The term ``critical infrastructure'' has the meaning
given that term in section 1016(e) of Public Law 107-56 (42
U.S.C. 5195c(e)).
(5) The term ``Department'' means the Department of
Homeland Security.
(6) The term ``emergency response providers'' includes
Federal, State, and local emergency public safety, law
enforcement, emergency response, emergency medical (including
hospital emergency facilities), and related personnel,
agencies, and authorities.
(7) The term ``executive agency'' means an executive agency
and a military department, as defined, respectively, in
sections 105 and 102 of title 5, United States Code.
(8) The term ``functions'' includes authorities, powers,
rights, privileges, immunities, programs, projects,
activities, duties, and responsibilities.
(9) The term ``key resources'' means publicly or privately
controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of
the economy and government.

[[Page 23057]]

(10) The term ``local government'' means--
(A) a county, municipality, city, town, township, local
public authority, school district, special district,
intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of
whether the council of governments is incorporated as a
nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or
interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of
a local government;
(B) an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or
in Alaska a Native village or Alaska Regional Native
Corporation; and
(C) a rural community, unincorporated town or village, or
other public entity.
(11) The term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given in
section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(12) The term ``personnel'' means officers and employees.
(13) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
(14) The term ``State'' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any
possession of the United States.
(15) The term ``terrorism'' means any activity that--
(A) involves an act that--
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive
of critical infrastructure or key resources; and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State or other subdivision of the United
States; and
(B) appears to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
(16)(A) The term ``United States'', when used in a
geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United
States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United
States.
(B) Nothing in this paragraph or any other provision of
this Act shall be construed to modify the definition of
``United States'' for the purposes of the Immigration and
Nationality Act or any other immigration or nationality law.

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY.

Any provision of this Act held to be invalid or
unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or
circumstance, shall be construed so as to give it the maximum
effect permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of
utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event such
provision shall be deemed severable from this Act and shall
not affect the remainder thereof, or the application of such
provision to other persons not similarly situated or to
other, dissimilar circumstances.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect 60 days after the date of
enactment.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SEC. 101. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT; MISSION.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a Department of
Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United
States within the meaning of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Mission.--
(1) In general.--The primary mission of the Department is
to--
(A) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;
(B) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to
terrorism;
(C) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from
terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States;
(D) carry out all functions of entities transferred to the
Department, including by acting as a focal point regarding
natural and manmade crises and emergency planning;
(E) ensure that the functions of the agencies and
subdivisions within the Department that are not related
directly to securing the homeland are not diminished or
neglected except by a specific explicit Act of Congress;
(F) ensure that the overall economic security of the United
States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs
aimed at securing the homeland; and
(G) monitor connections between illegal drug trafficking
and terrorism, coordinate efforts to sever such connections,
and otherwise contribute to efforts to interdict illegal drug
trafficking.
(2) Responsibility for Investigating and Prosecuting
Terrorism.--Except as specifically provided by law with
respect to entities transferred to the Department under this
Act, primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting
acts of terrorism shall be vested not in the Department, but
rather in Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
with jurisdiction over the acts in question.

SEC. 102. SECRETARY; FUNCTIONS.

(a) Secretary.--
(1) In general.--There is a Secretary of Homeland Security,
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
(2) Head of department.--The Secretary is the head of the
Department and shall have direction, authority, and control
over it.
(3) Functions vested in secretary.--All functions of all
officers, employees, and organizational units of the
Department are vested in the Secretary.
(b) Functions.--The Secretary--
(1) except as otherwise provided by this Act, may delegate
any of the Secretary's functions to any officer, employee, or
organizational unit of the Department;
(2) shall have the authority to make contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements, and to enter into agreements with
other executive agencies, as may be necessary and proper to
carry out the Secretary's responsibilities under this Act or
otherwise provided by law; and
(3) shall take reasonable steps to ensure that information
systems and databases of the Department are compatible with
each other and with appropriate databases of other
Departments.
(c) Coordination With Non-Federal Entities.--With respect
to homeland security, the Secretary shall coordinate through
the Office of State and Local Coordination (established under
section 801) (including the provision of training and
equipment) with State and local government personnel,
agencies, and authorities, with the private sector, and with
other entities, including by--
(1) coordinating with State and local government personnel,
agencies, and authorities, and with the private sector, to
ensure adequate planning, equipment, training, and exercise
activities;
(2) coordinating and, as appropriate, consolidating, the
Federal Government's communications and systems of
communications relating to homeland security with State and
local government personnel, agencies, and authorities, the
private sector, other entities, and the public; and
(3) distributing or, as appropriate, coordinating the
distribution of, warnings and information to State and local
government personnel, agencies, and authorities and to the
public.
(d) Meetings of National Security Council.--The Secretary
may, subject to the direction of the President, attend and
participate in meetings of the National Security Council.
(e) Issuance of Regulations.--The issuance of regulations
by the Secretary shall be governed by the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, except as
specifically provided in this Act, in laws granting
regulatory authorities that are transferred by this Act, and
in laws enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.
(f) Special Assistant to the Secretary.--The Secretary
shall appoint a Special Assistant to the Secretary who shall
be responsible for--
(1) creating and fostering strategic communications with
the private sector to enhance the primary mission of the
Department to protect the American homeland;
(2) advising the Secretary on the impact of the
Department's policies, regulations, processes, and actions on
the private sector;
(3) interfacing with other relevant Federal agencies with
homeland security missions to assess the impact of these
agencies' actions on the private sector;
(4) creating and managing private sector advisory councils
composed of representatives of industries and associations
designated by the Secretary to--
(A) advise the Secretary on private sector products,
applications, and solutions as they relate to homeland
security challenges; and
(B) advise the Secretary on homeland security policies,
regulations, processes, and actions that affect the
participating industries and associations;
(5) working with Federal laboratories, Federally funded
research and development centers, other Federally funded
organizations, academia, and the private sector to develop
innovative approaches to address homeland security challenges
to produce and deploy the best available technologies for
homeland security missions;
(6) promoting existing public-private partnerships and
developing new public-private partnerships to provide for
collaboration and mutual support to address homeland security
challenges; and
(7) assisting in the development and promotion of private
sector best practices to secure critical infrastructure.
(g) Standards Policy.--All standards activities of the
Department shall be conducted in accordance with section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) and Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-119.

SEC. 103. OTHER OFFICERS.

(a) Deputy Secretary; Under Secretaries.--There are the
following officers, appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate:
(1) A Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, who shall be
the Secretary's first assistant for purposes of subchapter
III of chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) An Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection.
(3) An Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
(4) An Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security.
(5) An Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and
Response.
(6) A Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
(7) An Under Secretary for Management.
(8) Not more than 12 Assistant Secretaries.

[[Page 23058]]

(9) A General Counsel, who shall be the chief legal officer
of the department.
(b) Inspector General.--There is an Inspector General, who
shall be appointed as provided in section 3(a) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978.
(c) Commandant of the Coast Guard.--To assist the Secretary
in the performance of the Secretary's functions, there is a
Commandant of the Coast Guard, who shall be appointed as
provided in section 44 of title 14, United States Code, and
who shall report directly to the Secretary. In addition to
such duties as may be provided in this Act and as assigned to
the Commandant by the Secretary, the duties of the Commandant
shall include those required by section 2 of title 14, United
States Code.
(d) Other Officers.--To assist the Secretary in the
performance of the Secretary's functions, there are the
following officers, appointed by the President:
(1) A Director of the Secret Service.
(2) A Chief Information Officer.
(3) A Chief Human Capital Officer.
(4) A Chief Financial Officer.
(5) An Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
(e) Performance of Specific Functions.--Subject to the
provisions of this Act, every officer of the Department shall
perform the functions specified by law for the official's
office or prescribed by the Secretary.

TITLE II--INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

Subtitle A--Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection; Access to Information

SEC. 201. DIRECTORATE FOR INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION.

(a) Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.--
(1) In general.--There shall be in the Department a
Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection headed by an Under Secretary for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, who shall be
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
(2) Responsibilities.--The Under Secretary shall assist the
Secretary in discharging the responsibilities assigned by the
Secretary.
(b) Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis; Assistant
Secretary for Infrastructure Protection.--
(1) Assistant secretary for information analysis.--There
shall be in the Department an Assistant Secretary for
Information Analysis, who shall be appointed by the
President.
(2) Assistant secretary for infrastructure protection.--
There shall be in the Department an Assistant Secretary for
Infrastructure Protection, who shall be appointed by the
President.
(3) Responsibilities.--The Assistant Secretary for
Information Analysis and the Assistant Secretary for
Infrastructure Protection shall assist the Under Secretary
for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection in
discharging the responsibilities of the Under Secretary under
this section.
(c) Discharge of Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
responsibilities of the Department regarding information
analysis and infrastructure protection are carried out
through the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection.
(d) Responsibilities of Under Secretary.--Subject to the
direction and control of the Secretary, the responsibilities
of the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection shall be as follows:
(1) To access, receive, and analyze law enforcement
information, intelligence information, and other information
from agencies of the Federal Government, State and local
government agencies (including law enforcement agencies), and
private sector entities, and to integrate such information in
order to--
(A) identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist
threats to the homeland;
(B) detect and identify threats of terrorism against the
United States; and
(C) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland.
(2) To carry out comprehensive assessments of the
vulnerabilities of the key resources and critical
infrastructure of the United States, including the
performance of risk assessments to determine the risks posed
by particular types of terrorist attacks within the United
States (including an assessment of the probability of success
of such attacks and the feasibility and potential efficacy of
various countermeasures to such attacks).
(3) To integrate relevant information, analyses, and
vulnerability assessments (whether such information,
analyses, or assessments are provided or produced by the
Department or others) in order to identify priorities for
protective and support measures by the Department, other
agencies of the Federal Government, State and local
government agencies and authorities, the private sector, and
other entities.
(4) To ensure, pursuant to section 202, the timely and
efficient access by the Department to all information
necessary to discharge the responsibilities under this
section, including obtaining such information from other
agencies of the Federal Government.
(5) To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing
the key resources and critical infrastructure of the United
States, including power production, generation, and
distribution systems, information technology and
telecommunications systems (including satellites), electronic
financial and property record storage and transmission
systems, emergency preparedness communications systems, and
the physical and technological assets that support such
systems.
(6) To recommend measures necessary to protect the key
resources and critical infrastructure of the United States in
coordination with other agencies of the Federal Government
and in cooperation with State and local government agencies
and authorities, the private sector, and other entities.
(7) To administer the Homeland Security Advisory System,
including--
(A) exercising primary responsibility for public advisories
related to threats to homeland security; and
(B) in coordination with other agencies of the Federal
Government, providing specific warning information, and
advice about appropriate protective measures and
countermeasures, to State and local government agencies and
authorities, the private sector, other entities, and the
public.
(8) To review, analyze, and make recommendations for
improvements in the policies and procedures governing the
sharing of law enforcement information, intelligence
information, intelligence-related information, and other
information relating to homeland security within the Federal
Government and between the Federal Government and State and
local government agencies and authorities.
(9) To disseminate, as appropriate, information analyzed by
the Department within the Department, to other agencies of
the Federal Government with responsibilities relating to
homeland security, and to agencies of State and local
governments and private sector entities with such
responsibilities in order to assist in the deterrence,
prevention, preemption of, or response to, terrorist attacks
against the United States.
(10) To consult with the Director of Central Intelligence
and other appropriate intelligence, law enforcement, or other
elements of the Federal Government to establish collection
priorities and strategies for information, including law
enforcement-related information, relating to threats of
terrorism against the United States through such means as the
representation of the Department in discussions regarding
requirements and priorities in the collection of such
information.
(11) To consult with State and local governments and
private sector entities to ensure appropriate exchanges of
information, including law enforcement-related information,
relating to threats of terrorism against the United States.
(12) To ensure that--
(A) any material received pursuant to this Act is protected
from unauthorized disclosure and handled and used only for
the performance of official duties; and
(B) any intelligence information under this Act is shared,
retained, and disseminated consistent with the authority of
the Director of Central Intelligence to protect intelligence
sources and methods under the National Security Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and related procedures and, as
appropriate, similar authorities of the Attorney General
concerning sensitive law enforcement information.
(13) To request additional information from other agencies
of the Federal Government, State and local government
agencies, and the private sector relating to threats of
terrorism in the United States, or relating to other areas of
responsibility assigned by the Secretary, including the entry
into cooperative agreements through the Secretary to obtain
such information.
(14) To establish and utilize, in conjunction with the
chief information officer of the Department, a secure
communications and information technology infrastructure,
including data-mining and other advanced analytical tools, in
order to access, receive, and analyze data and information in
furtherance of the responsibilities under this section, and
to disseminate information acquired and analyzed by the
Department, as appropriate.
(15) To ensure, in conjunction with the chief information
officer of the Department, that any information databases and
analytical tools developed or utilized by the Department--
(A) are compatible with one another and with relevant
information databases of other agencies of the Federal
Government; and
(B) treat information in such databases in a manner that
complies with applicable Federal law on privacy.
(16) To coordinate training and other support to the
elements and personnel of the Department, other agencies of
the Federal Government, and State and local governments that
provide information to the Department, or are consumers of
information provided by the Department, in order to
facilitate the identification and sharing of information
revealed in their ordinary duties and the optimal utilization
of information received from the Department.
(17) To coordinate with elements of the intelligence
community and with Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies, and the private sector, as appropriate.
(18) To provide intelligence and information analysis and
support to other elements of the Department.
(19) To perform such other duties relating to such
responsibilities as the Secretary may provide.
(e) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide the
Directorate with a staff of analysts having appropriate
expertise and experience to assist the Directorate in
discharging responsibilities under this section.

[[Page 23059]]

(2) Private sector analysts.--Analysts under this
subsection may include analysts from the private sector.
(3) Security clearances.--Analysts under this subsection
shall possess security clearances appropriate for their work
under this section.
(f) Detail of Personnel.--
(1) In general.--In order to assist the Directorate in
discharging responsibilities under this section, personnel of
the agencies referred to in paragraph (2) may be detailed to
the Department for the performance of analytic functions and
related duties.
(2) Covered agencies.--The agencies referred to in this
paragraph are as follows:
(A) The Department of State.
(B) The Central Intelligence Agency.
(C) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(D) The National Security Agency.
(E) The National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
(F) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(G) Any other agency of the Federal Government that the
President considers appropriate.
(3) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary and the head of
the agency concerned may enter into cooperative agreements
for the purpose of detailing personnel under this subsection.
(4) Basis.--The detail of personnel under this subsection
may be on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis.
(g) Functions Transferred.--In accordance with title XV,
there shall be transferred to the Secretary, for assignment
to the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection under this section, the functions,
personnel, assets, and liabilities of the following:
(1) The National Infrastructure Protection Center of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (other than the Computer
Investigations and Operations Section), including the
functions of the Attorney General relating thereto.
(2) The National Communications System of the Department of
Defense, including the functions of the Secretary of Defense
relating thereto.
(3) The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the
Department of Commerce, including the functions of the
Secretary of Commerce relating thereto.
(4) The National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis
Center of the Department of Energy and the energy security
and assurance program and activities of the Department,
including the functions of the Secretary of Energy relating
thereto.
(5) The Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the
General Services Administration, including the functions of
the Administrator of General Services relating thereto.
(h) Inclusion of Certain Elements of the Department as
Elements of the Intelligence Community.--Section 3(4) of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (I);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph (K);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (I) the following new
subparagraph:
``(J) the elements of the Department of Homeland Security
concerned with the analyses of foreign intelligence
information; and''.

SEC. 202. ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

(a) In General.--
(1) Threat and vulnerability information.--Except as
otherwise directed by the President, the Secretary shall have
such access as the Secretary considers necessary to all
information, including reports, assessments, analyses, and
unevaluated intelligence relating to threats of terrorism
against the United States and to other areas of
responsibility assigned by the Secretary, and to all
information concerning infrastructure or other
vulnerabilities of the United States to terrorism, whether or
not such information has been analyzed, that may be
collected, possessed, or prepared by any agency of the
Federal Government.
(2) Other information.--The Secretary shall also have
access to other information relating to matters under the
responsibility of the Secretary that may be collected,
possessed, or prepared by an agency of the Federal Government
as the President may further provide.
(b) Manner of Access.--Except as otherwise directed by the
President, with respect to information to which the Secretary
has access pursuant to this section--
(1) the Secretary may obtain such material upon request,
and may enter into cooperative arrangements with other
executive agencies to provide such material or provide
Department officials with access to it on a regular or
routine basis, including requests or arrangements involving
broad categories of material, access to electronic databases,
or both; and
(2) regardless of whether the Secretary has made any
request or entered into any cooperative arrangement pursuant
to paragraph (1), all agencies of the Federal Government
shall promptly provide to the Secretary--
(A) all reports (including information reports containing
intelligence which has not been fully evaluated),
assessments, and analytical information relating to threats
of terrorism against the United States and to other areas of
responsibility assigned by the Secretary;
(B) all information concerning the vulnerability of the
infrastructure of the United States, or other vulnerabilities
of the United States, to terrorism, whether or not such
information has been analyzed;
(C) all other information relating to significant and
credible threats of terrorism against the United States,
whether or not such information has been analyzed; and
(D) such other information or material as the President may
direct.
(c) Treatment Under Certain Laws.--The Secretary shall be
deemed to be a Federal law enforcement, intelligence,
protective, national defense, immigration, or national
security official, and shall be provided with all information
from law enforcement agencies that is required to be given to
the Director of Central Intelligence, under any provision of
the following:
(1) The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56).
(2) Section 2517(6) of title 18, United States Code.
(3) Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
(d) Access to Intelligence and Other Information.--
(1) Access by elements of federal government.--Nothing in
this title shall preclude any element of the intelligence
community (as that term is defined in section 3(4) of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)), or other
any element of the Federal Government with responsibility for
analyzing terrorist threat information, from receiving any
intelligence or other information relating to terrorism.
(2) Sharing of information.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the Director of Central Intelligence, shall work to
ensure that intelligence or other information relating to
terrorism to which the Department has access is appropriately
shared with the elements of the Federal Government referred
to in paragraph (1), as well as with State and local
governments, as appropriate.

Subtitle B--Critical Infrastructure Information

SEC. 211. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Critical Infrastructure
Information Act of 2002''.

SEC. 212. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given it
in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Covered federal agency.--The term ``covered Federal
agency'' means the Department of Homeland Security.
(3) Critical infrastructure information.--The term
``critical infrastructure information'' means information not
customarily in the public domain and related to the security
of critical infrastructure or protected systems--
(A) actual, potential, or threatened interference with,
attack on, compromise of, or incapacitation of critical
infrastructure or protected systems by either physical or
computer-based attack or other similar conduct (including the
misuse of or unauthorized access to all types of
communications and data transmission systems) that violates
Federal, State, or local law, harms interstate commerce of
the United States, or threatens public health or safety;
(B) the ability of any critical infrastructure or protected
system to resist such interference, compromise, or
incapacitation, including any planned or past assessment,
projection, or estimate of the vulnerability of critical
infrastructure or a protected system, including security
testing, risk evaluation thereto, risk management planning,
or risk audit; or
(C) any planned or past operational problem or solution
regarding critical infrastructure or protected systems,
including repair, recovery, reconstruction, insurance, or
continuity, to the extent it is related to such interference,
compromise, or incapacitation.
(4) Critical infrastructure protection program.--The term
``critical infrastructure protection program'' means any
component or bureau of a covered Federal agency that has been
designated by the President or any agency head to receive
critical infrastructure information.
(5) Information sharing and analysis organization.--The
term ``Information Sharing and Analysis Organization'' means
any formal or informal entity or collaboration created or
employed by public or private sector organizations, for
purposes of--
(A) gathering and analyzing critical infrastructure
information in order to better understand security problems
and interdependencies related to critical infrastructure and
protected systems, so as to ensure the availability,
integrity, and reliability thereof;
(B) communicating or disclosing critical infrastructure
information to help prevent, detect, mitigate, or recover
from the effects of a interference, compromise, or a
incapacitation problem related to critical infrastructure or
protected systems; and
(C) voluntarily disseminating critical infrastructure
information to its members, State, local, and Federal
Governments, or any other entities that may be of assistance
in carrying out the purposes specified in subparagraphs (A)
and (B).
(6) Protected system.--The term ``protected system''--
(A) means any service, physical or computer-based system,
process, or procedure that directly or indirectly affects the
viability of a facility of critical infrastructure; and
(B) includes any physical or computer-based system,
including a computer, computer system, computer or
communications network, or any component hardware or element
thereof, software program, processing instructions, or
information or data in transmission or storage therein,
irrespective of the medium of transmission or storage.
(7) Voluntary.--
(A) In general.--The term ``voluntary'', in the case of any
submittal of critical infrastructure information to a covered
Federal agency,

[[Page 23060]]

means the submittal thereof in the absence of such agency's
exercise of legal authority to compel access to or submission
of such information and may be accomplished by a single
entity or an Information Sharing and Analysis Organization on
behalf of itself or its members.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``voluntary''--
(i) in the case of any action brought under the securities
laws as is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47))--

(I) does not include information or statements contained in
any documents or materials filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, or with Federal banking regulators,
pursuant to section 12(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 781(I)); and
(II) with respect to the submittal of critical
infrastructure information, does not include any disclosure
or writing that when made accompanied the solicitation of an
offer or a sale of securities; and

(ii) does not include information or statements submitted
or relied upon as a basis for making licensing or permitting
determinations, or during regulatory proceedings.

SEC. 213. DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
PROGRAM.

A critical infrastructure protection program may be
designated as such by one of the following:
(1) The President.
(2) The Secretary of Homeland Security.

SEC. 214. PROTECTION OF VOLUNTARILY SHARED CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION.

(a) Protection.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, critical infrastructure information (including the
identity of the submitting person or entity) that is
voluntarily submitted to a covered Federal agency for use by
that agency regarding the security of critical infrastructure
and protected systems, analysis, warning, interdependency
study, recovery, reconstitution, or other informational
purpose, when accompanied by an express statement specified
in paragraph (2)--
(A) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the
Freedom of Information Act);
(B) shall not be subject to any agency rules or judicial
doctrine regarding ex parte communications with a decision
making official;
(C) shall not, without the written consent of the person or
entity submitting such information, be used directly by such
agency, any other Federal, State, or local authority, or any
third party, in any civil action arising under Federal or
State law if such information is submitted in good faith;
(D) shall not, without the written consent of the person or
entity submitting such information, be used or disclosed by
any officer or employee of the United States for purposes
other than the purposes of this subtitle, except--
(i) in furtherance of an investigation or the prosecution
of a criminal act; or
(ii) when disclosure of the information would be--

(I) to either House of Congress, or to the extent of matter
within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee
thereof, any joint committee thereof or subcommittee of any
such joint committee; or
(II) to the Comptroller General, or any authorized
representative of the Comptroller General, in the course of
the performance of the duties of the General Accounting
Office.

(E) shall not, if provided to a State or local government
or government agency--
(i) be made available pursuant to any State or local law
requiring disclosure of information or records;
(ii) otherwise be disclosed or distributed to any party by
said State or local government or government agency without
the written consent of the person or entity submitting such
information; or
(iii) be used other than for the purpose of protecting
critical infrastructure or protected systems, or in
furtherance of an investigation or the prosecution of a
criminal act; and
(F) does not constitute a waiver of any applicable
privilege or protection provided under law, such as trade
secret protection.
(2) Express statement.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term ``express statement'', with respect to information or
records, means--
(A) in the case of written information or records, a
written marking on the information or records substantially
similar to the following: ``This information is voluntarily
submitted to the Federal Government in expectation of
protection from disclosure as provided by the provisions of
the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002.''; or
(B) in the case of oral information, a similar written
statement submitted within a reasonable period following the
oral communication.
(b) Limitation.--No communication of critical
infrastructure information to a covered Federal agency made
pursuant to this subtitle shall be considered to be an action
subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).
(c) Independently Obtained Information.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect the
ability of a State, local, or Federal Government entity,
agency, or authority, or any third party, under applicable
law, to obtain critical infrastructure information in a
manner not covered by subsection (a), including any
information lawfully and properly disclosed generally or
broadly to the public and to use such information in any
manner permitted by law.
(d) Treatment of Voluntary Submittal of Information.--The
voluntary submittal to the Government of information or
records that are protected from disclosure by this subtitle
shall not be construed to constitute compliance with any
requirement to submit such information to a Federal agency
under any other provision of law.
(e) Procedures.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security shall, in consultation with appropriate
representatives of the National Security Council and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, establish uniform
procedures for the receipt, care, and storage by Federal
agencies of critical infrastructure information that is
voluntarily submitted to the Government. The procedures shall
be established not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this subtitle.
(2) Elements.--The procedures established under paragraph
(1) shall include mechanisms regarding--
(A) the acknowledgement of receipt by Federal agencies of
critical infrastructure information that is voluntarily
submitted to the Government;
(B) the maintenance of the identification of such
information as voluntarily submitted to the Government for
purposes of and subject to the provisions of this subtitle;
(C) the care and storage of such information; and
(D) the protection and maintenance of the confidentiality
of such information so as to permit the sharing of such
information within the Federal Government and with State and
local governments, and the issuance of notices and warnings
related to the protection of critical infrastructure and
protected systems, in such manner as to protect from public
disclosure the identity of the submitting person or entity,
or information that is proprietary, business sensitive,
relates specifically to the submitting person or entity, and
is otherwise not appropriately in the public domain.
(f) Penalties.--Whoever, being an officer or employee of
the United States or of any department or agency thereof,
knowingly publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in
any manner or to any extent not authorized by law, any
critical infrastructure information protected from disclosure
by this subtitle coming to him in the course of this
employment or official duties or by reason of any examination
or investigation made by, or return, report, or record made
to or filed with, such department or agency or officer or
employee thereof, shall be fined under title 18 of the United
States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, and
shall be removed from office or employment.
(g) Authority To Issue Warnings.--The Federal Government
may provide advisories, alerts, and warnings to relevant
companies, targeted sectors, other governmental entities, or
the general public regarding potential threats to critical
infrastructure as appropriate. In issuing a warning, the
Federal Government shall take appropriate actions to protect
from disclosure--
(1) the source of any voluntarily submitted critical
infrastructure information that forms the basis for the
warning; or
(2) information that is proprietary, business sensitive,
relates specifically to the submitting person or entity, or
is otherwise not appropriately in the public domain.
(h) Authority To Delegate.--The President may delegate
authority to a critical infrastructure protection program,
designated under section 213, to enter into a voluntary
agreement to promote critical infrastructure security,
including with any Information Sharing and Analysis
Organization, or a plan of action as otherwise defined in
section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C.
App. 2158).

SEC. 215. NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

Nothing in this subtitle may be construed to create a
private right of action for enforcement of any provision of
this Act.

Subtitle C--Information Security

SEC. 221. PROCEDURES FOR SHARING INFORMATION.

The Secretary shall establish procedures on the use of
information shared under this title that--
(1) limit the redissemination of such information to ensure
that it is not used for an unauthorized purpose;
(2) ensure the security and confidentiality of such
information;
(3) protect the constitutional and statutory rights of any
individuals who are subjects of such information; and
(4) provide data integrity through the timely removal and
destruction of obsolete or erroneous names and information.

SEC. 222. PRIVACY OFFICER.

The Secretary shall appoint a senior official in the
Department to assume primary responsibility for privacy
policy, including--
(1) assuring that the use of technologies sustain, and do
not erode, privacy protections relating to the use,
collection, and disclosure of personal information;
(2) assuring that personal information contained in Privacy
Act systems of records is handled in full compliance with
fair information practices as set out in the Privacy Act of
1974;
(3) evaluating legislative and regulatory proposals
involving collection, use, and disclosure of personal
information by the Federal Government;
(4) conducting a privacy impact assessment of proposed
rules of the Department or that of the Department on the
privacy of personal information, including the type of
personal information collected and the number of people
affected; and

[[Page 23061]]

(5) preparing a report to Congress on an annual basis on
activities of the Department that affect privacy, including
complaints of privacy violations, implementation of the
Privacy Act of 1974, internal controls, and other matters.

SEC. 223. ENHANCEMENT OF NON-FEDERAL CYBERSECURITY.

In carrying out the responsibilities under section 201, the
Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection shall--
(1) as appropriate, provide to State and local government
entities, and upon request to private entities that own or
operate critical information systems--
(A) analysis and warnings related to threats to, and
vulnerabilities of, critical information systems; and
(B) in coordination with the Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness and Response, crisis management support in
response to threats to, or attacks on, critical information
systems; and
(2) as appropriate, provide technical assistance, upon
request, to the private sector and other government entities,
in coordination with the Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness and Response, with respect to emergency recovery
plans to respond to major failures of critical information
systems.

SEC. 224. NET GUARD.

The Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection may establish a national technology
guard, to be known as ``NET Guard'', comprised of local teams
of volunteers with expertise in relevant areas of science and
technology, to assist local communities to respond and
recover from attacks on information systems and
communications networks.

SEC. 225. CYBER SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2002.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Cyber
Security Enhancement Act of 2002''.
(b) Amendment of Sentencing Guidelines Relating to Certain
Computer Crimes.--
(1) Directive to the united states sentencing commission.--
Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28,
United States Code, and in accordance with this subsection,
the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if
appropriate, amend its guidelines and its policy statements
applicable to persons convicted of an offense under section
1030 of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Requirements.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Sentencing Commission shall--
(A) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy
statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses
described in paragraph (1), the growing incidence of such
offenses, and the need for an effective deterrent and
appropriate punishment to prevent such offenses;
(B) consider the following factors and the extent to which
the guidelines may or may not account for them--
(i) the potential and actual loss resulting from the
offense;
(ii) the level of sophistication and planning involved in
the offense;
(iii) whether the offense was committed for purposes of
commercial advantage or private financial benefit;
(iv) whether the defendant acted with malicious intent to
cause harm in committing the offense;
(v) the extent to which the offense violated the privacy
rights of individuals harmed;
(vi) whether the offense involved a computer used by the
government in furtherance of national defense, national
security, or the administration of justice;
(vii) whether the violation was intended to or had the
effect of significantly interfering with or disrupting a
critical infrastructure; and
(viii) whether the violation was intended to or had the
effect of creating a threat to public health or safety, or
injury to any person;
(C) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives and with other sentencing guidelines;
(D) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating
circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally
applicable sentencing ranges;
(E) make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing
guidelines; and
(F) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes
of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18,
United States Code.
(c) Study and Report on Computer Crimes.--Not later than
May 1, 2003, the United States Sentencing Commission shall
submit a brief report to Congress that explains any actions
taken by the Sentencing Commission in response to this
section and includes any recommendations the Commission may
have regarding statutory penalties for offenses under section
1030 of title 18, United States Code.
(d) Emergency Disclosure Exception.--
(1) In general.--Section 2702(b) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (6)(A), by inserting ``or'' at the end;
(C) by striking paragraph (6)(C); and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if
the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency
involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any
person requires disclosure without delay of communications
relating to the emergency.''.
(2) Reporting of disclosures.--A government entity that
receives a disclosure under section 2702(b) of title 18,
United States Code, shall file, not later than 90 days after
such disclosure, a report to the Attorney General stating the
paragraph of that section under which the disclosure was
made, the date of the disclosure, the entity to which the
disclosure was made, the number of customers or subscribers
to whom the information disclosed pertained, and the number
of communications, if any, that were disclosed. The Attorney
General shall publish all such reports into a single report
to be submitted to Congress 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(e) Good Faith Exception.--Section 2520(d)(3) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or 2511(2)(i)''
after ``2511(3)''.
(f) Internet Advertising of Illegal Devices.--Section
2512(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or disseminates by electronic means''
after ``or other publication''; and
(2) by inserting ``knowing the content of the advertisement
and'' before ``knowing or having reason to know''.
(g) Strengthening Penalties.--Section 1030(c) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(2) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (C) of paragraph (4),
by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (5),'' before
``a fine under this title'';
(3) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5)(A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or
attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in
violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title
or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and
``(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or
attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of
subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or
imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.''.
(h) Provider Assistance.--
(1) Section 2703.--Section 2703(e) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``, statutory
authorization'' after ``subpoena''.
(2) Section 2511.--Section 2511(2)(a)(ii) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, statutory
authorization,'' after ``court order'' the last place it
appears.
(i) Emergencies.--Section 3125(a)(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the comma at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) an immediate threat to a national security interest;
or
``(D) an ongoing attack on a protected computer (as defined
in section 1030) that constitutes a crime punishable by a
term of imprisonment greater than one year;''.
(j) Protecting Privacy.--
(1) Section 2511.--Section 2511(4) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (b); and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
(2) Section 2701.--Section 2701(b) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, or in furtherance of
any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States or any State'' after
``commercial gain'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``one year'' and
inserting ``5 years'';
(C) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``two years'' and
inserting ``10 years''; and
(D) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) in any other case--
``(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 1 year or both, in the case of a first offense under
this paragraph; and
``(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under this
subparagraph that occurs after a conviction of another
offense under this section.''.

Subtitle D--Office of Science and Technology

SEC. 231. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE; DIRECTOR.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is hereby established within the
Department of Justice an Office of Science and Technology
(hereinafter in this title referred to as the ``Office'').
(2) Authority.--The Office shall be under the general
authority of the Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Justice Programs, and shall be established within the
National Institute of Justice.
(b) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director,
who shall be an individual appointed based on approval by the
Office of Personnel Management of the executive
qualifications of the individual.

SEC. 232. MISSION OF OFFICE; DUTIES.

(a) Mission.--The mission of the Office shall be--
(1) to serve as the national focal point for work on law
enforcement technology; and
(2) to carry out programs that, through the provision of
equipment, training, and technical assistance, improve the
safety and effectiveness of law enforcement technology and
improve access to such technology by Federal, State, and
local law enforcement agencies.
(b) Duties.--In carrying out its mission, the Office shall
have the following duties:
(1) To provide recommendations and advice to the Attorney
General.

[[Page 23062]]

(2) To establish and maintain advisory groups (which shall
be exempt from the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)) to assess the law enforcement
technology needs of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies.
(3) To establish and maintain performance standards in
accordance with the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113) for, and test
and evaluate law enforcement technologies that may be used
by, Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
(4) To establish and maintain a program to certify,
validate, and mark or otherwise recognize law enforcement
technology products that conform to standards established and
maintained by the Office in accordance with the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-113). The program may, at the discretion of the Office,
allow for supplier's declaration of conformity with such
standards.
(5) To work with other entities within the Department of
Justice, other Federal agencies, and the executive office of
the President to establish a coordinated Federal approach on
issues related to law enforcement technology.
(6) To carry out research, development, testing,
evaluation, and cost-benefit analyses in fields that would
improve the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of law
enforcement technologies used by Federal, State, and local
law enforcement agencies, including, but not limited to--
(A) weapons capable of preventing use by unauthorized
persons, including personalized guns;
(B) protective apparel;
(C) bullet-resistant and explosion-resistant glass;
(D) monitoring systems and alarm systems capable of
providing precise location information;
(E) wire and wireless interoperable communication
technologies;
(F) tools and techniques that facilitate investigative and
forensic work, including computer forensics;
(G) equipment for particular use in counterterrorism,
including devices and technologies to disable terrorist
devices;
(H) guides to assist State and local law enforcement
agencies;
(I) DNA identification technologies; and
(J) tools and techniques that facilitate investigations of
computer crime.
(7) To administer a program of research, development,
testing, and demonstration to improve the interoperability of
voice and data public safety communications.
(8) To serve on the Technical Support Working Group of the
Department of Defense, and on other relevant interagency
panels, as requested.
(9) To develop, and disseminate to State and local law
enforcement agencies, technical assistance and training
materials for law enforcement personnel, including
prosecutors.
(10) To operate the regional National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Centers and, to the extent necessary,
establish additional centers through a competitive process.
(11) To administer a program of acquisition, research,
development, and dissemination of advanced investigative
analysis and forensic tools to assist State and local law
enforcement agencies in combating cybercrime.
(12) To support research fellowships in support of its
mission.
(13) To serve as a clearinghouse for information on law
enforcement technologies.
(14) To represent the United States and State and local law
enforcement agencies, as requested, in international
activities concerning law enforcement technology.
(15) To enter into contracts and cooperative agreements and
provide grants, which may require in-kind or cash matches
from the recipient, as necessary to carry out its mission.
(16) To carry out other duties assigned by the Attorney
General to accomplish the mission of the Office.
(c) Competition Required.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided by law, all research and development carried out by
or through the Office shall be carried out on a competitive
basis.
(d) Information From Federal Agencies.--Federal agencies
shall, upon request from the Office and in accordance with
Federal law, provide the Office with any data, reports, or
other information requested, unless compliance with such
request is otherwise prohibited by law.
(e) Publications.--Decisions concerning publications issued
by the Office shall rest solely with the Director of the
Office.
(f) Transfer of Funds.--The Office may transfer funds to
other Federal agencies or provide funding to non-Federal
entities through grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts
to carry out its duties under this section.
(g) Annual Report.--The Director of the Office shall
include with the budget justification materials submitted to
Congress in support of the Department of Justice budget for
each fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the
President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code) a report on the activities of the Office. Each such
report shall include the following:
(1) For the period of 5 fiscal years beginning with the
fiscal year for which the budget is submitted--
(A) the Director's assessment of the needs of Federal,
State, and local law enforcement agencies for assistance with
respect to law enforcement technology and other matters
consistent with the mission of the Office; and
(B) a strategic plan for meeting such needs of such law
enforcement agencies.
(2) For the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which
such budget is submitted, a description of the activities
carried out by the Office and an evaluation of the extent to
which those activities successfully meet the needs assessed
under paragraph (1)(A) in previous reports.

SEC. 233. DEFINITION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY.

For the purposes of this title, the term ``law enforcement
technology'' includes investigative and forensic
technologies, corrections technologies, and technologies that
support the judicial process.

SEC. 234. ABOLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE; TRANSFER OF
FUNCTIONS.

(a) Authority To Transfer Functions.--The Attorney General
may transfer to the Office any other program or activity of
the Department of Justice that the Attorney General, in
consultation with the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives, determines to be consistent with the mission
of the Office.
(b) Transfer of Personnel and Assets.--With respect to any
function, power, or duty, or any program or activity, that is
established in the Office, those employees and assets of the
element of the Department of Justice from which the transfer
is made that the Attorney General determines are needed to
perform that function, power, or duty, or for that program or
activity, as the case may be, shall be transferred to the
Office.
(c) Report on Implementation.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General
shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report on the implementation of this title.
The report shall--
(1) provide an accounting of the amounts and sources of
funding available to the Office to carry out its mission
under existing authorizations and appropriations, and set
forth the future funding needs of the Office; and
(2) include such other information and recommendations as
the Attorney General considers appropriate.

SEC. 235. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CORRECTIONS TECHNOLOGY
CENTERS.

(a) In General.--The Director of the Office shall operate
and support National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Centers (hereinafter in this section referred to
as ``Centers'') and, to the extent necessary, establish new
centers through a merit-based, competitive process.
(b) Purpose of Centers.--The purpose of the Centers shall
be to--
(1) support research and development of law enforcement
technology;
(2) support the transfer and implementation of technology;
(3) assist in the development and dissemination of
guidelines and technological standards; and
(4) provide technology assistance, information, and support
for law enforcement, corrections, and criminal justice
purposes.
(c) Annual Meeting.--Each year, the Director shall convene
a meeting of the Centers in order to foster collaboration and
communication between Center participants.
(d) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the
Congress a report assessing the effectiveness of the existing
system of Centers and identify the number of Centers
necessary to meet the technology needs of Federal, State, and
local law enforcement in the United States.

SEC. 236. COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES WITHIN DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE.

Section 102 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3712) is amended in subsection (a)(5)
by inserting ``coordinate and'' before ``provide''.

SEC. 237. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
JUSTICE.

Section 202(c) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safety
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3722(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``, including cost
effectiveness where practical,'' before ``of projects''; and
(2) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (8), striking the period at the end of paragraph
(9) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the
following:
``(10) research and development of tools and technologies
relating to prevention, detection, investigation, and
prosecution of crime; and
``(11) support research, development, testing, training,
and evaluation of tools and technology for Federal, State,
and local law enforcement agencies.''.

TITLE III--SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SEC. 301. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

There shall be in the Department a Directorate of Science
and Technology headed by an Under Secretary for Science and
Technology.

SEC. 302. RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE UNDER
SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, shall have the responsibility for--
(1) advising the Secretary regarding research and
development efforts and priorities in support of the
Department's missions;

[[Page 23063]]

(2) developing, in consultation with other appropriate
executive agencies, a national policy and strategic plan for,
identifying priorities, goals, objectives and policies for,
and coordinating the Federal Government's civilian efforts to
identify and develop countermeasures to chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, and other emerging terrorist threats,
including the development of comprehensive, research-based
definable goals for such efforts and development of annual
measurable objectives and specific targets to accomplish and
evaluate the goals for such efforts;
(3) supporting the Under Secretary for Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection, by assessing and testing
homeland security vulnerabilities and possible threats;
(4) conducting basic and applied research, development,
demonstration, testing, and evaluation activities that are
relevant to any or all elements of the Department, through
both intramural and extramural programs, except that such
responsibility does not extend to human health-related
research and development activities;
(5) establishing priorities for, directing, funding, and
conducting national research, development, test and
evaluation, and procurement of technology and systems for--
(A) preventing the importation of chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, and related weapons and material; and
(B) detecting, preventing, protecting against, and
responding to terrorist attacks;
(6) establishing a system for transferring homeland
security developments or technologies to federal, state,
local government, and private sector entities;
(7) entering into work agreements, joint sponsorships,
contracts, or any other agreements with the Department of
Energy regarding the use of the national laboratories or
sites and support of the science and technology base at those
facilities;
(8) collaborating with the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Attorney General as provided in section 212 of the
Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
8401), as amended by section 1709(b);
(9) collaborating with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and the Attorney General in determining any new
biological agents and toxins that shall be listed as ``select
agents'' in Appendix A of part 72 of title 42, Code of
Federal Regulations, pursuant to section 351A of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262a);
(10) supporting United States leadership in science and
technology;
(11) establishing and administering the primary research
and development activities of the Department, including the
long-term research and development needs and capabilities for
all elements of the Department;
(12) coordinating and integrating all research,
development, demonstration, testing, and evaluation
activities of the Department;
(13) coordinating with other appropriate executive agencies
in developing and carrying out the science and technology
agenda of the Department to reduce duplication and identify
unmet needs; and
(14) developing and overseeing the administration of
guidelines for merit review of research and development
projects throughout the Department, and for the dissemination
of research conducted or sponsored by the Department.

SEC. 303. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED.

In accordance with title XV, there shall be transferred to
the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, and
liabilities of the following entities:
(1) The following programs and activities of the Department
of Energy, including the functions of the Secretary of Energy
relating thereto (but not including programs and activities
relating to the strategic nuclear defense posture of the
United States):
(A) The chemical and biological national security and
supporting programs and activities of the nonproliferation
and verification research and development program.
(B) The nuclear smuggling programs and activities within
the proliferation detection program of the nonproliferation
and verification research and development program. The
programs and activities described in this subparagraph may be
designated by the President either for transfer to the
Department or for joint operation by the Secretary and the
Secretary of Energy.
(C) The nuclear assessment program and activities of the
assessment, detection, and cooperation program of the
international materials protection and cooperation program.
(D) Such life sciences activities of the biological and
environmental research program related to microbial pathogens
as may be designated by the President for transfer to the
Department.
(E) The Environmental Measurements Laboratory.
(F) The advanced scientific computing research program and
activities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
(2) The National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center of the
Department of Defense, including the functions of the
Secretary of Defense related thereto.

SEC. 304. CONDUCT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH-RELATED
ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--With respect to civilian human health-
related research and development activities relating to
countermeasures for chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear and other emerging terrorist threats carried out by
the Department of Health and Human Services (including the
Public Health Service), the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall set priorities, goals, objectives, and
policies and develop a coordinated strategy for such
activities in collaboration with the Secretary of Homeland
Security to ensure consistency with the national policy and
strategic plan developed pursuant to section 302(2).
(b) Evaluation of Progress.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
collaborate with the Secretary in developing specific
benchmarks and outcome measurements for evaluating progress
toward achieving the priorities and goals described in such
subsection.
(c) Administration of Countermeasures Against Smallpox.--
Section 224 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 233)
is amended by adding the following:
``(p) Administration of Smallpox Countermeasures by Health
Professionals.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, and
subject to other provisions of this subsection, a covered
person shall be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health
Service with respect to liability arising out of
administration of a covered countermeasure against smallpox
to an individual during the effective period of a declaration
by the Secretary under paragraph (2)(A).
``(2) Declaration by secretary concerning countermeasure
against smallpox.--
``(A) Authority to issue declaration.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary may issue a declaration,
pursuant to this paragraph, concluding that an actual or
potential bioterrorist incident or other actual or potential
public health emergency makes advisable the administration of
a covered countermeasure to a category or categories of
individuals.
``(ii) Covered countermeasure.--The Secretary shall specify
in such declaration the substance or substances that shall be
considered covered countermeasures (as defined in paragraph
(8)(A)) for purposes of administration to individuals during
the effective period of the declaration.
``(iii) Effective period.--The Secretary shall specify in
such declaration the beginning and ending dates of the
effective period of the declaration, and may subsequently
amend such declaration to shorten or extend such effective
period, provided that the new closing date is after the date
when the declaration is amended.
``(iv) Publication.--The Secretary shall promptly publish
each such declaration and amendment in the Federal Register.
``(B) Liability of united states only for administrations
within scope of declaration.--Except as provided in paragraph
(5)(B)(ii), the United States shall be liable under this
subsection with respect to a claim arising out of the
administration of a covered countermeasure to an individual
only if--
``(i) the countermeasure was administered by a qualified
person, for a purpose stated in paragraph (7)(A)(i), and
during the effective period of a declaration by the Secretary
under subparagraph (A) with respect to such countermeasure;
and
``(ii)(I) the individual was within a category of
individuals covered by the declaration; or
``(II) the qualified person administering the
countermeasure had reasonable grounds to believe that such
individual was within such category.
``(C) Presumption of administration within scope of
declaration in case of accidental vaccinia inoculation.--
``(i) In general.--If vaccinia vaccine is a covered
countermeasure specified in a declaration under subparagraph
(A), and an individual to whom the vaccinia vaccine is not
administered contracts vaccinia, then, under the
circumstances specified in clause (ii), the individual--

``(I) shall be rebuttably presumed to have contracted
vaccinia from an individual to whom such vaccine was
administered as provided by clauses (i) and (ii) of
subparagraph (B); and
``(II) shall (unless such presumption is rebutted) be
deemed for purposes of this subsection to be an individual to
whom a covered countermeasure was administered by a qualified
person in accordance with the terms of such declaration and
as described by subparagraph (B).

``(ii) Circumstances in which presumption applies.--The
presumption and deeming stated in clause (i) shall apply if--

``(I) the individual contracts vaccinia during the
effective period of a declaration under subparagraph (A) or
by the date 30 days after the close of such period; or
``(II) the individual resides or has resided with an
individual to whom such vaccine was administered as provided
by clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) and contracts
vaccinia after such date.

``(3) Exclusivity of remedy.--The remedy provided by
subsection (a) shall be exclusive of any other civil action
or proceeding for any claim or suit this subsection
encompasses.
``(4) Certification of action by attorney general.--
Subsection (c) applies to actions under this subsection,
subject to the following provisions:
``(A) Nature of certification.--The certification by the
Attorney General that is the basis for deeming an action or
proceeding to be against the United States, and for removing
an action or proceeding from a State court, is a
certification that the action or proceeding is against a
covered person and is based upon a claim alleging personal
injury or death arising out of the administration of a
covered countermeasure.
``(B) Certification of attorney general conclusive.--The
certification of the Attorney

[[Page 23064]]

General of the facts specified in subparagraph (A) shall
conclusively establish such facts for purposes of
jurisdiction pursuant to this subsection.
``(5) Defendant to cooperate with united states.--
``(A) In general.--A covered person shall cooperate with
the United States in the processing and defense of a claim or
action under this subsection based upon alleged acts or
omissions of such person.
``(B) Consequences of failure to cooperate.--Upon the
motion of the United States or any other party and upon
finding that such person has failed to so cooperate--
``(i) the court shall substitute such person as the party
defendant in place of the United States and, upon motion,
shall remand any such suit to the court in which it was
instituted if it appears that the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction;
``(ii) the United States shall not be liable based on the
acts or omissions of such person; and
``(iii) the Attorney General shall not be obligated to
defend such action.
``(6) Recourse against covered person in case of gross
misconduct or contract violation.--
``(A) In general.--Should payment be made by the United
States to any claimant bringing a claim under this
subsection, either by way of administrative determination,
settlement, or court judgment, the United States shall have,
notwithstanding any provision of State law, the right to
recover for that portion of the damages so awarded or paid,
as well as interest and any costs of litigation, resulting
from the failure of any covered person to carry out any
obligation or responsibility assumed by such person under a
contract with the United States or from any grossly
negligent, reckless, or illegal conduct or willful misconduct
on the part of such person.
``(B) Venue.--The United States may maintain an action
under this paragraph against such person in the district
court of the United States in which such person resides or
has its principal place of business.
``(7) Definitions.--As used in this subsection, terms have
the following meanings:
``(A) Covered countermeasure.--The term `covered
countermeasure', or `covered countermeasure against
smallpox', means a substance that is--
``(i)(I) used to prevent or treat smallpox (including the
vaccinia or another vaccine); or
``(II) vaccinia immune globulin used to control or treat
the adverse effects of vaccinia inoculation; and
``(ii) specified in a declaration under paragraph (2).
``(B) Covered person.--The term `covered person', when used
with respect to the administration of a covered
countermeasure, includes any person who is--
``(i) a manufacturer or distributor of such countermeasure;
``(ii) a health care entity under whose auspices such
countermeasure was administered;
``(iii) a qualified person who administered such
countermeasure; or
``(iv) an official, agent, or employee of a person
described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii).
``(C) Qualified person.--The term `qualified person', when
used with respect to the administration of a covered
countermeasure, means a licensed health professional or other
individual who is authorized to administer such
countermeasure under the law of the State in which the
countermeasure was administered.''.

SEC. 305. FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.

The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, shall have the authority to establish
or contract with 1 or more federally funded research and
development centers to provide independent analysis of
homeland security issues, or to carry out other
responsibilities under this Act, including coordinating and
integrating both the extramural and intramural programs
described in section 308.

SEC. 306. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

(a) Classification.--To the greatest extent practicable,
research conducted or supported by the Department shall be
unclassified.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be construed
to preclude any Under Secretary of the Department from
carrying out research, development, demonstration, or
deployment activities, as long as such activities are
coordinated through the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, may issue necessary
regulations with respect to research, development,
demonstration, testing, and evaluation activities of the
Department, including the conducting, funding, and reviewing
of such activities.
(d) Notification of Presidential Life Sciences
Designations.--Not later than 60 days before effecting any
transfer of Department of Energy life sciences activities
pursuant to section 303(1)(D) of this Act, the President
shall notify the appropriate congressional committees of the
proposed transfer and shall include the reasons for the
transfer and a description of the effect of the transfer on
the activities of the Department of Energy.

SEC. 307. HOMELAND SECURITY ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS
AGENCY.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Acceleration Fund
for Research and Development of Homeland Security
Technologies established in subsection (c).
(2) Homeland security research.--The term ``homeland
security research'' means research relevant to the detection
of, prevention of, protection against, response to,
attribution of, and recovery from homeland security threats,
particularly acts of terrorism.
(3) HSARPA.--The term ``HSARPA'' means the Homeland
Security Advanced Research Projects Agency established in
subsection (b).
(4) Under secretary.--The term ``Under Secretary'' means
the Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
(b) HSARPA.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established the Homeland
Security Advanced Research Projects Agency.
(2) Director.--HSARPA shall be headed by a Director, who
shall be appointed by the Secretary. The Director shall
report to the Under Secretary.
(3) Responsibilities.--The Director shall administer the
Fund to award competitive, merit-reviewed grants, cooperative
agreements or contracts to public or private entities,
including businesses, federally funded research and
development centers, and universities. The Director shall
administer the Fund to--
(A) support basic and applied homeland security research to
promote revolutionary changes in technologies that would
promote homeland security;
(B) advance the development, testing and evaluation, and
deployment of critical homeland security technologies; and
(C) accelerate the prototyping and deployment of
technologies that would address homeland security
vulnerabilities.
(4) Targeted competitions.--The Director may solicit
proposals to address specific vulnerabilities identified by
the Director.
(5) Coordination.--The Director shall ensure that the
activities of HSARPA are coordinated with those of other
relevant research agencies, and may run projects jointly with
other agencies.
(6) Personnel.--In hiring personnel for HSARPA, the
Secretary shall have the hiring and management authorities
described in section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (5 U.S.C. 3104
note; Public Law 105-261). The term of appointments for
employees under subsection (c)(1) of that section may not
exceed 5 years before the granting of any extension under
subsection (c)(2) of that section.
(7) Demonstrations.--The Director, periodically, shall hold
homeland security technology demonstrations to improve
contact among technology developers, vendors and acquisition
personnel.
(c) Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established the Acceleration
Fund for Research and Development of Homeland Security
Technologies, which shall be administered by the Director of
HSARPA.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $500,000,000 to the Fund for fiscal year
2003 and such sums as may be necessary thereafter.
(3) Coast guard.--Of the funds authorized to be
appropriated under paragraph (2), not less than 10 percent of
such funds for each fiscal year through fiscal year 2005
shall be authorized only for the Under Secretary, through
joint agreement with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, to
carry out research and development of improved ports,
waterways and coastal security surveillance and perimeter
protection capabilities for the purpose of minimizing the
possibility that Coast Guard cutters, aircraft, helicopters,
and personnel will be diverted from non-homeland security
missions to the ports, waterways and coastal security
mission.

SEC. 308. CONDUCT OF RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION,
TESTING AND EVALUATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, shall carry out the
responsibilities under section 302(4) through both extramural
and intramural programs.
(b) Extramural Programs.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, shall operate
extramural research, development, demonstration, testing, and
evaluation programs so as to--
(A) ensure that colleges, universities, private research
institutes, and companies (and consortia thereof) from as
many areas of the United States as practicable participate;
(B) ensure that the research funded is of high quality, as
determined through merit review processes developed under
section 302(14); and
(C) distribute funds through grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts.
(2) University-based centers for homeland security.--
(A) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, shall establish within
1 year of the date of enactment of this Act a university-
based center or centers for homeland security. The purpose of
this center or centers shall be to establish a coordinated,
university-based system to enhance the Nation's homeland
security.
(B) Criteria for selection.--In selecting colleges or
universities as centers for homeland security, the Secretary
shall consider the following criteria:
(i) Demonstrated expertise in the training of first
responders.
(ii) Demonstrated expertise in responding to incidents
involving weapons of mass destruction and biological warfare.

[[Page 23065]]

(iii) Demonstrated expertise in emergency medical services.
(iv) Demonstrated expertise in chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear countermeasures.
(v) Strong affiliations with animal and plant diagnostic
laboratories.
(vi) Demonstrated expertise in food safety.
(vii) Affiliation with Department of Agriculture
laboratories or training centers.
(viii) Demonstrated expertise in water and wastewater
operations.
(ix) Demonstrated expertise in port and waterway security.
(x) Demonstrated expertise in multi-modal transportation.
(xi) Nationally recognized programs in information
security.
(xii) Nationally recognized programs in engineering.
(xiii) Demonstrated expertise in educational outreach and
technical assistance.
(xiv) Demonstrated expertise in border transportation and
security.
(xv) Demonstrated expertise in interdisciplinary public
policy research and communication outreach regarding science,
technology, and public policy.
(C) Discretion of secretary.--The Secretary shall have the
discretion to establish such centers and to consider
additional criteria as necessary to meet the evolving needs
of homeland security and shall report to Congress concerning
the implementation of this paragraph as necessary.
(D) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this paragraph.
(c) Intramural Programs.--
(1) Consultation.--In carrying out the duties under section
302, the Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, may draw upon the expertise of any
laboratory of the Federal Government, whether operated by a
contractor or the Government.
(2) Laboratories.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, may establish a
headquarters laboratory for the Department at any laboratory
or site and may establish additional laboratory units at
other laboratories or sites.
(3) Criteria for headquarters laboratory.--If the Secretary
chooses to establish a headquarters laboratory pursuant to
paragraph (2), then the Secretary shall do the following:
(A) Establish criteria for the selection of the
headquarters laboratory in consultation with the National
Academy of Sciences, appropriate Federal agencies, and other
experts.
(B) Publish the criteria in the Federal Register.
(C) Evaluate all appropriate laboratories or sites against
the criteria.
(D) Select a laboratory or site on the basis of the
criteria.
(E) Report to the appropriate congressional committees on
which laboratory was selected, how the selected laboratory
meets the published criteria, and what duties the
headquarters laboratory shall perform.
(4) Limitation on operation of laboratories.--No laboratory
shall begin operating as the headquarters laboratory of the
Department until at least 30 days after the transmittal of
the report required by paragraph (3)(E).

SEC. 309. UTILIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
LABORATORIES AND SITES IN SUPPORT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY ACTIVITIES.

(a) Authority to Utilize National Laboratories and Sites.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the missions of the
Department, the Secretary may utilize the Department of
Energy national laboratories and sites through any 1 or more
of the following methods, as the Secretary considers
appropriate:
(A) A joint sponsorship arrangement referred to in
subsection (b).
(B) A direct contract between the Department and the
applicable Department of Energy laboratory or site, subject
to subsection (c).
(C) Any ``work for others'' basis made available by that
laboratory or site.
(D) Any other method provided by law.
(2) Acceptance and Performance by Labs and Sites.--
Notwithstanding any other law governing the administration,
mission, use, or operations of any of the Department of
Energy national laboratories and sites, such laboratories and
sites are authorized to accept and perform work for the
Secretary, consistent with resources provided, and perform
such work on an equal basis to other missions at the
laboratory and not on a noninterference basis with other
missions of such laboratory or site.
(b) Joint Sponsorship Arrangements.--
(1) Laboratories.--The Department may be a joint sponsor,
under a multiple agency sponsorship arrangement with the
Department of Energy, of 1 or more Department of Energy
national laboratories in the performance of work.
(2) Sites.--The Department may be a joint sponsor of a
Department of Energy site in the performance of work as if
such site were a federally funded research and development
center and the work were performed under a multiple agency
sponsorship arrangement with the Department.
(3) Primary sponsor.--The Department of Energy shall be the
primary sponsor under a multiple agency sponsorship
arrangement referred to in paragraph (1) or (2).
(4) Lead agent.--The Secretary of Energy shall act as the
lead agent in coordinating the formation and performance of a
joint sponsorship arrangement under this subsection between
the Department and a Department of Energy national laboratory
or site.
(5) Federal acquisition regulation.--Any work performed by
a Department of Energy national laboratory or site under a
joint sponsorship arrangement under this subsection shall
comply with the policy on the use of federally funded
research and development centers under the Federal
Acquisition Regulations.
(6) Funding.--The Department shall provide funds for work
at the Department of Energy national laboratories or sites,
as the case may be, under a joint sponsorship arrangement
under this subsection under the same terms and conditions as
apply to the primary sponsor of such national laboratory
under section 303(b)(1)(C) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253 (b)(1)(C))
or of such site to the extent such section applies to such
site as a federally funded research and development center by
reason of this subsection.
(c) Separate Contracting.--To the extent that programs or
activities transferred by this Act from the Department of
Energy to the Department of Homeland Security are being
carried out through direct contracts with the operator of a
national laboratory or site of the Department of Energy, the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Energy
shall ensure that direct contracts for such programs and
activities between the Department of Homeland Security and
such operator are separate from the direct contracts of the
Department of Energy with such operator.
(d) Authority With Respect to Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements and Licensing Agreements.--In
connection with any utilization of the Department of Energy
national laboratories and sites under this section, the
Secretary may permit the director of any such national
laboratory or site to enter into cooperative research and
development agreements or to negotiate licensing agreements
with any person, any agency or instrumentality, of the United
States, any unit of State or local government, and any other
entity under the authority granted by section 12 of the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3710a). Technology may be transferred to a non-Federal party
to such an agreement consistent with the provisions of
sections 11 and 12 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 3710, 3710a).
(e) Reimbursement of Costs.--In the case of an activity
carried out by the operator of a Department of Energy
national laboratory or site in connection with any
utilization of such laboratory or site under this section,
the Department of Homeland Security shall reimburse the
Department of Energy for costs of such activity through a
method under which the Secretary of Energy waives any
requirement for the Department of Homeland Security to pay
administrative charges or personnel costs of the Department
of Energy or its contractors in excess of the amount that the
Secretary of Energy pays for an activity carried out by such
contractor and paid for by the Department of Energy.
(f) Laboratory Directed Research and Development by the
Department of Energy.--No funds authorized to be appropriated
or otherwise made available to the Department in any fiscal
year may be obligated or expended for laboratory directed
research and development activities carried out by the
Department of Energy unless such activities support the
missions of the Department of Homeland Security.
(g) Office for National Laboratories.--There is established
within the Directorate of Science and Technology an Office
for National Laboratories, which shall be responsible for the
coordination and utilization of the Department of Energy
national laboratories and sites under this section in a
manner to create a networked laboratory system for the
purpose of supporting the missions of the Department.
(h) Department of Energy Coordination on Homeland Security
Related Research.--The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that
any research, development, test, and evaluation activities
conducted within the Department of Energy that are directly
or indirectly related to homeland security are fully
coordinated with the Secretary to minimize duplication of
effort and maximize the effective application of Federal
budget resources.

SEC. 310. TRANSFER OF PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

(a) In General.--In accordance with title XV, the Secretary
of Agriculture shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland
Security the Plum Island Animal Disease Center of the
Department of Agriculture, including the assets and
liabilities of the Center.
(b) Continued Department of Agriculture Access.--On
completion of the transfer of the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center under subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Secretary of Agriculture shall enter into an
agreement to ensure that the Department of Agriculture is
able to carry out research, diagnostic, and other activities
of the Department of Agriculture at the Center.
(c) Direction of Activities.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall continue to direct the research, diagnostic, and other
activities of the Department of Agriculture at the Center
described in subsection (b).
(d) Notification.--
(1) In general.--At least 180 days before any change in the
biosafety level at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, the
President shall notify Congress of the change and describe
the reasons for the change.
(2) Limitation.--No change described in paragraph (1) may
be made earlier than 180

[[Page 23066]]

days after the completion of the transition period (as
defined in section 1501.

SEC. 311. HOMELAND SECURITY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department a Homeland Security Science and Technology
Advisory Committee (in this section referred to as the
``Advisory Committee''). The Advisory Committee shall make
recommendations with respect to the activities of the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, including identifying
research areas of potential importance to the security of the
Nation.
(b) Membership.--
(1) Appointment.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of
20 members appointed by the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, which shall include emergency first-responders or
representatives of organizations or associations of emergency
first-responders. The Advisory Committee shall also include
representatives of citizen groups, including economically
disadvantaged communities. The individuals appointed as
members of the Advisory Committee--
(A) shall be eminent in fields such as emergency response,
research, engineering, new product development, business, and
management consulting;
(B) shall be selected solely on the basis of established
records of distinguished service;
(C) shall not be employees of the Federal Government; and
(D) shall be so selected as to provide representation of a
cross-section of the research, development, demonstration,
and deployment activities supported by the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology.
(2) National research council.--The Under Secretary for
Science and Technology may enter into an arrangement for the
National Research Council to select members of the Advisory
Committee, but only if the panel used by the National
Research Council reflects the representation described in
paragraph (1).
(c) Terms of Office.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the term of office of each member of the Advisory
Committee shall be 3 years.
(2) Original appointments.--The original members of the
Advisory Committee shall be appointed to three classes of
three members each. One class shall have a term of 1 year, 1
a term of 2 years, and the other a term of 3 years.
(3) Vacancies.--A member appointed to fill a vacancy
occurring before the expiration of the term for which the
member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the
remainder of such term.
(d) Eligibility.--A person who has completed two
consecutive full terms of service on the Advisory Committee
shall thereafter be ineligible for appointment during the 1-
year period following the expiration of the second such term.
(e) Meetings.--The Advisory Committee shall meet at least
quarterly at the call of the Chair or whenever one-third of
the members so request in writing. Each member shall be given
appropriate notice of the call of each meeting, whenever
possible not less than 15 days before the meeting.
(f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Advisory
Committee not having a conflict of interest in the matter
being considered by the Advisory Committee shall constitute a
quorum.
(g) Conflict of Interest Rules.--The Advisory Committee
shall establish rules for determining when 1 of its members
has a conflict of interest in a matter being considered by
the Advisory Committee.
(h) Reports.--
(1) Annual report.--The Advisory Committee shall render an
annual report to the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology for transmittal to Congress on or before January
31 of each year. Such report shall describe the activities
and recommendations of the Advisory Committee during the
previous year.
(2) Additional reports.--The Advisory Committee may render
to the Under Secretary for transmittal to Congress such
additional reports on specific policy matters as it considers
appropriate.
(i) FACA Exemption.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act shall not apply to the Advisory Committee.
(j) Termination.--The Department of Homeland Security
Science and Technology Advisory Committee shall terminate 3
years after the effective date of this Act.

SEC. 312. HOMELAND SECURITY INSTITUTE.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
federally funded research and development center to be known
as the ``Homeland Security Institute'' (in this section
referred to as the ``Institute'').
(b) Administration.--The Institute shall be administered as
a separate entity by the Secretary.
(c) Duties.--The duties of the Institute shall be
determined by the Secretary, and may include the following:
(1) Systems analysis, risk analysis, and simulation and
modeling to determine the vulnerabilities of the Nation's
critical infrastructures and the effectiveness of the systems
deployed to reduce those vulnerabilities.
(2) Economic and policy analysis to assess the distributed
costs and benefits of alternative approaches to enhancing
security.
(3) Evaluation of the effectiveness of measures deployed to
enhance the security of institutions, facilities, and
infrastructure that may be terrorist targets.
(4) Identification of instances when common standards and
protocols could improve the interoperability and effective
utilization of tools developed for field operators and first
responders.
(5) Assistance for Federal agencies and departments in
establishing testbeds to evaluate the effectiveness of
technologies under development and to assess the
appropriateness of such technologies for deployment.
(6) Design of metrics and use of those metrics to evaluate
the effectiveness of homeland security programs throughout
the Federal Government, including all national laboratories.
(7) Design of and support for the conduct of homeland
security-related exercises and simulations.
(8) Creation of strategic technology development plans to
reduce vulnerabilities in the Nation's critical
infrastructure and key resources.
(d) Consultation on Institute Activities.--In carrying out
the duties described in subsection (c), the Institute shall
consult widely with representatives from private industry,
institutions of higher education, nonprofit institutions,
other Government agencies, and federally funded research and
development centers.
(e) Use of Centers.--The Institute shall utilize the
capabilities of the National Infrastructure Simulation and
Analysis Center.
(f) Annual Reports.--The Institute shall transmit to the
Secretary and Congress an annual report on the activities of
the Institute under this section.
(g) Termination.--The Homeland Security Institute shall
terminate 3 years after the effective date of this Act.

SEC. 313. TECHNOLOGY CLEARINGHOUSE TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO ENHANCE HOMELAND
SECURITY.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary, acting
through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, shall
establish and promote a program to encourage technological
innovation in facilitating the mission of the Department (as
described in section 101).
(b) Elements of Program.--The program described in
subsection (a) shall include the following components:
(1) The establishment of a centralized Federal
clearinghouse for information relating to technologies that
would further the mission of the Department for
dissemination, as appropriate, to Federal, State, and local
government and private sector entities for additional review,
purchase, or use.
(2) The issuance of announcements seeking unique and
innovative technologies to advance the mission of the
Department.
(3) The establishment of a technical assistance team to
assist in screening, as appropriate, proposals submitted to
the Secretary (except as provided in subsection (c)(2)) to
assess the feasibility, scientific and technical merits, and
estimated cost of such proposals, as appropriate.
(4) The provision of guidance, recommendations, and
technical assistance, as appropriate, to assist Federal,
State, and local government and private sector efforts to
evaluate and implement the use of technologies described in
paragraph (1) or (2).
(5) The provision of information for persons seeking
guidance on how to pursue proposals to develop or deploy
technologies that would enhance homeland security, including
information relating to Federal funding, regulation, or
acquisition.
(c) Miscellaneous Provisions.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
as authorizing the Secretary or the technical assistance team
established under subsection (b)(3) to set standards for
technology to be used by the Department, any other executive
agency, any State or local government entity, or any private
sector entity.
(2) Certain proposals.--The technical assistance team
established under subsection (b)(3) shall not consider or
evaluate proposals submitted in response to a solicitation
for offers for a pending procurement or for a specific agency
requirement.
(3) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall coordinate with the Technical Support Working
Group (organized under the April 1982 National Security
Decision Directive Numbered 30).

TITLE IV--DIRECTORATE OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Subtitle A--Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security

SEC. 401. UNDER SECRETARY FOR BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY.

There shall be in the Department a Directorate of Border
and Transportation Security headed by an Under Secretary for
Border and Transportation Security.

SEC. 402. RESPONSIBILITIES.

The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Border and Transportation Security, shall be responsible for
the following:
(1) Preventing the entry of terrorists and the instruments
of terrorism into the United States.
(2) Securing the borders, territorial waters, ports,
terminals, waterways, and air, land, and sea transportation
systems of the United States, including managing and
coordinating those functions transferred to the Department at
ports of entry.
(3) Carrying out the immigration enforcement functions
vested by statute in, or performed by, the Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization (or any officer, employee, or
component of the Immigration and Naturalization Service)
immediately before the date on which the transfer of
functions specified under section 441 takes effect.

[[Page 23067]]

(4) Establishing and administering rules, in accordance
with section 428, governing the granting of visas or other
forms of permission, including parole, to enter the United
States to individuals who are not a citizen or an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United
States.
(5) Establishing national immigration enforcement policies
and priorities.
(6) Except as provided in subtitle C, administering the
customs laws of the United States.
(7) Conducting the inspection and related administrative
functions of the Department of Agriculture transferred to the
Secretary of Homeland Security under section 421.
(8) In carrying out the foregoing responsibilities,
ensuring the speedy, orderly, and efficient flow of lawful
traffic and commerce.

SEC. 403. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED.

In accordance with title XV (relating to transition
provisions), there shall be transferred to the Secretary the
functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of--
(1) the United States Customs Service of the Department of
the Treasury, including the functions of the Secretary of the
Treasury relating thereto;
(2) the Transportation Security Administration of the
Department of Transportation, including the functions of the
Secretary of Transportation, and of the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security, relating thereto;
(3) the Federal Protective Service of the General Services
Administration, including the functions of the Administrator
of General Services relating thereto;
(4) the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center of the
Department of the Treasury; and
(5) the Office for Domestic Preparedness of the Office of
Justice Programs, including the functions of the Attorney
General relating thereto.

Subtitle B--United States Customs Service

SEC. 411. ESTABLISHMENT; COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department
the United States Customs Service, under the authority of the
Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, which
shall be vested with those functions including, but not
limited to those set forth in section 415(7), and the
personnel, assets, and liabilities attributable to those
functions.
(b) Commissioner of Customs.--
(1) In General.--There shall be at the head of the Customs
Service a Commissioner of Customs, who shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.
(2) Compensation.--Section 5314 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by striking
``Commissioner of Customs, Department of the Treasury''
and inserting
``Commissioner of Customs, Department of Homeland
Security.''.
(3) Continuation in office.--The individual serving as the
Commissioner of Customs on the day before the effective date
of this Act may serve as the Commissioner of Customs on and
after such effective date until a Commissioner of Customs is
appointed under paragraph (1).

SEC. 412. RETENTION OF CUSTOMS REVENUE FUNCTIONS BY SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY.

(a) Retention of Customs Revenue Functions by Secretary of
the Treasury.--
(1) Retention of authority.--Notwithstanding section
403(a)(1), authority related to Customs revenue functions
that was vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by law
before the effective date of this Act under those provisions
of law set forth in paragraph (2) shall not be transferred to
the Secretary by reason of this Act, and on and after the
effective date of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury may
delegate any such authority to the Secretary at the
discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of
the Treasury shall consult with the Secretary regarding the
exercise of any such authority not delegated to the
Secretary.
(2) Statutes.--The provisions of law referred to in
paragraph (1) are the following: the Tariff Act of 1930;
section 249 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (19
U.S.C. 3); section 2 of the Act of March 4, 1923 (19 U.S.C.
6); section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c); section 251 of
the Revised Statutes of the United States (19 U.S.C. 66);
section 1 of the Act of June 26, 1930 (19 U.S.C. 68); the
Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a et seq.); section 1 of
the Act of March 2, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 198); the Trade Act of
1974; the Trade Agreements Act of 1979; the North American
Free Trade Area Implementation Act; the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act; the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act;
the Andean Trade Preference Act; the African Growth and
Opportunity Act; and any other provision of law vesting
customs revenue functions in the Secretary of the Treasury.
(b) Maintenance of Customs Revenue Functions.--
(1) Maintenance of functions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the Secretary may not consolidate,
discontinue, or diminish those functions described in
paragraph (2) performed by the United States Customs Service
(as established under section 411) on or after the effective
date of this Act, reduce the staffing level, or reduce the
resources attributable to such functions, and the Secretary
shall ensure that an appropriate management structure is
implemented to carry out such functions.
(2) Functions.--The functions referred to in paragraph (1)
are those functions performed by the following personnel, and
associated support staff, of the United States Customs
Service on the day before the effective date of this Act:
Import Specialists, Entry Specialists, Drawback Specialists,
National Import Specialist, Fines and Penalties Specialists,
attorneys of the Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs
Auditors, International Trade Specialists, Financial Systems
Specialists.
(c) New Personnel.--The Secretary of the Treasury is
authorized to appoint up to 20 new personnel to work with
personnel of the Department in performing customs revenue
functions.

SEC. 413. PRESERVATION OF CUSTOMS FUNDS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no funds
available to the United States Customs Service or collected
under paragraphs (1) through (8) of section 13031(a) of the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 may be
transferred for use by any other agency or office in the
Department.

SEC. 414. SEPARATE BUDGET REQUEST FOR CUSTOMS.

The President shall include in each budget transmitted to
Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code,
a separate budget request for the United States Customs
Service.

SEC. 415. DEFINITION.

In this subtitle, the term ``customs revenue function''
means the following:
(1) Assessing and collecting customs duties (including
antidumping and countervailing duties and duties imposed
under safeguard provisions), excise taxes, fees, and
penalties due on imported merchandise, including classifying
and valuing merchandise for purposes of such assessment.
(2) Processing and denial of entry of persons, baggage,
cargo, and mail, with respect to the assessment and
collection of import duties.
(3) Detecting and apprehending persons engaged in
fraudulent practices designed to circumvent the customs laws
of the United States.
(4) Enforcing section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and
provisions relating to import quotas and the marking of
imported merchandise, and providing Customs Recordations for
copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
(5) Collecting accurate import data for compilation of
international trade statistics.
(6) Enforcing reciprocal trade agreements.
(7) Functions performed by the following personnel, and
associated support staff, of the United States Customs
Service on the day before the effective date of this Act:
Import Specialists, Entry Specialists, Drawback Specialists,
National Import Specialist, Fines and Penalties Specialists,
attorneys of the Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs
Auditors, International Trade Specialists, Financial Systems
Specialists.
(8) Functions performed by the following offices, with
respect to any function described in any of paragraphs (1)
through (7), and associated support staff, of the United
States Customs Service on the day before the effective date
of this Act: the Office of Information and Technology, the
Office of Laboratory Services, the Office of the Chief
Counsel, the Office of Congressional Affairs, the Office of
International Affairs, and the Office of Training and
Development.

SEC. 416. GAO REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 3 months after the effective date of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to Congress a report that sets forth all trade
functions performed by the executive branch, specifying each
agency that performs each such function.

SEC. 417. ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES BY THE SECRETARY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure that adequate
staffing is provided to assure that levels of customs revenue
services provided on the day before the effective date of
this Act shall continue to be provided.
(b) Notification of Congress.--The Secretary shall notify
the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate at
least 90 days prior to taking any action which would--
(1) result in any significant reduction in customs revenue
services, including hours of operation, provided at any
office within the Department or any port of entry;
(2) eliminate or relocate any office of the Department
which provides customs revenue services; or
(3) eliminate any port of entry.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``customs
revenue services'' means those customs revenue functions
described in paragraphs (1) through (6) and paragraph (8) of
section 415.

SEC. 418. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) Continuing Reports.--The United States Customs Service
shall, on and after the effective date of this Act, continue
to submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
any report required, on the day before such the effective
date of this Act, to be so submitted under any provision of
law.
(b) Report on Conforming Amendments.--Not later than 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall submit a report to the Committee on
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives of proposed conforming
amendments to the statutes set forth under section 412(a)(2)
in order to determine the appropriate allocation of legal
authorities described under this subsection. The Secretary of
the Treasury shall also identify those authorities vested in
the Secretary of the Treasury that are exercised by the
Commissioner of Customs on or before the effective date of
this section.

[[Page 23068]]

SEC. 419. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

(a) In General.--Section 13031(f) of the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) amounts deposited into the Customs Commercial and
Homeland Security Automation Account under paragraph (5).'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(other than the excess
fees determined by the Secretary under paragraph (5))''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5)(A) There is created within the general fund of the
Treasury a separate account that shall be known as the
`Customs Commercial and Homeland Security Automation
Account'. In each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 there
shall be deposited into the Account from fees collected under
subsection (a)(9)(A), $350,000,000.
``(B) There is authorized to be appropriated from the
Account in fiscal years 2003 through 2005 such amounts as are
available in that Account for the development, establishment,
and implementation of the Automated Commercial Environment
computer system for the processing of merchandise that is
entered or released and for other purposes related to the
functions of the Department of Homeland Security. Amounts
appropriated pursuant to this subparagraph are authorized to
remain available until expended.
``(C) In adjusting the fee imposed by subsection (a)(9)(A)
for fiscal year 2006, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
reduce the amount estimated to be collected in fiscal year
2006 by the amount by which total fees deposited to the
Account during fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 exceed total
appropriations from that Account.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 311(b) of the Customs
Border Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-210) is amended
by striking paragraph (2).

Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

SEC. 421. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INSPECTION
FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

(a) Transfer of Agricultural Import and Entry Inspection
Functions.--There shall be transferred to the Secretary the
functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to
agricultural import and entry inspection activities under the
laws specified in subsection (b).
(b) Covered Animal and Plant Protection Laws.--The laws
referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) The Act commonly known as the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act
(the eighth paragraph under the heading ``Bureau of Animal
Industry'' in the Act of March 4, 1913; 21 U.S.C. 151 et
seq.).
(2) Section 1 of the Act of August 31, 1922 (commonly known
as the Honeybee Act; 7 U.S.C. 281).
(3) Title III of the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. 1581 et
seq.).
(4) The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
(5) The Animal Health Protection Act (subtitle E of title X
of Public Law 107-171; 7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.).
(6) The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et
seq.).
(7) Section 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1540).
(c) Exclusion of Quarantine Activities.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``functions'' does not include any
quarantine activities carried out under the laws specified in
subsection (b).
(d) Effect of Transfer.--
(1) Compliance with department of agriculture
regulations.--The authority transferred pursuant to
subsection (a) shall be exercised by the Secretary in
accordance with the regulations, policies, and procedures
issued by the Secretary of Agriculture regarding the
administration of the laws specified in subsection (b).
(2) Rulemaking coordination.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall coordinate with the Secretary whenever the Secretary of
Agriculture prescribes regulations, policies, or procedures
for administering the functions transferred under subsection
(a) under a law specified in subsection (b).
(3) Effective administration.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, may issue
such directives and guidelines as are necessary to ensure the
effective use of personnel of the Department of Homeland
Security to carry out the functions transferred pursuant to
subsection (a).
(e) Transfer Agreement.--
(1) Agreement required; revision.--Before the end of the
transition period, as defined in section 1501, the Secretary
of Agriculture and the Secretary shall enter into an
agreement to effectuate the transfer of functions required by
subsection (a). The Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary may jointly revise the agreement as necessary
thereafter.
(2) Required Terms.--The agreement required by this
subsection shall specifically address the following:
(A) The supervision by the Secretary of Agriculture of the
training of employees of the Secretary to carry out the
functions transferred pursuant to subsection (a).
(B) The transfer of funds to the Secretary under subsection
(f).
(3) Cooperation and reciprocity.--The Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary may include as part of the
agreement the following:
(A) Authority for the Secretary to perform functions
delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
of the Department of Agriculture regarding the protection of
domestic livestock and plants, but not transferred to the
Secretary pursuant to subsection (a).
(B) Authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to use
employees of the Department of Homeland Security to carry out
authorities delegated to the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service regarding the protection of domestic
livestock and plants.
(f) Periodic Transfer of Funds to Department of Homeland
Security.--
(1) Transfer of funds.--Out of funds collected by fees
authorized under sections 2508 and 2509 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C.
136, 136a), the Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer, from
time to time in accordance with the agreement under
subsection (e), to the Secretary funds for activities carried
out by the Secretary for which such fees were collected.
(2) Limitation.--The proportion of fees collected pursuant
to such sections that are transferred to the Secretary under
this subsection may not exceed the proportion of the costs
incurred by the Secretary to all costs incurred to carry out
activities funded by such fees.
(g) Transfer of Department of Agriculture Employees.--Not
later than the completion of the transition period defined
under section 1501, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
transfer to the Secretary not more than 3,200 full-time
equivalent positions of the Department of Agriculture.
(h) Protection of Inspection Animals.--Title V of the
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 2279e,
2279f) is amended--
(1) in section 501(a)--
(A) by inserting ``or the Department of Homeland Security''
after ``Department of Agriculture''; and
(B) by inserting ``or the Secretary of Homeland Security''
after ``Secretary of Agriculture'';
(2) by striking ``Secretary'' each place it appears (other
than in sections 501(a) and 501(e)) and inserting ``Secretary
concerned''; and
(3) by adding at the end of section 501 the following new
subsection:
``(e) Secretary Concerned Defined.--In this title, the term
`Secretary concerned' means--
``(1) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to an
animal used for purposes of official inspections by the
Department of Agriculture; and
``(2) the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to
an animal used for purposes of official inspections by the
Department of Homeland Security.''.

SEC. 422. FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES.

(a) Operation, Maintenance, and Protection of Federal
Buildings and Grounds.--Nothing in this Act may be construed
to affect the functions or authorities of the Administrator
of General Services with respect to the operation,
maintenance, and protection of buildings and grounds owned or
occupied by the Federal Government and under the
jurisdiction, custody, or control of the Administrator.
Except for the law enforcement and related security functions
transferred under section 403(3), the Administrator shall
retain all powers, functions, and authorities vested in the
Administrator under chapter 10 of title 40, United States
Code, and other provisions of law that are necessary for the
operation, maintenance, and protection of such buildings and
grounds.
(b) Collection of Rents and Fees; Federal Buildings Fund.--
(1) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed--
(A) to direct the transfer of, or affect, the authority of
the Administrator of General Services to collect rents and
fees, including fees collected for protective services; or
(B) to authorize the Secretary or any other official in the
Department to obligate amounts in the Federal Buildings Fund
established by section 490(f) of title 40, United States
Code.
(2) Use of transferred amounts.--Any amounts transferred by
the Administrator of General Services to the Secretary out of
rents and fees collected by the Administrator shall be used
by the Secretary solely for the protection of buildings or
grounds owned or occupied by the Federal Government.

SEC. 423. FUNCTIONS OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Consultation With Federal Aviation Administration.--The
Secretary and other officials in the Department shall consult
with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
before taking any action that might affect aviation safety,
air carrier operations, aircraft airworthiness, or the use of
airspace. The Secretary shall establish a liaison office
within the Department for the purpose of consulting with the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation shall transmit to Congress a report containing
a plan for complying with the requirements of section
44901(d) of title 49, United States Code, as amended by
section 425 of this Act.
(c) Limitations on Statutory Construction.--
(1) Grant of authority.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to vest in the Secretary or any other official in
the Department any authority over transportation security
that is not vested in the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Security, or in the Secretary of Transportation under
chapter 449 of title 49, United States Code, on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page 23069]]

(2) Obligation of aip funds.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to authorize the Secretary or any other official in
the Department to obligate amounts made available under
section 48103 of title 49, United States Code.

SEC. 424. PRESERVATION OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION AS A DISTINCT ENTITY.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, and subject to subsection (b), the Transportation
Security Administration shall be maintained as a distinct
entity within the Department under the Under Secretary for
Border Transportation and Security.
(b) Sunset.--Subsection (a) shall cease to apply 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 425. EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS.

Section 44901(d) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Deadline.--
``(A) In general.--If, in his discretion or at the request
of an airport, the Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security determines that the Transportation Security
Administration is not able to deploy explosive detection
systems required to be deployed under paragraph (1) at all
airports where explosive detection systems are required by
December 31, 2002, then with respect to each airport for
which the Under Secretary makes that determination--
``(i) the Under Secretary shall submit to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure a detailed plan (which may be submitted in
classified form) for the deployment of the number of
explosive detection systems at that airport necessary to meet
the requirements of paragraph (1) as soon as practicable at
that airport but in no event later than December 31, 2003;
and
``(ii) the Under Secretary shall take all necessary action
to ensure that alternative means of screening all checked
baggage is implemented until the requirements of paragraph
(1) have been met.
``(B) Criteria for determination.--In making a
determination under subparagraph (A), the Under Secretary
shall take into account--
``(i) the nature and extent of the required modifications
to the airport's terminal buildings, and the technical,
engineering, design and construction issues;
``(ii) the need to ensure that such installations and
modifications are effective; and
``(iii) the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of deploying
explosive detection systems in the baggage sorting area or
other non-public area rather than the lobby of an airport
terminal building.
``(C) Response.--The Under Secretary shall respond to the
request of an airport under subparagraph (A) within 14 days
of receiving the request. A denial of request shall create no
right of appeal or judicial review.
``(D) Airport effort required.--Each airport with respect
to which the Under Secretary makes a determination under
subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) cooperate fully with the Transportation Security
Administration with respect to screening checked baggage and
changes to accommodate explosive detection systems; and
``(ii) make security projects a priority for the obligation
or expenditure of funds made available under chapter 417 or
471 until explosive detection systems required to be deployed
under paragraph (1) have been deployed at that airport.
``(3) Reports.--Until the Transportation Security
Administration has met the requirements of paragraph (1), the
Under Secretary shall submit a classified report every 30
days after the date of enactment of this Act to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure describing the progress made toward meeting
such requirements at each airport.''.

SEC. 426. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.

(a) Transportation Security Oversight Board.--
(1) Establishment.--Section 115(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``Department of
Transportation'' and inserting ``Department of Homeland
Security''.
(2) Membership.--Section 115(b)(1) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraph (G);
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (F) as
subparagraphs (B) through (G), respectively; and
(C) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so
redesignated) the following:
``(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security, or the
Secretary's designee.''.
(3) Chairperson.--Section 115(b)(2) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland
Security''.
(b) Approval of AIP Grant Applications for Security
Activities.--Section 47106 of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Consultation With Secretary of Homeland Security.--
The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Homeland
Security before approving an application under this
subchapter for an airport development project grant for
activities described in section 47102(3)(B)(ii) only as they
relate to security equipment or section 47102(3)(B)(x) only
as they relate to installation of bulk explosive detection
system.''.

SEC. 427. COORDINATION OF INFORMATION AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.

(a) Definition of Affected Agency.--In this section, the
term ``affected agency'' means--
(1) the Department;
(2) the Department of Agriculture;
(3) the Department of Health and Human Services; and
(4) any other department or agency determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary.
(b) Coordination.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, and the head of each other department or agency
determined to be appropriate by the Secretary, shall ensure
that appropriate information (as determined by the Secretary)
concerning inspections of articles that are imported or
entered into the United States, and are inspected or
regulated by 1 or more affected agencies, is timely and
efficiently exchanged between the affected agencies.
(c) Report and Plan.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, and the head of each other department or
agency determined to be appropriate by the Secretary, shall
submit to Congress--
(1) a report on the progress made in implementing this
section; and
(2) a plan to complete implementation of this section.

SEC. 428. VISA ISSUANCE.

(a) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``consular
office'' has the meaning given that term under section
101(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(9)).
(b) In General.--Notwithstanding section 104(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1104(a)) or any
other provision of law, and except as provided in subsection
(c) of this section, the Secretary--
(1) shall be vested exclusively with all authorities to
issue regulations with respect to, administer, and enforce
the provisions of such Act, and of all other immigration and
nationality laws, relating to the functions of consular
officers of the United States in connection with the granting
or refusal of visas, and shall have the authority to refuse
visas in accordance with law and to develop programs of
homeland security training for consular officers (in addition
to consular training provided by the Secretary of State),
which authorities shall be exercised through the Secretary of
State, except that the Secretary shall not have authority to
alter or reverse the decision of a consular officer to refuse
a visa to an alien; and
(2) shall have authority to confer or impose upon any
officer or employee of the United States, with the consent of
the head of the executive agency under whose jurisdiction
such officer or employee is serving, any of the functions
specified in paragraph (1).
(c) Authority of the Secretary of State.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), the
Secretary of State may direct a consular officer to refuse a
visa to an alien if the Secretary of State deems such refusal
necessary or advisable in the foreign policy or security
interests of the United States.
(2) Construction regarding authority.--Nothing in this
section, consistent with the Secretary of Homeland Security's
authority to refuse visas in accordance with law, shall be
construed as affecting the authorities of the Secretary of
State under the following provisions of law:
(A) Section 101(a)(15)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(A)).
(B) Section 204(d)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) (as it will take effect upon the entry
into force of the Convention on Protection of Children and
Cooperation in Respect to Inter-Country adoption).
(C) Section 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb)).
(D) Section 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VI) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VI)).
(E) Section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II)).
(F) Section 212(a)(3(C) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(C)).
(G) Section 212(a)(10)(C) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)(C)).
(H) Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1182(f)).
(I) Section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1189(a)).
(J) Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(C)).
(K) Section 401 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6034; Public Law
104-114).
(L) Section 613 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(b) of division A of
Public Law 105-277) (Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999); 112 Stat. 2681; H.R.
4328 (originally H.R. 4276) as amended by section 617 of
Public Law 106-553.
(M) Section 103(f) of the Chemical Weapon Convention
Implementation Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681-865).
(N) Section 801 of H.R. 3427, the Admiral James W. Nance
and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2001, as enacted by reference in Public Law
106-113.
(O) Section 568 of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002
(Public Law 107-115).

[[Page 23070]]

(P) Section 51 of the State Department Basic Authorities
Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2723).
(d) Consular Officers and Chiefs of Missions.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this section may be construed
to alter or affect--
(A) the employment status of consular officers as employees
of the Department of State; or
(B) the authority of a chief of mission under section 207
of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3927).
(2) Construction regarding delegation of authority.--
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any
delegation of authority to the Secretary of State by the
President pursuant to any proclamation issued under section
212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(f)), consistent with the Secretary of Homeland
Security's authority to refuse visas in accordance with law.
(e) Assignment of Homeland Security Employees to Diplomatic
and Consular Posts.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to assign
employees of the Department to each diplomatic and consular
post at which visas are issued, unless the Secretary
determines that such an assignment at a particular post would
not promote homeland security.
(2) Functions.--Employees assigned under paragraph (1)
shall perform the following functions:
(A) Provide expert advice and training to consular officers
regarding specific security threats relating to the
adjudication of individual visa applications or classes of
applications.
(B) Review any such applications, either on the initiative
of the employee of the Department or upon request by a
consular officer or other person charged with adjudicating
such applications.
(C) Conduct investigations with respect to consular matters
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
(3) Evaluation of consular officers.--The Secretary of
State shall evaluate, in consultation with the Secretary, as
deemed appropriate by the Secretary, the performance of
consular officers with respect to the processing and
adjudication of applications for visas in accordance with
performance standards developed by the Secretary for these
procedures.
(4) Report.--The Secretary shall, on an annual basis,
submit a report to Congress that describes the basis for each
determination under paragraph (1) that the assignment of an
employee of the Department at a particular diplomatic post
would not promote homeland security.
(5) Permanent assignment; participation in terrorist
lookout committee.--When appropriate, employees of the
Department assigned to perform functions described in
paragraph (2) may be assigned permanently to overseas
diplomatic or consular posts with country-specific or
regional responsibility. If the Secretary so directs, any
such employee, when present at an overseas post, shall
participate in the terrorist lookout committee established
under section 304 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa
Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1733).
(6) Training and hiring.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure, to the extent
possible, that any employees of the Department assigned to
perform functions under paragraph (2) and, as appropriate,
consular officers, shall be provided the necessary training
to enable them to carry out such functions, including
training in foreign languages, interview techniques, and
fraud detection techniques, in conditions in the particular
country where each employee is assigned, and in other
appropriate areas of study.
(B) Use of center.--The Secretary is authorized to use the
National Foreign Affairs Training Center, on a reimbursable
basis, to obtain the training described in subparagraph (A).
(7) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Secretary of
State shall submit to Congress--
(A) a report on the implementation of this subsection; and
(B) any legislative proposals necessary to further the
objectives of this subsection.
(8) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on
the earlier of--
(A) the date on which the President publishes notice in the
Federal Register that the President has submitted a report to
Congress setting forth a memorandum of understanding between
the Secretary and the Secretary of State governing the
implementation of this section; or
(B) the date occurring 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act.
(f) No Creation of Private Right of Action.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to create or authorize a
private right of action to challenge a decision of a consular
officer or other United States official or employee to grant
or deny a visa.
(g) Study Regarding Use of Foreign Nationals.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a study of the role of foreign nationals in the
granting or refusal of visas and other documents authorizing
entry of aliens into the United States. The study shall
address the following:
(A) The proper role, if any, of foreign nationals in the
process of rendering decisions on such grants and refusals.
(B) Any security concerns involving the employment of
foreign nationals.
(C) Whether there are cost-effective alternatives to the
use of foreign nationals.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report
containing the findings of the study conducted under
paragraph (1) to the Committee on the Judiciary, the
Committee on International Relations, and the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign
Relations, and the Committee on Government Affairs of the
Senate.
(h) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy shall submit to Congress a report on
how the provisions of this section will affect procedures for
the issuance of student visas.
(i) Visa Issuance Program for Saudi Arabia.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the date of
the enactment of this Act all third party screening programs
in Saudi Arabia shall be terminated. On-site personnel of the
Department of Homeland Security shall review all visa
applications prior to adjudication.

SEC. 429. INFORMATION ON VISA DENIALS REQUIRED TO BE ENTERED
INTO ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--Whenever a consular officer of the United
States denies a visa to an applicant, the consular officer
shall enter the fact and the basis of the denial and the name
of the applicant into the interoperable electronic data
system implemented under section 202(a) of the Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C.
1722(a)).
(b) Prohibition.--In the case of any alien with respect to
whom a visa has been denied under subsection (a)--
(1) no subsequent visa may be issued to the alien unless
the consular officer considering the alien's visa application
has reviewed the information concerning the alien placed in
the interoperable electronic data system, has indicated on
the alien's application that the information has been
reviewed, and has stated for the record why the visa is being
issued or a waiver of visa ineligibility recommended in spite
of that information; and
(2) the alien may not be admitted to the United States
without a visa issued in accordance with the procedures
described in paragraph (1).

SEC. 430. OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS.

(a) In General.--The Office for Domestic Preparedness shall
be within the Directorate of Border and Transportation
Security.
(b) Director.--There shall be a Director of the Office for
Domestic Preparedness, who shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness shall
report directly to the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security.
(c) Responsibilities.--The Office for Domestic Preparedness
shall have the primary responsibility within the executive
branch of Government for the preparedness of the United
States for acts of terrorism, including--
(1) coordinating preparedness efforts at the Federal level,
and working with all State, local, tribal, parish, and
private sector emergency response providers on all matters
pertaining to combating terrorism, including training,
exercises, and equipment support;
(2) coordinating or, as appropriate, consolidating
communications and systems of communications relating to
homeland security at all levels of government;
(3) directing and supervising terrorism preparedness grant
programs of the Federal Government (other than those programs
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services)
for all emergency response providers;
(4) incorporating the Strategy priorities into planning
guidance on an agency level for the preparedness efforts of
the Office for Domestic Preparedness;
(5) providing agency-specific training for agents and
analysts within the Department, other agencies, and State and
local agencies and international entities;
(6) as the lead executive branch agency for preparedness of
the United States for acts of terrorism, cooperating closely
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which shall
have the primary responsibility within the executive branch
to prepare for and mitigate the effects of nonterrorist-
related disasters in the United States;
(7) assisting and supporting the Secretary, in coordination
with other Directorates and entities outside the Department,
in conducting appropriate risk analysis and risk management
activities of State, local, and tribal governments consistent
with the mission and functions of the Directorate; and
(8) those elements of the Office of National Preparedness
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency which relate to
terrorism, which shall be consolidated within the Department
in the Office for Domestic Preparedness established under
this section.
(d) Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004.--During fiscal year 2003
and fiscal year 2004, the Director of the Office for Domestic
Preparedness established under this section shall manage and
carry out those functions of the Office for Domestic
Preparedness of the Department of Justice (transferred under
this section) before September 11, 2001, under the same
terms, conditions, policies, and authorities, and with the
required level of personnel, assets, and budget before
September 11, 2001.

Subtitle D--Immigration Enforcement Functions

SEC. 441. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS TO UNDER SECRETARY FOR BORDER
AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.

In accordance with title XV (relating to transition
provisions), there shall be transferred

[[Page 23071]]

from the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization to
the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security
all functions performed under the following programs, and all
personnel, assets, and liabilities pertaining to such
programs, immediately before such transfer occurs:
(1) The Border Patrol program.
(2) The detention and removal program.
(3) The intelligence program.
(4) The investigations program.
(5) The inspections program.

SEC. 442. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF BORDER SECURITY.

(a) Establishment of Bureau.--
(1) In general.--There shall be in the Department of
Homeland Security a bureau to be known as the ``Bureau of
Border Security''.
(2) Assistant secretary.--The head of the Bureau of Border
Security shall be the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of
Border Security, who--
(A) shall report directly to the Under Secretary for Border
and Transportation Security; and
(B) shall have a minimum of 5 years professional experience
in law enforcement, and a minimum of 5 years of management
experience.
(3) Functions.--The Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of
Border Security--
(A) shall establish the policies for performing such
functions as are--
(i) transferred to the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security by section 441 and delegated to the
Assistant Secretary by the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security; or
(ii) otherwise vested in the Assistant Secretary by law;
(B) shall oversee the administration of such policies; and
(C) shall advise the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security with respect to any policy or
operation of the Bureau of Border Security that may affect
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
established under subtitle E, including potentially
conflicting policies or operations.
(4) Program to collect information relating to foreign
students.--The Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Border
Security shall be responsible for administering the program
to collect information relating to nonimmigrant foreign
students and other exchange program participants described in
section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372), including the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System established
under that section, and shall use such information to carry
out the enforcement functions of the Bureau.
(5) Managerial rotation program.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the transfer of functions specified under section 441
takes effect, the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Border
Security shall design and implement a managerial rotation
program under which employees of such bureau holding
positions involving supervisory or managerial responsibility
and classified, in accordance with chapter 51 of title 5,
United States Code, as a GS-14 or above, shall--
(i) gain some experience in all the major functions
performed by such bureau; and
(ii) work in at least one local office of such bureau.
(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which
the transfer of functions specified under section 441 takes
effect, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress
on the implementation of such program.
(b) Chief of Policy and Strategy.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Chief of
Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of Border Security.
(2) Functions.--In consultation with Bureau of Border
Security personnel in local offices, the Chief of Policy and
Strategy shall be responsible for--
(A) making policy recommendations and performing policy
research and analysis on immigration enforcement issues; and
(B) coordinating immigration policy issues with the Chief
of Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services (established under subtitle E), as
appropriate.
(c) Legal Advisor.--There shall be a principal legal
advisor to the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Border
Security. The legal advisor shall provide specialized legal
advice to the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Border
Security and shall represent the bureau in all exclusion,
deportation, and removal proceedings before the Executive
Office for Immigration Review.

SEC. 443. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND QUALITY REVIEW.

The Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security
shall be responsible for--
(1) conducting investigations of noncriminal allegations of
misconduct, corruption, and fraud involving any employee of
the Bureau of Border Security that are not subject to
investigation by the Inspector General for the Department;
(2) inspecting the operations of the Bureau of Border
Security and providing assessments of the quality of the
operations of such bureau as a whole and each of its
components; and
(3) providing an analysis of the management of the Bureau
of Border Security.

SEC. 444. EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE.

The Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security
may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, impose
disciplinary action, including termination of employment,
pursuant to policies and procedures applicable to employees
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on any employee of
the Bureau of Border Security who willfully deceives the
Congress or agency leadership on any matter.

SEC. 445. REPORT ON IMPROVING ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, not later than 1 year after
being sworn into office, shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate a report with a plan
detailing how the Bureau of Border Security, after the
transfer of functions specified under section 441 takes
effect, will enforce comprehensively, effectively, and fairly
all the enforcement provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) relating to such
functions.
(b) Consultation.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the
Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, the Commissioner of Social
Security, the Director of the Executive Office for
Immigration Review, and the heads of State and local law
enforcement agencies to determine how to most effectively
conduct enforcement operations.

SEC. 446. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING
NEAR SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.

It is the sense of the Congress that completing the 14-mile
border fence project required to be carried out under section
102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) should be a
priority for the Secretary.

Subtitle E--Citizenship and Immigration Services

SEC. 451. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES.

(a) Establishment of Bureau.--
(1) In general.--There shall be in the Department a bureau
to be known as the ``Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services''.
(2) Director.--The head of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services shall be the Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services, who--
(A) shall report directly to the Deputy Secretary;
(B) shall have a minimum of 5 years of management
experience; and
(C) shall be paid at the same level as the Assistant
Secretary of the Bureau of Border Security.
(3) Functions.--The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services--
(A) shall establish the policies for performing such
functions as are transferred to the Director by this section
or this Act or otherwise vested in the Director by law;
(B) shall oversee the administration of such policies;
(C) shall advise the Deputy Secretary with respect to any
policy or operation of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services that may affect the Bureau of Border
Security of the Department, including potentially conflicting
policies or operations;
(D) shall establish national immigration services policies
and priorities;
(E) shall meet regularly with the Ombudsman described in
section 452 to correct serious service problems identified by
the Ombudsman; and
(F) shall establish procedures requiring a formal response
to any recommendations submitted in the Ombudsman's annual
report to Congress within 3 months after its submission to
Congress.
(4) Managerial rotation program.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the effective
date specified in section 455, the Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services shall design and
implement a managerial rotation program under which employees
of such bureau holding positions involving supervisory or
managerial responsibility and classified, in accordance with
chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, as a GS-14 or
above, shall--
(i) gain some experience in all the major functions
performed by such bureau; and
(ii) work in at least one field office and one service
center of such bureau.
(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the effective
date specified in section 455, the Secretary shall submit a
report to Congress on the implementation of such program.
(5) Pilot initiatives for backlog elimination.--The
Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services is authorized to implement innovative pilot
initiatives to eliminate any remaining backlog in the
processing of immigration benefit applications, and to
prevent any backlog in the processing of such applications
from recurring, in accordance with section 204(a) of the
Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of
2000 (8 U.S.C. 1573(a)). Such initiatives may include
measures such as increasing personnel, transferring personnel
to focus on areas with the largest potential for backlog, and
streamlining paperwork.
(b) Transfer of Functions From Commissioner.--In accordance
with title XV (relating to transition provisions), there are
transferred from the Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization to the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services the following functions, and all
personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to the
Commissioner in support of such functions immediately before
the effective date specified in section 455:
(1) Adjudications of immigrant visa petitions.
(2) Adjudications of naturalization petitions.
(3) Adjudications of asylum and refugee applications.

[[Page 23072]]

(4) Adjudications performed at service centers.
(5) All other adjudications performed by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service immediately before the effective
date specified in section 455.
(c) Chief of Policy and Strategy.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Chief of
Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
(2) Functions.--In consultation with Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services personnel in field offices, the
Chief of Policy and Strategy shall be responsible for--
(A) making policy recommendations and performing policy
research and analysis on immigration services issues; and
(B) coordinating immigration policy issues with the Chief
of Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of Border Security of
the Department.
(d) Legal Advisor.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a principal legal advisor
to the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
(2) Functions.--The legal advisor shall be responsible
for--
(A) providing specialized legal advice, opinions,
determinations, regulations, and any other assistance to the
Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services with respect to legal matters affecting the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services; and
(B) representing the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services in visa petition appeal proceedings before the
Executive Office for Immigration Review.
(e) Budget Officer.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a Budget Officer for the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) Functions.--
(A) In general.--The Budget Officer shall be responsible
for--
(i) formulating and executing the budget of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services;
(ii) financial management of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services; and
(iii) collecting all payments, fines, and other debts for
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(f) Chief of Office of Citizenship.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Chief of the
Office of Citizenship for the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
(2) Functions.--The Chief of the Office of Citizenship for
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be
responsible for promoting instruction and training on
citizenship responsibilities for aliens interested in
becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, including
the development of educational materials.

SEC. 452. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN.

(a) In General.--Within the Department, there shall be a
position of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
(in this section referred to as the ``Ombudsman''). The
Ombudsman shall report directly to the Deputy Secretary. The
Ombudsman shall have a background in customer service as well
as immigration law.
(b) Functions.--It shall be the function of the Ombudsman--
(1) to assist individuals and employers in resolving
problems with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services;
(2) to identify areas in which individuals and employers
have problems in dealing with the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services; and
(3) to the extent possible, to propose changes in the
administrative practices of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services to mitigate problems identified under
paragraph (2).
(c) Annual Reports.--
(1) Objectives.--Not later than June 30 of each calendar
year, the Ombudsman shall report to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate on
the objectives of the Office of the Ombudsman for the fiscal
year beginning in such calendar year. Any such report shall
contain full and substantive analysis, in addition to
statistical information, and--
(A) shall identify the recommendations the Office of the
Ombudsman has made on improving services and responsiveness
of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services;
(B) shall contain a summary of the most pervasive and
serious problems encountered by individuals and employers,
including a description of the nature of such problems;
(C) shall contain an inventory of the items described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action has been taken and
the result of such action;
(D) shall contain an inventory of the items described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action remains to be
completed and the period during which each item has remained
on such inventory;
(E) shall contain an inventory of the items described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which no action has been taken,
the period during which each item has remained on such
inventory, the reasons for the inaction, and shall identify
any official of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services who is responsible for such inaction;
(F) shall contain recommendations for such administrative
action as may be appropriate to resolve problems encountered
by individuals and employers, including problems created by
excessive backlogs in the adjudication and processing of
immigration benefit petitions and applications; and
(G) shall include such other information as the Ombudsman
may deem advisable.
(2) Report to be submitted directly.--Each report required
under this subsection shall be provided directly to the
committees described in paragraph (1) without any prior
comment or amendment from the Secretary, Deputy Secretary,
Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services, or any other officer or employee of the Department
or the Office of Management and Budget.
(d) Other Responsibilities.--The Ombudsman--
(1) shall monitor the coverage and geographic allocation of
local offices of the Ombudsman;
(2) shall develop guidance to be distributed to all
officers and employees of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services outlining the criteria for referral of
inquiries to local offices of the Ombudsman;
(3) shall ensure that the local telephone number for each
local office of the Ombudsman is published and available to
individuals and employers served by the office; and
(4) shall meet regularly with the Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services to identify serious
service problems and to present recommendations for such
administrative action as may be appropriate to resolve
problems encountered by individuals and employers.
(e) Personnel Actions.--
(1) In general.--The Ombudsman shall have the
responsibility and authority--
(A) to appoint local ombudsmen and make available at least
1 such ombudsman for each State; and
(B) to evaluate and take personnel actions (including
dismissal) with respect to any employee of any local office
of the Ombudsman.
(2) Consultation.--The Ombudsman may consult with the
appropriate supervisory personnel of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services in carrying out the
Ombudsman's responsibilities under this subsection.
(f) Responsibilities of Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services.--The Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services shall establish
procedures requiring a formal response to all recommendations
submitted to such director by the Ombudsman within 3 months
after submission to such director.
(g) Operation of Local Offices.--
(1) In general.--Each local ombudsman--
(A) shall report to the Ombudsman or the delegate thereof;
(B) may consult with the appropriate supervisory personnel
of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
regarding the daily operation of the local office of such
ombudsman;
(C) shall, at the initial meeting with any individual or
employer seeking the assistance of such local office, notify
such individual or employer that the local offices of the
Ombudsman operate independently of any other component of the
Department and report directly to Congress through the
Ombudsman; and
(D) at the local ombudsman's discretion, may determine not
to disclose to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services contact with, or information provided by, such
individual or employer.
(2) Maintenance of independent communications.--Each local
office of the Ombudsman shall maintain a phone, facsimile,
and other means of electronic communication access, and a
post office address, that is separate from those maintained
by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any
component of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.

SEC. 453. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND QUALITY REVIEW.

(a) In General.--The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services shall be responsible for--
(1) conducting investigations of noncriminal allegations of
misconduct, corruption, and fraud involving any employee of
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services that are
not subject to investigation by the Inspector General for the
Department;
(2) inspecting the operations of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services and providing assessments of the
quality of the operations of such bureau as a whole and each
of its components; and
(3) providing an analysis of the management of the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(b) Special Considerations.--In providing assessments in
accordance with subsection (a)(2) with respect to a decision
of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any
of its components, consideration shall be given to--
(1) the accuracy of the findings of fact and conclusions of
law used in rendering the decision;
(2) any fraud or misrepresentation associated with the
decision; and
(3) the efficiency with which the decision was rendered.

SEC. 454. EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE.

The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services may, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
impose disciplinary action, including termination of
employment, pursuant to policies and procedures applicable to
employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on any
employee of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services who willfully deceives Congress or agency leadership
on any matter.

SEC. 455. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Notwithstanding section 4, sections 451 through 456, and
the amendments made by such

[[Page 23073]]

sections, shall take effect on the date on which the transfer
of functions specified under section 441 takes effect.

SEC. 456. TRANSITION.

(a) References.--With respect to any function transferred
by this subtitle to, and exercised on or after the effective
date specified in section 455 by, the Director of the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services, any reference in any
other Federal law, Executive order, rule, regulation, or
delegation of authority, or any document of or pertaining to
a component of government from which such function is
transferred--
(1) to the head of such component is deemed to refer to the
Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services; or
(2) to such component is deemed to refer to the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(b) Other Transition Issues.--
(1) Exercise of authorities.--Except as otherwise provided
by law, a Federal official to whom a function is transferred
by this subtitle may, for purposes of performing the
function, exercise all authorities under any other provision
of law that were available with respect to the performance of
that function to the official responsible for the performance
of the function immediately before the effective date
specified in section 455.
(2) Transfer and allocation of appropriations and
personnel.--The personnel of the Department of Justice
employed in connection with the functions transferred by this
subtitle (and functions that the Secretary determines are
properly related to the functions of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services), and the assets,
liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended
balance of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and
other funds employed, held, used, arising from, available to,
or to be made available to, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service in connection with the functions
transferred by this subtitle, subject to section 202 of the
Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950, shall be
transferred to the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services for allocation to the appropriate
component of the Department. Unexpended funds transferred
pursuant to this paragraph shall be used only for the
purposes for which the funds were originally authorized and
appropriated. The Secretary shall have the right to adjust or
realign transfers of funds and personnel effected pursuant to
this subtitle for a period of 2 years after the effective
date specified in section 455.

SEC. 457. FUNDING FOR CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES.

Section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1356(m)) is amended by striking ``services, including
the costs of similar services provided without charge to
asylum applicants or other immigrants.'' and inserting
``services.''.

SEC. 458. BACKLOG ELIMINATION.

Section 204(a)(1) of the Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 (8 U.S.C. 1573(a)(1))
is amended by striking ``not later than one year after the
date of enactment of this Act;'' and inserting ``1 year after
the date of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of
2002;''.

SEC. 459. REPORT ON IMPROVING IMMIGRATION SERVICES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, not later than 1 year after
the effective date of this Act, shall submit to the
Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and of the Senate a report with a plan
detailing how the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services, after the transfer of functions specified in this
subtitle takes effect, will complete efficiently, fairly, and
within a reasonable time, the adjudications described in
paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 451(b).
(b) Contents.--For each type of adjudication to be
undertaken by the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, the report shall include the following:
(1) Any potential savings of resources that may be
implemented without affecting the quality of the
adjudication.
(2) The goal for processing time with respect to the
application.
(3) Any statutory modifications with respect to the
adjudication that the Secretary considers advisable.
(c) Consultation.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Labor, the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of
Border Security of the Department, and the Director of the
Executive Office for Immigration Review to determine how to
streamline and improve the process for applying for and
making adjudications described in section 451(b) and related
processes.

SEC. 460. REPORT ON RESPONDING TO FLUCTUATING NEEDS.

Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a
report on changes in law, including changes in authorizations
of appropriations and in appropriations, that are needed to
permit the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and, after
the transfer of functions specified in this subtitle takes
effect, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services of
the Department, to ensure a prompt and timely response to
emergent, unforeseen, or impending changes in the number of
applications for immigration benefits, and otherwise to
ensure the accommodation of changing immigration service
needs.

SEC. 461. APPLICATION OF INTERNET-BASED TECHNOLOGIES.

(a) Establishment of Tracking System.--The Secretary, not
later than 1 year after the effective date of this Act, in
consultation with the Technology Advisory Committee
established under subsection (c), shall establish an
Internet-based system, that will permit a person, employer,
immigrant, or nonimmigrant who has filings with the Secretary
for any benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), access to online information about the
processing status of the filing involved.
(b) Feasibility Study for Online Filing and Improved
Processing.--
(1) Online filing.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Technology Advisory Committee established under subsection
(c), shall conduct a feasibility study on the online filing
of the filings described in subsection (a). The study shall
include a review of computerization and technology of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service relating to the
immigration services and processing of filings related to
immigrant services. The study shall also include an estimate
of the timeframe and cost and shall consider other factors in
implementing such a filing system, including the feasibility
of fee payment online.
(2) Report.--A report on the study under this subsection
shall be submitted to the Committees on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 1 year
after the effective date of this Act.
(c) Technology Advisory Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish, not
later than 60 days after the effective date of this Act, an
advisory committee (in this section referred to as the
``Technology Advisory Committee'') to assist the Secretary
in--
(A) establishing the tracking system under subsection (a);
and
(B) conducting the study under subsection (b).

The Technology Advisory Committee shall be established after
consultation with the Committees on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
(2) Composition.--The Technology Advisory Committee shall
be composed of representatives from high technology companies
capable of establishing and implementing the system in an
expeditious manner, and representatives of persons who may
use the tracking system described in subsection (a) and the
online filing system described in subsection (b)(1).

SEC. 462. CHILDREN'S AFFAIRS.

(a) Transfer of Functions.--There are transferred to the
Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the
Department of Health and Human Services functions under the
immigration laws of the United States with respect to the
care of unaccompanied alien children that were vested by
statute in, or performed by, the Commissioner of Immigration
and Naturalization (or any officer, employee, or component of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service) immediately
before the effective date specified in subsection (d).
(b) Functions.--
(1) In general.--Pursuant to the transfer made by
subsection (a), the Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement shall be responsible for--
(A) coordinating and implementing the care and placement of
unaccompanied alien children who are in Federal custody by
reason of their immigration status, including developing a
plan to be submitted to Congress on how to ensure that
qualified and independent legal counsel is timely appointed
to represent the interests of each such child, consistent
with the law regarding appointment of counsel that is in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act;
(B) ensuring that the interests of the child are considered
in decisions and actions relating to the care and custody of
an unaccompanied alien child;
(C) making placement determinations for all unaccompanied
alien children who are in Federal custody by reason of their
immigration status;
(D) implementing the placement determinations;
(E) implementing policies with respect to the care and
placement of unaccompanied alien children;
(F) identifying a sufficient number of qualified
individuals, entities, and facilities to house unaccompanied
alien children;
(G) overseeing the infrastructure and personnel of
facilities in which unaccompanied alien children reside;
(H) reuniting unaccompanied alien children with a parent
abroad in appropriate cases;
(I) compiling, updating, and publishing at least annually a
state-by-state list of professionals or other entities
qualified to provide guardian and attorney representation
services for unaccompanied alien children;
(J) maintaining statistical information and other data on
unaccompanied alien children for whose care and placement the
Director is responsible, which shall include--
(i) biographical information, such as a child's name,
gender, date of birth, country of birth, and country of
habitual residence;
(ii) the date on which the child came into Federal custody
by reason of his or her immigration status;
(iii) information relating to the child's placement,
removal, or release from each facility in which the child has
resided;
(iv) in any case in which the child is placed in detention
or released, an explanation relating to the detention or
release; and
(v) the disposition of any actions in which the child is
the subject;

[[Page 23074]]

(K) collecting and compiling statistical information from
the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland
Security, and the Department of State on each department's
actions relating to unaccompanied alien children; and
(L) conducting investigations and inspections of facilities
and other entities in which unaccompanied alien children
reside.
(2) Coordination with other entities; no release on own
recognizance.--In making determinations described in
paragraph (1)(C), the Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement--
(A) shall consult with appropriate juvenile justice
professionals, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and the Assistant Secretary of the
Bureau of Border Security to ensure that such determinations
ensure that unaccompanied alien children described in such
subparagraph--
(i) are likely to appear for all hearings or proceedings in
which they are involved;
(ii) are protected from smugglers, traffickers, or others
who might seek to victimize or otherwise engage them in
criminal, harmful, or exploitive activity; and
(iii) are placed in a setting in which they are not likely
to pose a danger to themselves or others; and
(B) shall not release such children upon their own
recognizance.
(3) Duties with respect to foster care.--In carrying out
the duties described in paragraph (1)(G), the Director of the
Office of Refugee Resettlement is encouraged to use the
refugee children foster care system established pursuant to
section 412(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1522(d)) for the placement of unaccompanied alien
children.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to transfer the responsibility for adjudicating
benefit determinations under the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) from the authority of any
official of the Department of Justice, the Department of
Homeland Security, or the Department of State.
(d) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 4, this
section shall take effect on the date on which the transfer
of functions specified under section 441 takes effect.
(e) References.--With respect to any function transferred
by this section, any reference in any other Federal law,
Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of
authority, or any document of or pertaining to a component of
government from which such function is transferred--
(1) to the head of such component is deemed to refer to the
Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement; or
(2) to such component is deemed to refer to the Office of
Refugee Resettlement of the Department of Health and Human
Services.
(f) Other Transition Issues.--
(1) Exercise of authorities.--Except as otherwise provided
by law, a Federal official to whom a function is transferred
by this section may, for purposes of performing the function,
exercise all authorities under any other provision of law
that were available with respect to the performance of that
function to the official responsible for the performance of
the function immediately before the effective date specified
in subsection (d).
(2) Savings provisions.--Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of
section 1512 shall apply to a transfer of functions under
this section in the same manner as such provisions apply to a
transfer of functions under this Act to the Department of
Homeland Security.
(3) Transfer and allocation of appropriations and
personnel.--The personnel of the Department of Justice
employed in connection with the functions transferred by this
section, and the assets, liabilities, contracts, property,
records, and unexpended balance of appropriations,
authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held,
used, arising from, available to, or to be made available to,
the Immigration and Naturalization Service in connection with
the functions transferred by this section, subject to section
202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950,
shall be transferred to the Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement for allocation to the appropriate component of
the Department of Health and Human Services. Unexpended funds
transferred pursuant to this paragraph shall be used only for
the purposes for which the funds were originally authorized
and appropriated.
(g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) the term ``placement'' means the placement of an
unaccompanied alien child in either a detention facility or
an alternative to such a facility; and
(2) the term ``unaccompanied alien child'' means a child
who--
(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(C) with respect to whom--
(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United
States; or
(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is
available to provide care and physical custody.

Subtitle F--General Immigration Provisions

SEC. 471. ABOLISHMENT OF INS.

(a) In General.--Upon completion of all transfers from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service as provided for by
this Act, the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the
Department of Justice is abolished.
(b) Prohibition.--The authority provided by section 1502
may be used to reorganize functions or organizational units
within the Bureau of Border Security or the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services, but may not be used to
recombine the two bureaus into a single agency or otherwise
to combine, join, or consolidate functions or organizational
units of the two bureaus with each other.

SEC. 472. VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``employee'' means an employee (as defined by
section 2105 of title 5, United States Code) who--
(A) has completed at least 3 years of current continuous
service with 1 or more covered entities; and
(B) is serving under an appointment without time
limitation;

but does not include any person under subparagraphs (A)-(G)
of section 663(a)(2) of Public Law 104-208 (5 U.S.C. 5597
note);
(2) the term ``covered entity'' means--
(A) the Immigration and Naturalization Service;
(B) the Bureau of Border Security of the Department of
Homeland Security; and
(C) the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services of
the Department of Homeland Security; and
(3) the term ``transfer date'' means the date on which the
transfer of functions specified under section 441 takes
effect.
(b) Strategic Restructuring Plan.--Before the Attorney
General or the Secretary obligates any resources for
voluntary separation incentive payments under this section,
such official shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a strategic restructuring plan, which shall
include--
(1) an organizational chart depicting the covered entities
after their restructuring pursuant to this Act;
(2) a summary description of how the authority under this
section will be used to help carry out that restructuring;
and
(3) the information specified in section 663(b)(2) of
Public Law 104-208 (5 U.S.C. 5597 note).

As used in the preceding sentence, the ``appropriate
committees of Congress'' are the Committees on
Appropriations, Government Reform, and the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives, and the Committees on
Appropriations, Governmental Affairs, and the Judiciary of
the Senate.
(c) Authority.--The Attorney General and the Secretary may,
to the extent necessary to help carry out their respective
strategic restructuring plan described in subsection (b),
make voluntary separation incentive payments to employees.
Any such payment--
(1) shall be paid to the employee, in a lump sum, after the
employee has separated from service;
(2) shall be paid from appropriations or funds available
for the payment of basic pay of the employee;
(3) shall be equal to the lesser of--
(A) the amount the employee would be entitled to receive
under section 5595(c) of title 5, United States Code; or
(B) an amount not to exceed $25,000, as determined by the
Attorney General or the Secretary;
(4) may not be made except in the case of any qualifying
employee who voluntarily separates (whether by retirement or
resignation) before the end of--
(A) the 3-month period beginning on the date on which such
payment is offered or made available to such employee; or
(B) the 3-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act,

whichever occurs first;
(5) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be
included in the computation, of any other type of Government
benefit; and
(6) shall not be taken into account in determining the
amount of any severance pay to which the employee may be
entitled under section 5595 of title 5, United States Code,
based on any other separation.
(d) Additional Agency Contributions to the Retirement
Fund.--
(1) In general.--In addition to any payments which it is
otherwise required to make, the Department of Justice and the
Department of Homeland Security shall, for each fiscal year
with respect to which it makes any voluntary separation
incentive payments under this section, remit to the Office of
Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury of the
United States to the credit of the Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund the amount required under paragraph (2).
(2) Amount required.--The amount required under this
paragraph shall, for any fiscal year, be the amount under
subparagraph (A) or (B), whichever is greater.
(A) First method.--The amount under this subparagraph
shall, for any fiscal year, be equal to the minimum amount
necessary to offset the additional costs to the retirement
systems under title 5, United States Code (payable out of the
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund) resulting from
the voluntary separation of the employees described in
paragraph (3), as determined under regulations of the Office
of Personnel Management.
(B) Second method.--The amount under this subparagraph
shall, for any fiscal year, be equal to 45 percent of the sum
total of the final basic pay of the employees described in
paragraph (3).
(3) Computations to be based on separations occurring in
the fiscal year involved.--The employees described in this
paragraph are those employees who receive a voluntary
separation incentive payment under this

[[Page 23075]]

section based on their separating from service during the
fiscal year with respect to which the payment under this
subsection relates.
(4) Final basic pay defined.--In this subsection, the term
``final basic pay'' means, with respect to an employee, the
total amount of basic pay which would be payable for a year
of service by such employee, computed using the employee's
final rate of basic pay, and, if last serving on other than a
full-time basis, with appropriate adjustment therefor.
(e) Effect of Subsequent Employment with the Government.--
An individual who receives a voluntary separation incentive
payment under this section and who, within 5 years after the
date of the separation on which the payment is based, accepts
any compensated employment with the Government or works for
any agency of the Government through a personal services
contract, shall be required to pay, prior to the individual's
first day of employment, the entire amount of the incentive
payment. Such payment shall be made to the covered entity
from which the individual separated or, if made on or after
the transfer date, to the Deputy Secretary or the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security (for
transfer to the appropriate component of the Department of
Homeland Security, if necessary).
(f) Effect on Employment Levels.--
(1) Intended effect.--Voluntary separations under this
section are not intended to necessarily reduce the total
number of full-time equivalent positions in any covered
entity.
(2) Use of voluntary separations.--A covered entity may
redeploy or use the full-time equivalent positions vacated by
voluntary separations under this section to make other
positions available to more critical locations or more
critical occupations.

SEC. 473. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
RELATING TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General and the Secretary may
each, during a period ending not later than 5 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, conduct a demonstration
project for the purpose of determining whether one or more
changes in the policies or procedures relating to methods for
disciplining employees would result in improved personnel
management.
(b) Scope.--A demonstration project under this section--
(1) may not cover any employees apart from those employed
in or under a covered entity; and
(2) shall not be limited by any provision of chapter 43,
75, or 77 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Procedures.--Under the demonstration project--
(1) the use of alternative means of dispute resolution (as
defined in section 571 of title 5, United States Code) shall
be encouraged, whenever appropriate; and
(2) each covered entity under the jurisdiction of the
official conducting the project shall be required to provide
for the expeditious, fair, and independent review of any
action to which section 4303 or subchapter II of chapter 75
of such title 5 would otherwise apply (except an action
described in section 7512(5) of such title 5).
(d) Actions Involving Discrimination.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section, if, in the case of any
matter described in section 7702(a)(1)(B) of title 5, United
States Code, there is no judicially reviewable action under
the demonstration project within 120 days after the filing of
an appeal or other formal request for review (referred to in
subsection (c)(2)), an employee shall be entitled to file a
civil action to the same extent and in the same manner as
provided in section 7702(e)(1) of such title 5 (in the matter
following subparagraph (C) thereof).
(e) Certain Employees.--Employees shall not be included
within any project under this section if such employees are--
(1) neither managers nor supervisors; and
(2) within a unit with respect to which a labor
organization is accorded exclusive recognition under chapter
71 of title 5, United States Code.

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an aggrieved employee
within a unit (referred to in paragraph (2)) may elect to
participate in a complaint procedure developed under the
demonstration project in lieu of any negotiated grievance
procedure and any statutory procedure (as such term is used
in section 7121 of such title 5).
(f) Reports.--The General Accounting Office shall prepare
and submit to the Committees on Government Reform and the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committees
on Governmental Affairs and the Judiciary of the Senate
periodic reports on any demonstration project conducted under
this section, such reports to be submitted after the second
and fourth years of its operation. Upon request, the Attorney
General or the Secretary shall furnish such information as
the General Accounting Office may require to carry out this
subsection.
(g) Definition.--In this section, the term ``covered
entity'' has the meaning given such term in section
472(a)(2).

SEC. 474. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the missions of the Bureau of Border Security and the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services are equally
important and, accordingly, they each should be adequately
funded; and
(2) the functions transferred under this subtitle should
not, after such transfers take effect, operate at levels
below those in effect prior to the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 475. DIRECTOR OF SHARED SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Within the Office of Deputy Secretary,
there shall be a Director of Shared Services.
(b) Functions.--The Director of Shared Services shall be
responsible for the coordination of resources for the Bureau
of Border Security and the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, including--
(1) information resources management, including computer
databases and information technology;
(2) records and file management; and
(3) forms management.

SEC. 476. SEPARATION OF FUNDING.

(a) In General.--There shall be established separate
accounts in the Treasury of the United States for
appropriated funds and other deposits available for the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau
of Border Security.
(b) Separate Budgets.--To ensure that the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border
Security are funded to the extent necessary to fully carry
out their respective functions, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall separate the budget requests for
each such entity.
(c) Fees.--Fees imposed for a particular service,
application, or benefit shall be deposited into the account
established under subsection (a) that is for the bureau with
jurisdiction over the function to which the fee relates.
(d) Fees Not Transferable.--No fee may be transferred
between the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
and the Bureau of Border Security for purposes not authorized
by section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1356).

SEC. 477. REPORTS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

(a) Division of Funds.--The Secretary, not later than 120
days after the effective date of this Act, shall submit to
the Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and of the Senate a report on the
proposed division and transfer of funds, including unexpended
funds, appropriations, and fees, between the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border
Security.
(b) Division of Personnel.--The Secretary, not later than
120 days after the effective date of this Act, shall submit
to the Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and of the Senate a report on the
proposed division of personnel between the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border
Security.
(c) Implementation Plan.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, not later than 120 days
after the effective date of this Act, and every 6 months
thereafter until the termination of fiscal year 2005, shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives and of the Senate an
implementation plan to carry out this Act.
(2) Contents.--The implementation plan should include
details concerning the separation of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border
Security, including the following:
(A) Organizational structure, including the field
structure.
(B) Chain of command.
(C) Procedures for interaction among such bureaus.
(D) Fraud detection and investigation.
(E) The processing and handling of removal proceedings,
including expedited removal and applications for relief from
removal.
(F) Recommendations for conforming amendments to the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(G) Establishment of a transition team.
(H) Methods to phase in the costs of separating the
administrative support systems of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service in order to provide for separate
administrative support systems for the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border Security.
(d) Comptroller General Studies and Reports.--
(1) Status reports on transition.--Not later than 18 months
after the date on which the transfer of functions specified
under section 441 takes effect, and every 6 months
thereafter, until full implementation of this subtitle has
been completed, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a
report containing the following:
(A) A determination of whether the transfers of functions
made by subtitles D and E have been completed, and if a
transfer of functions has not taken place, identifying the
reasons why the transfer has not taken place.
(B) If the transfers of functions made by subtitles D and E
have been completed, an identification of any issues that
have arisen due to the completed transfers.
(C) An identification of any issues that may arise due to
any future transfer of functions.
(2) Report on management.--Not later than 4 years after the
date on which the transfer of functions specified under
section 441 takes effect, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report, following a study,
containing the following:

[[Page 23076]]

(A) Determinations of whether the transfer of functions
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of
Border Security have improved, with respect to each function
transferred, the following:
(i) Operations.
(ii) Management, including accountability and
communication.
(iii) Financial administration.
(iv) Recordkeeping, including information management and
technology.
(B) A statement of the reasons for the determinations under
subparagraph (A).
(C) Any recommendations for further improvements to the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau
of Border Security.
(3) Report on fees.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives and of the Senate a report
examining whether the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services is likely to derive sufficient funds from fees to
carry out its functions in the absence of appropriated funds.

SEC. 478. IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS.

(a) Annual Report.--
(1) In general.--One year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Secretary shall
submit a report to the President, to the Committees on the
Judiciary and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, and to the Committees on the Judiciary and
Government Affairs of the Senate, on the impact the transfers
made by this subtitle has had on immigration functions.
(2) Matter included.--The report shall address the
following with respect to the period covered by the report:
(A) The aggregate number of all immigration applications
and petitions received, and processed, by the Department;
(B) Region-by-region statistics on the aggregate number of
immigration applications and petitions filed by an alien (or
filed on behalf of an alien) and denied, disaggregated by
category of denial and application or petition type.
(C) The quantity of backlogged immigration applications and
petitions that have been processed, the aggregate number
awaiting processing, and a detailed plan for eliminating the
backlog.
(D) The average processing period for immigration
applications and petitions, disaggregated by application or
petition type.
(E) The number and types of immigration-related grievances
filed with any official of the Department of Justice, and if
those grievances were resolved.
(F) Plans to address grievances and improve immigration
services.
(G) Whether immigration-related fees were used consistent
with legal requirements regarding such use.
(H) Whether immigration-related questions conveyed by
customers to the Department (whether conveyed in person, by
telephone, or by means of the Internet) were answered
effectively and efficiently.
(b) Sense of Congress Regarding Immigration Services.--It
is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the quality and efficiency of immigration services
rendered by the Federal Government should be improved after
the transfers made by this subtitle take effect; and
(2) the Secretary should undertake efforts to guarantee
that concerns regarding the quality and efficiency of
immigration services are addressed after such effective date.

TITLE V--EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

SEC. 501. UNDER SECRETARY FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND
RESPONSE.

There shall be in the Department a Directorate of Emergency
Preparedness and Response headed by an Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response.

SEC. 502. RESPONSIBILITIES.

The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response, shall include--
(1) helping to ensure the effectiveness of emergency
response providers to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and
other emergencies;
(2) with respect to the Nuclear Incident Response Team
(regardless of whether it is operating as an organizational
unit of the Department pursuant to this title)--
(A) establishing standards and certifying when those
standards have been met;
(B) conducting joint and other exercises and training and
evaluating performance; and
(C) providing funds to the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency, as appropriate, for homeland
security planning, exercises and training, and equipment;
(3) providing the Federal Government's response to
terrorist attacks and major disasters, including--
(A) managing such response;
(B) directing the Domestic Emergency Support Team, the
Strategic National Stockpile, the National Disaster Medical
System, and (when operating as an organizational unit of the
Department pursuant to this title) the Nuclear Incident
Response Team;
(C) overseeing the Metropolitan Medical Response System;
and
(D) coordinating other Federal response resources in the
event of a terrorist attack or major disaster;
(4) aiding the recovery from terrorist attacks and major
disasters;
(5) building a comprehensive national incident management
system with Federal, State, and local government personnel,
agencies, and authorities, to respond to such attacks and
disasters;
(6) consolidating existing Federal Government emergency
response plans into a single, coordinated national response
plan; and
(7) developing comprehensive programs for developing
interoperative communications technology, and helping to
ensure that emergency response providers acquire such
technology.

SEC. 503. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED.

In accordance with title XV, there shall be transferred to
the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, and
liabilities of the following entities:
(1) The Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the
functions of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency relating thereto.
(2) The Integrated Hazard Information System of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which shall
be renamed ``FIRESAT''.
(3) The National Domestic Preparedness Office of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the functions of
the Attorney General relating thereto.
(4) The Domestic Emergency Support Teams of the Department
of Justice, including the functions of the Attorney General
relating thereto.
(5) The Office of Emergency Preparedness, the National
Disaster Medical System, and the Metropolitan Medical
Response System of the Department of Health and Human
Services, including the functions of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services and the Assistant Secretary for Public
Health Emergency Preparedness relating thereto.
(6) The Strategic National Stockpile of the Department of
Health and Human Services, including the functions of the
Secretary of Health and Human Services relating thereto.

SEC. 504. NUCLEAR INCIDENT RESPONSE.

(a) In General.--At the direction of the Secretary (in
connection with an actual or threatened terrorist attack,
major disaster, or other emergency in the United States), the
Nuclear Incident Response Team shall operate as an
organizational unit of the Department. While so operating,
the Nuclear Incident Response Team shall be subject to the
direction, authority, and control of the Secretary.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to limit the ordinary responsibility of the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency for organizing, training,
equipping, and utilizing their respective entities in the
Nuclear Incident Response Team, or (subject to the provisions
of this title) from exercising direction, authority, and
control over them when they are not operating as a unit of
the Department.

SEC. 505. CONDUCT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH-RELATED
ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--With respect to all public health-related
activities to improve State, local, and hospital preparedness
and response to chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear and other emerging terrorist threats carried out by
the Department of Health and Human Services (including the
Public Health Service), the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall set priorities and preparedness goals and
further develop a coordinated strategy for such activities in
collaboration with the Secretary.
(b) Evaluation of Progress.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
collaborate with the Secretary in developing specific
benchmarks and outcome measurements for evaluating progress
toward achieving the priorities and goals described in such
subsection.

SEC. 506. DEFINITION.

In this title, the term ``Nuclear Incident Response Team''
means a resource that includes--
(1) those entities of the Department of Energy that perform
nuclear or radiological emergency support functions
(including accident response, search response, advisory, and
technical operations functions), radiation exposure functions
at the medical assistance facility known as the Radiation
Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS),
radiological assistance functions, and related functions; and
(2) those entities of the Environmental Protection Agency
that perform such support functions (including radiological
emergency response functions) and related functions.

SEC. 507. ROLE OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.

(a) In General.--The functions of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency include the following:
(1) All functions and authorities prescribed by the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
(2) Carrying out its mission to reduce the loss of life and
property and protect the Nation from all hazards by leading
and supporting the Nation in a comprehensive, risk-based
emergency management program--
(A) of mitigation, by taking sustained actions to reduce or
eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards
and their effects;
(B) of planning for building the emergency management
profession to prepare effectively for, mitigate against,
respond to, and recover from any hazard;
(C) of response, by conducting emergency operations to save
lives and property through positioning emergency equipment
and supplies, through evacuating potential victims, through

[[Page 23077]]

providing food, water, shelter, and medical care to those in
need, and through restoring critical public services;
(D) of recovery, by rebuilding communities so individuals,
businesses, and governments can function on their own, return
to normal life, and protect against future hazards; and
(E) of increased efficiencies, by coordinating efforts
relating to mitigation, planning, response, and recovery.
(b) Federal Response Plan.--
(1) Role of fema.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall
remain the lead agency for the Federal Response Plan
established under Executive Order 12148 (44 Fed. Reg. 43239)
and Executive Order 12656 (53 Fed. Reg. 47491).
(2) Revision of response plan.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency shall revise the Federal
Response Plan to reflect the establishment of and incorporate
the Department.

SEC. 508. USE OF NATIONAL PRIVATE SECTOR NETWORKS IN
EMERGENCY RESPONSE.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall use
national private sector networks and infrastructure for
emergency response to chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, or explosive disasters, and other major disasters.

SEC. 509. USE OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY, GOODS,
AND SERVICES.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Secretary should, to the maximum extent possible,
use off-the-shelf commercially developed technologies to
ensure that the Department's information technology systems
allow the Department to collect, manage, share, analyze, and
disseminate information securely over multiple channels of
communication; and
(2) in order to further the policy of the United States to
avoid competing commercially with the private sector, the
Secretary should rely on commercial sources to supply the
goods and services needed by the Department.

TITLE VI--TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE TRUSTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

SEC. 601. TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE TRUSTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Members of the Armed Forces of the United States defend
the freedom and security of our Nation.
(2) Members of the Armed Forces of the United States have
lost their lives while battling the evils of terrorism around
the world.
(3) Personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
charged with the responsibility of covert observation of
terrorists around the world are often put in harm's way
during their service to the United States.
(4) Personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency have also
lost their lives while battling the evils of terrorism around
the world.
(5) Employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
and other Federal agencies charged with domestic protection
of the United States put their lives at risk on a daily basis
for the freedom and security of our Nation.
(6) United States military personnel, CIA personnel, FBI
personnel, and other Federal agents in the service of the
United States are patriots of the highest order.
(7) CIA officer Johnny Micheal Spann became the first
American to give his life for his country in the War on
Terrorism declared by President George W. Bush following the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
(8) Johnny Micheal Spann left behind a wife and children
who are very proud of the heroic actions of their patriot
father.
(9) Surviving dependents of members of the Armed Forces of
the United States who lose their lives as a result of
terrorist attacks or military operations abroad receive a
$6,000 death benefit, plus a small monthly benefit.
(10) The current system of compensating spouses and
children of American patriots is inequitable and needs
improvement.
(b) Designation of Johnny Micheal Spann Patriot Trusts.--
Any charitable corporation, fund, foundation, or trust (or
separate fund or account thereof) which otherwise meets all
applicable requirements under law with respect to charitable
entities and meets the requirements described in subsection
(c) shall be eligible to characterize itself as a ``Johnny
Micheal Spann Patriot Trust''.
(c) Requirements for the Designation of Johnny Micheal
Spann Patriot Trusts.--The requirements described in this
subsection are as follows:
(1) Not taking into account funds or donations reasonably
necessary to establish a trust, at least 85 percent of all
funds or donations (including any earnings on the investment
of such funds or donations) received or collected by any
Johnny Micheal Spann Patriot Trust must be distributed to
(or, if placed in a private foundation, held in trust for)
surviving spouses, children, or dependent parents,
grandparents, or siblings of 1 or more of the following:
(A) members of the Armed Forces of the United States;
(B) personnel, including contractors, of elements of the
intelligence community, as defined in section 3(4) of the
National Security Act of 1947;
(C) employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
(D) officers, employees, or contract employees of the
United States Government,

whose deaths occur in the line of duty and arise out of
terrorist attacks, military operations, intelligence
operations, or law enforcement operations or accidents
connected with activities occurring after September 11, 2001,
and related to domestic or foreign efforts to curb
international terrorism, including the Authorization for Use
of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 115 Stat. 224).
(2) Other than funds or donations reasonably necessary to
establish a trust, not more than 15 percent of all funds or
donations (or 15 percent of annual earnings on funds invested
in a private foundation) may be used for administrative
purposes.
(3) No part of the net earnings of any Johnny Micheal Spann
Patriot Trust may inure to the benefit of any individual
based solely on the position of such individual as a
shareholder, an officer or employee of such Trust.
(4) None of the activities of any Johnny Micheal Spann
Patriot Trust shall be conducted in a manner inconsistent
with any law that prohibits attempting to influence
legislation.
(5) No Johnny Micheal Spann Patriot Trust may participate
in or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of (or in
opposition to) any candidate for public office, including by
publication or distribution of statements.
(6) Each Johnny Micheal Spann Patriot Trust shall comply
with the instructions and directions of the Director of
Central Intelligence, the Attorney General, or the Secretary
of Defense relating to the protection of intelligence sources
and methods, sensitive law enforcement information, or other
sensitive national security information, including methods
for confidentially disbursing funds.
(7) Each Johnny Micheal Spann Patriot Trust that receives
annual contributions totaling more than $1,000,000 must be
audited annually by an independent certified public
accounting firm. Such audits shall be filed with the Internal
Revenue Service, and shall be open to public inspection,
except that the conduct, filing, and availability of the
audit shall be consistent with the protection of intelligence
sources and methods, of sensitive law enforcement
information, and of other sensitive national security
information.
(8) Each Johnny Micheal Spann Patriot Trust shall make
distributions to beneficiaries described in paragraph (1) at
least once every calendar year, beginning not later than 12
months after the formation of such Trust, and all funds and
donations received and earnings not placed in a private
foundation dedicated to such beneficiaries must be
distributed within 36 months after the end of the fiscal year
in which such funds, donations, and earnings are received.
(9)(A) When determining the amount of a distribution to any
beneficiary described in paragraph (1), a Johnny Micheal
Spann Patriot Trust should take into account the amount of
any collateral source compensation that the beneficiary has
received or is entitled to receive as a result of the death
of an individual described in paragraph (1).
(B) Collateral source compensation includes all
compensation from collateral sources, including life
insurance, pension funds, death benefit programs, and
payments by Federal, State, or local governments related to
the death of an individual described in paragraph (1).
(d) Treatment of Johnny Micheal Spann Patriot Trusts.--Each
Johnny Micheal Spann Patriot Trust shall refrain from
conducting the activities described in clauses (i) and (ii)
of section 301(20)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 so that a general solicitation of funds by an individual
described in paragraph (1) of section 323(e) of such Act will
be permissible if such solicitation meets the requirements of
paragraph (4)(A) of such section.
(e) Notification of Trust Beneficiaries.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, and in a manner consistent with
the protection of intelligence sources and methods and
sensitive law enforcement information, and other sensitive
national security information, the Secretary of Defense, the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the
Director of Central Intelligence, or their designees, as
applicable, may forward information received from an
executor, administrator, or other legal representative of the
estate of a decedent described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C),
or (D) of subsection (c)(1), to a Johnny Micheal Spann
Patriot Trust on how to contact individuals eligible for a
distribution under subsection (c)(1) for the purpose of
providing assistance from such Trust; provided that, neither
forwarding nor failing to forward any information under this
subsection shall create any cause of action against any
Federal department, agency, officer, agent, or employee.
(f) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of Central
Intelligence, shall prescribe regulations to carry out this
section.

TITLE VII--MANAGEMENT

SEC. 701. UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Management, shall be responsible for the
management and administration of the Department, including
the following:
(1) The budget, appropriations, expenditures of funds,
accounting, and finance.
(2) Procurement.

[[Page 23078]]

(3) Human resources and personnel.
(4) Information technology and communications systems.
(5) Facilities, property, equipment, and other material
resources.
(6) Security for personnel, information technology and
communications systems, facilities, property, equipment, and
other material resources.
(7) Identification and tracking of performance measures
relating to the responsibilities of the Department.
(8) Grants and other assistance management programs.
(9) The transition and reorganization process, to ensure an
efficient and orderly transfer of functions and personnel to
the Department, including the development of a transition
plan.
(10) The conduct of internal audits and management analyses
of the programs and activities of the Department.
(11) Any other management duties that the Secretary may
designate.
(b) Immigration.--
(1) In general.--In addition to the responsibilities
described in subsection (a), the Under Secretary for
Management shall be responsible for the following:
(A) Maintenance of all immigration statistical information
of the Bureau of Border Security and the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services. Such statistical
information shall include information and statistics of the
type contained in the publication entitled ``Statistical
Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service''
prepared by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (as in
effect immediately before the date on which the transfer of
functions specified under section 441 takes effect),
including region-by-region statistics on the aggregate number
of applications and petitions filed by an alien (or filed on
behalf of an alien) and denied by such bureau, and the
reasons for such denials, disaggregated by category of denial
and application or petition type.
(B) Establishment of standards of reliability and validity
for immigration statistics collected by such bureaus.
(2) Transfer of functions.--In accordance with title XV,
there shall be transferred to the Under Secretary for
Management all functions performed immediately before such
transfer occurs by the Statistics Branch of the Office of
Policy and Planning of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service with respect to the following programs:
(A) The Border Patrol program.
(B) The detention and removal program.
(C) The intelligence program.
(D) The investigations program.
(E) The inspections program.
(F) Adjudication of immigrant visa petitions.
(G) Adjudication of naturalization petitions.
(H) Adjudication of asylum and refugee applications.
(I) Adjudications performed at service centers.
(J) All other adjudications performed by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service.

SEC. 702. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.

The Chief Financial Officer shall report to the Secretary,
or to another official of the Department, as the Secretary
may direct.

SEC. 703. CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER.

The Chief Information Officer shall report to the
Secretary, or to another official of the Department, as the
Secretary may direct.

SEC. 704. CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER.

The Chief Human Capital Officer shall report to the
Secretary, or to another official of the Department, as the
Secretary may direct and shall ensure that all employees of
the Department are informed of their rights and remedies
under chapters 12 and 23 of title 5, United States Code, by--
(1) participating in the 2302(c) Certification Program of
the Office of Special Counsel;
(2) achieving certification from the Office of Special
Counsel of the Department's compliance with section 2302(c)
of title 5, United States Code; and
(3) informing Congress of such certification not later than
24 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 705. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL
LIBERTIES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall appoint in the
Department an Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
who shall--
(1) review and assess information alleging abuses of civil
rights, civil liberties, and racial and ethnic profiling by
employees and officials of the Department; and
(2) make public through the Internet, radio, television, or
newspaper advertisements information on the responsibilities
and functions of, and how to contact, the Officer.
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the President of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
the appropriate committees and subcommittees of Congress on
an annual basis a report on the implementation of this
section, including the use of funds appropriated to carry out
this section, and detailing any allegations of abuses
described under subsection (a)(1) and any actions taken by
the Department in response to such allegations.

SEC. 706. CONSOLIDATION AND CO-LOCATION OF OFFICES.

Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall develop and submit to Congress
a plan for consolidating and co-locating--
(1) any regional offices or field offices of agencies that
are transferred to the Department under this Act, if such
offices are located in the same municipality; and
(2) portions of regional and field offices of other Federal
agencies, to the extent such offices perform functions that
are transferred to the Secretary under this Act.

TITLE VIII--COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL;
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Coordination with Non-Federal Entities

SEC. 801. OFFICE FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the Office
of the Secretary the Office for State and Local Government
Coordination, to oversee and coordinate departmental programs
for and relationships with State and local governments.
(b) Responsibilities.--The Office established under
subsection (a) shall--
(1) coordinate the activities of the Department relating to
State and local government;
(2) assess, and advocate for, the resources needed by State
and local government to implement the national strategy for
combating terrorism;
(3) provide State and local government with regular
information, research, and technical support to assist local
efforts at securing the homeland; and
(4) develop a process for receiving meaningful input from
State and local government to assist the development of the
national strategy for combating terrorism and other homeland
security activities.

Subtitle B--Inspector General

SEC. 811. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the last two sentences of
section 3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, the
Inspector General shall be under the authority, direction,
and control of the Secretary with respect to audits or
investigations, or the issuance of subpoenas, that require
access to sensitive information concerning--
(1) intelligence, counterintelligence, or counterterrorism
matters;
(2) ongoing criminal investigations or proceedings;
(3) undercover operations;
(4) the identity of confidential sources, including
protected witnesses;
(5) other matters the disclosure of which would, in the
Secretary's judgment, constitute a serious threat to the
protection of any person or property authorized protection by
section 3056 of title 18, United States Code, section 202 of
title 3 of such Code, or any provision of the Presidential
Protection Assistance Act of 1976; or
(6) other matters the disclosure of which would, in the
Secretary's judgment, constitute a serious threat to national
security.
(b) Prohibition of Certain Investigations.--With respect to
the information described in subsection (a), the Secretary
may prohibit the Inspector General from carrying out or
completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any
subpoena, after such Inspector General has decided to
initiate, carry out, or complete such audit or investigation
or to issue such subpoena, if the Secretary determines that
such prohibition is necessary to prevent the disclosure of
any information described in subsection (a), to preserve the
national security, or to prevent a significant impairment to
the interests of the United States.
(c) Notification Required.--If the Secretary exercises any
power under subsection (a) or (b), the Secretary shall notify
the Inspector General of the Department in writing stating
the reasons for such exercise. Within 30 days after receipt
of any such notice, the Inspector General shall transmit a
copy of such notice and a written response thereto that
includes--
(1) a statement as to whether the Inspector General agrees
or disagrees with such exercise; and
(2) the reasons for any disagreement, to the President of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and to appropriate committees and subcommittees of Congress.
(d) Access to Information by Congress.--The exercise of
authority by the Secretary described in subsection (b) should
not be construed as limiting the right of Congress or any
committee of Congress to access any information it seeks.
(e) Oversight Responsibility--The Inspector General Act of
1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by inserting after section 8I
the following:

``special provisions concerning the department of homeland security

``Sec. 8J. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
carrying out the duties and responsibilities specified in
this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland
Security shall have oversight responsibility for the internal
investigations performed by the Office of Internal Affairs of
the United States Customs Service and the Office of
Inspections of the United States Secret Service. The head of
each such office shall promptly report to the Inspector
General the significant activities being carried out by such
office.''.

SEC. 812. LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AGENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 6 of the Inspector General Act of
1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e)(1) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by
this Act, each Inspector General appointed under section 3,
any Assistant Inspector General for Investigations under such
an Inspector General, and any special agent supervised by
such an Assistant Inspector General may be authorized by the
Attorney General to--

[[Page 23079]]

``(A) carry a firearm while engaged in official duties as
authorized under this Act or other statute, or as expressly
authorized by the Attorney General;
``(B) make an arrest without a warrant while engaged in
official duties as authorized under this Act or other
statute, or as expressly authorized by the Attorney General,
for any offense against the United States committed in the
presence of such Inspector General, Assistant Inspector
General, or agent, or for any felony cognizable under the
laws of the United States if such Inspector General,
Assistant Inspector General, or agent has reasonable grounds
to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is
committing such felony; and
``(C) seek and execute warrants for arrest, search of a
premises, or seizure of evidence issued under the authority
of the United States upon probable cause to believe that a
violation has been committed.
``(2) The Attorney General may authorize exercise of the
powers under this subsection only upon an initial
determination that--
``(A) the affected Office of Inspector General is
significantly hampered in the performance of responsibilities
established by this Act as a result of the lack of such
powers;
``(B) available assistance from other law enforcement
agencies is insufficient to meet the need for such powers;
and
``(C) adequate internal safeguards and management
procedures exist to ensure proper exercise of such powers.
``(3) The Inspector General offices of the Department of
Commerce, Department of Education, Department of Energy,
Department of Health and Human Services, Department of
Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Department of the Interior, Department of
Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department
of Transportation, Department of the Treasury, Department of
Veterans Affairs, Agency for International Development,
Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, General
Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Personnel Management, Railroad Retirement Board, Small
Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and
the Tennessee Valley Authority are exempt from the
requirement of paragraph (2) of an initial determination of
eligibility by the Attorney General.
``(4) The Attorney General shall promulgate, and revise as
appropriate, guidelines which shall govern the exercise of
the law enforcement powers established under paragraph (1).
``(5)(A) Powers authorized for an Office of Inspector
General under paragraph (1) may be rescinded or suspended
upon a determination by the Attorney General that any of the
requirements under paragraph (2) is no longer satisfied or
that the exercise of authorized powers by that Office of
Inspector General has not complied with the guidelines
promulgated by the Attorney General under paragraph (4).
``(B) Powers authorized to be exercised by any individual
under paragraph (1) may be rescinded or suspended with
respect to that individual upon a determination by the
Attorney General that such individual has not complied with
guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General under
paragraph (4).
``(6) A determination by the Attorney General under
paragraph (2) or (5) shall not be reviewable in or by any
court.
``(7) To ensure the proper exercise of the law enforcement
powers authorized by this subsection, the Offices of
Inspector General described under paragraph (3) shall, not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
subsection, collectively enter into a memorandum of
understanding to establish an external review process for
ensuring that adequate internal safeguards and management
procedures continue to exist within each Office and within
any Office that later receives an authorization under
paragraph (2). The review process shall be established in
consultation with the Attorney General, who shall be provided
with a copy of the memorandum of understanding that
establishes the review process. Under the review process, the
exercise of the law enforcement powers by each Office of
Inspector General shall be reviewed periodically by another
Office of Inspector General or by a committee of Inspectors
General. The results of each review shall be communicated in
writing to the applicable Inspector General and to the
Attorney General.
``(8) No provision of this subsection shall limit the
exercise of law enforcement powers established under any
other statutory authority, including United States Marshals
Service special deputation.''.
(b) Promulgation of Initial Guidelines.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``memoranda
of understanding'' means the agreements between the
Department of Justice and the Inspector General offices
described under section 6(e)(3) of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App) (as added by subsection (a) of this
section) that--
(A) are in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) authorize such offices to exercise authority that is
the same or similar to the authority under section 6(e)(1) of
such Act.
(2) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate
guidelines under section 6(e)(4) of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App) (as added by subsection (a) of this
section) applicable to the Inspector General offices
described under section 6(e)(3) of that Act.
(3) Minimum requirements.--The guidelines promulgated under
this subsection shall include, at a minimum, the operational
and training requirements in the memoranda of understanding.
(4) No lapse of authority.--The memoranda of understanding
in effect on the date of enactment of this Act shall remain
in effect until the guidelines promulgated under this
subsection take effect.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall take effect 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Initial guidelines.--Subsection (b) shall take effect
on the date of enactment of this Act.

Subtitle C--United States Secret Service

SEC. 821. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED.

In accordance with title XV, there shall be transferred to
the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, and
obligations of the United States Secret Service, which shall
be maintained as a distinct entity within the Department,
including the functions of the Secretary of the Treasury
relating thereto.

Subtitle D--Acquisitions

SEC. 831. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

(a) Authority.--During the 5-year period following the
effective date of this Act, the Secretary may carry out a
pilot program under which the Secretary may exercise the
following authorities:
(1) In general.--When the Secretary carries out basic,
applied, and advanced research and development projects,
including the expenditure of funds for such projects, the
Secretary may exercise the same authority (subject to the
same limitations and conditions) with respect to such
research and projects as the Secretary of Defense may
exercise under section 2371 of title 10, United States Code
(except for subsections (b) and (f)), after making a
determination that the use of a contract, grant, or
cooperative agreement for such project is not feasible or
appropriate. The annual report required under subsection (b)
of this section, as applied to the Secretary by this
paragraph, shall be submitted to the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(2) Prototype projects.--The Secretary may, under the
authority of paragraph (1), carry out prototype projects in
accordance with the requirements and conditions provided for
carrying out prototype projects under section 845 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160). In applying the authorities of that
section 845, subsection (c) of that section shall apply with
respect to prototype projects under this paragraph, and the
Secretary shall perform the functions of the Secretary of
Defense under subsection (d) thereof.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the effective
date of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Comptroller
General shall report to the Committee on Government Reform of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate on--
(1) whether use of the authorities described in subsection
(a) attracts nontraditional Government contractors and
results in the acquisition of needed technologies; and
(2) if such authorities were to be made permanent, whether
additional safeguards are needed with respect to the use of
such authorities.
(c) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Secretary may--
(1) procure the temporary or intermittent services of
experts or consultants (or organizations thereof) in
accordance with section 3109(b) of title 5, United States
Code; and
(2) whenever necessary due to an urgent homeland security
need, procure temporary (not to exceed 1 year) or
intermittent personal services, including the services of
experts or consultants (or organizations thereof), without
regard to the pay limitations of such section 3109.
(d) Definition of Nontraditional Government Contractor.--In
this section, the term ``nontraditional Government
contractor'' has the same meaning as the term
``nontraditional defense contractor'' as defined in section
845(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 10 U.S.C. 2371 note).

SEC. 832. PERSONAL SERVICES.

The Secretary--
(1) may procure the temporary or intermittent services of
experts or consultants (or organizations thereof) in
accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code;
and
(2) may, whenever necessary due to an urgent homeland
security need, procure temporary (not to exceed 1 year) or
intermittent personal services, including the services of
experts or consultants (or organizations thereof), without
regard to the pay limitations of such section 3109.

SEC. 833. SPECIAL STREAMLINED ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may use the authorities set
forth in this section with respect to any procurement made
during the period beginning on the effective date of this Act
and ending September 30, 2007, if the Secretary determines in
writing that the mission of the Department (as described in
section 101) would be seriously impaired without the use of
such authorities.
(2) Delegation.--The authority to make the determination
described in paragraph (1) may not be delegated by the
Secretary to an officer of the Department who is not
appointed by the

[[Page 23080]]

President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(3) Notification.--Not later than the date that is 7 days
after the date of any determination under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Government Reform
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate--
(A) notification of such determination; and
(B) the justification for such determination.
(b) Increased Micro-Purchase Threshold For Certain
Procurements.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may designate certain
employees of the Department to make procurements described in
subsection (a) for which in the administration of section 32
of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
428) the amount specified in subsections (c), (d), and (f) of
such section 32 shall be deemed to be $7,500.
(2) Number of employees.--The number of employees
designated under paragraph (1) shall be--
(A) fewer than the number of employees of the Department
who are authorized to make purchases without obtaining
competitive quotations, pursuant to section 32(c) of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428(c));
(B) sufficient to ensure the geographic dispersal of the
availability of the use of the procurement authority under
such paragraph at locations reasonably considered to be
potential terrorist targets; and
(C) sufficiently limited to allow for the careful
monitoring of employees designated under such paragraph.
(3) Review.--Procurements made under the authority of this
subsection shall be subject to review by a designated
supervisor on not less than a monthly basis. The supervisor
responsible for the review shall be responsible for no more
than 7 employees making procurements under this subsection.
(c) Simplified Acquisition Procedures.--
(1) In general.--With respect to a procurement described in
subsection (a), the Secretary may deem the simplified
acquisition threshold referred to in section 4(11) of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(11))
to be--
(A) in the case of a contract to be awarded and performed,
or purchase to be made, within the United States, $200,000;
and
(B) in the case of a contract to be awarded and performed,
or purchase to be made, outside of the United States,
$300,000.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 18(c)(1) of the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy Act is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (F);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (G)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) the procurement is by the Secretary of Homeland
Security pursuant to the special procedures provided in
section 833(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.''.
(d) Application of Certain Commercial Items Authorities.--
(1) In general.--With respect to a procurement described in
subsection (a), the Secretary may deem any item or service to
be a commercial item for the purpose of Federal procurement
laws.
(2) Limitation.--The $5,000,000 limitation provided in
section 31(a)(2) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act (41 U.S.C. 427(a)(2)) and section 303(g)(1)(B) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C. 253(g)(1)(B)) shall be deemed to be $7,500,000 for
purposes of property or services under the authority of this
subsection.
(3) Certain authority.--Authority under a provision of law
referred to in paragraph (2) that expires under section
4202(e) of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions D and E
of Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 2304 note) shall,
notwithstanding such section, continue to apply for a
procurement described in subsection (a).
(e) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the end of
fiscal year 2005, the Comptroller General shall submit to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives a report on the use of the authorities
provided in this section. The report shall contain the
following:
(1) An assessment of the extent to which property and
services acquired using authorities provided under this
section contributed to the capacity of the Federal workforce
to facilitate the mission of the Department as described in
section 101.
(2) An assessment of the extent to which prices for
property and services acquired using authorities provided
under this section reflected the best value.
(3) The number of employees designated by each executive
agency under subsection (b)(1).
(4) An assessment of the extent to which the Department has
implemented subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) to monitor the use
of procurement authority by employees designated under
subsection (b)(1).
(5) Any recommendations of the Comptroller General for
improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the
provisions of this section.

SEC. 834. UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS.

(a) Regulations Required.--Within 1 year of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation
shall be revised to include regulations with regard to
unsolicited proposals.
(b) Content of Regulations.--The regulations prescribed
under subsection (a) shall require that before initiating a
comprehensive evaluation, an agency contact point shall
consider, among other factors, that the proposal--
(1) is not submitted in response to a previously published
agency requirement; and
(2) contains technical and cost information for evaluation
and overall scientific, technical or socioeconomic merit, or
cost-related or price-related factors.

SEC. 835. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH CORPORATE
EXPATRIATES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may not enter into any
contract with a foreign incorporated entity which is treated
as an inverted domestic corporation under subsection (b).
(b) Inverted Domestic Corporation.--For purposes of this
section, a foreign incorporated entity shall be treated as an
inverted domestic corporation if, pursuant to a plan (or a
series of related transactions)--
(1) the entity completes after the date of enactment of
this Act, the direct or indirect acquisition of substantially
all of the properties held directly or indirectly by a
domestic corporation or substantially all of the properties
constituting a trade or business of a domestic partnership;
(2) after the acquisition at least 80 percent of the stock
(by vote or value) of the entity is held--
(A) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a
domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic
corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic
corporation; or
(B) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a
domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic
partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits
interest in the domestic partnership; and
(3) the expanded affiliated group which after the
acquisition includes the entity does not have substantial
business activities in the foreign country in which or under
the law of which the entity is created or organized when
compared to the total business activities of such expanded
affiliated group.
(c) Definitions and Special Rules.--
(1) Rules for application of subsection (b).--In applying
subsection (b) for purposes of subsection (a), the following
rules shall apply:
(A) Certain stock disregarded.--There shall not be taken
into account in determining ownership for purposes of
subsection (b)(2)--
(i) stock held by members of the expanded affiliated group
which includes the foreign incorporated entity; or
(ii) stock of such entity which is sold in a public
offering related to the acquisition described in subsection
(b)(1).
(B) Plan deemed in certain cases.--If a foreign
incorporated entity acquires directly or indirectly
substantially all of the properties of a domestic corporation
or partnership during the 4-year period beginning on the date
which is after the date of enactment of this Act and which is
2 years before the ownership requirements of subsection
(b)(2) are met, such actions shall be treated as pursuant to
a plan.
(C) Certain transfers disregarded.--The transfer of
properties or liabilities (including by contribution or
distribution) shall be disregarded if such transfers are part
of a plan a principal purpose of which is to avoid the
purposes of this section.
(D) Special rule for related partnerships.--For purposes of
applying subsection (b) to the acquisition of a domestic
partnership, except as provided in regulations, all domestic
partnerships which are under common control (within the
meaning of section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
shall be treated as I partnership.
(E) Treatment of certain rights.--The Secretary shall
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to--
(i) treat warrants, options, contracts to acquire stock,
convertible debt instruments, and other similar interests as
stock; and
(ii) treat stock as not stock.
(2) Expanded affiliated group.--The term ``expanded
affiliated group'' means an affiliated group as defined in
section 1504(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (without
regard to section 1504(b) of such Code), except that section
1504 of such Code shall be applied by substituting ``more
than 50 percent'' for ``at least 80 percent'' each place it
appears.
(3) Foreign incorporated entity.--The term ``foreign
incorporated entity'' means any entity which is, or but for
subsection (b) would be, treated as a foreign corporation for
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(4) Other definitions.--The terms ``person'', ``domestic'',
and ``foreign'' have the meanings given such terms by
paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) of section 7701 (a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, respectively.
(d) Waivers.--The Secretary shall waive subsection (a) with
respect to any specific contract if the Secretary determines
that the waiver is required in the interest of homeland
security, or to prevent the loss of any jobs in the United
States or prevent the Government from incurring any
additional costs that otherwise would not occur.

Subtitle E--Human Resources Management

SEC. 841. ESTABLISHMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

(a) Authority.--
(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(A) it is extremely important that employees of the
Department be allowed to participate in a meaningful way in
the creation of any human resources management system
affecting them;
(B) such employees have the most direct knowledge of the
demands of their jobs and

[[Page 23081]]

have a direct interest in ensuring that their human resources
management system is conducive to achieving optimal
operational efficiencies;
(C) the 21st century human resources management system
envisioned for the Department should be one that benefits
from the input of its employees; and
(D) this collaborative effort will help secure our
homeland.
(2) In general.--Subpart I of part III of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``CHAPTER 97--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

``Sec.
``9701. Establishment of human resources management system.

``Sec. 9701. Establishment of human resources management
system

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this part, the Secretary of Homeland Security may, in
regulations prescribed jointly with the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management, establish, and from time to
time adjust, a human resources management system for some or
all of the organizational units of the Department of Homeland
Security.
``(b) System Requirements.--Any system established under
subsection (a) shall--
``(1) be flexible;
``(2) be contemporary;
``(3) not waive, modify, or otherwise affect--
``(A) the public employment principles of merit and fitness
set forth in section 2301, including the principles of hiring
based on merit, fair treatment without regard to political
affiliation or other nonmerit considerations, equal pay for
equal work, and protection of employees against reprisal for
whistleblowing;
``(B) any provision of section 2302, relating to prohibited
personnel practices;
``(C)(i) any provision of law referred to in section
2302(b)(1), (8), and (9); or
``(ii) any provision of law implementing any provision of
law referred to in section 2302(b)(1), (8), and (9) by--
``(I) providing for equal employment opportunity through
affirmative action; or
``(II) providing any right or remedy available to any
employee or applicant for employment in the civil service;
``(D) any other provision of this part (as described in
subsection (c)); or
``(E) any rule or regulation prescribed under any provision
of law referred to in any of the preceding subparagraphs of
this paragraph;
``(4) ensure that employees may organize, bargain
collectively, and participate through labor organizations of
their own choosing in decisions which affect them, subject to
any exclusion from coverage or limitation on negotiability
established by law; and
``(5) permit the use of a category rating system for
evaluating applicants for positions in the competitive
service.
``(c) Other Nonwaivable Provisions.--The other provisions
of this part as referred to in subsection (b)(3)(D), are (to
the extent not otherwise specified in subparagraph (A), (B),
(C), or (D) of subsection (b)(3))--
``(1) subparts A, B, E, G, and H of this part; and
``(2) chapters 41, 45, 47, 55, 57, 59, 72, 73, and 79, and
this chapter.
``(d) Limitations Relating to Pay.--Nothing in this section
shall constitute authority--
``(1) to modify the pay of any employee who serves in--
``(A) an Executive Schedule position under subchapter II of
chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code; or
``(B) a position for which the rate of basic pay is fixed
in statute by reference to a section or level under
subchapter II of chapter 53 of such title 5;
``(2) to fix pay for any employee or position at an annual
rate greater than the maximum amount of cash compensation
allowable under section 5307 of such title 5 in a year; or
``(3) to exempt any employee from the application of such
section 5307.
``(e) Provisions to Ensure Collaboration With Employee
Representatives.--
``(1) In general.--In order to ensure that the authority of
this section is exercised in collaboration with, and in a
manner that ensures the participation of employee
representatives in the planning, development, and
implementation of any human resources management system or
adjustments to such system under this section, the Secretary
of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management shall provide for the following:
``(A) Notice of proposal.--The Secretary and the Director
shall, with respect to any proposed system or adjustment--
``(i) provide to each employee representative representing
any employees who might be affected, a written description of
the proposed system or adjustment (including the reasons why
it is considered necessary);
``(ii) give each representative 30 calendar days (unless
extraordinary circumstances require earlier action) to review
and make recommendations with respect to the proposal; and
``(iii) give any recommendations received from any such
representatives under clause (ii) full and fair consideration
in deciding whether or how to proceed with the proposal.
``(B) Pre-implementation congressional notification,
consultation, and mediation.--Following receipt of
recommendations, if any, from employee representatives with
respect to a proposal described in subparagraph (A), the
Secretary and the Director shall accept such modifications to
the proposal in response to the recommendations as they
determine advisable and shall, with respect to any parts of
the proposal as to which they have not accepted the
recommendations--
``(i) notify Congress of those parts of the proposal,
together with the recommendations of employee
representatives;
``(ii) meet and confer for not less than 30 calendar days
with any representatives who have made recommendations, in
order to attempt to reach agreement on whether or how to
proceed with those parts of the proposal; and
``(iii) at the Secretary's option, or if requested by a
majority of the employee representatives who have made
recommendations, use the services of the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service during such meet and confer period
to facilitate the process of attempting to reach agreement.
``(C) Implementation.--
``(i) Any part of the proposal as to which the
representatives do not make a recommendation, or as to which
their recommendations are accepted by the Secretary and the
Director, may be implemented immediately.
``(ii) With respect to any parts of the proposal as to
which recommendations have been made but not accepted by the
Secretary and the Director, at any time after 30 calendar
days have elapsed since the initiation of the congressional
notification, consultation, and mediation procedures set
forth in subparagraph (B), if the Secretary determines, in
the Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion, that
further consultation and mediation is unlikely to produce
agreement, the Secretary may implement any or all of such
parts, including any modifications made in response to the
recommendations as the Secretary determines advisable.
``(iii) The Secretary shall promptly notify Congress of the
implementation of any part of the proposal and shall furnish
with such notice an explanation of the proposal, any changes
made to the proposal as a result of recommendations from
employee representatives, and of the reasons why
implementation is appropriate under this subparagraph.
``(D) Continuing collaboration.--If a proposal described in
subparagraph (A) is implemented, the Secretary and the
Director shall--
``(i) develop a method for each employee representative to
participate in any further planning or development which
might become necessary; and
``(ii) give each employee representative adequate access to
information to make that participation productive.
``(2) Procedures.--Any procedures necessary to carry out
this subsection shall be established by the Secretary and the
Director jointly as internal rules of departmental procedure
which shall not be subject to review. Such procedures shall
include measures to ensure--
``(A) in the case of employees within a unit with respect
to which a labor organization is accorded exclusive
recognition, representation by individuals designated or from
among individuals nominated by such organization;
``(B) in the case of any employees who are not within such
a unit, representation by any appropriate organization which
represents a substantial percentage of those employees or, if
none, in such other manner as may be appropriate, consistent
with the purposes of the subsection;
``(C) the fair and expeditious handling of the consultation
and mediation process described in subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (1), including procedures by which, if the number
of employee representatives providing recommendations exceeds
5, such representatives select a committee or other unified
representative with which the Secretary and Director may meet
and confer; and
``(D) the selection of representatives in a manner
consistent with the relative number of employees represented
by the organizations or other representatives involved.
``(f) Provisions Relating to Appellate Procedures.--
(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
``(A) employees of the Department are entitled to fair
treatment in any appeals that they bring in decisions
relating to their employment; and
``(B) in prescribing regulations for any such appeals
procedures, the Secretary and the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management--
``(i) should ensure that employees of the Department are
afforded the protections of due process; and
``(ii) toward that end, should be required to consult with
the Merit Systems Protection Board before issuing any such
regulations.
``(2) Requirements.--Any regulations under this section
which relate to any matters within the purview of chapter
77--
``(A) shall be issued only after consultation with the
Merit Systems Protection Board;
``(B) shall ensure the availability of procedures which
shall--
``(i) be consistent with requirements of due process; and
``(ii) provide, to the maximum extent practicable, for the
expeditious handling of any matters involving the Department;
and
``(C) shall modify procedures under chapter 77 only insofar
as such modifications are designed to further the fair,
efficient, and expeditious resolution of matters involving
the employees of the Department.
``(g) Provisions Relating to Labor-Management Relations.--
Nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring
authority on the Secretary of Homeland Security to modify

[[Page 23082]]

any of the provisions of section 842 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002.
``(h) Sunset Provision.--Effective 5 years after the
conclusion of the transition period defined under section
1501 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, all authority to
issue regulations under this section (including regulations
which would modify, supersede, or terminate any regulations
previously issued under this section) shall cease to be
available.''.
(3) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
chapters for part III of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end of the following:

``97. Department of Homeland Security.......................9701''.....

(b) Effect on Personnel.--
(1) Nonseparation or nonreduction in grade or compensation
of full-time personnel and part-time personnel holding
permanent positions.--Except as otherwise provided in this
Act, the transfer under this Act of full-time personnel
(except special Government employees) and part-time personnel
holding permanent positions shall not cause any such employee
to be separated or reduced in grade or compensation for 1
year after the date of transfer to the Department.
(2) Positions compensated in accordance with executive
schedule.--Any person who, on the day preceding such person's
date of transfer pursuant to this Act, held a position
compensated in accordance with the Executive Schedule
prescribed in chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, and
who, without a break in service, is appointed in the
Department to a position having duties comparable to the
duties performed immediately preceding such appointment shall
continue to be compensated in such new position at not less
than the rate provided for such position, for the duration of
the service of such person in such new position.
(3) Coordination rule.--Any exercise of authority under
chapter 97 of title 5, United States Code (as amended by
subsection (a)), including under any system established under
such chapter, shall be in conformance with the requirements
of this subsection.

SEC. 842. LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS.

(a) Limitation on Exclusionary Authority.--
(1) In general.--No agency or subdivision of an agency
which is transferred to the Department pursuant to this Act
shall be excluded from the coverage of chapter 71 of title 5,
United States Code, as a result of any order issued under
section 7103(b)(1) of such title 5 after June 18, 2002,
unless--
(A) the mission and responsibilities of the agency (or
subdivision) materially change; and
(B) a majority of the employees within such agency (or
subdivision) have as their primary duty intelligence,
counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related
to terrorism investigation.

(2) Exclusions allowable.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall
affect the effectiveness of any order to the extent that such
order excludes any portion of an agency or subdivision of an
agency as to which--
(A) recognition as an appropriate unit has never been
conferred for purposes of chapter 71 of such title 5; or
(B) any such recognition has been revoked or otherwise
terminated as a result of a determination under subsection
(b)(1).
(b) Provisions Relating to Bargaining Units.--
(1) Limitation relating to appropriate units.--Each unit
which is recognized as an appropriate unit for purposes of
chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, as of the day
before the effective date of this Act (and any subdivision of
any such unit) shall, if such unit (or subdivision) is
transferred to the Department pursuant to this Act, continue
to be so recognized for such purposes, unless--
(A) the mission and responsibilities of such unit (or
subdivision) materially change; and
(B) a majority of the employees within such unit (or
subdivision) have as their primary duty intelligence,
counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related
to terrorism investigation.
(2) Limitation relating to positions or employees.--No
position or employee within a unit (or subdivision of a unit)
as to which continued recognition is given in accordance with
paragraph (1) shall be excluded from such unit (or
subdivision), for purposes of chapter 71 of such title 5,
unless the primary job duty of such position or employee--
(A) materially changes; and
(B) consists of intelligence, counterintelligence, or
investigative work directly related to terrorism
investigation.
In the case of any positions within a unit (or subdivision)
which are first established on or after the effective date of
this Act and any employees first appointed on or after such
date, the preceding sentence shall be applied disregarding
subparagraph (A).
(c) Waiver.--If the President determines that the
application of subsections (a), (b), and (d) would have a
substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Department
to protect homeland security, the President may waive the
application of such subsections 10 days after the President
has submitted to Congress a written explanation of the
reasons for such determination.
(d) Coordination Rule.--No other provision of this Act or
of any amendment made by this Act may be construed or applied
in a manner so as to limit, supersede, or otherwise affect
the provisions of this section, except to the extent that it
does so by specific reference to this section.
(e) Rule of construction.--Nothing in section 9701(e) of
title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to apply
with respect to any agency or subdivision of any agency,
which is excluded from the coverage of chapter 71 of title 5,
United States Code, by virtue of an order issued in
accordance with section 7103(b) of such title and the
preceding provisions of this section (as applicable), or to
any employees of any such agency or subdivision or to any
individual or entity representing any such employees or any
representatives thereof.

Subtitle F--Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility

SEC. 851. DEFINITION.

In this subtitle, the term ``executive agency'' has the
meaning given that term under section 4(1) of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(1)).

SEC. 852. PROCUREMENTS FOR DEFENSE AGAINST OR RECOVERY FROM
TERRORISM OR NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL, OR
RADIOLOGICAL ATTACK.

The authorities provided in this subtitle apply to any
procurement of property or services by or for an executive
agency that, as determined by the head of the executive
agency, are to be used to facilitate defense against or
recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or
radiological attack, but only if a solicitation of offers for
the procurement is issued during the 1-year period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 853. INCREASED SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION THRESHOLD FOR
PROCUREMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HUMANITARIAN OR
PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS OR CONTINGENCY
OPERATIONS.

(a) Temporary Threshold Amounts.--For a procurement
referred to in section 852 that is carried out in support of
a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation or a contingency
operation, the simplified acquisition threshold definitions
shall be applied as if the amount determined under the
exception provided for such an operation in those definitions
were--
(1) in the case of a contract to be awarded and performed,
or purchase to be made, inside the United States, $200,000;
or
(2) in the case of a contract to be awarded and performed,
or purchase to be made, outside the United States, $300,000.
(b) Simplified Acquisition Threshold Definitions.--In this
section, the term ``simplified acquisition threshold
definitions'' means the following:
(1) Section 4(11) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(11)).
(2) Section 309(d) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 259(d)).
(3) Section 2302(7) of title 10, United States Code.
(c) Small Business Reserve.--For a procurement carried out
pursuant to subsection (a), section 15(j) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(j)) shall be applied as if the
maximum anticipated value identified therein is equal to the
amounts referred to in subsection (a).

SEC. 854. INCREASED MICRO-PURCHASE THRESHOLD FOR CERTAIN
PROCUREMENTS.

In the administration of section 32 of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428) with respect
to a procurement referred to in section 852, the amount
specified in subsections (c), (d), and (f) of such section 32
shall be deemed to be $7,500.

SEC. 855. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ITEMS AUTHORITIES
TO CERTAIN PROCUREMENTS.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--The head of an executive agency may apply
the provisions of law listed in paragraph (2) to a
procurement referred to in section 852 without regard to
whether the property or services are commercial items.
(2) Commercial item laws.--The provisions of law referred
to in paragraph (1) are as follows:
(A) Sections 31 and 34 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 427, 430).
(B) Section 2304(g) of title 10, United States Code.
(C) Section 303(g) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(g)).
(b) Inapplicability of Limitation on Use of Simplified
Acquisition Procedures.--
(1) In general.--The $5,000,000 limitation provided in
section 31(a)(2) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act (41 U.S.C. 427(a)(2)), section 2304(g)(1)(B) of title 10,
United States Code, and section 303(g)(1)(B) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C.
253(g)(1)(B)) shall not apply to purchases of property or
services to which any of the provisions of law referred to in
subsection (a) are applied under the authority of this
section.
(2) OMB guidance.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall issue guidance and procedures for the use of
simplified acquisition procedures for a purchase of property
or services in excess of $5,000,000 under the authority of
this section.
(c) Continuation of Authority for Simplified Purchase
Procedures.--Authority under a provision of law referred to
in subsection (a)(2) that expires under section 4202(e) of
the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions D and E of Public
Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 2304 note) shall, notwithstanding such
section, continue to apply for use by the head of an
executive agency as provided in subsections (a) and (b).

[[Page 23083]]

SEC. 856. USE OF STREAMLINED PROCEDURES.

(a) Required Use.--The head of an executive agency shall,
when appropriate, use streamlined acquisition authorities and
procedures authorized by law for a procurement referred to in
section 852, including authorities and procedures that are
provided under the following provisions of law:
(1) Federal property and administrative services act of
1949.--In title III of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949:
(A) Paragraphs (1), (2), (6), and (7) of subsection (c) of
section 303 (41 U.S.C. 253), relating to use of procedures
other than competitive procedures under certain circumstances
(subject to subsection (e) of such section).
(B) Section 303J (41 U.S.C. 253j), relating to orders under
task and delivery order contracts.
(2) Title 10, united states code.--In chapter 137 of title
10, United States Code:
(A) Paragraphs (1), (2), (6), and (7) of subsection (c) of
section 2304, relating to use of procedures other than
competitive procedures under certain circumstances (subject
to subsection (e) of such section).
(B) Section 2304c, relating to orders under task and
delivery order contracts.
(3) Office of federal procurement policy act.--Paragraphs
(1)(B), (1)(D), and (2) of section 18(c) of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416(c)), relating
to inapplicability of a requirement for procurement notice.
(b) Waiver of Certain Small Business Threshold
Requirements.--Subclause (II) of section 8(a)(1)(D)(i) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(1)(D)(i)) and clause
(ii) of section 31(b)(2)(A) of such Act (15 U.S.C.
657a(b)(2)(A)) shall not apply in the use of streamlined
acquisition authorities and procedures referred to in
paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of subsection (a) for a
procurement referred to in section 852.

SEC. 857. REVIEW AND REPORT BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

(a) Requirements.--Not later than March 31, 2004, the
Comptroller General shall--
(1) complete a review of the extent to which procurements
of property and services have been made in accordance with
this subtitle; and
(2) submit a report on the results of the review to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Content of Report.--The report under subsection (a)(2)
shall include the following matters:
(1) Assessment.--The Comptroller General's assessment of--
(A) the extent to which property and services procured in
accordance with this title have contributed to the capacity
of the workforce of Federal Government employees within each
executive agency to carry out the mission of the executive
agency; and
(B) the extent to which Federal Government employees have
been trained on the use of technology.
(2) Recommendations.--Any recommendations of the
Comptroller General resulting from the assessment described
in paragraph (1).
(c) Consultation.--In preparing for the review under
subsection (a)(1), the Comptroller shall consult with the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives on the specific issues and topics to be
reviewed. The extent of coverage needed in areas such as
technology integration, employee training, and human capital
management, as well as the data requirements of the study,
shall be included as part of the consultation.

SEC. 858. IDENTIFICATION OF NEW ENTRANTS INTO THE FEDERAL
MARKETPLACE.

The head of each executive agency shall conduct market
research on an ongoing basis to identify effectively the
capabilities, including the capabilities of small businesses
and new entrants into Federal contracting, that are available
in the marketplace for meeting the requirements of the
executive agency in furtherance of defense against or
recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or
radiological attack. The head of the executive agency shall,
to the maximum extent practicable, take advantage of
commercially available market research methods, including use
of commercial databases, to carry out the research.

Subtitle G--Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies
Act of 2002

SEC. 861. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Support Anti-terrorism
by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002'' or the
``SAFETY Act''.

SEC. 862. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall be responsible for the
administration of this subtitle.
(b) Designation of Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technologies.--
The Secretary may designate anti-terrorism technologies that
qualify for protection under the system of risk management
set forth in this subtitle in accordance with criteria that
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Prior United States government use or demonstrated
substantial utility and effectiveness.
(2) Availability of the technology for immediate deployment
in public and private settings.
(3) Existence of extraordinarily large or extraordinarily
unquantifiable potential third party liability risk exposure
to the Seller or other provider of such anti-terrorism
technology.
(4) Substantial likelihood that such anti-terrorism
technology will not be deployed unless protections under the
system of risk management provided under this subtitle are
extended.
(5) Magnitude of risk exposure to the public if such anti-
terrorism technology is not deployed.
(6) Evaluation of all scientific studies that can be
feasibly conducted in order to assess the capability of the
technology to substantially reduce risks of harm.
(7) Anti-terrorism technology that would be effective in
facilitating the defense against acts of terrorism, including
technologies that prevent, defeat or respond to such acts.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such regulations,
after notice and comment in accordance with section 553 of
title 5, United States, Code, as may be necessary to carry
out this subtitle.

SEC. 863. LITIGATION MANAGEMENT.

(a) Federal Cause of Action.--
(1) In general.--There shall exist a Federal cause of
action for claims arising out of, relating to, or resulting
from an act of terrorism when qualified anti-terrorism
technologies have been deployed in defense against or
response or recovery from such act and such claims result or
may result in loss to the Seller. The substantive law for
decision in any such action shall be derived from the law,
including choice of law principles, of the State in which
such acts of terrorism occurred, unless such law is
inconsistent with or preempted by Federal law. Such Federal
cause of action shall be brought only for claims for injuries
that are proximately caused by sellers that provide qualified
anti-terrorism technology to Federal and non-Federal
government customers.
(2) Jurisdiction.--Such appropriate district court of the
United States shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over all actions for any claim for loss of property, personal
injury, or death arising out of, relating to, or resulting
from an act of terrorism when qualified anti-terrorism
technologies have been deployed in defense against or
response or recovery from such act and such claims result or
may result in loss to the Seller.
(b) Special Rules.--In an action brought under this section
for damages the following provisions apply:
(1) Punitive damages.--No punitive damages intended to
punish or deter, exemplary damages, or other damages not
intended to compensate a plaintiff for actual losses may be
awarded, nor shall any party be liable for interest prior to
the judgment.
(2) Noneconomic damages.--
(A) In general.--Noneconomic damages may be awarded against
a defendant only in an amount directly proportional to the
percentage of responsibility of such defendant for the harm
to the plaintiff, and no plaintiff may recover noneconomic
damages unless the plaintiff suffered physical harm.
(B) Definition.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term
``noneconomic damages'' means damages for losses for physical
and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical
impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment
of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of
consortium, hedonic damages, injury to reputation, and any
other nonpecuniary losses.
(c) Collateral Sources.--Any recovery by a plaintiff in an
action under this section shall be reduced by the amount of
collateral source compensation, if any, that the plaintiff
has received or is entitled to receive as a result of such
acts of terrorism that result or may result in loss to the
Seller.
(d) Government Contractor Defense.--
(1) In general.--Should a product liability or other
lawsuit be filed for claims arising out of, relating to, or
resulting from an act of terrorism when qualified anti-
terrorism technologies approved by the Secretary, as provided
in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, have been
deployed in defense against or response or recovery from such
act and such claims result or may result in loss to the
Seller, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the
government contractor defense applies in such lawsuit. This
presumption shall only be overcome by evidence showing that
the Seller acted fraudulently or with willful misconduct in
submitting information to the Secretary during the course of
the Secretary's consideration of such technology under this
subsection. This presumption of the government contractor
defense shall apply regardless of whether the claim against
the Seller arises from a sale of the product to Federal
Government or non-Federal Government customers.
(2) Exclusive responsibility.--The Secretary will be
exclusively responsible for the review and approval of anti-
terrorism technology for purposes of establishing a
government contractor defense in any product liability
lawsuit for claims arising out of, relating to, or resulting
from an act of terrorism when qualified anti-terrorism
technologies approved by the Secretary, as provided in this
paragraph and paragraph (3), have been deployed in defense
against or response or recovery from such act and such claims
result or may result in loss to the Seller. Upon the Seller's
submission to the Secretary for approval of anti-terrorism
technology, the Secretary will conduct a comprehensive review
of the design of such technology and determine whether it
will perform as intended, conforms to the Seller's
specifications, and is safe for use as intended. The Seller
will conduct safety and hazard analyses on such technology
and will supply the Secretary with all such information.
(3) Certificate.--For anti-terrorism technology reviewed
and approved by the Secretary, the Secretary will issue a
certificate of conformance to the Seller and place the anti-
terrorism technology on an Approved Product List for Homeland
Security.

[[Page 23084]]

(e) Exclusion.--Nothing in this section shall in any way
limit the ability of any person to seek any form of recovery
from any person, government, or other entity that--
(1) attempts to commit, knowingly participates in, aids and
abets, or commits any act of terrorism, or any criminal act
related to or resulting from such act of terrorism; or
(2) participates in a conspiracy to commit any such act of
terrorism or any such criminal act.

SEC. 864. RISK MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--
(1) Liability insurance required.--Any person or entity
that sells or otherwise provides a qualified anti-terrorism
technology to Federal and non-Federal government customers
(``Seller'') shall obtain liability insurance of such types
and in such amounts as shall be required in accordance with
this section and certified by the Secretary to satisfy
otherwise compensable third-party claims arising out of,
relating to, or resulting from an act of terrorism when
qualified anti-terrorism technologies have been deployed in
defense against or response or recovery from such act.
(2) Maximum amount.--For the total claims related to 1 such
act of terrorism, the Seller is not required to obtain
liability insurance of more than the maximum amount of
liability insurance reasonably available from private sources
on the world market at prices and terms that will not
unreasonably distort the sales price of Seller's anti-
terrorism technologies.
(3) Scope of coverage.--Liability insurance obtained
pursuant to this subsection shall, in addition to the Seller,
protect the following, to the extent of their potential
liability for involvement in the manufacture, qualification,
sale, use, or operation of qualified anti-terrorism
technologies deployed in defense against or response or
recovery from an act of terrorism:
(A) contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors and
customers of the Seller.
(B) contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors of
the customer.
(4) Third party claims.--Such liability insurance under
this section shall provide coverage against third party
claims arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the
sale or use of anti-terrorism technologies.
(b) Reciprocal Waiver of Claims.--The Seller shall enter
into a reciprocal waiver of claims with its contractors,
subcontractors, suppliers, vendors and customers, and
contractors and subcontractors of the customers, involved in
the manufacture, sale, use or operation of qualified anti-
terrorism technologies, under which each party to the waiver
agrees to be responsible for losses, including business
interruption losses, that it sustains, or for losses
sustained by its own employees resulting from an activity
resulting from an act of terrorism when qualified anti-
terrorism technologies have been deployed in defense against
or response or recovery from such act.
(c) Extent of Liability.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, liability for all claims against a Seller
arising out of, relating to, or resulting from an act of
terrorism when qualified anti-terrorism technologies have
been deployed in defense against or response or recovery from
such act and such claims result or may result in loss to the
Seller, whether for compensatory or punitive damages or for
contribution or indemnity, shall not be in an amount greater
than the limits of liability insurance coverage required to
be maintained by the Seller under this section.

SEC. 865. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this subtitle, the following definitions
apply:
(1) Qualified anti-terrorism technology.--For purposes of
this subtitle, the term ``qualified anti-terrorism
technology'' means any product, equipment, service (including
support services), device, or technology (including
information technology) designed, developed, modified, or
procured for the specific purpose of preventing, detecting,
identifying, or deterring acts of terrorism or limiting the
harm such acts might otherwise cause, that is designated as
such by the Secretary.
(2) Act of terrorism.--(A) The term ``act of terrorism''
means any act that the Secretary determines meets the
requirements under subparagraph (B), as such requirements are
further defined and specified by the Secretary.
(B) Requirements.--An act meets the requirements of this
subparagraph if the act--
(i) is unlawful;
(ii) causes harm to a person, property, or entity, in the
United States, or in the case of a domestic United States air
carrier or a United States-flag vessel (or a vessel based
principally in the United States on which United States
income tax is paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to
regulation in the United States), in or outside the United
States; and
(iii) uses or attempts to use instrumentalities, weapons or
other methods designed or intended to cause mass destruction,
injury or other loss to citizens or institutions of the
United States.
(3) Insurance carrier.--The term ``insurance carrier''
means any corporation, association, society, order, firm,
company, mutual, partnership, individual aggregation of
individuals, or any other legal entity that provides
commercial property and casualty insurance. Such term
includes any affiliates of a commercial insurance carrier.
(4) Liability insurance.--
(A) In general.--The term ``liability insurance'' means
insurance for legal liabilities incurred by the insured
resulting from--
(i) loss of or damage to property of others;
(ii) ensuing loss of income or extra expense incurred
because of loss of or damage to property of others;
(iii) bodily injury (including) to persons other than the
insured or its employees; or
(iv) loss resulting from debt or default of another.
(5) Loss.--The term ``loss'' means death, bodily injury, or
loss of or damage to property, including business
interruption loss.
(6) Non-federal government customers.--The term ``non-
Federal Government customers'' means any customer of a Seller
that is not an agency or instrumentality of the United States
Government with authority under Public Law 85-804 to provide
for indemnification under certain circumstances for third-
party claims against its contractors, including but not
limited to State and local authorities and commercial
entities.

Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Provisions

SEC. 871. ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may establish, appoint
members of, and use the services of, advisory committees, as
the Secretary may deem necessary. An advisory committee
established under this section may be exempted by the
Secretary from Public Law 92-463, but the Secretary shall
publish notice in the Federal Register announcing the
establishment of such a committee and identifying its purpose
and membership. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence,
members of an advisory committee that is exempted by the
Secretary under the preceding sentence who are special
Government employees (as that term is defined in section 202
of title 18, United States Code) shall be eligible for
certifications under subsection (b)(3) of section 208 of
title 18, United States Code, for official actions taken as a
member of such advisory committee.
(b) Termination.--Any advisory committee established by the
Secretary shall terminate 2 years after the date of its
establishment, unless the Secretary makes a written
determination to extend the advisory committee to a specified
date, which shall not be more than 2 years after the date on
which such determination is made. The Secretary may make any
number of subsequent extensions consistent with this
subsection.

SEC. 872. REORGANIZATION.

(a) Reorganization.--The Secretary may allocate or
reallocate functions among the officers of the Department,
and may establish, consolidate, alter, or discontinue
organizational units within the Department, but only--
(1) pursuant to section 1502(b); or
(2) after the expiration of 60 days after providing notice
of such action to the appropriate congressional committees,
which shall include an explanation of the rationale for the
action.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) In general.--Authority under subsection (a)(1) does not
extend to the abolition of any agency, entity, organizational
unit, program, or function established or required to be
maintained by this Act.
(2) Abolitions.--Authority under subsection (a)(2) does not
extend to the abolition of any agency, entity, organizational
unit, program, or function established or required to be
maintained by statute.

SEC. 873. USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS.

(a) Disposal of Property.--
(1) Strict compliance.--If specifically authorized to
dispose of real property in this or any other Act, the
Secretary shall exercise this authority in strict compliance
with section 204 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 485).
(2) Deposit of proceeds.--The Secretary shall deposit the
proceeds of any exercise of property disposal authority into
the miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury in accordance with
section 3302(b) of title 31, United States Code.
(b) Gifts.--Gifts or donations of services or property of
or for the Department may not be accepted, used, or disposed
of unless specifically permitted in advance in an
appropriations Act and only under the conditions and for the
purposes specified in such appropriations Act.
(c) Budget Request.--Under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code, the President shall submit to Congress a
detailed budget request for the Department for fiscal year
2004, and for each subsequent fiscal year.

SEC. 874. FUTURE YEAR HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Each budget request submitted to Congress
for the Department under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code, shall, at or about the same time, be accompanied
by a Future Years Homeland Security Program.
(b) Contents.--The Future Years Homeland Security Program
under subsection (a) shall be structured, and include the
same type of information and level of detail, as the Future
Years Defense Program submitted to Congress by the Department
of Defense under section 221 of title 10, United States Code.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect with
respect to the preparation and submission of the fiscal year
2005 budget request for the Department and for any subsequent
fiscal year, except that the first Future Years Homeland
Security Program shall be submitted not later than 90 days
after the Department's fiscal year 2005 budget request is
submitted to Congress.

SEC. 875. MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES.

(a) Seal.--The Department shall have a seal, whose design
is subject to the approval of the President.
(b) Participation of Members of the Armed Forces.--With
respect to the Department, the Secretary shall have the same
authorities that the Secretary of Transportation

[[Page 23085]]

has with respect to the Department of Transportation under
section 324 of title 49, United States Code.
(c) Redelegation of Functions.--Unless otherwise provided
in the delegation or by law, any function delegated under
this Act may be redelegated to any subordinate.

SEC. 876. MILITARY ACTIVITIES.

Nothing in this Act shall confer upon the Secretary any
authority to engage in warfighting, the military defense of
the United States, or other military activities, nor shall
anything in this Act limit the existing authority of the
Department of Defense or the Armed Forces to engage in
warfighting, the military defense of the United States, or
other military activities.

SEC. 877. REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND PREEMPTION.

(a) Regulatory Authority.--Except as otherwise provided in
sections 306(c), 862(c), and 1706(b), this Act vests no new
regulatory authority in the Secretary or any other Federal
official, and transfers to the Secretary or another Federal
official only such regulatory authority as exists on the date
of enactment of this Act within any agency, program, or
function transferred to the Department pursuant to this Act,
or that on such date of enactment is exercised by another
official of the executive branch with respect to such agency,
program, or function. Any such transferred authority may not
be exercised by an official from whom it is transferred upon
transfer of such agency, program, or function to the
Secretary or another Federal official pursuant to this Act.
This Act may not be construed as altering or diminishing the
regulatory authority of any other executive agency, except to
the extent that this Act transfers such authority from the
agency.
(b) Preemption of State or Local Law.--Except as otherwise
provided in this Act, this Act preempts no State or local
law, except that any authority to preempt State or local law
vested in any Federal agency or official transferred to the
Department pursuant to this Act shall be transferred to the
Department effective on the date of the transfer to the
Department of that Federal agency or official.

SEC. 878. COUNTERNARCOTICS OFFICER.

The Secretary shall appoint a senior official in the
Department to assume primary responsibility for coordinating
policy and operations within the Department and between the
Department and other Federal departments and agencies with
respect to interdicting the entry of illegal drugs into the
United States, and tracking and severing connections between
illegal drug trafficking and terrorism. Such official shall--
(1) ensure the adequacy of resources within the Department
for illicit drug interdiction; and
(2) serve as the United States Interdiction Coordinator for
the Director of National Drug Control Policy.

SEC. 879. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the Office
of the Secretary an Office of International Affairs. The
Office shall be headed by a Director, who shall be a senior
official appointed by the Secretary.
(b) Duties of the Director.--The Director shall have the
following duties:
(1) To promote information and education exchange with
nations friendly to the United States in order to promote
sharing of best practices and technologies relating to
homeland security. Such exchange shall include the following:
(A) Exchange of information on research and development on
homeland security technologies.
(B) Joint training exercises of first responders.
(C) Exchange of expertise on terrorism prevention,
response, and crisis management.
(2) To identify areas for homeland security information and
training exchange where the United States has a demonstrated
weakness and another friendly nation or nations have a
demonstrated expertise.
(3) To plan and undertake international conferences,
exchange programs, and training activities.
(4) To manage international activities within the
Department in coordination with other Federal officials with
responsibility for counter-terrorism matters.

SEC. 880. PROHIBITION OF THE TERRORISM INFORMATION AND
PREVENTION SYSTEM.

Any and all activities of the Federal Government to
implement the proposed component program of the Citizen Corps
known as Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention
System) are hereby prohibited.

SEC. 881. REVIEW OF PAY AND BENEFIT PLANS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Secretary shall, in consultation with the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management, review the pay and benefit
plans of each agency whose functions are transferred under
this Act to the Department and, within 90 days after the date
of enactment, submit a plan to the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
appropriate committees and subcommittees of Congress, for
ensuring, to the maximum extent practicable, the elimination
of disparities in pay and benefits throughout the Department,
especially among law enforcement personnel, that are
inconsistent with merit system principles set forth in
section 2301 of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 882. OFFICE FOR NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION COORDINATION.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established within the Office of
the Secretary the Office of National Capital Region
Coordination, to oversee and coordinate Federal programs for
and relationships with State, local, and regional authorities
in the National Capital Region, as defined under section
2674(f)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
(2) Director.--The Office established under paragraph (1)
shall be headed by a Director, who shall be appointed by the
Secretary.
(3) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall cooperate with the
Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governors of Maryland
and Virginia, and other State, local, and regional officers
in the National Capital Region to integrate the District of
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia into the planning,
coordination, and execution of the activities of the Federal
Government for the enhancement of domestic preparedness
against the consequences of terrorist attacks.
(b) Responsibilities.--The Office established under
subsection (a)(1) shall--
(1) coordinate the activities of the Department relating to
the National Capital Region, including cooperation with the
Office for State and Local Government Coordination;
(2) assess, and advocate for, the resources needed by
State, local, and regional authorities in the National
Capital Region to implement efforts to secure the homeland;
(3) provide State, local, and regional authorities in the
National Capital Region with regular information, research,
and technical support to assist the efforts of State, local,
and regional authorities in the National Capital Region in
securing the homeland;
(4) develop a process for receiving meaningful input from
State, local, and regional authorities and the private sector
in the National Capital Region to assist in the development
of the homeland security plans and activities of the Federal
Government;
(5) coordinate with Federal agencies in the National
Capital Region on terrorism preparedness, to ensure adequate
planning, information sharing, training, and execution of the
Federal role in domestic preparedness activities;
(6) coordinate with Federal, State, local, and regional
agencies, and the private sector in the National Capital
Region on terrorism preparedness to ensure adequate planning,
information sharing, training, and execution of domestic
preparedness activities among these agencies and entities;
and
(7) serve as a liaison between the Federal Government and
State, local, and regional authorities, and private sector
entities in the National Capital Region to facilitate access
to Federal grants and other programs.
(c) Annual Report.--The Office established under subsection
(a) shall submit an annual report to Congress that includes--
(1) the identification of the resources required to fully
implement homeland security efforts in the National Capital
Region;
(2) an assessment of the progress made by the National
Capital Region in implementing homeland security efforts; and
(3) recommendations to Congress regarding the additional
resources needed to fully implement homeland security efforts
in the National Capital Region.
(d) Limitation.--Nothing contained in this section shall be
construed as limiting the power of State and local
governments.

SEC. 883. REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY WITH LAWS PROTECTING EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND PROVIDING
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as exempting the
Department from requirements applicable with respect to
executive agencies--
(1) to provide equal employment protection for employees of
the Department (including pursuant to the provisions in
section 2302(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, and the
Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and
Retaliation Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-174)); or
(2) to provide whistleblower protections for employees of
the Department (including pursuant to the provisions in
section 2302(b)(8) and (9) of such title and the Notification
and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act
of 2002).

SEC. 884. FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER.

(a) In General.--The transfer of an authority or an agency
under this Act to the Department of Homeland Security does
not affect training agreements already entered into with the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center with respect to the
training of personnel to carry out that authority or the
duties of that transferred agency.
(b) Continuity of Operations.--All activities of the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center transferred to the
Department of Homeland Security under this Act shall continue
to be carried out at the locations such activities were
carried out before such transfer.

SEC. 885. JOINT INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish and operate
a permanent Joint Interagency Homeland Security Task Force
composed of representatives from military and civilian
agencies of the United States Government for the purposes of
anticipating terrorist threats against the United States and
taking appropriate actions to prevent harm to the United
States.
(b) Structure.--It is the sense of Congress that the
Secretary should model the Joint Interagency Homeland
Security Task Force on the approach taken by the Joint
Interagency Task Forces for drug interdiction at Key West,
Florida and Alameda, California, to the maximum extent
feasible and appropriate.

[[Page 23086]]

SEC. 886. SENSE OF CONGRESS REAFFIRMING THE CONTINUED
IMPORTANCE AND APPLICABILITY OF THE POSSE
COMITATUS ACT.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Section 1385 of title 18, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Posse Comitatus Act''), prohibits the use of
the Armed Forces as a posse comitatus to execute the laws
except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized
by the Constitution or Act of Congress.
(2) Enacted in 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was expressly
intended to prevent United States Marshals, on their own
initiative, from calling on the Army for assistance in
enforcing Federal law.
(3) The Posse Comitatus Act has served the Nation well in
limiting the use of the Armed Forces to enforce the law.
(4) Nevertheless, by its express terms, the Posse Comitatus
Act is not a complete barrier to the use of the Armed Forces
for a range of domestic purposes, including law enforcement
functions, when the use of the Armed Forces is authorized by
Act of Congress or the President determines that the use of
the Armed Forces is required to fulfill the President's
obligations under the Constitution to respond promptly in
time of war, insurrection, or other serious emergency.
(5) Existing laws, including chapter 15 of title 10, United
States Code (commonly known as the ``Insurrection Act''), and
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), grant the President
broad powers that may be invoked in the event of domestic
emergencies, including an attack against the Nation using
weapons of mass destruction, and these laws specifically
authorize the President to use the Armed Forces to help
restore public order.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Congress reaffirms the continued
importance of section 1385 of title 18, United States Code,
and it is the sense of Congress that nothing in this Act
should be construed to alter the applicability of such
section to any use of the Armed Forces as a posse comitatus
to execute the laws.

SEC. 887. COORDINATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
ACT.

(a) In General.--The annual Federal response plan developed
by the Department shall be consistent with section 319 of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d).
(b) Disclosures Among Relevant Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Full disclosure among relevant agencies
shall be made in accordance with this subsection.
(2) Public health emergency.--During the period in which
the Secretary of Health and Human Services has declared the
existence of a public health emergency under section 319(a)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d(a)), the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall keep relevant
agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, fully and currently informed.
(3) Potential public health emergency.--In cases involving,
or potentially involving, a public health emergency, but in
which no determination of an emergency by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services under section 319(a) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d(a)), has been made, all
relevant agencies, including the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, shall keep the Secretary of Health and
Human Services and the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention fully and currently informed.

SEC. 888. PRESERVING COAST GUARD MISSION PERFORMANCE.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Non-homeland security missions.--The term ``non-
homeland security missions'' means the following missions of
the Coast Guard:
(A) Marine safety.
(B) Search and rescue.
(C) Aids to navigation.
(D) Living marine resources (fisheries law enforcement).
(E) Marine environmental protection.
(F) Ice operations.
(2) Homeland security missions.--The term ``homeland
security missions'' means the following missions of the Coast
Guard:
(A) Ports, waterways and coastal security.
(B) Drug interdiction.
(C) Migrant interdiction.
(D) Defense readiness.
(E) Other law enforcement.
(b) Transfer.--There are transferred to the Department the
authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Coast
Guard, which shall be maintained as a distinct entity within
the Department, including the authorities and functions of
the Secretary of Transportation relating thereto.
(c) Maintenance of Status of Functions and Assets.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
authorities, functions, and capabilities of the Coast Guard
to perform its missions shall be maintained intact and
without significant reduction after the transfer of the Coast
Guard to the Department, except as specified in subsequent
Acts.
(d) Certain Transfers Prohibited.--No mission, function, or
asset (including for purposes of this subsection any ship,
aircraft, or helicopter) of the Coast Guard may be diverted
to the principal and continuing use of any other
organization, unit, or entity of the Department, except for
details or assignments that do not reduce the Coast Guard's
capability to perform its missions.
(e) Changes to Missions.--
(1) Prohibition.--The Secretary may not substantially or
significantly reduce the missions of the Coast Guard or the
Coast Guard's capability to perform those missions, except as
specified in subsequent Acts.
(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the restrictions under
paragraph (1) for a period of not to exceed 90 days upon a
declaration and certification by the Secretary to Congress
that a clear, compelling, and immediate need exists for such
a waiver. A certification under this paragraph shall include
a detailed justification for the declaration and
certification, including the reasons and specific information
that demonstrate that the Nation and the Coast Guard cannot
respond effectively if the restrictions under paragraph (1)
are not waived.
(f) Annual Review.--
(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Department
shall conduct an annual review that shall assess thoroughly
the performance by the Coast Guard of all missions of the
Coast Guard (including non-homeland security missions and
homeland security missions) with a particular emphasis on
examining the non-homeland security missions.
(2) Report.--The report under this paragraph shall be
submitted to--
(A) the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate;
(B) the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives;
(C) the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives;
(D) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate; and
(E) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.
(g) Direct Reporting to Secretary.--Upon the transfer of
the Coast Guard to the Department, the Commandant shall
report directly to the Secretary without being required to
report through any other official of the Department.
(h) Operation as a Service in the Navy.--None of the
conditions and restrictions in this section shall apply when
the Coast Guard operates as a service in the Navy under
section 3 of title 14, United States Code.
(i) Report on Accelerating the Integrated Deepwater
System.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, shall submit a report to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives, and the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
that--
(1) analyzes the feasibility of accelerating the rate of
procurement in the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater System
from 20 years to 10 years;
(2) includes an estimate of additional resources required;
(3) describes the resulting increased capabilities;
(4) outlines any increases in the Coast Guard's homeland
security readiness;
(5) describes any increases in operational efficiencies;
and
(6) provides a revised asset phase-in time line.

SEC. 889. HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING ANALYSIS IN PRESIDENT'S
BUDGET.

(a) In General.--Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(33)(A)(i) a detailed, separate analysis, by budget
function, by agency, and by initiative area (as determined by
the administration) for the prior fiscal year, the current
fiscal year, the fiscal years for which the budget is
submitted, and the ensuing fiscal year identifying the
amounts of gross and net appropriations or obligational
authority and outlays that contribute to homeland security,
with separate displays for mandatory and discretionary
amounts, including--
``(I) summaries of the total amount of such appropriations
or new obligational authority and outlays requested for
homeland security;
``(II) an estimate of the current service levels of
homeland security spending;
``(III) the most recent risk assessment and summary of
homeland security needs in each initiative area (as
determined by the administration); and
``(IV) an estimate of user fees collected by the Federal
Government on behalf of homeland security activities;
``(ii) with respect to subclauses (I) through (IV) of
clause (i), amounts shall be provided by account for each
program, project and activity; and
``(iii) an estimate of expenditures for homeland security
activities by State and local governments and the private
sector for the prior fiscal year and the current fiscal year.
``(B) In this paragraph, consistent with the Office of
Management and Budget's June 2002 `Annual Report to Congress
on Combatting Terrorism', the term `homeland security' refers
to those activities that detect, deter, protect against, and
respond to terrorist attacks occurring within the United
States and its territories.
``(C) In implementing this paragraph, including determining
what Federal activities or accounts constitute homeland
security for purposes of budgetary classification, the Office
of Management and Budget is directed to consult periodically,
but at least annually, with the House and Senate Budget
Committees, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees,
and the Congressional Budget Office.''.

[[Page 23087]]

(b) Repeal of Duplicative Reports.--The following sections
are repealed:
(1) Section 1051 of Public Law 105-85.
(2) Section 1403 of Public Law 105-261.
(c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendment made by
this section shall apply beginning with respect to the fiscal
year 2005 budget submission.

SEC. 890. AIR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND SYSTEM STABILIZATION
ACT.

The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act
(49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended--
(1) in section 408 by striking the last sentence of
subsection (c); and
(2) in section 402 by striking paragraph (1) and inserting
the following:
``(1) Air carrier.--The term `air carrier' means a citizen
of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or
indirectly, to provide air transportation and includes
employees and agents (including persons engaged in the
business of providing air transportation security and their
affiliates) of such citizen. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `agent', as applied to persons engaged in
the business of providing air transportation security, shall
only include persons that have contracted directly with the
Federal Aviation Administration on or after and commenced
services no later than February 17, 2002, to provide such
security, and had not been or are not debarred for any period
within 6 months from that date.''.

Subtitle I--Information Sharing

SEC. 891. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS; AND SENSE OF CONGRESS.

(a) Short Title.--This subtitle may be cited as the
``Homeland Security Information Sharing Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Federal Government is required by the Constitution
to provide for the common defense, which includes terrorist
attack.
(2) The Federal Government relies on State and local
personnel to protect against terrorist attack.
(3) The Federal Government collects, creates, manages, and
protects classified and sensitive but unclassified
information to enhance homeland security.
(4) Some homeland security information is needed by the
State and local personnel to prevent and prepare for
terrorist attack.
(5) The needs of State and local personnel to have access
to relevant homeland security information to combat terrorism
must be reconciled with the need to preserve the protected
status of such information and to protect the sources and
methods used to acquire such information.
(6) Granting security clearances to certain State and local
personnel is one way to facilitate the sharing of information
regarding specific terrorist threats among Federal, State,
and local levels of government.
(7) Methods exist to declassify, redact, or otherwise adapt
classified information so it may be shared with State and
local personnel without the need for granting additional
security clearances.
(8) State and local personnel have capabilities and
opportunities to gather information on suspicious activities
and terrorist threats not possessed by Federal agencies.
(9) The Federal Government and State and local governments
and agencies in other jurisdictions may benefit from such
information.
(10) Federal, State, and local governments and
intelligence, law enforcement, and other emergency
preparation and response agencies must act in partnership to
maximize the benefits of information gathering and analysis
to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.
(11) Information systems, including the National Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System and the Terrorist
Threat Warning System, have been established for rapid
sharing of classified and sensitive but unclassified
information among Federal, State, and local entities.
(12) Increased efforts to share homeland security
information should avoid duplicating existing information
systems.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
Federal, State, and local entities should share homeland
security information to the maximum extent practicable, with
special emphasis on hard-to-reach urban and rural
communities.

SEC. 892. FACILITATING HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION SHARING
PROCEDURES.

(a) Procedures for Determining Extent of Sharing of
Homeland Security Information.--
(1) The President shall prescribe and implement procedures
under which relevant Federal agencies--
(A) share relevant and appropriate homeland security
information with other Federal agencies, including the
Department, and appropriate State and local personnel;
(B) identify and safeguard homeland security information
that is sensitive but unclassified; and
(C) to the extent such information is in classified form,
determine whether, how, and to what extent to remove
classified information, as appropriate, and with which such
personnel it may be shared after such information is removed.
(2) The President shall ensure that such procedures apply
to all agencies of the Federal Government.
(3) Such procedures shall not change the substantive
requirements for the classification and safeguarding of
classified information.
(4) Such procedures shall not change the requirements and
authorities to protect sources and methods.
(b) Procedures for Sharing of Homeland Security
Information.--
(1) Under procedures prescribed by the President, all
appropriate agencies, including the intelligence community,
shall, through information sharing systems, share homeland
security information with Federal agencies and appropriate
State and local personnel to the extent such information may
be shared, as determined in accordance with subsection (a),
together with assessments of the credibility of such
information.
(2) Each information sharing system through which
information is shared under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) have the capability to transmit unclassified or
classified information, though the procedures and recipients
for each capability may differ;
(B) have the capability to restrict delivery of information
to specified subgroups by geographic location, type of
organization, position of a recipient within an organization,
or a recipient's need to know such information;
(C) be configured to allow the efficient and effective
sharing of information; and
(D) be accessible to appropriate State and local personnel.
(3) The procedures prescribed under paragraph (1) shall
establish conditions on the use of information shared under
paragraph (1)--
(A) to limit the redissemination of such information to
ensure that such information is not used for an unauthorized
purpose;
(B) to ensure the security and confidentiality of such
information;
(C) to protect the constitutional and statutory rights of
any individuals who are subjects of such information; and
(D) to provide data integrity through the timely removal
and destruction of obsolete or erroneous names and
information.
(4) The procedures prescribed under paragraph (1) shall
ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that the
information sharing system through which information is
shared under such paragraph include existing information
sharing systems, including, but not limited to, the National
Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, the Regional
Information Sharing System, and the Terrorist Threat Warning
System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(5) Each appropriate Federal agency, as determined by the
President, shall have access to each information sharing
system through which information is shared under paragraph
(1), and shall therefore have access to all information, as
appropriate, shared under such paragraph.
(6) The procedures prescribed under paragraph (1) shall
ensure that appropriate State and local personnel are
authorized to use such information sharing systems--
(A) to access information shared with such personnel; and
(B) to share, with others who have access to such
information sharing systems, the homeland security
information of their own jurisdictions, which shall be marked
appropriately as pertaining to potential terrorist activity.
(7) Under procedures prescribed jointly by the Director of
Central Intelligence and the Attorney General, each
appropriate Federal agency, as determined by the President,
shall review and assess the information shared under
paragraph (6) and integrate such information with existing
intelligence.
(c) Sharing of Classified Information and Sensitive but
Unclassified Information With State and Local Personnel.--
(1) The President shall prescribe procedures under which
Federal agencies may, to the extent the President considers
necessary, share with appropriate State and local personnel
homeland security information that remains classified or
otherwise protected after the determinations prescribed under
the procedures set forth in subsection (a).
(2) It is the sense of Congress that such procedures may
include 1 or more of the following means:
(A) Carrying out security clearance investigations with
respect to appropriate State and local personnel.
(B) With respect to information that is sensitive but
unclassified, entering into nondisclosure agreements with
appropriate State and local personnel.
(C) Increased use of information-sharing partnerships that
include appropriate State and local personnel, such as the
Joint Terrorism Task Forces of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Anti-Terrorism Task Forces of the
Department of Justice, and regional Terrorism Early Warning
Groups.
(d) Responsible Officials.--For each affected Federal
agency, the head of such agency shall designate an official
to administer this Act with respect to such agency.
(e) Federal Control of Information.--Under procedures
prescribed under this section, information obtained by a
State or local government from a Federal agency under this
section shall remain under the control of the Federal agency,
and a State or local law authorizing or requiring such a
government to disclose information shall not apply to such
information.
(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) The term ``homeland security information'' means any
information possessed by a Federal, State, or local agency
that--
(A) relates to the threat of terrorist activity;
(B) relates to the ability to prevent, interdict, or
disrupt terrorist activity;
(C) would improve the identification or investigation of a
suspected terrorist or terrorist organization; or

[[Page 23088]]

(D) would improve the response to a terrorist act.
(2) The term ``intelligence community'' has the meaning
given such term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act
of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
(3) The term ``State and local personnel'' means any of the
following persons involved in prevention, preparation, or
response for terrorist attack:
(A) State Governors, mayors, and other locally elected
officials.
(B) State and local law enforcement personnel and
firefighters.
(C) Public health and medical professionals.
(D) Regional, State, and local emergency management agency
personnel, including State adjutant generals.
(E) Other appropriate emergency response agency personnel.
(F) Employees of private-sector entities that affect
critical infrastructure, cyber, economic, or public health
security, as designated by the Federal government in
procedures developed pursuant to this section.
(4) The term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia
and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United
States.
(g) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
as authorizing any department, bureau, agency, officer, or
employee of the Federal Government to request, receive, or
transmit to any other Government entity or personnel, or
transmit to any State or local entity or personnel otherwise
authorized by this Act to receive homeland security
information, any information collected by the Federal
Government solely for statistical purposes in violation of
any other provision of law relating to the confidentiality of
such information.

SEC. 893. REPORT.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 12 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit
to the congressional committees specified in subsection (b) a
report on the implementation of section 892. The report shall
include any recommendations for additional measures or
appropriation requests, beyond the requirements of section
892, to increase the effectiveness of sharing of information
between and among Federal, State, and local entities.
(b) Specified Congressional Committees.--The congressional
committees referred to in subsection (a) are the following
committees:
(1) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
(2) The Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee
on the Judiciary of the Senate.

SEC. 894. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out section 892.

SEC. 895. AUTHORITY TO SHARE GRAND JURY INFORMATION.

Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, or of guidelines
jointly issued by the Attorney General and Director of
Central Intelligence pursuant to Rule 6,'' after ``Rule 6'';
and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by inserting ``or of a foreign
government'' after ``(including personnel of a state or
subdivision of a state'';
(B) in subparagraph (C)(i)--
(i) in subclause (I), by inserting before the semicolon the
following: ``or, upon a request by an attorney for the
government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for
use in an official criminal investigation'';
(ii) in subclause (IV)--

(I) by inserting ``or foreign'' after ``may disclose a
violation of State'';
(II) by inserting ``or of a foreign government'' after ``to
an appropriate official of a State or subdivision of a
State''; and
(III) by striking ``or'' at the end;

(iii) by striking the period at the end of subclause (V)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(VI) when matters involve a threat of actual or potential
attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an
agent of a foreign power, domestic or international sabotage,
domestic or international terrorism, or clandestine
intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service
or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign
power, within the United States or elsewhere, to any
appropriate federal, state, local, or foreign government
official for the purpose of preventing or responding to such
a threat.''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C)(iii)--
(i) by striking ``Federal'';
(ii) by inserting ``or clause (i)(VI)'' after ``clause
(i)(V)''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following: ``Any state,
local, or foreign official who receives information pursuant
to clause (i)(VI) shall use that information only consistent
with such guidelines as the Attorney General and Director of
Central Intelligence shall jointly issue.''.

SEC. 896. AUTHORITY TO SHARE ELECTRONIC, WIRE, AND ORAL
INTERCEPTION INFORMATION.

Section 2517 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(7) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or
other Federal official in carrying out official duties as
such Federal official, who by any means authorized by this
chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire,
oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived
therefrom, may disclose such contents or derivative evidence
to a foreign investigative or law enforcement officer to the
extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper
performance of the official duties of the officer making or
receiving the disclosure, and foreign investigative or law
enforcement officers may use or disclose such contents or
derivative evidence to the extent such use or disclosure is
appropriate to the proper performance of their official
duties.
``(8) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or
other Federal official in carrying out official duties as
such Federal official, who by any means authorized by this
chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire,
oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived
therefrom, may disclose such contents or derivative evidence
to any appropriate Federal, State, local, or foreign
government official to the extent that such contents or
derivative evidence reveals a threat of actual or potential
attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an
agent of a foreign power, domestic or international sabotage,
domestic or international terrorism, or clandestine
intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service
or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign
power, within the United States or elsewhere, for the purpose
of preventing or responding to such a threat. Any official
who receives information pursuant to this provision may use
that information only as necessary in the conduct of that
person's official duties subject to any limitations on the
unauthorized disclosure of such information, and any State,
local, or foreign official who receives information pursuant
to this provision may use that information only consistent
with such guidelines as the Attorney General and Director of
Central Intelligence shall jointly issue.''.

SEC. 897. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

(a) Dissemination Authorized.--Section 203(d)(1) of the
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA
PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56; 50 U.S.C. 403-
5d) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Consistent with the responsibility of the Director of
Central Intelligence to protect intelligence sources and
methods, and the responsibility of the Attorney General to
protect sensitive law enforcement information, it shall be
lawful for information revealing a threat of actual or
potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign
power or an agent of a foreign power, domestic or
international sabotage, domestic or international terrorism,
or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an
intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an
agent of a foreign power, within the United States or
elsewhere, obtained as part of a criminal investigation to be
disclosed to any appropriate Federal, State, local, or
foreign government official for the purpose of preventing or
responding to such a threat. Any official who receives
information pursuant to this provision may use that
information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's
official duties subject to any limitations on the
unauthorized disclosure of such information, and any State,
local, or foreign official who receives information pursuant
to this provision may use that information only consistent
with such guidelines as the Attorney General and Director of
Central Intelligence shall jointly issue.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 203(c) of that Act is
amended--
(1) by striking ``section 2517(6)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (6) and (8) of section 2517 of title 18, United
States Code,''; and
(2) by inserting ``and (VI)'' after ``Rule
6(e)(3)(C)(i)(V)''.

SEC. 898. INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM AN ELECTRONIC
SURVEILLANCE.

Section 106(k)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1806) is amended by inserting after
``law enforcement officers'' the following: ``or law
enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of
a State (including the chief executive officer of that State
or political subdivision who has the authority to appoint or
direct the chief law enforcement officer of that State or
political subdivision)''.

SEC. 899. INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM A PHYSICAL SEARCH.

Section 305(k)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1825) is amended by inserting after
``law enforcement officers'' the following: ``or law
enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of
a State (including the chief executive officer of that State
or political subdivision who has the authority to appoint or
direct the chief law enforcement officer of that State or
political subdivision)''.

TITLE IX--NATIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY COUNCIL

SEC. 901. NATIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY COUNCIL.

There is established within the Executive Office of the
President a council to be known as the ``Homeland Security
Council'' (in this title referred to as the ``Council'').

SEC. 902. FUNCTION.

The function of the Council shall be to advise the
President on homeland security matters.

SEC. 903. MEMBERSHIP.

The members of the Council shall be the following:
(1) The President.
(2) The Vice President.
(3) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
(4) The Attorney General.
(5) The Secretary of Defense.

[[Page 23089]]

(6) Such other individuals as may be designated by the
President.

SEC. 904. OTHER FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES.

For the purpose of more effectively coordinating the
policies and functions of the United States Government
relating to homeland security, the Council shall--
(1) assess the objectives, commitments, and risks of the
United States in the interest of homeland security and to
make resulting recommendations to the President;
(2) oversee and review homeland security policies of the
Federal Government and to make resulting recommendations to
the President; and
(3) perform such other functions as the President may
direct.

SEC. 905. STAFF COMPOSITION.

The Council shall have a staff, the head of which shall be
a civilian Executive Secretary, who shall be appointed by the
President. The President is authorized to fix the pay of the
Executive Secretary at a rate not to exceed the rate of pay
payable to the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council.

SEC. 906. RELATION TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

The President may convene joint meetings of the Homeland
Security Council and the National Security Council with
participation by members of either Council or as the
President may otherwise direct.

TITLE X--INFORMATION SECURITY

SEC. 1001. INFORMATION SECURITY.

(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Federal
Information Security Management Act of 2002''.
(b) Information Security.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 35 of title 44,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``SUBCHAPTER II--INFORMATION SECURITY

``Sec. 3531. Purposes

``The purposes of this subchapter are to--
``(1) provide a comprehensive framework for ensuring the
effectiveness of information security controls over
information resources that support Federal operations and
assets;
``(2) recognize the highly networked nature of the current
Federal computing environment and provide effective
governmentwide management and oversight of the related
information security risks, including coordination of
information security efforts throughout the civilian,
national security, and law enforcement communities;
``(3) provide for development and maintenance of minimum
controls required to protect Federal information and
information systems;
``(4) provide a mechanism for improved oversight of Federal
agency information security programs;
``(5) acknowledge that commercially developed information
security products offer advanced, dynamic, robust, and
effective information security solutions, reflecting market
solutions for the protection of critical information
infrastructures important to the national defense and
economic security of the nation that are designed, built, and
operated by the private sector; and
``(6) recognize that the selection of specific technical
hardware and software information security solutions should
be left to individual agencies from among commercially
developed products.''.

``Sec. 3532. Definitions

``(a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b),
the definitions under section 3502 shall apply to this
subchapter.
``(b) Additional Definitions.--As used in this subchapter--
``(1) the term `information security' means protecting
information and information systems from unauthorized access,
use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in
order to provide--
``(A) integrity, which means guarding against improper
information modification or destruction, and includes
ensuring information nonrepudiation and authenticity;
``(B) confidentiality, which means preserving authorized
restrictions on access and disclosure, including means for
protecting personal privacy and proprietary information;
``(C) availability, which means ensuring timely and
reliable access to and use of information; and
``(D) authentication, which means utilizing digital
credentials to assure the identity of users and validate
their access;
``(2) the term `national security system' means any
information system (including any telecommunications system)
used or operated by an agency or by a contractor of an
agency, or other organization on behalf of an agency, the
function, operation, or use of which--
``(A) involves intelligence activities;
``(B) involves cryptologic activities related to national
security;
``(C) involves command and control of military forces;
``(D) involves equipment that is an integral part of a
weapon or weapons system; or
``(E) is critical to the direct fulfillment of military or
intelligence missions provided that this definition does not
apply to a system that is used for routine administrative and
business applications (including payroll, finance, logistics,
and personnel management applications);
``(3) the term `information technology' has the meaning
given that term in section 11101 of title 40; and
``(4) the term `information system' means any equipment or
interconnected system or subsystems of equipment that is used
in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation,
management, movement, control, display, switching,
interchange, transmission, or reception of data or
information, and includes--
``(A) computers and computer networks;
``(B) ancillary equipment;
``(C) software, firmware, and related procedures;
``(D) services, including support services; and
``(E) related resources.''.

``Sec. 3533. Authority and functions of the Director

``(a) The Director shall oversee agency information
security policies and practices, by--
``(1) promulgating information security standards under
section 11331 of title 40;
``(2) overseeing the implementation of policies,
principles, standards, and guidelines on information
security;
``(3) requiring agencies, consistent with the standards
promulgated under such section 11331 and the requirements of
this subchapter, to identify and provide information security
protections commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the
harm resulting from the unauthorized access, use, disclosure,
disruption, modification, or destruction of--
``(A) information collected or maintained by or on behalf
of an agency; or
``(B) information systems used or operated by an agency or
by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf
of an agency;
``(4) coordinating the development of standards and
guidelines under section 20 of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3) with agencies
and offices operating or exercising control of national
security systems (including the National Security Agency) to
assure, to the maximum extent feasible, that such standards
and guidelines are complementary with standards and
guidelines developed for national security systems;
``(5) overseeing agency compliance with the requirements of
this subchapter, including through any authorized action
under section 11303(b)(5) of title 40, to enforce
accountability for compliance with such requirements;
``(6) reviewing at least annually, and approving or
disapproving, agency information security programs required
under section 3534(b);
``(7) coordinating information security policies and
procedures with related information resources management
policies and procedures; and
``(8) reporting to Congress no later than March 1 of each
year on agency compliance with the requirements of this
subchapter, including--
``(A) a summary of the findings of evaluations required by
section 3535;
``(B) significant deficiencies in agency information
security practices;
``(C) planned remedial action to address such deficiencies;
and
``(D) a summary of, and the views of the Director on, the
report prepared by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology under section 20(d)(9) of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3).''.
``(b) Except for the authorities described in paragraphs
(4) and (7) of subsection (a), the authorities of the
Director under this section shall not apply to national
security systems.

``Sec. 3534. Federal agency responsibilities

``(a) The head of each agency shall--
``(1) be responsible for--
``(A) providing information security protections
commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm
resulting from unauthorized access, use, disclosure,
disruption, modification, or destruction of--
``(i) information collected or maintained by or on behalf
of the agency; and
``(ii) information systems used or operated by an agency or
by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf
of an agency;
``(B) complying with the requirements of this subchapter
and related policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines,
including--
``(i) information security standards promulgated by the
Director under section 11331 of title 40; and
``(ii) information security standards and guidelines for
national security systems issued in accordance with law and
as directed by the President; and
``(C) ensuring that information security management
processes are integrated with agency strategic and
operational planning processes;
``(2) ensure that senior agency officials provide
information security for the information and information
systems that support the operations and assets under their
control, including through--
``(A) assessing the risk and magnitude of the harm that
could result from the unauthorized access, use, disclosure,
disruption, modification, or destruction of such information
or information systems;
``(B) determining the levels of information security
appropriate to protect such information and information
systems in accordance with standards promulgated under
section 11331 of title 40 for information security
classifications and related requirements;
``(C) implementing policies and procedures to cost-
effectively reduce risks to an acceptable level; and
``(D) periodically testing and evaluating information
security controls and techniques to ensure that they are
effectively implemented;
``(3) delegate to the agency Chief Information Officer
established under section 3506 (or comparable official in an
agency not covered by such section) the authority to ensure
compliance

[[Page 23090]]

with the requirements imposed on the agency under this
subchapter, including--
``(A) designating a senior agency information security
officer who shall--
``(i) carry out the Chief Information Officer's
responsibilities under this section;
``(ii) possess professional qualifications, including
training and experience, required to administer the functions
described under this section;
``(iii) have information security duties as that official's
primary duty; and
``(iv) head an office with the mission and resources to
assist in ensuring agency compliance with this section;
``(B) developing and maintaining an agencywide information
security program as required by subsection (b);
``(C) developing and maintaining information security
policies, procedures, and control techniques to address all
applicable requirements, including those issued under section
3533 of this title, and section 11331 of title 40;
``(D) training and overseeing personnel with significant
responsibilities for information security with respect to
such responsibilities; and
``(E) assisting senior agency officials concerning their
responsibilities under paragraph (2);
``(4) ensure that the agency has trained personnel
sufficient to assist the agency in complying with the
requirements of this subchapter and related policies,
procedures, standards, and guidelines; and
``(5) ensure that the agency Chief Information Officer, in
coordination with other senior agency officials, reports
annually to the agency head on the effectiveness of the
agency information security program, including progress of
remedial actions.
``(b) Each agency shall develop, document, and implement an
agencywide information security program, approved by the
Director under section 3533(a)(5), to provide information
security for the information and information systems that
support the operations and assets of the agency, including
those provided or managed by another agency, contractor, or
other source, that includes--
``(1) periodic assessments of the risk and magnitude of the
harm that could result from the unauthorized access, use,
disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of
information and information systems that support the
operations and assets of the agency;
``(2) policies and procedures that--
``(A) are based on the risk assessments required by
paragraph (1);
``(B) cost-effectively reduce information security risks to
an acceptable level;
``(C) ensure that information security is addressed
throughout the life cycle of each agency information system;
and
``(D) ensure compliance with--
``(i) the requirements of this subchapter;
``(ii) policies and procedures as may be prescribed by the
Director, and information security standards promulgated
under section 11331 of title 40;
``(iii) minimally acceptable system configuration
requirements, as determined by the agency; and
``(iv) any other applicable requirements, including
standards and guidelines for national security systems issued
in accordance with law and as directed by the President;
``(3) subordinate plans for providing adequate information
security for networks, facilities, and systems or groups of
information systems, as appropriate;
``(4) security awareness training to inform personnel,
including contractors and other users of information systems
that support the operations and assets of the agency, of--
``(A) information security risks associated with their
activities; and
``(B) their responsibilities in complying with agency
policies and procedures designed to reduce these risks;
``(5) periodic testing and evaluation of the effectiveness
of information security policies, procedures, and practices,
to be performed with a frequency depending on risk, but no
less than annually, of which such testing--
``(A) shall include testing of management, operational, and
technical controls of every information system identified in
the inventory required under section 3505(c); and
``(B) may include testing relied on in a evaluation under
section 3535;
``(6) a process for planning, implementing, evaluating, and
documenting remedial action to address any deficiencies in
the information security policies, procedures, and practices
of the agency;
``(7) procedures for detecting, reporting, and responding
to security incidents, including--
``(A) mitigating risks associated with such incidents
before substantial damage is done; and
``(B) notifying and consulting with, as appropriate--
``(i) law enforcement agencies and relevant Offices of
Inspector General;
``(ii) an office designated by the President for any
incident involving a national security system; and
``(iii) any other agency or office, in accordance with law
or as directed by the President; and
``(8) plans and procedures to ensure continuity of
operations for information systems that support the
operations and assets of the agency.
``(c) Each agency shall--
``(1) report annually to the Director, the Committees on
Government Reform and Science of the House of
Representatives, the Committees on Governmental Affairs and
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the
appropriate authorization and appropriations committees of
Congress, and the Comptroller General on the adequacy and
effectiveness of information security policies, procedures,
and practices, and compliance with the requirements of this
subchapter, including compliance with each requirement of
subsection (b);
``(2) address the adequacy and effectiveness of information
security policies, procedures, and practices in plans and
reports relating to--
``(A) annual agency budgets;
``(B) information resources management under subchapter 1
of this chapter;
``(C) information technology management under subtitle III
of title 40;
``(D) program performance under sections 1105 and 1115
through 1119 of title 31, and sections 2801 and 2805 of title
39;
``(E) financial management under chapter 9 of title 31, and
the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 501 note;
Public Law 101-576) (and the amendments made by that Act);
``(F) financial management systems under the Federal
Financial Management Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. 3512 note);
and
``(G) internal accounting and administrative controls under
section 3512 of title 31, United States Code, (known as the
`Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act'); and
``(3) report any significant deficiency in a policy,
procedure, or practice identified under paragraph (1) or
(2)--
``(A) as a material weakness in reporting under section
3512 of title 31; and
``(B) if relating to financial management systems, as an
instance of a lack of substantial compliance under the
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. 3512
note).
``(d)(1) In addition to the requirements of subsection (c),
each agency, in consultation with the Director, shall include
as part of the performance plan required under section 1115
of title 31 a description of--
``(A) the time periods, and
``(B) the resources, including budget, staffing, and
training,
that are necessary to implement the program required under
subsection (b).
``(2) The description under paragraph (1) shall be based on
the risk assessments required under subsection (b)(2)(1).
``(e) Each agency shall provide the public with timely
notice and opportunities for comment on proposed information
security policies and procedures to the extent that such
policies and procedures affect communication with the public.

``Sec. 3535. Annual independent evaluation

``(a)(1) Each year each agency shall have performed an
independent evaluation of the information security program
and practices of that agency to determine the effectiveness
of such program and practices.
``(2) Each evaluation by an agency under this section shall
include--
``(A) testing of the effectiveness of information security
policies, procedures, and practices of a representative
subset of the agency's information systems;
``(B) an assessment (made on the basis of the results of
the testing) of compliance with--
``(i) the requirements of this subchapter; and
``(ii) related information security policies, procedures,
standards, and guidelines; and
``(C) separate presentations, as appropriate, regarding
information security relating to national security systems.
``(b) Subject to subsection (c)--
``(1) for each agency with an Inspector General appointed
under the Inspector General Act of 1978, the annual
evaluation required by this section shall be performed by the
Inspector General or by an independent external auditor, as
determined by the Inspector General of the agency; and
``(2) for each agency to which paragraph (1) does not
apply, the head of the agency shall engage an independent
external auditor to perform the evaluation.
``(c) For each agency operating or exercising control of a
national security system, that portion of the evaluation
required by this section directly relating to a national
security system shall be performed--
``(1) only by an entity designated by the agency head; and
``(2) in such a manner as to ensure appropriate protection
for information associated with any information security
vulnerability in such system commensurate with the risk and
in accordance with all applicable laws.
``(d) The evaluation required by this section--
``(1) shall be performed in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards; and
``(2) may be based in whole or in part on an audit,
evaluation, or report relating to programs or practices of
the applicable agency.
``(e) Each year, not later than such date established by
the Director, the head of each agency shall submit to the
Director the results of the evaluation required under this
section.
``(f) Agencies and evaluators shall take appropriate steps
to ensure the protection of information which, if disclosed,
may adversely affect information security. Such protections
shall be commensurate with the risk and comply with all
applicable laws and regulations.
``(g)(1) The Director shall summarize the results of the
evaluations conducted under this section in the report to
Congress required under section 3533(a)(8).
``(2) The Director's report to Congress under this
subsection shall summarize information regarding information
security relating to national security systems in such a
manner as to

[[Page 23091]]

ensure appropriate protection for information associated with
any information security vulnerability in such system
commensurate with the risk and in accordance with all
applicable laws.
``(3) Evaluations and any other descriptions of information
systems under the authority and control of the Director of
Central Intelligence or of National Foreign Intelligence
Programs systems under the authority and control of the
Secretary of Defense shall be made available to Congress only
through the appropriate oversight committees of Congress, in
accordance with applicable laws.
``(h) The Comptroller General shall periodically evaluate
and report to Congress on--
``(1) the adequacy and effectiveness of agency information
security policies and practices; and
``(2) implementation of the requirements of this
subchapter.

``Sec. 3536. National security systems

``The head of each agency operating or exercising control
of a national security system shall be responsible for
ensuring that the agency--
``(1) provides information security protections
commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm
resulting from the unauthorized access, use, disclosure,
disruption, modification, or destruction of the information
contained in such system;
``(2) implements information security policies and
practices as required by standards and guidelines for
national security systems, issued in accordance with law and
as directed by the President; and
``(3) complies with the requirements of this subchapter.

``Sec. 3537. Authorization of appropriations

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the
provisions of this subchapter such sums as may be necessary
for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.

``Sec. 3538. Effect on existing law

``Nothing in this subchapter, section 11331 of title 40, or
section 20 of the National Standards and Technology Act (15
U.S.C. 278g-3) may be construed as affecting the authority of
the President, the Office of Management and Budget or the
Director thereof, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, or the head of any agency, with respect to the
authorized use or disclosure of information, including with
regard to the protection of personal privacy under section
552a of title 5, the disclosure of information under section
552 of title 5, the management and disposition of records
under chapters 29, 31, or 33 of title 44, the management of
information resources under subchapter I of chapter 35 of
this title, or the disclosure of information to Congress or
the Comptroller General of the United States.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The items in the table of sections
at the beginning of such chapter 35 under the heading
``SUBCHAPTER II'' are amended to read as follows:

``3531. Purposes.
``3532. Definitions.
``3533. Authority and functions of the Director.
``3534. Federal agency responsibilities.
``3535. Annual independent evaluation.
``3536. National security systems.
``3537. Authorization of appropriations.
``3538. Effect on existing law.''.

(c) Information Security Responsibilities of Certain
Agencies.--
(1) National security responsibilities.--(A) Nothing in
this Act (including any amendment made by this Act) shall
supersede any authority of the Secretary of Defense, the
Director of Central Intelligence, or other agency head, as
authorized by law and as directed by the President, with
regard to the operation, control, or management of national
security systems, as defined by section 3532(3) of title 44,
United States Code.
(B) Section 2224 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(i) in subsection 2224(b), by striking ``(b) Objectives and
Minimum Requirements.--(1)'' and inserting ``(b) Objectives
of the Program.--'';
(ii) in subsection 2224(b), by striking ``(2) the program
shall at a minimum meet the requirements of section 3534 and
3535 of title 44, United States Code.''; and
(iii) in subsection 2224(c), by inserting ``, including
through compliance with subtitle II of chapter 35 of title
44'' after ``infrastructure''.
(2) Atomic energy act of 1954.--Nothing in this Act shall
supersede any requirement made by or under the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). Restricted Data or
Formerly Restricted Data shall be handled, protected,
classified, downgraded, and declassified in conformity with
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).

SEC. 1002. MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

(a) In General.--Section 11331 of title 40, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 11331. Responsibilities for Federal information
systems standards

``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `information
security' has the meaning given that term in section
3532(b)(1) of title 44.
``(b) Requirement to Prescribe Standards.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Requirement.--Except as provided under paragraph (2),
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, on
the basis of proposed standards developed by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology pursuant to paragraphs
(2) and (3) of section 20(a) of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3(a)) and in
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security,
promulgate information security standards pertaining to
Federal information systems.
``(B) Required standards.--Standards promulgated under
subparagraph (A) shall include--
``(i) standards that provide minimum information security
requirements as determined under section 20(b) of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.
278g-3(b)); and
``(ii) such standards that are otherwise necessary to
improve the efficiency of operation or security of Federal
information systems.
``(C) Required standards binding.--Information security
standards described under subparagraph (B) shall be
compulsory and binding.
``(2) Standards and guidelines for national security
systems.--Standards and guidelines for national security
systems, as defined under section 3532(3) of title 44, shall
be developed, promulgated, enforced, and overseen as
otherwise authorized by law and as directed by the President.
``(c) Application of More Stringent Standards.--The head of
an agency may employ standards for the cost-effective
information security for all operations and assets within or
under the supervision of that agency that are more stringent
than the standards promulgated by the Director under this
section, if such standards--
``(1) contain, at a minimum, the provisions of those
applicable standards made compulsory and binding by the
Director; and
``(2) are otherwise consistent with policies and guidelines
issued under section 3533 of title 44.
``(d) Requirements Regarding Decisions by Director.--
``(1) Deadline.--The decision regarding the promulgation of
any standard by the Director under subsection (b) shall occur
not later than 6 months after the submission of the proposed
standard to the Director by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, as provided under section 20 of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.
278g-3).
``(2) Notice and comment.--A decision by the Director to
significantly modify, or not promulgate, a proposed standard
submitted to the Director by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, as provided under section 20 of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.
278g-3), shall be made after the public is given an
opportunity to comment on the Director's proposed
decision.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 113 of title 40, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 11331 and
inserting the following:

``11331. Responsibilities for Federal information systems standards.''.

SEC. 1003. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.

Section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3), is amended by striking the
text and inserting the following:
``(a) The Institute shall--
``(1) have the mission of developing standards, guidelines,
and associated methods and techniques for information
systems;
``(2) develop standards and guidelines, including minimum
requirements, for information systems used or operated by an
agency or by a contractor of an agency or other organization
on behalf of an agency, other than national security systems
(as defined in section 3532(b)(2) of title 44, United States
Code);
``(3) develop standards and guidelines, including minimum
requirements, for providing adequate information security for
all agency operations and assets, but such standards and
guidelines shall not apply to national security systems; and
``(4) carry out the responsibilities described in paragraph
(3) through the Computer Security Division.
``(b) The standards and guidelines required by subsection
(a) shall include, at a minimum--
``(1)(A) standards to be used by all agencies to categorize
all information and information systems collected or
maintained by or on behalf of each agency based on the
objectives of providing appropriate levels of information
security according to a range of risk levels;
``(B) guidelines recommending the types of information and
information systems to be included in each such category; and
``(C) minimum information security requirements for
information and information systems in each such category;
``(2) a definition of and guidelines concerning detection
and handling of information security incidents; and
``(3) guidelines developed in coordination with the
National Security Agency for identifying an information
system as a national security system consistent with
applicable requirements for national security systems, issued
in accordance with law and as directed by the President.
``(c) In developing standards and guidelines required by
subsections (a) and (b), the Institute shall--
``(1) consult with other agencies and offices (including,
but not limited to, the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, the Departments of Defense and Energy, the
National Security Agency, the General Accounting Office, and
the Secretary of Homeland Security) to assure--

[[Page 23092]]

``(A) use of appropriate information security policies,
procedures, and techniques, in order to improve information
security and avoid unnecessary and costly duplication of
effort; and
``(B) that such standards and guidelines are complementary
with standards and guidelines employed for the protection of
national security systems and information contained in such
systems;
``(2) provide the public with an opportunity to comment on
proposed standards and guidelines;
``(3) submit to the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget for promulgation under section 11331 of title 40,
United States Code--
``(A) standards, as required under subsection (b)(1)(A), no
later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this
section; and
``(B) minimum information security requirements for each
category, as required under subsection (b)(1)(C), no later
than 36 months after the date of the enactment of this
section;
``(4) issue guidelines as required under subsection
(b)(1)(B), no later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act;
``(5) ensure that such standards and guidelines do not
require specific technological solutions or products,
including any specific hardware or software security
solutions;
``(6) ensure that such standards and guidelines provide for
sufficient flexibility to permit alternative solutions to
provide equivalent levels of protection for identified
information security risks; and
``(7) use flexible, performance-based standards and
guidelines that, to the greatest extent possible, permit the
use of off-the-shelf commercially developed information
security products.
``(d) The Institute shall--
``(1) submit standards developed pursuant to subsection
(a), along with recommendations as to the extent to which
these should be made compulsory and binding, to the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget for promulgation under
section 11331 of title 40, United States Code;
``(2) provide assistance to agencies regarding--
``(A) compliance with the standards and guidelines
developed under subsection (a);
``(B) detecting and handling information security
incidents; and
``(C) information security policies, procedures, and
practices;
``(3) conduct research, as needed, to determine the nature
and extent of information security vulnerabilities and
techniques for providing cost-effective information security;
``(4) develop and periodically revise performance
indicators and measures for agency information security
policies and practices;
``(5) evaluate private sector information security policies
and practices and commercially available information
technologies to assess potential application by agencies to
strengthen information security;
``(6) evaluate security policies and practices developed
for national security systems to assess potential application
by agencies to strengthen information security;
``(7) periodically assess the effectiveness of standards
and guidelines developed under this section and undertake
revisions as appropriate;
``(8) solicit and consider the recommendations of the
Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board, established
by section 21, regarding standards and guidelines developed
under subsection (a) and submit such recommendations to the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget with such
standards submitted to the Director; and
``(9) prepare an annual public report on activities
undertaken in the previous year, and planned for the coming
year, to carry out responsibilities under this section.
``(e) As used in this section--
``(1) the term `agency' has the same meaning as provided in
section 3502(1) of title 44, United States Code;
``(2) the term `information security' has the same meaning
as provided in section 3532(1) of such title;
``(3) the term `information system' has the same meaning as
provided in section 3502(8) of such title;
``(4) the term `information technology' has the same
meaning as provided in section 11101 of title 40, United
States Code; and
``(5) the term `national security system' has the same
meaning as provided in section 3532(b)(2) of such title.''.

SEC. 1004. INFORMATION SECURITY AND PRIVACY ADVISORY BOARD.

Section 21 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-4), is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Computer System
Security and Privacy Advisory Board'' and inserting
``Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board'';
(2) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``computer or
telecommunications'' and inserting ``information
technology'';
(3) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) by striking ``computer or telecommunications
technology'' and inserting ``information technology''; and
(B) by striking ``computer or telecommunications
equipment'' and inserting ``information technology'';
(4) in subsection (a)(3)--
(A) by striking ``computer systems'' and inserting
``information system''; and
(B) by striking ``computer systems security'' and inserting
``information security'';
(5) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``computer systems
security'' and inserting ``information security'';
(6) in subsection (b) by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) to advise the Institute and the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget on information security and
privacy issues pertaining to Federal Government information
systems, including through review of proposed standards and
guidelines developed under section 20; and'';
(7) in subsection (b)(3) by inserting ``annually'' after
``report'';
(8) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection:
``(f) The Board shall hold meetings at such locations and
at such time and place as determined by a majority of the
Board.'';
(9) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively; and
(10) by striking subsection (h), as redesignated by
paragraph (9), and inserting the following:
``(h) As used in this section, the terms ``information
system'' and ``information technology'' have the meanings
given in section 20.''.

SEC. 1005. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Federal Computer System Security Training and Plan.--
(1) Repeal.--Section 11332 of title 40, United States Code,
is repealed.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 113 of title 40, United States Code, as
amended by striking the item relating to section 11332.
(b) Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001.--The Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398)
is amended by striking subtitle G of title X (44 U.S.C. 3531
note).
(c) Paperwork Reduction Act.--(1) Section 3504(g) of title
44, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``sections 11331 and 11332(b) and (c) of
title 40'' and inserting ``section 11331 of title 40 and
subchapter II of this title''; and
(ii) by striking the semicolon and inserting a period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (3).
(2) Section 3505 of such title is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(c) Inventory of Information Systems.--(1) The head of
each agency shall develop and maintain an inventory of the
information systems (including national security systems)
operated by or under the control of such agency;
``(2) The identification of information systems in an
inventory under this subsection shall include an
identification of the interfaces between each such system and
all other systems or networks, including those not operated
by or under the control of the agency;
``(3) Such inventory shall be--
``(A) updated at least annually;
``(B) made available to the Comptroller General; and
``(C) used to support information resources management,
including--
``(i) preparation and maintenance of the inventory of
information resources under section 3506(b)(4);
``(ii) information technology planning, budgeting,
acquisition, and management under section 3506(h), subtitle
III of title 40, and related laws and guidance;
``(iii) monitoring, testing, and evaluation of information
security controls under subchapter II;
``(iv) preparation of the index of major information
systems required under section 552(g) of title 5, United
States Code; and
``(v) preparation of information system inventories
required for records management under chapters 21, 29, 31,
and 33.
``(4) The Director shall issue guidance for and oversee the
implementation of the requirements of this subsection.''.
(3) Section 3506(g) of such title is amended--
(A) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``section 11332 of title 40'' and inserting
``subchapter II of this chapter''; and
(ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (3).

SEC. 1006. CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act,
affects the authority of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology or the Department of Commerce relating to the
development and promulgation of standards or guidelines under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 20(a) of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-
3(a)).

TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONS

Subtitle A--Executive Office for Immigration Review

SEC. 1101. LEGAL STATUS OF EOIR.

(a) Existence of EOIR.--There is in the Department of
Justice the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which
shall be subject to the direction and regulation of the
Attorney General under section 103(g) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as added by section 1102.

SEC. 1102. AUTHORITIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1103) as amended by this Act, is further amended by--
(1) amending the heading to read as follows:

``powers and duties of the secretary, the under secretary, and the
attorney general'';

(2) in subsection (a)--

[[Page 23093]]

(A) by inserting ``Attorney General,'' after
``President,''; and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (8), (9), (8) (as added by
section 372 of Public Law 104-208), and (9) (as added by
section 372 of Public Law 104-208) as paragraphs (8), (9),
(10), and (11), respectively; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Attorney General.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall have such
authorities and functions under this Act and all other laws
relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens as
were exercised by the Executive Office for Immigration
Review, or by the Attorney General with respect to the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, on the day before
the effective date of the Immigration Reform, Accountability
and Security Enhancement Act of 2002.
``(2) Powers.--The Attorney General shall establish such
regulations, prescribe such forms of bond, reports, entries,
and other papers, issue such instructions, review such
administrative determinations in immigration proceedings,
delegate such authority, and perform such other acts as the
Attorney General determines to be necessary for carrying out
this section.''.

SEC. 1103. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, any amendment made by this Act, or in
section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as
amended by section 1102, shall be construed to limit judicial
deference to regulations, adjudications, interpretations,
orders, decisions, judgments, or any other actions of the
Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General.

Subtitle B--Transfer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to
the Department of Justice

SEC. 1111. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND
EXPLOSIVES.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established within the Department
of Justice under the general authority of the Attorney
General the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (in this section referred to as the ``Bureau'').
(2) Director.--There shall be at the head of the Bureau a
Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (in this subtitle referred to as the
``Director''). The Director shall be appointed by the
Attorney General and shall perform such functions as the
Attorney General shall direct. The Director shall receive
compensation at the rate prescribed by law under section 5314
of title V, United States Code, for positions at level III of
the Executive Schedule.
(3) Coordination.--The Attorney General, acting through the
Director and such other officials of the Department of
Justice as the Attorney General may designate, shall provide
for the coordination of all firearms, explosives, tobacco
enforcement, and arson enforcement functions vested in the
Attorney General so as to assure maximum cooperation between
and among any officer, employee, or agency of the Department
of Justice involved in the performance of these and related
functions.
(4) Performance of transferred functions.--The Attorney
General may make such provisions as the Attorney General
determines appropriate to authorize the performance by any
officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of
any function transferred to the Attorney General under this
section.
(b) Responsibilities.--Subject to the direction of the
Attorney General, the Bureau shall be responsible for
investigating--
(1) criminal and regulatory violations of the Federal
firearms, explosives, arson, alcohol, and tobacco smuggling
laws;
(2) the functions transferred by subsection (c); and
(3) any other function related to the investigation of
violent crime or domestic terrorism that is delegated to the
Bureau by the Attorney General.
(c) Transfer of Authorities, Functions, Personnel, and
Assets to the Department of Justice.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), but
notwithstanding any other provision of law, there are
transferred to the Department of Justice the authorities,
functions, personnel, and assets of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, which shall be maintained as a distinct
entity within the Department of Justice, including the
related functions of the Secretary of the Treasury.
(2) Administration and revenue collection functions.--There
shall be retained within the Department of the Treasury the
authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms relating to the
administration and enforcement of chapters 51 and 52 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, sections 4181 and 4182 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and title 27, United States
Code.
(3) Building prospectus.--Prospectus PDC-98W10, giving the
General Services Administration the authority for site
acquisition, design, and construction of a new headquarters
building for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, is
transferred, and deemed to apply, to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives established in the
Department of Justice under subsection (a).
(d) Tax and Trade Bureau.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department of the Treasury the Tax and Trade Bureau.
(2) Administrator.--The Tax and Trade Bureau shall be
headed by an Administrator, who shall perform such duties as
assigned by the Under Secretary for Enforcement of the
Department of the Treasury. The Administrator shall occupy a
career-reserved position within the Senior Executive Service.
(3) Responsibilities.--The authorities, functions,
personnel, and assets of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms that are not transferred to the Department of
Justice under this section shall be retained and administered
by the Tax and Trade Bureau.

SEC. 1112. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) The Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is
amended--
(1) in section 8D(b)(1) by striking ``Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms'' and inserting ``Tax and Trade
Bureau''; and
(2) in section 9(a)(1)(L)(i), by striking ``Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms'' and inserting ``Tax and
Trade Bureau''.
(b) Section 1109(c)(2)(A)(i) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1445-
3(c)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``(on ATF Form 3068) by
manufacturers of tobacco products to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms'' and inserting ``by manufacturers of
tobacco products to the Tax and Trade Bureau''.
(c) Section 2(4)(J) of the Enhanced Border Security and
Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-173; 8 U.S.C.A.
1701(4)(J)) is amended by striking ``Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms'' and inserting ``Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice''.
(d) Section 3(1)(E) of the Firefighters' Safety Study Act
(15 U.S.C. 2223b(1)(E)) is amended by striking ``the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,'' and inserting ``the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
Department of Justice,''.
(e) Chapter 40 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking section 841(k) and inserting the following:
``(k) `Attorney General' means the Attorney General of the
United States.'';
(2) in section 846(a), by striking ``the Attorney General
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, together with the
Secretary'' and inserting ``the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, together with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives''; and
(3) by striking ``Secretary'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Attorney General''.
(f) Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in section 921(a)(4)(B), by striking ``Secretary'' and
inserting ``Attorney General'';
(2) in section 921(a)(4), by striking ``Secretary of the
Treasury'' and inserting ``Attorney General'';
(3) in section 921(a), by striking paragraph (18) and
inserting the following:
``(18) The term `Attorney General' means the Attorney
General of the United States'';
(4) in section 922(p)(5)(A), by striking ``after
consultation with the Secretary'' and inserting ``after
consultation with the Attorney General'';
(5) in section 923(l), by striking ``Secretary of the
Treasury'' and inserting ``Attorney General''; and
(6) by striking ``Secretary'' each place it appears, except
before ``of the Army'' in section 921(a)(4) and before ``of
Defense'' in section 922(p)(5)(A), and inserting the term
``Attorney General''.
(g) Section 1261(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) The Attorney General--
``(1) shall enforce the provisions of this chapter; and
``(2) has the authority to issue regulations to carry out
the provisions of this chapter.''.
(h) Section 1952(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``Secretary of the Treasury'' and
inserting ``Attorney General''.
(i) Chapter 114 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking section 2341(5), and inserting the
following:
``(5) the term `Attorney General' means the Attorney
General of the United States''; and
(2) by striking ``Secretary'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Attorney General''.
(j) Section 6103(i)(8)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to confidentiality and disclosure of
returns and return information) is amended by striking ``or
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms'' and inserting
``, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
Department of Justice, or the Tax and Trade Bureau,
Department of the Treasury,''.
(k) Section 7801(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to the authority of the Department of the Treasury)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary.--Except'' and inserting
``Secretary.--
``(1) In general.--Except''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Administration and enforcement of certain provisions
by attorney general.--
``(A) In general.--The administration and enforcement of
the following provisions of this title shall be performed by
or under the supervision of the Attorney General; and the
term `Secretary' or `Secretary of the Treasury' shall, when
applied to those provisions, mean the Attorney General; and
the term `internal revenue officer' shall, when applied to
those provisions, mean any officer of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives so designated by the
Attorney General:
``(i) Chapter 53.
``(ii) Chapters 61 through 80, to the extent such chapters
relate to the enforcement and administration of the
provisions referred to in clause (i).

[[Page 23094]]

``(B) Use of existing rulings and interpretations.--Nothing
in this Act alters or repeals the rulings and interpretations
of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in effect on
the effective date of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
which concern the provisions of this title referred to in
subparagraph (A). The Attorney General shall consult with the
Secretary to achieve uniformity and consistency in
administering provisions under chapter 53 of title 26, United
States Code.''.
(l) Section 2006(2) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``, the Director, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice,''
after ``the Secretary of the Treasury''.
(m) Section 713 of title 31, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:

``Sec. 713. Audit of Internal Revenue Service, Tax and Trade
Bureau, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives'';

(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms,'' and inserting ``Tax and Trade
Bureau, Department of the Treasury, and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of
Justice''; and
(3) in subsection (b)
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``or the Bureau'' and
inserting ``or either Bureau'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``or the Bureau'' and inserting ``or either
Bureau''; and
(ii) by striking ``and the Director of the Bureau'' and
inserting ``the Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the
Treasury, and the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or the Bureau'' and
inserting ``or either Bureau''.
(n) Section 9703 of title 31, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(B)--
(A) in clause (iii)(III), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in clause (iv), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
period; and
(C) by striking clause (v);
(2) by striking subsection (o);
(3) by redesignating existing subsection (p) as subsection
(o); and
(4) in subsection (o)(1), as redesignated by paragraph (3),
by striking ``Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms'' and
inserting ``Tax and Trade Bureau''.
(o) Section 609N(2)(L) of the Justice Assistance Act of
1984 (42 U.S.C. 10502(2)(L)) is amended by striking ``Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms'' and inserting ``Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of
Justice''.
(p) Section 32401(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13921(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary of the Treasury'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Attorney General''; and
(2) in subparagraph (3)(B), by striking ``Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms'' and inserting ``Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of
Justice''.
(q) Section 80303 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``or, when the violation of this chapter
involves contraband described in paragraph (2) or (5) of
section 80302(a), the Attorney General'' after ``section
80304 of this title.''; and
(2) by inserting ``, the Attorney General,'' after ``by the
Secretary''.
(r) Section 80304 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``(b) and (c)'' and
inserting ``(b), (c), and (d)'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (c), the following:
``(d) Attorney General.--The Attorney General, or officers,
employees, or agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice designated by
the Attorney General, shall carry out the laws referred to in
section 80306(b) of this title to the extent that the
violation of this chapter involves contraband described in
section 80302 (a)(2) or (a)(5).''.
(s) Section 103 of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law
90-618; 82 Stat. 1226) is amended by striking ``Secretary of
the Treasury'' and inserting ``Attorney General''.

SEC. 1113. POWERS OF AGENTS OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL,
TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES.

Chapter 203 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding the following:

``Sec. 3051. Powers of Special Agents of Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

``(a) Special agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, as well as any other investigator
or officer charged by the Attorney General with the duty of
enforcing any of the criminal, seizure, or forfeiture
provisions of the laws of the United States, may carry
firearms, serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the
authority of the United States and make arrests without
warrant for any offense against the United States committed
in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the
laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to
believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is
committing such felony.
``(b) Any special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives may, in respect to the performance
of his or her duties, make seizures of property subject to
forfeiture to the United States.
``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), and
except to the extent that such provisions conflict with the
provisions of section 983 of title 18, United States Code,
insofar as section 983 applies, the provisions of the Customs
laws relating to--
``(A) the seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture, and
condemnation of property;
``(B) the disposition of such property;
``(C) the remission or mitigation of such forfeiture; and
``(D) the compromise of claims,

shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged
to have been incurred, under any applicable provision of law
enforced or administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives.
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), duties that are
imposed upon a customs officer or any other person with
respect to the seizure and forfeiture of property under the
customs laws of the United States shall be performed with
respect to seizures and forfeitures of property under this
section by such officers, agents, or any other person as may
be authorized or designated for that purpose by the Attorney
General.
``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
disposition of firearms forfeited by reason of a violation of
any law of the United States shall be governed by the
provisions of section 5872(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.''.

SEC. 1114. EXPLOSIVES TRAINING AND RESEARCH FACILITY.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the Bureau
an Explosives Training and Research Facility at Fort AP Hill,
Fredericksburg, Virginia.
(b) Purpose.--The facility established under subsection (a)
shall be utilized to train Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officers to--
(1) investigate bombings and explosions;
(2) properly handle, utilize, and dispose of explosive
materials and devices;
(3) train canines on explosive detection; and
(4) conduct research on explosives.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to establish and maintain the
facility established under subsection (a).
(2) Availability of funds.--Any amounts appropriated
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall remain available until
expended.

SEC. 1115. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Personnel
Management Demonstration Project established under section
102 of title I of Division C of the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
1999 (Pub. L. 105-277; 122 Stat. 2681-585) shall be
transferred to the Attorney General of the United States for
continued use by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives, Department of Justice, and the Secretary of
the Treasury for continued use by the Tax and Trade Bureau.

Subtitle C--Explosives

SEC. 1121. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be referred to as the ``Safe Explosives
Act''.

SEC. 1122. PERMITS FOR PURCHASERS OF EXPLOSIVES.

(a) Definitions.--Section 841 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (j) and inserting the following:
``(j) `Permittee' means any user of explosives for a lawful
purpose, who has obtained either a user permit or a limited
permit under the provisions of this chapter.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(r) `Alien' means any person who is not a citizen or
national of the United States.
``(s) `Responsible person' means an individual who has the
power to direct the management and policies of the applicant
pertaining to explosive materials.''.
(b) Permits for Purchase of Explosives.--Section 842 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by striking subsection (a)(3) and inserting the
following:
``(3) other than a licensee or permittee knowingly--
``(A) to transport, ship, cause to be transported, or
receive any explosive materials; or
``(B) to distribute explosive materials to any person other
than a licensee or permittee; or
``(4) who is a holder of a limited permit--
``(A) to transport, ship, cause to be transported, or
receive in interstate or foreign commerce any explosive
materials; or
``(B) to receive explosive materials from a licensee or
permittee, whose premises are located outside the State of
residence of the limited permit holder, or on more than 6
separate occasions, during the period of the permit, to
receive explosive materials from 1 or more licensees or
permittees whose premises are located within the State of
residence of the limited permit holder.''; and
(3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensee or permittee to
knowingly distribute any explosive materials to any person
other than--
``(1) a licensee;
``(2) a holder of a user permit; or

[[Page 23095]]

``(3) a holder of a limited permit who is a resident of the
State where distribution is made and in which the premises of
the transferor are located.''.
(c) Licenses and User Permits.--Section 843(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``or limited permit'' after ``user
permit''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, including the names of and appropriate
identifying information regarding all employees who will be
authorized by the applicant to possess explosive materials,
as well as fingerprints and a photograph of each responsible
person'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``$200 for each''
and inserting ``$50 for a limited permit and $200 for any
other''; and
(3) by striking the third sentence and inserting ``Each
license or user permit shall be valid for not longer than 3
years from the date of issuance and each limited permit shall
be valid for not longer than 1 year from the date of
issuance. Each license or permit shall be renewable upon the
same conditions and subject to the same restrictions as the
original license or permit, and upon payment of a renewal fee
not to exceed one-half of the original fee.''.
(d) Criteria for Approving Licenses and Permits.--Section
843(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) the applicant (or, if the applicant is a corporation,
partnership, or association, each responsible person with
respect to the applicant) is not a person described in
section 842(i);'';
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``(A) the Secretary verifies by inspection
or, if the application is for an original limited permit or
the first or second renewal of such a permit, by such other
means as the Secretary determines appropriate, that'' before
``the applicant''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an applicant for
the renewal of a limited permit if the Secretary has
verified, by inspection within the preceding 3 years, the
matters described in subparagraph (A) with respect to the
applicant; and'';
(3) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) none of the employees of the applicant who will be
authorized by the applicant to possess explosive materials is
any person described in section 842(i); and
``(7) in the case of a limited permit, the applicant has
certified in writing that the applicant will not receive
explosive materials on more than 6 separate occasions during
the 12-month period for which the limited permit is valid.''.
(e) Application Approval.--Section 843(c) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``forty-five
days'' and inserting ``90 days for licenses and permits,''.
(f) Inspection Authority.--Section 843(f) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``permittees'' and inserting ``holders of
user permits''; and
(B) by inserting ``licensees and permittees'' before
``shall submit'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``permittee'' the
first time it appears and inserting ``holder of a user
permit''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary may
inspect the places of storage for explosive materials of an
applicant for a limited permit or, at the time of renewal of
such permit, a holder of a limited permit, only as provided
in subsection (b)(4).
(g) Posting of Permits.--Section 843(g) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``user'' before
``permits''.
(h) Background Checks; Clearances.--Section 843 of title
18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(h)(1) If the Secretary receives, from an employer, the
name and other identifying information of a responsible
person or an employee who will be authorized by the employer
to possess explosive materials in the course of employment
with the employer, the Secretary shall determine whether the
responsible person or employee is one of the persons
described in any paragraph of section 842(i). In making the
determination, the Secretary may take into account a letter
or document issued under paragraph (2).
``(2)(A) If the Secretary determines that the responsible
person or the employee is not one of the persons described in
any paragraph of section 842(i), the Secretary shall notify
the employer in writing or electronically of the
determination and issue, to the responsible person or
employee, a letter of clearance, which confirms the
determination.
``(B) If the Secretary determines that the responsible
person or employee is one of the persons described in any
paragraph of section 842(i), the Secretary shall notify the
employer in writing or electronically of the determination
and issue to the responsible person or the employee, as the
case may be, a document that--
``(i) confirms the determination;
``(ii) explains the grounds for the determination;
``(iii) provides information on how the disability may be
relieved; and
``(iv) explains how the determination may be appealed.''.
(i) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding any provision of this Act,
a license or permit issued under section 843 of title 18,
United States Code, before the date of enactment of this Act,
shall remain valid until that license or permit is revoked
under section 843(d) or expires, or until a timely
application for renewal is acted upon.

SEC. 1123. PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING OR POSSESSING
EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS.

(a) Distribution of Explosives.--Section 842(d) of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``or who has been committed to a mental
institution;''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) is an alien, other than an alien who--
``(A) is lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as
defined in section 101 (a)(20) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act); or
``(B) is in lawful nonimmigrant status, is a refugee
admitted under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1157), or is in asylum status under section 208
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158), and--
``(i) is a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly
foreign government, as determined by the Secretary in
consultation with the Secretary of State, entering the United
States on official law enforcement business, and the
shipping, transporting, possession, or receipt of explosive
materials is in furtherance of this official law enforcement
business;
``(ii) is a person having the power to direct or cause the
direction of the management and policies of a corporation,
partnership, or association licensed pursuant to section
843(a), and the shipping, transporting, possession, or
receipt of explosive materials is in furtherance of such
power;
``(iii) is a member of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) or other friendly foreign military force, as
determined by the Secretary in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, (whether or not admitted in a
nonimmigrant status) who is present in the United States
under military orders for training or other military purpose
authorized by the United States, and the shipping,
transporting, possession, or receipt of explosive materials
is in furtherance of the military purpose; or
``(iv) is lawfully present in the United States in
cooperation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and
the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession of the
explosive materials is in furtherance of such cooperation;
``(8) has been discharged from the armed forces under
dishonorable conditions;
``(9) having been a citizen of the United States, has
renounced the citizenship of that person.''.
(b) Possession of Explosive Materials.--Section 842(i) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) who is an alien, other than an alien who--
``(A) is lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as that
term is defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act); or
``(B) is in lawful nonimmigrant status, is a refugee
admitted under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1157), or is in asylum status under section 208
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158), and--
``(i) is a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly
foreign government, as determined by the Secretary in
consultation with the Secretary of State, entering the United
States on official law enforcement business, and the
shipping, transporting, possession, or receipt of explosive
materials is in furtherance of this official law enforcement
business;
``(ii) is a person having the power to direct or cause the
direction of the management and policies of a corporation,
partnership, or association licensed pursuant to section
843(a), and the shipping, transporting, possession, or
receipt of explosive materials is in furtherance of such
power;
``(iii) is a member of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) or other friendly foreign military force, as
determined by the Secretary in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, (whether or not admitted in a
nonimmigrant status) who is present in the United States
under military orders for training or other military purpose
authorized by the United States, and the shipping,
transporting, possession, or receipt of explosive materials
is in furtherance of the military purpose; or
``(iv) is lawfully present in the United States in
cooperation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and
the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession of the
explosive materials is in furtherance of such cooperation;
``(6) who has been discharged from the armed forces under
dishonorable conditions;
``(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has
renounced the citizenship of that person''; and
(3) by inserting ``or affecting'' before ``interstate''
each place that term appears.

[[Page 23096]]

SEC. 1124. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE SAMPLES OF EXPLOSIVE
MATERIALS AND AMMONIUM NITRATE.

Section 843 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Furnishing of Samples.--
``(1) In general.--Licensed manufacturers and licensed
importers and persons who manufacture or import explosive
materials or ammonium nitrate shall, when required by letter
issued by the Secretary, furnish--
``(A) samples of such explosive materials or ammonium
nitrate;
``(B) information on chemical composition of those
products; and
``(C) any other information that the Secretary determines
is relevant to the identification of the explosive materials
or to identification of the ammonium nitrate.
``(2) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall, by regulation,
authorize reimbursement of the fair market value of samples
furnished pursuant to this subsection, as well as the
reasonable costs of shipment.''.

SEC. 1125. DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY OF INSTITUTIONS RECEIVING
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

Section 844(f)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting before the word ``shall'' the following:
``or any institution or organization receiving Federal
financial assistance,''.

SEC. 1126. RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES.

Section 845(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(b)(1) A person who is prohibited from shipping,
transporting, receiving, or possessing any explosive under
section 842(i) may apply to the Secretary for relief from
such prohibition.
``(2) The Secretary may grant the relief requested under
paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that the
circumstances regarding the applicability of section 842(i),
and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the
applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to
public safety and that the granting of such relief is not
contrary to the public interest.
``(3) A licensee or permittee who applies for relief, under
this subsection, from the disabilities incurred under this
chapter as a result of an indictment for or conviction of a
crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year
shall not be barred by such disability from further
operations under the license or permit pending final action
on an application for relief filed pursuant to this
section.''.

SEC. 1127. THEFT REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(p) Theft Reporting Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--A holder of a license or permit who
knows that explosive materials have been stolen from that
licensee or permittee, shall report the theft to the
Secretary not later than 24 hours after the discovery of the
theft.
``(2) Penalty.--A holder of a license or permit who does
not report a theft in accordance with paragraph (1), shall be
fined not more than $10,000, imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.''.

SEC. 1128. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as
necessary to carry out this subtitle and the amendments made
by this subtitle.

TITLE XII--AIRLINE WAR RISK INSURANCE LEGISLATION

SEC. 1201. AIR CARRIER LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS
ARISING OUT OF ACTS OF TERRORISM.

Section 44303 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In general.--'' before ``The
Secretary of Transportation'';
(2) by moving the text of paragraph (2) of section 201(b)
of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act
(115 Stat. 235) to the end and redesignating such paragraph
as subsection (b);
(3) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking the subsection heading and inserting ``Air
Carrier Liability for Third Party Claims Arising Out of Acts
of Terrorism.--'';
(B) in the first sentence by striking ``the 180-day period
following the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation'' and inserting ``the period beginning on
September 22, 2001, and ending on December 31, 2003, the
Secretary''; and
(C) in the last sentence by striking ``this paragraph'' and
inserting ``this subsection''.

SEC. 1202. EXTENSION OF INSURANCE POLICIES.

Section 44302 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Extension of Policies.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall extend through
August 31, 2003, and may extend through December 31, 2003,
the termination date of any insurance policy that the
Department of Transportation issued to an air carrier under
subsection (a) and that is in effect on the date of enactment
of this subsection on no less favorable terms to the air
carrier than existed on June 19, 2002; except that the
Secretary shall amend the insurance policy, subject to such
terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, to add
coverage for losses or injuries to aircraft hulls,
passengers, and crew at the limits carried by air carriers
for such losses and injuries as of such date of enactment and
at an additional premium comparable to the premium charged
for third-party casualty coverage under such policy.
``(2) Special rules.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)--
``(A) in no event shall the total premium paid by the air
carrier for the policy, as amended, be more than twice the
premium that the air carrier was paying to the Department of
Transportation for its third party policy as of June 19,
2002; and
``(B) the coverage in such policy shall begin with the
first dollar of any covered loss that is incurred.''.

SEC. 1203. CORRECTION OF REFERENCE.

Effective November 19, 2001, section 147 of the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71) is
amended by striking ``(b)'' and inserting ``(c)''.

SEC. 1204. REPORT.

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives a report that--
(A) evaluates the availability and cost of commercial war
risk insurance for air carriers and other aviation entities
for passengers and third parties;
(B) analyzes the economic effect upon air carriers and
other aviation entities of available commercial war risk
insurance; and
(C) describes the manner in which the Department could
provide an alternative means of providing aviation war risk
reinsurance covering passengers, crew, and third parties
through use of a risk-retention group or by other means.

TITLE XIII--FEDERAL WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT

Subtitle A--Chief Human Capital Officers

SEC. 1301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Chief Human Capital
Officers Act of 2002''.

SEC. 1302. AGENCY CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICERS.

(a) In General.--Part II of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after chapter 13 the following:

``CHAPTER 14--AGENCY CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICERS

``Sec.
``1401. Establishment of agency Chief Human Capital Officers.
``1402. Authority and functions of agency Chief Human Capital Officers.

``Sec. 1401. Establishment of agency Chief Human Capital
Officers

``The head of each agency referred to under paragraphs (1)
and (2) of section 901(b) of title 31 shall appoint or
designate a Chief Human Capital Officer, who shall--
``(1) advise and assist the head of the agency and other
agency officials in carrying out the agency's
responsibilities for selecting, developing, training, and
managing a high-quality, productive workforce in accordance
with merit system principles;
``(2) implement the rules and regulations of the President
and the Office of Personnel Management and the laws governing
the civil service within the agency; and
``(3) carry out such functions as the primary duty of the
Chief Human Capital Officer.

``Sec. 1402. Authority and functions of agency Chief Human
Capital Officers

``(a) The functions of each Chief Human Capital Officer
shall include--
``(1) setting the workforce development strategy of the
agency;
``(2) assessing workforce characteristics and future needs
based on the agency's mission and strategic plan;
``(3) aligning the agency's human resources policies and
programs with organization mission, strategic goals, and
performance outcomes;
``(4) developing and advocating a culture of continuous
learning to attract and retain employees with superior
abilities;
``(5) identifying best practices and benchmarking studies,
and
``(6) applying methods for measuring intellectual capital
and identifying links of that capital to organizational
performance and growth.
``(b) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by
this section, each agency Chief Human Capital Officer--
``(1) shall have access to all records, reports, audits,
reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other
material that--
``(A) are the property of the agency or are available to
the agency; and
``(B) relate to programs and operations with respect to
which that agency Chief Human Capital Officer has
responsibilities under this chapter; and
``(2) may request such information or assistance as may be
necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities
provided by this chapter from any Federal, State, or local
governmental entity.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
chapters for chapters for part II of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to
chapter 13 the following:

``14. Agency Chief Human Capital Officers...................1401''.....

SEC. 1303. CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICERS COUNCIL.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a Chief Human
Capital Officers Council, consisting of--
(1) the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, who
shall act as chairperson of the Council;
(2) the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of
Management and Budget, who shall act as vice chairperson of
the Council; and

[[Page 23097]]

(3) the Chief Human Capital Officers of Executive
departments and any other members who are designated by the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
(b) Functions.--The Chief Human Capital Officers Council
shall meet periodically to advise and coordinate the
activities of the agencies of its members on such matters as
modernization of human resources systems, improved quality of
human resources information, and legislation affecting human
resources operations and organizations.
(c) Employee Labor Organizations at Meetings.--The Chief
Human Capital Officers Council shall ensure that
representatives of Federal employee labor organizations are
present at a minimum of 1 meeting of the Council each year.
Such representatives shall not be members of the Council.
(d) Annual Report.--Each year the Chief Human Capital
Officers Council shall submit a report to Congress on the
activities of the Council.

SEC. 1304. STRATEGIC HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT.

Section 1103 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c)(1) The Office of Personnel Management shall design a
set of systems, including appropriate metrics, for assessing
the management of human capital by Federal agencies.
``(2) The systems referred to under paragraph (1) shall be
defined in regulations of the Office of Personnel Management
and include standards for--
``(A)(i) aligning human capital strategies of agencies with
the missions, goals, and organizational objectives of those
agencies; and
``(ii) integrating those strategies into the budget and
strategic plans of those agencies;
``(B) closing skill gaps in mission critical occupations;
``(C) ensuring continuity of effective leadership through
implementation of recruitment, development, and succession
plans;
``(D) sustaining a culture that cultivates and develops a
high performing workforce;
``(E) developing and implementing a knowledge management
strategy supported by appropriate investment in training and
technology; and
``(F) holding managers and human resources officers
accountable for efficient and effective human resources
management in support of agency missions in accordance with
merit system principles.''.

SEC. 1305. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This subtitle shall take effect 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.

Subtitle B--Reforms Relating to Federal Human Capital Management

SEC. 1311. INCLUSION OF AGENCY HUMAN CAPITAL STRATEGIC
PLANNING IN PERFORMANCE PLANS AND PROGRAMS
PERFORMANCE REPORTS.

(a) Performance Plans.--Section 1115 of title 31, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(3) provide a description of how the performance goals
and objectives are to be achieved, including the operation
processes, training, skills and technology, and the human,
capital, information, and other resources and strategies
required to meet those performance goals and objectives.'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) With respect to each agency with a Chief Human
Capital Officer, the Chief Human Capital Officer shall
prepare that portion of the annual performance plan described
under subsection (a)(3).''.
(b) Program Performance Reports.--Section 1116(d) of title
31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) include a review of the performance goals and
evaluation of the performance plan relative to the agency's
strategic human capital management; and''.

SEC. 1312. REFORM OF THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE HIRING PROCESS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in section 3304(a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end of the following:
``(3) authority for agencies to appoint, without regard to
the provision of sections 3309 through 3318, candidates
directly to positions for which--
``(A) public notice has been given; and
``(B) the Office of Personnel Management has determined
that there exists a severe shortage of candidates or there is
a critical hiring need.

The Office shall prescribe, by regulation, criteria for
identifying such positions and may delegate authority to make
determinations under such criteria.''; and
(2) by inserting after section 3318 the following:

``Sec. 3319. Alternative ranking and selection procedures

``(a) The Office, in exercising its authority under section
3304, or an agency to which the Office has delegated
examining authority under section 1104(a)(2), may establish
category rating systems for evaluating applicants for
positions in the competitive service, under 2 or more quality
categories based on merit consistent with regulations
prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, rather than
assigned individual numerical ratings.
``(b) Within each quality category established under
subsection (a), preference-eligibles shall be listed ahead of
individuals who are not preference eligibles. For other than
scientific and professional positions at GS-9 of the General
Schedule (equivalent or higher), qualified preference-
eligibles who have a compensable service-connected disability
of 10 percent or more shall be listed in the highest quality
category.
``(c)(1) An appointing official may select any applicant in
the highest quality category or, if fewer than 3 candidates
have been assigned to the highest quality category, in a
merged category consisting of the highest and the second
highest quality categories.
``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the appointing
official may not pass over a preference-eligible in the same
category from which selection is made, unless the
requirements of section 3317(b) or 3318(b), as applicable,
are satisfied.
``(d) Each agency that establishes a category rating system
under this section shall submit in each of the 3 years
following that establishment, a report to Congress on that
system including information on--
``(1) the number of employees hired under that system;
``(2) the impact that system has had on the hiring of
veterans and minorities, including those who are American
Indian or Alaska Natives, Asian, Black or African American,
and native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders; and
``(3) the way in which managers were trained in the
administration of that system.
``(e) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe such
regulations as it considers necessary to carry out the
provisions of this section.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 3319 and
inserting the following:

``3319. Alternative ranking and selection procedures.''.

SEC. 1313. PERMANENT EXTENSION, REVISION, AND EXPANSION OF
AUTHORITIES FOR USE OF VOLUNTARY SEPARATION
INCENTIVE PAY AND VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT.

(a) Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Amendment to title 5, united states code.--Chapter 35
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
subchapter I the following:

``SUBCHAPTER II--VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS

``Sec. 3521. Definitions

``In this subchapter, the term--
``(1) `agency' means an Executive agency as defined under
section 105; and
``(2) `employee'--
``(A) means an employee as defined under section 2105
employed by an agency and an individual employed by a county
committee established under section 8(b)(5) of the Soil
Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C.
590h(b)(5)) who--
``(i) is serving under an appointment without time
limitation; and
``(ii) has been currently employed for a continuous period
of at least 3 years; and
``(B) shall not include--
``(i) a reemployed annuitant under subchapter III of
chapter 83 or 84 or another retirement system for employees
of the Government;
``(ii) an employee having a disability on the basis of
which such employee is or would be eligible for disability
retirement under subchapter III of chapter 83 or 84 or
another retirement system for employees of the Government.
``(iii) an employee who is in receipt of a decision notice
of involuntary separation for misconduct or unacceptable
performance;
``(iv) an employee who has previously received any
voluntary separation incentive payment from the Federal
Government under this subchapter or any other authority;
``(v) an employee covered by statutory reemployment rights
who is on transfer employment with another organization; or
``(vi) any employee who--

``(I) during the 36-month period preceding the date of
separation of that employee, performed service for which a
student loan repayment benefit was or is to be paid under
section 5379;
``(II) during the 24-month period preceding the date of
separation of that employee, performed service for which a
recruitment or relocation bonus was or is to be paid under
section 5753; or
``(III) during the 12-month period preceding the date of
separation of that employee, performed service for which a
retention bonus was or is to be paid under section 5754.

``Sec. 3522. Agency plans; approval

``(a) Before obligating any resources for voluntary
separation incentive payments, the head of each agency shall
submit to the Office of Personnel Management a plan outlining
the intended use of such incentive payments and a proposed
organizational chart for the agency once such incentive
payments have been completed.
``(b) The plan of an agency under subsection (a) shall
include--
``(1) the specific positions and functions to be reduced or
eliminated;

[[Page 23098]]

``(2) a description of which categories of employees will
be offered incentives;
``(3) the time period during which incentives may be paid;
``(4) the number and amounts of voluntary separation
incentive payments to be offered; and
``(5) a description of how the agency will operate without
the eliminated positions and functions.
``(c) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
shall review each agency's plan an may make any appropriate
modifications in the plan, in consultation with the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget. A plan under this
section may not be implemented without the approval of the
Directive of the Office of Personnel Management.

``Sec. 3523. Authority to provide voluntary separation
incentive payments

``(a) A voluntary separation incentive payment under this
subchapter may be paid to an employee only as provided in the
plan of an agency established under section 3522.
``(b) A voluntary incentive payment--
``(1) shall be offered to agency employees on the basis
of--
``(A) 1 or more organizational units;
``(B) 1 or more occupational series or levels;
``(C) 1 or more geographical locations;
``(D) skills, knowledge, or other factors related to a
position;
``(E) specific periods of time during which eligible
employees may elect a voluntary incentive payment; or
``(F) any appropriate combination of such factors;
``(2) shall be paid in a lump sum after the employee's
separation;
``(3) shall be equal to the lesser of--
``(A) an amount equal to the amount the employee would be
entitled to receive under section 5595(c) if the employee
were entitled to payment under such section (without
adjustment for any previous payment made); or
``(B) an amount determined by the agency head, not to
exceed $25,000;
``(4) may be made only in the case of an employee who
voluntarily separates (whether by retirement or resignation)
under this subchapter;
``(5) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be
included in the computation, of any other type of Government
benefit;
``(6) shall not be taken into account in determining the
amount of any severance pay to which the employee may be
entitled under section 5595, based on another other
separation; and
``(7) shall be paid from appropriations or funds available
for the payment of the basic pay of the employee.

``Sec. 3524. Effect of subsequent employment with the
Government

``(a) The term `employment'--
``(1) in subsection (b) includes employment under a
personal services contract (or other direct contract) with
the United States Government (other than an entity in the
legislative branch); and
``(2) in subsection (c) does not include employment under
such a contract.
``(b) An individual who has received a voluntary separation
incentive payment under this subchapter and accepts any
employment for compensation with the Government of the United
States with 5 years after the date of the separation on which
the payment is based shall be required to pay, before the
individual's first day of employment, the entire amount of
the incentive payment to the agency that paid the incentive
payment.
``(c)(1) If the employment under this section is with an
agency, other than the General Accounting Office, the United
States Postal Service, or the Postal Rate Commission, the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management may, at the
request of the head of the agency, may waive the repayment
if--
``(A) the individual involved possesses unique abilities
and is the only qualified applicant available for the
position; or
``(B) in case of an emergency involving a direct threat to
life or property, the individual--
``(i) has skills directly related to resolving the
emergency; and
``(ii) will serve on a temporary basis only so long as that
individual's services are made necessary by the emergency.
``(2) If the employment under this section is with an
entity in the legislative branch, the head of the entity or
the appointing official may waive the repayment if the
individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the
only qualified applicant available for the position.
``(3) If the employment under this section is with the
judicial branch, the Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts may waive the repayment if the
individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the
only qualified applicant available for the position.

``Sec. 3525. Regulations

``The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe
regulations to carry out this subchapter.''.
(B) Technical and conforming amendments.--Chapter 35 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(i) by striking the chapter heading and inserting the
following:

``CHAPTER 35--RETENTION PREFERENCE, VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE
PAYMENTS, RESTORATION, AND REEMPLOYMENT'';

and
(ii) in the table of sections by inserting after the item
relating to section 3504 the following:

``Subchapter II--Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments

``3521. Definitions.
``3522. Agency plans; approval.
``3523. Authority to provide voluntary separation incentive payments.
``3524. Effect of subsequent employment with the Government.
``3525. Regulations.''.
(2) Administrative office of the united states courts.--The
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts may, by regulation, establish a program substantially
similar to the program established under paragraph (1) for
individuals serving in the judicial branch.
(3) Continuation of other authority.--Any agency exercising
any voluntary separation incentive authority in effect on the
effective date of this subsection may continue to offer
voluntary separation incentives consistent with that
authority until that authority expires.
(4) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Federal Employee Voluntary Early Retirement.--
(1) Civil service retirement system.--Section 8336(d)(2) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(2)(A) has been employed continuously, by the agency in
which the employee is serving, for at least the 31-day period
ending on the date on which such agency requests the
determination referred to in subparagraph (D);
``(B) is serving under an appointment that is not time
limited;
``(C) has not been duly notified that such employee is to
be involuntarily separated for misconduct or unacceptable
performance;
``(D) is separated from the service voluntarily during a
period in which, as determined by the office of Personnel
Management (upon request of the agency) under regulations
prescribed by the Office--
``(i) such agency (or, if applicable, the component in
which the employee is serving) is undergoing substantial
delayering, substantial reorganization, substantial
reductions in force, substantial transfer of function, or
other substantial workforce restructuring (or shaping);
``(ii) a significant percentage of employees servicing in
such agency (or component) are likely to be separated or
subject to an immediate reduction in the rate of basic pay
(without regard to subchapter VI of chapter 53, or comparable
provisions); or
``(iii) identified as being in positions which are becoming
surplus or excess to the agency's future ability to carry out
its mission effectively; and
``(E) as determined by the agency under regulations
prescribed by the Office, is within the scope of the offer of
voluntary early retirement, which may be made on the basis
of--
``(i) 1 or more organizational units;
``(ii) 1 or more occupational series or levels;
``(iii) 1 or more geographical locations;
``(iv) specific periods;
``(v) skills, knowledge, or other factors related to a
position; or
``(vi) any appropriate combination of such factors;''.
(2) Federal employees' retirement system.--Section
8414(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
``(B)(i) has been employed continuously, by the agency in
which the employee is serving, for at least the 31-day period
ending on the date on which such agency requests the
determination referred to in clause (iv);
``(ii) is serving under an appointment that is not time
limited;
``(iii) has not been duly notified that such employee is to
be involuntarily separated for misconduct or unacceptable
performance;
``(iv) is separate from the service voluntarily during a
period in which, as determined by the Office of Personnel
Management (upon request of the agency) under regulations
prescribed by the Office--
``(I) such agency (or, if applicable, the component in
which the employee is serving) is undergoing substantial
delayering, substantial reorganization, substantial
reductions in force, substantial transfer of function, or
other substantial workforce restructuring (or shaping);
``(II) a significant percentage of employees serving in
such agency (or component) are likely to be separated or
subject to an immediate reduction in the rate of basic pay
(without regard to subchapter VI of chapter 53, or comparable
provisions); or
``(III) identified as being in positions which are becoming
surplus or excess to the agency's future ability to carry out
its mission effectively; and
``(v) as determined by the agency under regulations
prescribed by the Office, is within the scope of the offer of
voluntary early retirement, which may be made on the basis
of--
``(I) 1 or more organizational units;
``(II) 1 or more occupational series or levels;
``(III) 1 or more geographical locations;
``(IV) specific periods;
``(V) skills, knowledge, or other factors related to a
position; or
``(VI) any appropriate combination of such factors.''.
(3) General accounting office authority.--The amendments
made by this subsection shall not be construed to affect the
authority under section 1 of Public Law 106-303 (5 U.S.C.
8336 note; 114 State. 1063).

[[Page 23099]]

(4) Technical and conforming amendments.--Section 7001 of
the 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act
(Public Law 105-174; 112 Stat. 91) is repealed.
(5) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management may
prescribe regulations to carry out this subsection.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the implementation of this section is intended to reshape the
Federal workforce and not downsize the Federal workforce.

SEC. 1314. STUDENT VOLUNTEER TRANSIT SUBSIDY.

(a) In General.--Section 7905(a)(1) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``and a member of a
uniformed service'' and inserting ``, a member of a uniformed
service, and a student who provides voluntary services under
section 3111''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 3111(c)(1)
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking
``chapter 81 of this title'' and inserting ``section 7905
(relating to commuting by means other than single-occupancy
motor vehicles), chapter 81''.

Subtitle C--Reforms Relating to the Senior Executive Service

SEC. 1321. REPEAL OF RECERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF SENIOR
EXECUTIVES.

(a) In General.--Title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in chapter 33--
(A) in section 3393(g) by striking ``3393a'';
(B) by repealing section 3393a; and
(C) in the table of sections by striking the item relating
to section 3393a;
(2) in chapter 35--
(A) in section 3592(a)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(iii) by striking paragraph (3); and
(iv) by striking the last sentence;
(B) in section 3593(a), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) the appointee left the Senior Executive Service for
reasons other than misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance,
or less than fully successful executive performance as
determined under subchapter II of chapter 43.''; and
(C) in section 3594(b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
(iii) by striking paragraph (3);
(3) in section 7701(c)(1)(A), by striking ``or removal from
the Senior Executive Service for failure to be recertified
under section 3393a'';
(4) in chapter 83--
(A) in section 8336(h)(1), by striking ``for failure to be
recertified as a senior executive under section 3393a or'';
and
(B) in section 8339(h), in the first sentence, by striking
``, except that such reduction shall not apply in the case of
an employee retiring under section 8336(h) for failure to be
recertified as a senior executive''; and
(5) in chapter 84--
(A) in section 8414(a)(1), by striking ``for failure to be
recertified as a senior executive under section 3393a or'';
and
(B) in section 8421(a)(2), by striking ``, except that an
individual entitled to an annuity under section 8414(a) for
failure to be recertified as a senior executive shall be
entitled to an annuity supplement without regard to such
applicable retirement age''.
(b) Savings Provision.--Notwithstanding the amendments made
by subsection (a)(2)(A), an appeal under the final sentence
of section 3592(a) of title 5, United States Code, that is
pending on the day before the effective date of this
section--
(1) shall not abate by reason of the enactment of the
amendments made by subsection (a)(2)(A); and
(2) shall continue as if such amendments had not been
enacted.
(c) Application.--The amendment made by subsection
(a)(2)(B) shall not apply with respect to an individual who,
before the effective date of this section, leaves the Senior
Executive Service for failure to be recertified as a senior
executive under section 3393a of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 1322. ADJUSTMENT OF LIMITATION ON TOTAL ANNUAL
COMPENSATION.

(a) In General.--Section 5307 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, subsection (a)(1) shall be applied by substituting
`the total annual compensation payable to the Vice President
under section 104 of title 3' for `the annual rate of basic
pay payable for level I of the Executive Schedule' in the
case of any employee who--
``(A) is paid under section 5376 or 5383 of this title or
section 332(f), 603, or 604 of title 28; and
``(B) holds a position in or under an agency which is
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) An agency described in this paragraph is any agency
which, for purposes of the calendar year involved, has been
certified under this subsection as having a performance
appraisal system which (as designed and applied) makes
meaningful distinctions based on relative performance.
``(3)(A) The Office of Personnel Management and the Office
of Management and Budget jointly shall promulgate such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this subsection,
including the criteria and procedures in accordance with
which any determinations under this subsection shall be made.
``(B) An agency's certification under this subsection shall
be for a period of 2 calendar years, except that such
certification may be terminated at any time, for purposes of
either or both of those years, upon a finding that the
actions of such agency have not remained in conformance with
applicable requirements.
``(C) Any certification or decertification under this
subsection shall be made by the Office of Personnel
Management, with the concurrence of the Office of Management
and Budget.
``(4) Notwithstanding any provision of paragraph (3), any
regulations, certifications, or other measures necessary to
carry out this subsection with respect to employees within
the judicial branch shall be the responsibility of the
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts. However, the regulations under this paragraph shall
be consistent with those promulgated under paragraph (3).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 5307(a) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or as otherwise
provided under subsection (d),'' after ``under law,''.
(2) Section 5307(c) of such title is amended by striking
``this section,'' and inserting ``this section (subject to
subsection (d)),''.

Subtitle D--Academic Training

SEC. 1331. ACADEMIC TRAINING.

(a) Academic Degree Training.--Section 4107 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 4107. Academic degree training

``(a) Subject to subsection (b), an agency may select and
assign an employee to academic degree training and may pay or
reimburse the costs of academic degree training from
appropriated or other available funds if such training--
``(1) contributes significantly to--
``(A) meeting an identified agency training need;
``(B) resolving an identified agency staffing problem; or
``(C) accomplishing goals in the strategic plan of the
agency;
``(2) is part of a planned, systemic, and coordinated
agency employee development program linked to accomplishing
the strategic goals of the agency; and
``(3) is accredited and is provided by a college or
university that is accredited by a nationally recognized
body.
``(b) In exercising authority under subsection (a), an
agency shall--
``(1) consistent with the merit system principles set forth
in paragraphs (2) and (7) of section 2301(b), take into
consideration the need to--
``(A) maintain a balanced workforce in which women, members
of racial and ethnic minority groups, and persons with
disabilities are appropriately represented in Government
service; and
``(B) provide employees effective education and training to
improve organizational and individual performance;
``(2) assure that the training is not for the sole purpose
of providing an employee an opportunity to obtain an academic
degree or qualify for appointment to a particular position
for which the academic degree is a basic requirement;
``(3) assure that no authority under this subsection is
exercised on behalf of any employee occupying or seeking to
qualify for--
``(A) a noncareer appointment in the senior Executive
Service; or
``(B) appointment to any position that is excepted from the
competitive service because of its confidential policy-
determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character;
and
``(4) to the greatest extent practicable, facilitate the
use of online degree training.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 41 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 4107 and
inserting the following:

``4107. Academic degree training.''.

SEC. 1332. MODIFICATIONS TO NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION
PROGRAM.

(a) Findings and Policies.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) the United States Government actively encourages and
financially supports the training, education, and development
of many United States citizens;
(B) as a condition of some of those supports, many of those
citizens have an obligation to seek either compensated or
uncompensated employment in the Federal sector; and
(C) it is in the United States national interest to
maximize the return to the Nation of funds invested in the
development of such citizens by seeking to employ them in the
Federal sector.
(2) Policy.--It shall be the policy of the United States
Government to--
(A) establish procedures for ensuring that United States
citizens who have incurred service obligations as the result
of receiving financial support for education and training
from the United States Government and have applied for
Federal positions are considered in all recruitment and
hiring initiatives of Federal departments, bureaus, agencies,
and offices; and
(B) advertise and open all Federal positions to United
States citizens who have incurred service obligations with
the United States Government as the result of receiving
financial support for education and training from the United
States Government.
(b) Fulfillment of Service Requirement if National Security
Positions Are Unavailable.--Section 802(b)(2) of the David L.
Boren

[[Page 23100]]

National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 1902) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking clause (ii) and
inserting the following:
``(ii) if the recipient demonstrates to the Secretary (in
accordance with such regulations) that no national security
position in an agency or office of the Federal Government
having national security responsibilities is available, work
in other offices or agencies of the Federal Government or in
the field of higher education in a discipline relating to the
foreign country, foreign language, area study, or
international field of study for which the scholarship was
awarded, for a period specified by the Secretary, which
period shall be determined in accordance with clause (i);
or''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking clause (ii) and
inserting the following:
``(ii) if the recipient demonstrates to the Secretary (in
accordance with such regulations) that no national security
position is available upon the completion of the degree, work
in other offices or agencies of the Federal Government or in
the field of higher education in a discipline relating to
foreign country, foreign language, area study, or
international field of study for which the fellowship was
awarded, for a period specified by the Secretary, which
period shall be determined in accordance with clause (i);
and''.

TITLE XIV--ARMING PILOTS AGAINST TERRORISM

SEC. 1401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Arming Pilots Against
Terrorism Act''.

SEC. 1402. FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 449 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 44921. Federal flight deck officer program

``(a) Establishment.--The Under Secretary of Transportation
for Security shall establish a program to deputize volunteer
pilots of air carriers providing passenger air transportation
or intrastate passenger air transportation as Federal law
enforcement officers to defend the flight decks of aircraft
of such air carriers against acts of criminal violence or air
piracy. Such officers shall be known as `Federal flight deck
officers'.
``(b) Procedural Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 3 months after the date
of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary shall
establish procedural requirements to carry out the program
under this section.
``(2) Commencement of program.--Beginning 3 months after
the date of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary
shall begin the process of training and deputizing pilots who
are qualified to be Federal flight deck officers as Federal
flight deck officers under the program.
``(3) Issues to be addressed.--The procedural requirements
established under paragraph (1) shall address the following
issues:
``(A) The type of firearm to be used by a Federal flight
deck officer.
``(B) The type of ammunition to be used by a Federal flight
deck officer.
``(C) The standards and training needed to qualify and
requalify as a Federal flight deck officer.
``(D) The placement of the firearm of a Federal flight deck
officer on board the aircraft to ensure both its security and
its ease of retrieval in an emergency.
``(E) An analysis of the risk of catastrophic failure of an
aircraft as a result of the discharge (including an
accidental discharge) of a firearm to be used in the program
into the avionics, electrical systems, or other sensitive
areas of the aircraft.
``(F) The division of responsibility between pilots in the
event of an act of criminal violence or air piracy if only 1
pilot is a Federal flight deck officer and if both pilots are
Federal flight deck officers.
``(G) Procedures for ensuring that the firearm of a Federal
flight deck officer does not leave the cockpit if there is a
disturbance in the passenger cabin of the aircraft or if the
pilot leaves the cockpit for personal reasons.
``(H) Interaction between a Federal flight deck officer and
a Federal air marshal on board the aircraft.
``(I) The process for selection of pilots to participate in
the program based on their fitness to participate in the
program, including whether an additional background check
should be required beyond that required by section
44936(a)(1).
``(J) Storage and transportation of firearms between
flights, including international flights, to ensure the
security of the firearms, focusing particularly on whether
such security would be enhanced by requiring storage of the
firearm at the airport when the pilot leaves the airport to
remain overnight away from the pilot's base airport.
``(K) Methods for ensuring that security personnel will be
able to identify whether a pilot is authorized to carry a
firearm under the program.
``(L) Methods for ensuring that pilots (including Federal
flight deck officers) will be able to identify whether a
passenger is a law enforcement officer who is authorized to
carry a firearm aboard the aircraft.
``(M) Any other issues that the Under Secretary considers
necessary.
``(N) The Under Secretary's decisions regarding the methods
for implementing each of the foregoing procedural
requirements shall be subject to review only for abuse of
discretion.
``(4) Preference.--In selecting pilots to participate in
the program, the Under Secretary shall give preference to
pilots who are former military or law enforcement personnel.
``(5) Classified information.--Notwithstanding section 552
of title 5 but subject to section 40119 of this title,
information developed under paragraph (3)(E) shall not be
disclosed.
``(6) Notice to congress.--The Under Secretary shall
provide notice to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate after completing the analysis required by paragraph
(3)(E).
``(7) Minimization of risk.--If the Under Secretary
determines as a result of the analysis under paragraph (3)(E)
that there is a significant risk of the catastrophic failure
of an aircraft as a result of the discharge of a firearm, the
Under Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary
to minimize that risk.
``(c) Training, Supervision, and Equipment.--
``(1) In general.--The Under Secretary shall only be
obligated to provide the training, supervision, and equipment
necessary for a pilot to be a Federal flight deck officer
under this section at no expense to the pilot or the air
carrier employing the pilot.
``(2) Training.--
``(A) In general.--The Under Secretary shall base the
requirements for the training of Federal flight deck officers
under subsection (b) on the training standards applicable to
Federal air marshals; except that the Under Secretary shall
take into account the differing roles and responsibilities of
Federal flight deck officers and Federal air marshals.
``(B) Elements.--The training of a Federal flight deck
officer shall include, at a minimum, the following elements:
``(i) Training to ensure that the officer achieves the
level of proficiency with a firearm required under
subparagraph (C)(i).
``(ii) Training to ensure that the officer maintains
exclusive control over the officer's firearm at all times,
including training in defensive maneuvers.
``(iii) Training to assist the officer in determining when
it is appropriate to use the officer's firearm and when it is
appropriate to use less than lethal force.
``(C) Training in use of firearms.--
``(i) Standard.--In order to be deputized as a Federal
flight deck officer, a pilot must achieve a level of
proficiency with a firearm that is required by the Under
Secretary. Such level shall be comparable to the level of
proficiency required of Federal air marshals.
``(ii) Conduct of training.--The training of a Federal
flight deck officer in the use of a firearm may be conducted
by the Under Secretary or by a firearms training facility
approved by the Under Secretary.
``(iii) Requalification.--The Under Secretary shall require
a Federal flight deck officer to requalify to carry a firearm
under the program. Such requalification shall occur at an
interval required by the Under Secretary.
``(d) Deputization.--
``(1) In general.--The Under Secretary may deputize, as a
Federal flight deck officer under this section, a pilot who
submits to the Under Secretary a request to be such an
officer and whom the Under Secretary determines is qualified
to be such an officer.
``(2) Qualification.--A pilot is qualified to be a Federal
flight deck officer under this section if--
``(A) the pilot is employed by an air carrier;
``(B) the Under Secretary determines (in the Under
Secretary's discretion) that the pilot meets the standards
established by the Under Secretary for being such an officer;
and
``(C) the Under Secretary determines that the pilot has
completed the training required by the Under Secretary.
``(3) Deputization by other federal agencies.--The Under
Secretary may request another Federal agency to deputize, as
Federal flight deck officers under this section, those pilots
that the Under Secretary determines are qualified to be such
officers.
``(4) Revocation.--The Under Secretary may, (in the Under
Secretary's discretion) revoke the deputization of a pilot as
a Federal flight deck officer if the Under Secretary finds
that the pilot is no longer qualified to be such an officer.
``(e) Compensation.--Pilots participating in the program
under this section shall not be eligible for compensation
from the Federal Government for services provided as a
Federal flight deck officer. The Federal Government and air
carriers shall not be obligated to compensate a pilot for
participating in the program or for the pilot's training or
qualification and requalification to carry firearms under the
program.
``(f) Authority To Carry Firearms.--
``(1) In general.--The Under Secretary shall authorize a
Federal flight deck officer to carry a firearm while engaged
in providing air transportation or intrastate air
transportation. Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1), the
officer may purchase a firearm and carry that firearm aboard
an aircraft of which the officer is the pilot in accordance
with this section if the firearm is of a type that may be
used under the program.
``(2) Preemption.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal or State law, a Federal flight deck officer, whenever
necessary to participate in the program, may carry a firearm
in any State and from 1 State to another State.
``(3) Carrying firearms outside united states.--In
consultation with the Secretary of

[[Page 23101]]

State, the Under Secretary may take such action as may be
necessary to ensure that a Federal flight deck officer may
carry a firearm in a foreign country whenever necessary to
participate in the program.
``(g) Authority To Use Force.--Notwithstanding section
44903(d), the Under Secretary shall prescribe the standards
and circumstances under which a Federal flight deck officer
may use, while the program under this section is in effect,
force (including lethal force) against an individual in the
defense of the flight deck of an aircraft in air
transportation or intrastate air transportation.
``(h) Limitation on Liability.--
``(1) Liability of air carriers.--An air carrier shall not
be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or
State court arising out of a Federal flight deck officer's
use of or failure to use a firearm.
``(2) Liability of federal flight deck officers.--A Federal
flight deck officer shall not be liable for damages in any
action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the
acts or omissions of the officer in defending the flight deck
of an aircraft against acts of criminal violence or air
piracy unless the officer is guilty of gross negligence or
willful misconduct.
``(3) Liability of federal government.--For purposes of an
action against the United States with respect to an act or
omission of a Federal flight deck officer in defending the
flight deck of an aircraft, the officer shall be treated as
an employee of the Federal Government under chapter 171 of
title 28, relating to tort claims procedure.
``(i) Procedures Following Accidental Discharges.--If an
accidental discharge of a firearm under the pilot program
results in the injury or death of a passenger or crew member
on an aircraft, the Under Secretary--
``(1) shall revoke the deputization of the Federal flight
deck officer responsible for that firearm if the Under
Secretary determines that the discharge was attributable to
the negligence of the officer; and
``(2) if the Under Secretary determines that a shortcoming
in standards, training, or procedures was responsible for the
accidental discharge, the Under Secretary may temporarily
suspend the program until the shortcoming is corrected.
``(j) Limitation on Authority of Air Carriers.--No air
carrier shall prohibit or threaten any retaliatory action
against a pilot employed by the air carrier from becoming a
Federal flight deck officer under this section. No air
carrier shall--
``(1) prohibit a Federal flight deck officer from piloting
an aircraft operated by the air carrier, or
``(2) terminate the employment of a Federal flight deck
officer, solely on the basis of his or her volunteering for
or participating in the program under this section.
``(k) Applicability.--
``(1) Exemption.--This section shall not apply to air
carriers operating under part 135 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations, and to pilots employed by such carriers
to the extent that such carriers and pilots are covered by
section 135.119 of such title or any successor to such
section.
``(2) Pilot defined.--The term `pilot' means an individual
who has final authority and responsibility for the operation
and safety of the flight or, if more than 1 pilot is required
for the operation of the aircraft or by the regulations under
which the flight is being conducted, the individual
designated as second in command.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for such chapter is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 44920
the following:

``44921. Federal flight deck officer program.''.
(2) Flight deck security.--Section 128 of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71) is repealed.
(c) Federal Air Marshal Program.--
(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Federal air marshal program is critical to aviation
security.
(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in this
Act, including any amendment made by this Act, shall be
construed as preventing the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Security from implementing and training Federal air
marshals.

SEC. 1403. CREW TRAINING.

(a) In General.--Section 44918(e) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Under Secretary'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Additional requirements.--In updating the training
guidance, the Under Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator, shall issue a rule to--
``(A) require both classroom and effective hands-on
situational training in the following elements of self
defense:
``(i) recognizing suspicious activities and determining the
seriousness of an occurrence;
``(ii) deterring a passenger who might present a problem;
``(iii) crew communication and coordination;
``(iv) the proper commands to give to passengers and
attackers;
``(v) methods to subdue and restrain an attacker;
``(vi) use of available items aboard the aircraft for self-
defense;
``(vii) appropriate and effective responses to defend
oneself, including the use of force against an attacker;
``(viii) use of protective devices assigned to crew members
(to the extent such devices are approved by the Administrator
or Under Secretary);
``(ix) the psychology of terrorists to cope with their
behavior and passenger responses to that behavior;
``(x) how to respond to aircraft maneuvers that may be
authorized to defend against an act of criminal violence or
air piracy;
``(B) require training in the proper conduct of a cabin
search, including the duty time required to conduct the
search;
``(C) establish the required number of hours of training
and the qualifications for the training instructors;
``(D) establish the intervals, number of hours, and
elements of recurrent training;
``(E) ensure that air carriers provide the initial training
required by this paragraph within 24 months of the date of
enactment of this subparagraph; and
``(F) ensure that no person is required to participate in
any hands-on training activity that that person believes will
have an adverse impact on his or her health or safety.
``(3) Responsibility of under secretary.--(A)
Consultation.--In developing the rule under paragraph (2),
the Under Secretary shall consult with law enforcement
personnel and security experts who have expertise in self-
defense training, terrorism experts, and representatives of
air carriers, the provider of self-defense training for
Federal air marshals, flight attendants, labor organizations
representing flight attendants, and educational institutions
offering law enforcement training programs.
``(B) Designation of official.--The Under Secretary shall
designate an official in the Transportation Security
Administration to be responsible for overseeing the
implementation of the training program under this subsection.
``(C) Necessary resources and knowledge.--The Under
Secretary shall ensure that employees of the Administration
responsible for monitoring the training program have the
necessary resources and knowledge.''; and
(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1)
(as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with
paragraphs (2) and (3) (as added by paragraph (2) of this
section).
(b) Enhance Security Measures.--Section 109(a) of the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 114 note;
115 Stat. 613-614) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(9) Require that air carriers provide flight attendants
with a discreet, hands-free, wireless method of communicating
with the pilots.''.
(c) Benefits and Risks of Providing Flight Attendants With
Nonlethal Weapons.--
(1) Study.--The Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security shall conduct a study to evaluate the benefits and
risks of providing flight attendants with nonlethal weapons
to aide in combating air piracy and criminal violence on
commercial airlines.
(2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the results of the study.

SEC. 1404. COMMERCIAL AIRLINE SECURITY STUDY.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a
study of the following:
(1) The number of armed Federal law enforcement officers
(other than Federal air marshals), who travel on commercial
airliners annually and the frequency of their travel.
(2) The cost and resources necessary to provide such
officers with supplemental training in aircraft anti-
terrorism training that is comparable to the training that
Federal air marshals are provided.
(3) The cost of establishing a program at a Federal law
enforcement training center for the purpose of providing new
Federal law enforcement recruits with standardized training
comparable to the training that Federal air marshals are
provided.
(4) The feasibility of implementing a certification program
designed for the purpose of ensuring Federal law enforcement
officers have completed the training described in paragraph
(2) and track their travel over a 6-month period.
(5) The feasibility of staggering the flights of such
officers to ensure the maximum amount of flights have a
certified trained Federal officer on board.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the results of the study. The report may
be submitted in classified and redacted form.

SEC. 1405. AUTHORITY TO ARM FLIGHT DECK CREW WITH LESS-THAN-
LETHAL WEAPONS.

(a) In General.--Section 44903(i) of title 49, United
States Code (as redesignated by section 6 of this Act) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Request of air carriers to use less-than-lethal
weapons.--If, after the date of enactment of this paragraph,
the Under Secretary receives a request from an air carrier
for authorization to allow pilots of the air carrier to carry
less-than-lethal weapons, the Under Secretary shall respond
to that request within 90 days.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``Secretary'' the first
and third places it appears and inserting ``Under
Secretary''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``Secretary'' each place
it appears and inserting ``Under Secretary''.

SEC. 1406. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

Section 44903 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--

[[Page 23102]]

(1) by redesignating subsection (i) (relating to short-term
assessment and deployment of emerging security technologies
and procedures) as subsection (j);
(2) by redesignating the second subsection (h) (relating to
authority to arm flight deck crew with less-than-lethal
weapons) as subsection (i); and
(3) by redesignating the third subsection (h) (relating to
limitation on liability for acts to thwart criminal violence
for aircraft piracy) as subsection (k).

TITLE XV--TRANSITION

Subtitle A--Reorganization Plan

SEC. 1501. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title:
(1) The term ``agency'' includes any entity, organizational
unit, program, or function.
(2) The term ``transition period'' means the 12-month
period beginning on the effective date of this Act.

SEC. 1502. REORGANIZATION PLAN.

(a) Submission of Plan.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall
transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a
reorganization plan regarding the following:
(1) The transfer of agencies, personnel, assets, and
obligations to the Department pursuant to this Act.
(2) Any consolidation, reorganization, or streamlining of
agencies transferred to the Department pursuant to this Act.
(b) Plan Elements.--The plan transmitted under subsection
(a) shall contain, consistent with this Act, such elements as
the President deems appropriate, including the following:
(1) Identification of any functions of agencies transferred
to the Department pursuant to this Act that will not be
transferred to the Department under the plan.
(2) Specification of the steps to be taken by the Secretary
to organize the Department, including the delegation or
assignment of functions transferred to the Department among
officers of the Department in order to permit the Department
to carry out the functions transferred under the plan.
(3) Specification of the funds available to each agency
that will be transferred to the Department as a result of
transfers under the plan.
(4) Specification of the proposed allocations within the
Department of unexpended funds transferred in connection with
transfers under the plan.
(5) Specification of any proposed disposition of property,
facilities, contracts, records, and other assets and
obligations of agencies transferred under the plan.
(6) Specification of the proposed allocations within the
Department of the functions of the agencies and subdivisions
that are not related directly to securing the homeland.
(c) Modification of Plan.--The President may, on the basis
of consultations with the appropriate congressional
committees, modify or revise any part of the plan until that
part of the plan becomes effective in accordance with
subsection (d).
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The reorganization plan described in this
section, including any modifications or revisions of the plan
under subsection (d), shall become effective for an agency on
the earlier of--
(A) the date specified in the plan (or the plan as modified
pursuant to subsection (d)), except that such date may not be
earlier than 90 days after the date the President has
transmitted the reorganization plan to the appropriate
congressional committees pursuant to subsection (a); or
(B) the end of the transition period.
(2) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to require the transfer of functions, personnel,
records, balances of appropriations, or other assets of an
agency on a single date.
(3) Supersedes existing law.--Paragraph (1) shall apply
notwithstanding section 905(b) of title 5, United States
Code.

SEC. 1503. REVIEW OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE STRUCTURES.

It is the sense of Congress that each House of Congress
should review its committee structure in light of the
reorganization of responsibilities within the executive
branch by the establishment of the Department.

Subtitle B--Transitional Provisions

SEC. 1511. TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITIES.

(a) Provision of Assistance by Officials.--Until the
transfer of an agency to the Department, any official having
authority over or functions relating to the agency
immediately before the effective date of this Act shall
provide to the Secretary such assistance, including the use
of personnel and assets, as the Secretary may request in
preparing for the transfer and integration of the agency into
the Department.
(b) Services and Personnel.--During the transition period,
upon the request of the Secretary, the head of any executive
agency may, on a reimbursable basis, provide services or
detail personnel to assist with the transition.
(c) Acting Officials.--(1) During the transition period,
pending the advice and consent of the Senate to the
appointment of an officer required by this Act to be
appointed by and with such advice and consent, the President
may designate any officer whose appointment was required to
be made by and with such advice and consent and who was such
an officer immediately before the effective date of this Act
(and who continues in office) or immediately before such
designation, to act in such office until the same is filled
as provided in this Act. While so acting, such officers shall
receive compensation at the higher of--
(A) the rates provided by this Act for the respective
offices in which they act; or
(B) the rates provided for the offices held at the time of
designation.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be understood to require the
advice and consent of the Senate to the appointment by the
President to a position in the Department of any officer
whose agency is transferred to the Department pursuant to
this Act and whose duties following such transfer are germane
to those performed before such transfer.
(d) Transfer of Personnel, Assets, Obligations, and
Functions.--Upon the transfer of an agency to the
Department--
(1) the personnel, assets, and obligations held by or
available in connection with the agency shall be transferred
to the Secretary for appropriate allocation, subject to the
approval of the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget and in accordance with the provisions of section
1531(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code; and
(2) the Secretary shall have all functions relating to the
agency that any other official could by law exercise in
relation to the agency immediately before such transfer, and
shall have in addition all functions vested in the Secretary
by this Act or other law.
(e) Prohibition on Use of Transportation Trust Funds.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, no funds derived from the Highway Trust Fund,
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, Inland Waterway Trust Fund, or
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, may be transferred to, made
available to, or obligated by the Secretary or any other
official in the Department.
(2) Limitation.--This subsection shall not apply to
security-related funds provided to the Federal Aviation
Administration for fiscal years preceding fiscal year 2003
for (A) operations, (B) facilities and equipment, or (C)
research, engineering, and development.

SEC. 1512. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

(a) Completed Administrative Actions.--(1) Completed
administrative actions of an agency shall not be affected by
the enactment of this Act or the transfer of such agency to
the Department, but shall continue in effect according to
their terms until amended, modified, superseded, terminated,
set aside, or revoked in accordance with law by an officer of
the United States or a court of competent jurisdiction, or by
operation of law.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ``completed
administrative action'' includes orders, determinations,
rules, regulations, personnel actions, permits, agreements,
grants, contracts, certificates, licenses, registrations, and
privileges.
(b) Pending Proceedings.--Subject to the authority of the
Secretary under this Act--
(1) pending proceedings in an agency, including notices of
proposed rulemaking, and applications for licenses, permits,
certificates, grants, and financial assistance, shall
continue notwithstanding the enactment of this Act or the
transfer of the agency to the Department, unless discontinued
or modified under the same terms and conditions and to the
same extent that such discontinuance could have occurred if
such enactment or transfer had not occurred; and
(2) orders issued in such proceedings, and appeals
therefrom, and payments made pursuant to such orders, shall
issue in the same manner and on the same terms as if this Act
had not been enacted or the agency had not been transferred,
and any such orders shall continue in effect until amended,
modified, superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked by an
officer of the United States or a court of competent
jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
(c) Pending Civil Actions.--Subject to the authority of the
Secretary under this Act, pending civil actions shall
continue notwithstanding the enactment of this Act or the
transfer of an agency to the Department, and in such civil
actions, proceedings shall be had, appeals taken, and
judgments rendered and enforced in the same manner and with
the same effect as if such enactment or transfer had not
occurred.
(d) References.--References relating to an agency that is
transferred to the Department in statutes, Executive orders,
rules, regulations, directives, or delegations of authority
that precede such transfer or the effective date of this Act
shall be deemed to refer, as appropriate, to the Department,
to its officers, employees, or agents, or to its
corresponding organizational units or functions. Statutory
reporting requirements that applied in relation to such an
agency immediately before the effective date of this Act
shall continue to apply following such transfer if they refer
to the agency by name.
(e) Employment Provisions.--(1) Notwithstanding the
generality of the foregoing (including subsections (a) and
(d)), in and for the Department the Secretary may, in
regulations prescribed jointly with the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management, adopt the rules, procedures,
terms, and conditions, established by statute, rule, or
regulation before the effective date of this Act, relating to
employment in any agency transferred to the Department
pursuant to this Act; and
(2) except as otherwise provided in this Act, or under
authority granted by this Act, the transfer pursuant to this
Act of personnel shall not alter the terms and conditions of
employment, including compensation, of any employee so
transferred.

[[Page 23103]]

(f) Statutory Reporting Requirements.--Any statutory
reporting requirement that applied to an agency, transferred
to the Department under this Act, immediately before the
effective date of this Act shall continue to apply following
that transfer if the statutory requirement refers to the
agency by name.

SEC. 1513. TERMINATIONS.

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, whenever all the
functions vested by law in any agency have been transferred
pursuant to this Act, each position and office the incumbent
of which was authorized to receive compensation at the rates
prescribed for an office or position at level II, III, IV, or
V, of the Executive Schedule, shall terminate.

SEC. 1514. NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM NOT AUTHORIZED.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the
development of a national identification system or card.

SEC. 1515. CONTINUITY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT.

Notwithstanding the transfer of an agency to the Department
pursuant to this Act, the Inspector General that exercised
oversight of such agency prior to such transfer shall
continue to exercise oversight of such agency during the
period of time, if any, between the transfer of such agency
to the Department pursuant to this Act and the appointment of
the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security
in accordance with section 103(b).

SEC. 1516. INCIDENTAL TRANSFERS.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in
consultation with the Secretary, is authorized and directed
to make such additional incidental dispositions of personnel,
assets, and liabilities held, used, arising from, available,
or to be made available, in connection with the functions
transferred by this Act, as the Director may determine
necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Act.

SEC. 1517. REFERENCE.

With respect to any function transferred by or under this
Act (including under a reorganization plan that becomes
effective under section 1502) and exercised on or after the
effective date of this Act, reference in any other Federal
law to any department, commission, or agency or any officer
or office the functions of which are so transferred shall be
deemed to refer to the Secretary, other official, or
component of the Department to which such function is so
transferred.

TITLE XVI--CORRECTIONS TO EXISTING LAW RELATING TO AIRLINE
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

SEC. 1601. RETENTION OF SECURITY SENSITIVE INFORMATION
AUTHORITY AT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

(a) Section 40119 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``and the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration each'' after ``for Security''; and
(B) by striking ``criminal violence and aircraft piracy''
and inserting ``criminal violence, aircraft piracy, and
terrorism and to ensure security''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by striking ``, the Under Secretary'' and inserting
``and the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security,
the Secretary of Transportation'';
(B) by striking ``carrying out'' and all that follows
through ``if the Under Secretary'' and inserting ``ensuring
security under this title if the Secretary of
Transportation''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``the safety of
passengers in transportation'' and inserting ``transportation
safety''.
(b) Section 114 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(s) Nondisclosure of Security Activities.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 552 of title 5,
the Under Secretary shall prescribe regulations prohibiting
the disclosure of information obtained or developed in
carrying out security under authority of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71) or under
chapter 449 of this title if the Under Secretary decides that
disclosing the information would--
``(A) be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
``(B) reveal a trade secret or privileged or confidential
commercial or financial information; or
``(C) be detrimental to the security of transportation.
``(2) Availability of information to congress.--Paragraph
(1) does not authorize information to be withheld from a
committee of Congress authorized to have the information.
``(3) Limitation on transferability of duties.--Except as
otherwise provided by law, the Under Secretary may not
transfer a duty or power under this subsection to another
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United
States.''.

SEC. 1602. INCREASE IN CIVIL PENALTIES.

Section 46301(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Aviation security violations.--Notwithstanding
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the maximum civil
penalty for violating chapter 449 or another requirement
under this title administered by the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security shall be $10,000; except that the
maximum civil penalty shall be $25,000 in the case of a
person operating an aircraft for the transportation of
passengers or property for compensation (except an individual
serving as an airman).''.

SEC. 1603. ALLOWING UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND UNITED STATES
NATIONALS AS SCREENERS.

Section 44935(e)(2)(A)(ii) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``citizen of the United States'' and
inserting ``citizen of the United States or a national of the
United States, as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22))''.

TITLE XVII--CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

SEC. 1701. INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978.

Section 11 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law
95-452) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``Homeland Security,'' after
``Transportation,'' each place it appears; and
(2) by striking ``; and'' each place it appears in
paragraph (1) and inserting ``;'';

SEC. 1702. EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE.

(a) In General.--Title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 5312, by inserting ``Secretary of Homeland
Security.'' as a new item after ``Affairs.'';
(2) in section 5313, by inserting ``Deputy Secretary of
Homeland Security.'' as a new item after ``Affairs.'';
(3) in section 5314, by inserting ``Under Secretaries,
Department of Homeland Security.'', ``Director of the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services.'' as new items after
``Affairs.'' the third place it appears;
(4) in section 5315, by inserting ``Assistant Secretaries,
Department of Homeland Security.'', ``General Counsel,
Department of Homeland Security.'', ``Officer for Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties, Department of Homeland
Security.'', ``Chief Financial Officer, Department of
Homeland Security.'', ``Chief Information Officer, Department
of Homeland Security.'', and ``Inspector General, Department
of Homeland Security.'' as new items after ``Affairs.'' the
first place it appears; and
(5) in section 5315, by striking ``Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Justice.''.
(b) Special Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 4, the
amendment made by subsection (a)(5) shall take effect on the
date on which the transfer of functions specified under
section 441 takes effect.

SEC. 1703. UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE.

(a) In General.--(1) The United States Code is amended in
section 202 of title 3, and in section 3056 of title 18, by
striking ``of the Treasury'', each place it appears and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(2) Section 208 of title 3, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``of Treasury'' each place it appears and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of transfer of the United
States Secret Service to the Department.

SEC. 1704. COAST GUARD.

(a) Title 14, U.S.C.--Title 14, United States Code, is
amended in sections 1, 3, 53, 95, 145, 516, 666, 669, 673,
673a (as redesignated by subsection (e)(1)), 674, 687, and
688 by striking ``of Transportation'' each place it appears
and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(b) Title 10, U.S.C.--(1) Title 10, United States Code, is
amended in sections 101(9), 130b(a), 130b(c)(4), 130c(h)(1),
379, 513(d), 575(b)(2), 580(e)(6), 580a(e), 651(a),
671(c)(2), 708(a), 716(a), 717, 806(d)(2), 815(e), 888,
946(c)(1), 973(d), 978(d), 983(b)(1), 985(a), 1033(b)(1),
1033(d), 1034, 1037(c), 1044d(f), 1058(c), 1059(a),
1059(k)(1), 1073(a), 1074(c)(1), 1089(g)(2), 1090, 1091(a),
1124, 1143, 1143a(h), 1144, 1145(e), 1148, 1149, 1150(c),
1152(a), 1152(d)(1), 1153, 1175, 1212(a), 1408(h)(2),
1408(h)(8), 1463(a)(2), 1482a(b), 1510, 1552(a)(1), 1565(f),
1588(f)(4), 1589, 2002(a), 2302(1), 2306b(b), 2323(j)(2),
2376(2), 2396(b)(1), 2410a(a), 2572(a), 2575(a), 2578,
2601(b)(4), 2634(e), 2635(a), 2734(g), 2734a, 2775,
2830(b)(2), 2835, 2836, 4745(a), 5013a(a), 7361(b),
10143(b)(2), 10146(a), 10147(a), 10149(b), 10150, 10202(b),
10203(d), 10205(b), 10301(b), 12103(b), 12103(d), 12304,
12311(c), 12522(c), 12527(a)(2), 12731(b), 12731a(e),
16131(a), 16136(a), 16301(g), and 18501 by striking ``of
Transportation'' each place it appears and inserting ``of
Homeland Security''.
(2) Section 801(1) of such title is amended by striking
``the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation''
and inserting ``an official designated to serve as Judge
Advocate General of the Coast Guard by the Secretary of
Homeland Security''.
(3) Section 983(d)(2)(B) of such title is amended by
striking ``Department of Transportation'' and inserting
``Department of Homeland Security''.
(4) Section 2665(b) of such title is amended by striking
``Department of Transportation'' and inserting ``Department
in which the Coast Guard is operating''.
(5) Section 7045 of such title is amended--
(A) in subsections (a)(1) and (b), by striking
``Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and Transportation''
both places it appears and inserting ``Secretary of the Army,
the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of Homeland
Security''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``Department of
Transportation'' and inserting ``Department of Homeland
Security''.
(6) Section 7361(b) of such title is amended in the
subsection heading by striking ``Transportation'' and
inserting ``Homeland Security''.
(7) Section 12522(c) of such title is amended in the
subsection heading by striking ``Transportation'' and
inserting ``Homeland Security''.

[[Page 23104]]

(c) Title 37, U.S.C.--Title 37, United States Code, is
amended in sections 101(5), 204(i)(4), 301a(a)(3), 306(d),
307(c), 308(a)(1), 308(d)(2), 308(f), 308b(e), 308c(c),
308d(a), 308e(f), 308g(g), 308h(f), 308i(e), 309(d), 316(d),
323(b), 323(g)(1), 325(i), 402(d), 402a(g)(1), 403(f)(3),
403(l)(1), 403b(i)(5), 406(b)(1), 417(a), 417(b), 418(a),
703, 1001(c), 1006(f), 1007(a), and 1011(d) by striking ``of
Transportation'' each place it appears and inserting ``of
Homeland Security''.
(d) Title 38, U.S.C.--Title 38, United States Code, is
amended in sections 101(25)(d), 1560(a), 3002(5),
3011(a)(1)(A)(ii)(I), 3011(a)(1)(A)(ii)(II),
3011(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III), 3011(a)(1)(C)(iii)(II)(cc),
3012(b)(1)(A)(v), 3012(b)(1)(B)(ii)(V), 3018(b)(3)(B)(iv),
3018A(a)(3), 3018B(a)(1)(C), 3018B(a)(2)(C), 3018C(a)(5),
3020(m), 3035(b)(2), 3035(c), 3035(d), 3035(e), 3680A(g), and
6105(c) by striking ``of Transportation'' each place it
appears and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(e) Other Defense-Related Laws.--(1) Section 363 of Public
Law 104-193 (110 Stat. 2247) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1) (10 U.S.C. 113 note), by striking
``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland Security'';
and
(B) in subsection (b)(1) (10 U.S.C. 704 note), by striking
``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(2) Section 721(1) of Public Law 104-201 (10 U.S.C. 1073
note) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(3) Section 4463(a) of Public Law 102-484 (10 U.S.C. 1143a
note) is amended by striking ``after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation''.
(4) Section 4466(h) of Public Law 102-484 (10 U.S.C. 1143
note) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(5) Section 542(d) of Public Law 103-337 (10 U.S.C. 1293
note) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(6) Section 740 of Public Law 106-181 (10 U.S.C. 2576 note)
is amended in subsections (b)(2), (c), and (d)(1) by striking
``of Transportation'' each place it appears and inserting
``of Homeland Security''.
(7) Section 1407(b)(2) of the Defense Dependents' Education
Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 926(b)) is amended by striking ``of
Transportation'' both places it appears and inserting ``of
Homeland Security''.
(8) Section 2301(5)(D) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6671(5)(D)) is amended by
striking ``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland
Security''.
(9) Section 2307(a) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6677(a)) is amended by
striking ``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland
Security''.
(10) Section 1034(a) of Public Law 105-85 (21 U.S.C.
1505a(a)) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(11) The Military Selective Service Act is amended--
(A) in section 4(a) (50 U.S.C. App. 454(a)), by striking
``of Transportation'' in the fourth paragraph and inserting
``of Homeland Security'';
(B) in section 4(b) (50 U.S.C. App. 454(b)), by striking
``of Transportation'' both places it appears and inserting
``of Homeland Security'';
(C) in section 6(d)(1) (50 U.S.C. App. 456(d)(1)), by
striking ``of Transportation'' both places it appears and
inserting ``of Homeland Security'';
(D) in section 9(c) (50 U.S.C. App. 459(c)), by striking
``Secretaries of Army, Navy, Air Force, or Transportation''
and inserting ``Secretary of a military department, and the
Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast
Guard,''; and
(E) in section 15(e) (50 U.S.C. App. 465(e)), by striking
``of Transportation'' both places it appears and inserting
``of Homeland Security''.
(f) Technical Correction.--(1) Title 14, United States
Code, is amended by redesignating section 673 (as added by
section 309 of Public Law 104-324) as section 673a.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 17 of
such title is amended by redesignating the item relating to
such section as section 673a.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
(other than subsection (f)) shall take effect on the date of
transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department.

SEC. 1705. STRATEGIC NATIONAL STOCKPILE AND SMALLPOX VACCINE
DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 121 of the Public Health Security
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-188; 42 U.S.C. 300hh-12) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``Secretary of Health and Human Services''
and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'';
(B) by inserting ``the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and'' between ``in coordination with'' and ``the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs''; and
(C) by inserting ``of Health and Human Services'' after
``as are determined by the Secretary''; and
(2) in subsections (a)(2) and (b), by inserting ``of Health
and Human Services'' after ``Secretary'' each place it
appears.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of transfer of the Strategic
National Stockpile of the Department of Health and Human
Services to the Department.

SEC. 1706. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITIES.

(a) Amendment to Title 40.--Section 581 of title 40, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a); and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (1);
(B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting a period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (3).
(b) Law Enforcement Authority.--
(1) In general.--Section 1315 of title 40, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 1315. Law enforcement authority of Secretary of
Homeland Security for protection of public property

``(a) In General.--To the extent provided for by transfers
made pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the
Secretary of Homeland Security (in this section referred to
as the `Secretary') shall protect the buildings, grounds, and
property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal
Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly
owned or mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons
on the property.
``(b) Officers and Agents.--
``(1) Designation.--The Secretary may designate employees
of the Department of Homeland Security, including employees
transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal
Protective Service of the General Services Administration
pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as officers
and agents for duty in connection with the protection of
property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and
persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the
property to the extent necessary to protect the property and
persons on the property.
``(2) Powers.--While engaged in the performance of official
duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection
may--
``(A) enforce Federal laws and regulations for the
protection of persons and property;
``(B) carry firearms;
``(C) make arrests without a warrant for any offense
against the United States committed in the presence of the
officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws
of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable
grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed or is committing a felony;
``(D) serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the
authority of the United States; and
``(E) conduct investigations, on and off the property in
question, of offenses that may have been committed against
property owned or occupied by the Federal Government or
persons on the property.
``(F) carry out such other activities for the promotion of
homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.
``(c) Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator of General Services, may prescribe regulations
necessary for the protection and administration of property
owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on
the property. The regulations may include reasonable
penalties, within the limits prescribed in paragraph (2), for
violations of the regulations. The regulations shall be
posted and remain posted in a conspicuous place on the
property.
``(2) Penalties.--A person violating a regulation
prescribed under this subsection shall be fined under title
18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 30 days,
or both.
``(d) Details.--
``(1) Requests of agencies.--On the request of the head of
a Federal agency having charge or control of property owned
or occupied by the Federal Government, the Secretary may
detail officers and agents designated under this section for
the protection of the property and persons on the property.
``(2) Applicability of regulations.--The Secretary may--
``(A) extend to property referred to in paragraph (1) the
applicability of regulations prescribed under this section
and enforce the regulations as provided in this section; or
``(B) utilize the authority and regulations of the
requesting agency if agreed to in writing by the agencies.
``(3) Facilities and services of other agencies.--When the
Secretary determines it to be economical and in the public
interest, the Secretary may utilize the facilities and
services of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies, with the consent of the agencies.
``(e) Authority Outside Federal Property.--For the
protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal
Government and persons on the property, the Secretary may
enter into agreements with Federal agencies and with State
and local governments to obtain authority for officers and
agents designated under this section to enforce Federal laws
and State and local laws concurrently with other Federal law
enforcement officers and with State and local law enforcement
officers.
``(f) Secretary and Attorney General Approval.--The powers
granted to officers and agents designated under this section
shall be exercised in accordance with guidelines approved by
the Secretary and the Attorney General.
``(g) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to--
``(1) preclude or limit the authority of any Federal law
enforcement agency; or
``(2) restrict the authority of the Administrator of
General Services to promulgate regulations affecting property
under the Administrator's custody and control.''.

[[Page 23105]]

(2) Delegation of authority.--The Secretary may delegate
authority for the protection of specific buildings to another
Federal agency where, in the Secretary's discretion, the
Secretary determines it necessary for the protection of that
building.
(3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 13 of title 40, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 1315 and
inserting the following:

``1315. Law enforcement authority of Secretary of Homeland Security for
protection of public property.''.

SEC. 1707. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY REGULATIONS.

Title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 114(l)(2)(B), by inserting ``for a period
not to exceed 90 days'' after ``effective''; and
(2) in section 114(l)(2)(B), by inserting ``ratified or''
after ``unless''.

SEC. 1708. NATIONAL BIO-WEAPONS DEFENSE ANALYSIS CENTER.

There is established in the Department of Defense a
National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center, whose mission
is to develop countermeasures to potential attacks by
terrorists using weapons of mass destruction.

SEC. 1709. COLLABORATION WITH THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
SECURITY.

(a) Department of Health and Human Services.--The second
sentence of section 351A(e)(1) of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 262A(e)(1)) is amended by striking
``consultation with'' and inserting ``collaboration with the
Secretary of Homeland Security and''.
(b) Department of Agriculture.--The second sentence of
section 212(e)(1) of the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8401) is amended by striking
``consultation with'' and inserting ``collaboration with the
Secretary of Homeland Security and''.

SEC. 1710. RAILROAD SAFETY TO INCLUDE RAILROAD SECURITY.

(a) Investigation and Surveillance Activities.--Section
20105 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' in the
first sentence of subsection (a) and inserting ``Secretary
concerned'';
(2) by striking ``Secretary'' each place it appears (except
the first sentence of subsection (a)) and inserting
``Secretary concerned'';
(3) by striking ``Secretary's duties under chapters 203-213
of this title'' in subsection (d) and inserting ``duties
under chapters 203-213 of this title (in the case of the
Secretary of Transportation) and duties under section 114 of
this title (in the case of the Secretary of Homeland
Security)'';
(4) by striking ``chapter.'' in subsection (f) and
inserting ``chapter (in the case of the Secretary of
Transportation) and duties under section 114 of this title
(in the case of the Secretary of Homeland Security).''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `safety' includes security; and
``(2) the term `Secretary concerned' means--
``(A) the Secretary of Transportation, with respect to
railroad safety matters concerning such Secretary under laws
administered by that Secretary; and
``(B) the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to
railroad safety matters concerning such Secretary under laws
administered by that Secretary.''.
(b) Regulations and Orders.--Section 20103(a) of such title
is amended by inserting after ``1970.'' the following: ``When
prescribing a security regulation or issuing a security order
that affects the safety of railroad operations, the Secretary
of Homeland Security shall consult with the Secretary.''.
(c) National Uniformity of Regulation.--Section 20106 of
such title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and laws, regulations, and orders
related to railroad security'' after ``safety'' in the first
sentence;
(2) by inserting ``or security'' after ``safety'' each
place it appears after the first sentence; and
(3) by striking ``Transportation'' in the second sentence
and inserting ``Transportation (with respect to railroad
safety matters), or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with
respect to railroad security matters),''.

SEC. 1711. HAZMAT SAFETY TO INCLUDE HAZMAT SECURITY.

(a) General Regulatory Authority.--Section 5103 of title
49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``transportation'' the first place it
appears in subsection (b)(1) and inserting ``transportation,
including security,'';
(2) by striking ``aspects'' in subsection (b)(1)(B) and
inserting ``aspects, including security,''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Consultation.--When prescribing a security regulation
or issuing a security order that affects the safety of the
transportation of hazardous material, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall consult with the Secretary.''.
(b) Preemption.--Section 5125 of that title is amended--
(1) by striking ``chapter or a regulation prescribed under
this chapter'' in subsection (a)(1) and inserting ``chapter,
a regulation prescribed under this chapter, or a hazardous
materials transportation security regulation or directive
issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security'';
(2) by striking ``chapter or a regulation prescribed under
this chapter.'' in subsection (a)(2) and inserting ``chapter,
a regulation prescribed under this chapter, or a hazardous
materials transportation security regulation or directive
issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security.''; and
(3) by striking ``chapter or a regulation prescribed under
this chapter,'' in subsection (b)(1) and inserting ``chapter,
a regulation prescribed under this chapter, or a hazardous
materials transportation security regulation or directive
issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security,''.

SEC. 1712. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY.

The National Science and Technology Policy, Organization,
and Priorities Act of 1976 is amended--
(1) in section 204(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 6613(b)(1)), by
inserting ``homeland security,'' after ``national
security,''; and
(2) in section 208(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 6617(a)(1)), by
inserting ``the Office of Homeland Security,'' after
``National Security Council,''.

SEC. 1713. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

Section 7902(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(13) The Under Secretary for Science and Technology of
the Department of Homeland Security.
``(14) Other Federal officials the Council considers
appropriate.''.

SEC. 1714. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURER.

Section 2133(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-33(3)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``under its label
any vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table'' and
inserting ``any vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury
table, including any component or ingredient of any such
vaccine''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``including any
component or ingredient of any such vaccine'' before the
period.

SEC. 1715. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF VACCINE-RELATED
INJURY OR DEATH.

Section 2133(5) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-33(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``For purposes of the preceding sentence, an adulterant or
contaminant shall not include any component or ingredient
listed in a vaccine's product license application or product
label.''.

SEC. 1716. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF VACCINE.

Section 2133 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-33) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) The term `vaccine' means any preparation or
suspension, including but not limited to a preparation or
suspension containing an attenuated or inactive microorganism
or subunit thereof or toxin, developed or administered to
produce or enhance the body's immune response to a disease or
diseases and includes all components and ingredients listed
in the vaccines's product license application and product
label.''.

SEC. 1717. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by sections 1714, 1715, and 1716 shall
apply to all actions or proceedings pending on or after the
date of enactment of this Act, unless a court of competent
jurisdiction has entered judgment (regardless of whether the
time for appeal has expired) in such action or proceeding
disposing of the entire action or proceeding.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

NOMINATION OF DENNIS W. SHEDD, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to vote on the Shedd nomination.
The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the
votes from here on out will be 10 minutes in length. And I intend to
cut off the votes at 10 minutes. I hope everybody will stay on the
floor and cast their votes so we can complete our work at a reasonable
hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Dennis W.
Shedd, of South Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the confirmation of Judge Shedd
to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His nomination is also
opposed by a large number of individuals, law professors, bar
association and civil rights groups across the country, because he has
not shown the commitment to the protection and vindication of Federal
rights that is essential for this high position in the judiciary.

[[Page 23106]]

Judge Shedd has an unacceptable record in cases involving race and
gender discrimination. In race discrimination cases, for example, he
consistently grants summary judgment against African-American civil
rights plaintiffs, preventing even close cases from reaching a jury,
and he often does so with little or analysis. In one case, he granted
summary judgment for the defendant after the EEOC determined there was
a reasonable cause to find that the plaintiff was denied promotion and
the denial was based on race. In another case, the plaintiff was denied
a pay increase despite the recommendation of his immediate supervisor,
where the employer was found by the State to have been discriminating
against African-Americans on pay increases.
Judge Shedd has a similar record in gender discrimination cases. He
granted summary judgment for an employer in a sexual harassment case in
which the male supervisor's conduct was so inappropriate that Judge
Shedd himself stated that the supervisor's conduct was ``sufficiently
severe and pervasive to constituent a hostile work environment.''
Nonetheless, Judge Shedd granted summary judgment for the employer,
finding no evidence that the plaintiff herself thought the work
environment had been hostile. This ruling is impossible to reconcile
with the facts of the case--the plaintiff had told her supervisor that
his comments were offensive, she had reported the conduct to her
supervisor, she had taken concrete steps to pursue the complaint, and
she eventually quit her position.
In another case, Judge Shedd reversed a magistrate judge's decision
to deny summary judgment for an employer. In this case, the plaintiff's
supervisor had harassed both the plaintiff and a number of other female
employees. Yet Judge Shedd dismissed this case, against the
recommendation of the magistrate, because the plaintiff had complained
to two different people, a supervisor and the company's chief financial
officer, but did not complain to the president of the company, as
required by company policy. Judge Shedd ignored the fact that the
company's policy also called for the supervisor and the CFO themselves
to report the plaintiff's complaints to the president, which they
failed to do. Judge Shedd also relied on the fact that the plaintiff's
complaint referred to ``harassment,'' instead of ``sexual harassment.''
These were not merely cases in which Judge Shedd ultimately decided
on the facts that discrimination had not taken place. These are cases
in which he determined that the jury should not even be permitted to
hear the plaintiff's claim. Judge Shedd dismissed the vast majority of
race discrimination cases brought by African-Americans, before those
cases could reach the jury. By contrast, in the five discrimination
cases brought by white males, Judge Shedd allowed four to go to a
trial. This pattern is very disturbing. The people of the Fourth
Circuit deserve better from their Federal judges.
In addition, Judge Shedd has often reached out from the bench to
affect the litigation of the cases before him. In discrimination cases,
he is known to raise arguments on behalf of the defense from the bench,
even arguments not raised by the defendants themselves. He has gone so
far as to dismiss cases on grounds not raised by the defendant. In one
case, he initiated an inquiry into finances of an unemployed woman who
had been granted pauper status by another Federal judge; Judge Shedd
ruled that she did not deserve such status, in large part because of
the money she had spent pursuing her claim, and recommended that the
Fourth Circuit dismiss an appeal the woman had pending in a different
suit. He published his conclusions, he said, because other judges may
want to know of his personal findings shout this woman.
The States of the Fourth Circuit have a large minority population,
the highest percentage of African-Africans of any circuit in the
country, and they deserve a fair judiciary, committed to protecting
basic rights.
For all of these reasons, I oppose this nomination. the
administration can, and must, do better for the people of the Fourth
Circuit.

u.s. circuit court nominees

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the
confirmation of Judge Dennis Shedd to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the confirmation of Professor
Michael McConnell to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.
At every level of the Federal court system, federal judges have a
tremendous impact on the rights and protections of all Americans. The
federal judiciary effectively ended segregation and ensured a woman's
right to reproductive choice. Every day we count on federal judges to
protect our civil rights and liberties.
The Senate serves as the only effective check on the Federal
judiciary. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to advise and
consent to the President's judicial appointments. These are lifetime
appointments. Furthermore, because the U.S. Supreme Court hears only a
few cases, the Circuit Courts of Appeals are often the courts of last
resort for citizens seeking justice from the federal bench. As
Senators, we have a constitutional responsibility to evaluate these
candidates.
I believe judicial candidates should be experienced, even-handed,
possess a fair judicial temperament, and be committed to upholding the
rights and liberties of all Americans.
Dennis Shedd does not meet that standard. He has failed to show this
Senator that he possesses the characteristics necessary to receive a
lifetime appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
As a Federal District Court Judge, Shedd's rulings and actions on the
bench indicate he lacks the even-handedness we expect from our federal
judges. He has consistently sided with employers in workplace
discrimination suits on issues ranging from sexual harassment to race
and age discrimination. In fact, in his 11 years on the Federal bench
not a single plaintiff in a civil rights or employment discrimination
case has prevailed in his courtroom.
His willingness to inject his own personal bias about the rights of
individuals shows he also lacks the requisite judicial temperament we
should require in a Federal judge. He has shown hostility to those
seeking justice from the bench by assisting the defense and granting
summary judgment for the defense in a disproportionate number of cases.
Aside from employee rights and discrimination cases, he has also
shown an unwillingness to uphold the basic civil liberties and rights
of all Americans. He has favored a state government's ability to
violate an individual's right of privacy by selling their personal
information despite a federal law to the contrary. He also struck down
part of the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, by arguing a State
cannot be sued under FMLA due to sovereign immunity.
He has further shown a disregard for protecting the rights of voters,
and has displayed an insensitivity on issues concerning race.
Considering his history of narrowly interpreting the rights of
individuals and his hostility toward civil liberty protections, we can
only assume he would not uphold the civil liberty of privacy, including
honoring the Roe v. Wade decision. In fact, at his confirmation hearing
he refused to commit to upholding the fundamental right of reproductive
freedom.
Dennis Shedd's record clearly illustrates he is not even-handed, that
he lacks the right temperament for the appeals bench, and that he has
consistently failed to protect the rights and liberties of our people.
He should not be confirmed for the Federal appeals court. I urge my
colleagues to vote against this nomination.
I would also like to express my opposition to Professor Michael
McConnell's recent confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.
Professor McConnell has consistently expressed strong opposition to
protecting civil rights and liberties, going so far as to call the Roe
case ``a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution.''

[[Page 23107]]

He has also argued, contrary to existing law, that abortion protestors
have a ``constitutional right to protect against abortion--forcefully
and face-to-face.''
He holds extreme opinions on the separation of church and state and
other key civil rights protections. Professor McConnell has severely
criticized the Supreme Court's 8 to 1 decision in Bob Jones University
v. United States. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the IRS may
deny tax-exempt status to a religious school with racially
discriminatory policies. Professor McConnell wrote that the racial
discriminatory practices at Bob Jones University should be tolerated
because they were religious in nature. He has also argued for giving
religious institutions preferential treatment and has advocated direct
federal funding of religious institutions. Clearly, Professor
McConnell's opinion on the separation of church and state strays far
from the mainstream and far from generally recognized conservative
legal analysis.
Finally, Professor McConnell has argued for weakening both statutory
and constitutional protections against discrimination based on race,
gender, and sexual orientation through exemptions for private entities.
Like Judge Shedd, I believe Professor McConnell lacks the basic
qualities needed to serve on the Federal appellate bench.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote against the confirmation of
Dennis Shedd to be a United States Judge for the 4th Circuit Court of
Appeals. Judge Shedd's record as a judge on the United States District
Court raises a number of concerns about both his approach on the bench
and his commitment to equal justice--leading me to the conclusion that
he should not be promoted to the second highest court in the land.
Of particular concern to me are Judge Shedd's extreme view on the
limits of Congressional authority and his record of hostility to
plaintiffs in civil rights and employment discrimination cases. This
combination is extremely dangerous given the critical role that
Congress plays in passing laws to ensure that Constitutional
protections are afforded to all Americans. Further, I am troubled by
what appears to be a lack of thorough consideration in Judge Shedd's
approach. This is particularly unsettling given the significant
Constitutional issues that have been at stake in his courtroom.
With respect to Judge Shedd's view of the Constitutional role of the
Congress, two cases stand out, Condon v. Reno and Crosby v. South
Carolina.
I voted for, and Congress enacted, the Drivers Privacy Protection Act
in 1994 to limit the availability of personal information--such as
photographs, social security numbers, addresses and telephone numbers,
and even some medical information--contained in motor vehicle records.
In Condon v. Reno, the state of South Carolina challenged the law,
claiming that it was an unconstitutional infringement on the state's
rights because it restricted South Carolina from setting its own
standards for releasing State motor vehicle records. In Condon v. Reno,
Judge Shedd ruled that the law was unconstitutional and in the process
endorsed a view that--if permitted to stand--would have severely
limited Congress's ability to legislate under the Commerce clause of
the Constitution. Judge Shedd's decision endorsed a view of
congressional authority so far out of the mainstream that the Supreme
Court ruled unanimously to overturn him in a decision written by Chief
Justice Rehnquist.
Judge Shedd's decision in Crosby v. South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control also deeply troubles me. In Crosby,
Judge Shedd adopted a magistrate's recommendation granting defendant's
summary judgement--agreeing with the magistrate that the 11th Amendment
doctrine of state sovereign immunity should prevent the plaintiff from
suing the state for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act
because he believed that Act was an improper exercise of Congress's
enforcement power under the 14th amendment. Despite the obvious and
profound implications of this decision for Congress's authority, Judge
Shedd offered virtually no analysis to support his decision. This is
despite the absence of directly controlling precedent and the presence
of a split among other Federal district courts on the issue. Acts of
Congress are entitled to a presumption of Constitutionality. Ruling to
overturn a Federal law should not be taken lightly. In a case of this
import, Judge Shedd's failure to articulate a rationale for his
decision is deeply disturbing. The fact that other judges may have
reached the same conclusion as Judge Shedd is not the point here.
Parties before the court on an issue of this magnitude are entitled to
a judge's reasoning. Judge Shedd offered none.
The Crosby decision is not the only example of Judge Shedd's tendency
to accept magistrate recommendations with little or no comment on
important matters. In South Carolina, all cases under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 are automatically referred to magistrates for
pretrial matters. In important employment discrimination cases, Judge
Shedd has often adopted magistrates' recommendations in favor of
summary judgement. And he has done so without comment in many instances
where it appears to me that comment was warranted. In fact, Judge Shedd
has done so in cases where a party has raised an objection to one of
the magistrate's recommendations and he was required to conduct a de
novo review. In a number of these cases, Judge Shedd's rulings do not
address the objections at all. Instead, his decisions simply adopt the
magistrate's recommendations and pay lip service to his obligation by
including a statement that he has conducted the required de novo
review. Given the concerns I have about this approach in the Crosby
case, this practice deeply concerns me.
Mr. President, nothing is more important for a judge than a
commitment to equal justice. A review of Judge Shedd's record also
raises the question whether this ideal is being upheld.
In a number of civil rights cases, Judge Shedd appears to have
intervened in a manner that has tilted toward defendants. He has
granted summary judgement for defendants on grounds not even raised by
the defendants. He has ordered a defendant to file a motion to dismiss
a case and later granted the motion. And Judge Shedd even granted
summary judgment against a petitioner even though it appears that the
defendant never filed a motion for summary judgement. These decisions
raise serious questions about whether plaintiffs are getting a fair
hearing in Judge Shedd's courtroom.
I was particularly struck by the Judge's answer to a question from
Senator Edwards in his Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year.
Senator Edwards asked Judge Shedd whether he had ever granted relief to
a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. Judge Shedd could not
recall a single instance where a plaintiff alleging employment
discrimination was granted relief in his courtroom. Judge Shedd's
inability to recall such a case is actually not surprising as a review
of his published opinions failed to reveal even one such instance.
Eleven years on the bench and not one of his published opinions
reflects a favorable ruling for an employee in a discrimination case.
Mr. President, I'm afraid Judge Shedd's record simply does not
support his promotion to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition
to the nomination of Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Although the President has pledged to nominate qualified
individuals with outstanding judicial records to the Federal Court
System, he has, time and time again, failed to make good on that
pledge. Judge Shedd is no exception. During his tenure as a trial
judge, Judge Shedd has exhibited extreme, even radical views on an
array of important issues. Judge Shedd's record demonstrates that in
cases involving civil rights, privacy, discrimination and federalism,
he is willing to cross the boundaries of established case law and rule
in a manner that is out of touch with mainstream thinking.

[[Page 23108]]

A few cases in particular merit the attention of this body. In a case
demonstrating Judge Shedd's extreme stance on federalism, he struck
down as unconstitutional the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which we
passed to ensure that states keep drivers' license information
confidential. This legislation, designed as ``antistalking''
legislation, was drafted in part because antiabortion activists have
used accessible drivers' license information to obtain the addresses of
doctors who performed abortions in order to post that information on
websites. Mr. President, this case was reversed unanimously by the
Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist authoring the opinion.
Judge Shedd also has a record of condoning serious civil liberties
violations by law enforcement. In one particularly disturbing case,
Judge Shedd dismissed a lawsuit brought against a corrections officer
who had stripped an inmate naked and left him without bedding for 48
hours after the inmate confessed to not knowing the prison's rules
concerning lights out. In dismissing the case, Judge Shedd merely
stated that he did not think the inmate had been punished. In another
instance, he imposed an inconsequential $250 fine in a case where a
sheriff and a prosecutor secretly videotaped a jailhouse conversation
between a defendant and his lawyer. Judge Shedd defended the penalty
stating that he did not think the pair committed any civil rights
violation. I am deeply troubled that we might appoint a judge who does
not recognize the blatant civil rights violation in this circumstance.
Perhaps most troubling is Judge Shedd's overwhelming tendency to
grant summary judgement against plaintiffs in race and gender
employment discrimination cases, preventing the vast majority of such
cases from going to trial. In a case involving sexual harassment in the
workplace, Judge Shedd reversed the recommendation of a magistrate that
the plaintiff be allowed to present her case to a jury, granting
summary judgment for the employer even though Judge Shedd himself
concluded that the supervisor's conduct ``clearly was, from an
objective standpoint, sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a
hostile work environment.'' He relied, therefore, on a tortured
interpretation of both the facts and the law to rule against the
plaintiff in that case. This is one of many instances that demonstrate
a clear pattern in which Judge Shedd has prevented cases brought by
people of color and women from ever reaching a jury.
We routinely put aside our partisan differences to send qualified men
and women to the federal bench because it is in the best interests of
our country to fill seats with those individuals who have pledged to
interpret the law objectively and without bias, whether or not they
happen to be liberal or conservative in temperament. We place a great
deal of trust in these men and women, as their appointments are
guaranteed for life. Unfortunately, based on the records and statements
I have reviewed, I do not believe we can place our trust in Judge Shedd
to protect the civil liberties Americans of all races and beliefs have
fought so hard to win. It is because of this that I will vote against
his nomination.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, every judicial nomination that comes
before this body is critically important. However, I take a particular
interest in appointments to the Fourth Circuit, which includes my home
State of North Carolina. The Fourth Circuit needs qualified, fair-
minded judges who will put aside their personal views and follow the
law. After reviewing his record carefully, I have concluded that Judge
Dennis Shedd is not such a judge.
While Judge Shedd's record provides numerous reasons to oppose his
confirmation, I am most troubled by his poor record on civil rights,
where he has demonstrated an alarming propensity for putting his
personal views above the law. Judge Shedd has repeatedly overstepped
the bounds of judicial restraint and engaged in judicial activism on
behalf of defendants in discrimination cases.
I raised this concern with Judge Shedd earlier this year during his
confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Judge Shedd could
not point to one instance in his eleven years on the bench in which an
individual alleging discrimination--based on race, sex, age or
disability--has ever won a case in his court. In the same period, there
have been over 20 verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in other Federal
courts in the State. In written questions, I asked Judge Shedd to say
whether a victim of employment discrimination had ever prevailed in his
courtroom. He could name no such case.
On the other hand, there is considerable and disturbing evidence of
Judge Shedd's conduct in civil rights cases to benefit the defendant.
To name only one example: in a sexual harassment matter, Judge Shedd
overruled a magistrate's ruling allowing a case to go to trial, even
though the plaintiff had offered sworn evidence that her supervisor had
commented on her breasts, asked her graphic sexual questions, bought
her panty-less pantyhose, and frequently stood behind her, rubbed her
shoulders while trying to look down her shirt, and so on.
Finally, in a major case involving the Federal Government's power to
protect the privacy of individuals' personal records, Judge Shedd sided
against individual rights, and was reversed by a unanimous Supreme
Court. There is no other case since 1995 in which a lower court has
limited Congress's power and the Supreme Court has reversed.
Federal judges have no responsibility more important than enforcing
our laws equally. Because Judge Shedd has proven his willingness to put
his personal views above the law, especially in civil rights cases, I
must vote against his confirmation.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from a group of 16
North Carolina law professors addressing these and several other of
Judge Shedd's decisions be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

June 12, 2002.
Hon. John R. Edwards,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Edwards: We are writing to you--as individual
members of the faculties of the School of Law of the
University of North Carolina, Duke Law School, and North
Carolina Central University School of Law--concerned that the
Senate Judiciary Committee may be poised to act without
conducting a full investigation of President Bush's recent
nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, United States District Judge Dennis W. Shedd. We
suggest that to act precipitously on this important
nomination would be a serious mistake.
As you know, the Fourth Circuit is one of the region's most
influential governmental bodies; its impact on
constitutional, statutory, and regulatory issues in the
Southeast has no equal apart from the Supreme Court itself.
Moreover, a wide range of responsible observers concur that
during the past decade the Fourth Circuit has become the most
activist federal court in the nation. In certain crucial
areas, including federal judicial efforts to confine Congress
in the exercise of its traditionally broad national powers,
the Fourth Circuit has no peer. It has led the way in
attempting to narrow the Congress's Commerce Clause powers,
see, e.g., Condon v. Reno, 155 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 1998),
rev'd, 528 U.S. 141 (2000) (challenging Congress's authority
under the Commerce Clause to enact the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act); Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst., 169
F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1999) (en banc), aff'd United States v.
Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (challenging Congress's
authority under the Commerce Clause to enact the Violence
Against Women Act), its Section 5 powers under the Fourteenth
Amendment, see, e.g., Brzonkala, 169 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1999)
(en banc) (challenging Congress's authority under Section 5),
and in promulgating aggressive conceptions of the Tenth and
Eleventh Amendments. See South Carolina State Ports Authority
v. Federal Maritime Comm'n 243 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 2001),
aff'd 122 S. Ct. 1864 (2002) (invalidating the FMC's
authority over state port entities, previously granted by
Congress under the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1701 et seq., on Eleventh Amendment grounds).
As a federal district judge during the past eleven years,
Judge Shedd has been a sympathetic participant in this
judicial campaign to disempower Congress. He authored the
original decision in Condon v. Reno, 972 F. Supp. 977 (D.
S.C. 1997), and struck down the Driver's Privacy Protection
Act of 1994, 18

[[Page 23109]]

U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2721-25, a decision later overturned in a 9-
to-0 decision of the Supreme Court authored by Chief Justice
Rehnquist. Judge Shedd also acted to invalidate the
application of the Family and Medical Leave Act to state
agencies, holding that ``Congress did not properly enact the
FMLA under Sec. 5 of the fourteenth amendment, and therefore,
has not abrogated [the State defendant's] eleventh amendment
immunity from suit.'' Crosby v. South Carolina Dep't of
Health & Environmental Control, C.A. No. 3-97-3588119BD, at 1
(D. S.C. Oct. 14, 1999).
Were Judge Shedd's highly protective views of state
sovereignty, his skepticism about Congressional power, and
his aggressive use of judicial authority the only issues
presented by his nomination, they would suffice to require
careful Senate consideration. However, we are concerned by
three other features of his record: (1) an apparent
skepticism of federal civil rights claims; (2) a marked
sympathy for employers in employment disputes; and (3) an
unusually vigorous use of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules (the
summary judgment provision) and similar procedural provisions
to wrest lawsuits from trial juries and end them by judicial
fiat.
We are not prepared to say, at this point, that Judge Shedd
has acted with bias in these areas, since so many of his
decisions are unreported (and we have not been able to review
the briefs in these cases) and since an unusual number of his
reported decisions are merely brief orders that accept and
adopt relatively summary reports from United States
Magistrates. However, in some sixty-six cases that presently
appear in the LEXIS online system, we note the following
patterns. Judge Shedd appears never to have granted relief to
a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case, although he
has granted numerous summary judgment motions in favor of
employers. See, e.g., Roberts v. Defender Services, Inc.,
C.A. No. 0:00-1536-19BC (D.S.C., Sept 27, 2001) (rejecting a
female employee's sexual harassment and hostile work
environment claims); Austin v. FN Manufacturing, Inc., C.A.
No. 3:98-3605-19BC (D.S.C., March 23, 2000) (rejecting an
African American employee's racial discrimination, hostile
environment, and constructive discharge claims); Taylor v.
Cummings Atlantic, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 1279 (D.S.C. 1994)
(rejecting an older employee's age discrimination, fraud, and
breach of contract claims); (Bailey v. South Carolina Dep't
of Social Services, 851 F. Supp. 219 (D.S.C. 1993) (rejecting
an African American employee's non-promotion claim, although
backed by EEOC Determination of reasonable cause that
plaintiff was not promoted because of his race); White v.
Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 1212
(D.S.C. 1992) (rejecting an employee's breach of contract and
promissory estoppel claims).
In the Roberts case, for example, Judge Shedd granted
summary judgment to an employer in a sexual harassment
lawsuit, even after he noted that ``the alleged conduct [of
Ms. Robert's supervisor] clearly was, from an objective
standpoint, sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a
hostile and abusive work environment.'' Roberts, supra, at 2.
Judge Shedd concluded, nonetheless, that plaintiff Rogers
raised no genuine issue of fact about whether she herself
``subjectively perceived the environment to be abusive,''
id., although it was undisputed that she had joined in making
a formal complaint about her supervisor's abusive behavior to
corporate headquarters, and then met with a corporate
investigator to detail and protest the supervisor's sexually
suggestive behavior.
We have also obtained a list of unpublished fifty-three
federal race, gender, age, and disability cases in which
Judge Shedd has dealt with cases on summary judgment. In
most, he has granted defendants' motions and dismissed the
cases, denying all relief to the plaintiffs. Since these
cases are not reported, we have not yet been able to review
them to discern whether they manifest bias, but the overall
anti-plaintiff pattern is troubling.
The tendency by Judge Shedd to resolve cases on his own,
short of trial, is also manifest in his use of Rule 56
summary judgment in other, non-employment contexts, see,
e.g., Alston v. Ruston, C.A. No.: 9-99-244-19RB, 2000 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 11939 (D.S.C. March 9, 2000) (prisoner's Section
1983 and Eighth Amendment claim); Joye v. Richland County
Sheriff's Dep't, 47 F. Supp. 2d 663 (D.S.C. 1999) (Section
1983 and Fourth Amendment, false arrest claim); Cianbro Corp.
v. Jeffcoat & Martin, 804 F. Supp. 784 (D.S.C. 1992)
(attorney malpractice action), and by the use of other
procedural devices, such as Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss,
see, e.g., Gray v. Petoseed Co., 985 F. Supp. 625 (D.S.C.
1996) (fraud in sale of contaminated watermelon seeds), as
well as by use of Rule 50 motions to grant judgment
notwithstanding the verdict, see, e.g., Storms v. Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co., 775 F. Supp. 862 (D.S.C. 1991) (wrongful
discharge and breach of implied contract); Wilds v. Slater,
C.A. No. 3:97-1608-19BD, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20771 (D.S.C.
March 7, 2000) (National Environmental Policy Act action for
failure to file environmental impact statement).
In Alston, for example, Judge Shedd granted summary
judgment on a Section 1983 complaint after somehow
concluding, as a matter of law, that a prison guard had not
used excessive force--despite an affidavit and a well-pleaded
complaint from the plaintiff alleging that the officer had
sprayed him in the face with tear gas without justification,
advanced toward him ``swinging his fists and punching
[plaintiff] in the mouth,'' and wielded a broomstick until
other officers intervened. We do not, of course, know whether
the plaintiff's version of these facts is correct or,
instead, whether the correctional officer's version should be
credited; we do believe it is impossible fairly to conclude
that the conflicting evidence of record about what happened
that evening raised no ``genuine issue of material fact.''
In another such case, Joye v. Richland Co. Sheriff's Dep't,
Judge Shedd dismissed a Section 1983 claim brought by a
person wrongfully arrested by sheriff's deputies under a
bench warrant issued for his son. Despite the fact that the
arrest warrant described a man aged 31, standing 5'11''
(while the plaintiff was 61 years old and stood only 5'8''),
despite plaintiff's allegations that the arresting officers
``refused to inform him of the basis for his arrest or
provide him with a copy of the warrant,'' despite the fact
that ``the warrant . . . listed the driver's license of [the
proper suspect]'' which ``differ[ed] from plaintiff's
driver's license number,'' Judge Shedd granted summary
judgment on the grounds that the defendants had ``a
reasonable, good faith belief that they were arresting the
correct person'' He thereby rejected, as a matter of law, the
contrary conclusion of a United States magistrate that the
officers were not entitled to a ``good faith'' defense on
these facts since ``[a] simple check of the bench warrant
should have revealed that Joye was not the person wanted.''
Joye, 47 F. Supp. 2d at 665-66.
Judge Shedd also appears to be willing to interject himself
in unusual ways into ongoing judicial proceedings. In one
case, Maytag Corp. v. Clarkson, 875 F. Supp. 324 (D.S.C.
1995), he went out of his way to draft and publish an opinion
castigating a lawyer for making a closing argument urging the
jury to decide a case on its notion of ``what is right and .
. . what is moral and . . . what is just.'' Judge Shedd had
submitted the case to the jury on a special verdict--limited
to the question whether the defendant was liable to the
plaintiff under a written guarantee--and although plaintiff's
attorneys made no objection to the defendant's closing
argument (and although the jury subsequently returned a
verdict for the plaintiff), Judge Shedd felt the need to
publish an opinion declaring that the defendant's appeal to
morality, decency, and justice--what the Court termed the
sympathy of the jury--was inappropriate: ``Therefore, while
this matter is now closed, this Order should serve as a
reminder to all counsel that arguments of the type addressed
herein are improper and will not be tolerated in this
Court.'' 875 F. Supp. at 330.
In yet another such example, Judge Shedd initiated, sua
sponte, an inquiry into the finances of an unemployed party,
living with her mother, who had been granted in forma
pauperis status by another federal judge and whose case was
already pending on appeal in the Fourth Circuit. Assaad-
Faltas v. University of South Carolina, 971 F. Supp. 985
(D.S.C. 1997). Based on ``the prolific litigiousness in which
she has engaged,'' id. at 986--specifically citing her use of
a telephone to make long-distance telephone calls to the
Fourth Circuit and her use of her mother's automobile ``to
travel to the courthouse on a regular basis,'' as well as her
practice of ``flood[ing] the Court and opposing counsel with
numerous legal filings, many of which contain multiple pages
and/or exhibits''--Judge Shedd revoked her in forma pauperis
status and recommended that the Fourth Circuit dismiss her
pending appeal, concluding that these acts were ``certainly
indicative of the fact that she has financial resources
available to her to fund this litigation.'' Id. at 988.
In our considered judgment, these cases suffice to raise
red flags that should require the Senate Judiciary Committee
to proceed only after the most careful review of Judge
Shedd's full judicial record--most of which has only become
available for consideration in the past few days. The Fourth
Circuit does not, in our view, need another federal appellate
judge who would constrain the authority of Congress in the
21st century by resort to outdated and reactionary views of
federal power. It does not need a federal judge who would be
hostile to African Americans, to women, to the aged, or to
the disabled who bring serious claims of employment
discrimination or other forms of discrimination prohibited by
federal laws or the Constitution. It does not need a federal
judge who would reflexively side with management against
labor, with employers against employees. Nor does it need a
federal judge who is dismissive of the precious right to
trial by jury, cutting short legitimate factual disputes
that, under the Seventh Amendment, properly belong to federal
juries.
Sincerely,
John Charles Boger, Lissa L. Broome, Kenneth S. Broun,
John O. Calmore, Charles E. Daye, Eugene Gressman, Ann
Hubbard, Daniel H. Pollitt, Marilyn V. Yarbrough,
Professors of Law, UNC-Chapel Hill, School of Law.
Christopher H. Schroeder, Jerome Culp, Professors of Law,
Duke University, School of Law.

[[Page 23110]]

Renee F. Hill, David A. Green, Irving Joyner, Nichelle J.
Perry, Fred J. Williams, Professors of Law, North
Carolina Central, University School of Law.
One final note. The Fourth Circuit, as you know, presently
is comprised of eleven judges, and there are four pending
vacancies. Although North Carolina is the largest State
within the Circuit, it has no current representation on the
Circuit at all, and has had none since 1999, despite a
federal statute that requires that ``in each circuit, there
shall be at least one circuit judge in regular active service
appointed from the residents of each state in the circuit.''
28 U.S.C. Sec. 44.
South Carolina, the state in which Judge Shedd currently
sits, has three judges currently on the Fourth Circuit. Judge
Shedd's elevation would constitute the fourth. We respect our
sister state, of course, yet we do not understand why, with a
population less than half of North Carolina's, it should
receive its fourth active judge while North Carolina
languishes without a single sitting representative, and with
only two seats even authorized.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate has confirmed 99 judicial
nominees during the 107th Congress--all of which have occurred since
Democrats assumed the majority. Democrats have also confirmed more
circuit court nominees than Republicans did any of their prior six
years of control. Today we are considering the nomination of Judge
Shedd for the Fourth Circuit.
There has been much discussion over Judge Shedd's nomination, and I
understand the Judiciary Committee has received hundreds of letters
from individuals and organizations expressing concern over elevating
Judge Shedd. While his nomination was reported out of the committee
last week, there was considerable debate and many members raised
serious concerns. I am troubled by allegations that Judge Shedd has a
pattern of injecting his personal opinions into the proceedings before
him, including--ordering defendants to make motions for summary
judgment, and deciding on issues before they are raised.
I am also concerned about allegations that individuals raising
employment discrimination claims before him are unable to receive a
fair and impartial forum. I understand that through questioning by the
Judiciary Committee, it was uncovered that Judge Shedd could not think
of a single plaintiff in a civil rights or employment discrimination
case who had prevailed in his courtroom--in fact, Judge Shedd has never
granted substantive relief to a plaintiff in an employment
discrimination case.
I am also concerned about his extreme views of the constitutional
allocation of powers between the States and the federal government--
views that are not shared even by the current conservative Rehnquist
Court. In a 1997 case challenging the constitutionality of the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), Judge Shedd held that the federal
government did not have the power to require states to protect the
confidentiality of state driver's license records. In a 9-0 reversal of
Judge Shedd's ruling, the Supreme Court made clear that he had gone too
far. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to evaluate the
President's nominees, offer advice, and grant--or withhold--its
consent. I take this responsibility very seriously.
Unfortunately, in Judge Shedd's case I believe enough concerns have
been raised about his judicial temperament to lead me to the conclusion
that he should not be elevated to the Fourth Circuit. So, on this vote
I plan to vote against Judge Shedd's nomination.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to the vote.
Who yields time?
The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong
support for the nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Judge Shedd is a man of great character who will make
an outstanding addition to the Federal appellate bench. He possesses
the highest sense of integrity, a thorough knowledge of the law, and a
good judicial temperament.
I want to assure my colleagues that Judge Shedd is committed to
upholding the rights of all people under the Constitution. This fine
man is truly deserving of such an high honor, and he will serve the
people of the Fourth Circuit with distinction.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for
Judge Shedd be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

To: United States Senators.
From: Luonne Abram Rouse.
Re: Dennis Shedd.

Dennis Shedd is an outstanding American citizen, and a
friend of high integrity and godliness. The United States of
America will benefit greatly from his service in the 4th
Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Honorable Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina
introduced me to Dennis in 1983. Putting history behind, we
came together in the 80s, while I served as president of a
local NAACP chapter in South Carolina. We established a
friendship and respectful sharing that has been mutually
beneficial for our work in America and beyond. Since that
time, I have found Dennis Shedd to be the type of person that
I trust to weigh the issues with dignity and legal focus.
In 1982, Senator Thurmond was a guest in our home following
a time when he and I had written communication concerning the
Civil Rights Act. The Senator visited my home to personally
thank me for the communication, and state that he had changed
his mind and agreed to support the Civil Rights Act after
dialogue with several African American leaders. During the
same visit, he extended an invitation for me to be a guest
chaplain at the United States Senate in Washington, DC. I
responded with my presence in April of 1983, at which time I
met Dennis Shedd.
Dennis and I have kept up with one another's growth and
experiences. He has prayerfully supported my appointments in
United Methodist Churches across racial lines in South
Carolina, since 1986. The support he has shown for racial
inclusiveness in churches, during a time in which leading
sociologists claimed that there are no truly desegregated
churches in South Carolina, has been encouraging to my
ministry of intentionality and reconciliation in this period
of church desegregation.
I am confident that persons will be able to communicate
with this experienced Judge, and find him seeking to maintain
peace with justice based soundly on the law. When this matter
is concluded, I would like to have Hillary Shelton, another
outstanding man and long time activist who has been an
overnight guest in our home, to dinner and discover the real
essence of Dennis Shedd as a judge of fairness and justice
regarding issues of human rights.
Many people have sought to block Dennis Shedd's appointment
to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and some have led me to
study his decisions closely. I respectfully ask those who
would oppose him to consider that there is more to a decision
than a final report reveals, and much more to the person
having to issue the judgment regarding the same. I have known
Dennis as a man of his word, who reaches decisions weighing
the evidence with matters of law. I have been a long time
advocate for women's rights and civil rights, and would never
support someone whom I believed had personal issues
outweighing legal judgment on matters concerning the same.
Even is disagreement, his listening ear would grant the same
respect offered to him by those with opposing views. And the
respect he provides for one, I trust him to provide to
others. As a political leader Senator Thurmond has been most
respectful in communicating with me, and as a legal
representative Dennis has been most receptive and respectful
of my calls.
In conclusion, my wife and I have two daughters; our hopes
and dreams for the future are in them. I believe Dennis will
represent equality and justice for women and all ethnicities
in America with devotion to oath he has taken. I do not
believe that he will forsake the law with favoritism for
economic giants or big business. I sincerely view Dennis as
one who will grant persons of every socioeconomic level the
same psycho-social respect within the law.
Therefore, I strongly favor the nomination of Dennis Shedd
to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, because Dennis stands
firm on his convictions, but is open to intelligent and
informed opinions of law. He is open to change, but I do not
expect him to change just for political correctness. He will,
however, hear the ethical and moral points. I support him
because of his listening ear and desire for justice.
I appreciate your prayerful action and reception of this
letter.
____

Law Offices of Jack B. Swerling,

Columbia, SC, January 26, 2001.
Re the Honorable Dennis W. Shedd.

Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator,
Columbia, SC.
Dear Senator Hollings: I am writing you in support of the
nomination of the Honorable Dennis W. Shedd to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe that you could not find
from our great state a more able or deserving jurist to sit
on the Fourth Circuit.

[[Page 23111]]

I have been in practice for almost 28 years and a
significant part of my practice is dedicated to the
representation of defendants in criminal cases in the
District of South Carolina. Since Judge Shedd was appointed
to serve as a District Judge, I have had the opportunity to
appear before him on many occasions, in both hearings and in
trials.
Judge Shedd presides over the proceedings before him in a
fair and impartial manner. All litigants, whether they be
private individuals, corporations, or governmental entities,
enjoy the opportunity to be fully heard in the presentation
of their case. I have always felt that while one side or
another must ultimately prevail, each litigant as well as
their counsel have been treated with the utmost respect and
dignity in Judge Shedd's courtroom. He is known among the
federal bar to be intellectually gifted. He has a complete
command of not only the federal rules of evidence and
procedure, but also the federal case law throughout the
country. His orders and trial rulings are based upon a sound
and insightful perspective of the applicable federal rules
and law. In order to reach a just result in a recent case,
Judge Shedd and his very able law clerks worked long into the
night and started again early the next morning to study the
transcripts and research all of the applicable federal law
before ruling on my motion for a judgment of acquittal. His
Order, with underlying factual and legal support, is a model
for any jurist.
It has been an honor and a privilege to practice before the
Judge over these years. He is a man of integrity with the
highest ethical standards; a highly energetic and motivated
jurist; and one with the demeanor and intellectual ability to
serve with distinction on the Fourth Circuit just as he has
served in our District over these past years. On behalf of
this lawyer, I would urge you to support his nomination.
Very truly yours,
Jack B. Swerling.
____

Jan S. Strifling,

Attorney at Law, P.A.,

Columbia, SC, October 2, 2002.
Re Hon. Dennis W. Shedd, U.S. District Judge.

Hon. Charles Schumer,
U.S. Senator, Leo O'Brien Bldg.,
Albany, NY.
Dear Senator Schumer: By way of introduction, I introduced
myself to you in the Tetons last summer when you and your
family were hiking in cascade canyon.
I am writing you in support of Judge Dennis Shedd's
confirmation as Judge of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I practice criminal law and can understand that a great deal
of the outcry against Judge Shedd comes from the results of
the criminal cases. From my viewpoint, Judge Shedd makes
decisions which follow the law notwithstanding their
popularity.
I have practiced criminal law for over thirty years and
have had a substantial number of cases before Judge Shedd
since he began as a District Judge. He has always been
courteous to me and my clients and cognizant of the rights of
all parties.
I think that he has been a judge who has been fair to all
litigants and that he would continue in that manner in the
Circuit Court.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jan S. Strifling.
____

The ``Quattlebaum Case'': What the Lawyers Say

E. Bart Daniel, the criminal defense attorney who represented the
lawyer who pled guilty and was sentenced to jail for perjury (letter to
Senator Hatch dated November 18, 2002)

I have been a practicing attorney in South Carolina for
over 22 years. During my career, I have served as an
Assistant State Attorney General, and Assistant U.S.
Attorney, a United States Attorney under the previous
President Bush and an active federal trial attorney. My
practice over the years has developed into primarily a
``white collar'' criminal defense practice. I have appeared
many times in court before Judge Shedd and found him to be
courteous and fair. He has exhibited great integrity and a
strong character while on the bench.
One of the most difficult cases in which I appeared before
Judge Shedd was in United States v. John Earl Duncan. Mr.
Duncan was a practicing attorney who was convicted of
perjury. Judge Shedd sentenced him to four months in a
federal penitentiary and four months in a community
confinement center (halfway house). He fined him $33,386.92.
Judge Shedd's decision was a difficult one, but fair. As his
counsel, we recognized that Judge Shedd would be compelled to
sentence Mr. Duncan to an active term of incarceration since
he was a practicing attorney who had been convicted of lying
to a federal grand jury.
During the sentencing phase of the Duncan case, Judge Shedd
was courteous and patient and listened intently to the many
people who spoke on our client's behalf including my co-
counsel Dale L. DuTremble and me.
I know of no judge more qualified for the position than
Judge Shedd. If you have any questions or I can be of any
further support, please do not hesitate to call.

Jack Swerling, the criminal defense attorney who represented the Deputy
Solicitor who was tried for perjury before Judge Shedd (letter to
Senator Hollings dated January 26, 2001)

I am writing you in support of the nomination of the
Honorable Dennis W. Shedd to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. I believe that you could not find from our great
state a more able or deserving jurist to sit on the Fourth
Circuit.
I have been in practice for almost 28 years and a
significant part of my practice is dedicated to the
representation of defendants in criminal cases in the
District of South Carolina. Since Judge Shedd was appointed
to serve as a District Judge, I have had the opportunity to
appear before him on many occasions, in both hearings and
trials.
Judge Shedd presides over the proceedings before him in a
fair and impartial manner. All litigants, whether they be
private individuals, corporations, or governmental entities,
enjoy the opportunity to be fully heard in the presentation
of their case. I have always felt that while one side or
another must ultimately prevail, each litigant as well as
their counsel have been treated with the utmost respect and
dignity in Judge Shedd's courtroom. He is known among the
federal bar to be intellectually gifted. He has a complete
command of not only the federal rules of evidence and
procedure, but also the federal case law throughout the
country. His orders and trial rulings are based upon a sound
and insightful perspective of the applicable federal rules
and law.
It has been an honor and a privilege to practice before the
Judge over these years. He is a man of integrity with the
highest ethical standards; a highly energetic and motivated
jurist; and one with the demeanor and intellectual ability to
serve with distinction on the Fourth Circuit just as he has
served over these past years. On behalf of this lawyer, I
urge you to support his nomination.
Joseph M. McCullough, Jr., the criminal defense attorney
who intervened on behalf of Quattlebaum in the federal
prosecution to have the videotape suppressed at trial (letter
to Senator Hollings dated January 29, 2001)
Having practiced law in South Carolina for more than 20
years, and as past President of the South Carolina Criminal
Defense Lawyers Association, I have had occasion to be in
Judge Shedd's courtroom frequently and have tried several
cases before him. I have always been impressed with Judge
Shedd's factual familiarity and legal preparation in every
matter before him. I have found him to be extremely
intelligent and a firm hand in the courtroom. I have always
been impressed with his understanding of the law, and believe
that he would be a strong addition to the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
____

U.S. District Court,

District of South Carolina,

Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
In re Dennis W. Shedd, Nominee to Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Senator Orrin Hatch,
Ranking Republican Member, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: This in response to your request that I
provide information regarding Dennis W. Shedd, a judge on our
court, who has been nominated for a position on the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I have served
as a United States District Judge for 16 years, the last two
as Chief Judge for our district. I knew Judge Shedd prior to
his appointment as U.S. District Judge, and, subsequent to
his appointment, he and I have served as suite mates in the
courthouse here in Columbia. I, therefore, feel that I am
qualified to comment on his abilities, qualifications, and
reputation.
In response to your specific inquiries, I can say without
hesitation that Judge Shedd has a reputation for fairness,
both in his community and on our court. As Chief Judge, I
have received no complaints about his courtroom demeanor, his
decisions, or his procedures. It is my considered opinion
that all people who appear in his court receive a fair
hearing, regardless of the type of cases involved, or the
status of the parties in the case (plaintiff or defendant).
Judge Shedd is scrupulous in his dealings on the court. If
there is any remote suggestion of the appearance of
impropriety, he will not hesitate, and has not hesitated, to
rescuse himself and he is very consistent about this.
I regularly review the advance sheets of the United States
Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit, and it would appear
to me that Judge Shedd has an extremely good affirmance rate
in that court.
In regard to the issue of granting summary judgment or
otherwise dismissing cases short of trial, it appears to me
that Judge Shedd's record is no different from any other
judge in this district. That is to say, some of his cases are
ended by a ruling on summary judgment. Those that are not are
then set for trial and a great number of those eventually
settle before the trial can be conducted. In regard to
summary judgment decisions, settlements, and actual trials,
Judge Shedd's

[[Page 23112]]

statistics are not significantly different from any other
judge in this district.
I hope this letter is responsive to your inquiry and if you
need any additional information, please do not hesitate to
let me know.
With kind personal regards.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
Chief United States District Judge.
____

The Senate,

State of Arkansas,

October 11, 2002.
Re confirmation for Federal Judge Dennis Shedd (South
Carolina) to the US Court of Appeals.

Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lincoln: I am writing this letter to provide
my strongest possible recommendation for the Hon. Dennis
Shedd, of Columbia, South Carolina, who has been nominated by
President Bush to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals in
Richmond.
Yesterday, I read the story in the A Section of the
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette regarding the Senate Judiciary
Committee's decision to delay confirmation of Judge Shedd
until after the recess, after which Senator Strom Thurmond
(R-SC) will have retired from the Senate.
I understand that you are not a member of the Judiciary
Committee. However, I am writing this letter as one of your
loyal supporters and good friends, and as a good Democrat as
well. I want you to know that I cannot think of many people
who would make a better Appeals Court Judge than Dennis
Shedd.
Dennis and I are good friends from the days when we both
worked in Washington, he for Senator Thurmond and I for
Senator Bumpers. In addition, he was my landlord for over
four years at the townhouse where I lived. We have kept in
touch over the years as we got both got married and built
families. I have also visited Dennis and his wonderful wife,
Elaine, in South Carolina during the occasions my family
vacations there.
However, taking friendship and political philosophies
aside, I can honestly say that he has one of the finest minds
I have ever encountered, including President Clinton and many
others with whom I have had the good fortune to become well
acquainted. Furthermore, his sense of personal and
professional integrity is unrivaled, as is his knowledge and
understanding of the law. He was one of the lawyers involved
in the dissolution of the Heritage USA Bankruptcy (Jim
Baker), and he gave half of his legal fees to victims. On one
visit to South Carolina, I had the opportunity to sit in on a
high profile case, and was very impressed with the way he
dispensed justice in that proceeding, and with the
relationship he had with the then Democratic US Attorney's
Office. He has a wonderful family and is someone I would say
is a true patriot.
In short, I believe Dennis Shedd has proven to be a good
and valued officer of the court, and would make an excellent
Appeals Court Justice. I believe the problem with the
confirmation has more to do with the politics of having been
chief of staff to the Senate Judiciary Committee when
President Reagan was in office, and several Democrats see an
opportunity for partisan retribution for some of the judicial
politics of that era. I want you to know that I saw Dennis
Shedd almost every day during that period, and there is no
one who would deny his professionalism in handling these
matters. The politics of that era had more to do with who was
in power than it did with the staff. The US Senate, including
Democrats, should move his confirmation forward.
Dennis is a self-made person who came from a small South
Carolina town and worked his way through law school while a
member of Senator Thurmond's staff, and who did such a good
job was ultimately promoted. You know that I am a good and
loyal Democrat. However, the fact of his political
affiliation should not prevent or detract from all of these
qualifications, and I sincerely plead with you to bring this
up in the Senate Democratic Caucus with a request that the
Judiciary Committee honor its word to Senator Thurmond, and
move Judge Shedd's nomination forward and out of the Senate.
I think this is one of only a handful of letters I have
ever written you. Thank you for your time, and please forgive
the length of this letter. However, I do hope you will take
this request seriously, and pass it on to your colleagues.
Sincerely,
Kevin A. Smith,
State Senate.
____

Garry L. Wooten,

Attorney and Counselor at Law,

Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
Senator Ernest F. Hollings,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: I am writing to express my strong
support for the confirmation of Dennis W. Shedd to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
I have practiced law for over twenty years in Columbia,
South Carolina. I handle primarily personal injury and
criminal cases. My practice is a Plaintiff's practice. I have
been a member of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
since graduating from law school and appreciate your strong
support for that organization.
I have appeared before Judge Shedd in a certain number of
cases. Some cases have been won and some were lost. In one
case, my client was African American. That case involved a
lawsuit in which the Federal Government fought to deny my
client life insurance benefits after the death of his wife.
Judge Shedd ruled favorably and properly for my client on the
law. My client received a verdict for the full amount of the
benefits. During the trial, Judge Shedd was fair, extremely
knowledgeable on the law, and showed absolute integrity.
I am confident that Judge Shedd will be fair to all and
show complete integrity if confirmed for a position on the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
With the kindest regards, I am.
Sincerely,
Garry L. Wooten.
____

Gregory P. Harris,

Attorney at Law,

Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: This is the second letter that I
have written to you in support of the confirmation of Judge
Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I
believe that it is necessary to write another letter in light
of recent accusations that I have read concerning Judge Shedd
fairness and temperament on the district court bench.
I was the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S.
Attorney's Office when Judge Shedd took the bench in 1992. As
a federal prosecutor, I tried three cases in front of Judge
Shedd. He was tough, but fair. In 1993, I entered private
practice specializing primarily in federal criminal defense.
Since entering private practice, I have tried seven cases in
Judge Shedd's court and appeared on other matters on numerous
occasions. During each of these trials, Judge Shedd was
similarly tough and fair. It has been my experience as a
federal prosecutor and a private attorney that Judge Shedd
feeds everyone out of the same spoon.
As to his temperament, on occasion when he and I have
disagreed over the admittance of evidence, the admission of a
statement, or any other matter of law, he has been
professional, courteous, and usually right. Nevertheless,
even after these disagreements, he has never left the court
room at the end of the day without a smile and a kind word to
the lawyers.
It seems to me that those leveling the accusations at Judge
Shedd have never even seen him in court, much less appeared
before him. Almost all of us who have, strongly support his
confirmation to the Fourth Circuit. If have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me regarding my
professional and personal feelings about Judge Shedd.
Regards,
Gregory P. Harris.
____

Nathaniel Roberson,

Attorney at Law,

Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
Re nomination for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Senator Earnest F. Hollings,
Senator Orrin Hatch.
Gentlemen: This is on behalf of Dennis Shedd and his
nomination for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I have tried many cases, argued motions, and have done may
guilty pleas before Judge Shedd since he became a District
Court Judge in South Carolina.
I have found him to be open and honest with litigant
members of the bar and witnesses relevant to the issues
before him. He has at all times demonstrated the kind of
judicial temperament that has made him a credit to our
judiciary.
He has been accused by groups and organizations of being
biased either for against certain issues that has not
endeared him for the reasons expressed by those organizations
that oppose him.
My experience with Judge Shedd has been professional,
judicial, and he has never blocked or interfered with my
representation of clients and those issues that I was
required to make on behalf of the people I represented. I
urge you and your colleagues to vote in favor of Judge Shedd
being elevated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Robertson.
____

Young and Sullivan, L.L.P.,

Attorneys and Counselors at Law,

Charleston, SC, November 18, 2002.
Re Judge Dennis W. Shedd, nomination, Fourth Circuit.

Senator Orrin Hatch,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: I have been in an eight week (8) long
jury trial before Judge Dennis W. Shedd and many other jury
trials, motion hearings, and sentencing hearings

[[Page 23113]]

and appeals to the Fourth Circuit. I have appeared before
Judge Shedd as much or more than any defense lawyer in South
Carolina.
I am not a political crony of Judge Shedd, I am a trial
lawyer. I was Chief Public Defender in Columbia, SC (1972-87)
Adjunct Professor of Law, USC School of Law (1974-89),
President SC Public Defenders Association (1972-88), Founder,
SC Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Served by
election ABA Criminal Justice Council, and was awarded the
Bronze Star in Vietnam (1969-70).
Judge Shedd is a competent, fair, even-handed jurist and I
urge your support for him to be a Judge on U.S. Court of
Appeals--Fourth Circuit.
Tell any U.S. Senator opposed to Judge Shedd's nomination
to call me, I am in my office.
Sincerely,
John McMahon Young,
Attorney At Law.

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the chair.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are so proud of our senior Senator from
South Carolina.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Judge
Dennis Shedd and to congratulate the President on getting his 100th
judicial nominee confirmed. Yesterday, I made much more detailed
remarks in Judge's Shedd's favor.
I am also glad for Senator Strom Thurmond. He is much loved in the
Senate, he is much loved in South Carolina and throughout this country,
and I know that he wanted to see his former Chief Counsel confirmed
before the end of his long career in the Senate.
In the recent election, as far as I see it, the President took three
issues to the American people: his Iraq policy, Homeland Security and
his judicial nominees. The election showed that Americans trust this
President including in his selection of judicial nominees.
The election indicated that voters rejected obstruction in the
Senate, including on judicial nominees, and voters especially rejected
the distortions of reputations that they read and heard about in
hundreds of news stories, scores of editorials, and dozens of op-eds .
. . and that they saw on TV.
Voters sent us a clear message, it seems to me, that we should end
the obstruction and maltreatment of judicial nominees. We need to
evaluate judges or potential judges as unbiased umpires who call the
balls and the strikes as they are, not as they alone see them and not
as they want them to be. We must end the practice of projecting
ideology to see if an umpire is pro-bat or pro-ball, pro-batter or pro-
pitcher.
Our job is to determine the character and temperament of a nominee to
the judiciary. Period. This is true of the trial bench, the appellate
court, and the Supreme Court.
Again, I express my great satisfaction that the Judiciary Committee
has favorably recommended the nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd of South
Carolina for a vote of the full Senate.
When Judge Shedd was nominated to the federal trial bench, Chairman
Biden had this to say to him: ``I have worked with you for so long that
I believe I am fully qualified to make an independent judgment about
your working habits, your integrity, your honesty, and your
temperament. On all these scores, I have found you to be beyond
reproach.''
This is high praise, indeed, and from a colleague from the other side
of the aisle for whom we all have the greatest respect.
Judge Shedd has strong bipartisan support in his home state as well,
and not only from Senators Thurmond and Hollings. He is also strongly
supported by Dick Harpootlian, South Carolina State Chairman of the
Democratic Party, and himself a trial lawyer.
Dennis Shedd has served as a federal jurist for more than a decade
following nearly twenty years of public service and legal practice.
While serving the Judiciary Committee, Judge Shedd worked, among many
other matters, on the extension of the Voting Rights Act, RICO reform,
the Ethics in Post-Employment Act, and the 1984 and 1986 crime bills.
As Senator Biden put it: ``His hard work and intelligence helped the
Congress find areas of agreement and reach compromises.''
Judge Shedd will add diversity to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The last five Fourth Circuit confirmations have all been
Democrats. When Judge Shedd joins the other members of the Fourth
Circuit, he will not only have unmatched legislative experience, he
will also have the longest trial bench experience on the Fourth
Circuit.
The American people should be grateful that President Bush has
nominated Dennis Shedd to serve this country further. He has already
served for nearly 25 years.
Judge Dennis Shedd has heard more than 5,000 civil cases, reviewed
more than 1,400 reports and recommendations of magistrates, and has had
before him nearly 1000 criminal defendants. He has been reversed fewer
than 40 times, less than one percent.
In employment cases, he has only twice been reversed in his
decisions. Remarkbly, in criminal cases, Judge Shedd has never been
reversed on any ruling considered before or during trial, or on the
taking of guilty pleas.
Now, detractors have made much of the fact that he has a relative few
decisions that he has chosen to publish. But, in fact, he falls in the
middle of the average for published opinions in the Fourth Circuit. One
Carter appointee has published all of 7 cases, one Clinton appointee
has published only 3, and another Carter appointee has published 51,
only one more than Judge Shedd, despite being on the court for 10 years
longer.
Notably, on cases involving the Voting Rights Acts, Judge Shedd has
ruled for plaintiffs in each instance, an Act, I might add that he
worked to extend in the Senate.
From his service in the Senate to his role on the South Carolina
Advisory Committee of the United States Civil Rights Commission, Judge
Shedd has been a leader on civil rights. He led efforts to appoint the
first African American woman ever to serve as a magistrate judge in
South Carolina and has sought the Selection Committee to conduct
outreach to women and people of color in filling such positions. He
pushed for an African American woman to be Chief of Pretrial Services.
He has actively recruited persons of color to be his law clerks.
And because of Judge Shedd's work in an award-winning drug program
that aims to reverse stereotypes among 4,000 to 5,000 school children,
he was chosen as the United Way's School Volunteer of the Year.
This record stands in contrast to the distortions we have heard about
Judge Shedd's sensitivity on civil rights.
The Judiciary Committee received a very touching letter from one of
Judge Shedd's former law clerks, Thomas Jones and I placed in the
record yesterday.
Now this young man,--this young lawyer happens to be a person of
color--an African American. He says:

It is apparent to me that the allegations regarding Judge
Shedd's alleged biases have been propagated by individuals
without the benefit of any real, meaningful interaction with
Judge Shedd . . . I trust the allegations are given the short
shrift they are due.

I would like to read from a letter I received from Niger Innis who
has inherited his father's mantle and is the national spokesman for the
Congress of Racial Equality. We all know his father, of course, Roy
Innis, who was a great leader of the civil rights movement in the
1960's together with Dr. King.
I received this letter even while I was on the floor of the Senate
yesterday.
Mr. Innis writes:

This is an open letter in the interest of justice. The
Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) enthusiastically endorses
Judge Dennis Shedd for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Despite a Democratic filibuster against Judge Shedd, it is
the strong opinion of CORE that Judge Shedd is a more than
worthy candidate for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

He goes on:

Judge Shedd's character has been under attack without merit
and without fair scrutiny of his service to the American
legal system.
Prior to serving the bench, Judge Shedd served faithfully
from 1988-1990 as Chairman of the South Carolina Advisory
Committee

[[Page 23114]]

to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A fair and honest
review of Judge Shedd's unpublished opinions would show that
he has sided numerous times with plaintiffs in cases of race,
gender and disability rights without falter or hesitation. In
each case, his decisions have allowed employment
discrimination lawsuits to go forward in the interest of
fairness and truth.
Judge Shedd has shown his commitment to employment rights
for minorities and women, particularly within the court. . .
We hope that you would join CORE in our support of Judge
Dennis Shedd and urge Senate Democrats to end the unfair
smear against his name. Let Judge Shedd have his day on the
Senate floor.

Another letter I received while I was on the floor yesterday came
from Phyllis Berry Myers, President of the Centre for New Black
Leadership; another great name in the African American community.
Ms. Myers writes:

The Senate can restore itself, at least a modicum, a sense
of fair play, honor, and trust in its own policies and
procedures, a commitment to guarding the civil rights of all,
as well as advancing the rule of law by swiftly confirming
Judge Shedd.

And at 2:32 pm yesterday, while I was on the floor, we also received
a letter from the former Chairman of the NAACP of South Carolina. The
Rev Dr. Luonne Abram Rouse writes:

Reverend Rouse wrote a remarkable letter and ends this way:

In conclusion, my wife and I have two daughters; our hopes
and dreams for the future are in time. I believe Dennis will
represent equality and justice for women and all ethnicities
in America with devotion to oath he has taken. I do not
believe that he will forsake the law with favoritism for
economic giants or big business. I sincerely view Dennis as
one who will grant persons of every socioeconomic level the
same psycho-social respect within the law.
Therefore, I strongly favor the nomination of Dennis Shedd
to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, because Dennis stands
firm on his convictions, but is open to intelligent and
informed opinions of law. He is open to change, but I do not
expect him to change just for political correctness. He will,
however, hear the ethical and moral points. I support him
because of his listening ear and desire for justice.

But these are not unique letters. We have received letters from the
people who know Judge Shedd. They are the ones that matter.
I want to take a moment to read a few excerpts from some of the
letters we've received in support of Judge Shedd. Keep in mind that the
letters are from lawyers who know Judge Shedd, who have practiced
before him, and who are in the best position to assess his
qualifications for the appellate bench.
The first letter is from J. Preston Strom, Jr. Mr. Strom writes:

I write to support Judge Shedd's confirmation to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As a former
United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina
appointed by President Clinton, my office had daily dealings
with Judge Shedd. Judge Shedd is a fair and efficient jurist
who even-handedly applied substantive and procedural rules.
On occasions when my office disagreed with Judge Shedd's
rulings, I found that he always provided well-reasoned
analyses for his decisions. Further, when the rules provided
for discretion in sentencing for cooperation with federal
agents in the prosecution of crime, Judge Shedd deliberated
and provided substantial sentence reductions when warranted.
Following my tenure as United States Attorney, I have
practiced before Judge Shedd representing criminal defendants
and civil plaintiffs. In my criminal defense practice, I have
represented many African-Americans before Judge Shedd, and
found Judge Shedd to be fair and consistent to each of my
clients, regardless of race.
As a member of the Board of Governors of the South Carolina
Trial Lawyers Association and a member of the Association of
Trial Lawyers of America, I appreciate a judge who pushes
civil cases towards resolution and does not permit parties to
engage in unwarranted delay tactics. Judge Shedd is such a
judge.

Here is another letter. This one is from attorney Garry Wooten. He
writes:

I have practiced law for over twenty years in Columbia. I
handle primarily personal injury and criminal cases . . .
I have appeared before Judge Shedd in a certain number of
cases. Some cases have been won and some were lost. In one
case, my client was African-American. That case involved a
lawsuit in which the Federal Government fought to deny my
client life insurance benefits after the death of his wife.
Judge Shedd ruled favorably and properly for my client on the
law. My client received a verdict for the full amount of the
benefits. During the trial, Judge Shedd was fair, extremely
knowledgeable on the law, and showed absolute integrity.
I am confident that Judge Shedd will be fair to all and
show complete integrity if confirmed for a position on the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Another letter, this one from Jonathan Harvey, states:

I am the current treasurer of the South Carolina
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a member of its
board as well as past representative to its Board of
Directors from the Fifth Judicial Circuit. . . . I have had
many opportunities to appear in front of Judge Shedd. I have
left each proceeding convinced that my clients irrespective
of social status, creed, gender, or race were treated fairly
and with a proper application of the law.
I trust this letter will enable you to inform your
colleagues that there exists a significant history of Judge
Shedd exercising his discretion objectively and fairly toward
those parties who have appeared before him.

In another letter, lawyer John Simmons writes:

In all of my litigation before Judge Shedd, I have found
him to be fair and impartial. He possesses the highest
integrity and intellect and always treats the attorneys and
litigants with the utmost respect.
In one particular civil matter, I represented an individual
non-party who was alleged to have donated blood contaminated
with the HIV virus. Judge Shedd handled this sensitive and
difficult matter with patience and care, protecting my
client's identity while affording all litigants their
adequate discovery rights. I was extremely impressed with the
thoughtful diligence Judge Shedd pursued in ensuring my
client's confidentiality while balancing the rights of the
parties.

Finally, here is a letter from Howard Hammer. Mr. Hammer writes:

I have been a practicing South Carolina attorney for over
thirty (30) years. My practice primarily involves
representation of plaintiffs in civil litigation, including
representation of numerous individuals in employment
disputes. . . .
I have found Judge Shedd to be firm, just and deliberate in
all my dealings with him. He is a man of highest integrity
and I would respectfully urge your support of his
confirmation.

I could go on and on reading testimonials from lawyers in South
Carolina who have regularly appeared before Judge Shedd and who
strongly support his confirmation on the Fourth Circuit. Yesterday I
entered other letters into the record.
Mr. President, Dennis Shedd is well qualified to serve on the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals. I think so and the American Bar Association,
hardly a bastion of conservative politics, has said so as well. In
supporting his confirmation I for one express my gratitude on behalf of
the American people for an entire life in public service.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for
the confirmation of Judge Shedd be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Congress of Racial Equality,

New York, NY, November 18, 2002.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senate, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: This is an open letter in the interest
of justice. The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
enthusiastically endorses Judge Dennis Shedd for the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite a Democratic filibuster
against Judge Shedd, it is the strong opinion of CORE that
Judge Shedd is a more than worthy candidate for the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Shedd's character has been under attack without merit
and without fair scrutiny of his service to the American
legal system.
Prior to serving the bench, Judge Shedd served faithfully
from 1988-1990 as Chairman of the South Carolina Advisory
Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A fair and
honest review of Judge Shedd's unpublished opinions would
show that he has

[[Page 23115]]

sided numerous times with plaintiffs in cases of race, gender
and disability rights without falter or hesitation. In each
case, his decisions have allowed employment discrimination
lawsuits to go forward in the interest of fairness and truth.
Judge Shedd has shown his commitment to employment rights
for minorities and women, particularly within the court. His
efforts have championed the efforts to recruit and elect the
first African-American U.S. Magistrate Judge in the South
Carolina District, Margaret Seymour. He has actively sought
minority and female candidates for other Magistrate Judge
positions, and has directed the Selection Commission in South
Carolina to bear in mind diversity in the selection of
candidates for these positions.
Judge Dennis Shedd's accomplishments and service have
transcended bi-partisan support even from his home state
Senators, notably, Senators Strom Thurmond and Senator Ernest
Hollings who wholly support his nomination.
In the interest of fairness, balance we ask you to look
past the unfounded partisan attacks of propaganda against
Judge Shedd and fairly examine his work for yourselves. We
strongly believe Judge Shedd's accomplishments and
contributions to justice and civil rights speaks for itself.
We hope that you would join CORE in our support of Judge
Dennis Shedd and urge Senate Democrats to end the unfair
smear against his name. Let Judge Shedd have his day on the
Senate floor.
Sincerely,
Niger Innis, National Spokesman.
____

Centre for New Black Leadership,

November 18, 2002.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: The Centre for New Black Leadership
(CNBL) believes the Senate's judicial nomination system is
broken and needs repairing.
We have watched with great trepidation as the Senate's role
of ``advise and consent'' for Presidential nominations,
especially judicial nominations, has become increasingly,
``search and destroy,'' ``slander and defame.'' It is a
wonder that reasonable, decent people agree to go through the
confirmation process at all.
The confirmation process has become particularly brutal if
the nominee is labeled ``conservative.'' Traditional civil
rights groups mass to castigate and intimidate, as they do
now, attempting to thwart the confirmation of Judge Dennis W.
Shedd to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Once again, we are witnessing the new depth to which public
discourse and debate has sunk when fabrications, statements
taken out of context, misinformation and disinformation can
pass as serious political deliberation and debate. The
vitally needed discussion about continued civil rights
progress in a 21st Century world gets lost in the cacophony.
Our nation and true civil rights advocates are poorer because
of this.
The Senate can restore to itself, at least a modicum, a
sense of fair play, honor, and trust in its own policies and
procedures, a commitment to guarding the civil rights of all,
as well as advancing the rule of law by swiftly confirming
Judge Shedd.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Berry Myers,
President & CEO.
____

Rosenberg Proutt Funk &

Greenberg, LLP,

Baltimore, MD, June 25, 2002.
Senator Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: My name is Thomas W. Jones, Jr. I am an
African-American attorney currently practicing as a
litigation associate in Baltimore, Maryland.
Upon my graduation from the University of Maryland School
of Law, I had the distinct pleasure of serving as a judicial
clerk for the Honorable Dennis W. Shedd (``Judge Shedd'') on
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
During my eighteen months of working with Judge Shedd, I
never encountered a hint of bias, in any form or fashion,
regarding any aspect of Judge Shedd's jurisprudence or daily
activities.
It is apparent to me that the allegations regarding Judge
Shedd's alleged biases have been propagated by individuals
without the benefit of any real, meaningful interaction with
Judge Shedd, his friends or family members. I trust the
accusations of bias levied against Judge Shedd will be given
the short shrift they are due, and trust further that this
honorable Committee will act favorably upon the pending
nomination of Judge Shedd for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Thank you for your attention regarding this matter.
Respectfully,
Thomas W. Jones, Jr.
____

E. Bart Daniel,

Attorney at Law,

Charleston SC, November 18, 2002.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
104 Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re Nomination of Dennis W. Shedd to Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Dear Senator Hatch: I have been a practicing attorney in
South Carolina for over 22 years. During my career, I have
served as an Assistant State Attorney General, and Assistant
U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney under the previous
President Bush and an active federal trial attorney. My
practice over the years has developed into primarily a
``white collar'' criminal defense practice.I have appeared
many times in court before Judge Shedd and found him to be
courtcous and fair. He has exhibited great integrity and a
strong character while on the bench.
One of the most difficult cases in which I appeared before
Judge Shedd was in United States v. John Earl Duncan (3:99-
638-001). Dr. Duncan was a practicing attorney who was
convicted for perjury. Judge Shedd sentenced him to four
months in a federal penitentiary and four months in a
community confinement center (halfway house). He fined him
$33.386.92. Judge Shedd's decision was a difficult one, but
fair. As his counsel, we recognized that Judge shedd would be
compelled to sentence Mr. Duncan to an active term of
incarceration since he was a practicing attorney who had been
convicted of lying to a federal grand jury.
During the sentencing phase of the Duncan case, judge Shedd
was courtrous and patient and listened intently to the many
people who spoke on our client's behalf including co-counsel
Dale L. DuTremble and me.
I know of no judge more qualified for the position than
Judge Shedd. If you have any questions or if I can be of any
further support, please do not hesitate to call.
Yours very truly,
E. Bart Daniel.
____

J. Kershaw Spong,

Columbia, SC, November 4, 2002.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: Please allow this letter to voice my
strong support for the nomination of Dennis Shedd to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Your
support for Judge Shedd's nomination is appreciated, and, as
a fellow South Carolinian, I hope you will continue to
support him throughout this process.
Having worked with Judge Shedd in the U.S. Senate, and as a
practicing lawyer in South Carolina, I know him to be a
person of the highest integrity, professional competence, and
judicial temperament. As you may be aware, the ABA, which
reviews the nominees, has given Judge Shedd a majority rating
of ``well qualified,'' its highest rating.
I am also concerned about the nominating process. I think
many things have been unfairly said about Judge Shedd by
outside special interest groups which have little basis in
fact. It will become increasingly more difficult to get good
and competent attorneys to step forward to serve in the
judiciary if they have to go through this highly charged
partisan atmosphere.
I hope for your continued support for this exceptional
nominee and ask that you urge the Senate Judiciary Committee
to bring this nomination to a vote before the end of
Congress. After having to wait well over a year since his
nomination, and more than several months since his hearing at
the Committee, it is time for Judge Shedd to be confirmed to
the Fourth Circuit.
Thank you for your consideration of my views.
Sincerely,
J. Kershaw Spong.
____

Tompkins and McMaster, LLP,

Columbia, SC, October 31, 2002.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I was extremely disappointed in your
recent action denying Judge Dennis Shedd, nominee to the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a vote on the Committee's
October 8th markup. Despite your promises to Senator Strom
Thurmond and other members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee--and in contravention of Committee rules--you
refused to schedule a vote to allow his nomination to proceed
to the full Senate.
It would appear that you are bowing to the demands of
outside interest groups who have unfairly characterized Judge
Shedd's ruling on the district court. The facts are that he
has been reversed in fewer than 1% of the more than 5,000
cases he has heard in his twelve years on the district court.
After reviewing his record, the ABA rated Judge Shedd ``well-
qualified,'' its highest rating. You once referred to the ABA
rating system as the ``gold standard.'' In addition, Judge
Shedd is well-represented by the members of the bench and bar
in South Carolina, and has the bipartisan support of Senators
Thurmond and Hollings--his home state senators.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has had nearly a year and a
half to review Judge Shedd's record. I urge you to stop
delaying a vote on his nomination. Judge Shedd, an
exceptional nominee with the bipartisan support, deserves to
be confirmed to the Fourth Circuit before the end of this
Congress.
Thank you.
Yours very truly,
Henry Dargan McMaster.

[[Page 23116]]

____
STROM LAW FIRM L.L.C.,

Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator-South Carolina,
Washington, DC.
Re confirmation of the Honorable Dennis Shedd to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Dear Senator Hollings: I write to support Judge Shedd's
confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. As a former United States Attorney for the
District of South Carolina appointed by President Clinton, my
office had daily dealings with Judge Shedd. Judge Shedd is a
fair and efficient jurist who even-handedly applied
substantive and procedural rules. On occasions when my office
disagreed with Judge Shedd's rulings, I found that he always
provided well-reasoned analysis for his decisions. Further,
when the rules provided for discretion in sentencing for
cooperation with federal agents in the prosecution of crime,
Judge Shedd deliberated and provided substantial sentence
reductions when warranted.
Following my tenure as United States Attorney, I have
practiced before Judge Shedd representing criminal defendants
and civil plaintiffs. In my criminal defense practice, I have
represented many African-Americans before Judge Shedd, and
found Judge Shedd to be fair and consistent to each of my
clients, regardless of race.
As a member of the Board of Governors of the South Carolina
Trial Lawyers Association and a member of the Association of
Trial Lawyers of America, I appreciate a judge who pushes
civil cases towards resolution and does not permit parties to
engage in unwarranted delay tactics. Judge Shedd is such a
judge.
From my many years of practice before Judge Shedd, I can
say that one admirable characteristic stands above all.
Diligence. Each time I have appeared before Judge Shedd, it
is clear that Judge Shedd has examined the entire case file
and performed the requisite research necessary to frame the
issues. For attorneys who vigorously represent their clients
at every stage of the criminal and civil processes, a hard
working judge is much appreciated. It is Judge Shedd's
diligence in examining each case on its facts and the
supporting law that makes him an excellent candidate for
appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.
If you or anyone on your staff has questions, please
contact me.
With regards, I am
Very truly yours,
J. Preston Strom, Jr.
____

Law Office of Jonathan Harvey,

Attorney at Law,

Columbia, SC, October 1, 2002.
Re Nomination of the Honorable Dennis Shedd.

Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: I am taking the liberty of
contacting your office on behalf of Judge Shedd.
I had heretofore been grateful for the bipartisan support
of our senators and until recently thought that protocol
would suffice to ensure his nomination.
However, recent developments concerning his nomination have
compelled me to contact you to provide a recommendation based
upon a hands on perspective.
I am writing to express my support for his nomination. I am
the current treasurer of the South Carolina Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers and a member of its board as well as
past representative to its Board of Directors from the Fifth
Judicial Circuit. As I am sure you know, the Fifth Judicial
Circuit encompasses Richland County and Columbia. My practice
is focused in the Midlands. I have had many opportunities to
appear in front of Judge Shedd. I have left each proceeding
convinced that my clients irrespective of social status,
creed, gender, or race were treated fairly and with a proper
application of the law.
I trust this letter will enable you to inform your
colleagues that there exists a significant history of Judge
Shedd exercising his discretion objectively and fairly toward
those parties who have appeared before him.
I am grateful and appreciative of the support you have
shown for his nomination and hope that my comments and
insight will prove to be beneficial on his behalf.
Our State is fortunate to have been able to count on you as
a steward for its interests and I thank you for your tireless
efforts on behalf of our Country and State.
Yours truly,
Jonathan Harvey.
____

Simmons & Griffin, L.L.C.,

Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
Re Judge Dennis W. Shedd.

Hon. Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: I am a former United States Attorney
who now practices law in Columbia, South Carolina. Prior to
entering government service and private practice, I served as
a law clerk on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Over the past twelve years, I have had the opportunity to
appear before Judge Dennis Shedd in criminal cases as both a
prosecutor and defense attorney. In addition, I have handled
numerous civil cases before Judge Shedd as a representative
of the plaintiff and defense.
In all of my litigation before Judge Shedd, I have found
him to be fair and impartial. He possesses the highest
integrity and intellect and always treats the attorneys and
litigants with the utmost respect.
In one particular civil matter, I represented an individual
non-party who was alleged to have donated blood contaminated
with the HIV virus. Judge Shedd handled this sensitive and
difficult matter with patience and care, protecting my
client's identity while affording all litigants their
adequate discovery rights. I was extremely impressed with the
thoughtful diligence Judge Shedd pursued in ensuring my
client's confidentiality while balancing the rights of the
parties.
I respectfully write in support of Judge Shedd's
confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
With kind regards, I remain,
Sincerely,
John S. Simmons.
____

Hammer Hammer & Potterfield,

Columbia, SC, November 18, 2002.
Hon. Ernest Hollings,
Russell Senate Office Buildings,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings I am writing regarding consideration
of United States District Judge Dennis Shedd for a position
on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. As you know, I have
been a practicing South Carolina attorney for over thirty
(30) years. My practice primarily involves representation of
plaintiffs in civil litigation, including representation of
numerous individuals in employment disputes.
I have known Judge Shedd for over twelve (12) years. I have
found Judge Shedd to be firm, just and deliberate in all of
my dealings with him. He is a man of highest integrity and I
would respectfully urge your support of his confirmation.
With kind regards, I remain,
Very truly yours,
HOWARD HAMMER, P.A.,
HAMMER, HAMMER & POTTERFIELD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any Senator requesting time?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Dennis W. Shedd, of South Carolina, to be
United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit? The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 250 Ex.]

YEAS--55

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--44

Akaka
Barkley
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid

[[Page 23117]]

Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Murkowski

The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is laid on the table. The President shall be immediately
notified of the Senate's action.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
return to legislative session.

____________________

ON 100 JUDICIAL CONFIRMATIONS BY THE DEMOCRATIC-LED SENATE

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the 107th Congress concludes, it is time
to reflect on the important work we have performed for the American
people. In the past few days, the full Senate voted on 20 of the
nominees reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee in addition to
the 80 judicial nominations previously confirmed. Since the change in
majority 16 months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted on 102
of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees and has held hearings
on 103 judicial nominations, some of whom have proven to be quite
controversial and divisive. We voted on 102 of them, reported 100 of
them favorably and this week the full Senate took the final step of
confirming the last of these 100 nominees. This remarkable record
compares most favorably to the 38 judicial confirmations averaged per
year during the 6\1/2\ years when the Republican majority was in
control of the Senate.
Last week, on the Senate floor, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed
more judges in just 1 day than the Republican majority allowed to be
confirmed in the entire 1996 session. In that year, the Republican
majority allowed only 17 district court judges to be confirmed all year
and would not confirm any circuit court nominees, not one. In contrast,
last Thursday the Senate acted to confirm 17 district court nominations
and, in addition, another circuit court nominee. In all, the Senate has
confirmed 17 circuit court nominees and 83 district court nominees in
just 16 months. That should put our historic demonstration of
bipartisanship toward this President's judicial nominees in
perspective.
The hard, thankless, but steady work of the Democratic members of the
Judiciary Committee have served to reduce judicial vacancies
substantially during these last 16 months. We inherited 110 vacancies.
Today, after 100 district and circuit court confirmations, those
vacancies number only 58 and that takes into account the additional 47
vacancies that have arisen since the shift in majority. Without those
additional vacancies, we would have reduced our inherited judicial
vacancies to 10.
When Senator Hatch was chairman of the committee and a Democratic
President occupied the White House, Senator Hatch denied that even 100
vacancies was a vacancies crisis, according to a column he wrote for
the September 5, 1997, edition of USA Today. When a Democrat was in the
White House, Senator Hatch repeatedly stated that 67 vacancies was the
equivalent of ``full employment'' in the Federal judiciary. As of
today, there are only 58 district and circuit vacancies total. By
Senator Hatch's standards, we have reached well beyond ``full
employment'' on the Federal bench in just 16 months.
Since the summer of 2001, when they allowed the Judiciary Committee
to reorganize following the change in majority, we have moved more
quickly and more fairly. Democrats have worked hard to confirm on
average six district and circuit court nominees per month. The
Republican rate of confirmation was half that during their prior years
of control of the Senate, 3.2 confirmed per month in the 104th
Congress, 4.25 in the 105th, and 3.04 per month in the 106th Congress.
We have moved nearly twice as fast as they did.
Partisans on the other side of aisle interested in trying to create
campaign issues have proclaimed their disappointment that a few
nominees have not yet received votes in committee, despite our votes on
102 judicial nominees and our having attained results in 16 months that
they did not come close to in twice the time during their last 30
months in the majority. I am concerned that the tone and language of
hurtful remarks against the Democrats have been destructive. In truth,
only 11 of the remaining nominees who have not yet had hearings have
home State consent and peer review ratings, and some of those peer
review ratings have come in only in the last few weeks. We have thus
given hearings to 90 percent of the nominees eligible for a hearing.
The vitriolic rhetoric regarding committee consideration of the most
controversial and ideologically chosen judicial nominees is troubling
to me as a Senator and as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I have
worked diligently to hold a record number of 26 hearings for 103 of
this President's circuit and district court nominees in the past 16
months and to bring as many as we could to a vote, given all of the
competing responsibilities of the committee and the Senate in these
times of great challenges to our Nation. We have transcended the
inaction of the prior 6\1/2\ years of Republican control. For example,
during the 6\1/2\ years the Republicans chaired the Judiciary
Committee, in 34 of those months there were no confirmation hearings
for judicial nominations at all. In the past 16 months, the Senate
Judiciary Committee has held 26 hearings for 103 judicial nominees, in
addition to a second hearing for one of the more controversial
nominees. I think Democrats deserve some credit for our diligence,
fairness, and bipartisanship especially in contrast to the prior period
of Republican control of the Senate.
In particular, we have held hearings for 20 circuit court nominees,
confirmed 17 of them in this period, and reduced the circuit court
vacancies from those we inherited. By contrast, circuit court vacancies
more than doubled during Republican control, from 16 in January 1995 to
33 by the summer of 2001 when they allowed the Judiciary Committee to
reorganize following the change in majority.
While the opposition party continues to inflame the public with
skewed statistics, the reality is that we have approved far more
judicial nominees for this President than past Senates did for other
Presidents. This Democratic-led Senate has confirmed 100 district court
and circuit court judges, including 17 circuit court nominees. In
President George H.W. Bush's first 2 years in office, 71 judicial
nominees were confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate. When a Republican
majority was considering Senator Clinton's nominees in their first 2
years working together, 75 judicial nominees were confirmed. Even when
a Republican majority was considering President Reagan's judicial
nominations in his first 2 years, only 89 judicial nominees were
confirmed. Thus, we have not only exceeded the confirmation achieved
when the Senate and White House were divided by political party but the
number of confirmations when Republicans controlled both branches. In
less than 2 years, just 16 months, we have evaluated, held hearings
for, reported out, and confirmed 100 judicial nominees of President
George W. bush.
While Republicans continue to play base politics and inflame certain
quarters of the public with their skewed statistics, the reality is
that the Democratic-led Senate has acted far more fairly toward this
President's judicial nominees than Republicans acted toward President
Clinton's.
The raw numbers, not percentages, reveal the true workload of the
Senate on nominations and everyone knows that. Anyone who pays
attention to the Federal judiciary and who does not have a partisan
agenda must know that. Democrats have moved more quickly in voting on
judicial nominees of a President of a different party than in any time
in recent history. This should be beyond dispute, but I believe that
partisan advisers told this President and the Republicans that it is a
great election issue for them to complain that not every nominee has
been confirmed. We have given hearings to

[[Page 23118]]

103 of the 114 judicial nominees now eligible for a hearing 90 percent,
as of today, for those focused on percentages. The remaining 16 without
a hearing either lack home State consent or peer reviews or both. Many
of those were nominated only recently and are being used by Republicans
to skew the percentages further because they know that the ABA is
taking about 60 days to submit ratings from the date of nomination and
some would not receive ratings in time for hearings this session. The
committee has voted on 102 of the 103 judicial nominees eligible for a
vote, 99 percent. And with the vote on Judge Dennis Sheed, we have
cleared the Senate calendar of all judicial nominations rather than
adopt the recent Republican practice of holding nominees over without a
final vote and forcing them to be renominated and have second hearings
in a succeeding Congress.
I ask fair-minded people to contrast what we have achieved in the
past 16 months with the most recent period of Republican control of the
committee. In all of 2000 and the first several months of 2001 before
the change in Senate majority, the Senate confirmed only 39 judicial
nominees, including eight to the circuits. Even if you look at the last
30 months of Republican control, they confirmed only 72 judges. In much
less time, we have confirmed 100.
If you consider the first 24-months of Republican control instead of
their last 30 months we have accomplished far more: more hearings, 26
versus 18, far more judicial nominees, 103 versus 87, and had more
confirmations, 100, including 17 to the circuit courts, versus 73 with
11 to the circuit courts. We have reached the 100 mark for committee
votes in less than half the time it took Republicans to vote on 100 of
President Clinton's judicial nominees. It took them 33 months to reach
that mark, while we reached that mark in just 15 months.
With these confirmations, the Democratic-led Senate has addressed a
number of long standing vacancies. For example, we held the first
hearing for a nominee to the Fifth Circuit in 7 years and confirmed
her, even though Republicans refused to allow hearings for 3 of
President Clinton's nominees to this court. We held the first hearing
for a nominee to the Tenth Circuit in 6 years, and confirmed 3 nominees
to that circuit in less than 1 year, even though two of President
Clinton's nominees to that circuit were never allowed hearings by
Republicans. We confirmed the first nominee to the Sixth Circuit in
almost 5 years and have now confirmed two judges to that court, even
though three of President Clinton's nominees to that court were never
allowed hearings or votes. We held the first hearing for a nominee to
the fourth Circuit in 3 years, and confirmed the first African American
appointed to that court in American history, even though that nominee
and 6 other nominees of President Clinton to the Fourth Circuit, for a
total of 7 in that circuit alone, never received hearings during
Republican control of the Senate. Today, another of President Bush's
nominees was confirmed to that circuit. These are just a few of the
firsts we have achieved in just 16 months.
There were many other firsts in courts across the Nation. For
example, we held hearings for and confirmed the first judges appointed
to the Federal courts in the Western District of Pennsylvania in almost
7 years, even though several of President Clinton's nominees to the
courts in that district were blocked by Republicans. They allowed none
of President Clinton's nominees to be confirmed to that court during
the entire period of Republican control. They also blocked the
confirmation of a Pennsylvania nominee to the Third Circuit, among
others. Democrats confirmed the first nominees to the Third Circuit and
Ninth Circuit in 2 years, even though the last nominees to those seats
never received hearings during Republican control of the Senate.
We have had hearings for a number of controversial judicial nominees
and brought many of them to votes this year just as I said we would
when I spoke to the Senate at the beginning of the year. Of course, it
would have been irresponsible to ignore the number of vacancies we
inherited and concentrate solely on the most controversial, time
consuming nominees to the detriment of our Federal courts. The
President has made a number of divisive choices for lifetime seats on
the courts and they take time to bring to a hearing and a vote. None of
his nominees, however, have waited as long for a hearing or a vote as
some of President Clinton's judicial nominees, such as Judge Richard
Paez who waited 1,500 days to be confirmed and 1,237 days to get a
final vote by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee or
Judge Helene White whose nomination languished for more than 1,500
without ever getting a hearing or a committee vote.
As frustrated as Democrats were with the lengthy delays and
obstruction of scores of judicial nominees in the prior 6\1/2\ years of
Republican control, we never attacked the chairman of the committee in
the manner as was done in recent weeks. Similarly, as disappointed as
Democrats were with the refusal of Chairman Hatch to include Allen
Snyder, Bonnie Campbell, Clarence Sundram, Fred Woocher, and other
nominees on an agenda for a vote by the committee following their
hearings, we never resorted to the tactics and tone used by Republican
members of this committee in committee statements, in hallway
discussions, in press conferences, or in Senate floor statements. As
frustrated and disappointed as we were that the Republican majority
refused to proceed with hearings or votes on scores of judicial
nominees, we never sought to override Senator Hatch's judgments and
authority as chairman of the committee.
The President and partisan Republicans have spared no efforts in
making judicial nominations a political issue, without acknowledging
the progress made in these past months when 102 of this President's
judicial choices have been given committee votes. One indication of the
fairness with which we have proceeded is my willingness to proceed on
nominations that I do not support. We have perhaps moved too quickly on
some, relaxing the standards for personal behavior and lifestyle for
Republican nominees, being more expeditious and generous than
Republicans were to our nominees, and trying to take some of them at
their word that they will follow the law and the ethical rules for
judges.
For example, as I noted on October 2, 2002, we confirmed a personal
friend of the President's, Ron Clark, to an emergency vacancy in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Clark's
commission was not signed and issued promptly. We learned later that
Clark was quoted as saying that he asked the White House, and the White
House agreed, to delay signing his commission while he ran as a
Republican for reelection to a seat in the Texas legislature so that he
could help Republicans keep a majority in the Texas State House until
the end of the session in mid-2003. The White House was apparently
complicit in these unethical partisan actions by a person confirmed to
a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. Clark, who was confirmed
to a seat on the Federal district court in Texas, was actively
campaigning for election despite his confirmation.
These actions bring discredit to the court to which Judge Clark was
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and calls into
question Judge Clark's ability to put aside his partisan roots and be
an impartial adjudicator of cases. Even in his answers under oath to
this committee, he swore that if he were ``confirmed'' he would follow
the ethnical rules. Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States
Judges explicitly provides that the code applies to ``judges and
nominees for judicial office'' and Canon 7 provides quite clearly that
partisan political activity is contrary to ethical rules. In his
answers to me, the chairman of this committee, Clark promised
``[s]hould I be confirmed as a judge, my role will be different than
that of a legislator.'' As the Commentary to the Code of Conduct for
United States Judges, (which applies to judges and nominees), states,
``Deference to the

[[Page 23119]]

judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the
integrity and independence of judges [which] depend in turn upon their
acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent,
they should comply with the law as well as the provisions of this
Code.'' The code sets standards intended to help ensure that the public
has access to Federal courts staffed with judges who not only appear to
be fair but are actually so.
Yet he was flouting the standards set by the code and the promises he
made to me personally and to the Senate Judiciary Committee and, by
proxy, to the Senate as a whole. That the White House was prepared to
go along with these shenanigans reveals quite clearly the political way
they approach judicial nominations. Only after the New York Times
reported these unseemly actions, did the President sign Judge Clark's
appointment papers. As Judge Clark hoped, he ``won'' the election and
so the Republican Governor of Texas may be able to name a Republican to
replace him in the state legislature.
With a White House that is politicizing the Federal courts and making
so many divisive nominations, especially to the circuit courts, to
appease the far-right wing of the Republican party, it would be
irresponsible for us to turn a blind eye to this and simply rubber-
stamp such appointees to lifetime seats. Advice and consent does not
mean giving the President carte blanche to pack the courts with
ideologues from the right or left. The system of checks and balances in
our Constitution does not give the power to make lifetime appointments
to one person alone to pack the courts with judges whose views are
outside of the mainstream and whose decisions would further divide our
nation.
I have worked hard to bring to a vote the overwhelming majority of
this President's judicial nominees, but we cannot afford to make errors
in these lifetime appointments out of haste or sentimental
considerations, however well intentioned. To help smooth the
confirmation process, I have gone out of my way to encourage the White
House to work in a bipartisan way with the Senate, like past
Presidents, but, in all too many instances, they have chosen to bypass
bipartisanship cooperation in favor of partisanship and a campaign
issue. Arbitrary deadlines will not ensure that nominees will be
fairminded judges who are not activists or ideologues. The American
people have a right to expect the Federal courts to be fair forums and
not bastions of favoritism on the right or the left. These are the only
lifetime appointments in our whole government, and they matter a great
deal to our future. I will continue to work hard to ensure the
independence of our Federal judiciary.

____________________

TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE ACT OF 2002--CONFERENCE REPORT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays
before the Senate the conference report to accompany H.R. 3210.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
3210) to ensure the continued financial capacity of insurers
to provide coverage for risks from terrorism, having met,
have agreed that the House recede from its disagreement to
the amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an
amendment, signed by a majority of the conferees on the part
of both Houses.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration
of the conference report.
(The report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of
November 13, 2002.)

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which
the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the conference
report to accompany H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection
Act.
Christopher Dodd, Zell Miller, Joseph Lieberman, Harry
Reid, Jack Reed, Jon Corzine, Debbie Stabenow, Hillary
Rodham Clinton, Charles Schumer, Maria Cantwell, Paul
Sarbanes, Byron L. Dorgan, Tom Carper, Jeff Bingaman,
Tom Daschle, Barbara Boxer.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate evenly divided
before the vote. Who yields time?
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I urge Members to vote in favor of
invoking cloture. I am not quite sure why we are doing the cloture
vote, but in any event, so we can get to the legislation and pass it--
this is worthy legislation--I hope the Senate will first impose
cloture, and then, under the unanimous consent agreement, we would go
to a final vote on the legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, much good work has gone into this bill. I
am going to vote against cloture. I don't think the industry retention
figures are high enough. I think the taxpayer is too exposed. I am
afraid the secondary market will not develop under these circumstances,
and, despite all our efforts, the bill still retains the provision that
will produce punitive damage judgments against victims of terrorism. In
my mind, that is licensing piracy on hospital ships and should not be
allowed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
All time is yielded back.
By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call under the rule is
waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
conference report accompanying H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection
Act, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 85, nays 12, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]

YEAS--85

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Barkley
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--12

Craig
Ensign
Enzi
Gramm
Grassley
Hutchison
Kyl
Nickles
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Thomas

NOT VOTING--3

Helms
Hutchinson
Murkowski
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 85, the nays are
12. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on final passage of
H.R. 3210, the conference report to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of
2002. Most of us agree that something needs to be done in this area.
This legislation is important to our economy and the many jobs and
construction projects that have been in limbo due to the uncertainty
following the tragic events of September 11th. My constituents have
come to me on multiple occasions, imploring that the Senate act on this
issue. They are genuinely concerned about the negative impact lack of
coverage has had on their businesses and

[[Page 23120]]

their employees. Without insurance, our economic growth is in jeopardy,
businesses will fail and jobs will be lost. For that reason, I will
support final passage.
However, I am concerned that we have not addressed the issue in a
prudent and responsible manner that provides the appropriate stability
to our economy without exposing our taxpayers to an unreasonable
financial burden. In this legislation, we have failed to provide
elements that are necessary to the businesses that are themselves the
victims of the terrorist attacks, those very same businesses that
provide the thousands of jobs in this country that we are seeking to
preserve. Moreover, I have concerns about implementing a program such
as this without ensuring that the hardworking taxpayers in this county
are not forced to pick up the tab for the overzealous and unrestrained
trial bar. With the type of litigation that would likely result from
massive losses, even just from one attack, it defies common sense that
some would oppose implementing principles of litigation management to
ensure that all victims get treated fairly and jury awards, based more
on emotion rather than actual legal culpability, do not dry up the
resources of defendant businesses, which in turn hurts victims,
employees and taxpayers.
In a letter dated June 10, 2000, from the Treasury Department and
signed by not only the Secretary of the Treasury, but the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National
Economic Council and the Director of Economic Advisers really
underscores the serious ramifications to our economy that have resulted
from a lack of coverage for terrorist acts and supports Congressional
action in this area. But it also emphasizes that we must do so in a
responsible manner.

One important issue for the availability of terrorism
insurance is the risk of unfair or excessive litigation
against American companies following an attack. Many for-
profit and charitable companies have been unable to obtain
affordable and adequate insurance, in part because of the
risk that they will be unfairly sued for the acts of
international terrorists . . . It makes little economic sense
to pass a terrorism insurance bill that leaves our economy
exposed to such inappropriate and needless legal uncertainty.
[emphasis added]

In seeking to provide stability to our economy we must not act
irresponsibly. The conference report on H.R. 3210, while providing a
necessary backstop to our economy, includes some weaknesses that
concern me. While I believe this measure is necessary and should be
enacted as soon as possible, I sincerely hope this body will address my
concerns in the next Congress.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern about the
conference report to H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. When
the Senate first considered this bill in June, I expressed the hope
that Congress would send the President a bill that was fair and
balanced with respect to basic liability protections for all victims of
terrorism. However, I believe that the conference report before us
fails to provide reasonable restrictions on lawsuit liability, and
instead exposes the American taxpayer to potentially excessive costs of
unmitigated litigation as a result of terrorist attacks beyond anyone's
control. Consequently, I am reluctant to vote for final passage of this
conference report.
I am glad that the final version of the terrorism reinsurance
legislation is only a temporary fix. As a general matter, the
Government should not be in the business of writing claims.
Some have implied that we wrongly predicted an insurance crisis
following the events of September 11, 2001, which was the reason for
this temporary backstop. The insurance companies have survived without
government support thus far, and banks are still lending where there is
uncovered risks. According to the Wall Street Journal, ``the economy
has continued to grow, albeit slowly, and some companies have started
offering insurance again, albeit at very high premiums.'' The article
states that a short-term solution would be nice, but the bill is ``a
bonanza for the trial lawyers, an entitlement for insurers.''
Again, I do not believe that this legislation contains adequate
liability protections. While some restrictions were negotiated in
conference, I don't believe that they go far enough. Basically,
American companies that are themselves victims of terrorists acts
should not be subject to predatory lawsuits or unfair and excessive
punitive damages. If that happens, not only will Americans be the
victims of another attack, but the taxpayers will be the victims of
trial lawyers who will seek the deepest pocket and rush to the
courthouse to sue anyone regardless of fault. There needs to be careful
restrictions on lawsuit liability to protect taxpayer funds from being
exposed to opportunistic, predatory assaults on the United States
Treasury.
In fact, I agree with an editorial in the Washington Post: the other
side of the aisle should be ``embarrassed by their efforts to defend
trial lawyers at the expense of the American economy.'' Rather, we
should be working to enforce the long-standing Federal policies behind
the Federal Tort Claims Act: namely, that lawyers should not be making
handsome profits when they are paid from the U.S. Treasury. I agree
with a statement made by House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner, that
``especially today, in a time of war, excessive lawyer fees drawn from
the U.S. Treasury should not be allowed to result in egregious war
profiteering at the expense of victims, jobs and businesses.''
Many say we can come back and revisit these provisions later. I say
we get it right the first time we sign it into law.
I ask unanimous consent to print the Wall Street Journal article to
which I referred in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 6, 2002]

A Terrifying Insurance Deal

A bonanza for the trial lawyers, an entitlement for insurers

After the elections the 107th Congress is threatening to
return to pass some unfinished business, including a
compromise on terrorism insurance. Having looked at the
details of the insurance deal, we can only hope they'll all
stay home.
The two parties have been battling for a year over this
bill, especially the extent to which trial lawyers could
profit from acts of terror. Republicans and some Democrats
want to ban punitive damages against property owners. But Tom
Daschle, carrying his usual two oceans of water for the
plaintiff's bar, resisted any erosion in the right to sue the
owner should a plane crash into his or her building.
And it looks like Mr. Daschle has prevailed. The compromise
permits such suits, albeit before a single federal court as
opposed to the more accommodating state courts. In other
words, the White House appears to have caved, and after
months of arguing the opposite now says terror insurance is
about ``jobs, not tort reform.''
Well, we're not sure it's still about jobs either. The bill
makes insurance companies liable for claims amounting to a
certain percentage of their premiums, puts the government on
the hook for 90% of losses over that deductible, and allows
the government to recover some portion of its payment by
levying a surcharge on all policy owners. The best news is
that government help sunsets in 2005, or at least that's the
promise.
Unfortunately, the bill ignores the crucial problem of
risk. Risk-based premiums--which reward the careful and
punish the careless--are a superb tool for reducing risk.
Consider: There are lots of things property owners can do to
reduce the damage from terrorism--retrofitting air-filtration
systems to guard against biological agents, redesigning
underground parking garages to prevent bomb attacks,
fireproofing steel girders to minimize fire damage. And
insurance companies can discipline them to take these
measures by charging risk-based premiums.
If insurers were required to pay premiums to the government
based on the premiums they receive, market incentives to
reduce risk would improve markedly. If, on the other hand,
terror insurance is essentially free, as it would be under
the current bill, insurers have less incentive to charge the
full cost of risk; instead they have every incentive to
underprice it.
An alternative has been suggested by David Moss, an
economist at Harvard Business School: Let the federal
government pay 80% of losses from a terrorist attack, as long
as insurers also pass along 80% of the premiums they collect.
This way, says Mr. Moss, insurers would price risk near or at
its full cost, exerting discipline against the careless, and
prices would be set in the private market.

[[Page 23121]]

We mention Mr. Moss's idea because, despite heavy breathing
by the insurance industry, it isn't at all clear that there's
an immediate economic need for this legislation. It's true
that right after 9/11 the property insurance market seized
up. Insurers didn't know how to price for the risk of another
attack, and so rent their garments that the economy would
collapse without government reinsurance. We were also open to
the idea, but it turns out they were wrong. The economy has
continued to grow, albeit slowly, and some companies have
started offering insurance again, albeit at very high
premiums.
We aren't arguing that a federal backstop might not perk up
business in the short term, or that some sort of insurance
wouldn't be nice to have in place before another attack. But
the assertion that billions of dollars of projects have been
shelved and 300,000 jobs lost is bogus. Despite efforts to
quantify a slowdown, including a survey by the Fed, evidence
of suffering is scattered and anecdotal--and mostly confined
to trophy properties.
The bigger point here is that any legislation is likely to
be permanent, since no entitlement of this size has ever been
allowed to ride quietly into the sunset. That argues for
doing it right, and waiting until the next Congress if need
be. Many Republicans are privately unhappy with the deal the
White House has cut with Mr. Daschle. We hope they'll urge
President Bush to insist on something better.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this conference
report includes bipartisan legislation that I authored with my
colleague, Senator Allen of Virginia, which will make state sponsors of
terrorism and their agents literally pay for the dastardly attacks they
perpetrate on innocent Americans.
Last June, the Senate approved our amendment to the terrorism
insurance bill on an 81 to 3 vote to mandate that at least $3.7 billion
in blocked assets of foreign state sponsors of terrorism and their
agents, at the current disposal of the U.S. Treasury Department, be
used--first and foremost--to compensate American victims of their
terrorist attacks. That lop-sided vote made it very clear that most
Americans and their elected representatives understand the importance
of making the rogue governments who sponsor international terrorism pay
literally, instead of blithely dunning the American taxpayer to
compensate the victims of their outrageous attacks or doing nothing.
Our global struggle against terrorism must be fought and won on
multiple fronts. In so doing, we cannot forget that terrorist attacks
are ultimately stories of human tragedy. The young woman from Waverly,
IA--Kathryn Koob--seeking to build cross-cultural ties between the
Iranian people and the American people only to be held captive for 444
days in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The teenage boy from LeClaire,
Iowa--Taleb Subh--who was visiting family in Kuwait in 1990, and who
was terrorized by Saddam Hussein and Iraqi troops in the early stages
of the invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. aid worker from Virginia--Charles
Hegna--who was tortured and killed in 1984 by Iranian-backed hijackers
in order ``to punish'' the United States. These are only a few of the
American families victimized by terrorist attacks abroad I have come to
know. There is not a Senator in this body who cannot count additional
American victims of state-sponsored terrorism among his or her
constituents.
What do we say to these families, the wives, mothers and fathers,
sons and daughters? More importantly, what can we do, as legislators
and policymakers, to mitigate their suffering and to answer their cries
for justice?
Those who sponsor as well as those who commit these inhumane acts
must pay a price. That is why I sponsored the Terrorism Victim's Access
to Compensation Act, whose key provisions are included in this
conference agreement.
In 1996, the Congress passed an important law--the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act--with bipartisan support and with the
support of the U.S. State Department. That statute allows American
victims of state-sponsored terrorism to seek redress and pursue justice
in our Federal courts. A central purpose of that law is to make the
international terrorists and their sponsors pay an immediate price for
their attacks on innocent Americans abroad. For the first time starting
in 1996, the money of foreign sponsors of terrorism and their agents
that is frozen bank accounts in the United States and under the direct
control of the U.S. Treasury was to have become available to compensate
American victims of state-sponsored terrorism who bring lawsuits in
federal court and win judgments on the merits against the perpetrators
of such attacks.
The law enacted in 1996 only applies to seven foreign governments
officially designated by the U.S. State Department as state sponsors of
international terrorism. They are the governments of Iran, Iraq, Libya,
Syria, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba. It is these state sponsors of
international terrorism, not the American taxpayer, who must be
compelled first and foremost to compensate the American victims of
their inhumane attacks.
The U.S. Treasury Department currently and lawfully controls at least
$3.7 billion in blocked or frozen assets of these seven state sponsors
of terrorism. But some officials of the U.S. Treasury and State
Departments who think they know better, until now, have been flaunting
the law, ignoring the clear intent of the Congress, and opposing the
use of these blocked assets of Saddam Hussein, the ruling mullahs in
Iran, and other state sponsors of terrorism to compensate American
victims of terrorist attacks. In fact, in the on-going case involving
the 53 Americans taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979 and
held in captivity for 444 days and their families, U.S. Justice
Department and State Department attorneys have intervened in federal
court to have their lawsuit dismissed in its entirety, thus de facto
siding with the Government of Iran.
Incredibly, since 1996 American victims of state-sponsored terrorism
have been actively encouraged to seek redress and compensation in our
federal courts. These long-suffering American families have complied
with all requirements of existing U.S. law and many have actually won
court-ordered judgments, only to be denied any compensation and what
little justice they seek in a court of law. The opponents of this
legislation apparently want American taxpayers to foot the bill for
what could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars instead of making
the terrorists and their sponsors pay.
With the passage of this new legislation, the Congress is requiring
that this misguided policy be abandoned. Holding the blocked assets of
state sponsors of terrorism in perpetuity might make sense in the
pristine world of high diplomacy, but not in the real world after the
September 11 terrorist attacks on America.
First, paying American victims of terrorism from the blocked and
frozen assets of these rogue governments and their agents will really
punish and impose a heavy cost on those aiding and abetting the
terrorists. This tougher U.S. policy will provide a new, powerful
disincentive for any foreign government to continue sponsoring
terrorist attacks on Americans, while also discouraging any regimes
tempted to get into the ugly business of sponsoring future terrorist
attacks.
Second, making the state sponsors actually lose billions of dollars
will more effectively deter future acts of terrorism than keeping their
assets blocked or frozen in perpetuity in pursuit of the delusion that
long-standing, undemocratic, brutish governments like those in Iran and
Iraq can be moderated.
Third, American victims of state-sponsored terrorism and their
families will finally be able to secure some measure of justice and
compensation. Public condemnation by the U.S. Government of state-
sponsored terrorism only goes so far. This new legislation enables
American victims to fight back, to hold the terrorists who are
responsible accountable to the rule of law, and to make the
perpetrators and their sponsors pay a heavy price.
In his last days in office, former President Clinton signed a law
endorsing a policy of paying American victims of terrorism from blocked
assets, while simultaneously signing a waiver of the means to make this
policy work.

[[Page 23122]]

The Bush administration has not changed this mistaken policy as yet.
That is why Senator Allen joined me in pushing this bipartisan
legislation to establish two new policy cornerstones for our Nation's
struggle against international terrorism. First, the U.S. will first
require that compensation be paid from the blocked and frozen assets of
the state sponsors of terrorism in cases where American victims of
terrorism secure a final judgment in our Federal courts and are awarded
compensation. Second, the U.S. Government will provide a level playing
field for all American victims of state-sponsored terrorism who are
pursuing redress by providing equal access to our federal courts.
American victims of state-sponsored terrorism deserve and want to be
compensated for their losses from those who perpetrated the attacks
upon them, including our former hostages in Iran and their families.
The Congress should clear the way for them to get some satisfaction of
court-ordered judgments and, in so doing, help deter future acts of
state-sponsored terrorism against innocent Americans.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the
conference report on H.R. 3210, the terrorism insurance bill.
I had hoped that Congress would approve legislation that encouraged
building construction, gave business owners limited liability
protection in the event of a terrorist attack, and protected taxpayers
from exorbitant costs. These goals were all enunciated by President
Bush when he pressed Congress to act on this issue after months of
delay.
Unfortunately, the legislation in its current form fails to meet any
of those objectives.
First, the conference report subjects victims of terrorism to
potentially unlimited liability by placing no restrictions on court
awards of punitive damages or non-economic damages. This has the
potential of encouraging a slew of frivolous lawsuits against business
owners whose business may be destroyed in terrorist attacks. Certainly
no business that was located in the World Trade Center, for example,
should be held at fault for the unforeseeable tragedy that took place
on September 11.
As several of the President's economic advisors noted in a June 10,
2002 letter to Senate Minority Leader Lott, ``the victims of terrorism
should not have to pay punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed
to punish criminal or near-criminal wrongdoing.'' The letter goes on to
say ``the availability of punitive damages in terrorism cases would
result in inequitable relief for injured parties, threaten bankruptcies
for American companies and a loss of jobs for American workers.''
I strongly agree with that position and am troubled that the
conferees did not take these concerns into account before bringing this
legislation to the Senate floor.
Additionally, I am concerned that this legislation leaves taxpayers
open to liability for terrorist attacks. One of the original goals of
this bill was to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to sign off on
out-of-court settlements to protect the taxpayers from exorbitant
costs. Without such a provision, taxpayers, who are liable for as much
as 90 percent of property and casualty costs after a terrorist attack,
could be gouged by trial attorneys. That is primarily because insurers,
with only a ten percent stake in the outcome of litigation, will favor
faster, rather than fairer, settlements--at the taxpayers' expense.
Of additional concern, the low per-company deductibles will impede
the development of a private reinsurance market and will increase the
likelihood that this temporary federal program becomes permanent. Since
the Federal Government limits each company's liability, rather than
that of the entire industry, insurance companies have less incentive to
spread their risk.
I am also troubled by certain provisions in Title II of this
legislation covering victim compensation through seized assets from
terrorists and terrorist-sponsoring states. As the conference report
stands now, this provision would create a race to the courthouse
benefiting a small group of Americans over a far larger group of
victims just as deserving of compensation.
Economic sanctions against terrorist states have kept the economic
activity of those states to a minimum. Yet this limited pool of frozen
assets and diplomatic property would be exhausted quickly as large, and
often uncontested, compensatory and punitive damage awards are
satisfied, leaving most victims with nothing. For example, the special
provisions for terrorism victims of Iran expands the number of judgment
holders eligible for payment under the 2000 Act (to approximately
eight), but metes out all of the approximately $30 million remaining in
the fund to satisfy judgments in only two cases. And there are a number
of ongoing lawsuits by terrorism victims and their families against
Iran that will be foreclosed under this agreement.
This section would also disproportionately benefit trial lawyers,
since plaintiff's lawyers whose fees are contingent upon satisfying
their clients' judgments stand to gain the lion's share of the
compensation, not the victims.
Overall, this legislation is far from what President Bush wanted. It
is a major disappointment that literally benefits trial lawyers at the
expense of the taxpayers.
I realize that many of my colleagues want to support this bill,
despite its flaws. And I understand that. It is regrettable that
special-interest groups exerted so much influence in the drafting of
this legislation, leaving the President with a bill that amounts to
little more than the best he could get from this Congress.
But as it stands today, I cannot ask Arizona taxpayers to absorb the
potential losses they might incur because of the self-serving and
unjustified lawsuits that are the all but inevitable outcome of this
legislation.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to address a portion of this
conference agreement relating to enforcement of judgments obtained by
victims of terrorism against state sponsors of terrorism. These
provisions strike an important blow in our global struggle against
terrorism.
The purpose of title II is to deal comprehensively with the problem
of enforcement of judgments issued to victims of terrorism in any U.S.
court by enabling them to satisfy such judgments from the frozen assets
of terrorist parties. As the conference committee stated, this title
establishes, once and for all, that such judgments are to be enforced
against any assets available in the U.S., and that the executive branch
has no statutory authority to defeat such enforcement under standard
judicial processes, except as expressly provided in this act.
Title II expressly addresses three particular issues which have vexed
victims of terrorism in this context. First, there has been a dispute
over the availability of ``agency and instrumentality'' assets to
satisfy judgments against a terrorist state itself. Let there be no
doubt on this point. Title II operates to strip a terrorist state of
its immunity from execution or attachment in aid of execution by making
the blocked assets of that terrorist state, including the blocked
assets of any of its agencies or instrumentalities, available for
attachment and/or execution of a judgment issued against that terrorist
state. Thus, for purposes of enforcing a judgment against a terrorist
state, title II does not recognize any juridical distinction between a
terrorist state and its agencies or instrumentalities.
Second, title II amends Section 2002 of the Justice for Victims of
Terrorism Act of 2000 to address a miscarriage of justice in the
drafting and implementation of that act. In that provision, Congress
had directed that specified claimants against Iran receive payment in
satisfaction of judgments from two specified accounts, namely Iran's
Foreign Military Sales, ``FMS'', Trust Account and the proceeds of
rental of certain Iranian government properties. Contrary to
Congressional intent, the legislative language has been construed by
the Departments of State and Treasury to exclude unspecified claimants
and to allow the executive

[[Page 23123]]

branch to bar enforcement of their awards against other blocked assets.
As one United States District Court has noted, the result is a gross
injustice that demands immediate correction.
To address this injustice, we are adding to the list of those to be
compensated, all persons who meet two criteria--either, 1, they had a
claim filed when Section 2002 was enacted and have already received a
final judgment on that claim as of the date of enactment, or 2 were
added to the list by the State Department Reauthorization Bill enacted
last month. In accordance with amended Section 2002(b)(2)(B), each of
these claimants are to be treated as if they were originally included
in Section 2002, and are to be paid an amount determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury to have been available for payment of their
judgment on the date their judgment was issued. Once these amounts are
paid, any remaining amounts in these accounts are to be paid to
remaining claimants under the formula specified in amended Section
2002(d).
Moreover, to address this injustice, this amendment will treat all of
these victims--those originally included in Section 2002 and those now
being added--equally to the maximum extent possible. No priority is
given to one group or the other. Those in each group which have filed
timely lawsuits and received a final judgment by the enactment of this
Act are to be paid within the strict deadlines set in the Act, i.e.,
within 60 days, without delay. Those not included within this time
frame may pursue satisfaction from blocked assets. This will
necessarily include some who, for whatever reason, have failed to
obtain a judgment in their lawsuit by the date of enactment of this
act.
Third, the term ``blocked asset'' has been broadly defined to include
any asset of a terrorist party that has been seized or frozen by the
United States in accordance with law. This definition includes any
asset with respect to which financial transactions are prohibited or
regulated by the U.S. Treasury under any blocking order under the
Trading With the Enemy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act, or any proclamation, order, regulation, or license. Moreover, by
including the phrase ``seized by the United States'' in this section,
it is our intent to include within the definition of ``blocked asset''
any asset of a terrorist party that is held by the United States. This
is intended as an explicit waiver of any principle of law under which
the United States might not be subject to service and enforcement of
any judicial order or process relating to execution of judgments, or
attachments in aid of such execution, in connection with terrorist
party assets that happen to be held by the United States. In this
respect, the United States is to be treated the same as any private
party or bank which holds assets of a terrorist party, and such
terrorist party assets held by the United States are not immunized from
court procedures to execute against such assets. However, any assets as
to which the United States claims ownership are not included in the
definition of ``blocked assets'' and are not subject to execution or
attachment under this provision.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank all of the
conferees for the long hours and late nights they here worked to
complete this bill. I know this has been a difficult process and a long
year.
Unfortunately, now I find myself in a very difficult position. I find
myself forced to oppose this legislation even though it is a
Presidential priority and even though I support the underlying goals.
It was a little over a year ago that Senators Sarbanes, Gramm, Dodd,
and I announced an agreement for terrorism risk insurance legislation.
That agreement outlined the parameters that we thought were a
reasonable response to disruptions occurring in the marketplace as a
result of the lack of reinsurance. This agreement outlined very limited
and specific liability protections that would protect both the
taxpayer's pocketbook and businesses which may themselves be victims of
terrorism from frivolous lawsuits after future terrorist attack.
These limited protections were: First, suits filed as a result of a
terrorist attack would be consolidated into a Federal district court;
second, punitive damages would not be allowed; and third, the Secretary
of the Treasury was given the ability to agree to out-of-court
settlements.
Now, in this new conference report, two out of these three
protections have been eliminated. The new program in this conference
report will allow frivolous lawsuits to be filed against businesses
that may be victims of the terrorist act themselves. Think about a
business located in the World Trade Center on 9/11. This business was
destroyed and likely lost a number of its employees. The next thing
that happens is while attempting to rebuild, the business gets slapped
with a frivolous lawsuit by a greedy trial lawyer. It is ridiculous to
believe that a business could have prevented an attack of this kind.
Yet this legislation will subject them to the will of the trial bar.
This conference report keeps America's businesses and the taxpayer
subject to punitive damages. I have a Statement of Administration
Policy from the executive Office of the President's Office of
Management and Budget. In the second paragraph of the letter dated June
13, 2002, it states ``the Administration cannot support enactment of
any terrorism insurance bill that leaves the Nation's economy and
victims of terrorist acts subject to predatory lawsuits and punitive
damages.'''
Also from the administration, I have a letter signed by Treasury
Secretary O'Neill, OMB Director Daniels, Director of the National
Economic Council Lindsey, and Director of the Council of Economic
Advisors Glenn Hubbard dated June 10, 2002. This letter states ``the
victims of terrorism should not have to pay punitive damages. Punitive
damages are designed to punish criminal or near-criminal worngdoing.''
It goes on the say ``the availability of punitive damages in terrorism
cases would in inequitable relief for injured parties, threaten
bankruptcies for American companies and a loss of jobs for American
workers.'' I could not agree more with the administration's position
from just a few months ago that this legislation could lead to the
bankruptcies of American companies who were victims of terrorist acts
themselves.
In addition, this conference report does not include a provision
which allows the Secretary of the treasury to agree to out-of-court
settlements. This legislation has the American taxpayer pay potentially
90 percent of property and casualty costs after a terrorist attack. I
can think of no other instance where the group liable for paying 90
percent of a lawsuit is unable to agree to an out-of-court settlement.
If another catastrophic terrorist attack occurs, every trial lawyer in
America will file a lawsuit because they know that the insurance
company, which only pays 10 percent of the settlement, will agree
immediately. The mansions of the trial lawyers will be built with the
dollars of the American taxpayer.
I do not consider the inclusion of these protections to be extreme
measures and I do not think that most of the members of this chamber
believe them to be unreasonable. They are very simple and reasonable
protections that basically say the trial bar should not take advantage
of tragedies caused by terrorists.
The President invited Senate Republican conferees to the White House
a few weeks ago where concerns were raised regarding the lack of these
specific taxpayer protections. Unfortunately, these protections were
not reintroduced into the legislation and now this conference report
comes to the floor of the Senate without a single Senate Republican
conferee's signature.
For these reasons, I am unable to support passage of this
legislation. I support the program and understand the possible economic
problems by not passing the legislation. I cannot in good faith subject
the hard-working taxpayers of Wyoming to the potential losses they
might incur because of the

[[Page 23124]]

self-serving and unjustified lawsuits which may result.
However, even though I cannot support this bill because of the lack
of taxpayer protections, I would like to commend those who have worked
so diligently on the legislation for over a year now. Senator Dodd, in
particular, has given more time and effort to this project than
probably anyone. He and his staff, Alex Sternhell, have remained
committed to seeing the passage of this legislation and have done
remarkable work to bring the issues that relate to the structure of the
program to a compromise. I have to say that I agree with Senator Dodd's
position on the structure of the program and always felt confident in
the manner which he negotiated these provisions.
Mr. President, my position on this legislation has not changed since
the very beginning. I believe we need a Federal backstop and I believe
at one point we had a bill that did just that. I am sorry the trial bar
was able to derail the bill for over a year now. I can only hope that
the trial lawyers of America will stop to realize that subjecting
Americans to lawsuits to line their pockets after the devastation of a
terrorist attack is simply the wrong thing to do .
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this conference
report to provide a federal backstop for terrorism insurance. I believe
this bipartisan bill will boost our economy by providing extra
protection against terrorist attacks for buildings and construction
projects with resulting new jobs in Vermont and across the nation. I
agree with President Bush that this legislation is essential for our
future economic growth.
I worked with the distinguished Majority Leader, Senator Dodd,
Senator Sarbanes, Senator Schumer and others to craft a balanced
compromise in the conference report on legal procedures for civil
actions involving acts of terrorism covered by the legislation. The
conference report protects the rights of future terrorism victims and
their families while providing federal court jurisdiction of civil
actions related to acts of terrorism, consolidating of such cases on a
pre-trial and trial basis, and excluding punitive damages from
government-backed insurance coverage under the bill. These provisions
do not limit the accountability of a private party for its actions in
any way.
Further, the conference report, identical to the Senate-passed bill,
fully protects federal taxpayers from paying for punitive damage
awards. Under the conference report only corporate wrongdoers pay
punitive damages, not U.S. taxpayers as some incorrectly claimed on the
Senate floor during consideration of the Senate-passed bill.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has declared that the conference report
``will improve the legal rights of plaintiffs and defendants and,
importantly, will help American workers and the economy.'' I agree.
I thank the conferees for rejecting the special legal protections in
the House-passed bill. The liability limits for future terrorist
attacks in the House-passed bill were irresponsible because they
restricted the legal rights of victims and their families and
discouraged private industry from taking appropriate precautions to
promote public safety. Restricting damages against a wrongdoer in
terrorism-related civil actions involving personal injury or death, for
example, could discourage corporations from taking the necessary
precautions to prevent loss of life or limb in a future terrorist
attack. There is no need to enact these special legal protections and
take away the legal rights of victims of terrorism and their families.
For example, the House-passed bill would have permitted a security
firm to be protected from punitive damages if the private firm hired
incompetent employees or deliberately failed to check for weapons and a
terrorist act resulted.
The threat of punitive damages is a major deterrent to wrongdoing.
Eliminating punitive damages under the House-passed bill would have
severely undercut this deterrent and permitted reckless or malicious
defendants to find it more cost effective to continue their wanton
conduct without the risk of paying punitive damages. Without the threat
of punitive damages, callous corporations could have decided it is more
cost-effective to cut corners that put American lives at risk. This
approach failed to protect public safety, and the conferees rightly
rejected it.
In addition, I thank the managers for including language in the
conference report to help captive insurance companies participate in
the federal backstop program. Many captives deal in property and
casualty lines, but some do not. Senator Jeffords and I strongly
support language in the conference report to allow those captives in
property and casualty the option of participating in the program while
not requiring other captives to start offering terrorism risk
insurance.
The state of Vermont is the premier U.S. domicile for captive
insurance companies. Vermont's captive owners represent a wide range of
industries including multinational corporations, associations, banks,
municipalities, transportation and airline companies, power producers,
public housing authorities, higher education institutions,
telecommunications suppliers, shipping companies, insurance companies
and manufacturers, among others. Since 1981, Vermont has averaged
approximately 25 captives licensed annually, and those numbers are on
the rise. Vermont closed 2001 with 38 new captives, 37 pure and I
sponsored, for a total of 527 at year-end. The first half of 2002 saw
26 new captives licensed in Vermont setting a record pace, according to
the Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance and Health Care
Administration.
At a time when the American people are looking for Congress to take
measured actions to protect them from acts of terror and jump-start our
economy, this conference report is a shining example of bipartisan
progress. I applaud Senator Daschle, Senator Dodd, Senator Sarbanes,
Senator Schumer and the other Senate and House conferees on their good
work on this bipartisan conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have consulted with the chairman and
the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. As I think our
colleagues know, the next order of business is a debate and then a vote
on the continuing resolution. I am told they will need no more than 40
minutes. So Senators should be prepared to vote on final passage on the
continuing resolution at about 9:10 to 9:15 p.m. Please return to the
Chamber if you are not going to stay. That will be the final vote of
the evening. We will vote at approximately 9:10 to 9:15 p.m., following
this vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, cloture having been
invoked, the question is on agreeing to the conference report to
accompany H.R. 3210.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 11, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 252 Leg.]

YEAS--86

[[Page 23125]]

Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--11

Craig
Enzi
Gramm
Grassley
Hutchison
Kyl
McConnell
Nickles
Sessions
Shelby
Thomas

NOT VOTING--3

Helms
Hutchinson
Murkowski
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, be recognized for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

SERVICE IN THE SENATE

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on a 6 year term
in the Senate which has been simultaneously the most challenging, yet
most rewarding, experience of my life. I have had the chance to realize
a lifelong dream by following in the footsteps of one of my personal my
heroes, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. I have been able to
represent the state I love in an institution I revere. And I have been
able to add my voice to the others that have risen before me in this
chamber, from William Fulbright to Harry Truman to John Kennedy to
Everett Dirksen to so many other outstanding men and women of history.
In my Senate office, I have surrounded myself with small reminders of
the men I most admire. I sit at Richard Russell's desk. On my walls, I
have photographs of just two people. President Franklin Roosevelt and
Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Theirs were no ordinary times, and we
can safely say now, neither are ours. After the Pentagon was attacked
on September 11th, I looked at FDR's picture and finally understood the
gravity of his day of infamy, because this generation now had one of
its own. I have used Churchill's and Roosevelt's examples of strength
and courage to make it through every day in this town. Some days have
been better than others, but every one has been a gift because this has
been the life of my dreams.
When I came to the Senate, I came to do the best job I could for the
people of Georgia and the people of the United States, particularly our
men and women in uniform. I am proud of what we've accomplished since
then. Today, over 60% of our service members are married, and their
benefits have finally begun to reflect that fact in order to retain
those talented professionals. We knew that the decision to stay in the
military is made at the dinner table, not the conference table, so
we've increased pay for service members by nearly 20% since I came to
the Senate. We've modernized the G.I. bill so that service members can
transfer their benefits to start a college fund for their children. We
set a schedule to eliminate out of pocket housing expenses and we even
added a measure to help families take their pets with them when serving
in Hawaii. Keeping the family dog may not be the highest priority for
some lawmakers, but it's the whole world to a child moving around the
globe as their mother or father serves our country. The family matters
to the military member, so the family has mattered to me in my time
here.
Beyond these individual personnel matters, I became deeply concerned
about the shrinking numbers of our U.S. military, and this year was
able to raise the ceiling of our force strength. In our new war on what
Sam Nunn calls ``catastrophic terrorism,'' we must continue to go on
the strategic offensive. Our military may be winning the battle, but we
will lose the war if we continue to ignore the fact that our forces are
critically over-deployed and being asked to do too much with too
little. We are out of balance. Our commitments are far outpacing our
troop levels, and the situation is only getting worse.
Since the end of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the armed forces
have downsized by more than half a million personnel, but our
commitments have increased by nearly 300%, including new deployments to
Afghanistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Georgia, and Pakistan. Today, a
Desert Storm-size deployment to Iraq would require 86% of the Army's
deployable end strength, including all stateside deployable personnel,
all overseas-deployed personnel, and most forward-stationed personnel.
To make the war on terrorism possible, we have activated more than
80,000 guard and reserve troops and instituted stop-loss for certain
specialties. This is no way to fight a war when our strategic national
interests are at stake. The President has rightly told the country to
be prepared for a long commitment. But the Pentagon has not requested
an increase in end strength for services other than the Marines. Our
military is on a collision course with reality of families they don't
see, training they aren't receiving and divisions borrowing from each
other to meet the bare minimum in staffing. We can prevent a loss
tomorrow, but we have to act today by increasing our numbers, and I
hope that we will.
Just as we must go on the strategic offensive overseas, we have to be
on the strategic defensive here at home. The Senate has just passed the
bill to create a new Department of Homeland Security, which was long
overdue. For my own part, I am pleased to see passage of several
measures I have worked on that I believe will significantly improve our
sense of security here at home. The homeland security bill itself
contains provisions to coordinate law enforcement and public health
emergencies and to move the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
into the new department. The Port Security bill will help the ports of
Brunswick and Savannah cut off options for terrorists who want to
attack the U.S. on our own shores. The Bus Security bill will ensure
that bus passengers are finally accorded some of the same security
measures that the flying public receives.
I look ahead now, and see our nation facing perilous challenges. Iraq
and Saddam Hussein are back on our radar screen. We are right to insist
on disarmament, and I leave the Senate confident that my vote to give
the President the authority to use force to that end was the right one.
I also believe my vote to go after Osama bin Laden was the right one,
but we have miles to go before we sleep on that front.
As all of these issues continue, I hope that the Senate and the
country will continue to vigorously debate the proper course for our
nation's foreign policy. A policy unchallenged is a policy unproven.
Why would we wait to prove our theories to ourselves and our allies
until our troops are in the field proving our policies for us?
When he was in Vietnam, Colin Powell swore to his men, as I swore to
mine, that when we were the generals instead of the captains, when we
were the senators instead of the sergeants, we would not send our boys
into a fight willy-nilly. And we haven't. And we shouldn't. In
retrospect it seems to me that the real failure of Congress in Vietnam
was not so much passage of the open-ended Gulf of Tonkin resolution,
but its subsequent failure to exercise its Constitutional
responsibilities after the resolution passed.
Likewise, Congress' vote on the Iraq resolution provided a tangible,
militarily achievable objective, but it did not discharge the Congress
of all future responsibility with respect to our policy on Iraq. After
the 1990-91 Gulf War, Powell put forth six questions which he believed
must be addressed before future military interventions:

Is the political objective important, clearly defined, and
well understood?
Have all non-violent means been tried and failed?
Will military force achieve the objective?
What will be the cost?
Have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed?
After the intervention, how will the situation likely
evolve and what will the consequences be?

The first three questions have been addressed thus far, but when we
turn to

[[Page 23126]]

the final three of General Powell's questions, we see the need for some
serious and sustained attention not only by the Administration, but by
the Congress as well. What will be the cost, not only the cost of the
immediate military operation, but also the costs of what could be a
very long-term occupation and nation-building phase? What about the
cost for our economy? The mere threat of war has sent oil prices upward
and caused shudders on Wall Street. What will a full blown war do? Have
the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed? And after the
intervention, how will the situation likely evolve and what will the
consequences be?
Powell has said that the purpose of the American military is to
prevent war. But if war cannot be prevented, we should go in, win and
win quickly. I am grateful to have Colin Powell's voice in this debate
today. And I am hopeful we will have his and others like his in the
debates of tomorrow. I hope the members of the 108th Congress will ask
these questions and these are the ones I will be asking from whatever
vantage point I move to after January 2.
In his farewell speech to Congress, General Douglas McArthur said
that old soldiers never die, they just fade away. This old soldier is
not going to fade away, but I will take my battles to another front.
The people of Georgia have given me a chance to live the life of my
dreams here in the Senate, but now I may have the chance to live a life
that exceeds my dreams, and I am grateful for that.
As much as Richard Russell achieved for Georgia and for America, he
said his greatest regret in his life was that he never married. I am
happy to say that this old soldier has learned a thing or two from
Russell, and I will be married to my fiancee, Miss Nancy Ross, after I
retire. There is life after the Senate, and it will be a wonderful
life. FDR said that the purpose of politics is to generate hope, but
for me, the purpose of life is to generate hope. I will continue to try
to live up to FDR's example every day.
Before I leave, I want to thank several people. Senator Robert Byrd,
for teaching me so much about this institution. Senators Reid and
Daschle for your constant help and support, as well as Senator Zell
Miller. Senators John McCain, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, who reminded
me that nothing is stronger than brotherhood, and some things are more
important than politics. I thank my staff for letting me lean on them,
and I thank the entire Senate family, from our Chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie
to the reporters who cover the Senate, from the wonderful elevator
operators to the staff in the Senate dining room and the barber shop
and everyone in between--you've been my friends and my family and I
will always remember your kindness. Finally, to my colleagues and the
people of Georgia, a song from one of my favorite old westerns comes to
mind. Happy trails to you, 'til we meet again. God bless you.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the two managers of this bill, the President
pro tempore of the Senate and the soon to be President pro tempore of
the Senate, are both here managing this bill. It is my understanding
they are not going to take a long period of time. As soon as they
finish, it is my understanding we would have final passage.
The majority leader has come upon the floor. Senator Byrd said he is
ready to begin the debate.

____________________

MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 124) making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall be brief and my colleague, Mr.
Stevens----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. Please remove
conversations from the floor.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
I do not intend to speak more than 15 minutes, if that much. And my
colleague has indicated he will speak about the same amount of time. So
I would say to Senators we ought to be voting within 30 minutes.
Last July, almost 4 months ago, the Senate Appropriations Committee
completed action on all 13 of our appropriations bills, each on a
bipartisan unanimous vote. These bills restored essential funding for
programs that the administration proposed to cut.
We provided $1.1 billion more than the President requested for
veterans medical care.
We restored the $8.6 billion cut proposed by the President in highway
funding.
The President proposed only a 1-percent increase for education
programs. He would turn the No Child Left Behind bill into another
unfunded mandate. Our bill would have provided a 6-percent increase for
education, including key funding to reduce class size.
We included sufficient funding to keep Amtrak operating.
We restored over $1 billion of cuts that the President proposed for
State and local law enforcement programs.
We fully funded the President's proposed increases for homeland
security programs, but we provided the funds through existing programs
that our nation's fire and police organizations support.
We provided a significant increase for the Securities and Exchange
Commission in order to investigate corporate fraud.
We provided $400 million for election reform.
Sadly, the President believes that these increases represent wasteful
and unnecessary spending. He worked with the House Republican
leadership to shut the appropriations process down. The House has not
passed a regular appropriations bill in nearly 17 weeks. By contrast,
the Senate Appropriations Committee reported all thirteen bills by July
25th, the earliest date that this was accomplished since 1988. However,
without the House-passed bills, our process stalled.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, believes
in making responsible choices. It believes in governing. The President,
sadly, appears to believe more in rhetoric and political posturing.
This year, only two of the thirteen appropriations bills have been
signed into law. The House has voted for and the President has
supported a fifth continuing resolution that would extend
appropriations for the domestic side of the government until January
11. This is the worst performance of the Congress in attending to one
of its most basic responsibilities, the funding of the government,
since 1976 when the beginning of the fiscal year was moved to October
1.
Why did the President precipitate this unprecedented failure? Despite
the fact that Congress approved the President's 13 percent, $45
billion, increase for defense programs and his 25 percent, $5 billion,
increase for homeland defense programs, the President believes that the
3.5 percent increase for domestic programs that the Senate
Appropriations Committee approved, was excessive. The President
proposed to virtually freeze domestic programs that were not for
homeland defense. The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $13
billion more for domestic programs, barely enough to cover inflation.
The President has forced the entire domestic side of the government
to operate on automatic pilot at fiscal year

[[Page 23127]]

2002 levels for over one quarter of the fiscal year. In a bit of pre-
election posturing, the President's Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said
on October 20th, ``For the first time in probably a decade, Congress
has left town before an election without going on a spending spree
using taxpayers' money. There's a new sheriff in town, and he's
dedicated to fiscal discipline. And Congress for the first time in a
decade has listened to the new sheriff.''
That new sheriff is shooting the country in the foot with his
Administration's shortsighted political games. But, were the items that
the Senate Appropriations Committee funded with the $13 billion
increase a spending spree?
No.
With great fanfare, the President signed numerous authorization bills
this year that authorize increase spending on important programs. Last
January, he signed the No Child Left Behind Act in order to invest
additional resources in important education programs for our children.
Last May, he signed a border security bill to strengthen glaring
weaknesses in our border security. Last July, he signed the
Bioterrorism Preparedness Act authored by Senators Kennedy and Frist in
order to provide critical resources to State and local governments to
improve the capacity of hospitals, clinics and emergency medical
personnel to respond to biological or chemical attacks. Last July, he
signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to combat corporate fraud. In October, he
signed the election reform bill in order to help State governments
overhaul the nation's electoral system.
Yet, when it came time to actually fund these important initiatives,
the President worked to postpone action on the FY 2003 spending bills.
He worked with the House Republican leadership to force the funding of
the entire domestic side of our government onto a continuing
resolution. Instead of making careful choices, the President has forced
the government to operate on automatic pilot, leaving the legislation
that he signed with such fanfare, to operate without the increased
resources authorized by those laws.
The Senate is now considering a fifth continuing resolution to extend
funding for the eleven bills that fund domestic agencies through
January 11, 2003. This puts the entire domestic side of the government,
including homeland security programs, on automatic pilot at the levels
approved for FY 2002.
You must watch what this President does, not what he says. What he
has done, is to force the government to operate on automatic pilot.
What he has said bears very little resemblance to what he has done.
The U.S. Senate is reputed to be the world's greatest deliberative
body. In ``Democracy in America,'' French visitor Alexis de Tocqueville
described this body as an institution ``composed of eloquent advocates,
distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and statesmen of note, whose
arguments would do honor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates
of Europe.''
That was the Senate of 1831--an institution that prided itself on its
deliberate, careful, judicious debates; an institution that possessed,
as once the Senate of ancient Rome possessed, a great firmness,
anchored by oratory that was as brilliant as the immense gold eagle
atop the dais of the old Senate Chamber. But the Senate that de
Tocqueville watched in 1831, I am sad to say, is a far, far cry from
the institution that the American people have observed over the past
few months.
Instead, the American people have seen a body more concerned about
politics than substance; more concerned about party than about the
people; more concerned about the state of the midterm elections than
the state of the union.
President Bush came to Washington in 2001 and promised to change the
tone in Washington. Instead, the President has sent an unambiguous
message to Congress on virtually every major policy issue. His
message--my way, or the highway. No room for debate. No room for
deliberation. The nation needs to pursue energy independence, but the
President has said my way or the highway. Our elderly need a
prescription drug benefit, the President has said my way or the
highway. The Director of Homeland Security says our nation is facing an
imminent risk of a terrorist attack, but when it comes to homeland
security legislation, the President said my way or the highway.
Similarly, the Congress has been manacled by the President and the
House Republican leadership in its efforts to fund the operations of
government.
On September 17, I came to the floor and I warned Members that the
White House was leading an effort to stall the appropriations process.
At that time, the House had not taken up an appropriations bill for
eight weeks. I complained that the Administration seemed to believe
that the federal government is nothing more than a ``Monopoly'' board,
with the President living on Park Place, while the rest of the country
relegated to Mediterranean Avenue.
In those remarks, I noted that Lawrence Lindsay, the President's
principal economic advisor, had estimated that the costs of the war in
Iraq would be $100 to $200 billion but that spending at that level
would have no impact on the economy. I stressed my concern that the
White House is willing to put the entire domestic side of the
government on automatic pilot in a long-term continuing resolution over
their insistence that the $13 billion difference between the House
topline for discretionary spending and the Senate topline is, in their
view, excessive spending. I noted that the House Republican leadership,
at the bidding of the White House, is willing to force all of the
domestic agencies to operate at current rates over their objection to
the Senate's wanting to provide a 3-percent increase for domestic
health, education, environmental, law enforcement and other programs,
barely enough to cover inflation.
On September 24, I came to the Senate floor and I warned Members
about the dire consequences of forcing veterans health care programs,
education programs, transportation programs to operate at last year's
spending levels.
On October 2, I returned to the floor and I asked the White House why
they had turned a deaf ear to the needs of the American people; and why
the fundamental duties of the President and the Congress to make
careful and responsible choices about how to spend the taxpayers' hard-
earned dollars had been put on automatic pilot.
For months, the President called on Congress to send him the Defense
Appropriations bill. The Congress fully cooperated with the President
in this regard. Congress sent the President the Defense and Military
Construction bills at levels $800 million above the original House
bills.
There is no doubt that the Congress and the President can work
together. When the President asked for the necessary Defense funding,
the Congress cooperated. But it's a far different story when it comes
to the domestic programs of the United States Government.
The rest of the appropriations bills remain on hold, stuck in the mud
of election-year politics. The President has sent the message that he
will be satisfied to put the entire domestic side of the government on
automatic pilot. He has already signed four continuing resolutions that
fund the government at the levels in last year's laws.
Many members of Congress, myself included, are proud to wear the
label of ``defense hawk.'' But, in this new age of terrorism, being a
defense hawk must also mean being a ``hawk'' on domestic defense. It
must mean defending and funding domestic initiatives that will make
Americans safer and more secure in their own backyards just as
vociferously as defending and funding the production of military
aircraft, and missiles, and tanks.
The White House stall on the remaining appropriations bills means
that one front of our two-front war on terrorism will be provided with
funds to do battle, but the other front will be shortchanged. If we
fail to pass the rest of our appropriations bills, all of our efforts
here, on American soil, to make

[[Page 23128]]

more secure our states, cities and neighborhoods, will be getting short
shrift.
Many on the other side of the aisle have claimed that this fiscal
train wreck is the result of the Senate's not passing a budget
resolution. That may make for good campaign rhetoric, but every Senator
knows that a budget resolution is not necessary to pass appropriations
bills. Congress was able to pass appropriations bills for nearly 200
years without a budget resolution.
The Budget Act specifically provides authority for the House to move
forward on the appropriations bills in the absence of a budget
resolution. Sadly, the House Republilcan leadership, at the prodding of
our ``my-way-or-the-highway President'', chose instead to shut the
appropriations process down.
The President insisted on a topline of $749 billion for the thirteen
discretionary bills and has not budged. He seems satisfied to put the
government on automatic pilot. No choices. No judgment. No opportunity
for the Congress to reflect the needs of the American people in its
consideration of the thirteen bills. No, let's just put the government
on automatic pilot. Government by formula, rather than government by
choice.
According to news reports, the President considers himself to be an
education President. He speaks before Veterans groups. He speaks about
combating the war on terrorism by strengthening the FBI's investigative
capabilities and shoring up security at the Nation's airports, ports,
and borders. But talk is cheap. The necessary funding for these
priority programs is not. Where is the White House cooperation when it
comes to priority domestic funding, especially those relating to
homeland security and the plight of our veterans and the state of our
education programs? Remember, watch what he does, not what he says.
Mr. President, as the days and weeks slip by and the domestic
programs of the Federal Government limp along on autopilot under the
provisions of the continuing resolutions, the four-million veterans who
rely on the Veterans Administration for their health care are having to
worry about whether that care will be available to them. Maybe they are
not sleeping too well. While the weeks slip away, the 11,420 FBI agents
who are supposed to be combating the war on terrorism are having to
wonder whether they have the necessary resources to fight that war.
Maybe we all ought not to sleep too well. While the weeks slip away,
the government's effort to root out corporate fraud is being put on
hold. Watch what they do, not what they say. While the weeks slip away,
the President appears to be satisfied to forget his No Child Left
Behind promise and turn the commitment to educating America's children
into another unfunded mandate, another unfulfilled promise.
The President is quick to champion homeland security, but his budget
priorities reflect a different agenda. The administration's adamant
refusal to move off of the dime in these appropriations discussions
could jeopardize homeland security, no matter when or how any new
Department of Homeland Security is created.
Recently, former Senators Rudman and Hart released a report that
concluded that the American transportation, water, food, power,
communications, and banking systems remain easy targets for terrorist
attacks. According to the report, ``A year after
9/11, America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to
a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In all likelihood, the
next attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread
disruption to our lives and economy.''
The report highlighted the vulnerabilities created by: the minuscule
fraction of trains, ships, trucks and containers that are searched for
weapons of mass destruction; poor radio communications and equipment
and training for police, fire and emergency medical personnel;
inadequate coordination and focus on threats to food safety; lack of
lab capacity to test for biological or chemical contaminants; and
insufficient sharing of intelligence information with State and local
governments on potential terrorist threats.
Not only has President Bush failed to lead the nation in addressing
this vulnerability, he has, in fact, actively opposed efforts to
provide the resources necessary to address these significant
weaknesses. When it comes to homeland defense, the President talks a
good game, but puts no points on the board for our needs. Under
pressure from the White House, since September 11, 2001, critical
funding to address the specific concerns identified in the Rudman/Hart
report have been squeezed out of spending bills considered by the
Congress.
The Congress has succeeded in approving $15 billion for homeland
defense programs in December of 2001 and July of 2002, $5.3 billion
above the President's request. However, on several occasions in
November, December and July, the President threatened to veto
legislation that would have provided nearly $24 billion more for
critical homeland security programs, including $15 billion from the
stimulus bill and $8.9 billion from Fiscal Year 2002 bills reported by
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
In August of 2002, the President chose to terminate $2.5 billion of
funding that Congress approved for homeland security programs in the
Fiscal Year 2002 supplemental. He turned his back to funds that would
have helped to save lives.
In October of 2002, the White House took credit for forcing the
entire domestic side of the government to operate by automatic pilot
under a continuing resolution of last year's funding levels. That means
that agencies like the FBI, the Customs Service, the new Transportation
Security Administration, the Coast Guard, FEMA and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, agencies that are critical participants in
securing our homeland, have no new resources to address known homeland
security vulnerabilities. This postponed over $5 billion of increases
approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee for homeland security
programs.
When the President called on Congress to send him the Defense bills,
Congress responded. But, how about the other eleven bills? We hear no
call from the President to send him the remaining bills. The silence is
palpable.
Under the long term continuing resolution, the veterans health care
system will be funded at a level that is $2.4 billion short of the
level proposed in the Senate passed FY2003 VA-HUD bill. There are
currently over 280,000 veterans on waiting lists for VA medical care.
Under a long-term continuing resolution, the waiting lists will more
than double. VA will schedule 2.5 million fewer outpatient clinic
appointments for veterans, and 235,000 fewer veterans will be treated
in VA hospitals.
Thousands of FEMA fire grants, grants to resolve the interoperable
emergency communications equipment problem, grants to upgrade emergency
operations centers, grants to upgrade search and rescue teams, grants
for emergency responder training and grants to improve state and local
planning would be funded under the Senate's appropriations bills. But
the Administration insists on operating the domestic programs of the
Federal Government under the autopilot provisions of the continuing
resolution which are mindless, formulaic, and without any trace of
human judgment.
Has the President asked the Congress to send him the VA/HUD
Appropriations bill that funds these critical veterans and homeland
defense programs? No.
Many of the requirements of the Transportation Security Act require
large expenditures in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2003. Local
airports are required to purchase explosive detection equipment to keep
bombs from being placed on our airliners. To do that, they need help.
Our highway program is facing a $4.1 billion cut in spending that could
reduce jobs by over 160,000. Could our economy use those jobs? Amtrak
could go bankrupt, throwing 23,000 people out of work and eliminating
train service to 1.7 million citizens per month. Merry Christmas Amtrak
workers from the White House.

[[Page 23129]]

The Senate Transportation bill addresses these concerns. Has the
President asked Congress to send him the Transportation bill to fund
these programs? No.
Federal funds also are needed to hire new federal screeners and to
make our nation's seaports more secure. But this cannot be accomplished
under a continuing resolution. The INS is at a critical juncture in
developing a comprehensive Entry/Exit system to protect our nation's
borders. The Senate bill provides $362 million for this initiative. But
the Administration's inflexibility means that this program is frozen
under the provisions of a continuing resolution just like our progress
on protecting our borders--frozen! The President signed an
authorization bill to help root out corporate fraud, but the continuing
resolution would deprive the Securities and Exchange Commission of $300
million contained in the Senate bill to investigate corporate fraud.
Let the fraud flourish for just a little while longer. Has the
President asked the Congress to send him the Commerce/Justice/State
bill that funds those programs? No.
The Customs Service is scheduled to hire more than 620 agents and
inspectors to serve at the nation's high-risk land and sea points of
entry. The Senate provides the funding for the Customs Service. But,
again, the Administration seems to be satisfied with government by
autopilot. A continuing resolution does not fund new agents for our
border. Has the President asked the Congress to send him the Treasury/
General Government bill to fund that border security program? No.
Without additional funding for security at our nuclear facilities,
the Department of Energy will have to lay off 240 security guards at
nuclear facilities in Tennessee and Texas. These 240 guards are the
first line of defense between our enemies and a significant portion of
our nation's nuclear material. Has the President asked us to send him
the Energy and Water bill? No.
By forcing the government to operate on autopilot, the Administration
wants the nation to fight terrorism with a wink and a nod.
Last month, Congress passed landmark election reform legislation.
$3.8 billion is authorized for grants to state and local governments to
improve our election systems. Yet, there is no funding for this
initiative under a continuing resolution. Has the President asked the
Congress to send him legislation to actually fund these new election
reform grants? No.
Last year, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act with
bipartisan support. But, this law becomes nothing but an unfunded
mandate on our local governments if the federal funding is not there
for states to implement the new act. It takes money to reduce class
size, to provide teacher training, to invest in new technology and to
develop meaningful assessment tools. The No Child Left Behind Act
requires States to ensure that all teachers teaching in core academic
subjects are ``highly qualified'' by the end of the 2005-2006 school
year. But, the President's budget included no new money for teacher
training. The Senate bill would increase funding for Teacher Quality
State Grants by $250 million, for a total of $3.1 billion. The
President's budget would increase funds for education by just $367
million--less than a 1% increase. That level gets an ``F'' in my grade
book. The bill passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee,
meanwhile, would increase education funds by $3.2 billion, or 6.5%. Has
the President asked Congress to send him the Labor/HHS/Education bill?
No.
Here in the Senate, Senator Stevens and I sat down and worked out a
topline for discretionary spending that reflected our views of the
level of spending that would be required to produce thirteen
bipartisan, fiscally responsible bills. We then followed through and
the Senate Appropriations Committee produced all thirteen bills by the
end of July consistent with that allocation. All thirteen annual
appropriations bills cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee with
fifteen Democratic members and fourteen Republican members voting aye.
There is nothing partisan about these Appropriations bills. I worked
with my Republican colleagues, led by that very able Senior Senator
from Alaska, Ted Stevens, to make sure that these bills represented a
consensus of our members, both Democratic and Republican. There are no
gimmicks. The bills have been available for all Members to see for over
sixteen weeks. Yet, the lack of action in the House has shut down
progress in the Senate as well.
Senators should know that frustration with the lack of progress on
the FY 2003 appropriations bills is bipartisan and bicameral. In a
recent, widely distributed memorandum to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young
said, ``A long-term continuing resolution that funds government
operations at FY 2002 levels would have disastrous impacts on the war
on terror, homeland security, and other important government
responsibilities. It would also be fiscally irresponsible.''
All it would have taken to move the FY 2003 bills was some degree of
cooperation between the House and Senate leadership, but the White
House thwarted any chance of a compromise being reached. That's right.
The White House--the Bush White House--the one that promised to change
the tone in Washington, thwarted any chance of a compromise being
reached. They did not want the work to be done. The White House
spinners wanted to spin and weave their tangled web.
We ought to be more concerned about how our actions will affect the
course of the country than we are about how our actions or inactions
will affect the direction of our polls. We ought to be more concerned
about the price the people will pay for our actions or inactions than
we are about the price our parties will pay at the voting booth. We
ought to be more concerned about raising public awareness than we are
about raising campaign funding. We ought to be more concerned about
doing our jobs than we are about keeping our jobs.
Now, because of the White House's unwillingness to put what is best
for the American people ahead of what is best for our political
parties, the Congress is forced to pass a continuing resolution to fund
the operations of government until the 108th Congress. The Congress
will forsake one of its most important functions--to ensure funding for
the operations of the federal government--because is could not reason
with this partisan, partisan White House.
Call me old-fashioned, but I remember a time when compromises were
crafted by individuals who had differing views on an issue. But with
this President, it is my way or the highway.
The Senate must not blindly follow, in the name of party unity or
under the yoke of political pressure, a short-sighted path that
ultimately undermines our Constitutional processes. He could not stay
off of the campaign trail long enough to negotiate and help us pass
these bills.
Why isn't the Administration up here working in a bipartisan and
flexible fashion with the leadership of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees to facilitate the processing of the
appropriations bills that fund domestic programs so that the necessary
funding can be provided to the veterans, the FBI, the education
programs, the homeland security programs at the Federal, State, and
local levels?
Why the giant stall, the big freeze, the cold shoulder? This
Administration is setting quite a track record. Unfortunately for the
American people, it is not a record on which to look back with pride.
It is a record that rejects reasonableness in favor of stubbornness. It
is a record that rejects progress in favor of partisanship. It is a
record that puts politics ahead of the American people.
I, for one, can not forget what is important to America. I recognize,
as do many members of this body, the critical nature of these
appropriations bills to the future progress and security of this
nation. I recognize the importance of these appropriations bills to the
farmers, to the teachers and their students, and to the veterans. I
recognize the importance of these bills to future breakthroughs in
medical research and

[[Page 23130]]

cancer treatments. I recognize the importance of these bills to our
nation's energy independence and to our transportation network.
I can only pray that the Creator will see fit to protect us from the
plots of twisted souls who lurk in the shadows, and I can only hope
that in January, either our shame or our fear or both will compel us to
act.
I have very strong feelings of gratitude for my colleague, Senator
Stevens, the ranking member, who has worked so closely with me. And I
am especially appreciative for all of the cooperation and
bipartisanship that has been shown by the members of this committee.
We have a committee of 29 members--15 Democrats, 14 Republicans. On
all of these measures, we have reported the bills on a bipartisan basis
without any partisan differences within the committee.
So I have many reasons to thank the ranking member, Mr. Ted Stevens,
former chairman of the committee. I want to take this opportunity to
thank him, and to also thank the other members of the committee.
I also want to thank staff on both sides of the committee. We have
excellent staff that works with the Members. And I can only express my
very deepest appreciation to the staff and to the membership.
I urge the Members of the Senate to vote as they see fit on this
continuing resolution. I shall support it, although I am not entirely
pleased that we have been forced to engage in this exercise in passing
continuing resolutions. But be that as it may, we do have to fund the
operations of the Government. So I shall vote for the continuing
resolution.
The House has not taken up an appropriations bill for 8 weeks. When I
came to the floor on September 17 and warned Members that the White
House was leading an effort to stall the appropriations process, that
process has been stalled. We sent two appropriations bills to the
President. That is it. Eleven appropriations bill out of the 13 have
not be sent to the President's desk. This is because the House
Republican leadership has put the brakes on and has simply refused to
let the Appropriations Committee in the House move the bills forward.
The leadership on the House side has simply refused to have that body
act on the appropriations bills that had been reported by the
Appropriations Committee in the House.
That is most unfortunate.
I yield the floor in the event that my distinguished counterpart, Mr.
Stevens, wishes to say whatever he wishes. He may have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank you. I thank the distinguished
chairman of our committee.
The pendulum of politics is swinging. When we return in January, I
will become, once again, the chairman of our committee, and I look
forward to working with my great friend from West Virginia in the
manner I have tried to work with him as he has been chairman.
During the recent days, I have had the privilege of meeting with the
President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget
Director, and with Congressman Bill Young. We discussed the process by
which we might try to finish with the appropriations for fiscal year
2003 so that we might be ready to handle the 2004 requests when they
come following the State of the Union message that the President will
deliver to us on January 20.
I look forward to working with Senator Byrd in that regard. This
continuing resolution is absolutely necessary to give us the
opportunity to move forward, and sometime in the first week that we are
back in January we can decide how quickly we want to finish this
appropriations process.
For myself, I am sure Senator Byrd and I will do our best to work in
the Senate's best interest and to see to it that we finish these bills
so that we can turn to the new task of dealing with the new budget
requests which this time will include a new Department of Homeland
Security. It will be a most interesting transition. And it is going to
be a difficult problem for us in reorganizing the appropriations
process to handle this new Department--whether or not we will create a
new subcommittee or divide the work of the existing subcommittees to
handle the new Homeland Security Department, that will have to be
determined in the future.
I will certainly consult with Senator Byrd on all of those details.
For now, I urge Members to approve this continuing resolution and to
understand the process. This is something the Senate is compelled to do
in order to take us into a new Congress so that we can finish the work
on the fiscal year appropriations for 2003. I hope everyone will
understand the process and will give us their understanding even
further when they return in January.
If the Senator is willing to yield back his time, I will be glad to
yield back. We have no request for time on this side.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I also want to take this opportunity to
thank Chairman Bill Young, the chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee. I enjoy working with Chairman Young. He has always been very
cooperative and very gracious. He is a very courteous Member of that
body, and is always very kind and considerate of me as I have labored
to act as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate
upon more than one occasion.
I also thank Dave Obey, the ranking member on the House
Appropriations Committee. Dave Obey brings a great deal of experience
and knowledge and is a very articulate and forceful member of the House
Appropriations Committee.
I enjoy working with Dave Obey, as I enjoy working with Bill Young.
It has been a pleasure to work with the other members of the House
Appropriations Committee on both sides--Republicans and Democrats. They
have always been very nice to me.
This year I will relinquish my responsibilities as chairman and will
begin work with my former chairman, Mr. Stevens, and the other members
of the committee as we go forward into the new year.
I believe we will have difficult times ahead. But I have always been
able to work with Senator Stevens. He has always been very nice to me,
and very considerate, as has been his staff.
While I hesitate to feel that we must probably look forward to a more
difficult year in the future than we have in the past, I can only say
that I hope Senator Stevens and our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle in that committee enjoy a wonderful Thanksgiving, a lovely
Christmas, and a Happy New Year.
And may God look down upon us and help us in our struggles, as we
will continue to do our best, with limited resources, in the
forthcoming year.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time has been yielded back, the clerk
will read the joint resolution for the third time.
The joint resolution was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan).
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Cleland), and the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. T. Hutchinson), and the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 2, as follows:

[[Page 23131]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 253]

YEAS--92

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Barkley
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--2

Kerry
Lincoln

NOT VOTING--6

Carnahan
Cleland
Helms
Hutchinson
Murkowski
Schumer
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 124) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in
morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR PAUL WELLSTONE

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I was unable to be on the floor the day
that we paid tribute to our colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone. I would
like to take just a few moments this evening.
Like my colleagues, I was deeply saddened over the tragic death in a
plane crash of our colleague, Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, his
daughter, several members of his staff, and the plane's pilots. His
death is a grievous loss to those members of his family who survived,
to the people of Minnesota, whom he served so faithfully and honorably,
to his colleagues in the Senate, and to the Nation.
Paul Wellstone lived the American dream. His parents came to this
country as immigrants. He excelled in school. He earned both his B.A.
and his doctorate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
He went straight from the University of North Carolina to Carleton
College in Northfield, MN, as a young professor, where he taught for
more than two decades. Minnesota became home to him and his family.
In 1990, the people of his State sent him to the Senate; and in 1996,
they voted to send him back for another term.
Paul Wellstone was a person of deeply held convictions, a dedicated
fighter for working families. He fought with passion for his principles
but was also deeply respectful of those who disagreed with him. He was
profoundly committed to the democratic political institutions that he
had studied in his youth, that he taught to so many students over the
years, and that, by his own direct engagement in our Nation's politics,
he brought to life.
We feel a great loss in the death of this courageous fighter for a
just and decent America, and we will seek to honor his memory by
carrying forward in the spirit in which he lived and gave his life.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SARBANES). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning
business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I too rise to pay tribute to Paul Wellstone
and send condolences and prayers to the Wellstone family, to all of his
hardworking and dedicated staff, and to the other families involved.
Paul Wellstone was a passionate, courageous, never wavering fighter
for his ideals. He fought vigorously for what he believed in. He fought
vigorously for Minnesotans, Americans, and people around the world. And
he did so side by side with his wife Sheila, herself and eloquent and
forceful advocate for domestic abuse victims and so many others.
He was committed to economic and social justice.
He was indignant about the lives faced by the poor, the downtrodden,
the battered, and all the ``little guys.''
He envisioned a better world for everyone, and strove every day to
help secure that better world. He was tireless, but never humorless, in
this struggle.
He challenged Members of the Senate, the President, and all Americans
to envision this better world and to join him in the struggle for that
better world.
He fought for all of us, but most especially for our children, for
battered women, for working families, for individuals with
disabilities, for seniors, for family farmers, for veterans, for Native
Americans, and for new immigrants.
He fought to improve education, health care, and the environment. He
was a leading voice, a champion, a fighter for these and other
important needs of our Nation.
As he said:

If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand
for them.

His view of politics was insightful and straightforward, just like
the way he lived his life. He said:

Politics is what we create by what we do, what we hope for,
and what we dare to imagine.
He believed with all of his heart and soul in the American promise of
equal opportunity, that ``every child in America should have the same
opportunity to reach his or her full potential regardless of the color
of skin, gender or the income level of the child's parents.''
To make that happen, we need to provide every child with the same
tools for success. I can still hear him say: ``We cannot realize the
goal of leaving no child behind on a tin cup budget.'' He would make
this pitch during hearing held by the Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee, on which I was honored to serve with him, on the
Floor, education funding rallies, and anywhere and everywhere.
He believed that education funding should come before tax cuts for
the wealthy. In the education reform law, that he voted against because
he believed that it didn't provide enough resources and that the tests
it demanded would be ``educationally deadening,'' he worked to ensure
the highest quality tests possible and to recruit and retain highly
qualified teachers, among other important provisions.
He was also a leader in the fight for full funding of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. He also long worked to give welfare
recipients the chance to get off the rolls and into good paying jobs by
allowing them access to postsecondary education.
His legislative efforts to provide mental health parity were born in
large part out of his brother Stephen's struggle with mental illness
and his family's struggle with the problems of lack of insurance
coverage of mental illness treatment.
In an editorial in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, he said:

Think of what fairness in treatment for mental illness
would mean. Think of the lives saved, the suffering eased.
Suicide is linked to untreated mental illness in 90 percent
of cases. Americans with mental illness, who are homeless or
warehoused in jails, would instead get the humane care they
need. Workplace productivity would improve, with less
absenteeism and a higher quality of work. Other medical costs
would go down. There would be fewer broken families, broken
lives and broken dreams.

Paul Wellstone could not have been more right. We must pass mental

[[Page 23132]]

health parity in his name, and we must pass it as a first order of
business in the next Congress of the United States.
He also championed improved health care for children and adolescents,
particularly substance abuse and mental health treatment and suicide
prevention, included in the Children's Health Act of 2000. He
coauthored the law that provides funding for Parkinson's Disease
research. He also worked for a real Patients' Bill of Rights and a
prescription drug benefit for our seniors.
With his wife Sheila, he led the fight to end domestic violence. He
worked for passage of the Violence Against Women Act in both 1994 and
2000, a landmark law that provides help, protection, and improved
services to victims of domestic violence.
He long worked to address the needs of children who witness domestic
violence. Children who live in homes where domestic violence occurs are
at a higher risk of anxiety and depression, and exhibit more
aggressive, antisocial, inhibited, and fearful behaviors than other
children. They also are at risk for recreating the abusive
relationships they have observed, and many, as a consequence, are
juvenile offenders.
His legislation on this issue is pending in the Senate version of the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act reauthorization bill.
He fought for passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and was
working to expand it.
He was a leader in the fight to raise the minimum wage and to extend
unemployment insurance.
He believed in equal pay, worker protections, and secure pensions.
He fought to ensure veterans get the benefits and support they
deserve.
He worked for cleaner air and water, reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, and renewable energy. He led the fight to stop the oil
companies from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
He once again spoke for people with no voice, by championing
naturalization for Hmong citizens who aided the U.S. war efforts in
Vietnam, as well as by joining me as a cosponsor of the Liberian
Immigration Fairness Act.
Paul's efforts were not limited to improving the lives of Americans.
As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, he championed human
rights around the globe. He worked with Senator Brownback to enact
legislation to address international trafficking in women and children
for prostitution and forced labor.
He also coauthored the Torture Victim Protection Act to help
rehabilitate tortured survivors in the U.S. and abroad.
And he was a leading advocate and voice for sensible multinational-
international approach to foreign policy.
Paul Wellstone demanded bold action to right the wrongs of this
world. He fought for many valiant causes, and in doing so, he improved
millions of lives. However, his fight is not finished. There is still
much to be done. It is a fight we all must continue.
As Paul Wellstone once said, after the 1994 election:

We don't have time for despair. The fight doesn't change.
It just gets harder. But it's the same fight.

In his spirit and the spirit that is the most noble part of this
Nation, let us carry on this noble fight.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). There is nothing pending. The
Senator can ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

____________________

CONGRATULATING FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER ON RECEIVING 2002 NOBEL
PEACE PRIZE

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have had this Senate resolution cleared
with the majority and the minority sides. It is a resolution commending
former President Carter on his upcoming receipt of the Nobel Peace
Prize.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of S. Res. 360 submitted earlier today by myself and
others.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 360) congratulating former President
Jimmy Carter for being awarded the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize,
and commending him for his lifetime dedication to peace.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take a minute or two to explain the
purpose in offering this resolution. I think it is rather self-
explanatory. I want to thank Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, our
respective leaders, along with both the Members of the minority and the
majority, for their support of this resolution recognizing former
President Jimmy Carter for many things, not the least of which is the
recognition by the Nobel Committee in awarding him the Nobel Peace
Prize.
Over the past 25 years, few have been as dedicated to improving our
country and our world than Jimmy Carter. Throughout his life, former
President Carter has tirelessly devoted himself to promoting human
rights, relieving human suffering, and promoting peaceful resolutions
to a wide array of international conflicts.
Jimmy Carter's herculean efforts for peace during his term as
President culminated with the signing of the Camp David accords, and
indeed, his leadership and determination played a vital role in helping
to achieve what once was considered impossible peace between Israel and
Egypt. Although his efforts and dedication to peace did not earn him a
nomination for the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize, which was subsequently
awarded to then President of Egypt Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime
Minister Menachem Begin, former President Carter's indispensable role
in this lasting peace is and will always be a matter of historical
record.
Although many public servants retire from the public eye after their
terms are completed, since leaving public office, President Carter has
used his status and abundant talents honorably and effectively for the
benefit of humanity. In 1982, he founded the Carter Center, a highly-
respected research organization that seeks to cultivate peace,
democracy, and human rights, and helps fight famine and disease. In
1984, he began his affiliation with Habitat for Humanity by leading
efforts to restore a residential building in New York, and his annual
participation with Habitat ever since further demonstrates his strong
commitment to all manners of public service and to the betterment of
society. He has been an inspiration to all who want to find ways to
serve this country and humanity generally.
In 1999, Jimmy Carter was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom,
the highest award a United States civilian can receive. In 2002, at the
invitation of Fidel Castro, he made a historic visit to Cuba in order
to encourage the free exchange of ideas between Americans and Cubans. I
believe his visit, the first by an American President since 1928, will
help to encourage democracy and build bridges between our citizens and
our nations.
Indeed, whether he is working to promote strategic arms reduction or
helping resolve inner-city social problems, whether he is brokering a
peace between warring factions in Ethiopia or promoting peace,
democracy and human rights in countries such as North Korea, East
Timor, and Haiti, whether he is negotiating a cease-fire in Bosnia or
working to ensure free and fair elections in countries throughout the
world, Jimmy Carter is one of the pre-eminent figures of the last 50
years and a wonderful embodiment of the best of American ideals.
Prior to this year, Jimmy Carter had been nominated 10 times for the
Nobel Peace Prize. I am extremely pleased that in October of this year
he finally received this well-deserved and long-overdue tribute to his
lifelong efforts. There is nobody more deserving of this highest of
honors. I salute the decision of the Nobel Committee.
I again express my gratitude to all of our colleagues in the closing
hours of this 107th Congress. This resolution

[[Page 23133]]

recognizes the contributions of Jimmy Carter, and I join with others in
congratulating him on this well-deserved, long overdue honor of the
Nobel Peace Prize. Our congratulations to his beloved wife Rosalynn and
his family for all they have contributed to the well-being of our
Nation and to the world in which we live.
I inquire of the Chair as to whether or not the fourth whereas clause
on page 2 has been stricken?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 360) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 360), with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 360

Whereas in 1978, President Carter personally negotiated
with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime
Minister Menachem Begin to reach the Camp David Accords, the
cornerstone of all subsequent peace efforts in the Middle
East;
Whereas President Carter completed negotiations on the
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II (SALT II) and continued to
make strategic arms control a focus of United States security
policy;
Whereas President Carter emphasized the importance of human
rights as a key element of United States foreign policy;
Whereas former President Carter and his wife Rosalynn
established the Carter Center in 1982;
Whereas the Carter Center has taken an active and vital
role in world affairs, always seeking to improve human
rights, promote democracy, resolve conflicts, and enhance the
lives of the people of the world;
Whereas former President Carter has made countless trips
abroad to promote peace, democracy, and human rights,
including visits to East Timor, North Korea, Cuba, Haiti,
Nicaragua, and Mexico, among many others;
Whereas former President Carter has made the promotion of
peace, democracy, and human rights his life's work: Now,
therefore be it
Resolved, That the Senate recognizes and congratulates
former President Jimmy Carter for being awarded the 2002
Nobel Peace Prize and commends him for his tireless work for
and dedication to peace.
Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr. REID. Mr. President, first, I express my appreciation to the
Presiding Officer for being so patient these many hours until we
arrived at this point. Thank you very much.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak
therein for a period not to exceed beyond 5 minutes each.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

TRIBUTES TO DEPARTING SENATORS

Fred Thompson

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, since 1994, Senator Thompson has
represented the people of Tennessee in this body. During that time, I
have been fortunate to call him both a colleague and a friend.
In the last 8 years, Senator Thompson has fought hard for issues that
are vital to Tennessee. He has made sure that his State has the
infrastructure it needs and the resources it deserves. He has protected
Tennessee's farmers and its workers.
Three years ago Senator Thompson founded the Smoky Mountains National
Park Congressional Caucus. My own State of Alaska has many national
parks so I understand the challenges that Senator Thompson faced. His
commitment to eliminating the National Parks Service backlog has been
admirable.
Senator Thompson has also served the best interests of our Nation.
Our work on the governmental affairs committee reflects his dedication.
As chairman of that committee he has worked to make the government
smaller, more efficient, and more accountable. It has been a pleasure
to work with him as we worked to create the department of homeland
security.
The Senate and the people of Tennessee will miss Senator Thompson's
commitment and dedication. I am grateful for his service and wish him
future success.

phil gramm

Mr. President, for 24 years the people of Texas have had an
impassioned advocate and dedicated public servant in Phil Gramm.
Over the course of his career, Senator Gramm has established an
impressive legislative legacy. He played a role in the fight to cut
federal taxes, institute international free-trade incentives, reform
the welfare system, set mandatory federal prison sentences for drug
crimes, and support our armed forces. The Gramm-Leach Bliley Financial
Services Modernization Act and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act were ground-breaking
legislative achievements. Through these and other efforts, Senator
Gramm has helped lay the foundation for a new era of national
prosperity.
Senator Gramm has been called a man of ``frank opinions and
unwavering convictions.'' Since he came to the Senate in 1984 I have
been honored to call him my friend and colleague. We will miss his
leadership and his voice in the Senate. I am grateful for his years of
service and I wish him success in his future endeavors.

Tim Hutchinson

Mr. President, Senator Hutchinson has been a committed advocate for
the people of Arkansas and an important voice in the Senate. His strong
leadership led me to personnally support his candidacy and I will
greatly miss his presence here in Washington.
I believe Senator Hutchinson leaves behind an important legacy. As a
veteran of World War II, I am particularly grateful for Senator
Hutchinson's work on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. As chairman of
the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on hospitals and Health Care,
Senator Hutchinson really watched over the VA's 173 medical centers.
Our Nations's Veterans gave so much to ensure our liberty and freedom.
I thank Senator Hutchinson for making sure that we fulfill our promises
to them and reward their service. It has been said that: ``The final
test of a leader is that he leaves behind in other people the
convictions and the will to carry on.''
We are thankful for Senator Hutchinson's service and convictions. I
wish him much success.

FRANK MURKOWSKI

Mr. President, Alaska's recent elections have changed our state's
congressional delegation for the first time in 22 years. As my Senate
colleague of 22 years prepares to be sworn in as Alaska's tenth
governor, I recall the battles we have fought together on behalf of our
state, and I welcome the opportunity to work with him on tomorrow's
challenges.
Senator Murkowski has established an impressive record of achievement
during his time in the Senate. Since 1981, he has represented the
citizens of Alaska and served the nation admirably.
Throughout his career, Senator Murkowski has been a staunch defender
of Alaska's miners, loggers, and fishermen. In 1995, he authored and
helped pass through both Houses of Congress legislation that would have
opened ANWR to oil and gas exploration. He has helped broker an
agreement among major gas transmission companies that could result in
the construction of the natural gas pipeline; that pipeline

[[Page 23134]]

would bring valuable energy resources to the lower 48.
Senator Murkowski was a driving force behind the passage of an
omnibus parks bill that created or improved more than 100 natural
parks, forests, preserves and historic sites nationwide. He fought to
increase funding for Alaska's Medicare recipients. In 2001, he helped
win passage of major education reform, bringing us closer to the
nation's goal of providing every child with a quality education.
Senator Murkowski's wife Nancy has been an integral part of this
success.
When Frank and Nancy first arrived in Washington, Nancy worked hard
to balance their family life with their new Senate responsibilities.
In addition to being a committed partner, Nancy has been a devoted
public servant. She has been active in our Alaska State Society and has
traveled extensively with Frank. She has also been a leader in women's
health issues. Through the private charity she runs with Frank, Nancy
has raised more than $2.3 million for breast and cervical cancer
treatment. She cofounded the breast cancer detection center in
Fairbanks. Annually she organizes and runs events at Waterfall, near
Ketchikan and at Chilkoot Charlie's in Anchorage to raise funds for
breast cancer clinics and mobile detection units for rural areas
throughout Alaska. Our state is fortunate to have Nancy Murkowski as
its next first lady.
Those of us in the Senate will miss the Murkowskis. We will miss
Frank's daily leadership on important issues and his commitment to
public service. We take comfort in knowing that Alaska will have his
proven leadership in the governor's office.
Alaska and the Nation face unique challenges and opportunities in the
coming months and years. In the future, the vision and leadership
Senator Murkowski has demonstrated during his tenure in the Senate will
enable Alaska to meet those challenges and leverage those
opportunities.
Congressman Young and I look forward to working with Governor
Murkowski; we know he will support our work in the Nation's capital. We
will work together in the future as we have in the past.
It has been an honor to serve with Senator Murkowski. For 22 years we
have worked closely on issues that are of vital importance to Alaska
and the Nation. His career has been one of distinguished service. I
look forward to working with my dear friend and colleague in the
future.

Robert Torricelli

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will miss my friend and colleague Robert
Torricelli, the senior Senator from the State of New Jersey when he
leaves the Senate at the end of the 107th Congress.
Bob Torricelli first served from 1982-1996 in the U.S. House of
Representatives. In 1996, he joined us in the U.S. Senate, and since
getting here, has been a committed advocate for the people of New
Jersey. He has worked tirelessly to protect New Jersey's natural
resources, to improve air quality, and to protect drinking water. He
has also worked hard to provide a comprehensive prescription drug
benefit for seniors, and make college more affordable for parents and
students alike.
I have worked with Senator Torricelli in his tireless and ongoing
efforts to close the gun show loophole and to pass commonsense gun
safety legislation. That is a battle that I want to assure him many of
us that he leaves behind in the Senate will continue to wage.
Bob Torricelli served as an effective chairman of the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee and has earned a reputation as one of the
most eloquent orators in the U.S. Senate. His books, ``In Our Own
Words: Extraordinary Speeches of the American Century'' and
``Quotations for Public Speakers: A Historical, Literary, and Political
Anthology'' have become valuable resources for all of his colleagues in
public life.
I know my colleagues will join me in thanking Senator Robert
Torricelli for his years of service in the Congress and wish him the
best.

Jesse Helms

Mr. President, I recognize the service of Jesse Helms.
Before coming to the Senate, Jesse Helms served his country in the
U.S. Navy during World War II. He was a Senate staffer, broadcast
executive, radio personality, and banking executive.
Senator Helms, throughout his career, has been a tireless voice for
his conservative beliefs. Whether one agrees with Senator Helms' views
or not, no one can deny the imprint he has made on the deliberations
and actions of the United States Senate. Jesse Helms has always had the
knack for carefully crafting legislative language which would put his
supporters and opponents clearly on the record on the most difficult
issues of conscience.
In his capacity as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Jesse Helms was a powerful force in reorganizing the Department of
State.
In the United States Senate we are called upon to work with
colleagues of many differing points of view. While a fierce battler for
his conservative convictions, Jesse Helms was often willing to reach
across party lines to work with Democrats on issues like adoption and
increased funding for AIDS research.
While Jesse Helms and I have frequently disagreed, I respect the
straight forwardness which he brought to the public policy debate. And,
Jesse Helms was always a gracious gentleman. As this Congress comes to
an end, I know that I am joined by my Senate colleagues in wishing
Jesse Helms and his wife, Dorothy, and their three children, the very
best in the years ahead.

Phil Gramm

Mr. President, at the end of this session of Congress, Senator Phil
Gramm, the senior Senator from Texas will leave the Senate. For 18
years, Senator Gramm has been a leader among the Republicans and a
strong voice in the Senate.
Phil Gramm is a hard worker and effective advocate. Before coming to
the Senate, Senator Gramm was an economics professor at Texas A&M
University and member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1978
until 1984. After being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984, Senator
Gramm quickly became recognized as one of its most articulate members.
As a member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Finance
Committee, and the Budget Committee, he has applied his boundless
energies and extensive knowledge of the Senate rules and precedents to
his efforts to reduce federal taxes.
While Phil Gramm and I disagree on many issues, I deeply respect his
willingness to stand up and fight for his convictions and the good
humor with which he approaches those battles. For example, on the issue
of federal prisoner industries reform, Senator Gramm and I have locked
horns on several occasions, but he has always been a worthy and
agreeable adversary.
I know my Senate colleagues will join me in wishing him every success
as the vice chairman of UBS Warburg and in wishing our best to Wendy,
his wife, and their two children.

Fred Thompson

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute
to Senator Fred Thompson.
Senator Thompson joined the U.S. Senate in 1994 after a successful
career in law and even some starring roles on the silver screen. But he
was no stranger to this body, even then, having previously served as
Minority Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973 and 1974 at
the age of 30. Once he joined as a Senator, he rolled up his sleeves
and got to work on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee seeking to
make our government more sensible, more responsive, and more cost
effective.
In 1997, he became the Chairman of the Committee and has served in
that capacity during the 105th, 106th and 107th Congresses. Over the
years, Senator Thompson helped oversee some dramatic investigations,
including the campaign finance investigation in the 105th Congress and
the Enron investigation this past year. He also worked on many less
well known issues, including one close to my heart the effort to
improve the way the Federal Government issues regulations.

[[Page 23135]]

For several Congresses, Senator Thompson and I teamed together on
regulatory reform issues, including a major regulatory reform bill.
This legislation would have required federal agencies to consider cost-
benefit analysis when issuing major regulations and state publicly
whether the agency found that the benefits of a regulation justified
the costs. If they did not, then the agency would have to explain why
it was issuing the regulation despite that finding. We also required
federal agencies to conduct risk assessments where appropriate. We had
a heck of a battle on that legislation, and in the end we failed to
pass it. But the fight was worth it; I believe we were right; and it
was great to have Senator Thompson fighting with me at my side to bring
common sense to our regulatory process.
During his years at the Senate, Senator Thompson has made his mark as
a legislator by supporting bipartisan efforts to enact reforms in the
areas of campaign finance, sensible government regulation, and
corporate accountability.
While he will no longer be ``In the Line of Fire,'' Senator
Thompson's legacy in the Senate will ``Die Hard.'' I hope his future
roles will be as lively as those he played here for the last eight
years. It is a pleasure to join all of my colleagues today in honoring
and thanking him for his years of public service to his country.

Jesse Helms

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great
American, a fellow Senator, a fellow conservative, and friend--Senator
Jesse Helms.
I speak today with mixed emotions. I am happy to see that after a
long and distinguished career he will have more time to spend with his
beloved wife of 60 years, Dot . . . as well as enjoying time with his
children and grandchildren. But I also know that this kind of man is
impossible to replace.
In the words of The Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes:

Helms is an ideologue, and his unflinching devotion to
conservative principles has made him a powerful figure. He's
oblivious to the buzz, the chatter, and gossip of the press,
polls and the permanent establishment. He's totally inner
directed. He cares little for details or process. But when
something clashes with his conservative views . . . he steps
up, no matter how unpopular that makes him. He wins some,
loses some, but is always a player to be reckoned with, even
when he's acting alone.

I recall one such occasion where Senator Helms acted alone in his
outspoken criticism of the United Nations. He refused to approve
payment of U.N. dues until this lavish, bloated, and unwieldy
bureaucracy was reformed. He was highly criticized by almost every
member of the mainstream media, chastised by activists, and mocked by
others. He knew there were great problems at the United Nations and
would not give until it was improved and it should be told that, in the
end, the United Nations gave in. Reforms that will make the United
Nations a better, more honest and viable organization, were passed.
It seems to be one of the seldom mentioned side notes of Senator
Helms' career in public service he often wins even when he seems to
have lost. For instance, even though he was unable to block the
Chemical Weapons Convention, he did win 28 of the 33 concessions he
sought.
Senator Helms' legislative career will not only be remembered as that
of a foreign policy figure though. I, for one, as an Eagle Scout, will
always remember his fights to defend the independence of the Boy
Scouts.
Some of the best insight into Jesse Helms as a person comes from his
domestic policy stands. One of the most telling stories of the real
personality of Jesse Helms and one of the most moving as well was
shared by Senator Nickles. In the midst of a debate on a 5-cent-per-
gallon Federal gas tax hike, in which they were vastly outnumbered,
they were seeking guidance. Senator Helms suggested that they pray
together, and he called the Reverend Billy Graham and asked that he
pray with them for guidance.
That to me speaks volumes as to what truly guides Senator Helms as a
person. He was not using his faith for a photo op, a quick sound-bite,
a political tag line, or other earthly gains. This was simply a man who
instinctively turns to the God for guidance.
In the article I mentioned earlier, Fred Barnes concludes by asking
if Jesse Helms can be replaced. His conclusion is similar to mine. That
is a task that is ``probably more than can be hoped for''. A person as
unique as Jesse Helms does not come along often. His presence will
truly be missed both on and off the Senate Floor.
Senator Helms is a provincial patriot. He has never been a part of
the urbane crowd, the radical chic crowd. He knows it and they know it.
It galled them that he could not be intimidated by an editorial in the
New York Times or some such organization. He is a man of faith, a
Baptist. He comes from the soil of North Carolina and is proud of it.
He prefers the affection and commendation of those in his province over
those in the great salons where the ``masters of the universe''
operate. In fact, he respects the people of his beloved state and
deeply shares their values. That's what he fought for every day. The
cynical, rootless left, the politically correct, those without
principles, those who do not comprehend the greatness of America, were
not for him.
Indeed, he saw them as the problem. And, at their core, these folks
understood. They knew his disagreement with their actions was deep and
honest. Try as they might, his opposition would not go away. Many hated
him because of it.
But, Jesse Helms does not hate. He absolutely does not. He only wants
to do the right thing for America. Because he values America over
politics, and because he is courageous in his stand for principle, he
often could not be moved. The left has never understood this. Some
thought he hated them personally. He does not. He loves them and he
wants a better life for all Americans.
The truth is that Senator Jesse Helms is a most kind and considerate
person. His soft spoken ways are known by all. His modesty and an
assuming manner are plain for all to see. His wonderful wife, Dot,
shares those same qualities and is loved by all who know her.
He is a true Christian gentleman in the Southern style. Courtly,
gracious, quick of wit and firm in friendships, he is a most remarkable
person. Widely read, highly literate and a master of the language, few
could turn a phrase better than Jesse. When he has been wrong or slow
to understand, he has admitted it. His conversion to advocacy for a
much stronger fight against AIDS in Africa is a very recent example.
Finally, the career of Senator Helms cannot be discussed without
remarking on the critical role he played in enabling the focus of
democracy, free enterprise, and faith to triumph over the godless,
totalitarian forces of communism. He was a constant cold warrior. He
saw the evil in the evil empire, and his drive to overcome it never
slacked. He was relentless, even when undergoing attacks from the so-
called opinion leaders of America. It certainly was not those opinion
leaders and pundits who won the war. They blew hot and cold mostly cold
on American policies. But the people in the provinces knew, they knew
there could be no compromise with communism, and fortunately those
people had a strong, able and true voice in Jesse Helms. He stayed the
course, the Soviet Union collapsed. There were many close calls and
many highlights in that Cold War. One of those critical moments came
when Senator Helms came to believe in Ronald Reagan's view of the role
of the United States in this struggle. Jesse worked hard and produced a
great victory in North Carolina that gave him the Republican
nomination. Together they persevered and the evil empire collapsed and
the victory was won.
Senator Helms, you played a critical role in this struggle for
freedom and you deserve great credit for your courage and constancy.
America and freedom are in your debt. We are much obliged for your
service.

[[Page 23136]]

Fred Thompson

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the retirement of the distinguished
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson) will leave a major void in the
heart and soul of this body. Rarely have we seen the quality of the
work product of a new Senator approach the level of excellence and
importance as we have in the performance and contributions of Fred
Thompson.
He has stood head and shoulders above the crowd, literally and
figuratively. It was a rare and most enjoyable privilege for me to
serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee when he was the chairman.
He assumed the awesome responsibility of leading the committee in its
investigation of the election law abuses of the 1996 Presidential
election. He was a superb chairman, fair to all, but thorough and
diligent in his quest for the truth. He expended an enormous amount of
time and energy in that undertaking, and he made every effort to keep
to the subject and learn the facts. During it all, he endured
criticism, skepticism and sometimes ostracism as he labored to
discharge the duties of his chairmanship.
I have no greater respect for any Senator than I have for the Senator
from Tennessee. He has served well and reflected great credit on the
United States Senate and the State of Tennessee. We will miss him
greatly.

bob smith

Mr. President, I have enjoyed serving with Bob Smith in the U.S.
Senate. For the last 2 years, we have sat side by side in the Senate.
He has occupied the desk that was used in the Senate by Daniel Webster,
who was born in his State of New Hampshire, although he represented
Massachusetts as a Senator.
During votes and deliberations of the Senate we have had
opportunities to discuss a wide range of subjects from fishing in the
deep south to experiences in the U.S. Navy, as well as the issues under
consideration by the Senate.
I have grown to know and appreciate Bob Smith. I like him, and I
respect him. He is a person who has strongly held views, and he is not
afraid to express then, and to fight for them.
He has been admired on both sides of the aisle for his efforts to
protect the environment. He has been a dutiful and diligent Chairman of
the Environment and Public Works Committee.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, he has been an effective
supporter of a strong national defense. His leadership has been deeply
appreciated by me on the issue of missile defense. He worked
effectively to help garner the votes to pass the National Missile
Defense Act of 1999 which I authored. He was a cosponsor of that bill
and a very enthusiastic proponent of its passage, and its
implementation by the administration. We met regularly with Defense
Department officials to urge cooperation in the effort to develop and
deploy, as soon as possible, a system, or systems, to defend the
citizens of our country against ballistic missile attack. He mastered
the esoteric subject matter associated with this issue and was an
important force in the shaping and carrying out of this new national
policy.
I will miss Bob Smith. I wish for him and his family much happiness
in the years ahead.

phil gramm

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is an honor to pay tribute today to
my dear fried and colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, Phil Gramm.
Perhaps more than anyone in the Senate, I will miss Phil's leadership.
In the Senate there are three kinds of relationships between Senators
from the same State: One, they do not like each other. Two, a
professional relationship: they get along OK, work hard together for
their State, but are not really close. Three, they are good friends who
have a great partnership for their State.
Phil and I have No. 3. I recently noted that his retirement is like
sending an older sibling off to college: Your best friend will not be
upstairs anymore, and there is nobody to stick up for you when you get
in a fight. But then again, you'll get the big room, and you will not
have to share the spotlight anymore.
When I first came to the Senate after a special election, I walked
into an office with no staff, but Phil had sent his own staff to start
answering the phones, and detailed one of his senior staff to help set
up my office. That support was invaluable in those early days.
Phil's story is one of those ``only in America'' success stories.
Born at Ft. Benning, GA, the son of a soldier, his father died when
Phil was a young teenager. He and his two brothers were raised by their
mother in a modest neighborhood in Columbus, Georgia.
His mother worked at two jobs to take care of the family, as a
practical nurse and also in a cotton mill for $28 a week. Phil has
often said his mother had decided before he was born that he would go
to college.
But after failing the 3rd, 7th and 9th grades, his mother recognized
it was time for drastic action for her dream to be realized. She pooled
the family's limited resources and sent Phil off to the Georgia
Military Academy near Atlanta. Mrs. Gramm knew Phil had a good mind but
needed encouragement and direction
His life has been a testament to his mother's sacrifice ever since. A
PhD in Economics from the University of Georgia led him to another
life-changing experience when he accepted a teaching position at Texas
A&M. If the Georgia Military Academy gave him the academic foundation
to achieve, Texas A&M nurtured his natural talent to teach and to
entertain. He was a sensation at A&M. Phil managed to make even the
most complex economics courses exciting. It was also at A&M that Phil
met and married a fellow economics professor, Wendy, who has been a
partner and inspiration to Phil throughout his career.
While it is one thing to test your economic principles and
convictions in the classroom, it is quite another to have the courage
to place your views in front of the voters. After a losing campaign for
the Senate in 1976, he ran for Congress 2 years later and won. His
campaign theme--``common sense; uncommon courage''--described him
perfectly. Particularly after he decided to switch parties, from
Democrat to Republican. He resigned from his seat, to give his
constituents a choice to vote on his switch. He won back his seat,
becoming the only member of Congress in the 20th century to do this.
And after serving three terms in the House, Phil set his sights on the
Senate again, and won this time in 1984.
He has one of the sharpest minds in Congress. His Southern drawl and
easy-going nature may fool some, but we know behind that accent is a
razor-sharp mind. Phil has become one of the Senate's most important
leaders. He has mastered the Senate, and is one of our body's
intellectual and philosophical giants. He is a man of great character.
He does not stand on ceremony; he stands on conviction. He is never
been swayed by popular opinion, in fact, he has often stood his ground
despite popular opinion. His tenacity and his passion are unrivaled.
And even in his last days in the Senate, he's not taking a rest from
the trenches, he has been leading the debate on the Department of
Homeland Security, perhaps one of the most important decisions of our
time. If there is a tough fight to be had, you can be sure Phil Gramm
will lead the charge. If there is something difficult that needs to be
done, you can be sure Phil will find a way to do it.
Of course, in addition to his brilliant mind, Phil will be remembered
for his colorful sense of humor and witty anecdotes. For example, who
could get away with saying things like: During Gramm's bid for the
Presidency, Larry King asked Phil if he would ever run with a woman?
``Sophia Loren is not a U.S. citizen,'' answered Gramm. ``People of New
Hampshire talk funny and therefore they think I talk funny.'' On
campaign reform, ``Our problem is not bad money corrupting good men;
our problem is bad men corrupting good money.'' ``It's always dangerous
to send your wife ahead in your place, because then no one cares if you
show up.''
While he will certainly be remembered for his originality and humor,
he is second to none as an effective legislator. Phil has always
maintained his

[[Page 23137]]

focus on fiscal responsibility, helping us get back to a balanced
budget. He is the first person to actually do something to eliminate
the national debt, so that our children and grandchildren will not be
saddled with our bills. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Act was a
masterpiece. Phil thought of it and engineered its passage, proving it
is possible to be both smart and effective. As chairman of the Senate
Banking Committee, Phil crafted the Financial Services Modernization
Act, one of the most important pieces of financial legislation in
modern years.
When you are in a fight for survival, the most important decision you
make is who you want in the foxhole with you. When I have ever had a
tough fight, Phil was my first call. For two reasons: I want him on my
side, and I sure do not want him on the other side. I can say without
reservation that Phil Gramm is truly irreplaceable. What I admire most
about him is his courage. Phil and Wendy have been good friends to Ray
and me. We are friends in the Senate, and friends at home. Phil, I will
miss you. I wish you well and look forward to having you as a
constituent.

____________________

CHAPLAIN OGILVIE ON HIS SERVICE TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my good
friend, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, for his 8 years of service as the U.S.
Senate Chaplain.
Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie was born in Kenosha, WI, and graduated from
the Garrett Theological Seminary and the University of Edinburgh,
Scotland. After serving at churches in Illinois and Pennsylvania, he
was a pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Hollywood, CA, for
over 20 years. Since 1995, Chaplain Ogilvie has served as the 61st
Chaplain of the Senate.
This great Nation was founded on faith in God and has been supported
throughout its history by the faith and prayers of its citizens.
Chaplain Ogilvie has taken part in this great tradition by his undying
devotion to the Senate. Over the past 8 years, Chaplain Ogilvie has
provided the Senate family with kind words and open arms. From his
weekly prayer groups to his moving opening prayers, Chaplain Ogilvie
has been a consistent source of inspiration and strength for the Senate
family.
As our Nation faced the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001,
Chaplain Ogilvie helped our Senate leaders come together to help heal a
wounded Nation. Today, as we continue to face possible attacks on our
land, Chaplain Ogilvie provides us with the strength to continue
working to uphold the ideals of this great Nation. On a more personal
level, I thank Chaplain Ogilvie for the support he offered my staff and
I when we lost our beloved Holly Richardson. His comforting sentiments
and lending ear certainly offered us hope and a renewal of our faith.
We are all thankful for his tremendous service, and he will be greatly
missed by all those in the Senate.
On behalf of myself, my colleagues, and our Nation, I express my
sincere gratitude to Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie for his service to the
Senate. I wish his wife Mary Jane the best for a speedy return to good
health, and the best of luck to his children and grandchildren. I thank
Dr. Ogilvie for all his good works and for bringing the word of the
Lord to so many people.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DR. GERALYN M. JACOBS

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
recognize Dr. Geralyn M. Jacobs of Vermillion, SD who has been named
the South Dakota Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support
of Education. This award is given to professors who demonstrate a high
level of dedication to teaching and a commitment to students, and who
use innovative instructional methods. Dr. Jacobs' dedication to early
childhood education and academic accomplishments make her an
outstanding recipient of this award.
Since 1995, Dr. Jacobs has been a professor at the University of
South Dakota. In addition to her teaching responsibilities as an
Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education in the School of
Education, she serves as President of the South Dakota Association for
the Education of Young Children and is active in several professional,
campus and community organizations. She co-produced a CD ROM,
``Inclusion: Celebrating Children's Successes,'' that provides
resources for teachers working with children with special needs and she
often leads workshops and classes for teachers in South Dakota. Dr.
Jacobs brings 16 years of experience working with school-age children
to her college classrooms.
Through her tireless efforts at the University of South Dakota and in
many area communities, Dr. Jacobs has an invaluable impact on many
teachers and their students. Recent brain research has shown us that
early childhood educators can have a tremendous impact on the
development of young minds, and I would like to thank Geralyn Jacobs
for her contributions to South Dakota schools and congratulate her on
this well-earned recognition.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THURSTON ERIC WOMBLE

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize and say
farewell to an outstanding staff member and friend, Eric Womble. For
the past 7 years, Eric has served as my national security adviser and
military legislative assistant, and as one of my most able counselors.
As Eric moves on to new challenges in the private sector, it is my
privilege to commend him for his service.
The son of Thurston and Olive Womble, Eric was born at Bethesda Naval
Hospital in Maryland and was raised in Mobile, AL. He received his
undergraduate degree in 1979 from the United States Naval Academy and
was designated a Naval Flight Officer in 1980. Before retiring from the
United States Navy in 1997, he served in many assignments, including:
Patrol Squadron Twenty-Four, VP-24; the Joint Chiefs of Staff Intern
Program in Washington, D.C.; the Program Resource Appraisal Division in
the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, OP-81; Flag Secretary to
Commander Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, Japan; Fleet Replacement
Instructor in Patrol Squadron Thirty, VP-30; Operations Officer in
Patrol Squadron Forty-Nine, VP-49; Executive Assistant to the Chief of
Naval Research; and in the Department of Defense's Congressional
Fellows Program.
During his military career, Eric was awarded the Legion of Merit,
Meritorious Services Medal with a gold star, Navy Commendation Medal
with three gold stars, Joint Service Achievement Medal, and Meritorious
Unit Commendation with bronze star. He also earned an MBA from
Marymount University of Virginia and served as a White House Social Aid
for President Ronald Reagan.
When Eric came to work for me seven years ago, I assigned him the
task of helping me implement an innovative plan to create new jobs in
Mississippi by growing the research and technology base at our
universities and in our industrial community. Eric's efforts helped
Mississippi universities and businesses grow their research and
technology programs by approximately 200 percent from 1996 to 2002.
This growth in research and technology was a major factor in attracting
several Fortune 500 companies, including Nissan Motor Company, Lockheed
Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and Alliant TechSystems.
Mississippi also has become home to several new military commands
including Special Boat Unit Twenty-Two, the Navy's Southeast Region
Human Resource Office, and the Air National Guard's first C-17
squadron. This prescription for growth, which Eric helped me pursue for
seven years, also helped several existing entities in Mississippi,
including Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Raytheon Aerospace Company,
and the Meteorology and Oceanography command to prosper and create more
jobs.
When our military was suffering from extremely low retention and
recruiting

[[Page 23138]]

in the mid-1990's, Eric helped me craft legislation that helped reverse
these troubling trends. During his tenure on my staff, the Congress
passed the largest pay raise for our military men and women since 1981,
repealed the REDUX retirement system, reset the future pay raise
formula to Employment Compensation Index plus one-half percent,
implemented dual compensation exemption for military officers, reset
the pay caps for our Flag and General officers, created the TRICARE For
Life military health care system, and targeted millions of dollars in
pay raises to our mid-career enlisted military personnel and officers.
Eric also assisted me in improving the quality of medical care to our
military veterans by helping me craft legislation to establish a
Medicare Subvention Demonstration program and a prescription drug
program.
During the Clinton administration, Eric was instrumental in my
efforts to bolster our Nation's armed forces by getting $48 billion in
additional funds for our military through supplemental and
congressionally added funds. He also helped me gain $823 million in
military construction funding from 1996 to 2003 to revitalize
Mississippi's most critical military bases.
In particular, I should note that Eric's naval experience was
significant in helping me bolster the naval shipbuilding industry on
the Mississippi Gulf Coast. He was instrumental in bringing together
the Navy, the Office of Secretary of Defense, industry, and the
Congress to ensure a robust naval shipbuilding program. His work was
reflected in the development of the LHD, LHA(R), LPD-17, DD(X), DDG-51,
and the Littoral Combat Ship programs.
I know that the citizens of Mississippi benefited from Eric's
relentless pursuit of military and economic development projects that
will impact the State for years to come. The country, too, should be
proud to have had such a champion of strong military ideals fighting to
preserve our nation's military power and to properly support our men
and women in uniform. As a result of his outstanding performance, Eric
was recently awarded the Mississippi Distinguished Civilian Service
Medal and the Department of the Navy's Superior Public Service Award.
As Eric moves onto a new and exciting position as Vice President for
Programs at Northrop Grumman Corporation, I wish him, his wife Wendy,
and their children, Melissa and Matthew, every success. Eric has served
our country for more than 27 years, and as he embarks upon his new
journey, I wish to take this opportunity to thank him for his service
and to wish him nothing but the best in his new career.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JOSEPH VINCENT TREBAT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the adjournment of the 107th Congress means
we shall soon be bidding goodbye to the year 2002. The weeks ahead will
be filled with reviews of the headlines and history of 2002.
Unfortunately, 2002 marks the passing of an even greater number of
individuals who made up what some refer to as the ``Greatest
Generation.'' The men and women who sacrificed much and rose to meet
the awesome challenges confronting our great nation in the aftermath of
World War II are dying off in greater numbers each year.
Today, I wish to recognize the life of one such individual who
embodied the self sacrifice, uniquely American optimism, and genuine
goodness of this generation--Joseph Vincent Trebat of Mount Prospect,
IL. Joseph Trebat passed on to eternal life on August 14th but left
behind a legion of family and friends whose lives have been infinitely
enriched because of his life.
Joseph Trebat, ``Dad'' to his six children, ``Papa'' to his twenty-
one grandchildren and two great grandchildren and ``Joe'' to his
beautiful bride of 66 years, Lauretta, will be sorely missed. It is
often said of men like Joe that he lived a good life. For Joe, however,
it is more important to add that his was a life well led.
Joe's life was truly an American life. The son of Slovak immigrants,
Joe grew up in Chicago and was by all accounts a self-made man. He
worked his way through college and spent 50 years at the same company.
He brought the same dedication to his family. His priorities never
changed--work hard, enjoy life and provide a better future for his wife
and children. The lives led by his six children: Mary Ann, Tom, Patty,
Dottie, Joe and Kathy, evidence Joe's greatest success in life. To meet
Lauretta, or ``Stella'' as Joe lovingly referred to her, is to
understand what it means to be in the company of a kind and happy
person. Joe may have been born Slovak but his marriage to Lauretta
demonstrated he was blessed with the luck of the Irish.
Joe's naturally twinkling eyes could bring cheer to anyone. Those who
enjoyed his company, whether joining Joe on the back porch of his house
on Wa Pella, playing golf in one of the Trebat Golf Opens or cheering
on his beloved Notre Dame, knew they could count on no shortage of
laughter and fun. With its number one fan rooting for them from heaven
it is no wonder that Notre Dame is experiencing such a winning football
season in 2002.
Joe was a gentle giant who will be missed by all. A man for others
who's strong faith and love of family was always steadfast and never
wavering. When we talk of the ``Greatest Generation'' it is men like
Joe who come to mind. While he will always be missed, he will forever
be a model for future generations.

____________________

WE NEED A PLAN TO STOP AIDS

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, several months ago the Appropriations
Committee reported out the fiscal year 2003 Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill, and the Senate passed the Homeland Security
Supplemental Conference Report.
Those two bills contain a total of $950 million for international
programs to combat AIDS, including $300 million for the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. We provided $250 million for the Global
Fund last year, although $50 million has not yet been disbursed.
That sounds like a lot of money. It is far more than what we were
spending on international AIDS programs just two or three years ago.
But think about it another way. The amount we expect to provide in 2002
and 2003 to combat AIDS, which threatens the lives of each of the
world's 6 billion people--is less than what my own State of Vermont,
with a population of only 600,000 people, will spend on health care
during that same period.
So while the United States is doing more than ever to combat AIDS,
and we can point to successes in several countries--Uganda, Thailand
and Brazil, for example, the reality is that the AIDS pandemic is out
of control.
It is spreading faster, not slower. 40 million people are infected.
Almost nobody is receiving treatment. 25 million people have died from
AIDS-related causes, and at the current rate that number is expected to
exceed 65 million by the year 2020.
By any measure, AIDS is a plague of biblical proportions. Over 6
centuries ago, the Bubonic Plague started at a small trading post in
the Crimea and quickly spread from port to port. By the time it ran its
course, a third of Europe was dead.
It is still remembered as the worst epidemic in the history of the
world. No longer. AIDS is making the Bubonic Plague look like a mild
case of the flu.
The reality is that despite everything we have done and are doing, we
are failing miserably to control this pandemic. Until we develop a
strategy that matches the challenge, and until we start thinking in
terms of billions, not millions, of dollars, we will continue to fail.
The alternative is unthinkable, but it is by no means impossible--100
million deaths. 200 million. 400 million. This virus spreads
exponentially, and so does the cost of controlling it.
When I think about AIDS, I think back to 1990, when Ryan White was
alive, and Magic Johnson didn't know he was HIV positive. Even though
hundreds of thousands of Americans had already died of the disease, we
had gone a decade with two Presidents who

[[Page 23139]]

refused even to speak the word ``AIDS'' in public.
In the spring of 1990, we learned that in some African villages, one
of every 10 people was infected.
That year, my wife Marcelle and I traveled to Kenya, Uganda and South
Africa to see the impact of AIDS first hand. During one visit to
Kampala, we met people infected with HIV who were teaching others to
protect themselves from the virus.
Those brave people were HIV-positive and knew their time was short.
Yet they devoted the time they had left to helping others to live.
When I came home, I gave a speech and said that if we failed to act,
by the year 2000 ten million people would die of AIDS.
I was wrong. The number of people who died from this disease during
the next 10 years was not 10 million, it was 22 million, and now it is
25 million.
Imagine waking up tomorrow morning and learning that every single
man, woman, and child--every single person--in Miami, Minneapolis,
Atlanta, Denver, Boston, Seattle, Washington, D.C., New York City, Los
Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, San Diego, Detroit, and Dallas
combined had a virus for which there was no cure.
That is the reality in Africa today. Every hour, AIDS buries another
250 Africans.
Within the next decade, at the current rate, more than 40 million
children in Africa will lose one or both parents to AIDS.
Many of these children will end up on the streets, turning to crime,
drugs or prostitution, driving the rates of HIV even higher,
perpetuating this vicious cycle.
Progress that has taken decades to achieve is being wiped out. In
many African communities, AIDS is doubling infant mortality, tripling
child mortality, and slashing life expectancy by as much as a third or
a half.
We have always known that improving public health makes it easier to
meet other needs--whether it is better education, stronger economies,
or more stable societies. The converse is also true. AIDS will defeat
these efforts for social and economic development in Africa unless we
defeat AIDS first.
This is an enormous challenge for Africa, but it is an even greater
challenge for the world.
Every day, another 12,000 people are infected, and millions more
continue to suffer needlessly.
In the Caribbean, AIDS is now the leading cause of death among people
between the ages of 15 and 44.
In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the number of new infections has
risen faster than anywhere.
In India, the infection rate is skyrocketing. In China, only 4
percent of the Chinese population knows how AIDS is transmitted, and
according to public health experts it is spreading far faster than the
government has acknowledged.
It is a grim picture, but there is a great deal we can do. We do not
have a cure for AIDS and there is no vaccine in sight, but we know how
to protect ourselves from the HIV virus. We can provide basic care to
the sick, and mobilize communities to support the growing number of
AIDS orphans.
We know how, for pennies a day, to treat the half of all AIDS
patients who will otherwise die from the pneumonia, tuberculosis, or
meningitis that prey upon weak immune systems. We have to get these
drugs, as well as retro-viral drugs which have been available in
wealthy countries for years, to people in poor countries who need them.
We know how to reduce the transmission of AIDS from mothers to
children.
We know all these things, but even so, we are failing. The disease is
spreading out of control. What we lack, even after all these years, is
a global plan.
This administration, like the one before it and the one before that,
has no plan for how to mount a global campaign to effectively combat
the most deadly virus the world has ever faced. There is no strategy
for dealing with 40 million AIDS orphans, no strategy for getting
treatment to the 40 million people infected today, or the 50 million
who will be infected in another 3 years, no strategy for expanding
education and prevention programs on the scale that is called for.
It is not enough to point to a few success stories, as important as
they are. We have to look at the big picture. Despite everything we
have done and are doing, we have failed miserably. This deadly pandemic
is out of control, and the amount of money being spent is a pittance of
what is needed.
If we are going to conquer--or at least control--this disease, we
need to think differently about it. It sounds cliche and it has
probably been said many times before, but we need the health equivalent
of the Manhattan Project, or putting a man on the moon. We need to
increase our investment not linearly, but exponentially. Where we are
spending millions, we need to spend billions.
According to public health experts, the world must increase funding
on AIDS by at least a factor of five to at least $10 billion per year.
And $10 billion is a lot of money, but put it in perspective: It is
about the same amount as the U.S. Government spends each year on office
supplies. It is less than 1 percent of our Federal budget.
Unless we start treating AIDS as a global health catastrophe, not
just someone else's problem, we will face a far worse, and far more
costly, crisis in the future.
How do we begin?
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria is the funding
mechanism the world has created, with strong support from the United
States. It is not a substitute for other effective international health
programs, like those run by USAID, but we know that USAID cannot do
this alone. We need a multilateral approach, and the Global Fund is
that approach.
Congress has appropriated $250 million for the Fund so far. Some have
argued that we should wait to see how the Fund performs, before we do
more. I understand that caution. We have seen how other global funds
failed to meet expectations. It would make sense to wait, if we were
not talking about the worst health crisis in human history.
We simply cannot wait to see if the Global Fund is going to succeed,
because we cannot afford to let it fail. We must do whatever is
necessary to make sure it does not fail. That means spending a lot more
than $250 million. The Administration needs to approach the Global Fund
as it has al-Qaida failure is not an option.
That said, money is not the only issue. The Fund must not allow
itself to be turned into a tool controlled by the governments of AIDS-
affected countries. Unless there are reasonable checks and balances on
the proposed and actual uses of these funds, there will be a high risk
that the fund will turn into a major source of patronage and income-
supplementation for the elites.
To assure this, nongovernmental organizations and other civil society
groups must have a strong and clear voice in the global governance,
national oversight, and local implementation of Fund-sponsored
activities. To date, this has been respected more in rhetoric than in
reality, and many local groups have been deeply disappointed with the
nearly total government control of access to Fund resources and even
the proposal process in many countries.
The Fund would probably respond that this is being addressed, but the
message I am hearing from the field is that this is a closed and
tightly controlled resource pool in most places. To its credit, the
Bush administration has been one of the strongest supporters of a
larger role and voice for NGOs, and some of the developing country
governments represented on the fund's Board have been the most
resistant.
The fund is one important vehicle for getting critical programs going
in highly affected countries, but we should not confuse this with a
comprehensive global approach. There are still critical needs for
direct bilateral assistance, particularly when that assistance is often
channeled, as it is with USAID funds, to service NGOs, as well as an
overall coordination and policy role for UNAIDS, and a technical

[[Page 23140]]

role for the World Health Organization. Responding to AIDS and the
Global Fund are not fully synonymous.
The world faces immense challenges from global warming, to the threat
of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, to poverty on a vast
scale. We cannot ignore any of these challenges, because they all bear
on the security of future generations of Americans.
But when those same future generations look back at this time and
place, I believe they will judge us, more than anything, on how we
responded to AIDS. It is the most urgent, the most compelling, moral
issue of our time.
I urge the President, who has shown real leadership in focusing our
country and the world on combating terrorism, to think differently
about AIDS. It cannot be just another problem we deal with in the
normal course of business. As serious a threat as international
terrorism is and we are spending many billions of dollars to protect
ourselves from terrorists, measured by the number of victims it pales
compared to AIDS.
The administration needs to get serious. Earlier this year, the White
House opposed efforts by the Congress, including by some Republicans,
to provide $500 million in emergency funding to combat AIDS. Because of
the White House's objection, Senator Durbin's amendment was defeated.
Subsequently, the President refused to designate $200 million for
HIV/AIDS, in the Homeland Security Supplemental, including $100 million
for the Global Fund, as an emergency. As a result, those funds are not
available.
If AIDS is not an emergency, nothing is. Over two decades have passed
since AIDS was first identified, yet we still do not have a plan. A
hundred million dollars here or there isn't a strategy. Even $10
billion isn't a strategy. The Administration needs to spell out in
clear terms a plan for dealing with each component of the AIDS crisis
care for orphans, treatment for the infected, and prevention. It needs
to do this on a country scale and a global scale, and it needs to
commit our share of the funds to implement it.
It won't be cheap. The Manhattan Project wasn't cheap either, but
that is what we need. It will cost far, far more if we waste another
ten years.
The Congress has showed over and over that it is ready. The
administration needs to lead.

____________________

THE SMALL BUSINESS DROUGHT RELIEF ACT

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as the Senate and the House prepare to
bring the 107th session to a close, we leave some important small
business legislation unfinished. Regrettably, that includes passage of
the Small Business Drought Relief Act because of serial holds from
Republicans since August 1--3 and a half months. This emergency
legislation passed our committee with unanimous support, and yet
Senators with no jurisdiction in small business, instigated by an
administration that claims to support small business, obstructed
passage.
The committee reached out to those Senate members and their staffs
time and again, and there was no cooperation. Sixteen Governors--
Governor Hodges of South Carolina, Governor Easley of North Carolina,
Governor Barnes of Georgia, Governor Foster of Louisiana, Governor
Musgrove of Mississippi, Governor Perry of Texas, Governor Wise of West
Virginia, Governor Patton of Kentucky, Governor Glendening of Maryland,
Governor Holden of Missouri, Governor Keating of Oklahoma, Governor
Sundquist of Tennessee, Governor Warner of Virginia, Governor Siegelman
of Alabama, Governor Huckabee of Arkansas, and Governor Guinn of
Nevada--reached out to the Congress asking for us to pass this bill,
and they got no cooperation. The committee was ultimately able to
overcome tremendous differences between CBO's cost estimate and OMB's
cost estimate to reach agreement with the Office of Management and
Budget on passing this emergency legislation last week, but not even
that moved the Republican leadership to cooperate.
So we go home tonight, and our small businesses--main street
America--needlessly struggle to make ends meet, keep their doors open
and employees on the payroll, because of partisan politics.
For those who don't remember, this is emergency legislation to help
small non-farm-related businesses across this Nation that are in dire
straits because of drought conditions in their State. Just like the
farmers and ranchers, the owners of rafting businesses, marinas, and
bait and tackle shops lose a lot of business because of drought.
Right now these small businesses can't get help through the SBA's
disaster loan program because of something taxpayers hate about
government--bureaucracy. SBA denies these businesses access to disaster
loans because its lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and
therefore it is not a disaster by definition. Contrary to the Agency's
position that drought is not a disaster, as of July 16, 2002, the day
we introduced this bill, the SBA had in effect drought disaster
declarations in 36 States. Unfortunately, the assistance was limited to
farm-related small businesses.
The 36 States include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The situation has only gotten worse judging by SBA's own numbers.
Since the bill was introduced, the SBA has declared disasters in two
more States and the District of Columbia. Instead of rising to the
occasion and using their statutory authority to help the small
businesses in these areas, they continue to deny them access to
disaster loans, hiding behind a legal opinion--a legal opinion that
they will not provide to the committee.
To make sure the facts of this legislation are accurate, let the
record show that this bill does not expand the SBA disaster loan
program. SBA already has this authority, and this bill simply restates
and clarifies that authority to ensure that the law is applied fairly.
Let the record show that SBA, contrary to its claims, has the expertise
to determine when a drought is a disaster. First, the SBA already
declares drought disasters and does so mainly by working with the U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture. Second, in addition to working with the
Secretary of Agriculture, there are existing SBA guidelines for
declaring disasters, and those guidelines apply to drought too. For
example, the Governor of a State can request a declaration from the
Administrator of the SBA after certifying that more than five small
businesses have suffered economic injury because of a disaster. Last,
let the record show that this legislation is modest in cost. CBO
estimated that this bill would cost $5 million per year for 5 years,
far less than OMB's estimate of approximately $100 million per year.
And last week, as I referenced earlier, we were able to reach an
agreement with OMB that capped the cost at $9 million for fiscal year
2003, enough to cover the cost of the bill as passed by the committee
and the Bond/Enzi/Burns/Crapo amendment. Unfortunately, even OMB's
concurrence and the support of many Senators and Governors did not
persuade the remaining Senator blocking passage of the bill to put
aside his differences for the sake of small businesses and permit it to
pass.
I thank the many supporters of this bill. My 22 colleagues who are
cosponsors--Senators Bond, Hollings, Landrieu, Baucus, Bingaman,
Daschle, Johnson, Edwards, Carnahan Cleland, Enzi, Lieberman, Harkin,
Ensign, Reid, Helms, Allen, Bennett, Torricelli, Levin, Crapo and
Thurmond. All the Governors who put small businesses first and politics
last. Mr. Donald Wilhite, director of the National Drought Mitigation
Center at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, for all his assistance
to my staff in understanding the scope of drought in this country and
for writing in support of the legislation. National

[[Page 23141]]

Small Business United, for always being there to stand up for small
businesses. The many small business owners and small business
advocates, such as Wildlife Action, in South Carolina, who took the
time to write me regarding the drought and their problems with the SBA.
And last, but certainly not least, from my home State, I thank Bob
Durand of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Association for his
help and support. We will take this fight up again in the next
Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several letters of
support and my remarks be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Southern Governors' Association,

Washington, DC, August 19, 2002.
Hon. John Kerry,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: We are deeply concerned that small
businesses in states experiencing drought are being
devastated by drought conditions that are expected to
continue through the end of the summer. We urge you to
support legislation that would allow small businesses to
protect themselves against the detrimental effects of
drought.
Much like other natural disasters, the effects of drought
on local economies can be crippling. Farmers and farm-related
businesses can turn in times of drought to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. However, non-farm small businesses
have nowhere to go, not even the Small Business
Administration (SBA), because their disaster loans are not
made available for damage due to drought.
To remedy this omission, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
introduced the Small Business Drought Relief Act (S. 2734) on
July 16, 2002, to make SBA disaster loans available to those
small businesses debilitated by prolonged drought conditions.
This bill was passed by the Senate Small Business Committee
just eight days later. Also, the companion legislation (H.R.
5197) was introduced by Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) on July 24,
2002. Both bills are gaining bipartisan support, and we hope
you will cosponsor this important legislation and push for
its rapid enactment in the 107th Congress.
As 11 southern states are presently experiencing moderate
to exceptional drought conditions this summer, we cannot
afford to wait to act. We urge you to cosponsor the Small
Business Drought Relief Act and push for its consideration as
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Governors Don Siegelman of Alabama, Mike Huckabee of
Arkansas, Roy E. Barnes of Georgia, Paul E. Patton of
Kentucky, M.J. ``Mike'' Foster, Jr. of Louisiana,
Parris N. Glendening of Maryland, Ronnie Musgrove of
Mississippi, Bob Holden of Missouri, Michael F. Easley
of North Carolina, Frank Keating of Oklahoma, Jim
Hodges of South Carolina, Don Sundquist of Tennessee,
Rick Perry of Texas, Mark Warner of Virginia, Bob Wise
of West Virginia.
____

Office of the Governor,

State of South Carolina,

Columbia, SC, July 9, 2002.
Hon. John Kerry,
U.S. Senate, Russell Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: The State of South Carolina is in its
fifth year of drought status, the worst in over fifty years.
Some parts of the state are in extreme drought status and the
rest is in severe drought status.
99% of our streams are flowing at less than 10% of their
average flow for this time of year. 60% of those same streams
are running at lowest flow on record for this date. The
levels of South Carolina's lakes have dropped anywhere from
five feet to twenty feet. Some lakes have experienced a drop
in water level so significant that tourist and recreational
use has diminished.
State and national climatologists are not hopeful that we
will receive any significant rainfall in the near future. To
end our current drought, we would need an extended period of
average to above average rainfall.
Droughts, particularly prolonged ones such as we are
experiencing now, have extensive economic effects. For
farmers who experience the economic effects of such a
drought, assistance is available through the USDA. For small
businesses, assistance is available only for agriculture
related small businesses, i.e. feed and seed stores. For
businesses that are based on tourism around Lakes and Rivers,
there is currently no assistance available.
We have reports of lake and river tourism dependent
businesses experiencing 17% to 80% declines in revenue. The
average decline in revenue is probably near 50% across the
board.
My staff has contacted Small Business Administration and
they are not authorized to offer assistance to these
businesses because a drought is not defined as a sudden
occurrence. Nonetheless, a drought is an ongoing natural
disaster that is causing great economic damage to these small
business owners.
I am requesting that you assist us in this situation by
proposing that the Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Committee take action to at least temporarily amend the SBA
authorizing language and allow them to offer assistance to
small businesses affected by prolonged drought. This would
allow Governors to ask SBA for an administrative declaration
of economic injury because of drought. The low interest loans
SBA can offer these businesses would allow many of them to
weather the drought and remain in business for the long run.
My staff has also been in contact with Senator Hollings'
legislative staff. I hope together, we can find an expedient
solution to the plight of these small business owners. Short
of finding a way to control the weather, this may be our only
option to help their dire situation.
Sincerely,
Jim Hodges,
Governor.

____________________

DISASTER RELIEF

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to express my
disappointment at the delay in providing crop disaster relief to
farmers across the country. Mother Nature has not been kind this year,
dealing farmers weather that has devastated their crops and threatened
the survival of family farms.
In New York State crop damage has not come solely from drought.
Unseasonably high temperatures in the spring followed by frost and
hailstorms have devastated specialty crops such as apples, peaches,
pears, grapes, strawberries, stone fruits, onions, and cherries.
The unfortunate result of this disastrous weather is that a large
percentage of these fruit farmers are bordering on financial ruin. I
have met with the farmers and growers of New York, and their stories
are heartbreaking as they talk about bankruptcy and selling off their
family's farm. Crop disaster relief is truly needed to keep these farms
going as well as the rural economies that they support.
In order to provide this much needed assistance, I have worked with
my colleagues to pass legislation that would provide financial relief
to farmers who have suffered losses due to natural disaster aid. I
cosponsored S. 2800, a bill that would provide emergency disaster
assistance to agricultural producers. I cosponsored the crop disaster
amendment to the Interior appropriations that passed with 79 votes. And
I support Senator Baucus today in his continued efforts on behalf of
this Nation's farmers and our rural communities.
This year has been a true disaster for so many farmers. On behalf of
farmers and growers from the State of New York, I will continue to
support crop disaster relief, particularly for specialty crop
producers. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts to provide
assistance.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have heard my colleagues on the Senate
floor today talking about drought and the desperate need for drought
assistance. Throughout this session, I have been a fervent advocate of
drought assistance for producers in Wyoming. I am speaking today
because the need for assistance persists.
Today's discussion has focused on farmers. They need help. Farmers
missed out on the emergency livestock programs provided by the
administration. Even with crop insurance, farmers are facing serious
difficulties.
As this drought has continued for multiple years, crop insurance
premiums have increased each time a producer is forced to take a loss.
Yield averages, the basis for insurance payments, have been dropping
with dismal production each year. Crop yields are so low this year that
market prices are actually higher. The farm bill counter cyclical
payments that were designed to support prices when markets fell below a
certain level have been thwarted by these higher prices. These higher
prices are meaningless when the quantities have been so drastically
reduced. Therefore, this protection has been rendered useless.
Farmers clearly need help, but I also think it is important to
remember that

[[Page 23142]]

our ranchers aren't safe yet either. Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Bob and Nancy
Tarver. They are a ranching family from near my home of Gillette, WY.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows;

Tarver Heart X Ranch,

Gillette, WY, September 30, 2002.
Congresswoman Barbara Cubin,
U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rep. Cubin: Thank you for the opportunity to share the
impact of the past three years of drought to our livestock
business in Northeastern Wyoming. The Heart X Ranch consists
of my husband, Bob, and two sons, Robert and James. I believe
we comprise a true family farm/ranch that is so often
referenced as to what congress wishes to save. Our income is
derived totally from agriculture and we provide the labor and
management for our ranch operation. Bob and I have been in
agriculture all of our lives. I was raised on a ranch in
Southeastern Montana and Bob is a Wyoming native whose roots
are Wyoming ranching. Our oldest son, Robert, is married and
his wife, Michelle teaches at Little Powder School.
Michelle's teaching has not only contributed to their family
living but also the benefits of health insurance for their
family. They have two sons, Tayler 6 years and Wyatt 3 years
old. James is engaged to be married.
My husband and I had a dream when we married to buy a
ranch. We have managed to buy a small place and lease the
majority of acres that we operate on. Along with our sons we
run cow-calf and a yearling operation. We are ultra
conservative and run our outfit as economically as possible.
. . as our fleet of 1978 ranch pickups exemplify.
The cost of drought to a ranching operation is staggering.
Explanation and computations of drought cost are detailed in
Attachment A. Summarizing the examples of additional cost for
this year is as follows:
Hay: $120.00 per cow; Cake: $21.00 per cow; Lick & Liquid
feed: $29.40 per cow; Heifer calf-feed lot: $18.75 per cow;
Pounds & dollars lost due to drought: $185.00 per cow;
$374.15.
The additional expenses that I have covered are the reality
of drought.
This is our third year of drought. The above are additional
cost for this year alone!
I am most grateful for the Feed Program--$23 per head,
Livestock Compensation Program--$18 per head, and the Nap
program--$1.00 per acre (depends on% loss, and if acres are
eligible) it is very evident from these numbers to see the
critical need for these programs and also the Disaster
Program for Livestock Assistance and Crop Disaster. Drought
is a natural disaster and the economic consequences are
devastating to agriculture. The necessity to have the
Disaster Programs for 2001 and 2002 are vital to save the
drought areas of American ranching and farming.
I believe with my whole heart and soul that to keep America
strong we need our farms and ranches providing the American
consumers the safest and best products in the world.
It is very humbling to share this information. However, I
am very proud to be a rancher and I am overwhelmed by not
only the financial devastation but also the mental pressures
of trying to save a viable family ranching operation from the
ravages of an unforgiving drought.
The drought in Wyoming has been compared to the 1930's. It
is heartbreaking to think that in America, commonly thought
of as the land of opportunity, the only ones that will be
left following the drought are the very wealthy and the hobby
rancher.
Thank you for your dedicated and persistent efforts to help
us in agriculture to survive the drought.
Sincerely,
Nancy Tarver.
____

Schedule A.--Additional Cost of Drought 2002

1. We normally produce 1200-2000 ton of hay per year. 2000,
2001, and 2002 we produced only 150 ton per year. We have
been faced with purchasing hay because of very little hay
produced. Hay prices have jumped because of the far-reaching
drought conditions. The demand exceeds the supply. Cow
alfalfa hay prices (depending on your location/freight) have
ranged from $110 to $130 per ton for cow grass alfalfa hay.
The cost for our operation to replace the hay we did not grow
because of the drought is $80.00 per ton. [Using purchased
hay costing $115 per ton-$35 (cost to put up your own hay) =
$80 dollars per ton].
The drought mandates we feed hay for at least 5 months (150
days @ 20 pounds per day = 1\1/2\ ton per cow X $80 dollars
per ton =$120.00 per cow.
2. Additional cattle cake is needed because of loss of
natural grazing vegetation. Cattle cake is fed along with the
hay to balance the nutritional needs of cattle. Because of
the drought twice the amount of pounds of cake per cow are
fed to meet the nutritional needs. We need wheat mids cake
(14 %protein) normal ration 2 pounds. The increase in cake
cost is 14 cents a day. The additional expense for cake for
150 days is $21.00 per head.
3. To enhance the limited natural vegetation supplemental
feeds (lick tubs or liquid feed) were used for 7 months this
year. The additional expense was 14 cents per day per cow--
210 dayX.14 cents =$29.40 per cow.
4. Additional Pasture & freight we have not found
additional pasture. The cost of moving is substantial: a.
$8.00 per head to freight about anywhere; b. $18.00-$25.00
per head to pasture cow calf pairs.
5. We pasture our heifer calves until they are yearlings,
keeping some as replacements for our herd and selling the
remainder as bred heifers and open yearlings. This year
because of the drought the heifers calves will be sent a feed
yard for the winter months. The cost to feed the calves a
growth ration only is $1.00 per day. If we had the feed we
would do this cheaper at home. The additional cost to us will
be at least 25 cents per day. 25 cents X 150 =$37.50 per
heifer calf. For loss computation I have used 50% heifer
calves in a herd so this loss would be $18.75 for calculation
purposes.
6. Less pounds have caused loss of income. We had to sell
steer calves and the small heifer calves starting August 15,
normally we sell calves the end of October. Our steer calves
in August weighted an average of 420 pounds compared to 600
pounds last October. A 180-pound per steer calf loss is
devastating. Unfortunately there was a 20% drop in calf
prices, which compounded the pound loss. Steer calf income
took a 31% drop in 2002 for our ranch operation--$420 dollars
compared to $605 dollars the previous year. $185 per cow loss
in steer calf dollars produced.
7. Liquidation of the cowherd. Foundation stock cow sales
are giving up a lifetime commitment and are so very costly.
Herd genetics are a ranchers pride and also our profit. It
takes years to build a quality herd of cattle that does well
in our area and on our range. We would find buying back
quality cows that fit our ranching operation near impossible
and certainly cost prohibitive. The dollar value of this
cannot be measured.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I won't read the entire letter, but I would
like to highlight a few points that Bob and Nancy make. They are very
thankful for the assistance given through the Livestock Feed Assistance
Program and the Livestock Compensation Program. These programs together
provide about $41 of assistance per cow. With this assistance, they
have purchased additional feed to supply their needs for the winter.
The Tarvers point out in their letter, however, that they have lost
about $374 per cow in 2002 due to drought. This loss has occurred
primarily through reduced forage growth in pastures, increased hay
costs and lower cattle weights. The drought assistance provided so far
has been short term. If we are going to save our family ranchers, we
must do more.
The Senate has consistently supported providing real relief to our
producers. In September we voted on an emergency agricultural amendment
I cosponsored. That amendment would have provided almost $6 billion on
both farmers and livestock producers endangered by the drought across
America. After it was passed 79-16, the amendment was stalled along
with the Interior Appropriations bill. This was not the first time the
Senate has shown strong support for disaster relief only to have it
snatched away. Senator Baucus and I successfully added an agricultural
disaster assistance package to the farm bill with a steady 69-30 vote.
The assistance package was removed from the conference report by the
House.
We are not following through on our promises. The time has come to
fulfill our words with action. If we have missed our final opportunity
in this Congress, I urge my colleagues to pass emergency agricultural
assistance as a top priority when we begin the 108th session. Thank
you.

____________________

HELMS-LEAHY SMALL WEBCASTER SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2002

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, last week, I introduced the Small Webcaster
Settlement Act of 2002, along with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Senator Leahy. Having now been passed by both Houses of
Congress, this bill is expected soon to be signed by the President.
The Helms-Leahy bill is the result of a sustained and arduous
negotiating process involving numerous stakeholders. Its enactment
enables small Internet radio services and the recording industry, if
they both choose, to settle their longstanding disputes regarding the
amount of royalties

[[Page 23143]]

webcasters must pay in order to perform sound recordings over the
Internet.
This consensus legislation will bring much-needed stability to the
emerging webcasting industry by permitting small commercial webcasters
to establish with final certainty their financial obligations, thereby
enabling entrepreneurs to secure additional venture capital and to
avoid bankruptcy in many cases.
Moreover, as enacted, this bill will ensure that privately negotiated
settlements will not be enacted into positive law, thereby negatively
impacting, either directly or indirectly, any industry or entity that
does not or cannot yet settle their liabilities for these royalties.
Finally, this bill will require artists to be paid directly their
congressionally mandated share of performance royalties, so that there
will no longer be any risk that record companies with disproportionate
bargaining leverage will, by contract, squeeze recording artists out of
their fair share.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, DMCA, required, for the first
time, users of music recordings to pay performance royalties to owners
of copyrights in sound recordings. The creation of this new performance
royalty represented a dramatic reversal of decades of U.S. public
policy.
Prior precedent had established that performances of sound recordings
on traditional broadcast radio were not deemed to result in liability
for performance royalties to sound recording copyright owners because
it was those very same performances that introduced songs to the
listening public, thereby promoting sales of sound recordings and
generating revenue for copyright owners and recording artists.
Notwithstanding this longstanding precedent, the DMCA required
Internet radio services to pay sound recording performance royalties
and determined that the royalties should be set by a panel or
arbitrators, known as the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel or CARP.
Unfortunately, the arbitration process has become too lengthy, too
technical, and too expensive for many stakeholders. As a result,
thousands of small commercial webcasters, broadcasters, noncommercial
webcasters, college radio stations and hobbyists have been effectively
denied the opportunity to participate in the arbitration proceedings in
any meaningful way. Perhaps it was because these smaller interests were
not adequately represented in the CARP proceeding that the resultant
royalty was so high and the rate structure so inflexible that the
majority of small webcasters feared that it would lead to their demise?
As the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated
at a May 2002 hearing on this subject, Congress did not intend to
bankrupt small webcasters when it created this new royalty.
It would be a mistake for someone to construe the Helms-Leahy bill as
a criticism of the arbitrators decision. Rather, I consider this
legislation to be an indictment of the process, with unintended
consequences flowing from the framework that Congress set forth in the
DMCA.
It is impossible for arbitrators to appreciate the full implications
of their determinations if significant industry participants cannot
afford to appear before them or if those with disproportionate control
over the outcome refuse to deal in good faith. I understand that
Senator Leahy intends to pursue comprehensive CARP reform in the
Judiciary Committee next Congress. Though I will no longer be serving
in the U.S. Senate next year, I hope that the chairman and ranking
members of both Judiciary Committees will follow through on this
commitment, working constructively to quickly remedy the concerns
expressed about the current CARP process.
There was not time to fully reform CARP this fall but I considered it
essential that Congress move swiftly to ensure that small webcasters
not be bankrupted by unfair arbitration outcomes. An equally important
goal was to ensure that settlement agreements negotiated by recording
companies and small webcasters facing bankruptcy not unfairly impact
non-participating third parties--such as larger webcasters and
broadcasters, or even the recording companies. Moreover, I consider it
critically important to underline that nothing in this bill should be
construed as affecting the outcome of any pending litigation.
I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for focusing attention on this issue
and commencing the process that ultimately led to the passage of this
critically-needed legislation. I respect that there was a difference of
opinion on the precedential value of H.R. 5469, as originally passed by
the House. Nevertheless, beyond dispute is the fact that numerous
stakeholders had expressed serious reservations that the original
House-passed bill could unintentionally and negatively influence future
rate setting proceedings.
The Helms-Leahy bill removes that concern, helps ensure that small
webcasters will not be forced into bankruptcy, provides non-commercial
webcasters with additional flexibility, and accomplishes several other
goals on which the stakeholders and the Judiciary Committee leadership
could agree.
The deductibility provision contained in section 5(b) of the bill is
one that was viewed as important to several parties. The final
provision is intended to encourage competition among agents designated
to distribute royalties. While I ultimately agreed to this provision, I
wish to make it clear that I would consider it unconscionable if the
provision were used to justify higher royalty rates for users of sound
recordings.
The ability to deduct these fees is premised on a balance of
interests, owners of sound recordings should not be prejudiced by a
process that precludes effective legal representation, designated
agents should be incentivized to quickly and fairly conclude settlement
agreements rather than engage in protracted and expensive legal and
arbitration proceedings, and music services and other users of sound
recordings should pay a fairly negotiated fee that is not impacted by
the costs of litigation, arbitration, and legal expenses incurred by
the designated agents.
Users already bear their own litigation, expert fee and legal
representation costs for participating in the CARP process and the
resources of the Copyright Office are taxed when fair settlements are
not reached among the parties.
In my view, the public interest would not be well served if the
deductibility provision were interpreted in a manner that had the
effect of diluting the payout to copyright owners, reducing the
incentives for negotiating settlements, and/or increasing the fees paid
by consumers for the use of sound recordings. To avoid these clearly
undesirable and unintended outcomes, I believe it would be unwise to
take these costs into account in any arbitration or other proceeding to
set royalty fees.
I expect this to be the final piece of legislation I author in my
career as a United States Senator. I particularly wish to thank
Senators Leahy and Hatch and their superb staffs for their expertise
and assistance in ensuring the quick approval of the U.S. Senate.
Additionally, I want to recognize the substantial contributions of the
Senate and House leadership as well as the leaders of the House
Judiciary Committee, for their continued assistance and cooperation as
we worked through these difficult issues over the past several weeks.
Finally, I also wish to thank David Whitney, Joe Lanier, Wayne Boyles
and David Crotts of my staff, the leaders of the affected industry and
artist organizations who assisted me so greatly in negotiating this
compromise legislation and a young lady entrepreneur of whom I am
extremely proud, Deb Proctor of WCPE-FM in Raleigh, NC who first
brought this issue to my attention.

____________________

PERFORMANCE GOALS FOR THE MEDICAL DEVICE USER FEE AND MODERNIZATION ACT
OF 2002

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on October 17, 2002, the Senate passed
the

[[Page 23144]]

Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002, ``MDUFMA''.
Included in Title I of this bill is the authorization of medical device
user fees.
Performance goals, existing outside of the statute, accompany the
authorization of medical device user fees. These goals represent a
realistic projection of what the Food and Drug Administration's Center
for Devices and Radiological Health and Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research can accomplish with industry cooperation. The Secretary of
Health and Human Services forwarded these goals to the chairmen of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the Senate,
in a document entitled ``MDUFMA PERFORMANCE GOALS AND PROCEDURES.''
According to Section 101 of Title I of MDUFMA, ``the fees authorized by
this title will be dedicated to meeting the goals set forth in the
Congressional Record.''
Today I am submitting for the Record this document, which was
forwarded to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on
November 14, 2002, as well as the letter from Secretary Thompson that
accompanied the transmittal of this document.
I ask unanimous consent to print those items.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

MDUFMA Performance Goals and Procedures

The performance goals and procedures of the FDA Center for Devices
and Radiological Health (CDRH) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research (CBER), as agreed to under the medical device user fee
program in the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002,
are summarized as follows:

I. REVIEW PERFORMANCE GOALS--FISCAL YEAR 2003 THROUGH 2007

All references to ``days'' mean ``FDA days.''

A. Original Premarket Approval (PMA), Panel-PMATrack Supplement, and
Premarket Report Submissions

1. The following cycle goals apply to: 75% of submission
received in fiscal year 2005; 80% of submissions received in
fiscal year 2006; 90% of submissions received in fiscal year
2007.
(a) First action major deficiency letters will issue within
150 days.
(b) All other first action letters (approval, approvable,
approvable pending good manufacturing practices (GMP)
inspection, not approvable, or denial) will issue within 180
days.
(c) Second or later action major deficiency letters will
issue within 120 days.
(d) Amendments containing a complete response to major
deficiency or not approvable letters will be acted on within
180 days.
2. Decision Goals:
(a) 80% of submissions received in fiscal year 2006 will
have an FDA decision in 320 days.
(b) 90% of submissions received in fiscal year 2007 will
have an FDA decision in 320 days.
3. Subject to the following paragraph, 50% of submissions
received in fiscal year 2007 will have an FDA decision in 180
days.
This goal will be re-evaluated following the end of fiscal
year 2005. FDA will hold a public meeting to consult with its
stakeholders and to determine whether this goal is
appropriate for implementation in fiscal year 2007. If FDA
determines that the goal is not appropriate, prior to August
1, 2006, the Secretary will send a letter to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and pensions of the Senate and to
the Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health of
the House of Representatives stating that the goal will not
be implemented and the rationale for its removal.
4. 90% of amendments containing a complete response to an
approvable letter received in fiscal years 2003 through 2007
will be acted on within 30 days.

B. Expedited Original PMA Submissions

1. The following goals apply to PMA submissions where:
(a) FDA has granted the application expedited status;
(b) The applicant has requested and attended a pre-filing
review meeting with FDA;
(c) The applicant's manufacturing facilities are prepared
for inspection upon submission of the application; and
(d) The application is substantively complete, as defined
at the pre-filing review meeting.
2. The following cycle goals apply to: 70% of submissions
received in fiscal year 2005; 80% of submissions received in
fiscal year 2006; 90% of submissions received in fiscal year
2007.
(a) First action major deficiency letters will issue within
120 days.
(b) All other first action letters (approval, approvable,
approvable pending GMP inspection, not approvable, or denial)
will issue within 170 days.
(c) Second or later action major deficiency letters will
issue within 100 days.
(d) Amendments containing a complete response to major
deficiency or not approvable letters will be acted on within
170 days.
3. Decision Goals:
(a) 70% of submissions received in fiscal year 2005 will
have an FDA decision in 300 days.
(b) 80% of submissions received in fiscal year 2006 will
have an FDA decision in 300 days.
(c) 90% of submissions received in fiscal year 2007 will
have an FDA decision in 300 days.
4. 90% of amendments containing a complete response to an
approvable letter received in fiscal years 2003 through 2007
will be acted on within 30 days.

C 180-Day PMA Supplement Submissions

1. The following goals apply to: 80% of submissions in
fiscal year 2005; 85% of submissions in fiscal year 2006; 90%
of submissions in fiscal year 2007.
(a) First action not approvable letters will issue within
120 days.
(b) All other first action letters (approval, approvable,
approvable pending GMP inspection, not approvable or denial)
will issue within 180 days.
(c) Amendments containing a complete response to a not
approvable letter will be acted on within 160 days.
2. Decision Goals:
(a) 80% of submissions received in fiscal year 2005 will
have an FDA decision in 180 days.
(b) 80% of submissions received in fiscal year 2006 will
have an FDA decision in 180 days.
(c) 90% of submissions received in fiscal year 2007 will
have an FDA decision in 180 days.
3. Current performance for real-time review PMA supplement
submissions will be maintained.

D. 510(k) Submissions

1. The following goals apply to: 70% of submissions
received in fiscal year 2005; 80% of submissions received in
fiscal year 2006; 90% of submissions received in fiscal year
2007.
(a) First action additional information letters will issue
within 75 days.
(b) Subsequent action letters will issue within 60 days.
2. Decision Goals:
(a) 75% of submissions received in fiscal years 2005 and
2006 will have an FDA decision in 90 days.
3. Subject to the following paragraph, 80% of submissions
received in fiscal year 2007 will have an FDA decision in 90
days.
This goal will be re-evaluated following the end of fiscal
year 2005. FDA will hold a public meeting to consult with its
stakeholders and to determine whether this goal is
appropriate for implementation in fiscal year 2007. If FDA
determines that the goal is not appropriate, prior to August
1, 2006, the Secretary will send a letter to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the Senate and to
the Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health of
the House of Representatives stating that the goal will not
be implemented and the rationale for its removal, and that
the goal for fiscal year 2006 will be implemented for fiscal
year 2007.

E. Original Biologics Licensing applications (BLAs)

The following goals apply to: 75% of submissions received
in fiscal year 2006; 90% of submissions received in fiscal
year 2007.
1. Review and act on standard original BLA submissions
within 10 months of receipt.
2. Review and act on priority original BLA submissions
within 6 months of receipt.

F. BLA Efficacy Supplements

The following goals apply to: 75% of submissions received
in fiscal year 2006; 90% of submissions received in fiscal
year 2007.
1. Review and act on standard BLA efficacy supplement
submissions within 10 months of receipt.
2. Review and act on priority BLA efficacy supplement
submissions within 6 months of receipt.

G. Original BLA and BLA Efficacy Supplement Resubmissions

The following goals apply to: 75% of submissions received
in fiscal year 2005; 80% of submissions received in fiscal
year 2006; 90% of submissions received in fiscal year 2007.
1. Review and act on Class 1 original BLA and BLA efficacy
supplement resubmissions within 2 months of receipt.
2. Review and act on Class 2 original BLA and BLA efficacy
supplement resubmissions within 6 months of receipt.

H. BLA Manufacturing Supplements Requiring Prior Approval

The following goal applies to: 75% of submissions received
in fiscal year 2006; 90% of submissions received in fiscal
year 2007.
Review and act on BLA manufacturing supplements requiring
prior approval within 4 months of receipt.

[[Page 23145]]

I. Additional Efforts Related To Performance Goals

The Agency and the regulated industry agree that the use of
both informal and formal meetings (e.g., determination and
agreement meetings, informal pre-investigational device
exemption (IDE) meetings, pre-PMA meetings, pre-PMA filing
meetings) by both parties is critical to ensure high
application quality such that the above performance goals can
be achieved.

j. maintenance of current performance

It is the intent of the Agency that in review areas where
specific performance goals have not been identified, current
performance will be maintained.

k. application of user fee revenues

The Agency intends to apply significant user fee revenues
to support reviewer training and hiring and/or outside
contracting to achieve the identified performance goals in a
responsible and efficient manner.

l. modular pma review program

The Agency intends to issue guidance regarding the
implementation of new section 515(c)(3) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It is the intent of the Agency that
once this program is implemented, the Agency will work with
its stakeholders to develop appropriate performance goals for
this program. Until such time, the Agency intends to review
and close complete modules that are submitted well in advance
of the PMA submission as expeditiously as possible.

m. ``follow-on'' licensed devices

The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research will, if
feasible, identify a category of ``follow-on'' licensed
devices and collect information to determine whether
alternative performance goals for such a category are
appropriate.

n. bundling policy

The Agency will, in consultation with its stakeholders,
consider the issue of bundling for products with multiple
related submissions. After such consultation, the Agency will
either issue guidance on bundling or publish a notice
explaining why it has determined that bundling is
inappropriate.

o. electronic review of applications

The Agency will continue its efforts toward development of
electronic receipt and review of applications, as
expeditiously as possible, acknowledging that insufficient
funding is included in the user fee program for this effort.

p. preapproval inspections

The Agency will plan to improve the scheduling and
timeliness of preapproval inspections. The Agency will
monitor the progress of these efforts and provide such
information in the annual performance report.

II. ANNUAL STAKEHOLDER MEETING

Beginning in fiscal year 2004, FDA will hold annual public
meetings to review and evaluate the implementation of this
program in consultation with its stakeholders.

III. DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATION OF TERMS

A. For original PMA submissions, Panel-Track PMA supplement
submissions, expedited original PMA submissions, 180-day
supplement submissions, and premarket report submissions,
issuance of one of the following letters is considered to be
an FDA decision:
1. approval
2. approvable
3. approvable pending GMP inspection
4. not approvable
5. denial
B. For 510(k) submissions, issuance of one of the following
letters is considered to be an FDA decision:
1. substantially equivalent (SE)
2. not substantially equivalent (NSE)
C. Submission of an unsolicited major amendment to an
original PMA submission, Panel-Track PMA supplement
submission, expedited original PMA submission, 180-day
supplement submission, or premarket report submission extends
the FDA decision goal date by the number of days equal to 75%
of the difference between the filing date and the date of
receipt of the amendment. The submission of the unsolicited
major amendment is also considered an action that satisfies
the first or later action goal, as applicable.
D. For BLA (original, efficacy supplement, or manufacturing
supplement) submissions, the term ``review and act on'' is
understood to mean the issuance of a complete action letter
after the complete review of a filed complete application.
The action letter, if it is not an approval, will set forth
in detail the specific deficiencies and, where appropriate,
the actions necessary to place the application in condition
for approval.
E. For original BLA and BLA efficacy supplement
resubmissions:
1. Class 1 resubmitted applications are applications
resubmitted after a complete response letter that include the
following items only (or combinations of these items):
(a) Final printed labeling
(b) Draft labeling
(c) Safety updates submitted in the same format, including
tabulations, as the original safety submission with new data
and changes highlighted (except when large amounts of new
information including important new adverse experiences not
previously reported with the product are presented in the
resubmission)
(d) Stability updates to support provisional or final
dating periods
(e) Commitments to perform Phase 4 studies, including
proposals for such studies
(f) Assay validation data
(g) Final release testing on the last 1-2 lots used to
support approval
(h) A minor reanalysis of data previously submitted to the
application (determined by the agency as fitting the Class 1
category)
(i) Other minor clarifying information (determined by the
Agency as fitting the Class 1 category)
(j) Other specific items may be added later as the Agency
gains experience with the scheme and will be communicated via
guidance documents to industry.
2. Class 2 resubmissions are resubmissions that include any
other items, including any item that would require
presentation to an advisory committee.
The Secretary of Health and

Human Services,

Washington, DC, November 14, 2002.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman. As you are aware, the Medical Device
User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 was signed by the
President on October 26, 2002. Under Title I, the additional
revenues generated from fees paid by the medical device
industry will be used to expedite the medical device review
process, in accordance with performance goals that were
developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in
consultation with the industry.
FDA has worked with various stakeholders, including
representatives from consumer, patient, and health provider
groups, and the medical device industry to develop
legislation and goals that would enhance the success of the
device review program. Title I of the Medical Device User Fee
and Modernization Act of 2002 reflects the fee mechanisms and
other improvements developed in these discussions. The
performance goals referenced in Section 101 are specified in
the enclosure to this letter, entitled ``Performance Goals
and Procedures.'' I believe they represent a realistic
projection of what FDA can accomplish with industry
cooperation and the additional resources identified in the
bill.
This letter and the enclosed goals document pertain only to
title I (Fees Related to Medical Devices) of Public Law 107-
250, Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002.
OMB has advised that there is no objection to the
presentation of these views from the standpoint of the
Administration's program. We appreciate the support of you
and your staffs, the assistance of other Members of the
Committee, and that of the Appropriations Committees, in the
authorization of this vital program.
Sincerely,
Tommy G. Thompson.

____________________

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate
crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last
year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to
current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any
kind is unacceptable in our society.
I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred September 6,
2001in Madison, WI. Two men were arrested on the University of
Wisconsin campus for attempting to strangle a gay man. The attackers
were part of a visiting group on campus to talk about homosexuality.
The attackers approached the victim, told him that it was his time to
go to hell, then began choking him.
I believe that government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to
defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 is now a symbol that can become
substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing
current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

____________________

ELECTRIC ASSISTED LOW-SPEED BICYCLES

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that H.R. 727 will
soon be on its way to the President for signature.
This bill, which passed the other body by a 401 to 1 margin on March
6, 2002, will help promote the use of electric-assisted low-speed
bicycles and will help seniors participate in cycling related
activities. For many of our seniors, long-distance bicycle rides or
participation in bicycle clubs in areas

[[Page 23146]]

with extensive hills, can present an unfair challenge.
Simply put, this bill will allow seniors to more fully participate in
these events while, at the same time, providing solid exercise for
them. I believe that in states, such as my home state of Vermont, our
senior citizens may derive benefits from using these low-speed pedal-
assisted electric bicycles for help getting up our steep terrain.
Not only will these bikes improve mobility options for seniors, they
will also help to reduce congestion on our roads and air pollution when
used for commuting purposes. Since these bikes produce no noise or
exhaust because they are powered by small batteries rather than
gasoline powered engines, they provide an environmentally friendly
transportation option to our citizens and should be treated as bicycles
and not as motor vehicles.
H.R. 727 states that these low-speed pedal-assisted electric bikes,
as defined in very detailed Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC,
rules--found at 16 CFR 1512--shall be considered bikes and not motor
vehicles.
These detailed existing safety standards for bicycles should be
applied in every state, as in current law, and as would be required
under the bill for these low-speed pedal-assisted electric bikes. The
existing safety rules are based on extensive experience and tests done
on material strength, stem and fork torque resistance, pedal design and
the like and should apply throughout the nation. The existing rules,
referenced in H.R. 727, set the requirements for such things as:
handlebar stem insertions; pedal construction; chain guards; handlebar
stem tests; stem-to-fork clamp tests; bicycle design; handlebar
strength; front hub retention; attachment hardware; hand levers for
brakes; reflectors; pedal reflectors; seat size; maximum seat height;
and the like.
To assure the safety of these bicycles, the bill provides for federal
preemption of State law or requirements--as provided in section 1(d) of
the bill--regarding those detailed CPSC safety rules. The CPSC would
have the authority to issue additional federal rules regarding the
construction and physical properties of these low-speed bicycles to
ensure safety.
Obviously, local regulation of where these low-power bicycles can be
ridden, such as not on sidewalks if that is the state or local rule, or
not on high-speed thruways, or whether helmets are required, would
still be a local matter. Local or state governments would continue to
regulate the use of these and other bikes, who could ride the bikes,
and where they could be ridden, but they could not alter the safety
rules for the construction of the bikes, or the metals or materials to
be used for that construction, which would be in the hands of the CPSC.
H.R. 727 also specifies a 20 mph limit on speed, on a flat surface,
for these electric assisted bikes. The bikes covered by this bill look
similar to ``regular'' low-weight bicycles and will have similar speeds
but require less human leg power and stamina.
It is important to note that this bill does not relate to other
devices such as the Segway human transporter which does not meet any of
the detailed requirements for a bicycle set forth in the CPSC rules.
I am aware of companies researching such electric bicycle product
advancements, such as Wavecrest right here in Northern Virginia, and am
excited about the prospects for the future.
I appreciate the strong efforts in the other body of Mr. Cliff
Stearns, Mr. Billy Tauzin, Mr. Howard Berman, Mr. Earl Blumenauer, Mrs.
Lois Capps, Mr. Dennis Moore, Mr. Michael Oxley, Mr. Charles Pickering,
Mr. James Oberstar and many others. In the Senate, I appreciate efforts
of Chairman Hollings, ranking member Senator McCain and Senator Burns,
all of the Commerce Committee, in getting this bill to the Senate floor
where it passed without opposition.
As I work on the massive reauthorization of our surface
transportation program next year, I intend to work to fund additional
bicycle paths and enhance existing paths as use of these paths
increases over time.

____________________

THE FAILURE TO PASS AN ENERGY BILL

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is with a tremendous amount of
frustration and disappointment that I come before the Senate to discuss
the failure of efforts in the 107th Congress to craft an energy bill. I
have been a long-time advocate of a comprehensive national policy that
would address the national and economic security aspects of this
country's growing demand for energy, as well as the importance of
protecting our environment.
I was very proud of the work the Senate had done this year to produce
this legislation. Under the leadership of Majority Leader Tom Daschle
and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, the
Senate did what many in Washington thought impossible--we produced
balanced and responsible energy legislation combining increased
domestic production of conventional fuels, expanded use of alternative
and renewable energy sources, and energy conservation and efficiency
programs. Unfortunately, in our rush to complete work on a number of
pending matters, many Senators chose to not proceed with Conference
negotiations, acquiescing in what I would characterize as a strategy to
scuttle this worthwhile bill.
Perhaps the thought was that a better bill--or at least one that
better met a different set of priorities--could be crafted next year.
Candidly, I doubt it. I believe the demise of the Energy bill this year
is unfortunate for West Virginia, and for the entire nation. During a
nearly year-long debate on the complex components of the energy bill,
my position as a senior Majority member of the Senate Finance Committee
allowed me to influence the legislation so that its end results would
be good for consumers, workers, and industries in my state of West
Virginia. I am concerned that a new set of circumstances confronting
the 108th Congress will result in a bill that does not serve my state
nearly as well.
While the need to grapple with energy issues will not go away, no
matter what other factors are to be considered, Congress will be forced
to act in a vastly changed budgetary climate. The growing deficit,
additional proposed tax cuts, and the need to fund both a war on
terrorism and a possible war with Iraq, will inhibit the ability of
Congress to make any significant outlays to improve our energy
situation.
The 2002 energy bill was a bipartisan effort. Perhaps most
significantly for West Virginia, there was general agreement among
Senate conferees that the final bill should include meaningful Clean
Coal incentives. I worked very hard to see that the Senate-passed bill
included incentives for the installation of Clean Coal technologies on
smaller existing coal-burning facilities, such as we have in West
Virginia. The version passed by the House would have bypassed existing
facilities altogether--putting thousands of West Virginia jobs at risk
and jeopardizing the health of all West Virginians downwind of these
plants. As a member of the House-Senate Conference Committee
reconciling the two versions of the energy bill, I was able to ensure
that the final legislation included incentives for existing facilities.
If the energy bill is considered again in the 108th Congress, I will
likely again be a conferee, but my ability to apply pressure to benefit
the people and environment of our state will be lessened.
I also worked closely with a number of colleagues from both parties
to see that the bill included incentives to capture coal mine methane,
a deadly hazard in coal mines, and a potent greenhouse gas when vented
to protect the lives of miners. I was proud to join with members from
both sides of the aisle to extend credits for the production of oil and
natural gas from non-conventional sources. Without this credit, the
natural gas industry in the entire Appalachian Basin would likely cease
to exist. Likewise, I was pleased to join in a bipartisan effort to
promote the use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles.
Similarly, I joined colleagues from across the political spectrum to
further research and

[[Page 23147]]

development and create tax incentives for the production of electricity
from renewable sources, and to increase energy efficiency in homes,
commercial buildings, and appliances.
In fact, what most frustrates me is that this product of so much
bipartisan cooperation is dead because of what may have been a cynical
calculation to reconsider later a few issues with which there will
never be truly bipartisan agreement.
If the next Congress does revisit the issue of a national energy
policy, I am certain that those in charge will put much-needed emphasis
on domestic production. At the same time, I have serious doubts that
the incoming congressional majorities will toil quite as hard to
balance that priority with the equally necessary issue of protecting
the environment. In the same vein, while I suspect that there will be
new efforts to exploit the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on our
other public lands, regardless of the minimal amounts of mineral
resources that may be recoverable, I am not confident that a new bill's
authors will show the same zeal to expand our domestic energy
production from clean and abundant renewable resources.
This has been a hard fight, and while not perfect, the legislation we
were so close to producing would have been the truly comprehensive and
balanced energy policy that I have been calling for since I came to
Congress eighteen years ago. Since then, I have continuously urged my
colleagues in the Congress, as well as both Republican and Democratic
presidential administrations, to work together on a responsible energy
policy for this country. The 107th Congress was prepared to deliver a
balanced, comprehensive energy plan for the President's signature. Now,
for a number of reasons the energy bill is dead, putting the American
economy and the American environment at risk. I find this frustrating,
short-sighted, and extremely unfortunate.

____________________

U.S. LEADERSHIP IN AEROSPACE--TODAY AND TOMORROW

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a core factor in
America's leadership and strength in the new century: aerospace. The
aerospace industry dominates the telecommunication and transportation
world, while military aerospace expertise has defended the Nation and
served as the eyes and ears of our forces overseas.
Congress established an Aerospace Commission last year to study the
state of the American aerospace industry in the global economy and
national security and to assess the importance of the domestic
aerospace industry for the future security of the Nation. It is
appropriate that the Aerospace Commission released its report on the
future of the aerospace industry this Monday during the final debate on
homeland security, an area only beginning to appreciate what aerospace
can offer.
The Aerospace Commission reviewed the range of military, civil, and
commercial aspects of aviation and space and studied the key components
of the aerospace community--government, industry, labor, and academia.
The Commission benefited from the broad range of expertise and
experience among its Commissioners, including former Astronaut Buzz
Aldrin, former Defense Under Secretary John Hamre, and Director of the
Hayden Planetarium Dr. Neil Tyson.
The Commission offered several recommendations to correct the
weakening of the aerospace sector. Each recommendation addressed a
different critical factor that is showing signs of fatigue. I would
like to discuss the Commission's recommendations relating to the
aerospace workforce and education.
The aerospace industry, like many of our high-tech sectors, has a
workforce crisis. According to the Commission report, our Nation has
lost over 600,000 scientific and technical aerospace jobs in the past
13 years. These job losses, first due to reduced spending in defense,
then due to acquisitions and mergers of aerospace companies, and later
to foreign competition in the commercial aerospace market, represent a
significant loss of skill and expertise. Many of the talented people
who remain are approaching retirement. How will industry and the
Government restore the aerospace workforce and make aerospace a field
that attracts new and qualified talent?
Unfortunately, even the Aerospace Commission could not arrive at any
short-term solutions to this problem. The solution will only come from
the Government's and the private sector's long-term attention and
commitment. The Commission stressed that a long-term solution must
begin with improved math and science education across the entire
education range, from kindergarten to graduate school. Many of the
Commission's recommendations in this regard mirror my own work on
science and math education and the federal workforce. The Commission
found that scholarship and internship programs to encourage more
students to study and work in math, science, and engineering are vital
if the aerospace community is to have a pool of scientifically and
technologically trained applicants.
The Commission stressed that Congress needs to renew its focus on
national aerospace needs and priorities. Indeed, some of the
Commission's recommendations are unconventional and will require the
Senate's attention and deliberation to determine if they are the best
solution. The Commission's nine recommendations were:

Given the real and evolving challenges that confront our
Nation, Government must commit to increased and sustained
investment and must facilitate private investment in the
national aerospace sector. The Commission recommends that the
United States pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology,
commerce, and exploration.
The Commission concludes that superior mobility afforded by
air transportation is a huge national asset and competitive
advantage for the United States. The Commission recommends
transforming the U.S. air transportation system as a national
priority. Specifically, the Commission recommends rapid
deployment of a new, highly automated air traffic management
system that is robust enough to efficiently, safely, and
securely accommodate an evolving variety and growing number
of aerospace vehicles and civil and military operations.
The Commission concludes that the Nation will have to be a
space-faring nation in order to be the global leader in the
21st century and that America must exploit and explore space
to assure national security, economic benefit, and scientific
discovery. The Commission recommends that the United States
create a space imperative and a partnership between NASA,
DOD, and industry to develop aerospace technologies,
especially in the areas of propulsion and power.
The Commission concludes that aerospace capabilities and
the supporting defense industrial base are fundamental to
U.S. economic and national security. The Commission
recommends that the Nation adopt a policy that invigorates
and sustains the aerospace industrial base. Specifically, the
Commission recommends new procurement policies to include
prototyping and spiral development to allow the continuous
exercise of design and production skills; removing barriers
to defense procurement of commercial products and services;
and stable funding for core capabilities.
The Commission concludes that the Government needs to
create an environment that fosters innovation in the U.S.
aerospace industry. The Commission recommends that the
Federal Government establish a national aerospace policy and
promote aerospace by creating a Government-wide management
structure. This would include a White House policy
coordinating council, and aerospace management office in OMB,
and a joint committee in Congress.
The Commission concludes that U.S. aerospace companies must
have access to global consumers, suppliers, and partners in
order to achieve economies of scale in production needed to
integrate that technology into their products and services.
The Commission recommends that U.S. and multilateral
regulations and policies be reformed to enable the movement
of products and capital across international borders on a
fully competitive basis, and establish a level playing field
for U.S. industry in the global market place. This would
include substantial overhaul of U.S. export control
regulation and efforts by the U.S. Government to neutralize
foreign government market intervention in areas such as
subsidies, tax policy, export financing and standards.
The Commission recommends a new business model for the
aerospace sector, designed to promote a healthy and growing
U.S. aerospace industry. This model is driven by increased
and sustained Government investment and the adoption of
innovative Government and industry policies that stimulate
the flow of capital into new and established public and
private companies.

[[Page 23148]]

The Commission recommends the Nation immediately reverse
the decline in, and promote the growth of, a scientifically
and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce. This
would include efforts by the administration and Congress to
create an interagency task force that develops a national
strategy on the aerospace workforce to attract public
attention to the importance and opportunities within the
aerospace industry; establish lifelong learning as key
elements of education reform; and make long-term investment
in education and training with major emphasis in math and
science.
The Commission concludes that Government policies must be
proactive and sustain public investments in long-term
research and RDT&E infrastructure to get new breakthroughs in
aerospace capabilities. The Commission recommends that the
Federal Government significantly increase its investment in
basic aerospace research, which enhances U.S. national
security, enables breakthrough capabilities, and fosters an
efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system.

I was one of the first members of the House Space Caucus and
understand the importance aerospace plays in our economy, security, and
education. The Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International
Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, which I chair, released
a report last year detailing how Federal civilian agencies use data
collected by satellites and planes to carry out their missions. My own
State of Hawaii is at the forefront of using aerospace technology and
research to help Hawaii's fragile ecosystem and agriculture.
I hope that my colleagues will take note of the information and
recommendations in the Aerospace Commission report so that we can work
together to sustain and strengthen our aerospace community. To quote
the report, ``It is imperative that the U.S. aerospace industry remains
healthy to preserve the balance of our leadership today and ensure our
continued leadership tomorrow.''

____________________

INDIAN PROBATE REFORM ACT OF 2002

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Congressional Budget Office letter to accompany S. 1340, which was
reported out today and a letter from the Department of the Interior, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, November 4, 2002.
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.,
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1340, the Indian
Probate Reform Act of 2002.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Lanette
J. Walker (for federal costs), who can be reached at 226-
2860, and Cecil McPherson (for the impact on the private
sector), who can be reached at 226-2940.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

S. 1340--Indian Probate Reform Act of 2002
S. 1340 would amend laws that govern how an individual's
interest in Indian allotments (certain parcels of land that
are owned by individuals or groups of individuals) is
transferred upon the death of the owner. Based on information
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), CBO estimates that
implementing S. 1340 would cost about $1 million in fiscal
year 2003, assuming the availability of appropriated funds,
to train BIA estate planning assistants and to notify
individual allotment interest owners and Indian tribes of the
changes in this law. CBO estimates that enacting S. 1340
would not affect direct spending or revenues.
S. 1340 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose
no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
S. 1340 would impose new private-sector mandates, but CBO
estimates that the total direct costs of those mandates would
not exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA ($115
million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation) for any of
the first five years that the mandates are in effect.
By placing new eligibility and distribution requirements on
the inheritance of interests in Indian trust and restricted
lands, S. 1340 would impose new private-sector mandates on
those persons who might otherwise inherit such interests
under current law. The loss of inheritance (or a portion of
an inheritance) would impose direct costs on people who would
otherwise receive an interest in such property. CBO expects
that the mandates would affect only a limited number of such
people in the near term. At the earliest, mandates in the
bill would take effect only upon the death of an owner of
land interests. Further, the mandates would only apply to
interest in trust or restricted land of someone who died
without a will. Although requirements in the bill would
affect some heirs, many such cases would involve only a small
fractional interest in land. Thus, CBO estimates that the
costs of private-sector mandates in the bill would not exceed
the annual threshold established in UMRA in any of the first
five years that the mandates are in effect.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Lanette J.
Walker (for federal costs), and Cecil McPherson (for the
impact on the private sector). This estimate was approved by
Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget
Analysis.
______

United States Department of the Interior, Office of the
Secretary,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2002.
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter sets forth the views of the
Administration on S. 1340, a bill to amend the Indian Land
Consolidation Act of 2000 to provide for probate reform with
respect to trust or restricted lands. We support the bill.
S. 1340 will provide the American Indian people who own
trust and restricted assets with one uniform probate
intestate code that can be applied throughout Indian country.
The legislation is clearly the product of a lot of hard work
by Departmental employees and members of your staff in order
to achieve the common goal of reforming the Department's
Indian probate program.
During tribal consolidations held in July and August 2000
on the proposed probate regulations, many Tribes recommended
and supported a uniform probate intestate code. At the
present time, federal statutes provide that the law of the
state where the land is located be applied in the
distribution of the estate. See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 348. As a
result of inter-tribal marriage, it is not uncommon that an
Indian decedent owns lands on reservations in several states.
The effect of applying up to 33 different state laws to the
restricted and trust lands of a decedent results in disparate
and unfair treatment of the distribution of the entire estate
to the same heirs.
For example, in Nebraska a surviving spouse is entitled to
receive the first $50,000 of the estate. Thereafter, the law
provides that the surviving spouse receive \1/2\ and children
get \1/2\ of the remainder of the estate. Minnesota law
provides that a surviving spouse's share is the first
$150,000 plus \1/2\ of the balance of the intestate estate if
all of the heirs are also heirs of the surviving spouse. In
contrast, Wisconsin law provides that a surviving spouse
receive 100 percent of the estate unless one or more children
are not the children of the surviving spouse, then the
surviving spouse receives only \1/2\. New Mexico law differs
from the previous examples in that a surviving spouse gets
all the community property, then \1/4\ of the estate if there
are descendants of the decedent.
Another area of concern is the inheritance rights of
adopted children and the inconsistencies in state laws.
Minnesota law provides that an adopted child may inherit from
his/her natural parents, while Montana law provides that an
adopted child may only inherit from the adopted parents.
The enactment of a uniform intestate code for trust and
restricted estates is of great benefit to both the heirs and
the Department. The benefit to the heirs is that the same law
will be applied to all the trust and restricted estate of the
decedent no matter where the real property is located. A
uniform intestate probate code will provide for the division
of shares of the entire estate and will be the same
throughout the United States. The heirs may disclaim their
interests or otherwise agree to a settlement to distribute
the estate if the children want to give a larger share to
their surviving parent. The federal government's cost to
update and maintain land records will be reduced. The
Department will be able to decide cases and issue orders in a
more timely manner. A new body of federal law will be created
and decisions will be more consistent across the Nation,
resulting in fewer appeals. The necessity of thoroughly
researching state laws will no longer exist, it will take
less time to issue an order determining heirs. Finally, a
uniform intestate code may encourage Indian tribes to adopt
their own inheritance codes. The uniform intestate code will
serve as a model for Tribes to develop their own tribal
probate codes.
The proposed uniform intestate succession facilitates the
consolidation of interests to remain in trust or restricted
status and complements the provision of Indian Land
Consolidation Act to minimize further fractionation of
Individual Indian interests in trust and restricted lands.
For estate planning purposes, one uniform intestate code will

[[Page 23149]]

provide a foundation to encourage the execution of wills for
disposition of trust or restricted assets. For example, the
proposed section for pretermitted spouses and children will
necessitate specific estate planning if the decedent marries
after the execution of a will but intends to leave nothing to
a new spouse. S. 1340 at Sec. 232(d). Similarly, if the
testator divorces after executing a will and has left
property to the former spouse, the devise is revoked by law
unless the will provides otherwise. S. 1340 at
Sec. 232(e)(2).
State probate laws are often amended and likewise affect
long term estate planning. A change in state law may also
necessitate the execution of a new will. Thus, frequent
amendments of state laws frustrate the purposes of promoting
estate planning among Indian landowners. There will obviously
need to be considerable community education on the new
sections of the proposed uniform intestate law that will
require more comprehensive estate planning.
We recommend that Senate Bill 1340 include a provision that
excepts the application of the uniform intestate code to the
Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma until such time as the Five
Nations bill is enacted. The Five Civilized Tribes are
subject to the state district courts of Oklahoma and Oklahoma
probate law is applied to determine intestate succession.
Thus, the removal of the exception should be reflected in S.
2880, the Five Nations legislation.
We would like to suggest amendments to portions of existing
federal statutes relevant to inheritance prior to the passage
of S. 1340. The amendments are:
25 U.S.C. Sec. 348--After the second ``Provided,'' strike
the words, ``That the law of descent in force in the State or
Territory where such lands are situate shall apply thereto
after patents therefor have been executed and delivered,
except by the'' and insert ``the Indian Land Consolidation
Act, as amended, shall apply where such trust or restricted
assets are located''. See S. 1340 at Sec. 234(c).
25 U.S.C. Sec. 372--Insert before the word ``hearing'' in
the words ``upon notice and hearing'', the words
``opportunity for a''. Insert the words ``probate the
decedent's trust estate, and pay valid creditor's claims out
of funds in such estate or funds that may accrue up to the
date of death of the decedent'' after the word ``decedent,''.
Insert ``Provided, That in the payment of claims, 31 U.S.C.
Sec. 3713(a)(1)(b) shall not apply.'' after ``section 373 of
this title.''
25 U.S.C. Sec. 373--Insert ``Provided also, that the
Secretary shall pay valid creditor's claims out of funds in
such estate or funds that may accrue up to the date of death
of the decedent except that 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3713(a)(1)(b)
shall not apply:'' after the words ``or use it for their
benefit:''
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there
is no objection to the presentation of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Neal A. McCaleb,
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF DOLORES GARCIA

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, it is rare for me to make a statement
for the Record in honor of a retiring staff member, but this is a rare
staff member--one who by any measure would be deserving of the Senate's
time and of space in the Congressional Record. I am speaking of Dolores
Garcia, whose service in the Senate started the same day as my own,
January 3, 1983. Dolores and I had worked together prior to that when I
was Attorney General of New Mexico, and she had been with the Attorney
General's staff long before I came to that office.
My staff and I, as well as countless New Mexicans, feel fortunate to
know and work with Dolores. Diligent, competent, with a benevolent
nature and a strong work ethic, Dolores embodies the best of human
traits. In her work as the coordinator for service academy nominations,
she has started many young leaders on their way to success. She helps
keep my Santa Fe office running smoothly, attends the needs of local
and legislative officials, helps manage my office budget, and
coordinates my state schedule. No matter how busy she might be, she
always has time and a kind word for those who turn to her for help.
Dolores is a great friend to my staff and me. We hold her in the
highest esteem. Another long-time staff member commented that he
thought his best hope of getting into Heaven is on her coattails. I
feel the same, Mr. President, and would feel fortunate to have her
vouch for me.

____________________

A SPECIAL ADOPTION MONTH

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, November is a special month to the adoption
community, because it is National Adoption Month. In my state of Idaho,
this particular November is a very special month because it is when one
of our newest citizens--Tilly McKeown--came home.
Tilly is one of hundreds of children from Cambodian orphanages who
are the focus of a special humanitarian initiative by the United States
Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State Department.
Adoptions from Cambodia were halted late last year because of serious
concerns about the process in that country, and the initiative has been
working since then to investigate and clear these adoptions on a case
by case basis.
We all want the adoption system to be ethical, transparent, and
efficient. To achieve those goals in international adoptions, the
United States signed the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, a
landmark international treaty setting standards for adoption that will
protect the interests of children and families everywhere in the world.
The Senate ratified the treaty, and Congress passed legislation to
implement it.
We expect our federal agencies involved in international adoption to
work toward these goals with all sending countries, whether they have
signed the treaty or not. These are important policy goals for our
government, but what is more important, they will help bring waiting
children everywhere together with the families who will love them
forever.
They also will help prevent situations like the Cambodian dilemma
from ever happening again. Before last December, our country had never
placed a moratorium on adoptions out of a foreign country, and I think
it is safe to say that anyone who knows anything about the Cambodian
moratorium hopes our country never takes such an action again. In fact,
some of us in Congress have worked on legislation to that end.
This surely must be the hope of every family whose adoption was
caught in the moratorium. Mr. President, the anguish these families
have endured is indescribable. I do not think a day has passed when
they have not pressed the Cambodian and American governments for a
resolution to enable them to bring their children home to the United
States. They know all too well what an enormous impact government
policies can have on human lives and futures.
I hope that some day, Tilly's parents will tell her the true story of
how hard they worked, every day, to bring her home how sad they were
every time the answer was ``not yet,'' how they traveled all the way to
Cambodia just to see and hold her, and how overjoyed they were when
they finally got the call to bring their daughter home.
And when they tell her that story, I hope they also share with her
the fact that there were people across the nation and around the world
who also cared, and worried about her, and were trying to help her and
her family. In the United States Senate, the House of Representatives,
the Department of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
and our embassies, people knew about Tilly and were working to remove
the obstacles that kept this family apart, while still carrying out the
requirements of the law. The White House played a critical role,
providing extraordinary leadership and resources to resolve this
complicated situation. The commitment this Administration has made to
all of these families and their children is truly remarkable and should
be commended. The humanitarian initiative has made tremendous progress,
and none of this could have happened without the dedicated efforts of
all these individuals, working together.
I realize the resolution of the Cambodian adoption crisis cannot come
fast enough for the families involved, and some will never accept or
forgive the decision that was made last December, or the amount of time
that has passed. To them, I pledge to see this initiative through and
work for reforms so that no other families are put in this predicament
again. To the many government officials who are

[[Page 23150]]

working in the field or in Washington, D.C. on this initiative, I
encourage you to persevere in this very important effort; you are
making a lasting difference in the lives of these families and their
children.
And to Tilly, a very happy welcome to Idaho--at last.

____________________

SPINA BIFIDA

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to pay tribute to the
more than 70,000 Americans and their family members who are currently
affected by Spina Bifida, the Nation's most common permanently
disabling birth defect. I also want to compliment the Spina Bifida
Association of America, an organization that was founded in 1973 to
address the needs of the individuals and families affected by Spina
Bifida and which is currently the only national organization dedicated
solely to advocating on behalf of the Spina Bifida community.
Spina Bifida is a neural tube defect that occurs when the central
nervous system does not properly close during the early stages of
pregnancy. Spina Bifida affects more than 4,000 pregnancies each year,
but with proper medical care, people who suffer from Spina Bifida can
lead full and productive lives. Today, approximately 90 percent of all
babies diagnosed with this birth defect live into adulthood,
approximately 80 percent have normal IQs, and approximately 75 percent
participate in sports and other recreational activities. However, they
must learn how to move using braces, crutches or wheelchairs, and how
to function independently. The challenge now is to ensure that these
individuals have the highest quality of life possible and to prevent
future cases of Spina Bifida.
Congress has done much to deal with the challenges posed by Spina
Bifida including providing funding to establish a National Spina Bifida
Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I was
pleased the Senate recently adopted the ``Birth Defects and
Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2002,'' which takes
important steps to improve the quality of life for individuals and
families affected by Spina Bifida.
I also want to thank the Spina Bifida Association of Mississippi for
all it has done for the families in our State who are affected by this
condition. Specifically, I commend Susan Branson, the president of the
Spina Bifida Association of Mississippi, for her dedication and
commitment to helping families like her own who each day face the joys
and challenges of having a child with Spina Bifida. In October, which
was designated as National Spinal Bifida Awareness Month, Susan and her
husband, Alan, and their 4-year-old daughter, Abigail, visited
Washington and met with me. The Bransons live in Jackson, Mississippi,
and in addition to Abigail they have four other children. We talked
about their family's experience with having a child with Spina Bifida.
When Abigail was born they were told that she would never be able to
walk. Today, due to her and her parents' vigilance, advocacy, and
commitment, Abigail can now walk with the aid of braces and a walker.
The Spina Bifida community and our nation have made great progress
over the past three decades. Much work still needs to be done, but I am
confident this organization and its chapters are up to the challenge.

____________________

CONGRESSMAN JOSEPH R. SKEEN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when this session of Congress ends, one
member of New Mexico's congressional delegation will be retiring, and I
rise to acknowledge his departure from public life and to express
appreciation for his loyal service to our state and this nation.
Joe Skeen has been involved in Republican politics in New Mexico for
more than forty years, most of them as an elected official. He was in
the State Senate for ten years, and while his two campaigns for
governor in the 1970's were unsuccessful, he is one of the very few in
the history of our country elected to the Congress as a write-in
candidate. That occurred in 1980, and he has served his district in the
House of Representatives for eleven terms, longer than any New Mexico
House Member.
It cannot be said that Joe and I agree on even every fourth issue
that comes down the pike, but we have worked well together on so much
that matters to New Mexico. I have never doubted for a moment his
devotion to what he thinks is right, nor have I doubted his ability to
get the job done.
New Mexico is a small town in many ways, and while Joe and I were
acquainted before either of us came to Washington, it was when I came
here that we really got to know one another. I consider him, and his
wife, Mary, to be friends, and am honored that they think the same of
me.
They raise sheep on their ranch in Lincoln County, and I know Joe
will be glad to get back home after having distinguished himself in the
Congress, and representing his District so well.
We'll miss him.

____________________

THE REAL INTERSTATE DRIVER EQUITY ACT

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the coming days will be historic for a
large number of small businesses that make up the luxury ground
transportation industry. After much hard work from several members of
the New Jersey Delegation and hundreds of constituents in New Jersey
and around the country, the President will sign H.R. 2546, The Real
Interstate Driver Equity Act. This Act will bring tremendous relief to
those operators of the luxury ground transportation industry conducting
interstate business.
Four years ago, two of my constituents Don Kensey of Au Premiere
Limousine of Bellmawr, and James Moseley of James Limousine of Cherry
Hill, approached my good friend Congressman Rob Andrews concerning the
problem limousine operators in New Jersey were having with local
jurisdictions in other States seizing and fining properly authorized
vehicles upon picking up their clients to return them to New Jersey.
Joining with many other limousine businesses in New Jersey and the
National Limousine Association, our constituents organized a national
grassroots campaign in the 106th Congress to educate the House and
Senate. Today, the Congress is aware of the hardships faced by these
small business owners across the country.
Because such a substantial portion of their service does not occur in
a single State, limousine and other prearranged ground transportation
service providers are frequently assessed registration and licensing
fees by these other States. Enforcement of these requirements, which
includes vehicle impoundment and heavy fines, has caused tremendous
hardship to drivers and owners of these businesses, over 80% of which
are one-to-three car operators grossing less than $500,000 a year. I
would note that these problems are especially hard on small businesses
in New Jersey, which borders on two States with large cities and
airports.
Indeed, I was shocked to hear that in one particularly egregious
instance, the CEO of McGraw Hill Publishing was forced out of his
limousine, which was seized in another State and told to find another
way home. That was when Senator Corzine and myself, along with
Congressman Andrews decided to take action.
The Real Interstate Driver Equity Act simply prohibits States other
than a home licensing State from enacting or enforcing a law requiring
a fee or some other payment requirement on vehicles that provide
prearranged transportation service. States and localities can no longer
restrict limousine or sedan services if the service is registered with
the Department of Transportation as an interstate carrier; the company
meets all of the requirements of the State in which it is domiciled or
do business; and the limousine or sedan service is engaged in providing
pre-arranged transportation from one state to another, including round
trips.
This Congress, through the hard work of our constituents, has finally
remedied this inequity in our interstate commerce law.

[[Page 23151]]

There were several other members who were instrumental in passing
this legislation. I would like to thank Congressmen Roy Blunt and Rob
Andrews, who took the lead on H.R. 2546 in the House of Representatives
and helped ensure its passage last year. In April of this year, with
the assistance of my colleagues Senator Hollings and Senator McCain,
the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee passed H.R. 2546
unanimously. I am also most grateful to Senator Reid, Senator Bond, and
Senator Corzine for their able assistance in passing this important
small business legislation.

____________________

USE OF CUSTOMS FEES

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is an important provision in the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (H.R. 5710), that, if misinterpreted,
could limit the ability of the U.S. Customs Service to effectively
protect our borders.
Section 413 of this bill appropriately seeks to ensure that user fees
that are currently used exclusively by the Customs Service for the
purposes set out in 19 U.S.C. 58(c) will continue to be used for that
sole purpose. These fees are paid by commercial vessels, aircraft,
railroads and passengers that enter the U.S. This money is used to
ensure that there will be Customs personnel available to clear these
arriving goods and passengers efficiently when they arrive.
I am concerned that the wording of section 413 could be misconstrued
since it merely states that these fees must be directed to the
commercial operations of the Customs Service. I want to clarify that
the intent of this provision is that these fees continue to be used for
the purposes for which they were originally intended as set out in 19
U.S.C. 58(c). Additionally, I have consulted with Senator Baucus and
Senator Lieberman and they both agree with this view.
The work done by Customs inspectors at our ports of entry is
critically important to our country's security and economic health.
More than 1,100 Customs inspector positions, as well as overtime pay
for Custom's employees, are currently funded out of the fees referred
to in section 413. It is imperative that these fees continue to be used
as intended. This statement serves as clarification that this is the
purpose of section 413 of the Homeland Security bill being considered
by the Senate.

____________________

BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight an issue of
great importance to the people of my State and to people across this
country.
Over the past several years, I worked closely with a number of my
Senate colleagues to pass the Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act. Signed into law by the President last
year, this act is an innovative piece of legislation that will promote
and accelerate the cleanup of hundreds of brownfield sites around the
country.
The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act
passed with strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.
It will help states and local communities clean up the country's
estimated 1,000,000 brownfield sites. These sites blight our
communities, threaten public health and safety, and drain local tax
bases.
I am proud of this legislation. It devotes desperately needed
resources to address the environmental and economic challenges posed by
brownfields.
Still, I remain convinced that there is much left to do. With an
estimated 1,000,000 brownfield sites across this nation and new sites
being discovered each day, the very best efforts of our government will
be insufficient to tackle this growing concern in any reasonable period
of time.
For that reason, I have begun exploring legislative options to
encourage additional private capital investment in the remediation and
redevelopment of our nation's brownfield sites. Such a solution would
complement the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration
Act and could help us make great strides toward creating jobs and
cleaning up the environment in communities across the country.
Over 60 percent of the institutional capital in the United States is
held for investment by tax-exempt entities such as pension funds and
university endowments. Given the risks associated with acquiring and
cleaning up contaminated sites, it is no surprise that private
investors are reluctant to invest large amounts of capital in
brownfields cleanup and revitalization. Tax exempt entities are often
prevented from engaging in brownfield cleanups because of the unrelated
business taxable income, UBTI, provisions in the code.
The UBTI provisions of the tax code play an important role in
ensuring that entities do not use their tax-exempt status to gain a
competitive advantage in the marketplace over taxed entities. It is
clear, however, that the free market is not moving to remediate and
redevelop many of these sites, certainly not at a rate that will solve
this problem during our lifetimes. It is my belief that without some
additional stimulus, many of these sites will remain unattractive as
business investments and will continue to languish and blight our
communities.
If we were to allow tax-exempt entities to invest in the remediation
and redevelopment of these sites without incurring UBTI, we may be able
to create a powerful engine to help revitalize our Nation's brownfield
sites. It also seems possible that we could accomplish these goals in
this slowed economic climate with a solution that neither materially
impacts revenues nor requires significant costs for administration.
In the coming months, it is my intent to explore legislative options
to encourage the investment of additional private capital into the
cleanup and redevelopment of our Nation's brownfield sites. It is my
intention and desire to work on this matter in a bipartisan fashion
with my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, let me thank the good Senator from
Montana and take a moment to echo his remarks. I strongly supported the
Brownfield Revitalization Act and applaud the strides that it is making
toward remediating brownfield sites across our Nation.
In Iowa, as in many other States, we are challenged with our share of
brownfields in places like Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Sioux City. The
cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield sites can help reduce health
risks, protect the environment, revitalize surrounding communities,
preserve open space and create jobs by reintroducing properties into
the stream of commerce that have languished for years.
Philosophically, I support efforts to encourage private markets to
help solve problems such as those presented by our Nation's brownfield
sites. Given the size and scope of the brownfield problem in this
country, I believe it behooves us to look for additional, innovative
and low-cost solutions to help encourage investment in the remediation
and redevelopment of these sites.
I understand that current law may discourage tax-exempt investors
from contributing capital to the remediation and revitalization of
brownfield sites. Let me say to my good friend and colleague from
Montana that I will gladly work with him to explore legislative options
to help bring additional private capital to bear on solving our
Nation's brownfield problem.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Iowa. As we
have worked together as chairmen and as ranking members of the Senate
Finance Committee, I have always found him to approach issues in a fair
and even-handed manner. Let me express my sincere appreciation to him
for the many bipartisan efforts that we have worked on together,
particularly the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act that passed 99-0 in the Senate. I look forward to
working with him on this and many other issues in the months and years
to come.

____________________

CHIEF JUDGE LAWRENCE BASKIR

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the United States Court of Federal Claims

[[Page 23152]]

is the only federal court where the President may appoint and dismiss
the chief judge. Although this power has been available since the Court
of Federal Claims was established in 1982, President George W. Bush is
the first President to use this power to remove a sitting judge. That
is a regrettable decision because of the integrity and outstanding
judicial record of the former incumbent, Chief Judge Lawrence Baskir.
His absence is already being felt in the slower pace of important
procedural reforms that Chief Judge Baskir had launched to improve the
fairness and efficiency of the Court of Federal Claims.
Former Chief Judge Baskir was appointed in July, 2000 by President
Clinton after the retirement of the previous incumbent chief judge, who
had been appointed by President Regan. In his short, two-year tenure,
Chief Judge Baskir had accomplished much in boosting public awareness
of and respect for the work of this important, but little-known federal
court.
The Court hears cases brought against the federal government by
American citizens. It is especially important that litigants can rely
on its objectivity and integrity. Some may say that because its
original complement of judges was appointed by President Reagan and
George Bush, Sr., its work had more of a political cast to it. Chief
Judge Baskir worked hard to correct that impression, and he was
scrupulous in every way in seeking to avoid even the appearance of any
political involvement.
Among the ways he sought to reinforce the integrity of the Court was
to ensure that incoming cases, some of which were highly charged with
politics, were assigned automatically, ``off the wheel,'' and not
directed to any particular, pre-determined judge. Just prior to his
removal from the bench, the Court's new procedural rules took effect,
rules for which he had pressed for two years. The rules, which are
critical for the administration of justice and are the procedures for
litigating cases in the Court, had not been revised in 10 years.
Because Court rules define the parties' rights and obligations, they
can give unfair advantage to one side or another. Their content is
always contentious, and previous efforts to revise them had collapsed
in deadlock. Chief Judge Baskir guided the revisions through with great
success.
He reorganized the Clerk's Office, putting an end to delays in
document handling, and instituted a ``same day'' rule for recording
court filings. He brought the Court's electronic data systems into the
21st Century and created both internal and external web pages. He
converted the main courtroom into a state of the art electronic
courtroom, where attorneys can connect their own computers to the Court
system, and have access to their own records and data and exhibits.
He also helped modernize the Court's alternative dispute settlement
resolution, or ADR procedures. Resolving legal disputes through ADR can
be a useful alternative to long litigation in certain circumstances.
ADR is an important procedural option at the Court of Federal Claims,
where citizens, often with very limited resources, are suing the
federal government with its unlimited resources. ADR can serve in such
instances to help level the playing field.
For example, he instituted a pilot ADR process in which incoming
cases are assigned to an ADR judge at the same time they are assigned
to a trial judge. This program is unique in the federal system, and has
been chosen by the Federal Judicial Center as a model to examine and
analyze for possible application in other federal courts.
Chief Judge Baskir made sure that ordinary citizens got fair
treatment when they sued the federal government. Knowing of the large
number of pro se plaintiffs, or people representing themselves, going
up against the Justice Department, including parents with heartbreaking
cases involving young children, he revised the system of handling these
cases, and in the process referred more than 700 pro se plaintiffs to
attorneys participating in the Court's vaccine program. Believing in
the duty of members of the legal profession to contribute a portion of
their time without charge for the good of the public, he also helped
launch a pro bono program within the Court for both judges and legal
clerks, and among the attorneys who are members of the Court's bar.
Many of these accomplishments would be impressive for a chief
judicial administrative official whose tenure lasted a full term. This
record is all the more impressive for having been achieved by a Chief
Judge whose term lasted a mere 22 months. He achieved much because he
brought an extensive legal and administrative background to the
position, including service as Acting General Counsel of the U.S. Army,
as staff director and chief counsel of a major U.S. Senate
subcommittee, and as director and chief administrative officer of a
major Presidential program under President Ford.
I commend Chief Judge Baskir on all that he accomplished as Chief
Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. I thank him for his service
to our Nation.

____________________

WHY SLOVENIA SHOULD BE INVITED TO JOIN NATO

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the expansion of NATO is a forgone
conclusion. Formal invitations are expected at the Prague Summit next
week for three to nine new member countries to join. In fact, NATO
enlargement represents a logical extension of the first serious
American intervention in European geopolitics; namely, the famous
Fourteen Points of President Woodrow Wilson, which provided substantial
assistance and encouragement to the nations of Central Europe in their
long-deferred aspirations to gain political independence and
international recognition. History has shown that the substantial
disengagement of America from European politics between World War I and
World War II, especially in Central Europe, left many newly independent
nations in that region vulnerable to Russian and German hegemony.
As my colleagues know, NATO was originally created to confront the
threat of Soviet expansion and to counterbalance the Warsaw Pact.
Accordingly, when the cold war ended NATO's continued existence was
questioned because it had fulfilled its original purpose. Rather than
disband, however, NATO's 16 member countries, led by the United States,
have sought to redefine the organization to meet the needs and
challenges of a new era. NATO member states more recently have taken on
new tasks, such as intervening and bringing to an end warfare in the
Balkans. Since the September 11 attacks, NATO has also joined the
battlefront in the struggle against terrorism. Through it all, NATO has
looked to uphold the goals and principles it was conceived to defend:
democracy, security cooperation, stability, and peaceful problem-
solving throughout Europe and North America.
Critics of NATO expansion commonly cite article 5 of the NATO charter
which declares an attack on any one member is an attack on all and
obligates the signatories to assist the victim, as an unwise commitment
with great potential to entwine the U.S. in foreign military conflicts
in which U.S. security and vital national interests are not at stake. I
joined those who were concerned, in the immediate aftermath of the cold
war, that seeking NATO membership would require cash-strapped emerging
democracies in Southern and Eastern Europe to spend too much of their
national budgets on increased defense spending at the expense of
meeting pressing shortfalls in education, health care, and other basic
social needs.
Nevertheless, NATO enlargement is and has been the policy of our last
three Presidents--Republicans and Democrats alike--and seems to have
solid bipartisan support in the Congress. In Warsaw last year,
President Bush expressed his proenlargement views saying, ``all of
Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that
lie between, should have the same chance for security and freedom, and
the same chance to join the institutions of Europe, as Europe's old
democracies.'' At the upcoming NATO Summit in Prague, this

[[Page 23153]]

alliance will once again invite more countries to join NATO, and I
believe strongly that the Republic of Slovenia should be at the top of
the list for multiple reasons.
First, since Slovenia declared its independence in June 1991, the
Slovenian people have made great strides towards becoming a stable
parliamentary democracy. The Government of Slovenia is a tolerant one,
granting its citizens complete religious freedom and many of the same
civil liberties that we enjoy. It also respects the human rights of its
citizens and an independent judiciary reinforces respect for the rule
of law. An ombudsman deals with human rights problems, including
citizenship cases. Minorities generally are treated fairly in practice
as well as in law.
Second, with a rich industrial history, a traditional openness to the
world, and sound macroeconomic policies, Slovenia is among the most
successful countries in transitioning from socialism to a market
economy. It boasts a stable growth in GDP, which now exceeds the
equivalent of $16,000 in purchasing power parity relative to this small
country's per gross domestic product. Slovenia also ranks among the
countries with the lowest degree of investor risk. The level of
privatization achieved and many other measures have improved the
competitiveness of the Slovene economy and the profitability of
companies doing business with the European Union. Among the more than
144,000 registered companies in Slovenia, the greatest number are
engaged in trade and commerce, followed by industry, services, real
estate, construction, transport and communications. Following
independence, small business flowered and now more than 90 percent of
Slovenia's companies are classified as small business enterprises.
Third, Slovenia offers the alliance a new partner to help stabilize
and pacify the historically and currently unstable ``powder-keg''
region of the Balkans as well as Western and Central Europe. NATO
operations in the Balkans have already proven the value of temporary
bases, land, air and sea; transhipment facilities, transit concessions,
airspace, road, and rail links, sea transport; access to national
strategic intelligence, joint exercises in specific conditions,
linguistic and other forms of civilian-military cooperation and medical
services and Slovenia in NATO will help greatly in this regard.
Slovenia also assumed many of these responsibilities already when NATO
went to war with Serbia. Looking ahead, Slovenia's inclusion will
further strengthen NATO's southern flank by bridging current NATO
territory from Italy to Hungary and eventually perhaps its extension to
Romania and Bulgaria.
Fourth, Slovenian and U.S. Armed Forces have been developing ever-
closer working ties through collaborative database and curricula
development activities. Although this collaboration has not occurred
under NATO auspices, it has helped lay a solid foundation for Slovenia
becoming a full-fledged NATO member. For instance, after the September
11 attacks on America, the Government of Slovenia promptly offered
intelligence aid to the U.S. in various forms and joined the
antiterrorist coalition with full public consensus. Shortly thereafter,
the National Assembly of Slovenia adopted the Declaration on the Joint
Fight against Terrorism. Since then, the U.S. has deepened our
involvement with Slovenia on other fronts as well. For example, the
U.S. this fiscal year contributed an additional $14 million to the
Slovenian-led, International Trust for De-mining and Mine Victims
Assistance, ITF, which has become the premier demining program in
southern Europe.
Fifth, the Slovenian armed forces have made significant strides in
modernizing and reforming their operations and equipment. The
Government of Slovenia recently adopted a policy to transform the
military from the present conscript army towards fully- professional
armed forces. This fundamental change should accelerate the
establishment of the main reaction forces of the brigade-size needed in
order to be totally interchangeable and compatible with NATO tactics,
logistics and equipment. A large part of the 10th Battalion of this
force is currently deployed under the NATO flag in Bosnia, Herzegovina,
and Kosovo. Furthermore, Slovenia has invested greatly in the education
and training of its military officers and troops, so that today there
are about the same percentage of English-speaking troops in the
Slovenian Army as one would find in current NATO member's armed forces.
In fact, many top officers, more than 200, have trained in the American
military education institutes. According to both domestic and foreign
estimates, the Slovenian Government has allocated $320 million for
implementing these basic defense reforms. In 1996, the National
Assembly of Slovenia enacted a law mandating that all military
purchases and acquisitions be in accordance with NATO standards for
inter-operability. In short, the Government of Slovenia has already
done much of what is required and remains very committed to achieving
100 percent NATO compatibility and fielding well-trained, effective
armed forces.
Parenthetically, let me also say at this point that I don't think
requiring 2 percent of GDP in defense spending is necessarily a good
indicator of maximizing the contribution of so-called mini-member
states in NATO. Some NATO member countries actually count military
pensions toward fulfilling this requirement, but how do such military
expenditures actually contribute to the deterrence and effectiveness of
NATO armed forces? To me, it would make more sense to identify
specialized roles for the armed forces of mini-member states to
optimize their respective contributions to the overall increased
strength and versatility of NATO.
Finally, Slovenia's sociopolitical development already mirrors West
European standards. Not surprisingly therefore, political debate in
Slovenia now centers on health care, environment, education, social
welfare, and budget discipline. Since Slovenia's population is
demographically old, the pensioners issue is now hotly discussed. While
there is political consensus about the necessity for pension reform,
sharp differences persist about the role the state ought to play in the
new system and whether or not the system should be privatized. Their
great national debate is quite akin to the current prescription drug
and Medicare debate in the U.S.
Clearly, Slovenia has made great strides in constructing a thriving
democratic government, ready to meet the challenges and demands of the
21st century. It is very impressive that the Slovenian people and their
duly elected government have accomplished all this in a mere 12 years.
The values and principles upon which their nation has been founded are
many of the same values and principles that we have come to cherish in
our own Government and to champion throughout the world. We should
embrace our Slovenian brothers and sisters and invite them into the
NATO fold this November.

____________________

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION DOUBLING ACT

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am delighted that Congress passed
the National Science Foundation Doubling Act last week. I have been
working for quite some time to increase basic research funding at the
National Science Foundation. Passing this bill at such a critical time
for our economy is extremely important, since investing in science and
technology is one of the best ways to ensure long-term growth.
I am particularly pleased at the inclusion of two programs I
authored, the Math and Science Partnership Program and the Robert Noyce
Scholarship Program, that I separately proposed in freestanding
legislation. Each program is an investment designed to strengthen and
improve math and science education at elementary and secondary schools.
The Math and Science Partnership Program has strong bipartisan
support, and President Bush requested and received funding in last
year's appropriation bill to jump start this important

[[Page 23154]]

program. The Math and Science Partnership program's inclusion in the
reauthorization bill is important to provide both policy guidance and a
long-term commitment to the program. This legislation provides
increasing funding for math and science partnerships for five years,
with a specific recommendation of $900 million for the first 3 years.
These grants will be awarded to universities, businesses, and State
agencies to coordinate activities in math and science education for
elementary and secondary school students. For example, funding could be
given to a university which is working with a local business to offer
workshops to kindergarten through 12th grade teachers, giving them new
ideas for teaching science and math classes. Since introducing this
initiative, I have visited many West Virginia classrooms, and teachers
are excited about the potential for this program. Teachers are eager to
partner with engineers and scientists from business and academia to
engage students in high quality science and math programs.
The Robert Noyce Scholarship Program will similarly take a big step
toward improving math and science education in schools. By awarding
college scholarships in exchange for a promise from leading college
students to teach in disadvantaged elementary and secondary schools,
this program is intended to attract the most motivated students into
the teaching profession. This NSF bill provides funding for the Noyce
program for 5 years, with a recommendation of $60 million for the first
3 years.
Together, the Math and Science Partnership Program and the Noyce
Scholarship Program will help the country in many ways. Promoting math
and science education for our children is the most important investment
we can make for the future of science and technology in the United
States. I truly appreciate the bipartisan support for these incentives.
I particularly want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of
House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, who introduced the
companion bill in the House and has been an ally for many years on
science and education issues.
In addition to bolstering elementary and secondary math and science
education, this bill also strives to stimulate scientific research
throughout the country with the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research, EPSCoR. This program targets States, like West
Virginia, that have historically had low amounts of science and
technology research, and uses a State's own science and technology
resources to promote economic development.
Under EPSCoR, disadvantaged states still must develop competitive
proposals that pass peer review standards at NSF, but states do get
assistance to become competitive and develop their research capacity.
It is essential to encourage many states to invest in research. For
many years, I have worked closely with the West Virginia EPSCoR
program, and I am proud of its work. I know that this program has
helped to leverage research and investment in our State. It has also
helped to promote partnerships within our state universities and
colleges, which is vital.
With this NSF bill, EPSCoR is a declared priority for NSF. Helping
West Virginia and other states become competitive in first class
research helps the individual States and our country as a whole.
Overall, the most important part of this legislation is the plan to
double the NSF budget over the next 5 years, with the increases in the
fourth and fifth year contingent on NSF meeting performance measures.
This increase in funding will increase the length and amount of all
research grants funded through NSF, giving researchers a better
opportunity to conduct more in-depth studies and concentrate on
discovery rather than grant proposals.
These types of grants are essential to technological and scientific
advancements, which are the engines for long-term economic prosperity.
Indeed, realizing the vital role that NSF plays in the economy's long-
term health, some have called for a tripling of the NSF budget. Many of
the discoveries currently occurring in other fields, including health
care, are linked to the basic research in math, computing, and science
that is supported by the NSF. By seeking to increase the agency's
budget, the Congress has helped to ensure that the United States
remains the world's leader in science and technology research and
development.
Once again, I am proud that Congress has passed this valuable,
bipartisan legislation, and I look forward to its approval by President
Bush.

____________________

THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM PROTECTION ACT OF 2002

Mr. BAUCUS. As I promised when I spoke yesterday during floor action
on the Social Security Protection Act of 2002--H.R. 4070, as amended--I
am now submitting an unofficial cost estimate from the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office for that bill.
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

PRELIMINARY CBO ESTIMATE OF THE BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 4070, THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2002
[* * * Preliminary and Unofficial * * * (Tentative conference)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-yr. 10-yr.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2003-07 2003-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES

Title I. Protection of beneficiaries

Authority to reissue benefits misused by
certain organizations serving as
representative payees:
Social Security benefits (off- 1 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 1
budget)............................
Supplemental Security Income 1 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 1
benefits...........................

Title II. Program protections

Authority to impose civil monetary (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*)
penaties: Revenues.....................
Denial of Title II benefits to fugitive
felons and persons fleeing prosecution:
Social Security benefits (off- -2 -28 -42 -53 -57 -59 -62 -64 -66 -68 -182 -501
budget)............................
Medicare............................ ....... -7 -12 -17 -21 -24 -25 -26 -28 -29 -57 -189
Title III. Attorney fee payment system
improvements

$75 cap (indexed) on attorney 5 23 24 25 27 28 30 32 31 33 104 258
assessments in Title III: Proprietary
receipts (off-budget)a.................

Title IV. Miscellaneous and technical
amendments

Application of waiver authority to ....... ....... ....... (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*)
demonstration projects initiated before
sunset date: Social security benefits
(off-budget)...........................
Funding of $1-for-$2 demonstratioon (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*)
projects: Social Security benefits (off-
budget)................................
Treatment of `individual work plans' as -1 -1 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... -2 -2
qualifying plans for purposes of Work
Opportunity Credit: Revenuesa..........
Limited exemption to duration-of- (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*)
marriage requirement for survivor
benefits where deceased worker had been
barred from divorcing institutionalized
spouse: Social Security benefits (off-
budget)................................
Permission for Kentucky to operate
divided retirement systems:
Social Security revenues (off- 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 8 27
budget)............................
Other revenues (on-budget).......... (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*)
Social Security benefits (off- ....... (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 ......... 1
budget)............................
60-month employment requirement for 0 0 -1 -2 -4 -8 -15 -26 -49 -80 -7 -185
exemption from Government Pension
Offset: Social Security benefits (off-
budget)................................
Total, direct spending and 5 -13 -33 -49 -57 -66 -75 -88 -116 -147 -147 -639
revenues (effect on deficit).
On-budget................... 2 -6 -12 -17 -21 -24 -25 -26 -28 -29 -64 -186
Off-budget.................. 3 -7 -21 -32 -36 -42 -50 -62 -88 -118 -93 -453

[[Page 23155]]

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Limitation on administrative expenses, 8 6 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 27 51
Social Security Authorization..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed enactment date: December 2002. Based on draft language dated November 18, 2002 (1:45 p.m.). Estimates are subject to further review by CBO and
JCT.
* = Less than $500,000.
aUnder current law, the Social Security Administration approves and pays attorney fees to successful Title II claimants and retains 6.3 percent to cover
its processing costs. CBO expects receipts from that fee (which are recorded as negative outlays) to climb gradually from $30 million in 2002 to $55
million in 2012. Thus, a reduction in those receipts is depicted as a positive outlay.
bEstimate provided by Joint Committee on Taxation.

____________________

AN EMBARRASSING COP-OUT

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senate should be embarrassed at what we
are about to do. It is amazing to me, with the country facing so many
important challenges, and a slow economy to boot, that the Senate would
consider adjourning for the year without passing the spending bills to
fund the Government for the next 11 months. We are putting off until
January decisions that should have been made months ago--and as a
result, many Government agencies at the Federal, State, and local
levels will not see the additional money they have been promised until
next spring. That is halfway through the fiscal year.
Let's be clear about what is happening. The Federal Government will
spend nearly $2 trillion this year. Yet we have not passed the
appropriations bills because the administration objects to $9 billion
in spending. We are about to pass a continuing resolution that runs
through mid-January because the President objects to $9 billion--less
than one-half of 1 percent of Federal spending. And his own party
supports much of that spending.
I ask my Republican friends, do they think it will be much easier
next year to push through significant spending cuts? Of course not.
When offered the opportunity to vote no on spending bills, my
Republican friends generally don't. We as Democrats must begin to blow
a hole in this ridiculous myth that somehow Republicans don't like
spending. They like spending just fine. They may claim to be for
smaller government and lower spending, yet Republicans in the Senate
have supported appropriations bills more than 85 percent of the time
since they first took control in 1995. More and more, the differences
between the parties are not over major spending decisions, because
almost everyone here votes for all the spending.
The main difference between the parties is that Democrats want to pay
for the spending, while Republicans are content to borrow from our
children to pay for it. Today's GOP believes in the ``free lunch'' that
we were all taught didn't exist. Future generations will suffer as a
result.
What does a long-term CR actually mean for the American people? To
start, a long-term CR would undermine the war on terror by denying
nearly $40 billion in additional homeland security funds requested by
the President. It would delay billions of dollars in planned increases
to ramp up the Coast Guard and the Customs Service, hire hundreds of
Border Patrol agents, bolster State and local antiterrorism programs,
and step up other domestic security programs. The 11,000 FBI agents who
are supposed to be combating the war on terrorism will have to wonder
whether they have the necessary resources to fight that war. Many of
the requirements of the Transportation Security Act require large
expenditures, such as explosive detection equipment at airports--but
the money won't be there. The Customs Service will have to defer the
scheduled hiring of more than 600 agents and inspectors to serve at the
Nation's high-risk land and sea points of entry. The President's budget
promised $3.5 billion in new money to ``first responders,'' but those
essential funds for emergency workers have not been approved. Thousands
of emergency grants for fire departments, communications equipment,
emergency operations centers, you name it--these items cannot be funded
at fiscal year 2002 levels.
Or take education. The National Conference of State Legislatures has
announced that States face a cumulative $58 billion budget deficit.
Many States are already cutting public education funding, and many
others are poised to do so--making inaction by the Federal Government
extremely costly to our kids. Passing a long-term CR will delay
increases in funding for critically important education programs such
as the title I program and the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, making it difficult for school districts to plan their budgets for
the upcoming school year. The President's budget promised $3.5 billion
in new money to ``first responders,'' but that money for emergency
workers hasn't been approved.
Here is what's fascinating. Not a single Republican Senator up for
election said they were for less education spending. They all talked
about education as a top priority and voiced their support for the No
Child Left Behind Act we passed last year. But who are they kidding?
Public schools trying to implement the changes required by the law need
more funding. For the GOP to support the law that authorizes the
spending, but then object to the spending itself, is the height of
hypocrisy.
Or take veterans programs, or Federal research spending. If a long-
term CR is approved, it would shortchange veterans by funding Veterans
Administration medical care at $2.5 billion less than what is needed to
meet their needs. The 4-million veterans who rely on the VA for their
health care will have to worry if that care will be available to them.
And the Director of the National Institutes of Health has said that he
might have to scale back bioterrorism research grants.
Now, we aren't living in a vacuum here. Like many others, I would
like to find ways to slow the growth in Federal spending, and I have
several ideas for doing so. But this year, the differences are so small
relative to the budget that inaction is simply unnacceptable.
And here is what's worse. The Republicans, who exhort us to be
mindful of how we are spending ``the people's money'' now that deficits
have returned--these are the same Republicans who voted for $500
billion in additional deficit-blowing tax cuts in the House, and would
have voted for just as much in the Senate if given the chance. This
President, who claims to be fiscally responsible and urges us to watch
how we spend, sent up a budget this year with nearly $600 billion in
new tax cuts for the well-off and increases in spending of 20 percent
since he took office. And we are forced into a budget impasse over $9
billion.
Let me be clear: When we increase the deficit and add to the debt to
pay for new tax cuts or new spending, it is no longer ``the people's
money.'' It is our kids' money, and for that reason we should be far
more responsible with our fiscal policy than we have been the last 2
years.
Congress has been abdicating its responsibilities by failing to do
something about the economy before we leave. There are many good
stimulus ideas out there--some of which are affordable, while others
could be paid for by scaling back tax cuts scheduled for 2004 or 2006.
But as things stand today, the Senate is unlikely to consider any real
stimulus until after the State of the Union Address next year which
means Congress won't act before February or March, which means that
relief won't be in place before next summer. That is inexcusable. The
American people shouldn't have to wait 8 months for us to act.

[[Page 23156]]

Simply put, to delay action on the budget when the difference is $9
billion out of $2 trillion, and when Republicans have voted for more
than $500 billion in additional tax cuts, is an insult. We can do
better, and we must.

____________________

OMB PROPOSED REVISIONS TO A-76 REGULATIONS

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern over the
administration's proposed changes to the A-76 process, and its impact
on the Federal workforce and accountability in contracting decisions.
The OMB draft rules issued last week raise serious questions over the
transparency of Federal procurement policies and their effect on
Federal workers. True competition must be fair to Federal employees, be
cost-effective, and promote financial transparency and public
accountability.
The proposed regulations to A-76 do not represent fair competition.
The regulations would place Federal workers at a severe disadvantage by
implementing a competition process where Federal jobs may be eliminated
at any time, even before a competition is completed. The process would
place greater emphasis on a contractor's past performance but would
fail to account for the past performance of in-house employees.
The OMB proposal could threaten cost-effective procurement policies.
Under the draft rules, subjective notions of ``best value'' would
replace objective cost-savings in driving decisions for whether Federal
work would be performed in-house or by the private sector. Government
procurement should be based on sound analysis giving the greatest
weight to cost savings. Decisions to contract out Federal jobs, which
are based on projections and expectations of performance, risk
squandering limited public resources on contractor promises to deliver
more work than is needed, at a higher cost to the public.
We must ensure that any changes to A-76 are fair. The OMB proposal
would require agencies to complete competitions within a 12-month
timeframe. If a Federal agency was unable to finish a competition in
this time, OMB could simply out-source Federal jobs to a contractor
without competition. Moreover, the draft regulations would support the
administration's arbitrary targets for contracting out Federal jobs,
which I oppose because these targets artificially impose goals for
contracting out. The proposal would also expand the types of Federal
jobs that would be subject to public-private competitions, such as
supervisory positions.
According to OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy, the majority
of public-private competitions under the proposed rules would be based
on the current lowest cost standard. There would be a pilot project to
test the ``best value'' standard on information technology jobs.
However, the use of the ``best value'' standard approach is
controversial and subjective. I would hope that this would be limited
to a genuine pilot project and would allow for a careful, objective
review of the results.
There are important steps we can take now to improve financial
transparency and accountability in Federal contracting while
strengthening fairness in public-private competitions. In June of this
year, I was pleased to work with Senator Kennedy to improve financial
transparency and cost-savings in contracting policies at the Department
of Defense. Our amendment to the DoD authorization bill failed by only
one vote. Our amendment would have required cost savings before
decisions were made to contract out Government functions. It would have
improved financial transparency by establishing measures for the true
cost and size of the DoD contractor workforce. Our proposal would have
promoted equity in public-private competitions by ensuring that Federal
employees had the opportunity to compete for existing and new DoD work
and that DoD competed an equitable number of contractor and civilian
jobs.
As chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Federal Services
Subcommittee and Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I look forward
to ensuring that Federal contracting policies are conducted in a manner
that achieves the best return on the dollar and is fair to our Federal
workforce. It is my intention to work with my colleagues in the 108th
Congress to pursue these goals.

____________________

CREDIT CARD ARMIES--FIREARMS AND TRAINING FOR TERROR IN THE UNITED
STATES

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to bring the attention of my
colleagues to a report released in October by the Violence Policy
Center, VPC, entitled Credit Card Armies--Firearms and Training for
Terror in the United States. This report analyzes the ease with which
members of terrorist organizations and criminals gain access to
powerful firearms and ammunition. According to the VPC report,
terrorist groups with little more than a credit card and a driver's
license, can easily obtain military grade firepower, including 50
caliber sniper rifles, assault weapons, and extraordinarily powerful
ammunition.
In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation searched the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System for information on individuals detained.
However, according to a New York Times article, the Department of
Justice ordered the FBI to stop using NICS records for investigating
suspected terrorists even after the FBI found that at least two
individuals detained in relation to the terrorist investigation had
been cleared to buy firearms. Further evidence gathered by the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and reported by the New York Times
determined that 34 firearms used in crimes had at some point been
purchased by an individual on the same list of people detained after 9/
11.
The VPC report provides several examples of terrorist groups, from
al-Qaida to the Irish Republican Army, using our loopholes in our gun
laws to purchase 50 caliber sniper rifles and other military style
firearms. We need to pass the Schumer-Kennedy Use NICS in Terrorist
Investigations Act and also Senator Reed's ``Gun Show Background Check
Act. These bills would assist law enforcement in identifying prohibited
gun buyers and recognizing patterns of illegal purchases and misuse.
In January 2001, regulations issued by the Department of Justice
directed the FBI to retain NICS information for a 90-day period. This
90-day period allows local law enforcement and the FBI to check NICS
for illegal gun sales to criminals, terrorists and other prohibited
buyers, identify purchasers using fake identification, and screen for
gun dealers misusing the system. However, in June 2001, the Attorney
General proposed reducing the length of time that law enforcement
agencies can retain NICS data to 24 hours. This is simply an
insufficient amount of time for law enforcement to review the NICS
database.
The Attorney General's action concerns me greatly. I was pleased to
cosponsor the Use NICS in Terrorist Investigations Act introduced by
Senators Kennedy and Schumer. This legislation would codify the 90-day
period for law enforcement to retain and review NICS data. The need for
this legislation was highlighted late last year when the Attorney
General denied the Federal Bureau of Investigation access to the NICS
database to review for gun sales to individuals they had detained in
response to the September 11th terrorist attacks and refused to take a
position on an amendment which would authorize that access.
Senator Reed's Gun Show Background Check Act, which is supported by
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, would extend the
Brady Bill background check requirement to all sellers of firearms at
gun shows. I cosponsored it because it is vital that we do all we can
to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals and
terrorists.
I urge my colleagues to consider these important pieces of gun safety
legislation not only to protect our children from gun accidents and
criminal

[[Page 23157]]

use, but also to limit easy access to dangerous weapons by people who
would seek to threaten our Nation's security.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO COMMANDER JEFFERY FREEMAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate Commander
Jeffery Freeman upon the completion of his career of service in the
United States Navy. Throughout his 21 year military career, Commander
Freeman served with distinction and dedication.
Continuing a family tradition of Naval Service since World War I,
Jeff received his commission from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1981 and
went on to earn his Naval Flight Officer Wings. Jeff served in four
maritime patrol squadrons as a Patrol Plan Tactical Coordinator,
Mission Commander, and ultimately as Officer-in-Charge, flying over
3,500 hours in the P-3 Orion aircraft, deploying to remote locations
around world, and flying hundreds of hours tracking Soviet and other
foreign submarines. Jeff served as a legislative fellow in my office,
and he has served in the Navy Appropriations Liaison Office providing
support to both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.
His family and his fellow shipmates can be proud of his distinguished
service. Commander Freeman, his wife Annemarie of Biloxi, and their
four children, have made many sacrifices during his Naval career, and
we appreciate their contribution of conscientious service to our
country. As he departs the Pentagon to start his second career, I call
upon my colleagues to wish Jeff and his family every success, and the
traditional Navy ``fair winds and following seas.''

____________________

VETERANS' BENEFITS ACT OF 2002, S. 2237

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the Senate's
action last night when it passed S. 2237, the Veterans' Benefits Act of
2002. This important legislation will make much-needed improvements to
veterans' disability compensation payments, Medal of Honor pensions,
housing benefits, claims adjudications, and education benefits through
increased funding for State Approving Agencies. I strongly urge the
President to sign this bill into law as quickly as possible.
I am pleased this bill also includes an important provision that will
expand the civil protections provided to members of the National Guard
under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940. I worked
closely on this provision with its sponsor, Senator Paul Wellstone. My
late friend and colleague from the State of Minnesota was an outspoken
advocate on behalf of America's veterans throughout his service in the
Senate. The Wellstone-Dayton provision in this bill will better protect
members of the National Guard in Minnesota and around the country. The
provision specifies that National Guard members mobilized for more than
30 days by a state at the request of the Federal Government to respond
to a national emergency be allowed protections under the Soldiers' and
Sailors' Civil Relief Act during their duty.
The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act allows America's military
personnel to have their legal rights secured until they can return from
the military to defend themselves. It covers such issues as rental
agreements, security deposits, prepaid rent, evictions, installment
contracts, credit card interest rates, mortgage interest rates,
mortgage foreclosures, civil judicial proceedings, and income tax
payments. One of the most widely known benefits under the act, for
example, is the ability to reduce consumer debt and mortgage interest
rates to six percent under certain circumstances. The original
Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act was actually passed during
World War I. The statute was reenacted during World War II, then later
modified during Operation Desert Storm. However, until now the Act's
coverage has not included the National Guard as comprehensively as
their active duty and reservist counterparts. I believe this is wrong.
Following the terrorist attacks against the United States on
September 11, 2001, members of the Minnesota National Guard were
activated by our State at the request of the President to provide
security at several major airports. As the duration of these
activations grew to several months, I began to hear from these brave
men and women about the stress and financial burdens that accompanied
their service. Senator Wellstone and I were shocked to learn that,
although the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act exists to ease
many of these same burdens for active-duty service members and
reservists, members of the National Guard were not similarly covered
for these types of activations, because this service was deemed to be
State, rather than Federal, service. This discovery led to the
Wellstone-Dayton provision.
Anyone who visited our Nation's airports after September 11 will not
soon forget the contributions of countless members of the National
Guard who, at the request of the President, contributed to a sense of
greater security and peace of mind for air travelers by providing
airport security. The men and women who provided these security efforts
did so with courage and selflessness.
In light of September 11, it seems apparent that the National Guard
has, and ought to have, a clear role in protecting Americans from
outside threats. Further, when the President requests the men and women
of the National Guard take on these new missions which help to protect
Americans from terrorism, their civil interests should be protected
under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act. Accordingly, I am
happy that this will be properly ensured with the Senate's passage of
S. 2237 last night.

____________________

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SHARING

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, for several years, I have been actively
working to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure and promote
information sharing between the government and the private sector. From
my experience with Y2K, I recognized that our Nation's critical
infrastructure was vulnerable and that the private sector and the
government needed to cooperate. Last year I introduced S. 1456, the
Critical Infrastructure Information Security Act of 2001, which sought
to bolster critical infrastructure security by fostering and
encouraging critical infrastructure information sharing. Both the
Senate Government Affairs Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural
Resource Committee held hearings on this issue. Once legislation
creating the Department of Homeland Security was introduced in the
Senate, I worked to ensure that some of the protections found in S.
1456, specifically protection from public disclosure pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), were addressed and considered in the
proposed legislation.
The need for congressional attention on this issue stems from the
growth of new technology and the increased reliance on computer
networks created new vulnerabilities. For the past two decades, once
physically distinct operations, controls and procedures have been
tightly integrated with information technology. Pipelines can be
controlled remotely. A vulnerability in a telecommunication systems can
impact the functioning of the Department of Defense and the financial
services sector. Sectors are more interconnected and more
interdependent.
Eighty-five percent of the United States' critical infrastructures,
the essential services that if disrupted or destroyed would impact our
economic or national security such as financial services,
telecommunications, transportation, energy, and emergency services, are
still owned and operated by the private sector. Osama bin Laden has
called on his supporters to attack the pillars of the U.S. economy the
private sector.
If the private sector and the Federal Government are increasingly
interconnected and are targets for those who wish us ill, it makes
sense for both targets to share information with each other. We have to
think differently

[[Page 23158]]

about national security, as well as who is responsible for it. In the
past, the defense of the Nation was about geography and an effective
military command-and-control structure. Now prevention and protection
must shift to partnerships that span private and government interests.
Yet the private sector has no access to government information about
possible threats, much of which is often classified. The Federal
Government, with its unique information and analytical capabilities,
lacks specific information from the private sector on attacks. Both
parties have a blind spot and only see parts of the problem. Government
and industry would benefit from cooperating in response to threats,
vulnerabilities, and actual attacks by sharing information and
analysis. If the Department of Homeland Security is tasked to match
threats with vulnerabilities, the private sector must be a willing
partner.
Although the Senate bipartisan FOIA agreement that I negotiated is
not included in the current homeland security bill, I am pleased that
the final version includes a number of provisions that will foster
critical infrastructure information sharing. As the government and the
private sector cooperate and begin to exchange information, we will be
in a better position to prevent, respond to and recover from future
attacks to our country.

____________________

NOMINATION OF MICHAEL McCONNELL

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my concerns regarding
the confirmation of Michael W. McConnell to serve on the United States
10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, Michael W. McConnell
is the most hard-line, impassioned, and consistent public foe of a
woman's right to choose yet to come before the Senate. His legal views
and philosophy are far outside the American mainstream.
This nomination passed out of the Judiciary Committee on November 14,
and came before the full Senate on November 15. Given the lack of time
to review Professor McConnell's record, an absence of recorded votes in
opposition to this nominee should not be taken as a vote of confidence
from all Senators.
McConnell is a long-time anti-choice scholar and activist whose views
on the constitutional right to privacy leave little doubt about how he
would rule in cases involving the right to choose. He believes that Roe
v. Wade was wrongly decided and that significant restrictions on
abortion are appropriate, even while Roe stands. He has joined
conservative political activists in calling for a constitutional
amendment to ban all abortions, possibly even in cases of rape and
incest.
This issue of abortion is one in which thoughtful people of good
conscience may disagree. However, it is my belief that Michael
McConnell's core personal beliefs on the immorality of abortion and the
moral status of the embryo, articulated repeatedly in numerous forums
including law reviews, op-eds, and legal [or court] briefs, will make
it difficult if not impossible for him to consider impartially the
cases that would come before him as a judge.
McConnell's view of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
also illustrates his inability to be impartial. Not only has he
contended that the law is unconstitutional, but his view of the FACE
Act is so colored by his opposition to the right to choose that he has
expressed his admiration for a judge who blatantly ignored the law in
acquitting defendants who broke the law.
Anti-choice legislatures have demonstrated great creativity in
creating innovative barriers to a woman's right to choose. The
constitutionality of these new barriers is frequently determined by the
circuit courts, and is rarely reviewed by the Supreme Court.
It is my hope that the administration will begin to reach across the
aisle to identify moderate, consensus nominees. The alternative will be
an ongoing crisis in the judiciary. It is also my hope that Professor
McConnell is not a harbinger of what is to come when Supreme Court
vacancies occur.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

CONGRATULATIONS TO BOB AND MARY JEAN FREESE

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to extend my congratulations
to Bob and Mary Jean Freese on their 50 years of marriage. During that
half century, their loving relationship has not only helped them raise
five children, but has served them well in raising two additional
generations, with seven grandchildren and one great-grand child.
Bob and Mary Jean were united at Salem Lutheran Church in Spokane,
Washington on December 6, 1952. Throughout their lives together they
have demonstrated a commitment to public service, and instilled a
similar public service ethic in their families.
Bob is the son of a Marine Corps Officer and served honorably in the
United States Air Force for ten years, and later was a plant engineer
with Continental Baking Company. Mary Jean was a long time employee in
the Spokane County Auditor's office.
While Bob and Mary Jean reside in Spokane, Washington, their
daughter-in-law Maria Freese has provided dedicated service to the
people of Montana, first as a member of my Senate staff and later as
Tax Counsel with the Senate Finance Committee. Their son Terry recently
retired from 25 years of service with Congressman Norm Dicks and as a
Presidential appointee at the Department of Energy, their daughter
Robin works with the state of Washington, their son Russell served with
the U.S. Air Force, their daughter Peggy has worked with Spokane
Community College. And their youngest son, Tom, has served the public
in a number of positions in the automotive industry.
In their retirement, Bob and Mary Jean continue to help others by
combining their interest in motorcycles with safety promoting community
service at highway rest stops. Mary Jean is also an officer with the
Spokane Genealogical Society and is always willing to help people
seeking out their roots.
I hope that Bob and Mary Jean will continue to enjoy many more years
of happiness together.

____________________

ON THE RETIREMENT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERVISOR TOM MULLEN

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to reflect on the
distinguished career of Riverside County Supervisor Tom Mullen, who
will retire on December 13, 2002. Supervisor Mullen's passion for good
government and good planning has set a standard for his county and for
California.
Before his tenure as Supervisor, Tom Mullen worked in the field of
law enforcement, serving 11 years with the Riverside Police Department
and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. He also served as an
aide to former California State Senator Robert Presley, Director of
Intergovernmental Affairs for the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, and Director for External Program Development for the
University of California, Riverside's College of Engineering and Center
for Environmental Research and Technology.
As Supervisor of Riverside County's Fifth District, Mullen helped
develop programs for young people, improve education, improve
infrastructure, reduce traffic congestion and make the streets safer by
adding more police officers to the beat. In recent years, his focus has
been on creating as transportation, habitat and housing blueprint for
Riverside County, a plan that will guide the rapid development expected
to occur in the coming years. Because of his diligent work and vision,
Riverside County's plan has won state and national praise and will give
the County a firm guide for the future.
During his career in public service, Supervisor Mullen has served
with many different organizations and received many awards for his
leadership and vision. He served as Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the March
Joint Powers Authority

[[Page 23159]]

(MJPA) and currently serves as Co-Chairman of the County Child
Protective Services Committee. Among Mullen's accolades, he received
the Riverside Community College Alumnus of the Year Award in 2000, the
Management Leader of the Year Award from UCR's A. Gary Anderson School
of Management in 1998 and the good Government Award from the Riverside
County Chapter of the Building Industry Association in 1997.
It is clear that Supervisor Mullen has made a tremendous impact on
the County and on the lives of the people of Riverside. With good
economic sense and organization, Tom Mullen has been able to lead one
of the nation's fastest growing areas. I commend him and extend my best
wishes to the Supervisor, his wife, Kathy Tappan, and his family on
this occasion and in the future.

____________________

COMMEMORATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION
PLANT

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, on October 24, 2002, the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, KY commemorated and celebrated its
50th anniversary. In 1952, the Paducah Plant began the process of
enriching uranium to help build and maintain our national security
against our adversaries throughout the Cold War era, and to this day
the 1,500 workers there continue their work to help ensure a safer
world by dismantling nuclear agents from Russia's stockpile of weapons
from its gladly-gone-days as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Throughout these past 50 years, the Federal Government did not always
shoot straight with the Paducah Plant workers. Much of the time the
workers were exposed to harsh and deadly chemical and industrial
agents. Many became sick and many died while the Federal Government
looked the other way. But throughout these times these workers forged
ahead, and they continue to do so today. Now knowing the dangers of
then and even the risks that go along with their jobs today, these
dedicated workers still roll up their sleeves and get the job done,
without complaint and with no questions asked. They are selfless and
humble. The history of the Paducah Plant and its workers, and what they
have and continue to do to ensure a more peaceful world, has and will
continue to be an inspiration to us all.
The Paducah Plant is tucked away in God's country in southwest
Kentucky between the Ohio River and rolling prairies and farmland. The
Paducah community and those in the surrounding area have been bedrock
in their support of this plant and its workers, and they are owed a
great deal of gratitude as well on this 50th anniversary. They have
always been there with support and prayer for these plant workers and
their family members during the toughest and roughest of times.
While the Federal Government and others turned away and failed to
live up to their responsibilities to the Paducah Plant workers--
neighbors, friends and family members were always there to comfort them
and each other. This is a spirit which humbles us all. May God bless
all those associated with this plant and its mission. We owe all of
them more than we will ever realize.

____________________

MR. STEPHEN ROGERS

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart and great
sadness that I bring news of the death of Stephen Rogers, a former
publisher and long time President of the Syracuse Post-Standard. Mr.
Rogers was a Central New York institution, a man who actively played a
role in the newspaper's operation up until the day he died at ninety
years old.
Although not originally from Central New York, he became one of the
area's most influential figures, both because of his pen and community
activism. Rogers was famous among local politicians for never shying
away from asking tough questions, prompting a close friend to call him
Socrates with a press card. Everyone from the Governor on down knew
that an editorial board meeting at the Post-Standard was no walk in the
park, as Rogers would force all who came to Syracuse to vigorously
defend their policy choices. It is testament to Rogers' character and
to how much he respected his craft, however, that no one ever doubted
that the meetings would be enlightening and evenhanded. Indeed,
journalism was part of the very marrow of Rogers' bones and a beloved
profession: he once wryly told a group of college students, ``Believe
me, it's more fun that working for a living.''
Rogers' love of fishing was perhaps the only activity that could
match his commitment to his trade. New York State's beautiful lakes
quickly helped bond him to the area when he first arrived in 1955, and
he showed his love for the area by giving back to the community in so
many ways. As Chairman of the Metropolitan Development Association, he
was a staunch advocate and promoter of economic development in Central
New York. Although he was criticized by some for overstepping the
limits of objectivity required by his day job, Rogers felt that he
could not in good conscience earn a living in community without giving
back. It's not surprising that he could also count his leadership of
the state publishers' association, the water board, and the United Way,
as well as time spent on the boards of the YMCA, the former Crouse-
Irving Memorial Hospital, Le Moyne College, the Red Cross and the
symphony as other significant volunteer accomplishments.
If there is one thing to say about Stephen Rogers, it is that he was
the epitome of good citizenship. His dedication to his craft, community
activism, and unceasing work ethic meant that he stood out as a leader
in Central New York up until his final days. He will be sorely missed
by us all.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO CENTURY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to
Century Construction in Erlanger, KY. Last Friday, Sandy Taylor,
Assistant Administrator for the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's, OSHA, 5th region in Chicago, presented Mike Mangeot,
President and CEO of Century Construction, with a Voluntary Protection
Program, VPP, award for Century's exemplary record of safety in the
workplace.
OSHAs Voluntary Protection Programs are designed to recognize and
promote effective safety and health management. In the programs,
management, labor and OSHA work together to establish a cooperative
relationship aimed at improving safety standards in the workplace. VPP
participants are a select group of facilities, which have designed and
implemented outstanding health and safety programs. Kevin Still,
Century's Vice President for Administration and Safety Director in
charge of Century's safety programs, deserves special recognition for
the part he has played in creating a safe working environment for
Century's employees. Kevin has been an integral part of Century's
success.
There are over 6 million work places in the United States. Of these,
only 900 have received VPP awards. Out of the nearly 750,000
construction contractors in this country, only three have won a VPP
award for safety. Century is the first ever mobile site participant to
win this award. By working with employees from both top-to-bottom and
bottom-to-top, Century has demonstrated how far communication and
teamwork can take an organization.
The men and women of Century Construction deserve our admiration and
respect for their hard work and determination. I am proud to know that
such companies are operating within Kentucky.

____________________

RECOGNIZING PUBLIC SERVICE OF ANN JORGENSEN

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity
to recognize and express appreciation for the contributions to public
service made by Ann Jorgensen, who is finishing her term as board
member to the Farm Credit Administration.
A production agriculture and hog farmer from my home State of Iowa,

[[Page 23160]]

Ms. Jorgensen moved to Washington in 1997 to serve on the
Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed, three-member board of the
Farm Credit Administration, FCA. FCA is an independent U.S. Government
agency responsible for regulating and examining the entities of the
Farm Credit System. The Farm Credit System is a nationwide financial
cooperative that lends to agriculture and rural America.
Members of the FCA board also serve as Directors for the Farm Credit
System Insurance Corporation, FCSIC, to which Ms. Jorgensen was elected
as the first woman chair in January 2000. FCSIC is an independent U.S.
Government corporation responsible for ensuring the timely payment of
principal and interest on insured notes, bonds, debentures, and other
obligations issued on behalf of Farm Credit System banks. Ms.
Jorgensen's leadership was instrumental in keeping the insurance fund
at or near the statutory 2 percent capitalization level.
During Ms. Jorgensen's 5-year tenure at the Farm Credit
Administration, many changes took place in the Farm Credit System
influenced by the FCA board. Through the board approval of
restructuring applications, the number of Farm Credit System
associations consolidated from 250 to 103, thus creating greater
efficiencies, better customer service, and cost savings to
associations. The board also amended participation regulations allowing
for the purchase of a 100-percent interest in participations and
eliminating the territorial consent requirement. With these and other
changes, the Farm Credit System today is well capitalized and
profitable with a high asset quality.
Prior to her appointment to the FCA board, she served on a number of
governing boards for the State of Iowa, including 6 years as a member
of the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents is responsible for the
State's three universities, including the University of Iowa Hospital,
a world-renowned teaching hospital, and its affiliated clinics. She
also served on the board of the Iowa Department of Economic Development
and chaired the Iowa Rural Development Council. Among many other boards
and committees, she has also served on the Agriculture Product Advisory
Board, the Interstate Agricultural Grain Marketing Commission, the
National Pork Producers Council Environmental Committee, the European
Trade Task Force Legislative Study Committee; the Iowa Public
Broadcasting Network Board of Directors and Foundation Board.
She was named to the Farm Foundation's Bennett Agricultural Round
Table in June 2000. This provides a forum for discussion and dialogue
among agricultural, agribusiness, government, academic, and interest
group leaders on issues of importance to agriculture and rural America.
Alpha Zeta, the national honorary agricultural fraternity, named her to
its Centennial Honor Roll in 1997. She has also been inducted into the
Iowa Volunteer Hall of Fame, and along with her husband, has previously
been recognized by Farm Futures magazine as owner of one of the Top 10
Best Managed Farms.
I thank her for her numerous contributions to our farmers as well as
rural America, and I extend my very best wishes for her continued
success.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LT. COL. THOMAS J. STAPLETON

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise
today to pay special tribute to an outstanding soldier who has
distinguished himself in his service to the United States Senate and
the Nation as a United States Army Fellow. Lt. Col. Thomas Stapleton's
fellowship officially ends upon the adjournment of this session and
before he leaves, I wish to extend my most sincere thanks and
appreciation for his exemplary service to myself, the citizens of
Missouri and our great nation.
Lt. Col. Stapleton is a seasoned military leader with over 17 years
of tactical, budget and acquisition experience that have been a
tremendous contribution to my office. Lt. Colonel Stapleton served his
nation in Operation Just Cause and Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm
from 1989-1991. He is a Distinguished Military Graduate from Canisius
College, Buffalo, New York, holds a Master of Business Administration
from Rochester Institute of Technology and attended Georgetown
University's Government Affairs Institute.
Throughout his career, Lt. Colonel Stapleton's level of commitment
and service have been evident in his various decorations and awards
including the Bronze Star which he was awarded for exceptional service
in Operation Desert Storm. Lt. Colonel Stapleton has proven his
abilities and has consistently performed above and beyond the call of
duty.
During his tour as a military fellow, Tom fulfilled crucial functions
and carried out critical assignments within my office. His budgetary
experience as an Army comptroller served him well in resolving numerous
defense appropriations issues. His tactical experience was an
invaluable resource as evidenced by the many dependable information
briefs I received after the devastating attacks of 9-11. These
attributes further served Tom as he traveled the roads of Missouri on
my behalf meeting with veterans, military service-members and
constituents at various installations, veteran's facilities and town
hall meetings. In addition, I relied heavily on Lt. Colonel Stapleton's
strong volley and solid serve in crushing two of my distinguished
colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner, on the tennis court.
Lt. Colonel Stapleton is not just a soldier but a devoted husband and
committed father of three children. Whether he was coaching soccer with
his son, enjoying family vacations or throwing a birthday party for his
children, Tom consistently made time for his family throughout his very
demanding tour as a fellow. Anyone familiar with Lt. Colonel
Stapleton's numerous achievements, awards and much deserved
commendations knows that Tom's top priority is to be a dedicated family
man. Tom embodies the values that we as Americans all hold dear. His
commitment to family and country set the standard for a professional
soldier and solid role model.
The Military Congressional Fellows programs affords members of
Congress with a critical military perspective coupled with invaluable
service and professionalism. The tremendous reputation and success of
this program are a direct reflection of Fellows like Lt. Colonel
Stapleton. Tom has distinguished himself as a member of my staff and my
defense team. On behalf of the citizens of Missouri and a grateful
Nation, we wish Lt. Col. Thomas Stapleton, his wife Anne, and three
children Toni, Carly and Jack the best as he continues his
distinguished career.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO NANCY KRAFT

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues
to join me in paying tribute to a dedicated member of the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, FWP, as she concludes 32 years
of service to her State and Nation. We are proud that this native
Montanan spent her entire working life dedicated to serving Montana's
State's citizens and visitors.
Mrs. Nancy Kraft deserves this honor. We owe her our gratitude for
her contributions to the conservation of Montana's wildlife and natural
resources, as well as her efforts to preserve the outdoor heritage that
makes the Treasure State's way of life unique.
Nancy's personal and professional career accomplishments truly
reflect the character of life under the big sky. Her loyal service over
three decades--spent in our capital city of Helena--are a testament to
all those who value wildlife and open spaces. I would like to take a
moment to reflect upon Nancy's career as she embarks on a new phase of
life beyond government service.
Born in Helena, Nancy attended primary school locally and began work
at the then Department of Fish and Game in 1970 as a temporary employee
in the General Licensing section handling delinquent accounts. Skilled
in pursuing

[[Page 23161]]

overdue collections she soon designed a system that over the years
returned more than $300,000 to the people of Montana.
Nancy progressed through several positions of increasing
responsibility, while continuing to make sure licensing operations were
closely related to the needs and interests of Montana's recreating
public. In 1985 she was selected as the FWP General License Section
Supervisor. Her capable leadership led to substantive changes in
regulations and license fees during the time that outdoor recreation
became a major economic influence in Montana.
Because of her in-depth knowledge and ability to bring diverse
interests together, Nancy was assigned to a team of FWP experts charged
with the task of designing a system to automate the licensing
processes. Recognizing that the transition to computers from a paper
process was a major undertaking, she worked tirelessly to ensure the
myriad regulations, drawing systems, fee schedules, and calendar
requirements were accurately reflected in the system design.
In her final assignment Nancy was selected to be the Licensing Bureau
Chief with responsibility for the collection of fees exceeding $30
million annually. Shortly after FWP celebrated its 100th anniversary,
Nancy and her team embarked on one of the biggest challenges in state
government--providing ongoing services with no down time while changing
systems affecting over 400,000 customers.
Over the past 2 years Nancy helped lead the transition to the new
Automated Licensing System. Within eight months of implementation, the
system processed over one million license sales with error rates below
1 percent, and produced a steady increase in customer satisfaction.
This shining example of perseverance and poise under pressure is a
reflection of the quiet competence that Nancy Kraft brings to her
workplace every day for the people of Montana.
Nancy's contributions to the State's highly complex and important
licensing functions cannot be overstated. Her staff's accurate
forecasting and collection of millions of dollars each year allow FWP
to perform its primary mission while preparing for future uses of
Montana's special natural resources. Such achievements are a clear
testament to how she has, for more than 30 years, enhanced the fishing,
hunting, and parks experience held in such high esteem by the people of
Montana and our many visitors.
As a well known and highly regarded member of the Helena community,
Nancy's ability and knowledge, her willingness to find solutions, and
her congenial way of dealing with people from all walks of life will be
most difficult to replace.
It is a great honor for me to present the credentials of Nancy Kraft
to the Senate today. All of her actions reflect a devoted public
servant with a sense of purpose.
As Nancy departs from public service I ask my colleagues to join with
me in delivering this tribute to Nancy for her outstanding career and
service to the State of Montana and the Nation, and our best wishes for
a productive and rewarding retirement.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING PROFESSORS MR. JAMES ADAMS AND DR. DENNIS C.
JACOBS

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate fellow
Hoosiers Mr. James Adams and Dr. Dennis C. Jacobs on their recent
selection as Professors of the Year. It is a major accomplishment as
only four awards are given out nationally, one for each classification
of institution. Mr. Adams was recognized as Outstanding Baccalaureate
College Professor of the Year and Dr. Jacobs was recognized as
Outstanding Research and Doctoral University Professor of the Year.
I am particularly proud, Mr. President, because Mr. Adams and Dr.
Jacobs are two of four national Professors of the Year, and my home
state of Indiana is the home for both. Both Mr. Adams and Dr. Jacobs
represent the very best in higher education and Hoosier values.
Mr. James Adams is a professor of art at Manchester College in North
Manchester, Indiana. During 42 years at Manchester, Mr. Adams has
taught in the Art, English, Music, and Spanish departments, driven by
his interest in new technologies, integrating service with learning,
and interdisciplinary approaches to subjects. He has truly set an
example to the rest of the teaching community.
In addition, Mr. Adams has been an exchange professor to Germany and
Spain, and was instrumental in creating study-abroad programs on his
campus. His international interest has also led him to supervise an
Indiana University summer program in England, serve as faculty-in-
residence for DePauw University in Spain, and he has conducted at least
20 student tours to Mayan sites.
Mr. James Adams' hobbies have also brought him success. He is a
practicing painter and photographer who has exhibited throughout the
United States and in England, Mexico, and Spain. A contributor to his
community, Mr. Adams is a frequent lecturer at the Fort Wayne Museum of
Art, and he also does pro bono work with the local Department of Motor
Vehicles office, serving as a translator for Latino residents new to
the area.
Mr. Adams earned undergraduate degrees at George Washington
University and the Concoran School of Art, with a double major in Art
and Modern Languages. He holds a Master of Fine Arts at the Instituo
Allende, which is affiliated with the University of Guanajuato, Mexico,
and he spent three years at the Ruskin School of Art at Oxford
University.
Dr. Dennis C. Jacobs is a professor of chemistry at the University of
Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. At Notre Dame, he has won several
teaching awards and the Presidential Award for dedicated service to the
University. His contribution to the learning community is evident.
In 1999, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
named him a Carnegie Scholar largely for completely redesigning an
important introductory chemistry class. The redesign led to greater
student success and engagement, and the course is considered a leading
example of the trend toward peer-led curricula. This is a remarkable
accomplishment.
Dr. Jacobs has also combined chemistry and service learning, creating
a course in which students and community partners evaluate lead
contamination in area homes. He is also a Fellow with the Center for
Social Concerns, focusing on other methods of integrating community
service into the curriculum.
His work has earned him great respect in his community. One of his
colleagues has described him as ``the kind of teacher who never stops
growing, thinking, and changing.''
Dennis Jacobs earned undergraduate degrees at the University of
California at Irvine in physics and chemistry and a Ph.D. in physical
chemistry at Stanford University.

national winners

Outstanding Baccalaureate Colleges: James Adams, Professor, Art,
Manchester College, North Manchester, IN
Outstanding Community Colleges: Alicia Juarrero, Professor,
Philosophy, Prince George's Community College, Largo, MD
Outstanding Doctor and Research Universities: Dennis Jacobs,
Professor, Chemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN
Outstanding Master's Universities and Colleges: Francisco Jimenez,
Director of Ethnic Studies Program and Fay Boyle, Professor in the
department of Modern Languages and Literatures, Santa Clara University,
Santa Clara, CA

state winners

Alabama: Natalie Davis, Professor, Political Science, Birmingham-
Southern College
Alaska: Steven Johnson, Assistant Professor and Director of Debate,
University of Alaska Anchorage
Arizona: Christopher Impey, Professor, Astronomy, University of
Arizona
Arkansas: Gay Stewart, Associate Professor, Physics, University of
Arkansas
California: Cecilia Conrad, Associate Professor, Economics, Pamona
College

[[Page 23162]]

Colorado: Aaron Byerley, Professor, Aeronautical Engineering, United
States Air Forces Academy
Connecticut: Bruce Saulnier, Associate Professor, Computer
Information Systems
District of Columbia: James A. Miller, Professor, English and
American Studies, The George Washington University
Florida: Llewellyn M. Ehrhart, Professor, Biology, University of
Central Florida
Georgia: Evelyn Dandy, Professor and Director of Pathways, Education,
University of Central Florida
Idaho: Todd Shallat, Professor, History, Boise State University
Illinois: Nancy Beck Young, Associate Professor, History, McKendree
College
Indiana: Leah H. Jamieson, Professor and Co-director of EPICS
Program, Purdue University
Iowa: Herman Blake, Professor, Educational Leadership and Policy
Studies, Iowa State University
Kansas: Peer Moore-Jansen, Associate Professor, Anthropology, Wichita
State University
Kentucky: John J. Furlong, Professor, Philosophy, Transylvania
University
Louisiana: Kay C. Dee, Assistant Professor, Biomedical Engineering,
Tulane University
Maine: Keith W. Hutchinson, Professor, Biochemistry, University of
Maine
Maryland: Spencer Benson, Associate Professor, University of Maryland
College Park
Massachusetts: Judith Miller, Professor, Biology and Biotechnology,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Michigan: Mark Francek, Professor, Central Michigan University
Minnesota: Robin Hasslen, Professor, Child and Family Studies, St.
Cloud State University
Mississippi: Robert McElvaine, Professor, Arts and Letters, Millsaps
College
Missouri: Anthony Vazzana, Assistant Professor, Mathematics, Truman
State University
Montana: Esther L. England, Professor, Music, The University of
Montana-Missoula
Nebraska: James H. Wiest, Professor, Sociology, Hastings College
New Hampshire: Davina M. Brown, Professor, Psychology, Franklin
Pierce College
New Jersey: Thomas Heed, Associate Professor of Accounting, New
Mexico State University
New York: George J. Searles, Professor, Humanities, Mohawk Valley
Community College
North Carolina: Richard A. Huber, Associate Professor, Curricular
Studies, The University of North Carolina at Wilmington
North Dakota: Lorraine Willoughby, Associate Professor, Minot State
University
Ohio: Dorothy Salem, Professor, History, Cuyahoga Community College
Oklahoma: Christopher Oehrlein, Professor, Mathematics, Oklahoma City
Community College
Oregon: Nicole Aas-Rouxparis, Professor, French, Lewis and Clark
Pennsylvania: Roseanne Hofmann, Professor, Mathematics, Montgomery
County Community College
South Carolina: Fred C. James, Professor, Biology, Presbyterian
College
Tennessee: Donald Potter Jr., Professor, Geology, University of the
South
Utah: Jan Sojka, Professor, Physics, Utah State University
Vermont: Andrie Kusserow, Assistant Professor, Sociology/
Anthropology, Saint Michael's College
Washington: Suzanne Wilson Barnett, Professor, History, University of
Puget Sound
West Virginia: Elizabeth Fones-Wolf, Associate Professor, History,
West Virginia University
Wisconsin: Cecelia Zorn, Professor, Nursing, University of Wisconsin-
Bau Claire

____________________

TRIBUTE TO ERV NEFF, PRESIDENT, MINNESOTA STATE RETIREE COUNCIL, AFL-
CIO

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise to honor Erv Neff, a
longtime friend and current President of the Minnesota State Retiree
Council, AFL-CIO. On December 4, Erv will step down as the President of
the Retiree Council after six years of dedicated service. Under Erv's
leadership, the Minnesota State Retiree Council, AFL-CIO, has grown
from 19 affiliated organizations in 1996 to 115 affiliated
organizations today. Erv established the goal to expand the membership
and the mission of the Retiree Council, and he succeeded admirably.
Erv has a lifetime of distinguished accomplishments. They include his
stewardship of the Twin Cities Musicians Union and his service as an
invaluable advisor to dozens of prominent public officials. His legacy
will be enhanced by his post-retirement activities. Many people view
retirement as an opportunity to relax after a lifetime of hard work and
personal and professional accomplishments. Not Erv Neff. Erv recognized
the potential positive contributions Minnesota retirees could make
toward improving the quality of life in our state. He joined the AFL-
CIO Retiree Council and was quickly elected to leadership positions
within the organization. Since his election as President of the Council
in 1996, Erv has demonstrated that the Council could play an active
role in promoting legislative initiatives that would benefit senior
citizens and working men and women. He led the Council's efforts to
pass improved prescription drug benefits for senior citizens at the
state and national levels. He arranged for prominent speakers to appear
at monthly Council meetings to educate members on a wide variety of
issues. By demonstrating the ability of the Council to play an
effective role in improving the lives of senior citizens, Erv was able
to build the Council into one of the most vigorous advocacy
organizations in Minnesota.
I hope that Erv will look back with deserved pride on his service to
working men and women and senior citizens. He has accomplished much
throughout his life, and thousands of Minnesotans owe him their
gratitude.
I wish Erv and his wife, Betsy, the very best this life has to
offer.

____________________

POLITICAL REFORM IN EGYPT

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to address an
important area for American foreign policy: much needed political
reform in Egypt.
In the past, Egypt has proven to be a helpful ally. Egypt showed
courage in becoming the first Arab nation to sign a peace treaty with
Israel after the Camp David talks in 1978. Egypt fought with the broad
international coalition we led as part of the Gulf War in 1990-91. And
I believe that at times Egypt has helped to provide a moderate and
thoughtful voice to discussions with more radical Arab states about
Middle East and international issues. In fact, Egypt was banned from
the Arab League for a number of years for some of its stands, and
President Sadat was assassinated for his role in the Camp David talks.
However, I am very concerned about political repression in Egypt and
the effect that this could have on the direction that nation takes in
the future and on the larger issue of Middle East peace.
We have seen in recent years how political and economic repression in
many Arab states have fueled the fires of Islamic radicalism. Arab
communities that have little or no hope of economic progress, and where
views are stifled by autocratic authorities, have proven to be fertile
ground for radicals like Osama bin Laden and others who play to their
fears, and use their anger and frustration as weapons. We know that
radical Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism thrive in nations
struggling with oppression and poverty. I think there is a clear link
between the motives we have seen of those individuals involved in the
September 11 attacks, the bombing of the Khobar towers and other
terrorist acts with the repressive environments in their home nations.
Now I am afraid that the lack of political and legal reform in Egypt
has become a growing problem, and this could further add to other
mounting obstacles we now see in the Arab world.

[[Page 23163]]

Consequently, the Egyptian government needs to seriously address
democratic and institutional reform and it needs to do so quickly.
Since holding out an olive branch to Israel at Camp David, Egypt has
received a great deal of American economic and military assistance.
While many roads and infrastructure projects have been built over the
years, now is the time to press Egypt to embrace and enact political
reforms. This will have a positive impact on both Egyptian civil
society and the economy.
For instance, as a Washington Post editorial recently pointed, Egypt
needs to develop a responsible media that objectively reports news and
information instead of government-backed anti-American and anti-Semitic
propaganda that does nothing but fuel tensions throughout the region.
Also, Egypt needs to do a better job of strengthening the rule of
law. This is fundamental not only to the development of a market
economy, but to more robust social expression. I believe it would be in
Egypt's best interest to immediately release Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a dual
American-Egyptian citizen who is in prison for the ``crime'' of
advocating political reforms.
So far we have not debated in the Senate on the Foreign Operations
appropriations bill for the 2003 fiscal year. And it now looks like we
may not even have the opportunity to address it at all before the end
of this Congress.
But, let me serve notice to my colleagues that when the Senate takes
up the Foreign Operations bill next year that I plan to bring up the
issue of political reform in Egypt and ask that we take a closer look
at U.S. aid to that nation.
In fact, I have already drafted an amendment that would modify
current law to expand the understanding that in providing assistance,
the United States expects both economic and political reform be
undertaken in Egypt.
I very much look forward to this debate.

____________________

RETIREMENT OF CECIL WILLIAMS--AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL OF ARKANSAS

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the long
and great career of Cecil Williams, who spent a life's work fighting on
behalf of farmers and the farming way of life in my home State of
Arkansas.
Cecil is retiring, after leading the Agricultural Council of Arkansas
for 37 years. He joined the organization in 1965 and set to work
immediately doing everything he could to make a better world for the
thousands of farm families that have made their livelihoods out of the
fertile soil of Arkansas. Since then, he has played a central role in
many, many achievements: passage of important check-off programs for
the cotton, rice, soybean, and corn industries; creation of the
Producers Steering Committee within the National Cotton Council; the
implementation of better insurance protection for Arkansas farmers,
just to name a few.
Over the years, he has seen many things come and go--economic crises,
overwhelming floods and endless droughts, farm bill after farm bill,
and, yes, he has seen many politicians come and go, too.
He has also seen a lot of changes and a lot of problems that won't
seem to go away: higher farm costs against ever lower commodity prices,
urban and suburban sprawl that increasingly compete for land resources,
a slow but continual rise in the average age of farmers.
Through it all, Cecil Williams has fought, tooth and nail, for
Arkansas's farmers. He has fought with grit and determination, with
passion and loyalty. He has fought with heart and with every bead of
sweat he could give. He is a company man who has endured almost as long
as the company. And through the years, he has quietly but surely built
a career that stands as an inspiration for all of us who believe in
production agriculture. I suppose he is not old enough to be the father
of Arkansas agriculture, but he certainly has been its guardian. And he
has served it well.
I have known Cecil for many years, first as the daughter of a rice
farmer in the Arkansas Delta, and for the past 10 years as a Senator
and congresswoman. Through two farm bills and through countless attacks
on the foundation of America's farm policy, I have relied on Cecil's
counsel and wisdom. His advice has always been sound, always deeply
rooted in a respect and admiration for the people we both serve. He has
never let us down.
And, now, on his retirement, it is my fervent hope that we who
inherit his years of dedication and service will preserve and
perpetuate his example, that we do not let him down.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DR. MARY JANE BRANNON

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Mary Jane Crump Brannon graduated
from Huntingdon College in 1937 with majors in biology and English, and
a minor in French. She received her Master of Arts degree from the
University of Alabama in 1938 in Parasitology. She did further graduate
work at the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois. She
completed her Ph.D. in Parasitology at Tulane University in 1943. She
was the mother of six children, and taught biology at her alma mater
for forty years.
She began teaching at Huntingdon in 1956, and taught full-time until
1986, and part-time for ten more years. During much of this time and
during the time I was a student at Huntingdon, she was head of the
Biology Department. After her retirement she ran an Elderhostel program
for Huntingdon College and the Alabama Shakespeare Festival.
Those are the facts about Dr. Brannon and her career, but they do not
begin to hint at the many lives she touched while teaching at
Huntingdon. She was a great teacher, brilliant scientist, and
incredibly committed to the betterment of her students.
Every student who studied advanced biology at Huntingdon during those
40 years knew Dr. Brannon, and she knew them and took an interest in
them. They overlooked her difficulty with names--``Please answer
question number seven Joe-Charlie-Sally-whatever your name is,
child..''--because they knew she cared about them, and because she
really wanted them to learn biology. She was very demanding of her
students, but none were afraid of her; they knew she would do her best
to teach them.
Pre-med students all looked to her for advice in getting into medical
school. One student wanted to go to Tulane Medical School, but could
not afford it. Dr. Brannon and the Chairman of the Tulane Admissions
Committee were friends, and she called him. After their conversation
Tulane offered that student a full tuition scholarship. Scholarships to
medical school were even rarer then than they are now!
It would be difficult to count the number of students she helped get
into graduate or professional school, but in 1983 she had taught 56
Doctors of Medicine or Osteopathy, seven dentists, and dozens of
biologists. In 1983 alone, eleven Huntingdon graduates were admitted to
medical school, out of a graduating class of less than 200! Many of
these owed their acceptance into medical, dental, or graduate school to
her advice, or to having her ``pull strings'' with directors of
admission. Huntingdon's 89% acceptance rate to medical school was in
large part due to her teaching and leadership.
Dr. Brannon followed the lives of her former students closely, and
every year she contacted them in person or by mail. They all looked
forward to the ``Biology Christmas Letter'' to find out what their
college friends were doing currently. She served as a hub for
information about classmates and the college. Dr. Brannon, by her
loyalty to Huntingdon College caused her students to recognize the
uniqueness of the school, and to be loyal also. When I attended
Huntingdon College, everyone knew there was no more talented,
hardworking or loyal student than those in the biology department. They
were a special group. They reflected her values.

[[Page 23164]]

Students went to Dr. Brannon with their personal problems, too. One
student, who now has a Ph.D. in chemistry, tells of going to Dr.
Brannon for advice about her boyfriend, who had proposed. ``I remember
seeking her advice, which was practical, insightful, and blunt, when a
guy asked me to marry him my last year at Huntingdon. She told me if I
were going to get a Ph.D., that particular guy would not be a good
match intellectually, etc. She told me there would be plenty of guys
who would want to marry me later on after I received my Ph.D. She
encouraged me to get my education first, which was a bold statement
from a teacher to a female student in the 1970s.''
She was always arranging field trips for her students to take--trips
to research labs, to the medical and dental schools, or to wilderness
areas of Alabama. She planned and coordinated an annual trip to Panama
City, Florida, right after the end of the school year so that students
could gather biological specimens. It was also so they could have a
little fun, but she was their chaperone, and nobody dared misbehave!
She always gave a nighttime lecture and demonstration on
bioluminescence, showing us the ``things in the Gulf that glow in the
dark.''
Every semester, for every class that she taught, Dr. Brannon invited
the entire class over to her home for dinner. She did this for more
than 30 years, each semester. It was a personal way of telling us that
she cared about us and wanted to share her home and talents with us.
She was a superb teacher. She taught students about biology, but
perhaps more importantly she taught them about living and loving.
Because of the real interest she had in each student, she was a
powerful influence for good in each one's life.
Teachers are very important people. Many have touched my life in
significant ways. Those special teachers who have a real passion for
truth and excellence, and who care deeply about their subjects and
their students are the ones who change lives--and change them for the
better. Dr. Mary Jane Brannon was one of those. She saw the world
clearly, spoke quickly and frankly (when one speaks the truth there is
less need to hesitate), and strongly desired that her students live
lives dedicated to excellence. Those who studied under her could not be
unaffected. Indeed, she inspired students who were not her students.
She was more than a teacher, she was a force for learning and right
living.
Her former students remember her with gratitude, admiration and
love.

____________________

IN HONOR OF NATIONAL BIBLE WEEK

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to join the National
Bible Association in celebrating one of the most important pieces of
literature in human history: the Bible. As Senate co-chair of National
Bible Week 2002, it is my honor to participate in a nationwide
recognition of the Bible's importance in our daily lives. From November
24 through December 1, communities and churches across America will
take part in this tradition by reading and reflecting on the Bible's
teachings and how they can help us to lead better lives.
This week of Biblical awareness is something that those whose faiths
are based in Judeo-Christian belief can appreciate. But National Bible
Week is also an opportunity for Americans of all religious backgrounds
to experience the benefits of Bible study. Just as America's students
read the Constitution of the United States and examine the laws that
govern our social behavior, so should everyone read the Bible and
consider the traditions and lessons that have come to govern our moral
behavior. The ethical guidelines that the Bible provides for us have,
in large part, built the moral basis of the Western world and its
governments. Furthermore, the notions of right and wrong, of good and
bad, and the principles we teach our children are illustrated by the
Bible's stories. Through this book, God's word gives us a complete set
of simple rules to follow to lead a virtuous life.
National Bible Week encourages the country to make time, over the
course of 8 days, for returning to the source of their religious
beliefs. In this way, a nationwide look at the Bible serves to bring
people of different sects and schools together. It allows us to
recognize the common text we all share, regardless of denomination or
church, and lays down a standard of conduct and piety that applies to
everyone without discrimination.
As a practicing Catholic, I carry God's word in my heart every day
and, for me, the Bible is a source of strength and comfort. In my own
behavior, with my family, and in my work, I rely on God's message to
guide me. It is my hope that those who may have put the Bible aside
will open themselves up to National Bible Week as a chance to reread
such an important text, for believers and nonbelievers alike.
National Bible Week 2002 will be inaugurated in New York with a
kickoff luncheon to raise funds for the National Bible Association, an
organization dedicated to promoting daily Bible reading. I congratulate
this group's efforts to encourage better Biblical understanding and to
draw people of faith towards common ground for a clearer, more
universal understanding of the Bible's lessons and God's word.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.

____________________

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session the PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)

____________________

REPORT DOCUMENTING THE STATE OF SMALL BUSINESS AT THE END OF THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY--PM 121

The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship:

To the Congress of the United States:
This report documents the state of small business at the end of the
20th century. Small businesses have always been the backbone of our
economy. The perennially account for most innovation and job creation.
Small businesses have sustained the economy when it is robust and
growing as well as in weaker times when small businesses have put the
economy back on the track to long-term growth.
We must work together to give small businesses an environment in
which they can thrive. Small businesses are disproportionately affected
by Government regulations and paperwork, and I am committed to reducing
this burden. We should regulate only where there is a real need, fully
justified through rigorous cost-benefit analysis and clear legal
authority. And when Government must regulate, it must adopt commonsense
approaches. Regulations work best when agencies anticipate and analyze
the effects of their proposals on small firms. Rules need to reflect
the ability of small businesses to comply.
Another barrier to unleashing the full potential of small business is
our tax code. I am committed to reducing taxes for all Americans--
especially small businesses. We must eliminate permanently the estate
tax, which so often has spelled the death of the business and the jobs
of its employees after the death of its founder. Our tax code should
encourage investment in small businesses, and particularly in new and
growing businesses. Because the innovations that drive tomorrow's
economy come from entrepreneurial small businesses today, we must help
them enter the marketplace, not impede them before they get there.
Above all, small

[[Page 23165]]

businesses need a tax code that is understandable and stable. Fairness,
simplicity, transparency, and accountability should be our goals, and I
am committed to this end.
Small business embodies so much of what America is all about. Self-
reliance, hard work, innovation, the courage to take risks for future
growth: theses are values that have served our Nation well since its
very beginning. They are values to be passed on from generation to
generation. We must ensure that our small businesses continue to thrive
and prosper, not just for their own sakes, but for all of us.
George W. Bush.
The White House, November 19, 2002.

____________________

REPORT ENTITLED ANNUAL REPORT OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001--PM 122

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions:

To The Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith the Annual Report of the Railroad Retirement
Board presented for forwarding to you for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2001, pursuant to the provisions of section 7(b)(6) of
the Railroad Retirement Act and section 12(1) of the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act.
George W. Bush.
The White House, November 19, 2002.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

At 2:15 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Rota, one of its clerks, announced that the Clerk of the House
of Representatives be directed to request the Senate to return the
official papers on the bill (S. 1843) to extend certain hydro-electric
licenses in the State of Alaska.
At 2:15 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker
has signed the following enrolled bills:

The enrolled bills were signed subsequently by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Byrd).

____________________

ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED

S. 1214. An act to amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, to establish
a program to ensure greater security for United States seaports, and
for other purposes.

____________________

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred
as indicated:

EC-9643. A communication from the Administrator, Tobacco
Programs, Agriculture Marketing Program, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Flue-Cured Tobacco Advisory Committee
Amendment of Regulation'' [Doc. No. TB-02-14](RIN0581-AC11)
received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9644. A communication from the Administrator, Tobacco
Programs, Agriculture Marketing Program, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment to the Beef Promotion and Research
Rules Regulations'' [Doc. No. LS-99-20] received on November
7, 2002; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-9645. A communication from the Administrator, Tobacco
Programs, Agriculture Marketing Program, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and Tangelos
Grown in Florida; Exemption for Shipments of Tree Run
Citrus'' [Doc. No. FV02-905-4 IFR] received on November 7,
2002; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-9646. A communication from the Administrator, Tobacco
Programs, Agriculture Marketing Program, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Kiwi Fruit Grown in California; Increased
Assessment Rate'' [Doc No. FV02-920-4-FR] received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-9647. A communication from the Administrator, Tobacco
Programs, Agriculture Marketing Program, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower Rio
Grande Valley in Texas; Decreased Assessment Rate'' [Doc. No.
FV02-906-1 IFR] received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9648. A communication from the Administrator, Tobacco
Programs, Agriculture Marketing Program, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and Tangelos
Grown in Florida; Removing Dancy and Robinson Tangerine
Varieties From the Rules and Regulations'' [Doc. No. FV02-
905-3 FIR] received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9649. A communication from the Administrator, Tobacco
Programs, Agriculture Marketing Program, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Irish Potatoes Grown in Certain Designated
Counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon, and Irish
Potatoes Imported into the United States; Modification of
Handling and Import Regulations'' [FV00-945-2 FR] received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-9650. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Canadian Border Ports; Blaine and
Lynden, WA'' [Doc. No. 02-064-1] received on November 12,
2002; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-9651. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Mediterranean Fruit Fly; Removal
of Quarantined Areas'' [Doc. No. 01-093-3] received on
November 12, 2002; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9652. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Gypsy Moth Generally Infested
Areas'' [Doc. No. 02-053-2] received on November 12, 2002; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9653. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza;
Payment of Indemnity'' [Doc. No. 02-048-1] received on
November 12, 2002; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9654. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Change in Disease Status of
Israel Because of BSE'' [Doc. No. 02-072-2] received on
November 12, 2002; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9655. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Clopyralid; Pesticide Tolerance Technical Correction''
received on October 28, 2002; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9656. A communication from the Acting Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator,

[[Page 23166]]

Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Thiamenthoxam; Pesticide
Tolerance'' received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9657. A communication from the Acting Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Difluenzuron; Pesticide Tolerance Correction'' received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-9658. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Regulatory Law, Veterans Benefits Administration,
Department of Veterans' Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Evidence for Accrued
Benefits'' (RIN2900-AH42) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-9659. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Regulatory Law, Veterans Benefits Administration,
Department of Veterans' Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Service Connection by
Presumption of Aggravation of a Chronic Preexisting Disease''
received on November 13, 2002; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
EC-9660. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Regulatory Law, Veterans Benefits Administration,
Department of Veterans' Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civilian Health and
Medical Program of the Department of Veterans' Affairs''
received on November 13, 2002; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
EC-9661. A communication from the Under Secretary for
Health, Department of Veterans' Affairs, transmitting, a
report entitled ``New Initiatives: Meeting Veterans' Needs''
from the Virginia Office of Research and Development; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-9662. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Texas
Regulatory Program'' (TX-048-FOR) received on November 7,
2002; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9663. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Utah
Regulatory Program'' (UT-041-FOR) received on November 7,
2002; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9664. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Kentucky
Regulatory Program'' (KY-238-FOR) received on November 7,
2002; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9665. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pennsylvania
Regulatory Program'' (PA-136-FOR) received on November 7,
2002; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9666. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Wyoming
Regulatory Program'' (WY-029-FOR) received on November 7,
2002; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9667. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Iowa
Regulatory Program'' (IA-011-FOR) received on November 7,
2002; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9668. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Louisiana
Regulatory Program'' (LA-022-FOR) received on November 7,
2002; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9669. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Kentucky
Regulatory Program'' (KY-237-FOR) received on November 14,
2002; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9670. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Departmental Energy and
Utilities Management'' (DOE O 430.2A) received on November
14, 2002; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9671. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Security, Department of Energy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Eligibility for Security Police Officer Positions in the
Personal Security Assurance Program'' (RIN1992-AA30) received
on November 14, 2002; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
EC-9672. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Security, Department of Energy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Security Conditions'' (DOE N 473.8) received on November
14, 2002; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9673. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Augusta S.P. A.
Model A109E Helicopters'' [Doc. No. 2002-SW-42]((RIN2120-
AA64)(2002-0473)) received on November 12, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9674. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Bell Helicopters
Textron Canada Limited Model 407 Helicopters Docket No. 2002-
SW-38'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0474)); to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9675. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (24) Admt. No. 3029 ((2120-
AA65)(2002-0059)) received on November 12, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9676. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Eurocopter France
Model AS332C, L, L1 helicopters Docket No. 2002-SW-36''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0472)) received on November 12, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9677. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Rockwell Collins,
Inc. FMC-4200, FMC-5000 and FMC-6000 Flight Management
Computers Docket No. 2000-CE-13'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0471))
received on November 12, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-9678. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 737
Series Airplanes Docket No. 2001-NM-251'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2002-0470)) received on November 12, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9679. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation Model S-76A, S-76B and S-76C helicopters; Docket
No. 2001-SW-59'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0447)) received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9680. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Pilatus Aircraft
Ltd. Model PC-6 Airplanes; Docket No. 2002-CE-08'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2002-0448)) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9681. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: British Aerospace
Jetstream Model 3201 Airplanes; Docket No. 2002-CE-25''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0449)) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9682. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Raytheon Aircraft
Company Beech Models C35, D35, E35, F35, G35, H35, J35, K35,
M35, N35, P35, S35, V35, V35A and V35B Airplanes Docket No.
93-CE-37'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0450)) received on November
7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9683. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Agusta S.p.A
model A109E Helicopters Docket No. 2002-SW-06'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2002-0451)) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9684. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier-Rotax
GmbH Type 912F, 912S, and 914F Series Reciprocating Engines
Docket No. 2002-NE-33'' ((2120-AA64)(2002-0452)) received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

[[Page 23167]]

EC-9685. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Britax Sell GmbH
& Co. OHG Water Boilers, Coffee Makers, and Beverage Makers
Docket No. 2000-NE-58'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0453)) received
on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-9686. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell
Douglas, model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82(MD-82), DC-9-83(MD-
83), DC-9-87(MD-87) and MD-88 Airplanes Docket No. 2002-NM-
216'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0454)) received on November 7,
2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9687. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Pratt and Whitney
PW 4000 Series Turbofan Engines Docket No. 2000-NE-47''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0458)) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9688. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell
Douglas, model DC-9-10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 Series Airplanes
Docket No. 2000-NM-57'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0455)) received
on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-9689. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Raytheon Aircraft
Company Beech models 35, 35R, A35 and B35 Airplanes; Docket
No. 2000-CE-44'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0456)) received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9690. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell
Douglas. Model 757-2--, 200CB, and 300 Series Airplanes;
Docket No. 2000-NM-392'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0457)) received
on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-9691. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Pratt & Whitney
JT8D-200 series Turbofan Engines Docket No. 2002-NE-11''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0459)) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9692. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments 29 Amendments No. (3027)''
((RIN2120-AA65)(2002-0055)) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9693. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: EXTRA Flugzeugbau
GmbH Model EA-300S Airplanes; Docket No. 99-CE-85''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0460)) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9694. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 767
series Airplanes Docket No. 2002-NM-250'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2002-0461)) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9695. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Pilatus Aircraft
Ltd. Model PC-6 Airplanes Correction Docket No. 2002-CE-08''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0462)) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9696. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Admt. Class D Airspace; Huntington, WV
Docket No. 02-AEA-06'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(200-0172)) received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9697. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Amdt. of Class D Airspace; Titusville, FL
Docket No. 02-ASO-18'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2002-0173)) received
on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-9698. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (44) Amdt. No. 3028'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(2002-0056)) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9699. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments 3
Amdt. No. 438 Docket No. 30336'' ((RIN2120-AA63)(2002-0009))
received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-9700. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Amdt. to Gordon, NE Class E Airspace Area
Docket No. 02-ACE-9'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2002-0175)) received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9701. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E5 Airspace; Spurce
Pine, NC Docket No. 02-ASO-14'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2002-0176))
received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-9702. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Pilatus Britten-
Norman Limited BN-2, BN2B, BN2T and BN2A MK.III Series
Aiplanes Docket No. 2002-CE-21'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0464))
received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-9703. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Stemme GmbH & Co.
KG Model S10-VT Sailplanes Docket No. 2002'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2002-0463)) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9704. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Pilatus Aircraft
Ltd. Model PC-& Airplanes Docket No. 2002-CE-28'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2002-0465)) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9705. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: MORAVAN a.s.
Models Z-143L and Z-242L Airplanes Docket No. 99-CE-71''
received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-9706. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedure;
Miscellaneous Amendments (18) Admt. No. 3030'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(2002-0058)) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9707. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing model 737-
100, 200, 200C-300, 400 and 500 Series Airplanes Docket No.;
2002-NM-214'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0469)); to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9708. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Hartzell
Propeller Inc. Model HD-E6C-3 Propellers Docket No. 2001-NE-
43'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0467)) received on November 7,
2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9709. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E5 Airspace;
Franklin, NC Correction Docket No. 02-ASO-10'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(2002-0177)) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9710. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation,

[[Page 23168]]

transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Honeywell International, Inc.
(formerly AlliedSignal, Inc. and textron Lycoming) LF507 and
ALF502R Series Turbofan Engines Docket No. 2002-Ne-21''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2002-0468)) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9711. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations;
(Including 2 regulations) [CGD07-02-132][COTP San Juan 02-
133]'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2002-0202)) received on November 12,
2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9712. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations (Including 2
Regulations) [CGD08-02-025] [CGD08-02-036]'' ((RIN2115-
AE47)(2002-0094)) received on November 12, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9713. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Special Anchorage Area/Anchorage Grounds
Regulations: Frenchman Bay, Bar Harbor, ME (CGD01-02-027)''
((RIN2115-AA98)(2002-0002)) received on November 12, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9714. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: Shrewbury River, NJ
(CGDO1-02-122)'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2002-0095)) received on
November 12, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9715. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Captain
of the Port Detroit Zone, Selfridge Army National Guard Base,
Lake St. Clair (CGD09-02-523)'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2002-0199))
received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-9716. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Oahu,
Maui, Hawaii and Kauaii, HI (CGD14-02-001)'' ((RIN2115-
AA97)(2002-0200)) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9717. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: Danvers River, MA
(CGD01-02-118)'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2002-0091)) received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9718. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Connecticut River,
CT (CGD01-02-100)'' ((RIN215-AE47)(2002-0093)) received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9719. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: Illinois Waterway,
Joliet, IL (CGD08-02-024)'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2002-0092))
received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-9720. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; (Including 3
regulations) [01-02-117] [01-02-123] [07-02-125]'' ((RIN2115-
AE47)(2002-0090)) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9721. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations: Dorchester Bay
(CGD01-02-101)'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2002-0089)) received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9722. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Gulfstream, Model G-V Series
Airplanes; Docket No. 2002-NM-255 [10-16/10-24]'' (RIN2120-
AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9723. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: REVO, Incorporated Models Lake
LA-4, LA-4A, LA-4P, LA4-200 and Lake Model 250 Airplanes;
Docket No. 2002-CE-40'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on November
7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9724. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Agusta SpA Model A119 Helicopter;
Docket No. 2002-SW-46'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on November
7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9725. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Rockwell Collins, Inc. AFD 3010
Adaptive Flight Display Units; Docket No. 2002-CE-39''
(RIN2120-AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9726. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Cirrus Design Corporation Model
SR20 and SR22 Airplanes; Docket No. 2002-CE-41'' (RIN2120-
AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9727. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopter, Inc Model MD900
Helicopters; Docket No. 2001-SW-25'' (RIN2120-AA66) received
on November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-9728. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier-Rotax Type 912 F, 912
S and 914 F Series Reciprocating Engines; Docket No. 2002-NE-
17'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9729. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures: Miscellaneous
Amendments (106); Amdt. No. 3025'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9730. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class D Airspace; Henderson Airport; Las
Vegas, NV; Docket No. 02-AWP-4'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9731. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E5 Airspace; Morganton, NC; Docket No.
02-ASO-17'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9732. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Matawan, NJ; Docket No. 02-
AEA-16'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9733. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E5 Airspace; Highlands, NC; Docket No.
02-ASO-12'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9734. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E5 Airspace, Asheville, NC; Docket No.
02-ASO-11'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9735. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E5 Airspace; Marion, NC; Docket No. 02-
ASO-13'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9736. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule

[[Page 23169]]

entitled ``Amendment of Class E5 Airspace; Andrews-Murphys,
NC; Docket No. 02-ASO-16'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on
November 7, 2002; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-9737. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E5 Airspace; Sylva, NC; Docket No. 02-
ASO-15'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9738. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E5 Airspace; Franklin, NC; Docket No.
02-ASO-10'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9739. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E5 Airspace; Prestonburg, KY; Docket No.
02-ASO-09'' (RIN2120-AA66) received on November 7, 2002; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary:
Report to accompany S. 2480, a bill to amend title 18,
United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former
law enforcement officers from state laws prohibiting the
carrying of concealed handguns. (Rept. No. 107-345).
By Mr. JEFFORDS, from the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, without amendment:
S. 2065: A bill to provide for the implementation of air
quality programs developed pursuant to an Intergovernmental
Agreement between the Southern Ute Indian Tribes and the
State of Colorado concerning Air Quality Control on the
Southern Ute Indian Reservation, and for other purposes.
(Rept. No. 107-346).
By Mr. JEFFORDS, from the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute:
S. 556: A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce
emissions from electric powerplants, and for other purposes.
(Rept. No. 107-347).
By Mr. HOLLINGS, from the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, without amendment:
S. 2946: A bill to reauthorize the Federal Trade Commission
for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, and for other
purposes. (Rept. No. 107-348).
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, without amendment:
S. 3070: A bill to authorize appropriations for the Merit
Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel,
and for other purposes. (Rept. No. 107-349).
By Mr. INOUYE, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 1340: A bill to amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act
to provide for probate reform with respect to trust or
restricted lands.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, without amendment:
S. 1822: A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
allow certain catchup contributions to the Thrift Savings
Plan to be made by participants age 50 or over.

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following executive reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. LEVIN from the Committee on Armed Services:
Arthur James Collingsworth, of California, to be a Member
of the National Security Education Board for a term of four
years.
Air Force nominations beginning Brigadier General Richard
C. Collins and ending Colonel Bradley C. Young, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on October 16, 2002.
Air Force nomination of Maj. Gen. Arthur J. Lichte.
Army nomination of Colonel Terry W. Saltsman.
Army nomination of Col. Michael H. Sumrall.
Army nominations beginning Brigadier General Daniel D.
Densford and ending Colonel Merrel W. Yocum, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on October 16, 2002.
Navy nomination of Rear Adm. Stanley R. Szemborski.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in
the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered:

Air Force nominations beginning Branford J. Mcallister and
ending Alice Smart, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on October
16, 2002.
Navy nominations beginning Rowland E Mccoy and ending Alan
K Wilmot, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on October 16, 2002.
Air Force nomination of David G. Smith.
Navy nominations beginning Rodney D Abbott and ending
Bernerd C Zwahlen, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on October
17, 2002.
Army nominations beginning Tom R. Mackenzie and ending
Terrence D. Wright, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November
12, 2002.
Army nominations beginning Stephen M. Ackman and ending
Joseph M. Zima, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 12,
2002.
Navy nomination of Phillip K. Pall.
Navy nomination of Stephanie L. O'Neal.
Navy nomination of Thomas P. Rosdahl.
Army nominations beginning William C. Cannon and ending
Charles F. Maguire III, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
November 14, 2002.
Navy nominations beginning Robert D. Beal and ending Steven
J. Zaccari, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on November 14, 2002.

(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)

Nominations Discharged

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was
discharged of the following nominations on November 19, 2002:
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Michael F.
Duffy, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission for a term
of six years expiring August 30, 2006.

National Institute For Literacy

Mark G. Yudof, of Minnesota, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of two
years.

National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board

Carmel Borders, of Kentucky, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of three
years.
William T. Hiller, of Ohio, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of one year.
Robin Morris, of Georgia, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of one year.
Jean Osborn, of Illinois, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of two
years.

National Museum Services Board

Margaret Scarlett, of Wyoming, to be a Member of the
National Museum Services Board for a term expiring December
6, 2007.
David Donath, of Vermont, to be a Member of the National
Museum Services Board for a term expiring December 6, 2004.
The Committee on Governmental Affairs was discharged of the
following nominations on November 19, 2002:

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

Alejandro Modesto Sanchez, of Florida, to be a Member of
the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board for a term
expiring October 11, 2006.
Andrew Saul, of New York, to be a Member of the Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board for a term expiring
September 25, 2004.
Gordon Whiting, of New York, to be a Member of the Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board for a term expiring
September 25, 2006.
The Committee on Veterans Affairs was discharged of the
following nomination on November 19, 2002:

Department of Veterans Affairs

William H. Campbell, of Maryland, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Management).

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. KYL:
S. 3. A bill to repeal the sunset of the provisions of the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 23170]]

By Mr. GRAMM:
S. 4. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
treat earnings on contributions to tax-deferred savings
accounts as gain from the sale or exchange of a capital
asset; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. GRAMM (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 5. A bill to strengthen and permanently preserve social
security through the power of investment and compound
interest without benefit reductions or tax increases, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3173. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
establish a national health program administered by the
Office of Personnel Management to offer Federal employee
health benefits plans to individuals who are not Federal
employees, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold,
and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 3174. A bill to permanently reenact chapter 12 of title
11, United States Code, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 3175. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to reduce the tax on beer to its pre-1991 level; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux):
S. 3176. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow employers in renewal communities to qualify for the
renewal community employment credit by employing residents of
certain other renewal communities; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 3177. A bill to authorize appropriations for the
programs of the Department of Commerce's National Institute
of Standards and Technology, to amend the National Institute
of Standards and Technology Act, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3178. A bill to amend the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act and the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco
Health Education Act of 1986 to require warning labels for
tobacco products; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3179. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide health care coverage for qualified caregivers; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs.
Clinton):
S. Res. 359. A resolution recognizing the importance and
accomplishments of the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Miller,
Mr. Cleland, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Clinton, and
Mr. Akaka):
S. Res. 360. A resolution congratulating former President
Jimmy Carter for being awarded the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize,
and commending him for his lifetime of dedication to peace;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Murkowski):
S. Con. Res. 159. A concurrent resolution to correct the
enrollment of S. 1843; considered and agreed to.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 145

At the request of Mr. Thurmond, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 145, a bill to
amend title 10, United States Code, to increase to parity with other
surviving spouses the basic annuity that is provided under the
uniformed services Survivor Benefit Plan for surviving spouses who are
at least 62 years of age, and for other purposes.

S. 776

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 776, a bill to amend title
XIX of the Social Security Act to increase the floor for treatment as
an extremely low DSH State to 3 percent in fiscal year 2002.

S. 917

At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 917, a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income
amounts received on account of claims based on certain unlawful
discrimination and to allow income averaging for backpay and frontpay
awards received on account of such claims, and for other purposes.

S. 1203

At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1203, a bill to amend
title 38, United States Code, to provide housing loan benefits for the
purchase of residential cooperative apartment units.

S. 1221

At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1221, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to establish an additional basis for
establishing the inability of veterans to defray expenses of necessary
medical care, and for other purposes.

S. 1375

At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1375, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax-free distributions from
individual retirement accounts for charitable purposes.

S. 1506

At the request of Mr. Dayton, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1506, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the
requirement for reduction of SBP survivor annuities by dependency and
indemnity compensation.

S. 1860

At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1860, a bill to reward
the hard work and risk of individuals who choose to live in and help
preserve America's small, rural towns, and for other purposes.

S. 2562

At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2562, a bill to expand research
regarding inflammatory bowel disease, and for other purposes.

S. 2933

At the request of Mr. Breaux, the names of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Durbin) were added as cosponsors of S. 2933, a bill to
promote elder justice, and for other purposes.

S. 3004

At the request of Mr. Helms, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3004, a bill to
eliminate the Federal quota and price support programs for certain
tobacco, to compensate quota owners and holders for the loss of tobacco
quota asset value, to establish a tobacco community reinvestment
program, and for other purposes.

S. 3074

At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3074, a bill to provide
bankruptcy judgeships.

S. 3094

At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 3094, a bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 to clarify the rates applicable to marketing assistance loans and
loan deficiency payments for other oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, and
small chickpeas.

S. 3114

At the request of Ms. Snowe, her name was added as a cosponsor of S.
3114, a bill to ensure that a public safety officer who suffers a fatal
heart attack or stroke while on duty shall be presumed to have died in
the line of duty for purposes of public safety officer survivor
benefits.

S. 3125

At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3125, a bill
to designate ``God Bless America'' as the national song of the United
States.

[[Page 23171]]

S. 3125

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3125, supra.

S. RES. 339

At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Fitzgerald) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 339, a resolution
designating November 2002, as ``National Runaway Prevention Month.''

S. CON. RES. 3

At the request of Mr. Feingold, the names of the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) were added as
cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 3, a concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued
in honor of the U.S.S. Wisconsin and all those who served aboard her.

S. CON. RES. 157

At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Miller) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 157, a concurrent
resolution expressing the sense of Congress that United States
Diplomatic missions should provide the full and complete protection of
the United States to certain citizens of the United States living
abroad.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. KYL:
S. 3. A bill to repeal the sunset of the provisions of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Investors are the backbone of the U.S.
economic system. They provide the capital that entrepreneurs use to
start and grow businesses. Investors invest in everything from
corporations like General Electric to the local Mom and Pop convenience
store. These are the businesses that employ our American workers and
compete against other businesses throughout the United States and the
world. It is investor capital that fuels the most dynamic workings of
our economy.
Too often, our Federal Government has taken the American investor for
granted. Even worse, our Federal Government has singled him out for
adverse treatment by placing significant impediments in his path.
Congress needs to refocus our government's attention on helping our
investors as well as making our U.S. businesses more attractive
entities in which to invest.
Today, I am introducing legislation, the ``Contract with Investors,''
which incorporates a number of proposals to foster a better investment
environment.
In order to satisfy an arcane Senate budget rule, the 2001 tax-relief
law's provisions will expire in 2011. Making this bipartisan tax relief
permanent will eliminate a large source of investor uncertainty that
currently exists in the marketplace. Businesses are having a hard time
planning with the Tax Code potentially reverting back to old tax laws.
Businesses, and the investors who own them, need certainty and a stable
environment in which to prosper. Making last year's tax provisions
permanent will go a long way towards providing that certainty.
The second thing my bill does is accelerate last year's marginal
income tax rate reductions. Instead of reducing the tax brackets in
2004 and 2006, as currently scheduled, my bill will move the 2004 rate
reductions up to 2003 and the 2006 rate reductions up to 2004. Marginal
tax-rate reductions benefit all income tax-paying Americans. Many
investors invest in businesses that are sole proprietorships, i.e. non-
incorporated business entities. Owners of these businesses pay the
highest individual marginal income tax rate; under my bill the highest
rate they would pay in 2004 and beyond would be 35 percent, the same
rate as corporations.
The third provision would accelerate the repeal of the estate, or
more accurately ``death'', tax. A December 1998 report by the Joint
Economic Committee concluded that the existence of the death tax during
the last century has reduced the stock of investors' capital in the
economy by nearly half a trillion dollars. The Joint Committee
estimates that, by repealing the death tax and putting those resources
to better use, as many as 240,000 jobs could be created over seven
years, and Americans would have an additional $24.4 billion in
disposable personal income.
Last year, Dr. Wilbur Steger, President of Consad Research
Corporation and a professor at Carnegie Mellon University testified
before the Senate Finance Committee that an immediate death-tax repeal
would provide a $40 billion automatic stimulus to the economy. This is
based on estimates of the amount of net unrealized capital gains that
would be unlocked by such a repeal. Many Americans choose to hold onto
their assets until death in order to obtain for their heirs a ``step-
up'' in basis. Eliminating the death tax and a limited step-up in basis
will provide an incentive for Americans to sell assets before death,
hence the term ``unlocking.''
Under current law, the death tax will go down to zero in 2010 but
reappear thereafter, at potent 2001 levels, thus adding significant
complexity to future death-tax planning, increasing costs that are a
drag on productivity, and retreating from a principled rejection of a
frankly immoral tax. This is unsatisfactory. Until the death tax is
repealed, family businesses, farms and ranches must still pay for
expensive life-insurance policies, death-tax planners, and tax
attorneys. These expenses total more than $12 billion a year, according
to Consad Research Corporation. A more efficient utilization of these
resources would result in an immediate stimulus for the economy. More
workers will be hired, more capital assets purchased and more
productive goods made if we accelerate the elimination of the death tax
and make it permanent. In short, Congress should hurry up and bury the
death tax for all time to enable family businesses, farms, and ranches
to begin investing those billions of wasted resources in the economy,
creating jobs and expanding services, providing a powerful stimulus for
their long-term survival. My bill would permanently repeal the death
tax in 2005, thus allowing all Americans 2 years to plan for a future
in which the federal government no longer taxes the death of its
citizens.
The fourth provision in my Contract with Investors addresses the
taxation of capital gains. My bill would reduce it to 10 percent. The
capital-gains tax is a form of double-taxation that penalizes risk-
taking and entrepreneurship. As many economists, including Federal
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, note, the capital-gains tax should not
exist. Short of eliminating this tax, Congress must enact a large, and
permanent, reduction in the capital-gains tax rate in order to
stimulate new investment and more productive use of resources for both
the short-term and the long-term health of our economy.
According to a recent study by the American Council for Capital
Formation, American taxpayers face capital-gain tax rates that are 35
percent higher than those paid by the average investor in other
countries. In addition, the United States is one of a small number of
countries that requires a holding period for an investment to qualify
for a lower capital-gain treatment.
In the last decade, individual capital-gains rate reductions and
shortening of the holding period has boosted U.S. economic growth.
Reducing the cost of capital will promote the promote the type of
productive business investment that fosters growth in output and high-
paying jobs. Lowering rates will aid entrepreneurs in their effort to
promote technological advances in products and services that people
want and need.
And let's not forget about our national savings. Reducing capital-
gains taxes means fewer taxes on Americans who choose to save for their
future. What our economy needs is to remove impediments for savings and
capital formation. When Americans choose to save for their retirement
security and other financial goals, they are investing in the United
States. We need to make that choice more attractive so

[[Page 23172]]

that Americans choose to invest more in the United States. Reducing the
capital-gains taxes will help achieve this goal.
My bill will also modernize the capital-loss provisions by increasing
the amount of capital loss an individual may deduct against ordinary
income to $10,000 from the current-law $3,000, and indexing it for
future inflation. This $3,000 limit was arbitrarily set over 25 years
ago and would have grown to $10,000 had it been indexed when it was
enacted. Due to this lack of indexation, many investors are forced to
hold on to unproductive investments. Updating this $3,000 limit will
permit investors to sell these unproductive assets and invest the
proceeds in more productive assets.
Next, my bill will provide additional incentives for Americans to
increase the amounts and periods of time in which they invest for their
retirement security. Increasing the annual, maximum IRA contribution
from $3,000 to $5,000 and the annual, maximum 401(k) plan contribution
from $11,000 to $15,000 would enable American workers to save more for
their future by investing in businesses. Increasing from 70.5 to 75 the
age at which those tax-deferred retirement-savings accounts must begin
making minimum required annual withdrawals will allow American seniors
who are approaching this arbitrary age to choose whether to maintain
their investments. They will not longer be forced to divest.
The next provision in my bill would eliminate the double taxation of
corporate profits. Currently, businesses pay income taxes on their
profits. Their investors are forced to pay a second income tax on the
amounts that corporations distribute to them in the form of dividends.
The national Center for Policy Analysis has calculated that the
combined tax rate on corporate profits is approximately 60 percent.
My bill would remedy this problem by exempting from income tax the
dividends received by individuals from publicly traded C corporations.
Eliminating this taxation will produce higher returns on dividend-
yielding equity investments. Companies will have an incentive to make
money and give it to the investor/shareholders in order to increase the
value of the stock. Investors and businesses will benefit from this
proposal.
Finally, I have included five provisions under Sense of the Senate
language. I believe that the Senate must act on these issues and I
stand ready and willing to assist my fellow Senators in solving these
problems.
First, Congress should pass legislation to safeguard American
workers' pension and retirement accounts. This year, the Finance
Committee unanimously passed out of committee such a bill. The Senate
and the House of Representatives should act quickly to pass similar
legislation as soon as possible.
Second, Congress should modernize this country's international tax
provisions in order to permit U.S. companies to better compete
internationally. Our Tax Code's provisions, particularly the
international tax, are placing our U.S. companies and the investors who
own them at a distinct competitive disadvantage. Congress must
modernize these provisions and move towards ending the current practice
of taxing profits earned outside our country's boundaries.
Third, Congress must take the trouble to purge redundant, outdated,
and unscientific regulatory burdens on investors and U.S. companies.
Congress is quick to pass onerous new laws but slow to repeal them.
This is an abdication of our responsibilities as legislators. Before
placing new burdens on investors and businesses, Congress should be
required to perform a cost-benefit analysis as well as instituting
performance criteria to monitor and evaluate these new burdens on U.S.
businesses and investors.
Fourth, Congress should enact meaningful tort reform as soon as
possible.
Finally, Congress should enact meaningful tax reform that simplifies
the Federal Tax Code and reduces the cost-recovery periods that
businesses are forced to use to recover the costs of capital.
Now is the time for bold action. A ``Contract with Investors'' is
long overdue. I have laid out my principles. I look forward to future
hearings and discussions with my colleagues. It's time to get working.
______

By Mr. GRAMM (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 5. A bill to strengthen and permanently preserve social security
through the power of investment and compound interest without benefit
reductions or tax increases, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join the senior Senator
from Texas in introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. He has
worked a decade on this proposal, and I want to ensure that, as he
leaves this distinguished body in a few short weeks, his time and
effort will not have been wasted, for the stakes are far too high.
Everyone knows that America's demographics are rapidly changing. In
just nine short years, in 2011, the first of my generation of baby
boomers will retire. In the 20 years thereafter, the number of
Americans aged 65 and older will grow four times as fast as the number
of working Americans. Under the current system, where no real
investments are ever made and current benefits are paid entirely by
taxing current workers, how do we expect to pay for this shift in
demographics? In 2015, Social Security will be distributing more in
benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, and by 2038, the system
will be completely bankrupt. Congress will be forced to either raise
taxes on the next generation of workers by nearly 40 percent or cut the
benefits of retirees by nearly 30 percent. If we continue to defer the
difficult decisions on how we fix the system, that will be the position
we will find ourselves in. If we begin now, however, we can stabilize
and enhance the system before it is scheduled to go broke. But we must
start now.
In his message to Congress on Social Security in 1935, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt called for a Social Security system of ``voluntary
contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the
annual amounts received in old age.'' This bill embraces that vision,
and will strengthen and permanently preserve Social Security by
actually making investments. All workers will have the option of
investing a portion of their wages into accounts that earn a higher
rate of return. Upon retirement, these investing workers would use the
money in their accounts to purchase an annuity to pay benefits promised
under the current system plus a bonus for participating in the new
system. They could keep any excess. All workers, both those who invest
and those who choose to remain in the current system, would be
guaranteed every dollar of their currently promised benefit. No worker
would ever experience a cut in benefits or a hike in taxes at any time.
And when fully implemented, these changes to Social Security will yield
benefits over two times those currently provided to an average worker.
And the system's coming insolvency in 2038 would be reversed.
It is time for our Nation to confront Social Security's impending
financial crisis. For too long, we have ignored our nation's changing
demographics which will result in a crushing burden being placed on our
Social Security and Medicare systems if we don't deal with this
challenge now. It will demand either higher taxes or reduced benefits
later if we continue to defer our responsibilities. For too long, we
have feared open and informative debate about reforming the Social
Security system, believing that the American people are unwilling to
consider the realities that we face. Politicians have been afraid of
the political risks in honestly dealing with Social Security. The
Congress and the President must face up to their responsibilities in
dealing with this challenge. I will reintroduce this legislation to
reform the Social Security system at the beginning of the next Congress
and look forward to working with my colleagues and President Bush in
this effort.
______

By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3173. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to establish a
national health program administered by

[[Page 23173]]

the Office of Personnel Management to offer Federal employee health
benefits plans to individuals who are not Federal employees, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make
available to all Americans the same range of private health insurance
plans available to Members of Congress and other Federal employees
through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP.
Too many Americans do not have real insurance options. Many
individuals lack insurance because no insurer is willing to cover them
at a reasonable price. Others work for employers who do not provide
health insurance or offer only one insurance provider. This legislation
addresses these issues by giving individuals and businesses access to
the group purchasing power of FEHBP and the wide range of health plans
in that program.
The OPTION Act, Offering People True Insurance Options Nationwide,
would expand insurance options by allowing individuals to enroll in
private health insurance plans nearly identical to the plans available
to federal employees. Though the OPTION program would be separate from
the Federal employees program, it would be modeled after FEHBP and
would draw from FEHBP's strengths: plan choice, group purchasing
savings, comprehensive benefits, and open enrollment periods.
Under this legislation, all FEHBP health plans would be required to
offer an OPTION health plan to non-Federal employees with the same
range of benefits they offer Federal employees through FEHBP.
OPTION enrollees would be placed in a separate risk pool to prevent
any adverse effect on current FEHBP employees, annuitants, and their
families. The OPTION Act would not result in any changes to the
premiums or benefits of today's FEHBP health plans.
OPTION health plans would not be allowed to impose any preexisting
condition exclusions on new OPTION enrollees who have at least one year
of health insurance coverage immediately prior to enrollment in an
OPTION plan. To prevent people from waiting until they are sick to
enroll, health plans would be allowed to exclude coverage for
preexisting conditions for up to one year for people without coverage
immediately prior to enrollment.
One of the few differences from FEHBP is that OPTION plans would be
allowed to vary premiums by age so that younger enrollees would be more
likely to enroll. OPTION plans also would be required to offer rebates
or lower premiums to encourage and reward longevity of health coverage.
These provisions would act as an incentive for people to sign up when
they are young and to maintain continuous coverage.
Along with making FEHBP available in the individual market, the
OPTION program will allow businesses to tap into the type of group
buying power in the federal employees program if they voluntarily
choose to participate. To be eligible, a business would have to be
willing to pay at least a minimum percentage of premiums, varying from
40 percent to 60 percent depending on the size of the business.
Employers would also be offered an incentive to begin enrolling their
employees by allowing them to pay as little as 20 percent of the
premium for the first year. This innovative employer option would
encourage employer health coverage rather than shifting coverage away
from the private sector. I want to emphasize that employer
participation would be entirely voluntary.
Under the OPTION Act, premiums would not be government-subsidized.
Instead, enrollees and those employers who choose to participate would
be responsible for the cost of the premiums.
The OPTION program would be administered by the Office of Personnel
Management, OPM, which administers the FEHBP program, and would
generally follow the rules for FEHBP. OPM has developed considerable
expertise in negotiating and working with health plans and has shown
that it can run a health program well at a minimal cost. We can build
on OPM's expertise to extend the same health insurance options to all
Americans.
Finally, once it is up and running, this program would pay for
itself. Administrative costs would be covered from a portion of the
OPTION premiums. Those who benefit from the program would pay for its
overhead costs.
This legislation could open the door for many Americans to obtain
good health insurance coverage. Health insurance premiums in today's
market can be especially high, both for individuals and for small
businesses buying insurance on their own. This legislation will reduce
the cost of insurance, and as a result will help to reduce the number
of uninsured Americans. It will also expand insurance options. I
encourage my colleagues to support this very important legislation.
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. 3173

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 ``Offering People True
Insurance Options Nationwide Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. OPTION HEALTH INSURANCE.

Subpart G of part III of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``CHAPTER 90A--HEALTH INSURANCE FOR NON-FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

``Sec.
``9051. Definitions.
``9052. Health insurance for non-Federal employees.
``9053. Contract requirement.
``9054. Eligibility.
``9055. Alternative conditions to Federal employee plans.
``9056. Coordination with social security benefits.
``9057. Non-Federal employer participation.

``Sec. 9051. Definitions

``In this chapter--
``(1) the terms defined under section 8901 shall have the
meanings given such terms under that section; and
``(2) the term `Office' means the Office of Personnel
Management.

``Sec. 9052. Health insurance for non-Federal employees

``(a) The Office of Personnel Management shall administer a
health insurance program for non-Federal employees in
accordance with this chapter.
``(b) Except as provided under this chapter, the Office
shall prescribe regulations to apply the provisions of
chapter 89 to the greatest extent practicable to eligible
individuals covered under this chapter.
``(c) In no event shall the enactment of this chapter
result in--
``(1) any increase in the level of individual or Government
contributions required under chapter 89, including copayments
or deductibles;
``(2) any decrease in the types of benefits offered under
chapter 89; or
``(3) any other change that would adversely affect the
coverage afforded under chapter 89 to employees and
annuitants and members of family under that chapter.
``(d) The Office shall develop methods to facilitate
enrollment under this chapter, including the use of the
Internet.
``(e) The Office may enter into contracts for the
performance of appropriate administrative functions under
this chapter.

``Sec. 9053. Contract requirement

``(a) Each contract entered into under section 8902 shall
require a carrier to offer to eligible individuals under this
chapter, throughout each term for which the contract remains
effective, the same benefits (subject to the same maximums,
limitations, exclusions, and other similar terms or
conditions) as would be offered under such contract or
applicable health benefits plan to employees, annuitants, and
members of family.
``(b)(1) The Office may waive the requirements of this
section, if the Office determines, based on a petition
submitted by a carrier that--
``(A) the carrier is unable to offer the applicable health
benefits plan because of a limitation in the capacity of the
plan to deliver services or assure financial solvency;
``(B) the applicable health benefits plan is not sponsored
by a carrier licensed under applicable State law; or
``(C) bona fide enrollment restrictions make the
application of this chapter inappropriate, including
restrictions common to plans which are limited to individuals
having a past or current employment relationship with a
particular agency or other authority of the Government.
``(2) The Office may require a petition under this
subsection to include--
``(A) a description of the efforts the carrier proposes to
take in order to offer the applicable health benefits plan
under this chapter; and

[[Page 23174]]

``(B) the proposed date for offering such a health benefits
plan.
``(3) A waiver under this subsection may be for any period
determined by the Office. The Office may grant subsequent
waivers under this section.

``Sec. 9054. Eligibility

``An individual shall be eligible to enroll in a plan under
this chapter, unless the individual is enrolled or eligible
to enroll in a plan under chapter 89.

``Sec. 9055. Alternative conditions to Federal employee plans

``(a) For purposes of enrollment in a health benefits plan
under this chapter, an individual who had coverage under a
health insurance plan and is not a qualified beneficiary as
defined under section 4980B(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 shall be treated in a similar manner as an
individual who begins employment as an employee under chapter
89.
``(b) In the administration of this chapter, covered
individuals under this chapter shall be in a risk pool
separate from covered individuals under chapter 89.
``(c)(1) Each contract under this chapter may include a
preexisting condition exclusion as defined under section
9801(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(2)(A) The preexisting condition exclusion under this
subsection shall provide for coverage of a preexisting
condition to begin not more than 1 year after the date of
coverage of an individual under a health benefits plan,
reduced by 1 month for each month that individual was covered
under a health insurance plan immediately preceding the date
the individual submitted an application for coverage under
this chapter.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, a lapse in coverage
of not more than 63 days immediately preceding the date of
the submission of an application for coverage shall not be
considered a lapse in continuous coverage.
``(d)(1) Rates charged and premiums paid for a health
benefits plan under this chapter--
``(A) may be adjusted and differ from such rates charged
and premiums paid for the same health benefits plan offered
under chapter 89;
``(B) shall be negotiated in the same manner as negotiated
under chapter 89; and
``(C) shall be adjusted to cover the administrative costs
of this chapter.
``(2) In determining rates and premiums under this
chapter--
``(A) the age of covered individuals may be considered; and
``(B) rebates or lower rates and premiums shall be set to
encourage longevity of coverage.
``(e) No Government contribution shall be made for any
covered individual under this chapter.
``(f) If an individual who is enrolled in a health benefits
plan under this chapter terminates the enrollment, the
individual shall not be eligible for reenrollment until the
first open enrollment period following 6 months after the
date of such termination.

``Sec. 9056. Coordination with social security benefits

``Benefits under this chapter shall, with respect to an
individual who is entitled to benefits under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act, be offered (for use in
coordination with those social security benefits) to the same
extent and in the same manner as if coverage were under
chapter 89.

``Sec. 9057. Non-Federal employer participation

``(a) In this section the term--
``(1) `employee', notwithstanding section 9051, means an
employee of a non-Federal employer;
``(2) `non-Federal employer' means an employer that is not
the Federal Government; and
``(3) `total premium amount' means the total premiums for
individual coverage for the health benefits plan under which
the employee is enrolled, regardless of whether the employee
is enrolled as an individual or for self and family.
``(b)(1) The Office shall prescribe regulations under which
non-Federal employers may participate under this chapter,
including--
``(A) the offering of health benefits plans under this
chapter to employees through participating non-Federal
employers; and
``(B) a requirement for participating non-Federal employer
contributions to the payment of premiums for employees who
enroll in a health benefits plan under this chapter.
``(2) A participating non-Federal employer shall pay an
employer contribution for the premiums of an employee or
other applicable covered individual as follows:
``(A) A non-Federal employer that employs not more than 2
employees shall not be required to pay an employer
contribution.
``(B) A non-Federal employer that employs more than 2 and
not more than 25 employees shall pay not less than 40 percent
of the total premium amount.
``(C) A non-Federal employer that employs more than 25 and
not more than 50 employees shall pay not less than 50 percent
of the total premium amount.
``(D) A non-Federal employer that employs more than 50
employees shall pay not less than 60 percent of the total
premium amount.
``(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) (B), (C), or (D), a
non-Federal employer that employs more than 2 employees shall
pay not less than 20 percent of the total premium amount with
respect to the first year in which that employer participates
under this chapter.
``(c)(1) A participating non-Federal employer shall ensure
that each eligible full-time employee may enroll in a plan
under this chapter.
``(2)(A) A participating non-Federal employer may not offer
a health insurance plan to employees (other than a health
benefits plan under this chapter) unless such health
insurance plan is offered continuously on and after the date
of enactment of this chapter.
``(B) If a participating non-Federal employer offers
coverage under this chapter and under another plan as
provided under subparagraph (A), the non-Federal employer--
``(i) shall treat all employees in the same manner with
respect to such offerings; and
``(ii) may not use financial incentives or disincentives to
encourage an employee or class of employees to enroll in the
health insurance plan not offered under this chapter.''.

SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Contract Requirement Under Chapter 89.--Section 8902 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after
subsection (o) the following:
``(p) Each contract under this chapter shall include a
provision that the carrier shall offer any health benefits
plan as required under chapter 90A.''.
(b) Table of Chapters.--The table of chapters for part III
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to chapter 90 the following:

``90A. Health Insurance for Non-Federal Employees...........9051''.....

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply
to contracts that take effect with respect to calendar year
2003 and each calendar year thereafter.
______

By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux):
S. 3176. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
employers in renewal communities to qualify for the renewal community
employment credit by employing residents of certain other renewal
communities; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I am introducing a modification of
legislation I introduced earlier in the 107th Congress relating to the
Renewal Community program. The Renewal Community program has been
tremendously valuable in promoting job growth and economic development
in the poorest areas of the country.
There are 40 urban and rural renewal community areas designated under
the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000. The poverty rate in
renewal communities is at least 20 percent, and the unemployment rate
is one-and-a-half times the national level. The households in the
renewal communities have incomes that are 80 percent below the median
income of households in their local jurisdictions. Four areas of
Louisiana received renewal community designations.
Businesses in a renewal community can receive a variety of tax
benefits for hiring residents of the same renewal community. These tax
benefits include A $1,500 Federal credit for hiring workers from the
renewal community, as well as a $2,400 work opportunity credit for
hiring employees from groups with traditionally high unemployment
rates. There is one important qualification in the program that poses a
peculiar problem in Louisiana, as well as a few other parts of the
country: a business can only take advantage of these credits if it
hires residents from the same renewal community that the business is
in.
Why is this a problem for Louisiana? Because, some of our renewal
communities border each other. Under the rules of the program, the
business cannot receive the credit for hiring a resident of a different
renewal community. In Louisiana, the closest available job for someone
might be at a business two or three miles away, but if that business is
not in the same renewal community as the worker, the business cannot
get the tax credit.
A good example of what I am talking about is in the northern part of
Louisiana, home of the North Louisiana Renewal Community and the
Ouachita Renewal Community. The city of Monroe is located at the heart
of the

[[Page 23175]]

Ouachita Renewal Community and it serves as the economic hub for
Northeast Louisiana. All around Monroe and the Ouachita Renewal
Community there are parishes which fall in the North Louisiana Renewal
Community, Morehouse Parish to the north, Richland Parish to the east,
Caldwell Parish to the south, and Lincoln Parish to the west. People
from these parishes will naturally look in Monroe for jobs. But under
the rule, businesses in Monroe cannot take advantage of the tax credits
even if they hire wokers from only a short distance away.
My legislation, the Renewal Community Tax Benefit Improvement Act of
2002, will allow the employers in one renewal community to hire
employees from an adjacent or nearby renewal community area and still
receive the tax benefits granted through the act. The bill I am
introducing today is a slightly more narrow version of my earlier bill
to bring needed flexibility to the renewal community program. I am
pleased that my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, is an
original cosponsor of this bill.
This legislation is a small change that will make a big difference to
the people of Louisiana. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
______

By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 3177. A bill to authorize appropriations for the programs of the
Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and
Technology, to amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
National Institutes of Standards and Technology, NIST, Authorization
Act. The bill is a routine authorization of appropriations for NIST. It
includes some provisions to change the Institute's Advanced Technology
Program that were the subject of hearings in the Commerce Committee
earlier this year. In addition, the bill includes several technical
changes to the NIST Act which the agency has requested.
NIST is really a hidden treasure. Twice in the past five years, NIST
Scientists have shared in the Physics Nobel Prize. Whether they are
investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center, making small
manufacturers better, sponsoring innovative research, or improving
timekeeping, the people of this little-noticed agency continue to do
amazing work, and I commend them.
Nonetheless, we continue to be embroiled in an annual tug-of-war on
funding for the Advanced Technology Program, known as ATP. I am
encouraged that Secretary Evans and Deputy Secretary Bodman want to
stabilize this program. I am introducing this bill to help them in that
cause by including several of the Department's suggestions to improve
the ATP.
The benefits of the ATP are well-documented. The program has been
studied thoroughly from individual case studies, to comprehensive
examinations like the 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences'
National Research Council. The results are clear. ATP is stimulating
collaboration, accelerating the development of high-risk technologies,
and paying off for the nation.
The Commerce Department has proposed several changes to the ATP. The
bill includes provisions to allow universities to lead ATP projects and
to have interest in the intellectual property developed under those
projects, as well as provisions to further clarify that projects are to
remove scientific and technical barriers and to evaluate ATP's review
process.
In addition, the bill would clarify that the program should operate
free of political influence by ensuring that final project decisions
are made by career NIST officials, as they have been since the
program's inception.
However, the Administration's proposal for recoupment of up to 5
times the original amount of funding is not acceptable and is not
included. The record on recoupment was made at our hearing in April of
this year. It is an approach which the program has tried and failed.
More importantly, recoupment discourages companies from participating
in the program, imposing overwhelming accounting burdens that companies
may be unable to fulfill.
In the end, the bill hopes to build on ATP's tremendous successes.
Since its inception in 1989 this industry-led, competitive, and cost-
shared program has helped the U.S. develop the next generation of
breakthrough technologies in advance of its foreign competitors.
The Commerce Committee heard testimony from Scott Donnelly of GE. His
company, with ATP funding, developed a new method to produce the X-ray
panels that are the heart of a new digital mammography system. This
system is giving women and their doctors access to better, cheaper
digital mammograms.
A March 1999 study found that future returns from just three of the
completed ATP projects, improving automobile manufacturing processes,
reducing the cost of blood and immune cell production, and using a new
material for prosthesis devices, would pay for all projects funded to
date by the ATP.
The bill also provides full funding for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, MEP, Centers which the Administration has proposed to cut.
Ironically, these MEP Centers help fulfill one of the top priorities
stated in the Administration's budget: ``revitalize the economy and
create jobs.'' MEP helps small manufacturers stay competitive and, in
2000, helped these businesses attain $2.3 billion in increased or
retained sales, save costs of $480 million, and create or retain more
than 25,000 jobs.
While the time remaining in this session is short, I want to
introduce this NIST Authorization bill to stimulate the productive
dialog that we have had with interested members and the Administration
on the programs of NIST. I look forward to continuing this work during
the 108th Congress.

____________________

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 359--RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
OF THE THURGOOD MARSHALL SCHOLARSHIP FUND

Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. Clinton) submitted
the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

S. Res. 359

Whereas in 1987, the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund was
founded, under the leadership of Dr. N. Joyce Payne, in
conjunction with its founding corporate sponsors, Miller
Brewing Corporation and the National Basketball Association;
Whereas since its inception, the Thurgood Marshall
Scholarship Fund has provided more than $20,000,000 in
scholarships and programmatic support to students attending
the 45 historically Black public colleges and universities
(including 5 historically Black law schools) that make up the
fund's membership;
Whereas the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund is the only
national organization to provide merit scholarships and
programmatic and capacity-building support to 45 historically
Black public colleges and universities;
Whereas the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund was created
to bridge the technological, financial, and programmatic gaps
between historically Black public and private colleges and
universities;
Whereas the 45 member institutions of the Thurgood Marshall
Scholarship Fund are a critical source of public higher
education for African Americans, with more than 215,000
students at the institutions;
Whereas more than 77 percent of all students enrolled in
historically Black colleges and universities attend member
institutions of the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund;
Whereas the legacy and commitment to education of the
Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund centers on a foundation of
preparing a new generation of leaders;
Whereas the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund continues to
provide students quality academic instruction in a positive
learning environment while promoting equal opportunity in
higher education; and
Whereas October 2002 marks the 15th anniversary of the
Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) fully supports the goals and ideals of the Thurgood
Marshall Scholarship Fund; and

[[Page 23176]]

(2) salutes and acknowledges the Thurgood Marshall
Scholarship Fund and its vigorous and persistent efforts in
support of equal opportunity in higher education.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 360--CONGRATULATING FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER FOR
BEING AWARDED THE 2002 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, AND COMMENDING HIM FOR HIS
LIFETIME OF DEDICATION TO PEACE

Mr. DODD (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Miller, Mr. Cleland, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Akaka) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 360

Whereas in 1978, President Carter personally negotiated
with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime
Minister Menachem Begin to reach the Camp David Accords, the
cornerstone of all subsequent peace efforts in the Middle
East;
Whereas President Carter completed negotiations on the
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II (SALT II) and continued to
make strategic arms control a focus of United States security
policy;
Whereas President Carter emphasized the importance of human
rights as a key element of United States foreign policy;
Whereas former President Carter and his wife Rosalynn
established the Carter Center in 1982;
Whereas the Carter Center has taken an active and vital
role in world affairs, always seeking to improve human
rights, promote democracy, resolve conflicts, and enhance the
lives of the people of the world;
Whereas former President Carter has made countless trips
abroad to promote peace, democracy, and human rights,
including visits to East Timor, North Korea, Cuba, Haiti,
Nicaragua, and Mexico, among many others; and
Whereas former President Carter has made the promotion of
peace, democracy, and human rights his life's work: Now,
therefore be it
Resolved, That the Senate recognizes and congratulates
former President Jimmy Carter for being awarded the 2002
Nobel Peace Prize and commends him for his tireless work for
and dedication to peace.

____________________

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 159--TO CORRECT THE ENROLLMENT OF S. 1843

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Murkowski) submitted the following
concurrent resolution, which was considered and agreed to:

S. Con. Res. 159

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1843) To
extend certain hydro-electric licenses in the State of Alaska
the Secretary of the Senate is hereby authorized and
directed, in the enrollment of the said bill, to make the
following corrections, namely:
In subsection (c), delete ``3 consecutive 2-year time
periods.'' and insert ``one 2-year time period.''.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED & PROPOSED

SA 4970. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment
to the bill H.R. 695, to establish the Oil Region National
Heritage Area.
SA 4971. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 941, to revise the boundaries of the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area in the State of California, to
extend the term of the advisory commission for the recreation
area, and for other purposes.
SA 4972. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 1894, to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a special resource study to determine the national
significance of the Miami Circle site in the State of Florida
as well as the suitability and feasibility of its inclusion
in the National Park System as part of Biscayne National
Park, and for other purposes.
SA 4973. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment
to the bill H.R. 980, an act to establish the Moccasin Bend
National Archeological District in the State of Tennessee as
a unit of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park.
SA 4974. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment
to the bill H.R. 37, to amend the National Trails System Act
to update the feasibility and suitability studies of 4
national historic trails and provide for possible additions
to such trails.
SA 4975. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 198, to require the Secretary of the Interior
to establish a program to provide assistance through States
to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate
harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land.
SA 4976. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 2670, to establish Institutes to conduct
research on the prevention of, and restoration from,
wildfires in forest and woodland ecosystems.
SA 4977. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 2222, to resolve certain conveyances and
provide for alternative land selections under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act related to Cape Fox Corporation
and Sealaska Corporation, and for other purposes.
SA 4978. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 2556, to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to convey certain facilities to the Fremont-Madison
Irrigation District in the State of Idaho.

____________________

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

SA 4970. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment to the
bill H.R. 695, to establish the Oil Region National Heritage Area; as
follows:

1. On page 44, line 22, strike ``Act'' and insert
``title''.
2. On page 45, line 11, strike ``Act:'' and insert
``title:''
3. Beginning on page 99, line 13, insert the following:

TITLE IX--CROSSROADS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Crossroads of the American
Revolution National Heritage Area Act of 2002''.

SEC. 902. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the State of New Jersey was critically important during
the American Revolution because of the strategic location of
the State between the British armies headquartered in New
York City, New York, and the Continental Congress in the city
of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
(2) General George Washington spent almost half of the
period of the American Revolution personally commanding
troops of the Continental Army in the State of New Jersey,
including two severe winters spent in encampments in the area
that is now Morristown National Historical Park, a unit of
the National Park System;
(3) it was during the ten crucial days of the American
Revolution between December 25, 1776, and January 3, 1777,
that General Washington, after retreating across the State of
New Jersey from the State of New York to the State of
Pennsylvania in the face of total defeat, recrossed the
Delaware River on the night of December 25, 1776, and went on
to win crucial battles at Trenton and Princeton in the State
of New Jersey;
(4) Thomas Paine, who accompanied the troops during the
retreat, described the events during those days as ``the
times that try men's souls'';
(5) the sites of 296 military engagements are located in
the State of New Jersey, including--
(A) several important battles of the American Revolution
that were significant to the outcome of the American
Revolution and the history of the United States; and
(B) several national historic landmarks, including
Washington's Crossing, the Old Trenton Barracks, and
Princeton, Monmouth and Red Bank Battlefields;
(6) additional national historic landmarks in the State of
New Jersey include the homes of--
(A) Richard Stockton, Joseph Hewes, John Witherspoon, and
Francis Hopkinson, signers of the Declaration of
Independence;
(B) Elias Boudinout, President of the Continental Congress;
and
(C) William Livingston, patriot and Governor of the State
of New Jersey from 1776 to 1790;
(7) portions of the landscapes important to the strategies
of the British and Continental armies, including waterways,
mountains, farms, wetlands, villages, and roadways--
(A) retain the integrity of the period of the American
Revolution; and
(B) offer outstanding opportunities for conservation,
education, and recreation;
(8) the National Register of Historic Places lists 251
buildings and sites in the National Park Service study area
for the Crossroads of the American Revolution that are
associated with the period of the American Revolution;
(9) civilian populations residing in the State of New
Jersey during the American Revolution suffered extreme
hardships because of the continuous conflict in the State and
marauding contingents of loyalist Tories and rebel
sympathizers;
(10) because of the important role that the State of New
Jersey played in the successful outcome of the American
Revolution, there is a Federal interest in developing a
regional framework to assist the State of New Jersey, local
governments and organizations, and private citizens in--
(A) preserving and protecting cultural, historic, and
natural resources of the period; and
(B) bringing recognition to those resources for the
educational and recreational benefit of the present and
future generations of citizens of the United States; and

[[Page 23177]]

(11) the National Park Service has conducted a national
heritage area feasibility study in the State of New Jersey
that demonstrates that there is a sufficient assemblage of
nationally distinctive cultural, historic, and natural
resources necessary to establish the Crossroads of the
American Revolution National Heritage Area.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to assist communities, organizations, and citizens in
the State of New Jersey in preserving the special historic
identity of the State and the importance of the State to the
United States;
(2) to foster a close working relationship among all levels
of government, the private sector, and local communities in
the State;
(3) to provide for the management, preservation,
protection, and interpretation of the cultural, historic, and
natural resources of the State for the educational and
inspirational benefit of future generations;
(4) to strengthen the value of Morristown National
Historical Park as an asset to the State by--
(A) establishing a network of related historic resources,
protected landscapes, educational opportunities, and events
depicting the landscape of the State of New Jersey during the
American Revolution; and
(B) establishing partnerships between Morristown National
Historical Park and other public and privately owned
resources in the Heritage Area that represent the fulcrum of
the American Revolution; and
(5) to authorize Federal financial and technical assistance
for the purposes described in paragraphs (1) through (4).

SEC. 903. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Association.--The term ``Association'' means the
Crossroads of the American Revolution Association, Inc., a
nonprofit corporation in the State.
(2) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area
established by section 904(a).
(3) Management entity.--The term ``management entity''
means the management entity for the Heritage Area designated
by section 904(d).
(4) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the Heritage Area developed under
section 905.
(5) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled
``Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage
Area'', numbered CRREL 80,000, and dated April 2002.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New
Jersey.

SEC. 904. CROSSROADS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION NATIONAL
HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the State the
Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area.
(b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall consist of the
land and water within the boundaries of the Heritage Area, as
depicted on the map.
(c) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of
the National Park Service.
(d) Management Entity.--The Association shall be the
management entity for the Heritage Area.

SEC. 905. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date on
which funds are first made available to carry out this title,
the management entity shall submit to the Secretary for
approval a management plan for the Heritage Area.
(b) Requirements.--The management plan shall--
(1) include comprehensive policies, strategies, and
recommendations for conservation, funding, management, and
development of the Heritage Area;
(2) take into consideration existing State, county, and
local plans;
(3) describe actions that units of local government,
private organizations, and individuals have agreed to take to
protect the cultural, historic, and natural resources of the
Heritage Area;
(4) identify existing and potential sources of funding for
the protection, management, and development of the Heritage
Area during the first 5 years of implementation of the
management plan; and
(5) include--
(A) an inventory of the cultural, educational, historic,
natural, recreational, and scenic resources of the Heritage
Area relating to the themes of the Heritage Area that should
be restored, managed, or developed;
(B) recommendations of policies and strategies for resource
management that result in--
(i) application of appropriate land and water management
techniques; and
(ii) development of intergovernmental and interagency
cooperative agreements to protect the cultural, educational,
historic, natural, recreational, and scenic resources of the
Heritage Area;
(C) a program of implementation of the management plan that
includes for the first 5 years of implementation--
(i) plans for resource protection, restoration,
construction; and
(ii) specific commitments for implementation that have been
made by the management entity or any government,
organization, or individual;
(D) an analysis of and recommendations for ways in which
Federal, State, and local programs, including programs of the
National Park Service, may be best coordinated to promote the
purposes of this title; and
(E) an interpretive plan for the Heritage Area.
(c) Approval or Disapproval of Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
receipt of the management plan under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall approve or disapprove the management plan.
(2) Criteria.--In determining whether to approve the
management plan, the Secretary shall consider whether--
(A) the Board of Directors of the management entity is
representative of the diverse interests of the Heritage Area,
including--
(i) governments;
(ii) natural and historic resource protection
organizations;
(iii) educational institutions;
(iv) businesses; and
(v) recreational organizations;
(B) the management entity provided adequate opportunity for
public and governmental involvement in the preparation of the
management plan, including public hearings;
(C) the resource protection and interpretation strategies
in the management plan would adequately protect the cultural,
historic, and natural resources of the Heritage Area; and
(D) the Secretary has received adequate assurances from the
appropriate State and local officials whose support is needed
to ensure the effective implementation of the State and local
aspects of the management plan.
(3) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves the management plan under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall--
(A) advise the management entity in writing of the reasons
for the disapproval;
(B) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(C) not later than 60 days after the receipt of any
proposed revision of the management plan from the management
entity, approve or disapprove the proposed revision.
(d) Amendments.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve or disapprove
each amendment to the management plan that the Secretary
determines may make a substantial change to the management
plan.
(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this title
shall not be expended by the management entity to implement
an amendment described in paragraph (1) until the Secretary
approves the amendment.
(e) Implementation.--On completion of the 3-year period
described in subsection (a), any funding made available under
this title shall be made available to the management entity
only for implementation of the approved management plan.

SEC. 906. AUTHORITIES, DUTIES, AND PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE TO
THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

(a) Authorities.--For purposes of preparing and
implementing the management plan, the management entity may
use funds made available under this title to--
(1) make grants to, provide technical assistance to, and
enter into cooperative agreements with, the State (including
a political subdivision thereof), a nonprofit organization,
or any other person;
(2) hire and compensate staff, including individuals with
expertise in--
(A) cultural, historic, or natural resource protection; or
(B) heritage programming;
(3) obtain funds or services from any source (including a
Federal law or program);
(4) contract for goods or services; and
(5) support any other activity
(A) that furthers the purposes of the Heritage Area; and
(B) that is consistent with the management plan.
(b) Duties.--In addition to developing the management plan,
the management entity shall
(1) assist units of local government, regional planning
organizations, and nonprofit organizations in implementing
the approved management plan by--
(A) carrying out programs and projects that recognize,
protect, and enhance important resource values in the
Heritage Area;
(B) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits and
programs in the Heritage Area;
(C) developing recreational and educational opportunities
in the Heritage Area;
(D) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for
cultural, historic, and natural resources of the Heritage
Area;
(E) protecting and restoring historic sites and buildings
that are located in the Heritage Area and related to the
themes of the Heritage Area;
(F) ensuring that clear, consistent, and appropriate signs
identifying points of public access and sites of interest are
installed throughout the Heritage Area; and
(G) promoting a wide range of partnerships among
governments, organizations, and individuals to further the
purposes of the Heritage Area;

[[Page 23178]]

(2) in preparing and implementing the management plan,
consider the interests of diverse units of government,
businesses, organizations, and individuals in the Heritage
Area;
(3) conduct public meetings at least semiannually regarding
the development and implementation of the management plan;
(4) for any fiscal year for which Federal funds are
received under this title
(A) submit to the Secretary a report that describes for the
year
(i) the accomplishments of the management entity;
(ii) the expenses and income of the management entity; and
(iii) each entity to which a grant was made;
(B) make available for audit all information relating to
the expenditure of the funds and any matching funds; and
(C) require, for all agreements authorizing expenditures of
Federal funds by any entity, that the receiving entity make
available for audit all records and other information
relating to the expenditure of the funds; and
(5) encourage, by appropriate means, economic viability
that is consistent with the purposes of the Heritage Area;
and
(6) maintain headquarters for the management entity in
Mercer County.
(c) Prohibition on the Acquisition of Real Property.
(1) Federal funds.--The management entity shall not use
Federal funds made available under this title to acquire real
property or any interest in real property.
(2) Other funds.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
management entity may acquire real property or an interest in
real property using any other source of funding, including
other Federal funding.

SEC. 907. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE; OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCIES.

(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--On the request of the management entity,
the Secretary may provide technical and financial assistance
to the Heritage Area for the development and implementation
of the management plan.
(2) Priority for Assistance.--In providing assistance under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give priority to actions
that assist in--
(A) conserving the significant cultural, historic, natural,
and scenic resources of the Heritage Area; and
(B) providing educational, interpretive, and recreational
opportunities consistent with the purposes of the Heritage
Area.
(3) Preservation of Historic Properties.--To carry out the
purposes of this title, the Secretary may provide assistance
to a State or local government or nonprofit organization to
provide for the appropriate treatment of
(A) historic objects; or
(B) structures that are listed or eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places.
(4) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with the management entity and other
public or private entities to carry out this subsection.
(b) Other Federal Agencies.--Any Federal agency conducting
or supporting an activity that directly affects the Heritage
Area shall--
(1) consult with the Secretary and the management entity
regarding the activity;
(2) cooperate with the Secretary and the management entity
in carrying out the activity, and to the maximum extent
practicable, coordinate the activity with the carrying out of
its duties; and
(3) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct the activity
to avoid adverse effects on the Heritage Area.

SEC. 908. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this title $10,000,000, of which not more than
$1,000,000 may be authorized to be appropriated for any
fiscal year.
(b) Cost-sharing Requirement.--The Federal share of the
cost of any activity assisted under this title shall be not
more than 50 percent.

SEC. 909. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this title.

TITLE X NATIONAL AVIATION HERITAGE AREA

SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``National Aviation Heritage
Area Act''.

SEC. 1002. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Few technological advances have transformed the world
or our Nation's economy, society, culture, and national
character as the development of powered flight.
(2) The industrial, cultural, and natural heritage legacies
of the aviation and aerospace industry in the State of Ohio
are nationally significant.
(3) Dayton, Ohio, and other defined areas where the
development of the airplane and aerospace technology
established our Nation's leadership in both civil and
military aeronautics and astronautics set the foundation for
the 20th Century to be an American Century.
(4) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, is the
birthplace, the home, and an integral part of the future of
aerospace.
(5) The economic strength of our Nation is connected
integrally to the vitality of the aviation and aerospace
industry, which is responsible for an estimated 11,200,000
American jobs.
(6) The industrial and cultural heritage of the aviation
and aerospace industry in the State of Ohio includes the
social history and living cultural traditions of several
generations.
(7) The Department of the Interior is responsible for
protecting and interpreting the Nation's cultural and
historic resources, and there are significant examples of
these resources within Ohio to merit the involvement of the
Federal Government to develop programs and projects in
cooperation with the Aviation Heritage Foundation,
Incorporated, the State of Ohio, and other local and
governmental entities to adequately conserve, protect, and
interpret this heritage for the educational and recreational
benefit of this and future generations of Americans, while
providing opportunities for education and revitalization.
(8) Since the enactment of the Dayton Aviation Heritage
Preservation Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-419), partnerships
among the Federal, State, and local governments and the
private sector have greatly assisted the development and
preservation of the historic aviation resources in the Miami
Valley.
(9) An aviation heritage area centered in Southwest Ohio is
a suitable and feasible management option to increase
collaboration, promote heritage tourism, and build on the
established partnerships among Ohio's historic aviation
resources and related sites.
(10) A critical level of collaboration among the historic
aviation resources in Southwest Ohio cannot be achieved
without a congressionally established national heritage area
and the support of the National Park Service and other
Federal agencies which own significant historic aviation-
related sites in Ohio.
(11) The Aviation Heritage Foundation, Incorporated, would
be an appropriate management entity to oversee the
development of the National Aviation Heritage Area.
(12) Five National Park Service and Dayton Aviation
Heritage Commission studies and planning documents: ``Study
of Alternatives: Dayton's Aviation Heritage'', ``Dayton
Aviation Heritage National Historical Park Suitability/
Feasibility Study'', ``Dayton Aviation Heritage General
Management Plan'', ``Dayton Historic Resources Preservation
and Development Plan'', and Heritage Area Concept Study (in
progress), demonstrated that sufficient historical resources
exist to establish the National Aviation Heritage Area.
(13) With the advent of the 100th anniversary of the first
powered flight in 2003, it is recognized that the
preservation of properties nationally significant in the
history of aviation is an important goal for the future
education of Americans.
(14) Local governments, the State of Ohio, and private
sector interests have embraced the heritage area concept and
desire to enter into a partnership with the Federal
government to preserve, protect, and develop the Heritage
Area for public benefit.
(15) The National Aviation Heritage Area would complement
and enhance the aviation-related resources within the
National Park Service, especially the Dayton Aviation
Heritage National Historical Park, Ohio.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to establish the
Heritage Area to--
(1) encourage and facilitate collaboration among the
facilities, sites, organizations, governmental entities, and
educational institutions within the Heritage Area to promote
heritage tourism and to develop educational and cultural
programs for the public;
(2) preserve and interpret for the educational and
inspirational benefit of present and future generations the
unique and significant contributions to our national heritage
of certain historic and cultural lands, structures,
facilities, and sites within the National Aviation Heritage
Area;
(3) encourage within the National Aviation Heritage Area a
broad range of economic opportunities enhancing the quality
of life for present and future generations;
(4) provide a management framework to assist the State of
Ohio, its political subdivisions, other areas, and private
organizations, or combinations thereof, in preparing and
implementing an integrated Management Plan to conserve their
aviation heritage and in developing policies and programs
that will preserve, enhance, and interpret the cultural,
historical, natural, recreation, and scenic resources of the
Heritage Area; and
(5) authorize the Secretary to provide financial and
technical assistance to the State of Ohio, its political
subdivisions, and private organizations, or combinations
thereof, in preparing and implementing the private Management
Plan.

SEC. 1003. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title:
(1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors
of the Foundation.
(2) Financial assistance.--The term ``financial
assistance'' means funds appropriated by Congress and made
available to

[[Page 23179]]

the management entity for the purpose of preparing and
implementing the Management Plan.
(3) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
National Aviation Heritage Area established by section 1004
to receive, distribute, and account for Federal funds
appropriated for the purpose of this title.
(4) Management plan.--The term ``Management Plan'' means
the management plan for the Heritage Area developed under
section 1006.
(5) Management entity.--The term ``management entity''
means the Aviation Heritage Foundation, Incorporated (a
nonprofit corporation established under the laws of the State
of Ohio).
(6) Partner.--The term ``partner'' means a Federal, State,
or local governmental entity, organization, private industry,
educational institution, or individual involved in promoting
the conservation and preservation of the cultural and natural
resources of the Heritage Area.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(8) Technical assistance.--The term ``technical
assistance'' means any guidance, advice, help, or aid, other
than financial assistance, provided by the Secretary.

SEC. 1004. NATIONAL AVIATION HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the States of
Ohio and Indiana, the National Aviation Heritage Area.
(b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall include the
following:
(1) A core area consisting of resources in Montgomery,
Greene, Warren, Miami, Clark, and Champaign Counties in Ohio.
(2) The Neil Armstrong Air & Space Museum, Wapakoneta,
Ohio, and the Wilbur Wright Birthplace and Museum, Millville,
Indiana.
(3) Sites, buildings, and districts within the core area
recommended by the Management Plan.
(c) Map.--A map of the Heritage Area shall be included in
the Management Plan. The map shall be on file in the
appropriate offices of the National Park Service, Department
of the Interior.
(d) Management Entity.--The management entity for the
Heritage Area shall be the Aviation Heritage Foundation.

SEC. 1005. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

(a) Authorities.--For purposes of implementing the
Management Plan, the management entity may use Federal funds
made available through this title to--
(1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements
with, the State of Ohio and political subdivisions of that
State, private organizations, or any person;
(2) hire and compensate staff; and
(3) enter into contracts for goods and services.
(b) Duties.--The management entity shall--
(1) develop and submit to the Secretary for approval the
proposed Management Plan in accordance with section 1006;
(2) give priority to implementing actions set forth in the
Management Plan, including taking steps to assist units of
government and nonprofit organizations in preserving
resources within the Heritage Area and encouraging local
governments to adopt land use policies consistent with the
management of the Heritage Area and the goals of the
Management Plan;
(3) consider the interests of diverse governmental,
business, and nonprofit groups within the Heritage Area in
developing and implementing the Management Plan;
(4) maintain a collaboration among the partners to promote
heritage tourism and to assist partners to develop
educational and cultural programs for the public;
(5) encourage economic viability in the Heritage Area
consistent with the goals of the Management Plan;
(6) assist units of government and nonprofit organizations
in--
(A) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in
the Heritage Area;
(B) developing recreational resources in the Heritage Area;
(C) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the
historical, natural, and architectural resources and sites in
the Heritage Area; and
(D) restoring historic buildings that relate to the
purposes of the Heritage Area;
(7) assist units of government and nonprofit organizations
to ensure that clear, consistent, and environmentally
appropriate signs identifying access points and sites of
interest are placed throughout the Heritage Area;
(8) conduct public meetings at least quarterly regarding
the implementation of the Management Plan;
(9) submit substantial amendments to the Management Plan to
the Secretary for the approval of the Secretary; and
(10) for any year in which Federal funds have been received
under this title--
(A) submit an annual report to the Secretary that sets
forth the accomplishments of the management entity and its
expenses and income;
(B) make available to the Secretary for audit all records
relating to the expenditure of such funds and any matching
funds; and
(C) require, with respect to all agreements authorizing
expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the
receiving organizations make available to the Secretary for
audit all records concerning the expenditure of such funds.
(c) Use of Federal Funds.--
(1) In general.--The management entity shall not use
Federal funds received under this title to acquire real
property or an interest in real property.
(2) Other sources.--Nothing in this title precludes the
management entity from using Federal funds from other sources
for authorized purposes.

SEC. 1006. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

(a) Preparation of Plan.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this title, the management entity shall
submit to the Secretary for approval a proposed Management
Plan that shall take into consideration State and local plans
and involve residents, public agencies, and private
organizations in the Heritage Area.
(b) Contents.--The Management Plan shall incorporate an
integrated and cooperative approach for the protection,
enhancement, and interpretation of the natural, cultural,
historic, scenic, and recreational resources of the Heritage
Area and shall include the following:
(1) An inventory of the resources contained in the core
area of the Heritage Area, including the Dayton Aviation
Heritage Historical Park, the sites, buildings, and districts
listed in section 202 of the Dayton Aviation Heritage
Preservation Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-419), and any other
property in the Heritage Area that is related to the themes
of the Heritage Area and that should be preserved, restored,
managed, or maintained because of its significance.
(2) An assessment of cultural landscapes within the
Heritage Area.
(3) Provisions for the protection, interpretation, and
enjoyment of the resources of the Heritage Area consistent
with the purposes of this title.
(4) An interpretation plan for the Heritage Area.
(5) A program for implementation of the Management Plan by
the management entity, including the following:
(A) Facilitating ongoing collaboration among the partners
to promote heritage tourism and to develop educational and
cultural programs for the public.
(B) Assisting partners planning for restoration and
construction.
(C) Specific commitments of the partners for the first 5
years of operation.
(6) The identification of sources of funding for
implementing the plan.
(7) A description and evaluation of the management entity,
including its membership and organizational structure.
(C) Disqualification from funding.--If a proposed
Management Plan is not submitted to the Secretary within 3
years of the date of the enactment of this title, the
management entity shall be ineligible to receive additional
funding under this title until the date on which the
Secretary receives the proposed Management Plan.
(d) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plan.--The
Secretary, in consultation with the State of Ohio, shall
approve or disapprove the proposed Management Plan submitted
under this title not later than 90 days after receiving such
proposed Management Plan.
(e) Action Following Disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves a proposed Management Plan, the Secretary shall
advise the management entity in writing of the reasons for
the disapproval and shall make recommendations for revisions
to the proposed Management Plan. The Secretary shall approve
or disapprove a proposed revision within 90 days after the
date it is submitted.
(f) Approval of Amendments.--The Secretary shall review and
approve substantial amendments to the Management Plan. Funds
appropriated under this title may not be expended to
implement any changes made by such amendment until the
Secretary approves the amendment.

SEC. 1007. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE; OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCIES.

(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--Upon the request
of the management entity, the Secretary may provide technical
assistance, on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis, and
financial assistance to the Heritage Area to develop and
implement the management plan. The Secretary is authorized to
enter into cooperative agreements with the management
entitity and other public or private entities for this
purpose. In assisting the Heritage Area, the Secretary shall
give priority to actions that in general assist in--
(1) conserving the significant natural, historic, cultural,
and scenic resources of the Heritage Area; and
(2) providing educational, interpretive, and recreational
opportunities consistent with the purposes of the Heritage
Area.
(b) Duties of Other Federal Agencies.--Any Federal agency
conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the
Heritage Area shall--
(1) consult with the Secretary and the management entity
with respect to such activities;
(2) cooperate with the Secretary and the management entity
in carrying out their duties under this title;

[[Page 23180]]

(3) to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate such
activities with the carrying out of such duties; and
(4) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or support
such activities in a manner which the management entity
determines will not have an adverse effect on the Heritage
Area.

SEC. 1008. COORDINATION BETWEEN THE SECRETARY AND THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF
NASA.

The decisions concerning the execution of this title as it
applies to properties under the control of the Secretary of
Defense and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration shall be made by such Secretary or such
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior.

SEC. 1009. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--To carry out this title there is
authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000, except that not
more than $1,000,000 may be appropriated to carry out this
title for any fiscal year.
(b) 50 Percent Match.--The Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out using any assistance or grant under
this title shall not exceed 50 percent.

SEC. 1010. SUNSET PROVISION.

The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this title.

SEC. 1011. STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a special
resource study updating the study required under section 104
of the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992
(Public Law 102-419) and detailing alternatives for
incorporating the Wright Company factory as a unit of Dayton
Aviation Heritage National Historical Park.
(b) Contents.--The study shall include an analysis of
alternatives for including the Wright Company factory as a
unit of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park
that detail management and development options and costs.
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
shall consult with the Delphi Corporation, the Dayton
Aviation Heritage Commission, the Aviation Heritage
Foundation, State and local agencies, and other interested
parties in the area.

SEC. 1012. REPORT.

Not later than 3 years after funds are first made available
for this title, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
report describing the results of the study conducted under
section 1011.

TITLE XI--CHAMPLAIN VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP

SECTION 1101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Champlain Valley National
Heritage Partnership Act of 2002''.

SEC. 1102. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Champlain Valley and its extensive cultural and
natural resources have played a significant role in the
history of the United States and the individual States of
Vermont and New York;
(2) archeological evidence indicates that the Champlain
Valley has been inhabited by humans since the last retreat of
the glaciers, with the Native Americans living in the area at
the time of European discovery being primarily of Iroquois
and Algonquin descent;
(3) the linked waterways of the Champlain Valley, including
the Richelieu River in Canada, played a unique and
significant role in the establishment and development of the
United States and Canada through several distinct eras,
including--
(A) the era of European exploration, during which Samuel de
Champlain and other explorers used the waterways as a means
of access through the wilderness;
(B) the era of military campaigns, including highly
significant military campaigns of the French and Indian War,
the American Revolution, and the War of 1812; and
(C) the era of maritime commerce, during which canals
boats, schooners, and steamships formed the backbone of
commercial transportation for the region;
(4) those unique and significant eras are best described by
the theme ``The Making of Nations and Corridors of
Commerce'';
(5) the artifacts are structures associated with those eras
are unusually well-preserved;
(6) the Champlain Valley is recognized as having one of the
richest collections of historical resources in North America;
(7) the history and cultural heritage of the Champlain
Valley are shared with Canada and the Province of Quebec;
(8) there are benefits in celebrating and promoting this
mutual heritage;
(9) tourism is among the most important industries in the
Champlain Valley, and heritage tourism in particular plays a
significant role in the economy of the Champlain Valley;
(10) it is important to enhance heritage tourism in the
Champlain Valley while ensuring that increased visitation
will not impair the historical and cultural resources of the
region;
(11) according to the 1999 report of the National Park
Service entitled ``Champlain Valley Heritage Corridor
Project'', ``the Champlain Valley contains resources and
represents a theme `The Making of Nations and Corridors of
Commerce', that is of outstanding importance in H.S.
history''; and
(12) it is in the interest of the United States to preserve
and interpret the historical and cultural resources of the
Champlain Valley for the education and benefit of present and
future generations.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to establish the Champlain Valley National Heritage
Partnership in the States of Vermont and New York to
recognize the importance of the historical, cultural, and
recreational resources of the Champlain Valley region to the
United States;
(2) to assist the State of Vermont and New York, including
units of local government and non-governmental organizations
in the States, in preserving, protecting, and interpreting
those resources for the benefit of the people of the United
States;
(3) to use those resources and the theme ``The Making of
Nations and Corridors of Commerce'' to--
(A) revitalize the economy of communities in the Champlain
Valley; and
(B) generate and sustain increased levels of tourism in the
Champlain Valley;
(4) to encourage--
(A) partnerships among State and local governments and non-
governmental organizations in the United States; and
(B) collaboration with Canada and the Province of Quebec
to--
(i) interpret and promote the history of the waterways of
the Champlain Valley region;
(ii) form stronger bonds between the United States and
Canada; and
(iii) promote the international aspects of the Champlain
Valley region; and
(5) to provide financial and technical assistance for the
purposes described in paragraphs (1) through (4).

SEC. 1103. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Heritage partnership.--The term ``Heritage
Partnership'' means the Champlain Valley National Heritage
Partnership established by section 1104(a).
(2) Management entity.--The term ``management entity''
means the Lake
Champlain Basin Program.
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan developed under section 1104(b)(B)(i).
(4) Region.--
(A) In general.--The term ``region'' means any area or
community in one of the States in which a physical, cultural,
or historical resource that represents the theme is located.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``region'' includes--
(i) the linked navigable waterways of--
(I) Lake Champlain;
(II) Lake George;
(III) the Champlain Canal; and
(IV) the portion of the Upper Hudson River extending south
to Saratoga;
(ii) portions of Grand Isle, Franklin, Chittenden, Addison,
Rutland, and Bennington Counties in the State of Vermont; and
(iii) portions of Clinton, Essex, Warren, Saratoga and
Washington Counties in the State of New York.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) the State of Vermont; and
(B) the State of New York.
(7) Theme.--The term ``theme'' means the theme ``The Making
of Nations and Corridors of Commerce'', as the term is used
in the 1999 report of the National Park Service entitled
``Champlain Valley Heritage Corridor Project'', that
describes the periods of international conflict and maritime
commerce during which the region played a unique and
significant role in the development of the United States and
Canada.

SEC. 1104. HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the region the
Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership.
(b) Management Entity.--
(1) Duties.--
(A) In general.--The management entity shall implement the
title.
(B) Management plan.--(i) Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this title, the management entity shall
develop a management plan for the Heritage Partnership.
(ii) Existing plan.--Pending the completion and approval of
the management plan, the management entity may implement the
provisions of this title based on its federally authorized
plan ``Opportunities for Action, an Evolving Plan for Lake
Champlain''.
(iii) Contents.--The management plan shall include--
(I) recommendations for funding, managing, and developing
the Heritage Partnership;
(II) a description of activities to be carried out by
public and private organizations to protect the resources of
the Heritage Partnership;
(III) a list of specific, potential sources of funding for
the protection, management, and development of the Heritage
Partnership;

[[Page 23181]]

(IV) an assessment of the organizational capacity of the
management entity to achieve the goals for implementation;
and
(V) recommendations of ways in which to encourage
collaboration with Canada and the Province of Quebec in
implementing this title.
(iv) Considerations.--In developing the management plan
under clause (i), the management entity shall take into
consideration existing Federal, State, and local plans
relating to the region.
(v) Submission to secretary for approval.--
(I) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this title, the management entity shall submit
the management plan to the Secretary for approval.
(II) Efffect of failure to submit.--If a management plan is
not submitted to the Secretary by the date specified in
paragraph (I), the Secretary shall not provide any additional
funding under this title until a management plan for the
Heritage Partnership is submitted to the Secretary.
(vi) Approval.--Not later than 90 days after receiving the
management plan submitted under subparagraph (v), the
Secretary, in consultation with the States, shall approve or
disapprove the management plan.
(vii) Action following disapproval.--
(I) In general.--If the Secretary disapproves a management
plan under subparagraph (vi), the Secretary shall--
(aa) advise the management entity in writing of the reasons
for the disapproval;
(bb) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(cc) allow the management entity to submit to the Secretary
revisions to the management plan.
(II) Deadline for approval of revision.--Not later than 90
days after the date on which a revision is submitted under
subparagraph (vii)(I)(cc), the Secretary shall approve or
disapprove the revision.
(viii) Amendment.--
(I) In general.--After approval by the Secretary of the
management plan, the management entity shall periodically
(aa) review the management plan; and
(bb) submit to the Secretary, for review and approval by
the Secretary, the recommendations of the management entity
for any amendments to the management plan that the management
entity considers to be appropriate.
(II) Expenditure of funds.--No funds made available under
this title shall be used to implement any amendment proposed
by the management entity under subparagraph (viii)(1) until
the Secretary approves the amendments.
(2) Partnerships.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out this title, the management
entity may enter into partnerships with--
(i) the States, including units of local governments in the
States;
(ii) non-governmental organizations;
(iii) Indian Tribes; and
(iv) other persons in the Heritage Partnership.
(B) Grants.--Subject to the availability of funds, the
management entity may provide grants to partners under
subparagraph (A) to assist in implementing this title.
(3) Prohibition on the acquisition of real property.--The
management entity shall not use Federal funds made available
under this title to acquire real property or any interest in
real property.
(c) Assistance from Secretary.--To carry out the purposes
of this title, the Secretary may provide technical and
financial assistance to the management entity.

SEC. 1105. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

Nothing in this title--
(1) grants powers of zoning or land use to the management
entity;
(2) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes the authority of the
Federal Government or a State or local government to manage
or regulate any use of land under any law (including
regulations); or
(3) obstructs or limits private business development
activities or resource development activities.

SEC. 1106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this title not more than a total of $10,000,000, of
which not more than $1,000,000 may be made available for any
fiscal year.
(b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of any activities carried out using Federal funds made
available under subsection (a) shall not be less than 50
percent.

SEC. 1107. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this title.

TITLE XII--BLUE RIDGE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

SEC. 1201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Blue Ridge National
Heritage Area Act of 2002''.

SEC. 1202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Blue Ridge Mountains and the extensive cultural and
natural resources of the Blue Ridge Mountains have played a
significant role in the history of the United States and the
State of North Carolina;
(2) archaeological evidence indicates that the Blue Ridge
Mountains have been inhabited by humans since the last
retreat of the glaciers, with the Native Americans living in
the area at the time of European discovery being primarily of
Cherokee descent;
(3) the Blue Ridge Mountains of western North Carolina,
including the Great Smoky Mountains, played a unique and
significant role in the establishment and development of the
culture of the United States through several distinct
legacies, including--
(A) the craft heritage that--
(i) was first influenced by the Cherokee Indians;
(ii) was the origin of the traditional craft movement
starting in 1900 and the contemporary craft movement starting
in the 1940's; and
(iii) is carried out by over 4,000 craftspeople in the Blue
Ridge Mountains of western North Carolina, the third largest
concentration of such people in the United States;
(B) a musical heritage comprised of distinctive
instrumental and vocal traditions that--
(i) includes stringband music, bluegrass, ballad singing,
blues, and sacred music;
(ii) has received national recognition; and
(iii) has made the region 1 of the richest repositories of
traditional music and folklife in the United States;
(C) the Cherokee heritage--
(i) dating back thousands of years; and
(ii) offering--
(I) nationally significant cultural traditions practiced by
the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians;
(II) authentic tradition bearers;
(III) historic sites; and
(IV) historically important collections of Cherokee
artifacts; and
(D) the agricultural heritage established by the Cherokee
Indians, including medicinal and ceremonial food crops,
combined with the historic European patterns of raising
livestock, culminating in the largest number of specialty
crop farms in North Carolina;
(4) the artifacts and structures associated with those
legacies are unusually well-preserved;
(5) the Blue Ridge Mountains are recognized as having one
of the richest collections of historical resources in North
America;
(6) the history and cultural heritage of the Blue Ridge
Mountains are shared with the States of Virginia, Tennessee,
and Georgia;
(7) there are significant cultural, economic, and
educational benefits in celebrating and promoting this mutual
heritage;
(8) according to the 2002 reports entitled ``The Blue Ridge
Heritage and Cultural Partnership'' and ``Western North
Carolina National Heritage Area Feasibility Study and Plan'',
the Blue Ridge Mountains contain numerous resources that are
of outstanding importance to the history of the United
States; and
(9) it is in the interest of the United States to preserve
and interpret the cultural and historical resources of the
Blue Ridge Mountains for the education and benefit of present
and future generations.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to foster a
close working relationship with, and to assist, all levels of
government, the private sector, and local communities in the
State in managing, preserving, protecting, and interpreting
the cultural, historical, and natural resources of the
Heritage Area while continuing to develop economic
opportunities.

SEC. 1203. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Blue Ridge National Heritage Area established by section
1204(a).
(2) Management entity.--The term ``management entity''
means the management entity for the Heritage Area designated
by section 1204(c).
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the Heritage Area approved under
section 1205.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of North
Carolina.

SEC. 1204. BLUE RIDGE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the Blue Ridge
National Heritage Area in the State.
(b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall consist of the
counties of Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke,
Caldwell, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson,
Jackson, McDowell, Macon, Madison, Mitchell, Polk,
Rutherford, Surry, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes,
Yadkin, and Yancey in the State.
(c) Management Entity.--
(1) In general.--As a condition of the receipt of funds
made available under section 1209(a), the Blue Ridge National
Heritage Area Partnership shall be the management entity for
the Heritage Area.
(2) Board of directors.--
(A) Composition.--The management entity shall be governed
by a board of directors composed of 9 members, of whom--
(i) 2 members shall be appointed by AdvantageWest;

[[Page 23182]]

(ii) 2 members shall be appointed by HandMade In America,
Inc.;
(iii) one member shall be appointed by the Education
Resources Consortium of Western North Carolina;
(iv) 1 member shall be appointed by the Eastern Band of the
Cherokee Indians; and
(v) 3 members shall be appointed by the Governor of North
Carolina and shall--
(I) reside in geographically diverse regions of the
Heritage Area;
(II) be a representative of State or local governments or
the private sector; and
(III) have knowledge of tourism, economic and community
development, regional planning, historic preservation,
cultural or natural resources development, regional planning,
conservation, recreational services, education, or museum
services.

SEC. 1205. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this title, the management entity shall submit
to the Secretary for approval a management plan for the
Heritage Area.
(b) Consideration of Other Plans and Actions.--In
developing the management plan, the management entity shall--
(1) for the purpose of presenting a unified preservation
and interpretation plan, take into consideration Federal,
State, and local plans; and
(2) provide for the participation of residents, public
agencies, and private organizations in the Heritage Area.
(c) Contents.--The management plan shall--
(1) present comprehensive recommendations and strategies
for the conservation, funding, management, and development of
the Heritage Area;
(2) identify existing and potential sources of Federal and
non-Federal funding for the conservation, management, and
development of the Heritage Area; and
(3) include--
(A) an inventory of the cultural, historical, natural, and
recreational resources of the Heritage Area, including a list
of property that--
(i) relates to the purposes of the Heritage Area; and
(ii) should be conserved, restored, managed, developed, or
maintained because of the significance of the property;
(B) a program of strategies and actions for the
implementation of the management plan that identifies the
roles of agencies and organizations that are involved in the
implementation of the management plan;
(C) an interpretive and educational plan for the Heritage
Area;
(D) a recommendation of policies for resource management
and protection that develop intergovernmental cooperative
agreements to manage and protect the cultural, historical,
natural, and recreational resources of the Heritage Area; and
(E) an analysis of ways in which Federal, State, and local
programs may best be coordinated to promote the purposes of
this title.
(d) Effect of Failure To Submit.--If a management plan is
not submitted to the Secretary by the date described in
subsection (a), the Secretary shall not provide any
additional funding under this title until a management plan
is submitted to the Secretary.
(e) Approval or Disapproval of Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receiving the
management plan submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall approve or disapprove the management plan.
(2) Criteria.--In determining whether to approve the
management plan, the Secretary shall consider whether the
management plan--
(A) has strong local support from landowners, business
interests, nonprofit organizations, and governments in the
Heritage Area; and
(B) has a high potential for effective partnership
mechanisms.
(3) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves a management plan under subsection (e)(1), the
Secretary shall--
(A) advise the management entity in writing of the reasons
for the disapproval;
(B) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(C) allow the management entity to submit to the Secretary
revisions to the management plan.
(4) Deadline for approval of revision.--Not later than 60
days after the date on which a revision is submitted under
paragraph (3)(C), the Secretary shall approve or disapprove
the proposed revision.
(f) Amendment of Approved Management Plan.
(1) In general.--After approval by the Secretary of a
management plan, the management entity shall periodically--
(A) review the management plan; and
(B) submit to the Secretary, for review and approval, the
recommendation of the management entity for any amendments to
the management plan.
(2) Use of funds.--No funds made available under section
1209(a) shall be used to implement any amendment proposed by
the management entity under paragraph (1)(B) until the
Secretary approves the amendment.

SEC. 1206. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

(a) Authorities.--For the purposes of developing and
implementing the management plan, the management entity may
use funds made available under section 1209(a) to--
(1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements
with, the State (including a political subdivision),
nonprofit organizations, or persons;
(2) hire and compensate staff; and
(3) enter into contracts for goods and services.
(b) Duties.--In addition to developing the management plan,
the management entity shall--
(1) develop and implement the management plan while
considering the interests of diverse units of government,
businesses, private property owners, and nonprofit groups in
the Heritage Area;
(2) conduct public meetings in the Heritage Area at least
semiannually on the development and implementation of the
management plan;
(3) give priority to the implementation of actions, goals,
and strategies in the management plan, including providing
assistance to units of government, nonprofit organizations,
and persons in--
(A) carrying out the programs that protect resources in the
Heritage Area;
(B) encouraging economic viability in the Heritage Area in
accordance with the goals of the management plan;
(C) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in
the Heritage Area;
(D) developing recreational and educational opportunities
in the Heritage Area; and
(E) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the
cultural, historical, and natural resources of the Heritage
Area; and
(4) for any fiscal year for which Federal funds are
received under section 1209(a)
(A) submit to the Secretary a report that describes, for
the fiscal year--
(i) the accomplishments of the management entity;
(ii) the expenses and income of the management entity; and
(iii) each entity to which a grant was made;
(B) make available for audit by Congress, the Secretary,
and appropriate units of government, all records relating to
the expenditure of funds and any matching funds; and
(C) require, for all agreements authorizing expenditure of
Federal funds by any entity, that the receiving entity make
available for audit all records relating to the expenditure
of funds.
(c) Prohibition on the Acquisition of Real Property.--The
management entity shall not use Federal funds received under
section 1209(a) to acquire real property or an interest in
real property.

SEC. 1207. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide to the
management entity technical assistance and, subject to the
availability of appropriations, financial assistance, for use
in developing and implementing the management plan.
(b) Priority for Assistance.--In providing assistance under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to actions
that facilitate--
(1) the preservation of the significant cultural,
historical, natural, and recreational resources of the
Heritage Area; and
(2) the provision of educational, interpretive, and
recreational opportunities that are consistent with the
resources of the Heritage Area.

SEC. 1208. LAND USE REGULATION.

(a) In General.--Nothing in this title--
(1) grants any power of zoning or land use to the
management entity; or
(2) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of the
Federal Government or any State or local government to
regulate any use of land under any law (including
regulations).
(b) Private Property.--Nothing in this title--
(1) abridges the rights of any person with respect to
private property;
(2) affects the authority of the State or local government
with respect to private property; or
(3) imposes any additional burden on any property owner.

SEC. 1209. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this title $10,000,000, of which not more than
$1,000,000 shall be made available for any fiscal year.
(b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of any activities carried out using Federal funds made
available under subsection (a) shall be not less than 50
percent.

SEC. 1210. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this title.

TITLE XIII--ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

SECTION 1301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Atchafalaya National
Heritage Area Act''.

SEC. 1302. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

[[Page 23183]]

(1) the Atchafalaya Basin area of Louisiana, designated by
the Louisiana Legislature as the ``Atchafalaya Trace State
Heritage Area'' and consisting of the area described in
section 1305(b), is an area in which natural, scenic,
cultural, and historic resources form a cohesive and
nationally distinctive landscape arising from patterns of
human activity shaped by geography;
(2) the significance of the area is enhanced by the
continued use of the area by people whose traditions have
helped shape the landscape;
(3) there is a national interest in protecting, conserving,
restoring, promoting, and interpreting the benefits of the
area for the residents of, and visitors to, the area;
(4) the area represents an assemblage of rich and varied
resources forming a unique aspect of the heritage of the
United States;
(5) the area reflects a complex mixture of people and their
origins, traditions, customs, beliefs, and folkways of
interest to the public;
(6) the land and water of the area offer outstanding
recreational opportunities, educational experiences, and
potential for interpretation and scientific research; and
(7) local governments of the area support the establishment
of a national heritage area.

SEC. 1303. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this title are--
(1) to protect, preserve, conserve, restore, promote, and
interpret the significant resource values and functions of
the Atchafalaya Basin area and advance sustainable economic
development of the area;
(2) to foster a close working relationship with all levels
of government, the private sector, and the local communities
in the area so as to enable those communities to conserve
their heritage while continuing to pursue economic
opportunities; and
(3) to establish, in partnership with the State, local
communities, preservation organizations, private
corporations, and landowners in the Heritage Area, the
Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area, as designated by the
Louisiana Legislature, as the Atchafalaya National Heritage
Area.

SEC. 1304. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Atchafalaya National Heritage Area established by section
1305(a).
(2) Local coordinating entity.--The term ``local
coordinating entity'' means the local coordinating entity for
the Heritage Area designated by section 1305(c).
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the Heritage Area developed under
section 1307.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
Louisiana.

SEC. 1305. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the State the
Atchafalaya National Heritage Area.
(b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall consist of the
whole of the following parishes in the State: St. Mary,
Iberia, St. Martin, St. Landry, Avoyelles, Pointe Coupee,
Iberville, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafayette, West Baton
Rouge, Concordia, and East Baton Rouge.
(c) Local Coordinating Entity.--
(1) In general.--The Atchafalaya Trace Commission shall be
the local coordinating entity for the Heritage Area.
(2) Composition.--The local coordinating entity shall be
composed of 13 members appointed by the governing authority
of each parish within the Heritage Area.

SEC. 1306. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE LOCAL COORDINATING
ENTITY.

(a) Authorities.--For the purposes of developing and
implementing the management plan and otherwise carrying out
this title, the local coordinating entity may--
(1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements
with, the State, units of local government, and private
organizations;
(2) hire and compensate staff; and
(3) enter into contracts for goods and services.
(b) Duties.--The local coordinating entity shall--
(1) submit to the Secretary for approval a management plan;
(2) implement the management plan, including providing
assistance to units of government and others in--
(A) carrying out programs that recognize important resource
values within the Heritage Area;
(B) encouraging sustainable economic development within the
Heritage Area;
(C) establishing and maintaining interpretive sites within
the Heritage Area; and
(D) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for
the natural, historic, and cultural resources of, the
Heritage Area;
(3) adopt bylaws governing the conduct of the local
coordinating entity; and
(4) for any year for which Federal funds are received under
this title, submit to the Secretary a report that describes,
for the year--
(A) the accomplishments of the local coordinating entity;
and
(B) the expenses and income of the local coordinating
entity.
(c) Acquisition of Real Property.--The local coordinating
entity shall not use Federal funds received under this title
to acquire real property or an interest in real property.
(d) Public Meetings.--The local coordinating entity shall
conduct public meetings at least quarterly.

SEC. 1307. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

(a) In General.--The local coordinating entity shall
develop a management plan for the Heritage Area that
incorporates an integrated and cooperative approach to
protect, interpret, and enhance the natural, scenic,
cultural, historic, and recreational resources of the
Heritage Area.
(b) Consideration of Other Plans and Actions.--In
developing the management plan, the local coordinating entity
shall--
(1) take into consideration State and local plans; and
(2) invite the participation of residents, public agencies,
and private organizations in the Heritage Area.
(c) Contents.--The management plan shall include--
(1) an inventory of the resources in the Heritage Area,
including--
(A) a list of property in the Heritage Area that--
(i) relates to the purposes of the Heritage Area; and
(ii) should be preserved, restored, managed, or maintained
because of the significance of the property; and
(B) an assessment of cultural landscapes within the
Heritage Area;
(2) provisions for the protection, interpretation, and
enjoyment of the resources of the Heritage Area consistent
with this title;
(3) an interpretation plan for the Heritage Area; and
(4) a program for implementation of the management plan
that includes--
(A) actions to be carried out by units of government,
private organizations, and public-private partnerships to
protect the resources of the Heritage Area; and
(B) the identification of existing and potential sources of
funding for implementing the plan.
(d) Submission to Secretary for Approval.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this title, the local coordinating entity shall
submit the management plan to the Secretary for approval.
(2) Effect of failure to submit.--If a management plan is
not submitted to the Secretary by the date specified in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not provide any additional
funding under this title until a management plan for the
Heritage Area is submitted to the Secretary.
(e) Approval.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receiving the
management plan submitted under subsection (d)(1), the
Secretary, in consultation with the State, shall approve or
disapprove the management plan.
(2) Action following disapproval.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary disapproves a management
plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
(i) advise the local coordinating entity in writing of the
reasons for the disapproval;
(ii) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(iii) allow the local coordinating entity to submit to the
Secretary revisions to the management plan.
(B) Deadline for approval of revision.--Not later than 90
days after the date on which a revision is submitted under
subparagraph (A)(iii), the Secretary shall approve or
disapprove the revision.
(f) Revision.--
(1) In general.--After approval by the Secretary of a
management plan, the local coordinating entity shall
periodically--
(A) review the management plan; and
(B) submit to the Secretary, for review and approval by the
Secretary, the recommendations of the local coordinating
entity for any revisions to the management plan that the
local coordinating entity considers to be appropriate.
(2) Expenditure of funds.--No funds made available under
this title shall be used to implement any revision proposed
by the local coordinating entity under paragraph (1)(B) until
the Secretary approves the revision.

SEC. 1308. COST SHARING.

The Federal share of the cost of any activity assisted by
the local coordinating entity under this title shall not
exceed 50 percent.

SEC. 1309. EFFECT.

Nothing in this title or in establishment of the Heritage
Area--
(1) grants any Federal agency regulatory authority over any
interest in the Heritage Area, unless cooperatively agreed on
by all involved parties;
(2) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of the
Federal Government or a State or local government to regulate
any use of land as provided for by law (including
regulations) in existence on the date of enactment of this
title;
(3) grants any power of zoning or land use to the local
coordinating entity;
(4) imposes any environmental, occupational, safety, or
other rule, standard, or permitting process that is different
from those in effect on the date of enactment of this

[[Page 23184]]

title that would be applicable had the Heritage Area not been
established;
(5)(A) imposes any change in Federal environmental quality
standards; or
(B) authorizes designation of any portion of the Heritage
Area that is subject to part C of Title I of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq.) as class 1 for the purposes of
that part solely by reason of the establishment of the
Heritage Area;
(6) authorizes any Federal or State agency to impose more
restrictive water use designations, or water quality
standards on uses of or discharges to, waters of the United
States or waters of the State within or adjacent to the
Heritage Area solely by reason of the establishment of the
Heritage Area;
(7) abridges, restricts, or alters any applicable rule,
standard, or review procedure for permitting of facilities
within or adjacent to the Heritage Area; or
(8) affects the continuing use and operation, where located
on the date of enactment of this title, of any public utility
or common carrier.

SEC. 1310. REPORTS.

For any year in which Federal funds have been made
available under this title, the local coordinating entity
shall submit to the Secretary a report that describes--
(1) the accomplishments of the local coordinating entity;
and
(2) the expenses and income of the local coordinating
entity.

SEC. 1311. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $10,000,000, of which not more than $1,000,000 shall be
made available for any fiscal year.

SEC. 1312. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this title.
______

SA 4971. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 941, to revise the boundaries of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area in the State of California, to extend the term of the
advisory commission for the recreation area, and for other purposes; as
follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment insert the following:

TITLE I--RANCHO CORRAL DE TIERRA GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Rancho Corral de Tierra
Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act
of 2002''.

SEC. 102. GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Boundary Adjustment.--Section 2(a) of Public Law 92-589
(16 U.S.C. 460bb-1(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking `The recreation area shall comprise' and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The recreation area shall comprise'';
and
(2) by striking ``The following additional lands are also''
and all that follows through the period at the end of the
paragraph and inserting the following:
``(2) Additional land.--In addition to the land described
in paragraph (1), the recreation area shall include--
``(A) the parcels numbered by the Assessor of Marin County,
California, 119-040-04, 119-040-05, 119-040-18, 166-202-03,
166-010-06, 166-010-07, 166-010-24, 166-010-25, 119-240-19,
166-010-10, 166-010-22, 119-240-03, 119-240-51, 119-240-52,
119-240-54, 166-010-12, 166-010-13, and 119-235-10;
``(B) land and water in San Mateo County generally depicted
on the map entitled 'Sweeney Ridge Addition, Golden Gate
National Recreation Area', numbered NRA GG-80,000-A, and
dated May 1980;
``(C) land acquired under the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area Addition Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 460bb-1 note;
Public Law 102-299);
``(D) land generally depicted on the map entitled
`Additions to Golden Gate National Recreation Area', numbered
NPS-80-076, and dated July 2000/PWR-PLRPC; and
``(E) land generally depicted on the map entitled `Rancho
Corral de Tierra Additions to the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area', numbered NPS-80,079A and dated July 2001.
``(3) Acquisition authority.--The Secretary may acquire
land described in paragraph 102(E) only from a willing
seller.''.
(b) Extension of Term of Advisory Commission.--Section 5(g)
of Public Law 92-589 (16 U.S.C. 460bb-4(g)) is amended by
striking ``thirty years after the enactment of this Act'' and
inserting ``on December 31, 2012''.

TITLE II--YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Yosemite National Park
Education Improvement Act''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The three elementary schools serving the children of
employees of Yosemite National Park are served by the Bass
Lake Joint Union Elementary School District and Mariposa
Unified School District.
(2) The schools are in remote mountainous areas and long
distances from other educational and administrative
facilities of the two local educational agencies.
(3) Because of their remote locations and relatively small
number of students, schools serving the children of employees
of the Park provide fewer services in more basic facilities
than the educational services and facilities provided to
students that attend other schools served by the two local
educational agencies.
(4) Because of the long distances involved and adverse
weather and road conditions that occur during much of the
school year, it is impractical for the children of employees
of the Park who live within or near the Park to attend other
schools served by the two local educational agencies.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to provide supplemental funding and
other services that are necessary to assist the State of
California or local educational agencies in California in
providing educational services for students attending schools
located within the Park.

SEC. 203. PAYMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL SERVICES.

(a) Authority To Provide Funds.--For fiscal years 2003
through 2007, the Secretary may provide funds to the Bass
Lake Joint Union Elementary School District and the Mariposa
Unified School District for educational services to students
who are dependents of persons engaged in the administration,
operation, and maintenance of the Park or students who live
at or near the Park upon real property of the United States.
(b) Limitations on Use of Funds.--Payments made by the
Secretary under this section may not be used for new
construction, construction contracts, or major capital
improvements, and may be used only to pay public employees
for services otherwise authorized by this title.
(c) Limitations on Amount of Funds.--Payments made under
this section shall not exceed the lesser of $400,000 in any
fiscal year or the amount necessary to provide students
described in subsection (a) with educational services that
are normally provided and generally available to students who
attend public schools elsewhere in the State of California.
(d) Limitation on Funding Sources.--
(1) Exceptions.--Funds from the following sources may not
be used to make payments under this section:
(A) Fees authorized and collected under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C., 460l-4 et seq.).
(B) The recreational fee demonstration program under
section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in section
101(c) of Public Law 104-134; 16 U.S.C. 4601-6a note).
(C) The national park passport program established under
section 602 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of
1998 (16 U.S.C. 5992).
(D) Emergency appropriations for Yosemite flood recovery.
(E) Funds appropriated for the Operation of the National
Park Service (ONPS Funds).
(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this title, the
following definitions apply:
(1) Local educational agencies.--The term ``local
educational agencies'' has the meaning given that term in
section 9109(26) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965.
(2) Educational services.--The term ``educational
services'' means services that may include maintenance and
minor upgrades of facilities and transportation to and from
school.
(3) Park.--The term ``Park'' means Yosemite National Park.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION FOR PARK FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED
OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF YOSEMITE NATIONAL
PARK.

Section 814(c) of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands
Management Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 346e) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``and Yosemite National Park'' after
``Zion National Park''; and
(B) by inserting ``transportation systems and'' before
``the establishment of''; and
(2) by striking ``park'' each place it appears and
inserting ``parks''.

SEC. 205. MANZANAR NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ADVISORY
COMMISSIONS.

Section 105(h) of Public Law 102-248 (16 U.S.C. 461 note)
is amended by striking ``10 years after the date of enactment
of this title'' and inserting ``on December 31, 2012''.

TITLE III--JOHN MUIR NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``John Muir National
Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 302. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

[[Page 23185]]

(b) Land Acquisition.--The Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to acquire the lands and interests in lands
identified as the ``Boundary Adjustment Area'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a) by donation, purchase with
donated or appropriated funds, exchange, or otherwise.
(c) Administration.--The lands and interests in lands
described in subsection (b) shall be administered as part of
the John Muir National Historic Site established by the Act
of August 31, 1964 (78 Stat. 753; 16 U.S.C. 461 note).

TITLE IV--SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHEDS STUDY SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``San Gabriel River
Watersheds Study Act of 2002''.

SEC. 402. AUTHORIZATION OF STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter
in this title referred to as the `Secretary', in consultation
with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the
Army, shall conduct a comprehensive resource study of the
following areas:
(1) The San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of and
including the city of Santa Fe Springs, and
(2) The San Gabriel Mountains within the territory of the
San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains
Conservancy (as defined in section 32603(c)(1)(C) of the
State of California Public Resource Code).
(b) Study Conduct and Completion.--(1) The Secretary shall
conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the area's natural and
recreational resources to make recommendations for the future
coordinated management, protection and enhancement of these
resources and an analysis of the cost of each option. In
addition, the study shall consider a system of greenways,
scenic roadways, river, and trail corridors linking
communities within the area.
(2) The study shall be conducted in accordance with section
8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)).
(c) Consultation With State and Local Governments.--In
conducting the study authorized by this section, the
Secretary shall consult with the San Gabriel and Lower Los
Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and other
appropriate State, county, and local government entities.
(d) Considerations.--In conducting the study authorized by
this section, the Secretary shall consider regional flood
control and drainage needs and publicly owned infrastructure,
including, but not limited to, wastewater treatment
facilities.

SEC. 403. REPORT.

Not later than 3 years after funds are made available for
this title, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives a report on the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study.

TITLE V--GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK LAND EXCHANGE SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this title:
(1) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means public
lands as defined in section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)).
(2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of Wyoming.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) State lands.--The term ``State lands'' means lands and
interest in lands owned by the State of Wyoming within the
boundaries of Grand Teton National Park as identified on a
map titled ``Private, State & County Inholdings Grand Teton
National Park'', dated March 2001, and numbered GTNP/0001.

SEC. 502. ACQUISITION OF STATE LANDS.

(a) Authorization To Acquire Lands.--The Secretary is
authorized to acquire approximately 1,406 acres of State
lands within the exterior boundaries of Grand Teton National
Park, as generally depicted on the map referenced in section
101(4), by any one or a combination of the following--
(1) donation;
(2) purchase with donated or appropriated funds; or
(3) exchange of Federal lands in the State of Wyoming that
are identified for disposal under approved land use plans in
effect on the date of enactment of this title under section
202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1712) that are of equal value to the State lands
acquired in the exchange.
(b) Identification of Lands for Exchange.--In the event
that the Secretary or the Governor determines that the
Federal lands eligible for exchange under subsection (a)(3)
are not sufficient or acceptable for the acquisition of all
the State lands identified in section 501(4), the Secretary
shall identify other Federal lands or interests therein in
the State of Wyoming for possible exchange and shall identify
such lands or interests together with their estimated value
in a report to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
of the United States Senate and the Committee on Resources of
the House of Representatives. Such lands or interests shall
not be available for exchange unless authorized by an Act of
Congress enacted after the date of submission of the report.

SEC. 503. VALUATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL INTERESTS.

(a) Agreement on Appraiser.--If the Secretary and the
Governor are unable to agree on the value of any Federal
lands eligible for exchange under section 502(a)(3) or State
lands, then the Secretary and the Governor may select a
qualified appraiser to conduct an appraisal of those lands.
The purchase or exchange under section 502(a) shall be
conducted based on the values determined by the appraisal.
(b) No Agreement on Appraiser.--If the Secretary and the
Governor are unable to agree on the selection of a qualified
appraiser under subsection (a), then the Secretary and the
Governor shall each designate a qualified appraiser. The two
designated appraisers shall select a qualified third
appraiser to conduct the appraisal with the advice and
assistance of the two designated appraisers. The purchase or
exchange under section 502(a) shall be conducted based on the
values determined by the appraisal.
(c) Appraisal Costs.--The Secretary and the State of
Wyoming shall each pay one-half of the appraisal costs under
subsections (a) and (b).

SEC. 504. ADMINISTRATION OF STATE LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE
UNITED STATES.

The State lands conveyed to the United States under section
502(a) shall become part of Grand Teton National Park. The
Secretary shall manage such lands under the Act of August 25,
1916 (commonly known as the `National Park Service Organic
Act') and other laws, rules, and regulations applicable to
Grand Teton National Park.

SEC. 505. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for the purposes of this title.

TITLE VI--GALISTEO BASIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PROTECTION

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Galisteo Basin
Archaeological Sites Protection Act''.

SEC. 602. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the Galisteo Basin and surrounding area of New Mexico
is the location of many well preserved prehistoric and
historic archaeological resources of Native American and
Spanish colonial cultures;
(2) these resources include the largest ruins of Pueblo
Indian settlements in the United
States, spectacular examples of Native American rock art,
and ruins of Spanish colonial settlements; and (3) these
resources are being threatened by natural causes, urban
development, vandalism, and uncontrolled excavations.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to provide for
the preservation, protection, and interpretation of the
nationally significant archaeological resources in the
Galisteo Basin in New Mexico.

SEC. 603. ESTABLISHMENT OF GALISTEO BASIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PROTECTION SITES.

(a) In General.--the following archaeological sites located
in the Galisteo Basin in the State of New Mexico, totaling
approximately 4,591 acres, are hereby designated as Galisteo
Basin Archaeological Protection Sites:

Name Acres
Arroyo Hondo Pueblo..................................................21
Burnt Corn Pueblo...................................................110
Chamisa Locita Pueblo................................................16
Comanche Gap Petroglyphs............................................764
Espinoso Ridge Site.................................................160
La Cienega Pueblo & Petroglyphs.....................................126
La Cienega Pithouse Village.........................................179
La Cieneguilla Petroglyphs/Camino Real Site.........................531
La Cieneguilla Pueblo................................................11
Lamy Pueblo..........................................................30
Lamy Junction Site...................................................80
Las Huertas..........................................................44
Pa'ako Pueblo........................................................29
Petroglyph Hill.....................................................130
Pueblo Blanco.......................................................878
Pueblo Colorado.....................................................120
Pueblo Galisteo/Las Madres..........................................133
Pueblo Largo.........................................................60
Pueblo She..........................................................120
Rote Chert Quarry.....................................................5
San Cristobal Pueblo................................................520
San Lazaro Pueblo...................................................360
San Marcos Pueblo...................................................152
Upper Arroyo Hondo Pueblo............................................12
________

Total Acreage.................................................4,591

(b) Availability of Maps.--The archaeological protection
sites listed in subsection (b) are generally depicted on a
series of 19 maps entitled `Galisteo Basin Archaeological
Protection Sites' and dated July, 2002. The Secretary shall
keep the maps on file and available for public inspection in
appropriate offices in New Mexico of the Bureau of Land
Management and the National Park Service.
(c) Boundary Adjustments.--The Secretary may make minor
boundary adjustments to the archaeological protection sites
by publishing notice thereof in the Federal Register.

SEC. 604. ADDITIONAL SITES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (in this
title referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall--
(1) continue to search for additional Native American and
Spanish colonial sites in the Galisteo Basin area of New
Mexico; and

[[Page 23186]]

(2) submit to Congress, within three years after the date
funds become available and thereafter as needed,
recommendations for additions to, deletions from, and
modifications of the boundaries of the list of archaeological
protection sites in section 3 of this title.
(b) Additions Only by Statute.--Additions to or deletions
from the list in section 3 shall be made only by an Act of
Congress.

SEC. 605. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--
(1) The Secretary shall administer archaeological
protection sites located on Federal land in accordance with
the provisions of this title, the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C.
3001 et seq.), and other applicable laws in a manner that
will protect, preserve, and maintain the archaeological
resources and provide for research thereon.
(2) The Secretary shall have no authority to administer
archaeological protection sites which are on non-Federal
lands except to the extent provided for in a cooperative
agreement entered into between the Secretary and the
landowner.
(3) Nothing in this title shall be construed to extend the
authorities of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of
1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act to private lands which are designated as an
archaeological protection site.
(b) Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Within three complete fiscal years after
the date funds are made available, the Secretary shall
prepare and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives, a general
management plan for the identification, research, protection,
and public interpretation of--
(A) the archaeological protection sites located on Federal
land; and
(B) for sites on State or private lands for which the
Secretary has entered into cooperative agreements pursuant to
section 606 of this title.
(2) Consultation.--The general management plan shall be
developed by the Secretary in consultation with the Governor
of New Mexico, the New Mexico State Land Commissioner,
affected Native American pueblos, and other interested
parties.

SEC. 606. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements with owners of non-Federal lands with regard to an
archaeological protection site, or portion thereof, located
on their property. The purpose of such an agreement shall be
to enable the Secretary to assist with the protection,
preservation, maintenance, and administration of the
archaeological resources and associated lands. Where
appropriate, a cooperative agreement may also provide for
public interpretation of the site.

SEC. 607. ACQUISITIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire
lands and interests therein within the boundaries of the
archaeological protection sites, including access thereto, by
donation, by purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or
by exchange.
(b) Consent of Owner Required.--The Secretary may only
acquire lands or interests therein with the consent of the
owner thereof.
(c) State Lands.--The Secretary may acquire lands or
interests therein owned by the State of New Mexico or a
political subdivision thereof only by donation or exchange,
except that State trust lands may only be acquired by
exchange.

SEC. 608. WITHDRAWAL.

Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal lands within
the archaeological protection sites are hereby withdrawn--
(1) from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal
under the public land laws and all amendments thereto;
(2) from location, entry, and patent under the mining law
and all amendments thereto; and
(3) from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and
geothermal leasing, and all amendments thereto.

SEC. 609. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

Nothing in this title shall be construed--
(1) to authorize the regulation of privately owned lands
within an area designated as an archaeological protection
site;
(2) to modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of
Federal, State, or local governments to regulate any use of
privately owned lands;
(3) to modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of
Federal, State, tribal, or local governments to manage or
regulate any use of land as provided for by law or
regulation; or
(4) to restrict or limit a tribe from protecting cultural
or religious sites on tribal lands.

SEC. 610. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title.

TITLE VII--KALOKO-HONOKOHAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Kaloko-Honokohau National
Historical Park Addition Title of 2002''.

SEC. 702. ADDITIONS TO KALOKO-HONOKOHAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL
PARK.

Section 505(a) of Public Law 95-625 (16 U.S.C. 396d(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) In order'' and inserting ``(a)(1) In
order'';
(2) by striking ``1978,'' and all that follows and
inserting ``1978.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) The boundaries of the park are modified to include
lands and interests therein comprised of Parcels 1 and 2
totaling 2.14 acres, identified as `Trace A' on the map
entitled `Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Proposed
Boundary Adjustment', numbered PWR (PISO) 466/82,043 and
dated April 2002.
``(3) The maps referred to in this subsection shall be on
file and available for public inspection in the appropriate
offices of the National Park Service.''.

SEC. 703. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title.

TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

SEC. 801. LACKAWANNA VALLEY HERITAGE AREA.

Section 106(a) of the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage
Area Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-278; 16 U.S.C. 461 note.) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Authorities of Management Entity.--For purposes of
preparing and implementing the management plan, the
management entity may--
``(1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements
with, the State and political subdivisions of the State,
private organizations, or any person; and
``(2) hire and compensate staff.''.

SEC. 802. HAWAIIAN SPELLING ERRORS.

Section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act to add certain lands
on the Island of Hawaii to the Hawaii National Park, and for
other purposes'', as added by Public Law 99-564 (100 Stat.
3179; 16 U.S.C. 392c) is amended by striking ``Hawaii
Volcanoes'' each place it appears and inserting ``Hawaii
Volcanoes''.

SEC. 803. ``I HAVE A DREAM'' PLAQUE AT LINCOLN MEMORIAL.

Section 2 of Public Law 106-365 (114 Stat. 1409) is amended
by striking ``and expand contributions'' and inserting ``and
expend contributions''.

SEC. 804. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS AND NATIONAL TRAILS.

(a) Wild and Scenic Rivers.--Section 3(a) of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating the paragraph (162), pertaining to
White Clay Creek, Delaware and Pennsylvania, as paragraph
(163);
(2) by designating the second paragraph (161), pertaining
to the Wekiva River, Wekiwa Springs Run, Rock Springs Run,
and Black Water Creek, Florida, as paragraph (162);
(3) by designating the undesignated paragraph pertaining to
the Wildhorse and Kiger Creeks, Oregon, as paragraph (164);
and
(4) by redesignating the third paragraph (161), pertaining
to the Lower Delaware River and associated tributaries, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania, as paragraph (165).
(b) National Trails.--Section 5(a) of the National Trails
System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)) is amended by redesignating
the second paragraph (21), pertaining to the Ala Kahakai
National Historic Trail, and enacted by Public Law 106-509 as
paragraph (22).

SEC. 805. JAMESTOWN 400TH COMMEMORATION COMMISSION.

The Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-565; 114 Stat. 2812; 16 U.S.C. 81 note.) is
amended--
(1) in section 2(a)(5), by striking ``State'';
(2) in sections 2(b), 3(3), and 4(h), by striking ``State''
and inserting ``Commonwealth'' each place it appears;
(3) in section 3, by striking paragraph (5) and inserting
the following:
``(5) Commonwealth.--The term `Commonwealth' means the
Commonwealth of Virginia, including agencies and entities of
the Commonwealth.'' and
(4) in section 4(b)(1), by striking ``16'' and inserting
``15''.

SEC. 806. ROSIE THE RIVETER--WORLD WAR II HOME FRONT NATIONAL
HISTORICAL PARK.

The Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National
Historical Park Establishment Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
352; 114 Stat. 1371; 16 U.S.C 410ggg-1) is amended--
(1) in section 2(a), by striking ``numbered 963/80000'' and
inserting ``numbered 963/80,000'';
(2) in section 3(a)(1), by striking ``August 35'' and
inserting ``August 25''.
(3) in section 3(b)(1), by striking ``the World War II
Child Development Centers, the World War II worker housing,
the Kaiser-Permanente Field Hospital, and Fire Station 67A,''
and inserting ``the Child Development Field Centers (Ruth C.
Powers) (Maritime), Atchison Housing, the Kaiser-Permanente
Field Hospital, and Richmond Fire Station 67A,''; and

[[Page 23187]]

(4) in section 3(e)(2), by striking ``the World War II day
care centers, the World War II worker housing, the Kaiser-
Permanente Field Hospital, and Fire Station 67,'' and
inserting ``the Child Development Field Centers (Ruth C.
Powers) (Maritime), Atchison Housing, the Kaiser-Permanente
Field Hospital, and Richmond Fire Station 67A,''.

SEC. 807. VICKSBURG CAMPAIGN TRAIL BATTLEFIELDS.

The Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act
of 2000 (Public Law 106-487; 114 Stat. 2202) is amended--
(1) in section 2(a)(1), by striking ``and Tennessee'' and
inserting ``Tennessee, and Kentucky'';
(2) in section 3(1), by striking ``and Tennessee,'' and
inserting ``Tennessee, and Kentucky,''; and
(3) in section 3(2)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (R);
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (S) as subparagraph (T);
and
(C) by inserting a new subparagraph (S) as follows:
``(S) Fort Heiman in Calloway County, Kentucky, and
resources in and around Columbus in Hickman County, Kentucky;
and''.

SEC. 808. HARRIET TUBMAN SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

Section 3(c) of the Harriet Tubman Special Resource Study
Act (Public Law 106-516; 114 Stat. 2405) is amended by
striking ``Public Law 91-383'' and all that follows through
``3501)'' and inserting ``the National Park System General
Authorities Act (16 U.S.C. 1a-5)''.

SEC. 809. PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOUNDATIONS.

Employees of the foundations established by Acts of
Congress to solicit private sector funds on behalf of Federal
land management agencies shall qualify for General Service
Administration contract airfares.

SEC. 810. POPULAR NAMES.

(a) National Park Service Organic Act.--The Act of August
25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.; popularly known as the
``National Park Service Organic Act'' is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``Sec. 5. This Act may be cited as the `National Park
Service Organic Act'.''.
(b) National Park System General Authorities Act.--Public
Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.; popularly known as the
``National Park System General Authorities Act'') is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 14. This Act may be cited as the `National Park
System General Authorities Act.'''

SEC. 811. PARK POLICE INDEMNIFICATION.

Section 2(b) of the Act of November 6, 2000, (Public Law
106-437; 114 Stat. 1921) is amended by striking ``the Act''
and inserting ``of the Act''.

SEC. 812. BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA.

Section 1029(c)(2)(B)(i) of division I of the Omnibus Parks
and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333;
110 Stat. 4233) is amended by striking ``reference'' and
inserting ``referenced''.

SEC. 813. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT.

Section 5(a)(8) of the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 2000 (P.L. 106-208; 114 Stat. 319) is amended
by striking ``section 110(1)'' and inserting ``section
110(l)''.

SEC. 814. ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL
TRAILS SYSTEM ACT.

The National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241) is
amended--
(1) in section 5(c)(19), by striking ``Kissimme'' and
inserting ``Kissimmee'';
(2) in section 5(c)(40)(D) by striking ``later that'' and
inserting ``later than'';
(3) in the first sentence of section 5(d) by striking
``establishment.''; and
(4) in section 10(c)(1) by striking ``The Ice Age'' and
inserting ``the Ice Age''.''.

TITLE IX--GOLDEN CHAIN HIGHWAY NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR STUDY

SEC. 401. GOLDEN CHAIN HIGHWAY STUDY.

(a) Study.--Not later than 3 years after the date that
funds are made available for this section, the Secretary of
the Interior, in consultation with affected local
governments, the State of California, State and local
historic preservation offices, community organizations, and
the Golden Chain Council, shall complete a special resource
study of the national significance, suitability, and
feasibility of establishing Highway 49 in California, known
as the ``Golden Chain Highway'', as a National Heritage
Corridor.
(b) Contents.--The study shall include an analysis of--
(1) the significance of Highway 49 in American history;
(2) options for preservation and use of the highway;
(3) options for interpretation of significant features
associated with the highway; and
(4) private sector preservation alternatives.
(c) Boundaries of Study Area.--The area studied under this
section shall be comprised of Highway 49 in California
extending from the city of Oakhurst in Madera County to the
city of Tuttletown in Tuolumne County, and lands, structures,
and cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the
highway.
(d) Report.--Not later than 30 days after completion of the
study required by this section, the Secretary shall submit a
report describing the results of the study to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.

TITLE X--AMENDMENTS TO THE VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION ACT

SEC. 1001. AMENDMENTS TO THE VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION ACT.

The Valles Caldera Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v) is
amended--
(1) in section 106(d)(1) by inserting after the first full
sentence the following--

``Employees of the Trust may be employed under contract or
employment agreement, the terms and conditions of which shall
be determined by the Trust in conformance with this
subsection.'';
(2) in section 106(d)(2) by adding at the end the
following--
``(C) Return to competitive service.--Employees of the
Trust who have previous service in the competitive service
shall not be precluded from consideration for any position
open generally to other Federal employees. In considering an
employee of the Trust for a position within the competitive
service, the employing agency shall consider a position with
the Trust to be comparable to a similar position within the
competitive service as it relates to classification and
General Schedule pay rates.'';
(3) by modifying section 108(g) to read as follows--
``(g) Law Enforcement and Fire Management.--
``(1) Law enforcement.--The Secretary shall provide law
enforcement services under a cooperative agreement with the
Trust to the extent generally authorized in other units of
the National Forest System. The Trust shall be deemed a
Federal agency for purposes of the law enforcement
authorities of the Secretary within the meaning of section
15008 of the National Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986
(16 U.S.C. 559(g).'';
``(2) Fire management.--The Secretary shall provide fire
suppression and rehabilitation services under a cooperative
agreement with the Trust to the extent generally authorized
on other units of the National Forest System. At the request
of the Trust, the Secretary may provide fire presuppression
services; except that the Trust shall reimburse the Secretary
for salaries and expenses of fire management personnel,
commensurate with services provided.''; and
(4) by modifying section 107(e)(2) to read as follows
``(2) Compensation of trustees.--Trustees may receive, upon
request, compensation for each day (including travel time)
that they are engaged in the performance of functions of the
Board. Compensation shall not exceed the daily equivalent of
the annual rate in effect for members of the Senior Executive
Service at the ES-1 level, and shall be in addition to any
reimbursement for travel, subsistence and other necessary
expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties.
Members of the Board who are officers or employees of the
United States shall not receive any additional compensation
by reason of service on the Board.''.

TITLE XI--UTAH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Utah Public Lands Artifact
Preservation Act''.

SEC. 1102. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the collection of the Utah Museum of Natural History in
Salt Lake City, Utah, includes more than 1,000,000
archaeological, paleontological, zoological, geological, and
botanical artifacts;
(2) the collection of items housed by the Museum contains
artifacts from land managed by--
(A) the Bureau of Land Management;
(B) the Bureau of Reclamation;
(C) the National Park Service;
(D) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and
(E) the Forest Service;
(3) more than 75 percent of the Museum's collection was
recovered from federally managed public land; and
(4) the Museum has been designated by the legislature of
the State of Utah as the State museum of natural history.

SEC. 1103. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Museum.--The term ``Museum'' means the University of
Utah Museum of Natural History in Salt Lake City, Utah.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 1104. ASSISTANCE FOR UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MUSEUM OF
NATURAL HISTORY.

[[Page 23188]]

(1) In general.--To receive a grant under subsection (b),
the Museum shall submit to the Secretary a proposal for the
use of the grant.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
______

SA 4972. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1894, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study to determine the national significance of the
Miami Circle site in the State of Florida as well as the suitability
and feasibility of its inclusion in the National Park System as part of
Biscayne National Park, and for other purposes; as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment, insert the following:

TITLE I--MIAMI CIRCLE SITE SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY

SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the Tequesta Indians were one of the earliest groups to
establish permanent villages in southeast Florida;
(2) the Tequestas had one of only two North American
civilizations that thrived and developed into a complex
social chiefdom without an agricultural base;
(3) the Tequesta sites that remain preserved today are
rare;
(4) the discovery of the Miami Circle, occupied by the
Tequesta approximately 2,000 years ago, presents a valuable
new opportunity to learn more about the Tequesta culture; and
(5) Biscayne National Park also contains and protects
several prehistoric Tequesta sites.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to direct the
Secretary to conduct a special resource study to determine
the national significance of the Miami Circle site as well as
the suitability and feasibility of its inclusion in the
National Park System as part of Biscayne National Park.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Miami circle.--The term ``Miami Circle'' means the
Miami Circle archaeological site in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(2) Park.--The term ``Park'' means Biscayne National Park
in the State of Florida.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service.

SEC. 103. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

(a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date
funds are made available, the Secretary shall conduct a
special resource study as described in subsection (b). In
conducting the study, the Secretary shall consult with the
appropriate American Indian tribes and other interested
groups and organizations.
(b) Components.--In addition to a determination of national
significance, feasibility, and suitability, the special
resource study shall include the analysis and recommendations
of the Secretary with respect to--
(1) which, if any, particular areas of or surrounding the
Miami Circle should be included in the Park;
(2) whether any additional staff, facilities, or other
resources would be necessary to administer the Miami Circle
as a unit of the Park; and (3) any impact on the local area
that would result from the inclusion of Miami Circle in the
Park.
(c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after completion of the
study, the Secretary shall submit a report describing the
findings and recommendations of the study to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee
on Resources of the United States House of Representatives.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this title.

TITLE II--MOUNT NEBO WILDERNESS BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

SEC. 201. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS, MOUNT NEBO WILDERNESS, UTAH.

(a) Lands Removed.--The boundary of the Mount Nebo
Wilderness is adjusted to exclude the following:
(1) Monument springs.--The approximately 8.4 acres of land
depicted on the Map as ``Monument Springs''.
(2) Gardner canyon.--The approximately 177.8 acres of land
depicted on the Map as ``Gardner Canyon''.
(3) Birch creek.--The approximately 5.0 acres of land
depicted on the Map as ``Birch Creek''.
(4) Ingram canyon.--The approximately 15.4 acres of land
depicted on the Map as ``Ingram Canyon''.
(5) Willow north a.--The approximately 3.4 acres of land
depicted on the Map as ``Willow North A''.
(6) Willow north b.--The approximately 6.6 acres of land
depicted on the Map as ``Willow North B''.
(7) Willow south.--The approximately 21.5 acres of land
depicted on the Map as ``Willow South''.
(8) Mendenhall canyon.--The approximately 9.8 acres of land
depicted on the Map as ``Mendenhall Canyon''.
(9) Wash canyon.--The approximately 31.4 acres of land
depicted on the Map as ``Wash Canyon''.
(b) Lands Added.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
boundary of the Mount Nebo Wilderness is adjusted to include
the approximately 293.2 acres of land depicted on the Map for
addition to the Mount Nebo Wilderness. The Utah Wilderness
Act of 1984 (Public Law 94-428) shall apply to the land added
to the Mount Nebo Wilderness pursuant to this subsection.

SEC. 202. MAP.

(a) Definition.--In this title, the term ``Map'' means the
map entitled ``Mt. Nebo Wilderness Boundary Adjustment'',
numbered 531, and dated May 29, 2001.
(b) Map on File.--The Map and the final document entitled
``Mount Nebo, Proposed Boundary Adjustments, Parcel
Descriptions (See Map #531)'' and dated June 4, 2001, shall
be on file and available for inspection in the office of the
Chief of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
(c) Corrections.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make
technical corrections to the Map.

SEC. 203. TECHNICAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

The boundary of the Mount Nebo Wilderness is adjusted to
exclude the approximately 21.26 acres of private property
located in Andrews Canyon, Utah, and depicted on the Map as
``Dale''.

TITLE III--BAINBRIDGE ISLAND JAPANESE-AMERICAN MEMORIAL SPECIAL
RESOURCE STUDY

SEC. 301. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) During World War II on February 19, 1942, President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066,
setting in motion the forced exile of more than 110,000
Japanese Americans.
(2) In Washington State, 12,892 men, women and children of
Japanese ancestry experienced three years of incarceration,
an incarceration violating the most basic freedoms of
American citizens.
(3) On March 30, 1942, 227 Bainbridge Island residents were
the first Japanese Americans in United States history to be
forcibly removed from their homes by the U.S. Army and sent
to internment camps. They boarded the ferry Kehloken from the
former Eagledale Ferry Dock, located at the end of Taylor
Avenue, in the city of Bainbridge Island, Washington State.
(4) The city of Bainbridge Island has adopted a resolution
stating that this site should be a National Memorial, and
similar resolutions have been introduced in the Washington
State Legislature.
(5) Both the Minidoka National Monument and Manzanar
National Historic Site can clearly tell the story of a time
in our Nation's history when constitutional rights were
ignored. These camps by design were placed in very remote
places and are not easily accessible. Bainbridge Island is a
short ferry ride from Seattle and the site would be within
easy reach of many more people.
(6) This is a unique opportunity to create a site that will
honor those who suffered, cherish the friends and community
who stood beside them and welcomed them home, and inspire all
to stand firm in the event our Nation again succumbs to
similar fears.
(7) The site should be recognized by the National Park
Service based on its high degree of national significance,
association with significant events, and integrity of its
location and setting. This site is critical as an anchor for
future efforts to identify, interpret, serve, and ultimately
honor the Nikkei- persons of Japanese ancestry-influence on
Bainbridge Island.

SEC. 302. EAGLEDALE FERRY DOCK LOCATION AT TAYLOR AVENUE
STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry out a
special resource study regarding the national significance,
suitability, and feasibility of designating as a unit of the
National Park System the property commonly known as the
Eagledale Ferry Dock at Taylor Avenue and the historical
events associated with it, located in the town of Bainbridge
Island, Kitsap County, Washington.
(b) Report.--Not later than three years after funds are
first made available for the study under subsection (a), the
Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report
describing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the study.
(c) Requirements for Study.--Except as otherwise provided
in this section, the study under subsection (a) shall be
conducted in accordance with section 8(c) of Public Law 91-
383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)).

TITLE IV--AMENDMENTS TO HAWAII HOMES COMMISSION ACT

SEC. 401. CONSENT TO AMENDMENTS TO HAWAII HOMES COMMISSION
ACT.

In accordance with section 4 of Public Law 86-3 (73 Stat.
4), the United States consents to the following amendment to
the Hawaii Homes Commission Act, 1920:
(1) Act 107 of the Session Laws of Hawaii.

[[Page 23189]]

TITLE V--WIND CAVE NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY REVISION

SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Wind Cave National Park
Boundary Revision Act of 2002''.

SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled `Wind
Cave National Park Boundary Revision'', numbered 108/80,030,
and dated June 2002.
(2) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Wind Cave National
Park in the State.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of South
Dakota.

SEC. 503. LAND ACQUISITION.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire the land or
interest in land described in subsection (b)(1) for addition
to the Park.
(2) Means.--An acquisition of land under paragraph (1) may
be made by donation, purchase from a willing seller with
donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
(b) Boundary.--
(1) Map and acreage.--The land referred to in subsection
(a)(1) shall consist of approximately 5,675 acres, as
generally depicted on the map.
(2) Availability of map.--The map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of
the National Park Service.
(3) Revision.--The boundary of the Park shall be adjusted
to reflect the acquisition of land under subsection (a)(1).

SEC. 504. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer any land
acquired under section 503(a)(1) as part of the Park in
accordance with laws (including regulations) applicable to
the Park.
(b) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall transfer from the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management to the Director of
the National Park Service administrative jurisdiction over
the land described in paragraph (2).
(2) Map and acreage.--The land referred to in paragraph (1)
consists of the approximately 80 acres of land identified on
the map as ``Bureau of Land Management land''.

SEC. 505. GRAZING.

(a) Grazing Permitted.--Subject to any permits or leases in
existence as of the date of acquisition, the Secretary may
permit the continuation of livestock grazing on land acquired
under section 503(a)(1).
(b) Limitation.--Grazing under subsection (a) shall be at
not more than the level existing on the date on which the
land is acquired under section 503(a)(1).
(c) Purchase of Permit or Lease.--The Secretary may
purchase the outstanding portion of a grazing permit or lease
on any land acquired under section 503(a)(1).
(d) Termination of Leases or Permits.--The Secretary may
accept the voluntary termination of a permit or lease for
grazing on any acquired land.

TITLE VI--GUNNISON NATIONAL PARK AND GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL
CONSERVATION AREA BOUNDARY REVISION

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National
Conservation Area Boundary Revision Act of 2002''.

SEC. 602. BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY
REVISION.

(a) Establishment.--Section 4(a) of the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National
Conservation Area Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-2(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``There is hereby established'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) In General.--There is established''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Boundary Revision.--The boundary of the Park is
revised to include the addition of not more than 2,725 acres,
as depicted on the map entitled `Black Canyon of the Gunnison
National Park and Gunnison Gorge NCA Boundary Modifications'
and dated June 13, 2002.''.
(b) Administration.--Section 4(b) of the Black Canyon of
the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National
Conservation Area Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-2(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Upon'' and inserting the following:
``(1) Land transfer.--
``(A) In general.--On''; and
(2) by striking ``The Secretary shall'' and inserting the
following:
``(B) Additional land.--On the date of enactment of the
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge
National Conservation Area Boundary Revision Act of 2002, the
Secretary shall transfer the land under the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Land Management identified as `Tract C' on the
map described in subsection (a)(2) to the administrative
jurisdiction of the National Park Service for inclusion in
the Park.
``(2) Authority.--The Secretary shall''.

SEC. 603. GRAZING PRIVILEGES AT BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON
NATIONAL PARK.

Section 4(e) of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of
1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-2(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Transfer.--If land authorized for grazing under
subparagraph (A) is exchanged for private land under this
Act, the Secretary shall transfer any grazing privileges to
the private land acquired in the exchange in accordance with
this section.''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (D);
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) with respect to the permit or lease issued to
LeValley Ranch Ltd., a partnership, for the lifetime of the 2
limited partners as of October 21, 1999;
``(C) with respect to the permit or lease issued to Sanburg
Herefords, L.L.P., a partnership, for the lifetime of the 2
general partners as of October 21, 1999; and''; and
(D) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B))--
(i) by striking ``partnership, corporation, or'' in each
place it appears and inserting ``corporation or''; and
(ii) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' and inserting
``subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C)''.

SEC. 604. ACQUISITION OF LAND.

(a) Authority to Acquire Land.--Section 5(a)(1) of the
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge
National Conservation Area Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-
3(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``or the map described in
section 4(a)(2)'' after ``the Map''.
(b) Method of Acquisition.--
(1) In general.--Land or interest in land acquired under
the amendments made by this title shall be made in accordance
with section 5(a)(2)(A) of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison
National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area
Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-3(a)(2)(A)).
(2) Consent.--No land or interest in land may be acquired
without the consent of the landowner.

SEC. 605. GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA BOUNDARY
REVISION.

Section 7(a) of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of
1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-5(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) In General.--There is established''
and inserting the following:
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Boundary revision.--The boundary of the Conservation
Area is revised to include the addition of not more than
7,100 acres, as depicted on the map entitled `Black Canyon of
the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge NCA Boundary
Modifications' and dated June 13, 2002.''.

TITLE VII--FRENCH COLONIAL NATIONAL PARK STUDY

SEC. 701. STUDY.

Not later than 3 years after the date of which funds are
made available to carry out this title, the Secretary of the
Interior shall, in consultation with the State of Missouri,
complete a study on the suitability and feasibility of
designating the French Colonial Historic District, including
the Bequette-Ribault, St. Gemme-Amoureaux, and Wilhauk homes
and the related and supporting historical assets in Ste.
Genevieve County, Missouri, as a unit of the National Park
System, and submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the
House of Representatives a report describing the findings of
the study.

SEC. 702. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title.

TITLE VIII--COLTSVILLE NATIONAL PARK STUDY

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Coltsville Study Act of
2002''.

SEC. 802. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) Hartford, Connecticut, home to Colt Manufacturing
Company (referred to in this title as ``Colt''), played a
major role in the Industrial Revolution;
(2) Samuel Colt, founder of Colt, and his wife, Elizabeth
Colt, inspired Coltsville, a community in the State of
Connecticut that flourished during the Industrial Revolution
and included Victorian mansions, an open green area,
botanical gardens, and a deer park;
(3) the residence of Samuel and Elizabeth Colt in Hartford,
Connecticut, known as ``Armsmear'', is a national historic
landmark, and the distinctive Colt factory is a prominent
feature of the Hartford, Connecticut, skyline;

[[Page 23190]]

(4) the Colt legacy is not only about firearms, but also
about industrial innovation and the development of technology
that would change the way of life in the United States,
including--
(A) the development of telegraph technology; and
(B) advancements in jet engine technology by Francis Pratt
and Amos Whitney, who served as apprentices at Colt;
(5) the influence of Colt extended beyond the United States
when Samuel Colt was the first resident of the United States
to open a manufacturing plant overseas;
(6) Coltsville--
(A) set the standard for excellence during the Industrial
Revolution; and (B) continues to prove significant--
(i) as a place in which people of the United States can
learn about that important period in history; and
(ii) by reason of the close proximity of Coltsville to the
Mark Twain House, Trinity College, Old North Cemetery, and
many historic homesteads and architecturally renowned
buildings;
(7) in 1998, the National Park Service conducted a special
resource reconnaissance study of the Connecticut River Valley
to evaluate the significance of precision manufacturing
sites; and
(8) the report on the study stated that--
(A) no other region of the United States contains an equal
concentration of resources relating to the precision
manufacturing theme that began with firearms production;
(B) properties relating to precision manufacturing
encompass more than merely factories; and
(C) further study, which should be undertaken, may
recommend inclusion of churches and other social
institutions.

SEC. 803. STUDY.

(a) In General.--Not later than three years after the date
on which funds are made available to carry out this title,
the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this title as
the ``Secretary'') shall complete a study of the site in the
State of Connecticut commonly known as ``Coltsville'' to
evaluate--
(1) the national significance of the site and surrounding
area;
(2) the suitability and feasibility of designating the site
and surrounding area as a unit of the National Park System;
and
(3) the importance of the site to the history of precision
manufacturing.
(b) Applicable Law.--The study required under subsection
(a) shall be conducted in accordance with Public Law 91-383
(16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.).

SEC. 804. REPORT.

Not later than 30 days after the date on which the study
under section 803(a) is completed, the Secretary shall submit
to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate a report that describes--
(1) the findings of the study; and
(2) any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.

SEC. 805. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title.

TITLE IX--BEAUFORT NATIONAL PARK STUDY

SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Beaufort, South Carolina
Study Act of 2002''.

SEC. 902. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the area
comprised of historical sites in Beaufort County, South
Carolina, relating to the Reconstruction Era, and includes
the following sites--
(A) the Penn School;
(B) the Old Fort Plantation on the Beaufort River;
(C) the Freedmen's Bureau in Beaufort College;
(D) the First Freedmen's Village of Mitchellville on Hilton
Head Island;
(E) various historic buildings and archaeological sites
associated with Robert Smalls;
(F) the Beaufort Arsenal; and
(G) other significant sites relating to the Reconstruction
Era.

SEC. 903. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a special
resource study to determine whether the study area or
individual sites within it are suitable and feasible for
inclusion in the National Park System.
(b) Applicable Law.--The study required under subsection
(a) shall be conducted in accordance with section 8(c) of
Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)).
(c) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which
funds are made available for the study under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall submit the study to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 904. THEME STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a National
Historic Landmark theme study to identify sites and resources
throughout the United States that are significant to the
Reconstruction Era.
(b) Contents.--The theme study shall include
recommendations for commemorating and interpreting sites and
resources identified by the theme study, including sites for
which new national historic landmarks should be nominated,
and sites for which further study for potential inclusion in
the National Park System is needed.
(c) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which
funds are made available for the study under subsection (a),
the Secretary submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the
House of Representatives a report that describes the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study.

SEC. 905. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title.

TITLE X--COLD WAR SITES STUDY

SEC. 1001. COLD WAR STUDY.

(a) Subject of Study.--The Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, State historic
preservation offices, State and local officials, Cold War
scholars, and other interested organizations and individuals,
shall conduct a National Historic Landmark theme study to
identify sites and resources in the United States that are
significant to the Cold War. In conducting the study, the
Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) consider the inventory of sites and resources
associated with the Cold War completed by the Secretary of
Defense pursuant to section 8120(b)(9) of the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 1991 (Public Law 101-511; 104
Stat. 1906);
(2) consider historical studies and research of Cold War
sites and resources such as intercontinental ballistic
missiles, nuclear weapons sites (such as the Nevada test
site), flight training centers, manufacturing facilities,
communications and command centers (such as Cheyenne
Mountain, Colorado), defensive radar networks (such as the
Distant Early Warning Line), and strategic and tactical
aircraft; and
(3) inventory and consider nonmilitary sites and resources
associated with the people, events, and social aspects of the
Cold War.
(b) Contents.--The study shall include--
(1) recommendations for commemorating and interpreting
sites and resources identified by the study, including--
(A) sites for which studies for potential inclusion in the
National Park System should be authorized;
(B) sites for which new national historic landmarks should
be nominated; and
(C) recommendations on the suitability and feasibility of
establishing a central repository for Cold War artifacts and
information; and
(D) other appropriate designations;
(2) recommendations for cooperative arrangements with State
and local governments, local historical organizations, and
other entities; and
(3) cost estimates for carrying out each of those
recommendations.

(1) conducted with public involvement; and
(2) submitted to the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate no later than 3 years after the date
that funds are made available for the study.

SEC. 1002. INTERPRETIVE HANDBOOK ON THE COLD WAR.

Not later than 4 years after funds are made available for
that purpose, the Secretary of the Interior shall prepare and
publish an interpretive handbook on the Cold War and shall
disseminate information gathered through the study through
appropriate means in addition to the handbook.

SEC. 1003. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated $300,000 to carry
out this title.

TITLE XI--PEOPLING OF AMERICA THEME STUDY

SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Peopling of America Theme
Study Act''.

SEC. 1102. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) an important facet of the history of the United States
is the story of how the United States was populated;
(2) the migration, immigration, and settlement of the
population of the United States--
(A) is broadly termed the ``peopling of America''; and
(B) is characterized by--
(i) the movement of groups of people across external and
internal boundaries of the United States and territories of
the United States; and
(ii) the interactions of those groups with each other and
with other populations;
(3) each of those groups has made unique, important
contributions to American history, culture, art, and life;
(4) the spiritual, intellectual, cultural, political, and
economic vitality of the United States is a result of the
pluralism and diversity of the American population;
(5) the success of the United States in embracing and
accommodating diversity has

[[Page 23191]]

strengthened the national fabric and unified the United
States in its values, institutions, experiences, goals, and
accomplishments;
(6)(A) the National Park Service's official thematic
framework, revised in 1996, responds to the requirement of
section 1209 of the Civil War Sites Study Act of 1990 (16
U.S.C. 1a-5 note; title XII of Public Law 101-628), that
``the Secretary shall ensure that the full diversity of
American history and prehistory are represented'' in the
identification and interpretation of historic properties by
the National Park Service; and
(B) the thematic framework recognizes that ``people are the
primary agents of change'' and establishes the theme of human
population movement and change--or ``peopling places''--as a
primary thematic category for interpretation and
preservation; and
(7) although there are approximately 70,000 listings on the
National Register of Historic Places, sites associated with
the exploration and settlement of the United States by a
broad range of cultures are not well represented.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to foster a much-needed understanding of the diversity
and contribution of the breadth of groups who have peopled
the United States; and
(2) to strengthen the ability of the National Park Service
to include groups and events otherwise not recognized in the
peopling of the United States.

SEC. 1103. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Theme study.--The term ``theme study'' means the
national historic landmark theme study required under section
1104.
(3) Peopling of america.--The term ``peopling of America''
means the migration, immigration, and settlement of the
population of the United States.

SEC. 1104. NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK THEME STUDY ON THE
PEOPLING OF AMERICA.

(a) Theme Study Required.--The Secretary shall prepare and
submit to Congress a national historic landmark theme study
on the peopling of America.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the theme study shall be to
identify regions, areas, trails, districts, communities,
sites, buildings, structures, objects, organizations,
societies, and cultures that--
(1) best illustrate and commemorate key events or decisions
affecting the peopling of America; and
(2) can provide a basis for the preservation and
interpretation of the peopling of America that has shaped the
culture and society of the United States.
(c) Identification and Designation of Potential New
National Historic Landmarks.--
(1) In general.--The theme study shall identify and
recommend for designation new national historic landmarks.
(2) List of appropriate sites.--The theme study shall--
(A) include a list, in order of importance or merit, of the
most appropriate sites for national historic landmark
designation; and
(B) encourage the nomination of other properties to the
National Register of Historic Places.
(3) Designation.--On the basis of the theme study, the
Secretary shall designate new national historic landmarks.
(d) National Park System.--
(1) Identification of sites within current units.--The
theme study shall identify appropriate sites within units of
the National Park System at which the peopling of America may
be interpreted.
(2) Identification of new sites.--On the basis of the theme
study, the Secretary shall recommend to Congress sites for
which studies for potential inclusion in the National Park
System should be authorized.
(e) Continuing Authority.--After the date of submission to
Congress of the theme study, the Secretary shall, on a
continuing basis, as appropriate to interpret the peopling of
America--
(1) evaluate, identify, and designate new national historic
landmarks; and
(2) evaluate, identify, and recommend to Congress sites for
which studies for potential inclusion in the National Park
System should be authorized.
(f) Public Education and Research.--
(1) Linkages.--
(A) Establishment.--On the basis of the theme study, the
Secretary may identify appropriate means for establishing
linkages--
(i) between--
(I) regions, areas, trails, districts, communities, sites,
buildings, structures, objects, organizations, societies, and
cultures identified under subsections (b) and (d); and
(II) groups of people; and
(ii) between--
(I) regions, areas, trails, districts, communities, sites,
buildings, structures, objects, organizations, societies, and
cultures identified under subsection (b); and
(II) units of the National Park System identified under
subsection (d).
(B) Purpose.--The purpose of the linkages shall be to
maximize opportunities for public education and scholarly
research on the peopling of America.
(2) Cooperative arrangements.--On the basis of the theme
study, the Secretary shall, subject to the availability of
funds, enter into cooperative arrangements with State and
local governments, educational institutions, local historical
organizations, communities, and other appropriate entities to
preserve and interpret key sites in the peopling of America.
(3) Educational initiatives.--
(A) In general.--The documentation in the theme study shall
be used for broad educational initiatives such as--
(i) popular publications;
(ii) curriculum material such as the Teaching with Historic
Places program;
(iii) heritage tourism products such as the National
Register of Historic Places Travel Itineraries program; and
(iv) oral history and ethnographic programs.
(B) Cooperative programs.--On the basis of the theme study,
the Secretary shall implement cooperative programs to
encourage the preservation and interpretation of the peopling
of America.

SEC. 1105. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with
educational institutions, professional associations, or other
entities knowledgeable about the peopling of America--
(1) to prepare the theme study;
(2) to ensure that the theme study is prepared in
accordance with generally accepted scholarly standards; and
(3) to promote cooperative arrangements and programs
relating to the peopling of America.

SEC. 1106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title.
______

SA 4973. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment to the
bill H.R. 980, an act to establish the Moccasin Bend National
Archeological District in the State of Tennessee as a unit of
Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Park; as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

TITLE I--MOCCASIN BEND NATIONAL ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Moccasin Bend National
Archeological District Act''.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this title:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Archeological district.--The term ``archeological
district'' means the Moccasin Bend National Archeological
District.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
Tennessee.
(4) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled
``Boundary Map, Moccasin Bend National Archeological
District'', numbered 301/80098, and dated September 2002.

SEC. 103. ESTABLISHMENT.

(a) In General.--In order to preserve, protect, and
interpret for the benefit of the public the nationally
significant archeological and historic resources located on
the peninsula known as Moccasin Bend, Tennessee, there is
established as a unit of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National
Military Park, the Moccasin Bend National Archeological
District.
(b) Boundaries.--The archeological district shall consist
of approximately 780 acres generally depicted on the Map. The
Map shall be on file and available for public inspection in
the appropriate offices of the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
(c) Acquisition of Land and Interests in Land.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire by donation,
purchase from willing sellers using donated or appropriated
funds, or exchange, lands and interests in lands within the
exterior boundary of the archeological district. The
Secretary may acquire the State, county and city-owned land
and interests in land for inclusion in the archeological
district only by donation.
(2) Easement outside boundary.--To allow access between
areas of the archeological district that on the date of
enactment of this title are noncontiguous, the Secretary may
acquire by donation or purchase from willing owners using
donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, easements
connecting the areas generally depicted on the Map.

SEC. 104. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--The archeological district shall be
administered by the Secretary in accordance with this title,
with laws applicable to Chickamauga and Chattanooga National
Military Park, and with the laws generally applicable to
units of the National Park System.
(b) Cooperative Agreement.--The Secretary may consult and
enter into cooperative agreements with culturally affiliated
federally recognized Indian tribes, governmental entities,
and interested persons to provide for the restoration,
preservation, development, interpretation, and use of the
archeological district.
(c) Visitor Interpretive Center.--For purposes of
interpreting the historical themes and cultural resources of
the archeological district, the Secretary may establish

[[Page 23192]]

and administer a visitor center in the archeological
district.
(d) General Management Plan.--Not later than three years
after funds are made available for this purpose, the
Secretary shall develop a general management plan for the
archeological district. The general management plan shall
describe the appropriate protection and preservation of
natural, cultural, and scenic resources, visitor use, and
facility development within the archeological district
consistent with the purposes of this title, while ensuring
continued access to private landowners to their property.

SEC. 105. REPEAL OF PREVIOUS ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.

The Act of August 3, 1950 (Chapter 532; 16 U.S.C. 424a-4),
is repealed.

TITLE II--FORT BAYARD NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK ACT

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Fort Bayard National
Historic Landmark Act''.

SEC. 202. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) Fort Bayard, located in southwest New Mexico, was an
Army post from 1866 until 1899, and served an important role
in the settlement of New Mexico;
(2) among the troops stationed at the fort were several
`Buffalo Soldier' units who fought in the Apache Wars;
(3) following its closure as a military post, Fort Bayard
was established by the War Department as general hospital for
use as a military sanatorium;
(4) in 1965 the State of New Mexico assumed management of
the site and currently operates the Fort Bayard State
Hospital;
(5) the Fort Bayard historic site has been listed on the
National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the
national significance of its history, both as a military fort
and as an historic medical facility.

SEC. 203. FORT BAYARD NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK.

(a) Designation.--The Fort Bayard Historic District in
Grant County, New Mexico, as listed on the National Register
of Historic Places, is hereby designated as the Fort Bayard
National Historic Landmark.
(b) Administration.--
(1) Consistent with the Department of the Interior's
regulations concerning National Historic Landmarks (36 CFR
Part 65), designation of the Fort Bayard Historic District as
a National Historic Landmark shall not prohibit under Federal
law or regulations any actions which may otherwise be taken
by the property owner with respect to the property.
(2) Nothing in this title shall affect the administration
of the Fort Bayard Historic District by the State of New
Mexico.

SEC. 204. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
State of New Mexico, may enter into cooperative agreements
with appropriate public or private entities, for the purposes
of protecting historic resources at Fort Bayard and providing
educational and interpretive facilities and programs for the
public. The Secretary shall not enter into any agreement or
provide assistance to any activity affecting Fort Bayard
State Hospital without the concurrence of the State of New
Mexico.
(b) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may
provide technical and financial assistance with any entity
with which the Secretary has entered into a cooperative
agreement under subsection (a) in furtherance of the
agreement.

SEC. 205. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title.

TITLE III--VIRGIN RIVER DINOSAUR FOOTPRINT PRESERVE

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Virgin River Dinosaur
Footprint Preserve Act''.

SEC. 302. VIRGIN RIVER DINOSAUR FOOTPRINT PRESERVE.

(a) Authorization for Grant To Purchase Preserve.--Of the
funds appropriated in the section entitled ``Land
Acquisition'' of the Fiscal Year 2002 Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, Public Law 107-63, the Secretary
of the Interior shall grant $500,000 to the City for--
(1) the purchase of up to 10 acres of land within the area
generally depicted as the ``Preserve Acquisition Area'' on
the map entitled ``Map B'' and dated May 9, 2002; and
(2) the preservation of such land and paleontological
resources.
(b) Conditions of Grant.--The grant under subsection (a)
shall be made only after the City agrees to the following
conditions:
(1) Use of land.--The City shall use the Virgin River
Dinosaur Footprint Preserve in a manner that accomplishes the
following:
(A) Preserves and protects the paleontological resources
located within the exterior boundaries of the Virgin River
Dinosaur Footprint Preserve.
(B) Provides opportunities for scientific research in a
manner compatible with subparagraph (A).
(C) Provides the public with opportunities for educational
activities in a manner compatible with subparagraph (A).
(2) Reverter.--If at any time after the City acquires the
Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve, the Secretary
determines that the City is not substantially in compliance
with the conditions described in paragraph (1), all right,
title, and interest in and to the Virgin River Dinosaur
Footprint Preserve shall immediately revert to the United
States, with no further consideration on the part of the
United States, and such property shall then be under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior.
(3) Conditions to be contained in deed.--If the City
attempts to transfer title to the Virgin River Dinosaur
Footprint Preserve (in whole or in part), the conditions set
forth in this subsection shall transfer with such title and
shall be enforceable against any subsequent owner of the
Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve (in whole or in
part).
(c) Cooperative Agreement and Assistance.--
(1) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide to the City--
(A) financial assistance, if the Secretary determines that
such assistance is necessary for protection of the
paleontological resources located within the exterior
boundaries of the Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve;
and
(B) technical assistance to assist the City in complying
with subparagraphs (A) through (C) of subsection (b)(1).
(2) Additional grants.--
(A) In general.--In addition to funds made available under
subsection (a) and paragraph (2) of this subsection, the
Secretary may provide grants to the City to carry out its
duties under the cooperative agreement entered into under
paragraph (1).
(B) Limitation on amount; required non-gederal match.--
Grants under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed $500,000 and
shall be provided only to the extent that the City matches
the amount of such grants with non-Federal contributions
(including in-kind contributions).
(d) Map on File.--The map shall be on file and available
for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the
Department of the Interior.
(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the
following definitions apply:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of St. George,
Utah.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) Virgin river dinosaur footprint preserve.--The term
``Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve'' means the
property (and all facilities and other appurtenances thereon)
described in subsection (a).

TITLE IV--ARCHEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROTECTION

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Enhanced Protection of Our
Cultural Heritage Act of 2002''.

SEC. 402. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE CRIMES.

(a) Enhanced Penalty for Archaeological Resources.--Section
6(d) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979
(16 U.S.C. 470ee(d)) is amended by striking ``not more than
10,000'' and all that follows through the end of the
subsection and inserting ``in accordance with title 18,
United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years or
both; but if the sum of the commercial and archaeological
value of the archaeological resources involved and the cost
of restoration and repair of such resources does not exceed
$500, such person shall be fined in accordance with title 18,
United States Code, or imprisoned not more than one year, or
both.''.
(b) Enhanced Penalty for Embezzlement and Theft From Indian
Tribal Organizations.--Section 1163 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``five years'' and
inserting ``10 years''.
(c) Enhanced Penalty for Illegal Trafficking in Native
American Human Remains and Cultural Items.--Section 1170 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``or imprisoned not more
than 12 months, or both, and in the case of second or
subsequent violation, be fined in accordance with this title,
or imprisoned not more than 5 years'' and inserting
``imprisoned not more than 10 years''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``imprisoned not more
than one year'' and all that follows through the end of the
subsection and inserting ``imprisoned not more than 10 years,
or both; but if the sum of the commercial and archaeological
value of the cultural items involved and the cost of
restoration and repair of such items does not exceed $500,
such person shall be fined in accordance with this title,
imprisoned not more than one year, or both.''.

TITLE V--PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION ACT

SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Paleontological Resources
Preservation Act''.

SEC. 502. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) Paleontological resources are nonrenewable. Such
resources on Federal lands are an accessible and
irreplaceable part of the heritage of the United States and
offer significant educational opportunities to all citizens.

[[Page 23193]]

(2) Existing Federal laws, statutes, and other provisions
that manage paleontological resources are not articulated in
a unified national policy for Federal land management
agencies and the public. Such a policy is needed to improve
scientific understanding, to promote responsible stewardship,
and to facilitate the enhancement of responsible
paleontological collecting activities on Federal lands.
(3) Consistent with the statutory provisions applicable to
each Federal land management system, reasonable access to
paleontological resources on Federal lands should be provided
for scientific, educational, and recreational purposes.

SEC. 503. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this title is to establish a comprehensive
national policy for preserving and managing paleontological
resources on Federal lands.

SEC. 504. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this title:
(1) Casual collecting.--The term ``casual collecting''
means the collecting of a reasonable amount of common
invertebrate and plant paleontological resources for
personal, scientific, educational or recreational use, either
by surface collection or using non-powered hand tools
resulting in only negligible disturbance to the Earth's
surface and other resources.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior with respect to lands administered by the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture
with respect to National Forest System Lands administered by
the Secretary of Agriculture.
(3) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means lands
administered by the Secretary of the Interior, except Indian
lands, or National Forest System Lands administered by the
Secretary of Agriculture.
(4) Indian lands.--The term ``Indian Lands'' means lands of
Indian tribes, or Indian individuals, which are either held
in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction
against alienation imposed by the United States.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the fifty States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
any other territory or possession of the United States.
(6) Paleontological resource.--The term ``paleontological
resource'' means any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints
of organisms, preserved in or on the earth's crust, that are
of paleontological interest and that provide information
about the history of life on earth, except that the term does
not include--
(A) any materials associated with an archaeological
resource (as defined in section 3(1) of the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470bb(1)); or
(B) any cultural item (as defined in section 2 of the
Native American Graves Protection and Rehabilitation Act (25
U.S.C. 3001)).

SEC. 505. MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall manage and protect
paleontological resources on Federal lands using scientific
principles and expertise. The Secretary shall develop
appropriate plans for inventory, monitoring, and the
scientific and educational use of paleontological resources,
in accordance with applicable agency laws, regulations, and
policies. These plans shall emphasize interagency
coordination and collaborative efforts where possible with
non-Federal partners, the scientific community, and the
general public.
(b) Coordination of Implementation.--To the extent
possible, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall coordinate in the implementation of this
title.

SEC. 506. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND EDUCATION PROGRAM.

The Secretary shall establish a program to increase public
awareness about the significance of paleontological
resources.

SEC. 507. COLLECTION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

(a) Permit Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in this title, a
paleontological resource may not be collected from Federal
lands without a permit issued under this Title by the
Secretary.
(2) Casual collecting exception.--The Secretary may allow
casual collecting without a permit on Federal lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service, where such
collection is not inconsistent with the laws governing the
management of those Federal lands and this title.
(3) Previous permit exception.--Nothing in this section
shall affect a valid permit issued prior to the date of
enactment of this title.
(b) Criteria for Issuance of a Permit.--The Secretary may
issue a permit for the collection of a paleontological
resource pursuant to an application if the Secretary
determines that--
(1) the applicant is qualified to carry out the permitted
activity;
(2) the permitted activity is undertaken for the purpose of
furthering paleontological knowledge or for public education;
(3) the permitted activity is consistent with any
management plan applicable to the Federal lands concerned;
and
(4) the proposed methods of collecting will not threaten
significant natural or cultural resources.
(c) Permit Specifications.--A permit for the collection of
a paleontological resource issued under this section shall
contain such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems
necessary to carry out the purposes of this title. Every
permit shall include requirements that--
(1) the paleontological resource that is collected from
Federal lands under the permit will remain the property of
the United States;
(2) the paleontological resource and copies of associated
records will be preserved for the public in an approved
repository, to be made available for scientific research and
public education; and
(3) specific locality data will not be released by the
permittee or repository without the written permission of the
Secretary.
(d) Modification, Suspension, and Revocation of Permits.--
(1) The Secretary may modify, suspend, or revoke a permit
issued under this section--
(A) for resource, safety, or other management
considerations; or
(B) when there is a violation of term or condition of a
permit issued pursuant to this section.
(2) The permit shall be revoked if any person working under
the authority of the permit is convicted under section 509 or
is assessed a civil penalty under section 510 of this title.
(e) Area Closures.--In order to protect paleontological or
other resources and to provide for public safety, the
Secretary may restrict access to or close areas under the
Secretary's jurisdiction to the collection of paleontological
resources.

SEC. 508. CURATION OF RESOURCES.

Any paleontological resource, and any data and records
associated with the resource, collected under a permit, shall
be deposited in an approved repository. The Secretary may
enter into agreements with non-Federal repositories regarding
the curation of these resources, data, and records.

SEC. 509. PROHIBITED ACTS; PENALTIES.

(a) In General.--A person may not--
(1) excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface
or attempt to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or
deface any paleontological resources located on Federal lands
unless such activity is conducted in accordance with this
title;
(2) exchange, transport, export, receive, or offer to
exchange, transport, export, or receive any paleontological
resource if, in the exercise of due care, the person knew or
should have known such resource to have been excavated,
removed, exchanged, transported, or received from Federal
lands in violation of any provisions, rule, regulation, law,
ordinance, or permit in effect under Federal law, including
this Title; or
(3) sell or purchase or offer to sell or purchase any
paleontological resource if, in the exercise of due care, the
person knew or should have known such resource to have been
excavated, removed, sold, purchased, exchanged, transported,
or received from Federal lands.
(b) False Labeling Offenses.--A person may not make or
submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false
identification of, any paleontological resource excavated or
removed from Federal lands.
(c) --Penalties.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), a person who knowingly violates or counsels, procures,
solicits, or employs another person to violate subsection (a)
or (b) shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a class A
misdemeanor.
(2) Damage over $1,000.--If the sum of the scientific or
fair market value of the paleontological resources involved
and the cost of restoration and repair of such resources
exceeds the sum of $1,000, such person shall, upon
conviction, be guilty of a class E felony.
(3) Multiple offenses.--In the case of a second or
subsequent such violation, such person shall, upon
conviction, be guilty of a class D felony.
(d) General Exception.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall
apply to any person with respect to any paleontological
resource which was in the lawful possession of such person
prior to the date of the enactment of this title.

SEC. 510. CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF REGULATIONS OR
PERMIT CONDITIONS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Hearing.--A person who violates any prohibition
contained in an applicable regulation or permit issued under
this Title may be assessed a penalty by the Secretary after
the person is given notice and opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the violation. Each violation shall be considered
a separate offense for purposes of this section.
(2) Amount of penalty.--The amount of such penalty assessed
under paragraph (1) shall be determined under regulations
promulgated pursuant to this title, taking into account the
following factors:
(A) The scientific or fair market value, whichever is
greater, of the paleontological resource involved.
(B) The cost of response, restoration, and repair of the
resource and the paleontological site involved.

[[Page 23194]]

(C) Any other factors considered relevant by the Secretary
assessing the penalty.
(3) Multiple offenses.--In the case of a second or
subsequent violation by the same person, the amount of a
penalty assessed under paragraph (2) may be doubled.
(4) Limitation.--The amount of any penalty assessed under
this subsection for any one violation shall not exceed an
amount equal to double the cost of response, restoration, and
repair of resources and paleontological site damage plus
double the scientific or fair market value of resources
destroyed or not recovered.
(b) Petition for Judicial Review; Collection of Unpaid
Assessments.--Any person against whom an order is issued
assessing a penalty under subsection (a) may file a petition
for judicial review of the order with an appropriate Federal
district court within the 30-day period beginning on the date
the order making the assessment was issued. The court shall
hear the action on the record made before the Secretary and
shall sustain his action if it is supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole.
(c) Hearings.--Hearings held during proceedings instituted
under subsection (a) shall be conducted in accordance with
section 554 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) Use of Recovered Amounts.--No penalties collected under
this section shall be available to the Secretary and without
further appropriation may be used only as follows:
(1) To protect, restore, or repair the paleontological
resources and sites which were the subject of the action, or
to acquire sites with equivalent resources, and to protect,
monitor, and study the resources and sites. Any acquisition
shall be subject to any limitations contained in the organic
legislation for such Federal lands.
(2) To provide educational materials to the public about
paleontological resources and sites.
(3) To provide for the payment of Rewards as provided in
section 511.

SEC. 511. REWARDS FORFEITURE.

(a) Rewards.--The Secretary may pay from penalties
collected under section 509 or 510 of this title an amount
equal to the lesser of one-half of the penalty or $500, to
any person who furnishes information which leads to the
finding of a civil violation, or the conviction of criminal
violation, with respect to which the penalty was paid. If
several persons provided the information, the amount shall be
divided among the persons. No officer or employee of the
United States or of any State or local government who
furnishes information or renders service in the performance
of his official duties shall be eligible for payment under
this subsection.
(b) Forfeiture.--All paleontological resources with respect
to which a violation under section 509 or 510 occurred and
which are in the possession of any person, and all vehicles
and equipment of any person that were used in connection with
the violation, may be subject to forfeiture to the United
States upon--
(1) the person's conviction of the violation under section
509;
(2) assessment of a civil penalty against any person under
section 510 with respect to the violation; or
(3) a determination by any court that the paleontological
resources, vehicles, or equipment were involved in the
violation.

SEC. 512. CONFIDENTIALITY.

Information concerning the nature and specific location of
a paleontological resource the collection of which requires a
permit under this Title or under any other provision of
Federal law shall be withheld from the public under
subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, or
under any other provision of law unless the responsible
Secretary determines that disclosure would--
(1) further the purposes of this title;
(2) not create risk of harm to or theft or destruction of
the resource or the site containing the resource; and
(3) be in accordance with other applicable laws.

SEC. 513. REGULATIONS.

As soon as practical after the date of the enactment of
this title, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as are
appropriate to carry out this title, providing opportunities
for public notice and comment.

SEC. 514. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

Nothing in this title shall be construed to--
(1) invalidate, modify, or impose any additional
restrictions or permitting requirements on any activities
permitted at any time under the general mining laws, the
mineral or geothermal leasing laws, laws providing for
minerals materials disposal, or laws providing for the
management or regulation of the activities authorized by the
aforementioned laws including but not limited to the Federal
Land Policy Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701-1784), the Mining
in the Parks Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201-1358), and the Organic
Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 478, 482, 551);
(2) invalidate, modify, or impose any additional
restrictions or permitting requirements on any activities
permitted at any time existing laws and authorities relating
to reclamation and multiple uses of the public lands;
(3) apply to, or require a permit for, amateur collecting
of a rock, mineral, or invertebrate or plant fossil that is
not protected under this title;
(4) affect any lands other than Federal lands or affect the
lawful recovery, collection, or sale of paleontological
resources from lands other than Federal lands;
(5) alter or diminish the authority of a Federal agency
under any other law to provide protection for paleontological
resources on Federal lands in addition to the protection
provided under this title; or
(6) create any right, privilege, benefit, or entitlement
for any person who is not an officer or employee of the
United States acting in that capacity. No person who is not
an officer or employee of the United States acting in that
capacity shall have standing to file any civil action in a
court of the United States to enforce any provision or
amendment made by this title.

SEC. 515. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title.
______

SA 4974. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment to the
bill H.R. 37, to amend the National Trails System Act to update the
feasibility and suitability studies of 4 national historic trails and
provide for possible additions to such trails; as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

TITLE I--NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS STUDIES

SEC. 101. REVISION OF FEASIBILITY AND SUITABILITY STUDIES OF
EXISTING NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS.

Section 5 of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.
1244) is amended by inserting the following new subsection:
``(g) The Secretary shall revise the feasibility and
suitability studies for certain national trails for
consideration of possible additions to the trails.
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(i) Route.--The term `route' includes a trail segment
common known as a cutoff.
``(ii) Shared route.--The term `shared' route means a route
that was a segment of more than one historic trail, including
a route shared with an existing national historic trail.
``(B) Study requirements and objectives.--The study
requirements and objectives specified in subsection (b) shall
apply to a study required by this subsection.
``(C) Completion and submission of study.--A study listed
in this subsection shall be completed and submitted to the
Congress not later than three complete fiscal years from the
date of the enactment of this subsection, or from the date of
the enactment of the addition of the study to this
subsection, whichever is later.
``(2) Oregon national historic trail.--
``(A) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the routes of the Oregon Trail listed in
subparagraph (B) and generally depicted on the map entitled
`Western Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/1993, and
of such other routes of the Oregon Trail that the Secretary
considers appropriate, to determine the feasibility and
suitability of designation of one or more of the routes as
components of the Oregon National Historic Trail.
``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
``(i) Whitman Mission route.--
``(ii) Upper Columbia River.
``(iii) Cowlitz River route.
``(iv) Meek cutoff.
``(v) Free Emigrant Road.
``(vi) North Alternate Oregon Trail.
``(vii) Goodale's cutoff.
``(viii) North Side alternate route.
``(ix) Cutoff to Barlow Road.
``(x) Naches Pass Trail.
``(3) Pony express national historic trail.--The Secretary
of the Interior shall undertake a study of the approximately
20-mile southern alternative route of the Pony Express Trail
from Wathena, Kansas, to Troy, Kansas, and such other routes
of the Pony Express Trail that the Secretary considers
appropriate, to determine the feasibility and suitability of
designation of one or more of the routes as components of the
Pony Express National Historic Trail.
``(4) California national historic trail.--
``(A) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the Missouri Valley, central, and
western routes of the California Trail listed in subparagraph
(B) and generally depicted on the map entitled `Western
Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/1993, and of such
other and shared Missouri Valley, central, and western routes
that the Secretary considers appropriate, to determine the
feasibility and suitability of designation of one or more of
the routes as components of the California National Historic
Trail.
``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
subparagraph (A) shall include the following:

[[Page 23195]]

``(i) Missouri valley routes.--
``(I) Blue Mills-Independence Road.
``(II) Westport Landing Road.
``(III) Westport-Lawrence Road.
``(IV) Fort Leavenworth-Blue River route.
``(V) Road to Amazonia.
``(VI) Union Ferry Route.
``(VII) Old Wyoming-Nebraska City cutoff.
``(VIII) Lower Plattsmouth Route.
``(IX) Lower Bellevue Route.
``(X) Woodbury cutoff.
``(XI) Blue Ridge cutoff.
``(XII) Westport Road.
``(XIII) Gum Springs-Fort Leavenworth route.
``(XIV) Atchison/Independence Creek routes.
``(XV) Fort Leavenworth-Kansas River route.
``(XVI) Nebraska City cutoff routes.
``(XVII) Minersville-Nebraska City Road.
``(XVIII) Upper Plattsmouth route.
``(XIX) Upper Bellevue route.
``(ii) Central routes.--
``(I) Cherokee Trail, including splits.
``(II) Weber Canyon route of Hastings cutoff.
``(III) Bishop Creek cutoff.
``(IV) McAuley cutoff.
``(V) Diamond Springs cutoff.
``(VI) Secret Pass.
``(VII) Greenhorn cutoff.
``(VIII) Central Overland Trail.
``(iii) Western routes.--
``(I) Bidwell-Bartleson route.
``(II) Georgetown/Dagget Pass Trail.
``(III) Big Trees Road.
``(IV) Grizzly Flat cutoff.
``(V) Nevada City Road.
``(VI) Yreka Trail.
``(VII) Henness Pass route.
``(VIII) Johnson cutoff.
``(IX) Luther Pass Trail.
``(X) Volcano Road.
``(XI) Sacramento-Coloma Wagon Road.
``(XII) Burnett cutoff.
``(XIII) Placer County Road to Auburn.
``(5) Mormon pioneer national historic trail.--
``(A) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the routes of the Mormon Pioneer Trail
listed in subparagraph (B) and generally depicted on the map
entitled `Western Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/
1993, and of such other routes of the Mormon Pioneer Trail
that the Secretary considers appropriate, to determine the
feasibility and suitability of designation of one or more of
the routes as components of the Mormon Pioneer National
Historic Trail.
``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
``(i) 1846 Subsequent routes A and B (Lucas and Clarke
Counties, Iowa).
``(ii) 1856-57 Handcart route (Iowa City to Council
Bluffs).
``(iii) Keokuk route (Iowa).
``(iv) 1847 Alternative Elkhorn and Loup River Crossings in
Nebraska.
``(v) Fort Leavenworth Road; Ox Bow route and alternates in
Kansas and Missouri (Oregon and California Trail routes used
by Mormon emigrants).
``(vi) 1850 Golden Pass Road in Utah.
``(6) Shared california and oregon trail routes.--
``(A) Study Required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the shared routes of the California
Trail and Oregon Trail listed in subparagraph (B) and
generally depicted on the map entitled `Western Emigrant
Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/1993, and of such other
shared routes that the Secretary considers appropriate, to
determine the feasibility and suitability of designation of
one or more of the routes as shared components of the
California National Historic Trail and the Oregon National
Historic Trail.
``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
``(i) St. Joe Road.
``(ii) Council Bluffs Road.
``(iii) Sublette cutoff.
``(iv) Applegate route.
``(v) Old Fort Kearny Road (Oxbow Trail).
``(vi) Childs cutoff.
``(vii) Raft River to Applegate.''

TITLE II--NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``National Trails System
Willing Seller Act''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) In spite of commendable efforts by State and local
governments and private volunteer trail groups to develop,
operate, and maintain the national scenic and national
historic trails designated by Act of Congress in section 5(a)
of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)), the
rate of progress towards developing and completing the trails
is slower than anticipated.
(2) Nine of the twelve national scenic and historic trails
designated between 1978 and 1986 are subject to restrictions
totally excluding Federal authority for land acquisition
outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered
area, including the North Country National Scenic Trail, the
Ice Age National Scenic Trail, and the Potomac Heritage
National Scenic Trail.
(3) To complete the North Country National Scenic Trail,
the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, and the Potomac Heritage
National Scenic Trail as intended by Congress, acquisition
authority to secure necessary rights-of-way and historic
sites and segments, limited to acquisition from willing
sellers only, and specifically excluding the use of
condemnation, should be extended to the Secretary of the
Federal department administering these trails.

SEC. 203. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING MULTIJURISDICTIONAL
AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM.

It is the sense of the Congress that in order to address
the problems involving multijurisdictional authority over the
National Trails System, the Secretary of the Federal
department with jurisdiction over a national scenic or
historic trail should--
(1) cooperate with appropriate officials of each State and
political subdivisions of each State in which the trail is
located and private persons with an interest in the trail to
pursue the development of the trail; and
(2) be granted sufficient authority to purchase lands and
interests in lands from willing sellers that are critical to
the completion of the trail.

SEC. 204. AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE LANDS FROM WILLING SELLERS FOR
CERTAIN TRAILS OF THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
ACT.

(a) Limited Acquisition Authority.--
(1) North country national scenic trail.--Section 5(a)(8)
of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(8)) is
amended by adding at the end: ``No lands or interests therein
outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered
area may be acquired by the Federal Government for the trail
except with the consent of the owner thereof.''.
(2) Ice age national scenic trail.--Section 5(a)(10) of the
National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(10)) is amended
by adding at the end: ``No lands or interests therein outside
the exterior boundaries of any federally administered area
may be acquired by the Federal Government for the trail
except with the consent of the owner thereof.''.
(3) Potomac heritage national scenic trail.--Section
5(a)(11) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.
1244(a)(11)) is amended by adding at the end: ``No lands or
interests therein outside the exterior boundaries of any
federally administered area may be acquired by the Federal
Government for the trail except with the consent of the owner
thereof.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 10(c)(1) of the National
Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1249(c)(1)) is amended by
striking ``the North Country National Scenic Trail, The Ice
Age National Scenic Trail.''.

TITLE III--OLD SPANISH TRAIL NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Old Spanish Trail
Recognition Act of 2002''.

SEC. 302. AUTHORIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION.

Section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.
1244(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating the second paragraph (21) as paragraph
(22); and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(23) Old spanish national historic trail.--
``(A) In general.--The Old Spanish National Historic Trail,
an approximately 2,700 mile long trail extending from Santa
Fe, New Mexico, to Los Angeles, California, that served as a
major trade route between 1829 and 1848, as generally
depicted on the maps numbered 1 through 9, as contained in
the report entitled `Old Spanish Trail National Historic
Trail Feasibility Study', dated July 2001, including the
Armijo Route, Northern Route, North Branch, and Mojave
Road''.
``(B) Map.--A map generally depicting the trail shall be on
file and available for public inspection in the appropriate
offices of the Department of the Interior.''.
``(C) Administration.--The trail shall be administered by
the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this paragraph
as the `Secretary').
``(D) Land acquisition.--The United States shall not
acquire for the trail any land or interest in land outside
the exterior boundary of any federally-managed area without
the consent of the owner of the land or interest in land.
``(E) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with other
Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies in the
administration of the trail.
``(F) Additional routes.--The Secretary may designate
additional routes to the trail if--
``(i) the additional routes were included in the Old
Spanish Trail National Historic Trail Feasibility Study, but
were not recommended for designation as a national historic
trail; and
``(ii) the Secretary determines that the additional routes
were used for trade and commerce between 1829 and 1848.''.

TITLE IV--LEWIS AND CLARK NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL ADDITION

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Lewis and Clark National
Historic Trail Amendments Act of 2002''.

[[Page 23196]]

SEC. 402. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the National Trails System--
(A) was established in 1968 to--
(i) provide additional recreational opportunities to the
people of the United States; and
(ii) preserve access to outdoor areas and historical
resources of the United States; and
(B) since 1968, has been modified to--
(i) recognize new categories of trails; and
(ii) expand trails;
(2) the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, as
designated in 1978, omits several historically significant
sites relating to the Lewis and Clark Expedition;
(3) Meriwether Lewis and William Clark gathered at the
Falls of the Ohio, located in Clarksville, Indiana, and
Louisville, Kentucky, to plan and prepare for the expedition;
(4) the Falls of the Ohio was also the site at which--
(A) Lewis and Clark selected the first enlisted members of
the expedition; and
(B) those members were sworn into the Army at a ceremony
witnessed by General George Rogers Clark;
(5) on July 13, 2001, the National Park Service certified
the Falls of the Ohio as an official Lewis and Clark site
associated with the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail;
(6) on July 22, 2002, the National Park Service certified
historic Locust Grove in Louisville, Kentucky, as an official
Lewis and Clark site associated with the Lewis and Clark
National Historic Trail;
(7) the National Council of the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial has designated the Falls of the Ohio as a
national signature event site at which to commemorate, during
October 2003, the bicentennial of events in the area relating
to the Lewis and Clark Expedition; and
(8) the areas in and around Clarksville, Indiana, and
Louisville, Kentucky, including the Falls of the Ohio--
(A) are the sites of events that were significant to the
Lewis and Clark Expedition; and
(B) should be recognized and protected as components of the
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail.

SEC. 403. EXTENSION OF LEWIS AND CLARK NATIONAL HISTORIC
TRAIL.

Section 5(a)(6) of the National Trails System Act (16
U.S.C. 1244(a)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(6) The'' and inserting the following:
``(6) Lewis and clark national historic trail.--
``(A) In general.--The''; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) (as designated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(B) Additional route.--In addition to the route described
in subparagraph (A), the Lewis and Clark National Historic
Trail shall include the route traveled by Meriwether Lewis
and William Clark from the Falls of the Ohio, located in
Clarksville, Indiana, and Louisville, Kentucky, to Wood
River, Illinois.''.
______

SA 4975. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 198, to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed
management entities to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on
public and private land; as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

TITLE I.--NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL ACT OF 2002

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Noxious Weed Control Act
of 2002''.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Noxious weed.--The term ``noxious weed'' has the same
meaning as in the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7702(10)).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
(4) 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).
(5) Weed management entity.--The term ``weed management
entity'' means an entity that--
(A) is recognized by the State in which it is established;
(C) is established for the purpose of controlling or
eradicating harmful, invasive weeds and increasing public
knowledge and education concerning the need to control or
eradicate harmful, invasive weeds; and
(D) is multijurisdictional and multidisciplinary in nature.

SEC. 103. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

The Secretary shall establish a program to provide
financial assistance through States to eligible weed
management entities to control or eradicate weeds. In
developing the program, the Secretary shall consult with the
National Invasive Species Council, the Invasive Species
Advisory Committee, representatives from States and Indian
tribes with weed management entities or that have particular
problems with noxious weeds, and public and private entities
with experience in noxious weed management.

SEC. 104. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.

The Secretary shall allocate funds to States to provide
funding to weed management entities to carry out projects
approved by States to control or eradicate weeds on the basis
of the severity or potential severity of the noxious weed
problem, the extent to which the Federal funds will be used
to leverage non-Federal funds, the extent to which the State
has made progress in addressing noxious weed problems, and
such other factors as the Secretary deems relevant. The
Secretary shall provide special consideration for States with
approved weed management entities established by Indian
tribes, and may provide an additional allocation to a State
to meet the particular needs and projects that such a weed
management entity will address.

SEC. 105. ELIGIBILITY AND USE OF FUNDS.

(a) Requirements.--The Secretary shall prescribe
requirements for applications by States for funding,
including provisions for auditing of and reporting on the use
of funds and criteria to ensure that weed management entities
recognized by the States are capable of carrying out
projects, monitoring and reporting on the use of funds, and
are knowledgeable about and experienced in noxious weed
management and represent private and public interests
adversely affected by noxious weeds. Eligible activities for
funding shall include--
(1) applied research to solve locally significant weed
management problems and solutions, except that such research
may not exceed 8 percent of the available funds in any year;
(2) incentive payments to encourage the formation of new
weed management entities, except that such payments may not
exceed 25 percent of the available funds in any year; and
(3) projects relating to the control or eradication of
noxious weeds, including education, inventories and mapping,
management, monitoring, and similar activities, including the
payment of the cost of personnel and equipment that promote
such control or eradication, and other activities to promote
such control or eradication, if the results of the activities
are disseminated to the public.
(b) Project Selection.--A State shall select projects for
funding to a weed management entity on a competitive basis
considering--
(1) the seriousness of the noxious weed problem or
potential problem addressed by the project;
(2) the likelihood that the project will prevent or resolve
the problem, or increase knowledge about resolving similar
problems in the future;
(3) the extent to which the payment will leverage non-
Federal funds to address the noxious weed problem addressed
by the project;
(4) the extent to which the weed management entity has made
progress in addressing noxious weed problems;
(5) the extent to which the project will provide a
comprehensive approach to the control or eradication of
noxious weeds;
(6) the extent to which the project will reduce the total
population of a noxious weed;
(7) the extent to which the project uses the principles of
integrated vegetation management and sound science; and
(8) such other factors that the State determines to be
relevant.
(c) Information and Report.--As a condition of the receipt
of funding, States shall require such information from grant
recipients as necessary and shall submit to the Secretary a
report that describes the purposes and results of each
project for which the payment or award was used, by not later
than 6 months after completion of the projects.
(d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of any project or
activity approved by a State or Indian tribe under this title
may not exceed 50 percent unless the State meets criteria
established by the Secretary that accommodates situations
where a higher percentage is necessary to meet the needs of
an underserved area or addresses a critical need that cannot
be met otherwise.

SEC. 106. LIMITATIONS.

(a) Landowner Consent; Land Under Cultivation.--Any
activity involving real property, either private or public,
may be carried out under this title only with the consent of
the landowner and no project may be undertaken on property
that is devoted to the cultivation of row crops, fruits, or
vegetables.
(b) Compliance With State Law.--A weed management entity
may carry out a project to address the noxious weed problem
in more than one State only if the entity meets the
requirements of the State laws in all States in which the
entity will undertake the project.
(c) Use of Funds.--Funding under this title may not be used
to carry out a project--
(1) to control or eradicate animals, pests, or submerged or
floating noxious aquatic weeds; or

[[Page 23197]]

(2) to protect an agricultural commodity (as defined in
section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5602)) other than--
(A) livestock (as defined in section 602 of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1471); or
(B) an animal- or insect-based product.

SEC. 107. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROGRAMS.

Assistance authorized under this title is intended to
supplement, and not replace, assistance available to weed
management entities, areas, and districts for control or
eradication of harmful, invasive weeds on public lands and
private lands, including funding available under the Pulling
Together Initiative of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation; and the provision of funds to any entity under
this title shall have no effect on the amount of any payment
received by a county from the Federal Government under
chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known as
the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act).

SEC. 108. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

To carry out this title there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $100,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2006, of which not more than 5 percent of
the funds made available for a fiscal year may be used by the
Secretary for administrative costs of Federal agencies.

TITLE III--NEWTOK LAND EXCHANGE

SEC. 301. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that:
(1) The continued existence of the village of Newtok,
Alaska is threatened by the eroding banks of the Ninglick
River.
(2) A relocation of the village will become necessary for
the health and safety of the residents of Newtok within the
next 8 years.
(3) Lands previously conveyed to the Newtok Native
Corporation contain habitat of high value for waterfowl.
(4) An opportunity exists for an exchange of lands between
the Newtok Native Corporation and the Yukon Delta National
Wildlife Refuge that would address the relocation needs of
the village while enhancing the quality of waterfowl habitat
within the boundaries of the Refuge.
(5) An exchange of lands between Newtok and the United
States on an other than equal value basis pursuant to the
terms of this Act is in the public interest.

SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this title, the term
(1) ``ANCSA'' means the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);
(2) ``ANILCA'' means the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC 410hh-3233, 43 USC 1602 et
seq.);
(3) ``Calista'' means the Calista Corporation, an Alaska
Native Regional Corporation established pursuant to ANCSA;
(4) ``Identified Lands'' means approximately 10,943 acres
of lands (including surface and subsurface) designated as
``Proposed Village Site'' upon a map entitled ``Proposed
Newtok Exchange,'' dated September, 2002, and available for
inspection in the Anchorage office of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service;
(5) ``limited warranty deed'' means a warranty deed which
is, with respect to its warranties, limited to that portion
of the chain of title from the moment of conveyance from the
United States to Newtok to and including the moment at which
such title is validly reconveyed to the United States of
America and its assigns;
(6) ``Newtok'' means the Newtok Native Corporation, an
Alaska Native Village Corporation established pursuant to
ANCSA;
(7) ``Newtok lands'' means approximately 12,101 acres of
surface estate comprising conveyed lands and selected lands
identified as Aknerkochik on the map referred to in paragraph
(4) and that surface estate selected by Newtok on Baird Inlet
Island as shown on said map; and
(8) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 303. LANDS TO BE EXCHANGED.

(a) Lands Exchanged to the United States.--If, within 180
days after the date of enactment of this title, Newtok
expresses to the Secretary in writing its intent to enter
into a land exchange with the United States, the Secretary
shall accept from Newtok a valid, unencumbered conveyance, by
limited warranty deed, of the Newtok lands previously
conveyed to Newtok. The Secretary shall also accept from
Newtok a relinquishment of irrevocable prioritized selections
for approximately 4,956 acres for those validly selected
lands not yet conveyed to Newtok. The reconveyance of lands
by Newtok to the United States and the prioritized,
relinquished selections shall be 1.1 times the number of
acres conveyed to Newtok under this title. The number of
acres reconveyed to the United States and the prioritized,
relinquished selections shall be charged to the entitlement
of Newtok.
(b) Lands Exchanged to Newtok.--(1) In exchange for the
Newtok lands conveyed and selections relinquished under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall, subject to valid
existing rights and notwithstanding section 14(f) of ANCSA,
convey to Newtok the surface and subsurface estate of the
Identified Lands. The conveyance shall be by interim
conveyance. Subsequent to the interim conveyance, the
Secretary shall survey the Identified Lands at no cost to
Newtok and issue a patent to the Identified Lands subject to
the provisions of ANCSA and this title. At the time of survey
the charge against Newtok's entitlement for acres conveyed or
irrevocable priorities relinquished by Newtok may be adjusted
to conform to the standard of 1.1 acres relinquished by
Newtok for each one acre received.

SEC. 304. CONVEYANCE.

(a) Timing.--The Secretary shall issue interim conveyances
pursuant to subsection 303(b) at the earliest possible time
after acceptance of the Newtok conveyance and relinquishment
of selections under subsection 303(a).
(b) Relationship to ANCSA.--Lands conveyed to Newtok under
this title shall be deemed to have been conveyed under the
provisions of ANCSA, except that the provisions of 14(c) of
ANCSA shall not apply to these lands, and to the extent that
section 22(g) of ANCSA would otherwise be applicable to these
lands, the provisions of 22(g) of ANCSA shall also not apply
to these lands. Consistent with section 103(c) of ANILCA,
these lands shall not be deemed to be included as a portion
of the Yukon National Wildlife Refuge and shall not be
subject to regulations applicable solely to public lands
within this Conservation System Unit.
(c) Effect on Entitlement.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to change the total acreage of land to which Newtok
is entitled under ANCSA.
(d) Effect on Newtok Lands.--The Newtok Lands shall be
included in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge as of
the date of acceptance of the conveyance of those lands from
Newtok, except that residents of the Village of Newtok,
Alaska, shall retain access rights to subsistence resources
on those public lands as guaranteed under ANILCA section 811
(16 U.S.C. 3121), and to subsistence uses, such as
traditional subsistence fishing, hunting and gathering,
consistent with ANILCA section 803 (16 U.S.C. 3113).
(e) Adjustment to Calista Corporation ANCSA Entitlement for
Relinquished Newtok Selections.--To the extent that Calista
subsurface rights are affected by this title, Calista shall
be entitled to an equivalent acreage of in-lieu subsurface
entitlement for the Newtok selections relinquished in the
exchange as set forth in subsection 303(a) of this title.
This additional entitlement shall come from subsurface lands
already selected by Calista, but which have not been
conveyed. If Calista does not have sufficient subsurface
selections to accommodate this additional entitlement,
Calista Corporation is hereby authorized to make an
additional in lieu selection for the deficient acreage.
(f) Adjustment to Exchange.--If requested by Newtok, the
Secretary is authorized to consider and make adjustments to
the original exchange to meet the purposes of this title,
subject to all the same terms and conditions of this title.

TITLE IV--FLORIDA NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT ACT

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Florida National Forest
Land Management Act of 2002''.

SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Florida.

SEC. 403. SALE OR EXCHANGE OF LAND.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may, under such terms and
conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, sell or exchange
any right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
the parcels of Federal land in the State described in
subsection (b).
(b) Description of Land.--The parcels of Federal land in
the State referred to in subsection (a) consist of--
(1) tract A-942a, East Bay, Santa Rosa County, consisting
of approximately 61 acres, and more particularly described as
T. 1 S., R. 27 W., Sec. 31, W \1/2\ of SW \1/4\ ;
(2) tract A-942b, East Bay, Santa Rosa County, consisting
of approximately 40 acres, and more particularly described as
T. 1 S., R. 27 W., Sec. 38;
(3) tract A-942c, Ft. Walton, Okaloosa County, located
southeast of the intersection of and adjacent to State Road
86 and Mooney Road, consisting of approximately 0.59 acres,
and more particularly described as T. 1 S., R. 24 W., Sec.
26;
(4) tract A-942d, located southeast of Crestview, Okaloosa
County, consisting of approximately 79.90 acres, and more
particularly described as T. 2 N., R. 23 W., Sec. 2, NW \1/4\
NE \1/4\ and NE \1/4\ NW \1/4\;
(5) tract A-943, Okaloosa County Fairgrounds, Ft. Walton,
Okaloosa County, consisting of approximately 30.14 acres, and
more particularly described as T. 1 S., R. 24 W., Sec. 26, S
\1/2\;
(6) tract A-944, City Ball Park--Ft. Walton, Okaloosa
County, consisting of approximately 12.43 acres, and more
particularly described as T. 1 S., R. 24 W., Sec. 26, S \1/
2\;
(7) tract A-945, Landfill-Golf Course Driving Range,
located southeast of Crestview, Okaloosa County, consisting
of approximately 40.85 acres, and more particularly described
as T. 2 N., R. 23 W., Sec. 4, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\;

[[Page 23198]]

(8) tract A-959, 2 vacant lots on the north side of
Micheaux Road in Bristol, Liberty County, consisting of
approximately 0.5 acres, and more particularly described as
T. 1 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 6;
(9) tract C-3m-d, located southwest of Astor in Lake
County, consisting of approximately 15.0 acres, and more
particularly described as T. 15 S., R. 28 E., Sec. 37;
(10) tract C-691, Lake County, consisting of the subsurface
rights to approximately 40.76 acres of land, and more
particularly described as T. 17 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 25, SE \1/
4\ NW \1/4\;
(11) tract C-2208b, Lake County, consisting of
approximately 39.99 acres, and more particularly described as
T. 17 S., R. 28 E., Sec. 28, NW \1/4\ SE \1/4\;
(12) tract C-2209, Lake County, consisting of approximately
127.2 acres, as depicted on the map, and more particularly
described as T. 17 S., R. 28 E., Sec. 21, NE \1/4\ SW \1/4\,
SE \1/4\ NW \1/4\, and SE \1/4\ NE \1/4\;
(13) tract C-2209b, Lake County, consisting of
approximately 39.41 acres, and more particularly described as
T. 17 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 32, NE \1/4\ SE \1/4\;
(14) tract C-2209c, Lake County, consisting of
approximately 40.09 acres, and more particularly described as
T. 18 S., R. 28 E., Sec. 14, SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\;
(15) tract C-2209d, Lake County, consisting of
approximately 79.58 acres, and more particularly described as
T. 18 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 5, SE \1/4\ NW \1/4\, NE \1/4\ SW
\1/4\;
(16) tract C-2210, government lot 1, 20 recreational
residential lots, and adjacent land on Lake Kerr, Marion
County, consisting of approximately 30 acres, and more
particularly described as T. 13 S., R. 25 E., Sec. 22;
(17) tract C-2213, located in the F.M. Arrendondo grant,
East of Ocala, Marion County, and including a portion of the
land located east of the western right-of-way of State
Highway 19, consisting of approximately 15.0 acres, and more
particularly described as T. 14 and 15 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 36,
38, and 40; and
(18) all improvements on the parcels described in
paragraphs (1) through (18).
(c) Legal Description Modification.--The Secretary may, for
the purposes of soliciting offers for the sale or exchange of
land under subsection (d), modify the descriptions of land
specified in subsection (b) based on--
(1) a survey; or
(2) a determination by the Secretary that the modification
would be in the best interest of the public.
(d) Solicitations of Offers.--
(1) In general.--Subject to such terms and conditions as
the Secretary may prescribe, the Secretary may solicit offers
for the sale or exchange of land described in subsection (b).
(2) Rejection of offers.--The Secretary may reject any
offer received under this section if the Secretary determines
that the offer--
(A) is not adequate; or
(B) is not in the public interest.
(e) Methods of Sale.--The Secretary may sell the land
described in subsection (b) at public or private sale
(including at auction), in accordance with any terms,
conditions, and procedures that the Secretary determines to
be appropriate.
(f) Brokers.--In any sale or exchange of land described in
subsection (b), the Secretary may--
(1) use a real estate broker; and
(2) pay the real estate broker a commission in an amount
that is comparable to the amounts of commission generally
paid for real estate transactions in the area.
(g) Concurrence of the Secretary of the Air Force.--A
parcel of land described in paragraphs (1) through (7) of
subsection (b) shall not be sold or exchanged by the
Secretary without the concurrence of the Secretary of the Air
Force.
(h) Cash Equalization.--Notwithstanding section 206(b) of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1716(b)), if the value of non-Federal land for which Federal
land is exchanged under this section is less than the value
of the Federal land exchanged, the Secretary may accept a
cash equalization payment in excess of 25 percent of the
value of the Federal land.
(i) Disposition of Proceeds.--
(1) In general.--The net proceeds derived from any sale or
exchange under this Act shall be deposited in the fund
established by Public Law 90-171 (commonly known as the `Sisk
Act') (16 U.S.C. 484a).
(2) Use.--Amounts deposited under paragraph (1) shall be
available to the Secretary for expenditure, without further
appropriation, for--
(A) acquisition of land and interests in land for inclusion
as units of the National Forest System in the State; and
(B) reimbursement of costs incurred by the Secretary in
carrying out land sales and exchanges under this title,
including the payment of real estate broker commissions under
subsection (f).

SEC. 404. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--Land acquired by the United States under
this title shall be--
(1) subject to the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known as
the `Weeks Act') (16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.); and
(2) administered in accordance with laws (including
regulations) applicable to the National Forest System.
(b) Applicable Law.--The land described in section 403(b)
shall not be subject to the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
(c) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the land
described in section 403(b) is withdrawn from location,
entry, and patent under the public land laws, mining laws,
and mineral leasing laws (including geothermal leasing laws).

TITLE V--AMERICAN FORK CANYON VISITORS CENTER

SEC. 501. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the facility that houses the administrative office of
the Pleasant Grove Ranger District of the Uinta National
Forest can no longer properly serve the purpose of the
facility;
(2) a fire destroyed the Timpanogos Cave National Monument
Visitor Center and administrative office in 1991, and the
temporary structure that is used for a visitor center cannot
adequately serve the public; and
(3) combining the administrative office of the Pleasant
Grove Ranger District with a new Timpanogos Cave National
Monument visitor center and administrative office in one
facility would--
(A) facilitate interagency coordination;
(B) serve the public better; and
(C) improve cost effectiveness.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire by
exchange non-Federal land located in Highland, Utah as the
site for an interagency administrative and visitor facility;
(2) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to construct an
administrative and visitor facility on the non-Federal land
acquired by the Secretary of Agriculture; and
(3) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior to cooperate in the development,
construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility.

SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Facility.--The term ``facility'' means the facility
constructed under section 506 to house--
(A) the administrative office of the Pleasant Grove Ranger
District of the Uinta National Forest; and
(B) the visitor center and administrative office of the
Timpanogos Cave National Monument.
(2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the
parcels of land and improvements to the land in the Salt Lake
Meridian comprising--
(A) approximately 237 acres located in T. 5 S., R. 3 E.,
sec. 13, lot 1, SW \1/4\, NE \1/4\, E \1/2\, NW \1/4\ and E
\1/2\, SW \1/4\, as depicted on the map entitled ``Long
Hollow-Provo Canyon Parcel'', dated March 12, 2001;
(B) approximately 0.18 acre located in T. 7 S., R. 2 E.,
sec. 12, NW \1/4\, as depicted on the map entitled ``Provo
Sign and Radio Shop'', dated March 12, 2001;
(C) approximately 20 acres located in T. 3 S., R. 1 E.,
sec. 33, SE \1/4\, as depicted on the map entitled ``Corner
Canyon Parcel'', dated March 12, 2001;
(D) approximately 0.18 acre located in T. 29 S., R. 7 W.,
sec. 15, S \1/2\, as depicted on the map entitled ``Beaver
Administrative Site'', dated March 12, 2001;
(E) approximately 7.37 acres located in T. 7 S., R. 3 E.,
sec. 28, NE \1/4\, SW \1/4\, NE \1/4\, as depicted on the map
entitled ``Springville Parcel'', dated March 12, 2001; and
(F) approximately 0.83 acre located in T. 5 S., R. 2 E.,
sec. 20, as depicted on the map entitled ``Pleasant Grove
Ranger District Parcel'', dated March 12, 2001.
(3) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
the parcel of land in the Salt Lake Meridian comprising
approximately 37.42 acres located at approximately 4,400
West, 11,000 North (SR-92), Highland, Utah in T. 4 S., R. 2
E., sec. 31, NW \1/4\, as depicted on the map entitled ``The
Highland Property'', dated March 12, 2001.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.

SEC. 503. MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.

(a) Availability of Maps.--The maps described in paragraphs
(2) and (3) of section 502 shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the Office of the Chief of the Forest
Service until the date on which the land depicted on the maps
is exchanged under this title.
(b) Technical Corrections to Legal Descriptions.--The
Secretary may correct minor errors in the legal descriptions
in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 502.

SEC. 504. EXCHANGE OF LAND FOR FACILITY SITE.

[[Page 23199]]

(1) Determination.--The fair market value of the land and
the improvements on the land exchanged under this title shall
be determined by an appraisal that--
(A) is approved by the Secretary; and
(B) conforms with the Federal appraisal standards, as
defined in the publication entitled ``Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions''.
(2) Separate appraisals.--
(A) In general.--Each parcel of Federal land described in
subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 502(2) shall be
appraised separately.
(B) Individual property values.--The property values of
each parcel shall not be affected by the unit rule described
in the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions.
(d) Cash Equalization.--Notwithstanding section 206(b) of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1716(b)), the Secretary may, as the circumstances require,
either make or accept a cash equalization payment in excess
of 25 percent of the total value of the lands or interests
transferred out of Federal ownership.
(e) Administration of Land Acquisition by United States.--
(1) Boundary adjustment.--
(A) In general.--On acceptance of title by the Secretary--
(i) the non-Federal land conveyed to the United States
shall become part of the Uinta National Forest; and
(ii) the boundaries of the national forest shall be
adjusted to include the land.
(B) Allocation of land and water conservation fund
moneys.--For purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-099), the
boundaries of the national forest, as adjusted under this
section, shall be considered to be boundaries of the national
forest as of January 1, 1965.
(2) Applicable law.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
Secretary shall manage any land acquired under this section
in accordance with--
(A) the Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.)
(commonly known as the ``Weeks Act''); and
(B) other laws (including regulations) that apply to
National Forest System land.

SEC. 505. DISPOSITION OF FUNDS.

(a) Deposit.--The Secretary shall deposit any cash
equalization funds received in the land exchange in the fund
established under Public Law 90-171 (16 U.S.C. 484a)
(commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'').
(b) Use of Funds.--Funds deposited under subsection (a)
shall be available to the Secretary, without further
appropriation, for the acquisition of land and interests in
land for administrative sites in the State of Utah and land
for the National Forest System.

SEC. 506. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF FACILITY.

(a) Construction.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), as soon as
practicable after funds are made available to carry out this
title, the Secretary of the Interior shall construct, and
bear responsibility for all costs of construction of, a
facility and all necessary infrastructure on non-Federal land
acquired under section 504.
(2) Design and specifications.--Prior to construction, the
design and specifications of the facility shall be approved
by the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior.
(b) Operation and Maintenance of Facility.--The facility
shall be occupied, operated, and maintained jointly by the
Secretary (acting through the Chief of the Forest Service)
and the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the
Director of the National Park Service) under terms and
conditions agreed to by the Secretary and the Secretary of
the Interior.

SEC. 507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title.

TITLE VI--WASHOE TRIBE LAND CONVEYANCE

SEC. 601. WASHOE TRIBE LAND CONVEYANCE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the ancestral homeland of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada
and California (referred to in this title as the ``Tribe'')
included an area of approximately 5,000 square miles in and
around Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada, and Lake Tahoe was
the heart of the territory;
(2) in 1997, Federal, State, and local governments,
together with many private landholders, recognized the Washoe
people as indigenous people of Lake Tahoe Basin through a
series of meetings convened by those governments at 2
locations in Lake Tahoe;
(3) the meetings were held to address protection of the
extraordinary natural, recreational, and ecological resources
in the Lake Tahoe region;
(4) the resulting multiagency agreement includes objectives
that support the traditional and customary uses of National
Forest System land by the Tribe; and
(5) those objectives include the provision of access by
members of the Tribe to the shore of Lake Tahoe in order to
reestablish traditional and customary cultural practices.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to implement the joint local, State, tribal, and
Federal objective of returning the Tribe to Lake Tahoe; and
(2) to ensure that members of the Tribe have the
opportunity to engage in traditional and customary cultural
practices on the shore of Lake Tahoe to meet the needs of
spiritual renewal, land stewardship, Washoe horticulture and
ethnobotany, subsistence gathering, traditional learning, and
reunification of tribal and family bonds.
(c) Conveyance on Condition Subsequent.--Subject to valid
existing rights, the easement reserved under subsection (d),
and the condition stated in subsection (e), the Secretary of
Agriculture shall convey to the Secretary of the Interior, in
trust for the Tribe, for no consideration, all right, title,
and interest in the parcel of land comprising approximately
24.3 acres, located within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management
Unit north of Skunk Harbor, Nevada, and more particularly
described as Mount Diablo Meridian, T15N, R18E, section 27,
lot 3.
(d) Easement.--
(1) In general.--The conveyance under subsection (c) shall
be made subject to reservation to the United States of a
nonexclusive easement for public and administrative access
over Forest Development Road #15N67 to National Forest System
land, to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(2) Access by individuals with disabilities.--The Secretary
of Agriculture shall provide a reciprocal easement to the
Tribe permitting vehicular access to the parcel over Forest
Development Road #15N67 to--
(A) members of the Tribe for administrative and safety
purposes; and
(B) members of the Tribe who, due to age, infirmity, or
disability, would have difficulty accessing the conveyed
parcel on foot.
(e) Condition on use of Land.--
(1) In general.--In using the parcel conveyed under
subsection (c), the Tribe and members of the Tribe--
(A) shall limit the use of the parcel to traditional and
customary uses and stewardship conservation for the benefit
of the Tribe;
(B) shall not permit any permanent residential or
recreational development on, or commercial use of, the parcel
(including commercial development, tourist accommodations,
gaming, sale of timber, or mineral extraction); and
(C) shall comply with environmental requirements that are
no less protective than environmental requirements that apply
under the Regional Plan of the Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency.
(2) Termination and reversion.--If the Secretary of the
Interior, after notice to the Tribe and an opportunity for a
hearing, based on monitoring of use of the parcel by the
Tribe, makes a finding that the Tribe has used or permitted
the use of the parcel in violation of paragraph (1) and the
Tribe fails to take corrective or remedial action directed by
the Secretary of the Interior--
(A) title to the parcel in the Secretary of the Interior,
in trust for the Tribe, shall terminate; and
(B) title to the parcel shall revert to the Secretary of
Agriculture.

TITLE VII--SANTA CLARA AND SAN ILDEFONSO PUEBLO LAND CONVEYANCE

SEC. 701. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the agreement
entitled ``Agreement to Affirm Boundary Between Pueblo of
Santa Clara and Pueblo of San Ildefonso Aboriginal Lands
Within Garcia Canyon Tract'', entered into by the Governors
on December 20, 2000.
(2) Boundary line.--The term ``boundary line'' means the
boundary line established under section 704(a).
(3) Governors.--The term ``Governors'' means--
(A) the Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico;
and
(B) the Governor of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New
Mexico.
(4) 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).
(5) Pueblos.--The term ``Pueblos'' means--
(A) the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; and
(B) the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(7) Trust land.--The term ``trust land'' means the land
held by the United States in trust under section 702(a) or
703(a).

SEC. 702. TRUST FOR THE PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA, NEW MEXICO.

[[Page 23200]]

(2) the southern half of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 23, New
Mexico Principal Meridian;
(3) the southern half of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 24, New
Mexico Principal Meridian;
(4) T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 25, excluding the 5-acre tract
in the southeast quarter owned by the Pueblo of San
Ildefonso;
(5) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 26, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located north and east of the
boundary line;
(6) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 27, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located north of the boundary
line;
(7) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 8 E., Sec. 19, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is not included in the Santa Clara
Pueblo Grant or the Santa Clara Indian Reservation; and
(8) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 8 E., Sec. 30, that is not
included in the Santa Clara Pueblo Grant or the San Ildefonso
Grant.

SEC. 703. TRUST FOR THE PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO, NEW MEXICO.

(a) In General.--All right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the land described in subsection (b),
including improvements on, appurtenances to, and mineral
rights (including rights to oil and gas) to the land, shall
be held by the United States in trust for the Pueblo of San
Ildefonso, New Mexico.
(b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) consists of approximately 2,000 acres of
Bureau of Land Management land located in Rio Arriba County
and Santa Fe County in the State of New Mexico, and more
particularly described as--
(1) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 22, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located south of the boundary
line;
(2) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 26, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located south and west of the
boundary line;
(3) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 27, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located south of the boundary
line;
(4) T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 34, New Mexico Principal
Meridian; and
(5) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 35, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is not included in the San Ildefonso
Pueblo Grant.

SEC. 704. SURVEY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.

(a) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this title, the Office of Cadastral Survey of
the Bureau of Land Management shall, in accordance with the
Agreement, complete a survey of the boundary line established
under the Agreement for the purpose of establishing, in
accordance with sections 702(b) and 703(b), the boundaries of
the trust land.
(b) Legal Descriptions.--
(1) Publication.--On approval by the Governors of the
survey completed under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register--
(A) a legal description of the boundary line; and
(B) legal descriptions of the trust land.
(2) Technical corrections.--Before the date on which the
legal descriptions are published under paragraph (1)(B), the
Secretary may correct any technical errors in the
descriptions of the trust land provided in sections 702(b)
and 703(b) to ensure that the descriptions are consistent
with the terms of the Agreement.
(3) Effect.--Beginning on the date on which the legal
descriptions are published under paragraph (1)(B), the legal
descriptions shall be the official legal descriptions of the
trust land.

SEC. 705. ADMINISTRATION OF TRUST LAND.

(a) In General.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this
title--
(1) the land held in trust under section 702(a) shall be
declared to be a part of the Santa Clara Indian Reservation;
and
(2) the land held in trust under section 3(a) shall be
declared to be a part of the San Ildefonso Indian
Reservation.
(b) Applicable Law.--
(1) In general.--The trust land shall be administered in
accordance with any law (including regulations) or court
order generally applicable to property held in trust by the
United States for Indian tribes.
(2) Pueblo lands act.--The following shall be subject to
section 17 of the Act of June 7, 1924 (commonly known as the
``Pueblo Lands Act'') (25 U.S.C. 331 note):
(A) The trust land.
(B) Any land owned as of the date of enactment of this
title or acquired after the date of enactment of this title
by the Pueblo of Santa Clara in the Santa Clara Pueblo Grant.
(C) Any land owned as of the date of enactment of this
title or acquired after the date of enactment of this title
by the Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the San Ildefonso Pueblo
Grant.
(c) Use of Trust Land.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the criteria developed under
paragraph (2), the trust land may be used only for--
(A) traditional and customary uses; or
(B) stewardship conservation for the benefit of the Pueblo
for which the trust land is held in trust.
(2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall work with the Pueblos to
develop appropriate criteria for using the trust land in a
manner that preserves the trust land for traditional and
customary uses or stewardship conservation.
(3) Limitation.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this
title, the trust land shall not be used for any new
commercial developments.

SEC. 706. EFFECT.

Nothing in this title--
(1) affects any valid right-of-way, lease, permit, mining
claim, grazing permit, water right, or other right or
interest of a person or entity (other than the United States)
that is--
(A) in or to the trust land; and
(B) in existence before the date of enactment of this
title;
(2) enlarges, impairs, or otherwise affects a right or
claim of the Pueblos to any land or interest in land that
is--
(A) based on Aboriginal or Indian title; and
(B) in existence before the date of enactment of this
title;
(3) constitutes an express or implied reservation of water
or water right with respect to the trust land; or
(4) affects any water right of the Pueblos in existence
before the date of enactment of this title.
______

SA 4976. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 2670, to establish Institutes to conduct research on the
prevention of, and restoration from, wildfires in forest and woodland
ecosystems; as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

TITLE I--WILDFIRE PREVENTION ACT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Wildfire Prevention Act of
2002''.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) there is an increasing threat of wildfire to millions
of acres of forest land and rangeland throughout the United
States;
(2) forest land and rangeland are degraded as a direct
consequence of land management practices (including practices
to control and prevent wildfires and the failure to harvest
subdominant trees from overstocked stands) that disrupt the
occurrence of frequent low-intensity fires that have
periodically removed flammable undergrowth;
(3) at least 39,000,000 acres of land of the National
Forest System in the interior West are at high risk of
wildfire;
(4) an average of 95 percent of the expenditures by the
Forest Service for wildfire suppression during fiscal years
1990 through 1994 were made to suppress wildfires in the
interior West;
(5) the number, size, and severity of wildfires in the
interior West are increasing;
(6) of the timberland in National Forests in the States of
Arizona and New Mexico, 59 percent of such land in Arizona,
and 56 percent of such land in New Mexico, has an average
diameter of 9 to 12 inches diameter at breast height;
(7) the population of the interior West grew twice as fast
as the national average during the 1990s;
(8) efforts to prioritize forests and communities for
wildfire risk reduction have been inconsistent and
insufficient and have resulted in funding to areas that are
not prone to severe wildfires;
(9) catastrophic wildfires--
(A) endanger homes and communities;
(B) damage and destroy watersheds and soils; and
(C) pose a serious threat to the habitat of threatened and
endangered species;
(10) a 1994 assessment of forest health in the interior
West estimated that only a 15- to 30-year window of
opportunity exists for effective management intervention
before damage from uncontrollable wildfire becomes
widespread, with 8 years having already elapsed since the
assessment;
(11) following a catastrophic wildfire, certain forests in
the interior West do not return to their former grandeur;
(12) healthy forest and woodland ecosystems--
(A) reduce the risk of wildfire to forests and communities;
(B) improve wildlife habitat and biodiversity;
(C) increase tree, grass, forb, and shrub productivity;
(D) enhance watershed values;
(E) improve the environment; and
(F) provide a basis in some areas for economically and
environmentally sustainable uses;
(13) sustaining the long-term ecological and economic
health of interior West forests and woodland, and their
dependent human communities, requires preventing severe
wildfires before the wildfires occur and permitting natural,
low-intensity ground fires;
(14) more natural fire regimes cannot be accomplished
without the reduction of excess fuels and thinning of
subdorminant trees (which fuels and trees may be of
commercial value);
(15) ecologically-based forest and woodland ecosystem
restoration on a landscape scale will--
(A) improve long-term community protection;
(B) minimize the need for wildfire suppression;
(C) improve resource values;
(D) reduce rehabilitation costs;

[[Page 23201]]

(E) reduce loss of critical habitat; and
(F) protect forests for future generations;
(16) although the National Fire Plan, and the report
entitled ``Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in
Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--A Cohesive Strategy'' (65 Fed. Reg.
67480), advocate a shift in wildfire policy from suppression
to prevention (including restoration and hazardous fuels
reduction), Federal land managers are not dedicating
sufficient attention and financial resources to restoration
activities that simultaneously restore forest health and
reduce the risk of severe wildfire;
(17) although landscape scale restoration is needed to
effectively reverse degradation, scientific understanding of
landscape scale treatments is limited;
(18) the Federal wildfire research program is funded at
approximately 1/3 of the amount that is required to address
emerging wildfire problems, resulting in the lack of a
cohesive strategy to address the threat of catastrophic
wildfires; and
(19) rigorous, understandable, and applied scientific
information is needed for--
(A) the design, implementation, and adaptation of landscape
scale restoration treatments and improvement of wildfire
management technology;
(B) the environmental review process; and
(C) affected entities that collaborate in the development
and implementation of wildfire treatment.

SEC. 103. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this title are--
(1) to enhance the capacity to develop, transfer, apply,
and monitor practical science-based forest restoration
treatments that will reduce the risk of severe wildfires, and
improve forest and woodland health, in the interior West;
(2) to develop the practical scientific knowledge required
to implement forest and woodland restoration on a landscape
scale;
(3) to develop the interdisciplinary knowledge required to
understand the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of
wildfire control on ecosystems and landscapes;
(4) to require Federal agencies--
(A) to use ecological restoration treatments to reverse
declining forest health and reduce the risk of severe
wildfires across the forest landscape;
(B) to ensure that sufficient funds are dedicated to
wildlife prevention activities, including restoration
treatments; and
(C) to monitor and use wildfire treatments based on the use
of adaptive ecosystem management;
(5) to develop, transfer, and assist land managers in
treating acres with restoration-based treatments and use new
management technologies (including the transfer of
understandable information, assistance with environmental
review, and field and classroom training and collaboration)
to accomplish the goals identified in--
(A) the National Fire Plan;
(B) the report entitled ``Protecting People and Sustaining
Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--A Cohesive Strategy''
(65 Fed. Reg. 67480); and
(C) the report entitled ``10-Year Comprehensive Strategy: A
Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to
Communities and the Environment'' of the Western Governors'
Association; and
(6) to provide technical assistance to collaborative
efforts by affected entities to develop, implement, and
monitor adaptive ecosystem management restoration treatments
that are ecologically sound, economically viable, and
socially responsible.

SEC. 104. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Adaptive ecosystem management.--The term ``adaptive
ecosystem management'' means a natural resource management
process under which planning, implementation, monitoring,
research, evaluation, and incorporation of new knowledge are
combined into a management approach that is--
(A) based on scientific findings and the needs of society;
and
(B) used to modify future management methods and policy.
(2) Affected entities.--The term ``affected entities''
includes--
(A) land managers;
(B) stakeholders;
(C) concerned citizens; and
(D) State land managers.
(3) Institute.--The term ``Institute'' means an Institute
established under section 105(a).
(4) Interior west.--The term ``interior West'' means the
States of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and
Utah.
(5) Land manager.--
(A) In general.--The term ``land manager'' means a person
or entity that practices or guides natural resource
management.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``land manager'' includes a
Federal, State, local, or tribal land management agency.
(6) Restoration.--The term ``restoration'' means a process
undertaken to return an ecosystem or habitat toward--
(A) the original condition of the ecosystem or habitat; or
(B) a condition that supports a related species, natural
function, or ecological process (including a low intensity
fire).
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service.
(8) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief
of the Forest Service; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior.
(9) Stakeholder.--The term ``stakeholder'' means any person
interested in or affected by management of forest or woodland
ecosystems.

SEC. 105. ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTITUTES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior, shall--
(1) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this title, establish 3 Institutes to promote the use of
adaptive ecosystem management to reduce the risk of
wildfires, and improve the health of forest and woodland
ecosystems, in the interior West; and
(2) provide assistance to the Institutes to promote the use
of adaptive ecosystem management in accordance with paragraph
(1).
(b) Location.--
(1) Existing institutes.--The Secretary may designate an
institute in existence on the date of enactment of this title
to serve as an Institute established under this title.
(2) Locations.--Of the Institutes established under this
title, the Secretary shall establish 1 Institute in each of
the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. The
Institute established in Arizona shall be located at Northern
Arizona University.
(c) Duties.--Each Institute shall--
(1) plan, conduct, or promote research on the use of
adaptive ecosystem management to reduce the risk of
wildfires, and improve the health of forest and woodland
ecosystems, in the interior West, including--
(A) research that assists in providing information on the
use of adaptive ecosystem management practices to affected
entities; and
(B) research that will be useful in the development and
implementation of practical, science-based, ecological
restoration treatments for forest and woodland ecosystems
affected by wildfires; and
(2) provide the results of research described in paragraph
(1) to affected entities.
(d) Cooperation.--To increase and accelerate efforts to
restore forest ecosystem health and abate unnatural and
unwanted wildfires in the interior West, each Institute shall
cooperate with--
(1) researchers at colleges and universities in the States
of Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado that have a demonstrated
capability to conduct research described in subsection (c);
and
(2) other organizations and entities in the interior West
(such as the Western Governors' Association).
(e) Annual Work Plans.--As a condition of the receipt of
funds made available under this title, for each fiscal year,
each Institute shall submit to the Secretary, for review by
the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, an annual work plan that includes assurances,
satisfactory to the Secretaries, that the proposed work of
the Institute will serve the informational needs of affected
entities.

SEC. 106. COOPERATION BETWEEN INSTITUTES AND FEDERAL
AGENCIES.

In carrying out this title, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior--
(1) shall ensure that adequate financial and technical
assistance is provided to the Institutes to enable the
Institutes to carry out the purposes of the Institutes under
section 5, including prevention activities and ecological
restoration for wildfires and affected ecosystems;
(2) shall use information and expertise provided by the
Institutes;
(3) shall encourage Federal agencies to use, on a
cooperative basis, information and expertise provided by the
Institutes;
(4) shall encourage cooperation and coordination between
Federal programs relating to--
(A) ecological restoration;
(B) wildfire risk reduction; and
(C) wildfire management technologies;
(5) notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, United States
Code, may--
(A) enter into contracts, cooperative agreements,
interagency personal agreements to carry out this title; and
(B) carry out other transactions under this title;
(6) may accept funds from other Federal agencies to
supplement or fully fund grants made, and contracts entered
into, by the Secretaries;
(7) may support a program of internships for qualified
individuals at the undergraduate and graduate levels to carry
out the educational and training objectives of this title;
(8) shall encourage professional education and public
information activities relating to the purposes of this
title; and
(9) may promulgate such regulations as the Secretaries
determine are necessary to carry out this title.

SEC. 107. MONITORING AND EVALUATION.

(a) In General.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this title, and every 5 years thereafter, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, shall complete and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a detailed

[[Page 23202]]

evaluation of the programs and activities of each Institute--
(1) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the
research, communication tools, and information transfer
activities of each Institute meet the needs of affected
entities; and
(2) to determine whether continued provision of Federal
assistance to each Institute is warranted.
(b) Termination of Assistance.--If, as a result of an
evaluation under subsection (a), the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, determines
that an Institute does not qualify for further Federal
assistance under this title, the Institute shall receive no
further Federal assistance under this title until such time
as the qualifications of the Institute are reestablished to
the satisfaction of the Secretaries.

SEC. 108. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $15,000,000 for each fiscal year.

TITLE II--COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST AND PUBLIC LANDS RESTORATION ACT

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Community-Based Forest and
Public Lands Restoration Act''.

SEC. 202. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this title are--
(1) to create a coordinated, consistent, community-based
program to restore and maintain the ecological integrity of
degraded National Forest System and public lands watersheds;
(2) to ensure that restoration of degraded National Forest
System and public lands recognizes variation in forest type
and fire regimes, incorporates principles of community
forestry, local and traditional knowledge, and conservation
biology; and, where possible, uses the least intrusive
methods practicable;
(3) to enable the Secretaries to assist small, rural
communities to increase their capacity to restore and
maintain the ecological integrity of surrounding National
Forest System and public lands, and to use the by-products of
such restoration in value-added processing;
(4) to require the Secretaries to monitor ecological,
social, and economic conditions based on explicit mechanisms
for accountability;
(5) to authorize the Secretaries to expand partnerships and
to contract with non-profit organizations, conservation
groups, small and micro-enterprises, cooperatives, non-
Federal conservation corps, and other parties to encourage
them to provide services or products that facilitate the
restoration of damaged lands; and
(6) to improve communication and joint problem solving,
consistent with Federal and State environmental laws, among
individuals and groups who are interested in restoring the
diversity and productivity of watersheds.

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this title:
(1) The term ``public lands'' has the meaning given such
term in section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)).
(2) The term ``National Forest System'' has the meaning
given such term in section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
(3) The term ``Secretaries'' means the Secretary of
Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service,
and the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
(4) The term ``restore'' means to incorporate historic,
current, and new scientific information as it becomes
available, to reintroduce, maintain, or enhance the
characteristics, functions, and ecological processes of
healthy, properly functioning watersheds.
(5) The term ``local'' means within the same county,
watershed unit, or jurisdiction of a Resource Advisory
Council established pursuant to Public Law 106-393 where an
associated restoration project, or projects, are conducted.
(6) The term ``micro-enterprise'' means a non-subsidiary
business or cooperative employing five or fewer people.
(7) The term ``small enterprise'' means a non-subsidiary
business or cooperative employing between 6 and 150 people.
(8) The term ``value-added processing'' means additional
processing of a product to increase its economic value and to
create additional jobs and benefits where the processing is
done.
(9) The term ``low-impact equipment'' means the use of
equipment for restorative, maintenance, or extraction
purposes that minimizes or eliminates impacts to soils and
other resources.
(10) The terms ``rural'' and ``rural area'' mean, a city,
town, or unincorporated area that has a population of 50,000
inhabitants or less, other than an urbanized area immediately
adjacent to a city, town, or unincorporated area that has a
population in excess of 50,000 inhabitants.

SEC. 204. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

(a) Requirements.--The Secretaries shall jointly establish
a National Forest System and public lands collaborative
community-based restoration program. The purposes of the
program shall be:
(1) to identify projects that will restore degraded
National Forest System and public lands; and
(2) implement such projects in a collaborative way and in a
way that builds rural community capacity to restore and
maintain in perpetuity the health of the National Forest
System and other public lands.
(b) Cooperation.--The Secretaries may enter into
cooperative agreements with willing tribal governments, State
and local governments, private and nonprofit entities and
landowners for protection, restoration, and enhancement of
fish and wildlife habitat, forests, and other resources on
the National Forest System and public lands.
(c) Monitoring.--
(1) The Secretaries shall establish a multiparty
monitoring, evaluation, and accountability process in order
to assess the cumulative accomplishments or adverse impacts
of projects implemented under this title. The Secretaries
shall include any interested individual or organization in
the monitoring and evaluation process.
(2) Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of
this title, the Secretaries shall submit a report to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United
States Senate and the Committee on Resources of the United
States House of Representatives detailing the information
gathered as a result of the multiparty monitoring and
evaluation. The report shall include an assessment on
whether, and to what extent, the projects funded pursuant to
this title are meeting the purposes of the title.
(3) The Secretaries shall ensure that monitoring data is
collected and compiled in a way that the general public can
easily access. The Secretaries may collect the data using
cooperative agreements, grants, or contracts with small or
micro-enterprises, or Youth Conservation Corps work crews or
related partnerships with State, local, and other non-Federal
conservation corps.
(d) The Secretaries shall hire additional outreach
specialists, grants and agreements specialists, and contract
specialists in order to implement this title.

SEC. 205. FOREST RESTORATION AND VALUE-ADDED CENTERS.

(a) Establishment.--Subject to subsection (d), the
Secretaries shall provide cost-share grants, cooperative
agreements, or both to establish Restoration and Value-Added
Centers in order to improve the implementation of
collaborative, community-based restoration projects on
National Forest System or public lands.
(b) Requirements.--The Restoration and Value-Added Centers
shall provide technical assistance to non-profit
organizations, small or micro-enterprises or individuals
interested in creating a natural-resource related small or
micro-enterprise in the following areas--
(1) restoration, and
(2) processing techniques for the byproducts of restoration
and value-added manufacturing.
(c) Additional Requirements.--The Restoration and Value-
Added Centers shall provide technical assistance in one or
more of the following--
(1) using the latest, independent peer reviewed, scientific
information and methodology to accomplish restoration and
ecosystem health objectives,
(2) workforce training for value-added manufacturing and
restoration,
(3) marketing and business support for conservation-based
small and micro-enterprises,
(4) accessing urban markets for small and micro-enterprises
located in rural communities,
(5) developing technology for restoration and the use of
products resulting from restoration,
(6) accessing funding from government and non-government
sources, and
(7) development of economic infrastructure including
collaborative planning, proposal development, and grant
writing where appropriate.
(d) Locations.--The Secretaries shall ensure that at least
one Restoration and Value-Added Center is located within
Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, northern California, eastern
Oregon, and Washington and that every Restoration and Value-
Added Center is located in a rural community that is adjacent
to or surrounded by National Forest System or other public
lands.
(1) The Secretaries may enter into partnerships and
cooperative agreements with other Federal agencies or other
organizations, including local non-profit organizations,
conservation groups, or community colleges in creating and
maintaining the Restoration and Value-Added Centers.
(2) The appropriate Regional Forester and State Bureau of
Land Management Director will issue a request for proposals
to create a Restoration and Value-Added Center. The Regional
Forester and State Bureau of Land Management Director will
select a proposal with input from existing Resource and
Technical Advisory Committees where appropriate.
(3) The Secretaries shall provide cost-share grants,
cooperative agreements, or both equaling 75 percent of each
Restoration and Value-Added Center's operating costs,
including business planning, not to exceed $1 million
annually per center.

[[Page 23203]]

(4) Within 30 days of approving a grant or cooperative
agreement to establish a Restoration and Value-Added Center,
the Secretary shall notify the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the
Committee on Resources of the United States House of
Representatives and identify the recipient of the grant award
or cooperative agreement.
(5) After a Restoration and Value-Added Center has operated
for five years, the Secretary of Agriculture shall assess the
center's performance and begin to reduce, by 25 percent
annually, the level of Federal funding for the center's
operating costs.
(e) Report.--No later than five years after the date of
enactment of this title, the Secretaries shall submit a
report to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of
the United States Senate and the Committee on Resources of
the United States House of Representatives, assessing the
Restoration and Value-Added Centers created pursuant to this
section. The report shall include--
(1) descriptions of the organizations receiving assistance
from the centers, including their geographic and demographic
distribution,
(2) a summary of the projects the technical assistance
recipients implemented, and
(3) an estimate of the number of non-profit organizations,
small enterprises, micro-enterprises, or individuals assisted
by the Restoration and Value-Added Centers.

SEC. 206. COMMUNITY-BASED NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM AND PUBLIC
LANDS RESTORATION.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) Notwithstanding Federal procurement laws, the Federal
Grant and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. 6301
et seq.), and the Competition in Contracting Act, the
Secretaries shall ensure that a percentage of the total
dollar value of contracts and agreements they award in each
fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act
are awarded to qualifying entities as follows:
(A) 10 percent in the first fiscal year;
(B) 20 percent in the second fiscal year;
(C) 30 percent in the third fiscal year;
(D) 40 percent in the fourth fiscal year; and
(E) 50 percent in the fifth fiscal year and each fiscal
year thereafter.
(2) For purposes of this section:
(A) The term ``contracts and agreements'' means special
salvage timber sale contracts, other timber sale contracts,
service contracts, construction contracts, supply contracts,
emergency equipment rental agreements, architectural and
engineering contracts, challenge cost-share agreements,
cooperative agreements, and participating agreements.
(B) The term ``qualifying entity'' means--
(i) a natural-resource related small or micro-enterprise;
(ii) a Youth Conservation Corps crews or related
partnerships with State, local and other non-Federal
conservation corps;
(iii) an entity that will hire and train local people to
complete the service or timber sale contract;
(iv) an entity that will re-train non-local traditional
forest workers to complete the service or timber sale
contract; or
(v) a local entity that meets the criteria to qualify for
the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Program under
section 32 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a).
(b) Notice of National Forest System Plan.--At the
beginning of each fiscal year, each unit of the National
Forest System shall make its advanced acquisition plan
publicly available, including publishing it in a local
newspaper for a minimum of 15 working days.
(c) Best Value Contracting.--In order to implement
projects, the Secretaries may select a source for performance
of a contract or agreement on a best value basis with
consideration of one or more of the following:
(1) Understanding of the technical demands and complexity
of the work to be done.
(2) Ability of the offeror to meet desired ecological
objectives of the project and the sensitivity of the
resources being treated.
(3) The potential for benefit to local small and micro-
enterprises.
(4) The past performance and qualification by the
contractor with the type of work being done, the application
of low-impact equipment, and the ability of the contractor or
purchaser to meet desired ecological conditions.
(5) The commitment of the contractor to training workers
for high wage and high skill jobs.
(6) The commitment of the contractor to hiring highly
qualified workers and local residents.

SEC. 207. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM RESEARCH AND TRAINING.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall establish a program of applied research using the
resources of Forest Service Research Station and the Forest
Product Laboratory. The purposes of the program shall be to--
(1) identify restoration methods and treatments that
minimize impacts to the land, such as through the use of low-
impact techniques and equipment; and
(2) test and develop value-added products created from the
by-products of restoration.
(b) Dissemination of Research to Communities.--The
Secretary of Agriculture shall disseminate the applied
research to rural communities, including the Restoration and
Value-Added Centers, adjacent to or surrounded by National
Forest System or public lands. The Secretary of Agriculture
shall annually conduct training workshops and classes in such
communities to ensure that residents of such communities have
access to the information.
(c) Cooperation.--In establishing the program required
pursuant to this section, the Secretary of Agriculture may
partner with nonprofit organizations or community colleges.
(d) Monitoring.--In designing the multiparty monitoring and
evaluation process to assess the cumulative accomplishments
or adverse impacts of projects implemented under this title
pursuant to section 204, the Secretaries shall use the
expertise of Forest Service Research Stations.

SEC. 208. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

These are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title.

SEC. 209. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.

Nothing in this title is intended to modify the Small
Business Act, Public Law 83-167, regulations promulgated by
the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR, Part 121, or
affect the Small Business shares prescribed in the Memorandum
of Understanding on the Small Business Set Aside Program or
the amount of timber volume offered to SBA qualified
companies.

TITLE III--FINGER LAKES NATIONAL FOREST LAND WITHDRAWAL

SEC. 301. FINGER LAKES NATIONAL FOREST LAND WITHDRAWAL.

All Federal land within the boundary of Finger Lakes
National Forest in the State of New York is withdrawn from
all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the
public land laws and disposition under all laws relating to
oil and gas leasing.

TITLE IV--ALASKA NAVIGABLE WATERS COMMISSION

SEC. 401. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The efficient and orderly development of the State of
Alaska will be better achieved if the Federal Government
joins the State of Alaska in a carefully coordinated approach
to identify ownership and jurisdictional interests in land
and waters.
(2) Alaska has abundant water resources that are invaluable
to State residents and all citizens of the United States.
(3) Because of the massive number of navigable waterways
and other bodies of water in the State of Alaska, the task of
resolving submerged land ownership and navigable water
determinations has been very slow, counter-productive from an
orderly resource management standpoint, and costly as the
State, private landowners, and the Federal Government attempt
to initiate long-range planning processes.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are:
(1) To expedite the process of quieting legitimate title to
the submerged lands in the State of Alaska;
(2) To facilitate determinations for purposes of the
Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.), to the extent
possible, which bodies of water in Alaska are navigable
waters and which such bodies of water are not navigable
waters; and
(3) To recommend to the State of Alaska and the Federal
Government--
(A) ways to improve the process of making water use and
navigability decisions; and
(B) ways to fairly and expeditiously quiet title to the
State's submerged lands and assist in the determination of
the specifically reserved lands that will remain in Federal
ownership.

SEC. 402. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the `Joint Federal and State
Navigable Waters Commission for Alaska Act''.

SEC. 403. ESTABLISHMENT.

There is established a commission to be known as the
``Joint Federal and State Navigable Waters Commission for
Alaska'' (referred to in this Act as the ``Commission'').

SEC. 404. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission shall--
(1) make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior
and the State of Alaska regarding determinations of bodies of
water in the State that are navigable waters for purposes of
the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.);
(2) establish a process for employing established standards
to facilitate making such recommendations and determinations;
(3) develop procedures for involving private landowners,
including Alaska Native corporations and the general public,
in that process;
(4) for purposes of making such recommendations, undertake
a process to identify navigable waters in Alaska pursuant to
established standards and criteria; and
(5) make recommendations to improve coordination and
consultation between the government of the State of Alaska
and the Federal Government regarding navigability
determinations and decisions concerning title to submerged
lands.

SEC. 405. MEMBERSHIP.

(a) Number and Appointment.--

[[Page 23204]]

(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 14
members, of which 7 shall be Federal members appointed under
subsection (b) and 7 shall be State members appointed under
subsection (c).
(2) Appointment deadline.--Initial appointments under this
section shall be made not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this title.
(b) Federal Members.--The 7 Federal members shall consist
of--
(1) 2 members appointed by the President of the United
States, one of which shall be designated as the President's
appointee for the position of Federal co-chair under
subsection (e);
(2) 1 member appointed by each of the three members of the
Congress who represent the State of Alaska;
(3) 1 member appointed by the Secretary of the Interior;
and
(4) 1 member appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(c) State Members.--The 7 State members shall be appointed
in accordance with the requirements of state law.
(d) Ineligibility for Appointment.--Members of Congress
shall not be eligible for appointment to the Commission.
(e) Co-Chairs.--One of the members appointed by the
President of the United States and the Governor or Governor's
designee shall serve as co-chairs of the Commission.
(f) Initial Meeting.--The initial meeting of the Commission
shall be called by the co-chairs.
(g) Term of Appointment.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), members of the
Commission shall be appointed for the life of the Commission.
(2) Early termination of appointment--
(A) Membership of a member of the Commission shall
terminate if the member is an individual who is an officer or
employee of a government body and who ceases to serve as such
an officer or employee, or if the member is an individual who
is not an officer or employee of a government and who becomes
an officer or employee of a government.
(B) Termination of an individual's membership pursuant to
paragraph (A) shall take effect on the expiration of the 90-
day period beginning on the date such member ceases to be
such an officer or employee of such government, or becomes an
officer or employee of a government, respectively.
(h) Quorum.--4 Federal members and 4 State members of the
Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may
conduct meetings. All decisions of the Commission shall
require concurrence by at least 4 State members and 4 Federal
members of the Commission.
(i) Vacancy.--A vacancy in the membership of the
Commission--
(1) shall not affect the powers of the Commission to meet
or conduct business, subject to subsection (h); and (2) shall
be filled in the same manner in which the original
appointment was made, by the same appointing authority.

SEC. 406. COMPENSATION OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Pay for Federal Members of the Commission--
(1) Non-government employees.--Each Federal member of the
Commission who is not otherwise an officer or employee of the
Federal Government shall be entitled to receive the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay payable for Level
IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5,
United States Code, as in effect from time to time, for each
day (including travel time) during which such member is
engaged in the actual performance of duties of the
Commission.
(2) Government employees.--A member of the Commission who
is an officer or employee of either the government of the
State of Alaska or the Federal Government shall serve without
additional pay or benefits for service as a member of the
Commission.
(b) Travel Expenses.--Federal members of the Commission
shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code. State members of the Commission
are entitled to per diem and travel expenses as authorized
under pertinent laws of the State of Alaska.

SEC. 407. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Hearings and Meetings.--The Commission or, on the
authorization of the Commission, any subcommittee or member
of the Commission may, for the purposes of carrying out its
duties, hold hearings, take testimony, receive evidence,
print or otherwise reproduce and distribute all or part of
commission proceedings and reports, and sit and act at those
times and places as the Commission, subcommittee, or members
consider desirable.
(b) Information for the Commission.--The Commission may
obtain directly from any executive agency (as defined in
section 105 of title 5 of the United States Code) or court,
information necessary to enable it to carry out its duties
under this Act. On this request of either co-chair of the
Commission, and consistent with applicable law, the head of
an executive agency or of a Federal court shall provide such
information to the Commission.
(c) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of
the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any
action which the Commission is authorized to take by this
section.
(d) Volunteer Services.--The Commission may accept
volunteer services for the purpose of aiding or facilitating
the work of the Commission.
(e) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the United States.
(f) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the
administrative support services necessary for the Commission
to carry out its responsibilities under this title.
(g) Contract Authority.--To the extent or in the amounts
provided in advance in appropriation Acts, the Commission may
contract with and compensate government and private agencies
or persons for property or services, without regard to
section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).

SEC. 408. STAFF OF COMMISSION; EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.

(a) Staff.--Subject to rules prescribed by the Commission,
the co-chairs may appoint and fix the pay of personnel as
they consider appropriate.
(b) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--The staff
of the Commission may be appointed without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service, and may be paid
without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification
and General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so
appointed may not receive pay in excess of the annual rate of
basic pay for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
(c) Experts and Consultants.--Subject to rules prescribed
by the Commission, the co-chairs may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, but at rates for individuals not to
exceed the daily equivalent of the maximum annual rate of
basic pay for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
(d) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request of the co-
chairs, the head of any Federal department or agency may
detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of that
department or agency to the Commission to assist it in
carrying out its duties under this title.

SEC. 409. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C.) shall
not apply to the Commission.

SEC. 410. REPORTS.

(a) Annual Report.--Not later than January 31 of each year,
the Commission shall submit to the President of the United
States, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
United States Senate, the Committee on Resources of the House
of Representatives, the Governor of the State of Alaska, and
the legislature of the State of Alaska a written report
describing its activities during the preceding year.
(b) Final Report.--The Commission shall submit a final
comprehensive report to the officials and entities referred
to in subsection (a) at least 10 days before the date the
Commission terminates.

SEC. 411. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission is terminated 2 years after the date of
completion of appointment of all members of the Commission.

TITLE V--LAND CONVEYANCE TO HAINES, OREGON

SEC. 501. CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF HAINES, OREGON.

(a) Conveyance.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this title, the Secretary of the Interior shall
convey, without consideration, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to the parcel of land described
in subsection (b) to the city of Haines, Oregon.
(b) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (a) is the parcel of Bureau of Land Management
land consisting of approximately 40 acres, as indicated on
the map entitled ``S. 1907: Conveyance to the City of Haines,
Oregon'' and dated May 9, 2002.
______

SA 4977. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 2222, to resolve certain conveyances and provide for
alternative land selections under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act related to Cape Fox Corporation and Sealaska Corporation, and for
other purposes, as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

TITLE I--CAPE FOX LAND ENTITLEMENT ADJUSTMENT ACT

SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Cape Fox Land Entitlement
Adjustment Act of 2002''.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

[[Page 23205]]

(2) As with other ANCSA village corporations in Southeast
Alaska, Cape Fox was limited to selecting 23,040 acres under
section 16 of ANCSA.
(3) Except for Cape Fox, all other Southeast Alaska ANCSA
village corporations were restricted from selecting within
two miles of a home rule city.
(4) To protect the watersheds in the vicinity of Ketchikan,
Cape Fox was restricted from selecting lands within six miles
from the boundary of the home rule City of Ketchikan under
section 22(1) of ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1621(1)).
(5) The six mile restriction damaged Cape Fox by precluding
the corporation from selecting valuable timber lands,
industrial sites, and other commercial property, not only in
its core township but in surrounding lands far removed from
Ketchikan and its watershed.
(6) As a result of the six mile restriction, only the
remote mountainous northeast corner of Cape Fox's core
township, which is nonproductive and of no known economic
value, was available for selection by the corporation.
Selection of this parcel was, however, mandated by section
16(b) of ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1615(b)).
(7) Cape Fox's land selections were further limited by the
fact that the Annette Island Indian Reservation is within its
selection area, and those lands were unavailable for ANCSA
selection. Cape Fox is the only ANCSA village corporation
affected by this restriction.
(8) Adjustment of Cape Fox's selections and conveyances of
land under ANCSA requires adjustment of Sealaska
Corporation's (Sealaska) selections and conveyances to avoid
creation of additional split estate between National Forest
System surface lands and Sealaska subsurface lands.
(9) There is an additional need to resolve existing areas
of Sealaska/Tongass split estate, in which Sealaska holds
title or conveyance rights to several thousand acres of
subsurface lands that encumber management of Tongass National
Forest surface lands.
(10) The Tongass National Forest lands identified in this
Act for selection by and conveyance to Cape Fox and Sealaska,
subject to valid existing rights, provide a means to resolve
some of the Cape Fox and Sealaska ANCSA land entitlement
issues without significantly affecting Tongass National
Forest resources, uses or values.
(11) Adjustment of Cape Fox's selections and conveyances of
land under ANCSA through the provisions of this Act, and the
related adjustment of Sealaska's selections and conveyances
hereunder, are in accordance with the purposes of ANCSA and
otherwise in the public interest.

SEC. 103. WAIVER OF CORE TOWNSHIP REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN
LANDS.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 16(b) of ANCSA
(43 U.S.C. 1615(b)), Cape Fox shall not be required to select
or receive conveyance of approximately 160 acres of federal
unconveyed lands within Section 1, T. 75 S., R. 91 E., C.R.M.

SEC. 104. SELECTION OUTSIDE EXTERIOR SELECTION BOUNDARY.

(a) Selection and Conveyance of Surface Estate.--In
addition to lands made available for selection under ANCSA,
within 24 months after the date of enactment of this title,
Cape Fox may select, and, upon receiving written notice of
such selection, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey
approximately 99 acres of the surface estate of Tongass
National Forest lands outside Cape Fox's current exterior
selection boundary, specifically that parcel described as
follows:
(1) T. 73 S., R. 90 E., C.R.M.
(2) Section 33: SW portion of SE\1/4\: 38 acres.
(3) Section 33: NW portion of SE\1/4\: 13 acres.
(4) Section 33: SE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\: 40 acres.
(5) Section 33: SE\1/4\ of SW\1/4\: 8 acres.
(b) Conveyance of Subsurface Estate.--Upon conveyance to
Cape Fox of the surface estate to the lands identified in
subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to
Sealaska the subsurface estate to the lands.
(c) Timing.--The Secretary of the Interior shall complete
the interim conveyances to Cape Fox and Sealaska under this
section within 180 days after the Secretary of the Interior
receives notice of the Cape Fox selection under subsection
(a).

SEC. 105. EXCHANGE OF LANDS BETWEEN CAPE FOX AND THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST.

(a) General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall offer, and
if accepted by Cape Fox, shall exchange the federal lands
described in subsection (b) for lands and interests therein
identified by Cape Fox under subsection (c) and, to the
extent necessary, lands and interests therein identified
under subsection (d).
(b) Lands To Be Exchanged to Cape Fox.--The lands to be
offered for exchange by the Secretary of Agriculture are
Tongass National Forest lands comprising approximately
2,663.9 acres in T. 36 S., R. 62 E., C.R.M. and T. 35 S., R.
62 E., C.R.M., as designated upon a map entitled ``Proposed
Kensington Project Land Exchange,'' dated March 18, 2002, and
available for inspection in the Forest Service Region 10
regional office in Juneau, Alaska.
(c) Lands To Be Exchanged to the United States.--Cape Fox
shall be entitled, within 60 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, to identify in writing to the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior the lands and interests in lands
that Cape Fox proposes to exchange for the federal lands
described in subsection (b). The lands and interests in lands
shall be identified from lands previously conveyed to Cape
Fox comprising approximately 2,900 acres and designated as
parcels A-1 to A-3, B-1 to B-3, and C upon a map entitled
``Cape Fox Corporation ANCSA Land Exchange Proposal,'' dated
March 15, 2002, and available for inspection in the Forest
Service Region 10 regional office in Juneau, Alaska. Lands
identified for exchange within each parcel shall be
contiguous to adjacent National Forest System lands and in
reasonably compact tracts. The lands identified for exchange
shall include a public trail easement designated as D on said
map, unless the Secretary of Agriculture agrees otherwise.
The value of the easement shall be included in determining
the total value of lands exchanged to the United States.
(d) Valuation of Exchange Lands.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall determine whether the lands identified by
Cape Fox under subsection (c) are equal in value to the lands
described in subsection (b). If the lands identified under
subsection (c) are determined to have insufficient value to
equal the value of the lands described in subsection (b),
Cape Fox and the Secretary shall mutually identify additional
Cape Fox lands for exchange sufficient to equalize the value
of lands conveyed to Cape Fox. Such land shall be contiguous
to adjacent National Forest System lands and in reasonably
compact tracts.
(e) Conditions.--The offer and conveyance of Federal lands
to Cape Fox in the exchange shall, notwithstanding section
14(f) of ANCSA, be of the surface and subsurface estate, but
subject to valid existing rights and all other provisions of
section 14(g) of ANCSA.
(f) Timing.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall attempt,
within 90 days after the date of enactment of this title, to
enter into an agreement with Cape Fox to consummate the
exchange consistent with this title. The lands identified in
the exchange agreement shall be exchanged by conveyance at
the earliest possible date after the exchange agreement is
signed. Subject only to conveyance from Cape Fox to the
United States of all its rights, title and interests in the
Cape Fox lands included in the exchange consistent with this
title, the Secretary of the Interior shall complete the
interim conveyance to Cape Fox of the federal lands included
in the exchange within 180 days after the execution of the
exchange agreement by Cape Fox and the Secretary of
Agriculture.

SEC. 106. EXCHANGE OF LANDS BETWEEN SEALASKA AND THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST.

(a) General.--Upon conveyance of the Cape Fox lands
included in the exchange under section 105 and conveyance and
relinquishment by Sealaska in accordance with this title of
the lands and interests in lands described in subsection (c),
the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to Sealaska the
federal lands identified for exchange under subsection (b).
(b) Lands To Be Exchanged to Sealaska.--The lands to be
exchanged to Sealaska are to be selected by Sealaska from
Tongass National Forest lands comprising approximately 9,329
acres in T. 36 S., R. 62 E., C.R.M., T. 35 S., R. 62 E.,
C.R.M., and T. 34 S., Range 62 E., C.R.M., as designated upon
a map entitled ``Proposed Sealaska Corporation Land Exchange
Kensington Lands Selection Area,'' dated April 2002 and
available for inspection in the Forest Service Region 10
Regional Office in Juneau, Alaska. Within 60 days after
receiving notice of the identification by Cape Fox of the
exchange lands under Section 105(c), Sealaska shall be
entitled to identify in writing to the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior the lands that Sealaska selects
to receive in exchange for the Sealaska lands described in
subsection (c). Lands selected by Sealaska shall be in no
more than two contiguous and reasonably compact tracts that
adjoin the lands described for exchange to Cape Fox in
section 105(b). The Secretary of Agriculture shall determine
whether these selected lands are equal in value to the lands
described in subsection (c) and may adjust the amount of
selected lands in order to reach agreement with Sealaska
regarding equal value. The exchange conveyance to Sealaska
shall be of the surface and subsurface estate in the lands
selected and agreed to by the Secretary but subject to valid
existing rights and all other provisions of section 14(g) of
ANCSA.
(c) Lands To Be Exchanged to the United States.--The lands
and interests therein to be exchanged by Sealaska are the
subsurface estate underlying the Cape Fox exchange lands
described in section 105(c), an additional approximately
2,506 acres of the subsurface estate underlying Tongass
National Forest surface estate, described in Interim
Conveyance No. 1673, and rights to be additional
approximately 2,698 acres of subsurface estate of Tongass
National Forest lands remaining to be conveyed to Sealaska
from Group 1, 2 and 3 lands as set forth in the Sealaska
Corporation/United States Forest Service 3 lands as set forth
in the Sealaska Corporation/United States Forest

[[Page 23206]]

Service Split Estate Exchange Agreement of November 26, 1991,
at Schedule B, as modified on January 20, 1995.
(d) Timing.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall attempt,
within 90 days after receipt of the selection of lands by
Sealaska under subsection (b), to enter into an agreement
with Sealaska to consummate the exchange consistent with this
title. The lands identified in the exchange agreement shall
be exchanged by conveyance at the earliest possible date
after the exchange agreement is signed. Subject only to the
Cape Fox and Sealaska conveyances and relinquishments
described in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior
shall complete the interim conveyance to Sealaska of the
federal lands selected for exchange within 180 days after
execution of the agreement by Sealaska and the Secretary of
Agriculture.
(e) Modification of Agreement.--The executed exchange
agreement under this section shall be considered a further
modification of the Sealaska Corporation/United States Forest
Service Split Estate Exchange Agreement, as ratified in
section 17 of Public Law 102-415 (October 14, 1992).

SEC. 107. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

(a) Equal Value Requirement.--The exchanges described in
this title shall be of equal value. Cape Fox and Sealaska
shall have the opportunity to present to the Secretary of
Agriculture estimates of value of exchange lands with the
Secretary of Agriculture estimates of value of exchange lands
with supporting information.
(b) Title.--Cape Fox and Sealaska shall convey and provide
evidence of title satisfactory to the Secretary of
Agriculture for their respective lands to be exchanged to the
United States under this title, subject only to exceptions,
reservations and encumbrances in the interim conveyance or
patent from the United States or otherwise acceptable to the
Secretary of Agriculture.
(c) Hazardous Substances.--Cape Fox, Sealaska, and the
United States each shall not be subject to liability for the
presence of any hazardous substance in land or interests in
land solely as a result of any conveyance or transfer of the
land or interests under this title.
(d) Effect on ANCSA Selections.--Any conveyance of federal
surface or subsurface lands to Cape Fox or Sealaska under
this title shall be considered, for all purposes, land
conveyed pursuant to ANCSA. Nothing in this title shall be
construed to change the total acreage of land entitlement of
Cape Fox or Sealaska under ANCSA. Cape Fox and Sealaska shall
remain charged for any lands they exchange under this title
and any lands conveyed pursuant to section 4, but shall not
be charged for any lands received under section 5 or section
6. The exchanges described in this title shall be considered,
for all purposes, actions which lead to the issuance of
conveyances to Native Corporations pursuant to ANCSA. Lands
or interests therein transferred to the United States
pursuant to ANCSA. Lands or interests therein transferred to
the United States under this title shall become and be
administered as part of the Tongass National Forest.
(e) Effect on Statehood Selections.--Lands conveyed to or
selected by the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood
Act (Public Law 85-508; 72 Stat. 339; 48 U.S.C. note prec.
21) shall not be eligible for selection or conveyance under
this title without the consent of the State of Alaska.
(f) Maps.--The maps referred to in this title shall be
maintained on file in the Forest Service Region 10 Regional
Office in Juneau, Alaska. The acreages cited in this title
are approximate, and if there is any discrepancy between
cited acreage and the land depicted on the specified maps,
the maps shall control. The maps do not constitute an attempt
by the United States to convey State or private land.
(g) Easements.--Notwithstanding section 17(b) of ANCSA,
federal lands conveyed to Cape Fox or Sealaska pursuant to
this title shall be subject only to the reservation of public
easements mutually agreed to and set forth in the exchange
agreements executed under this title. The easements shall
include easements necessary for access across the lands
conveyed under this title for use of national forest or other
public lands.
(h) Old Growth Reserves.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall add an equal number of acres to old growth reserves on
the Tongass National Forest as are transferred out of Federal
ownership as a result of this title.

SEC. 108. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Department of Agriculture.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture such sums as may
be necessary for value estimation and related costs of
exchanging lands specified in this title, and for road
rehabilitation, habitat and timber stand improvement,
including thinning and pruning, on lands acquired by the
United States under this title.
(b) Department of the Interior.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior such sums as
may be necessary for land surveys and conveyances pursuant to
this title.

TITLE II--LAND CONVEYANCE TO CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

SECTION 201. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY TO CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Las Vegas area has experienced such rapid growth in
the last few years that traditional locations for target
shooting are now too close to populated areas for safety;
(2) there is a need to designate a centralized location in
the Las Vegas valley where target shooters can practice
safely; and
(3) a central facility is also needed for persons training
in the use of firearms, such as local law enforcement and
security personnel.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to provide a suitable location for the establishment of
a centralized shooting facility in the Las Vegas valley; and
(2) to provide the public with--
(A) opportunities for education and recreation; and
(B) a location for competitive events and marksmanship
training.
(c) Conveyance.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this title, the Secretary of the Interior shall
convey to Clark County, Nevada, subject to valid existing
rights, for no consideration, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to the following parcels of land:
(1) the approximately 640 acres of land depicted as ``Site
Location'' on the map entitled ``Shooting Range, Las Vegas
Valley'' and dated October 2, 2002 (hereinafter referred to
as the ``Map''), to be conveyed under the Recreation and
Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. 869), notwithstanding
subsection (b) of the Act, to the extent there is any
conflict with this subsection; and
(2) the approximately 2,240 acres of land depicted as
``Open Space'' on the Map.
(d) Use of Land.--
(1) Shooting range.--The land depicted as ``Site Location''
on the Map shall be used by Clark County for the purposes
described in subsection (b) only.
(2) Open space.--The land depicted as ``Open Space'' on the
Map shall be used by Clark County solely to provide open
space, wildlife habitat, and a buffer around the shooting
range facility.
(3) Disposal.--None of the land conveyed under subsection
(c) shall be disposed of by the County.
(4) Reversion.--If Clark County ceases to use any parcel
for the purposes described in this subsection, or attempts to
dispose of any parcel, title to the parcel shall revert to
the United States, at the option of the United States.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the
Interior may require such additional terms and conditions in
connection with the conveyance as the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

TITLE III--BLUNT RESERVOIR AND PIERRE CANAL LAND CONVEYANCE

SECTION 301. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Blunt Reservoir and Pierre
Canal Land Conveyance Act of 2002''.

SEC. 302. BLUNT RESERVOIR AND PIERRE CANAL.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Blunt reservoir feature.--The term ``Blunt Reservoir
feature'' means the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe Unit,
James Division, authorized by the Act of August 3, 1968 (82
Stat. 624), as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin
Program.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the
Commission of Schools and Public Lands of the State.
(3) Nonpreferential lease parcel.--The term
``nonpreferential lease parcel'' means a parcel of land
that--
(A) was purchased by the Secretary for use in connection
with the Blunt Reservoir feature or the Pierre Canal feature;
and
(B) was considered to be a nonpreferential lease parcel by
the Secretary as of January 1, 2001, and is reflected as such
on the roster of leases of the Bureau of Reclamation for
2001.
(4) Pierre canal feature.--The term ``Pierre Canal
feature'' means the Pierre Canal feature of the Oahe Unit,
James Division, authorized by the Act of August 3, 1968 (82
Stat. 624), as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin
Program.
(5) Preferential leaseholder.--The term ``preferential
leaseholder'' means a person or descendant of a person that
held a lease on a preferential lease parcel as of January 1,
2001, and is reflected as such on the roster of leases of the
Bureau of Reclamation for 2001.
(6) Preferential lease parcel.--The term `preferential
lease parcel' means a parcel of land that--
(A) was purchased by the Secretary for use in connection
with the Blunt Reservoir feature or the Pierre Canal feature;
and
(B) was considered to be a preferential lease parcel by the
Secretary as of January 1, 2001, and is reflected as such on
the roster of leases of the Bureau of Reclamation for 2001.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of
Reclamation.
(8) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of South
Dakota, including a successor in interest of the State.
(9) Unleased parcel.--The term ``unleased parcel'' means a
parcel of land that--
(A) was purchased by the Secretary for use in connection
with the Blunt Reservoir feature or the Pierre Canal feature;
and

[[Page 23207]]

(B) is not under lease as of the date of enactment of this
Act.
(b) Deauthorization.--The Blunt Reservoir feature is
deauthorized.
(c) Acceptance of Land and Obligations.--
(1) In general.--As a condition of each conveyance under
subsections (d)(5) and (e), respectively, the State shall
agree to accept--
(A) in ``as is'' condition, the portions of the Blunt
Reservoir Feature and the Pierre Canal Feature that pass into
State ownership;
(B) any liability accruing after the date of conveyance as
a result of the ownership, operation, or maintenance of the
features referred to in subparagraph (A), including liability
associated with certain outstanding obligations associated
with expired easements, or any other right granted in, on,
over, or across either feature; and
(C) the responsibility that the Commission will act as the
agent for the Secretary in administering the purchase option
extended to preferential leaseholders under subsection (d).
(2) Responsibilities of the state.--An outstanding
obligation described in paragraph (1)(B) shall inure to the
benefit of, and be binding upon, the State.
(3) Oil, gas, mineral and other outstanding rights.--A
conveyance to the State under subsection (d)(5) or (e) or a
sale to a preferential leaseholder under subsection (d) shall
be made subject to--
(A) oil, gas, and other mineral rights reserved of record,
as of the date of enactment of this Act, by or in favor of a
third party; and
(B) any permit, license, lease, right-of-use, or right-of-
way of record in, on, over, or across a feature referred to
in paragraph (1)(A) that is outstanding as to a third party
as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) Additional conditions of conveyance to state.--A
conveyance to the state under subsection (d)(5) or (e) shall
be subject to the reservations by the United States and the
conditions specified in section 1 of the Act of May 19, 1948
(chapter 310; 62 Stat. 240), as amended (16 U.S.C. 667b), for
the transfer of property to state agencies for wildlife
conservation purposes.
(d) Purchase Option.--
(1) In general.--A preferential leaseholder shall have an
option to purchase from the Commission, acting as an agent
for the Secretary, the preferential lease parcel that is the
subject of the lease.
(2) Terms.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a
preferential leaseholder may elect to purchase a parcel on 1
of the following terms:
(i) Cash purchase for the amount that is equal to--
(I) the value of the parcel determined under paragraph (4);
minus
(II) 10 percent of that value.
(ii) Installment purchase, with 10 percent of the value of
the parcel determined under paragraph (4) to be paid on the
date of purchase and the remainder to be paid over not more
than 30 years at 3 percent annual interest.
(B) Value under $10,000.--If the value of the parcel is
under $10,000, the purchase shall be made on a cash basis in
accordance with subparagraph (A)(i).
(3) Option exercise period.--
(A) In general.--A preferential leaseholder shall have
until the date that is 5 years after enactment of this title
to exercise the option under paragraph (1).
(B) Continuation of leases.--Until the date specified in
subparagraph (A), a preferential leaseholder shall be
entitled to continue to lease from the Secretary the parcel
leased by the preferential leaseholder under the same terms
and conditions as under the lease, as in effect as of the
date of enactment of this Act.
(4) Valuation.--
(A) In general.--The value of a preferential lease parcel
shall be its fair market value for agricultural purposes
determined by an independent appraisal, exclusive of the
value of private improvements made by the leaseholders while
the land was federally owned before the date of the enactment
of this title, in conformance with the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisition.
(B) Fair market value.--Any dispute over the fair market
value of a property under subparagraph (A) shall be resolved
in accordance with section 2201.4 of title 43, Code of
Federal Regulations.
(5) Conveyance to the state.--
(A) In general.--If a preferential leaseholder fails to
purchase a parcel within the period specified in paragraph
(3)(A), the Secretary shall convey the parcel to the State of
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks.
(B) Wildlife habitat mitigation.--Land conveyed under
subparagraph (A) shall be used by the South Dakota Department
of Game, Fish, and Parks for the purpose of mitigating the
wildlife habitat that was lost as a result of the development
of the Pick-Sloan project.
(6) Use of proceeds.--Proceeds of sales of land under this
title shall be deposited as miscellaneous funds in the
Treasury and such funds shall be made available, subject to
appropriations, to the State for the establishment of a trust
fund to pay the county taxes on the lands received by the
State Department of Game, Fish, and Parks under the bill.
(e) Conveyance of Nonpreferential Lease Parcels and
Unleased Parcels.--
(1) Conveyance by secretary to state.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey to the
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks the
nonpreferential lease parcels and unleased parcels of the
Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal.
(B) Wildlife habitat mitigation.--Land conveyed under
subparagraph (A) shall be used by the South Dakota Department
of Game, Fish, and Parks for the purpose of mitigating the
wildlife habitat that was lost as a result of the development
of the Pick-Sloan project.
(2) Land exchanges for nonpreferential lease parcels and
unleased parcels.--
(A) In general.--With the concurrence of the South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, the South Dakota
Commission of Schools and Public Lands may allow a person to
exchange land that the person owns elsewhere in the State for
a nonpreferential lease parcel or unleased parcel at Blunt
Reservoir or Pierre Canal, as the case may be.
(B) Priority.--The right to exchange nonpreferential lease
parcels or unleased parcels shall be granted in the following
order or priority:
(i) Exchanges with current lessees for nonpreferential
lease parcels.
(ii) Exchanges with adjoining and adjacent landowners for
unleased parcels and nonpreferential lease parcels not
exchanged by current lessees.
(C) Easement for water conveyance structure.--As a
condition of the exchange of land of the Pierre Canal Feature
under this paragraph, the United States reserves a perpetual
easement to the land to allow for the right to design,
construct, operate, maintain, repair, and replace a pipeline
or other water conveyance structure over, under, across, or
through the Pierre Canal Feature.
(f) Release From Liability.--
(1) In general.--Effective on the date of conveyance of any
parcel under this title, the United States shall not be held
liable by any court for damages of any kind arising out of
any act, omission, or occurrence relating to the parcel,
except for damages for acts of negligence committed by the
United States or by an employee, agent, or contractor of the
United States, before the date of conveyance.
(2) No additional liability.--Nothing in this section adds
to any liability that the United States may have under
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known
as the ``Federal Tort Claims Act'').
(g) Requirements Concerning Conveyance of Lease Parcels.--
(1) Interim requirements.--During the period beginning on
the date of enactment of this title and ending on the date of
conveyance of the parcel, the Secretary shall continue to
lease each preferential lease parcel or nonpreferential lease
parcel to be conveyed under this section under the terms and
conditions applicable to the parcel on the date of enactment
of this title.
(2) Provision of parcel descriptions.--Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall provide the State a full legal description of all
preferential lease parcels and nonpreferential lease parcels
that may be conveyed under this section.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this Act $750,000 to
reimburse the Secretary for expenses incurred in implementing
this title, and such sums as are necessary to reimburse the
Commission for expenses incurred implementing this title, not
to exceed 10 percent of the cost of each transaction
conducted under this title.

TITLE IV--GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BOUNDARY REVISION

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area Boundary Revision Act of 2002''.

SEC. 402. GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BOUNDARY
REVISION.

(a) In General.--The first section of Public Law 92-593 (16
U.S.C. 460dd; 86 Stat. 1311) is amended--
(1) by striking ``That in'' and inserting ``Section 1. (a)
In''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
(b) In addition to the boundary change authority under
subsection (a), the Secretary may acquire approximately 152
acres of private land in exchange for approximately 370 acres
of land within the boundary of Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area, as generally depicted on the map entitled
``Page One Land Exchange Proposal'', number 608/60573a-2002,
and dated May 16, 2002. The map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of
the National Park Service. Upon conclusion of the exchange,
the boundary of the recreation area shall be revised to
reflect the exchange.
(c) Change in Acreage Ceiling.--Such section is further
amended by striking ``one million two hundred and thirty-six
thousand

[[Page 23208]]

eight hundred and eighty acres'' and inserting ``1,256,000
acres''.

TITLE V--WILD SKY WILDERNESS

SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Wild Sky Wilderness Act of
2002''.

SEC. 502. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF POLICY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Americans cherish the continued existence of diverse
wilderness ecosystems and wildlife found on their Federal
lands and share a strong sense of moral responsibility to
protect their wilderness heritage as an enduring resource to
cherish, protect, and bequeath undisturbed to future
generations of Americans.
( 2) The values an area of wilderness offer to this and
future generations of Americans are greatly enhanced to the
degree that the area is diverse in topography, elevation,
life zones and ecosystems, and to the extent that it offers a
wide range of outdoor recreational and educational
opportunities accessible in all seasons of the year.
(3) Large blocks of wildlands embracing a wide range of
ecosystems and topography, including low-elevation forests,
have seldom remained undisturbed due to many decades of
development.
(4) Certain wildlands on the western slope of the Cascade
Range in the Skykomish River valley of the State of
Washington offer an outstanding representation of the
original character of the forested landscape, ranging from
high alpine meadows and extremely rugged peaks to low-
elevation mature and old-growth forests, including groves
with some of the largest and most spectacular trees in
Washington, with diameters of eight feet and larger.
(5) These diverse, thickly forested mountain slopes and
valleys of mature and old-growth trees in the Skykomish River
valley harbor nearly the full complement of the original
wildlife and fish species found by settlers of the 19th
century, including mountain goats, bald eagles, black bear,
pine marten, black-tailed deer, as well as rare and
endangered wildlife such as northern spotted owls and
goshawks, Chinook and Coho salmon, and steelhead and bull
trout.
(6) An ecologically and topographically diverse wilderness
area in the Skykomish River valley accessible in all seasons
of the year will be enjoyable to users of various kinds, such
as hikers, horse riders, hunters, anglers, and educational
groups, but also to the many who cherish clean water and
clean air, fish and wildlife (including endangered species
such as wild salmon), and pristine mountain and riverside
scenery.
(b) Statement of Policy.--Congress hereby declares that it
is the policy of the United States--
(1) to better serve the diverse wilderness and
environmental education needs of the people of the State of
Washington and its burgeoning metropolitan regions by
granting wilderness protection to certain lower elevation
wildlands in the Skykomish River valley of the State of
Washington; and
(2) to protect additional lands adjacent to the Henry M.
Jackson Wilderness designated by the Washington Wilderness
Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-339), in further tribute to the
ecologically enlightened vision of the distinguished Senator
from the State of Washington and former Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (formerly
the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee).

SEC. 503. ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION
SYSTEM.

(a) Additions.--The following Federal lands in the State of
Washington are hereby designated as wilderness and,
therefore, as components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System: Certain lands which compromise
approximately 106,000 acres, as generally depicted on a map
entitled ``Wild Sky Wilderness Proposal'', dated August 2002,
which shall be known as the Wild Sky Wilderness.
(b) Maps and Legal Descriptions.--As soon as practicable
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall file a map and a legal description for the
wilderness area designated under this Act with the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate
and the Committee on Resources of the United States House of
Representatives. The map and description shall have the same
force and effect as if included in this title, except that
the Secretary of Agriculture may correct clerical and
typographical errors in the legal description and map. The
map and legal description shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the office of the Chief of the Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture.

SEC. 504. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, lands
designated as wilderness by this title shall be managed by
the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and this title,
except that, with respect to any wilderness areas designated
by this Act, any reference in the Wilderness Act to the
effective date of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to be a
reference to the date of enactment of this title.
(b) New Trails.--
(1) The Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with
interested parties and shall establish a hiking trail plan
designed to develop a system of hiking trails within or
adjacent to or to provide access to the wilderness designated
by this Act in a manner consistent with the Wilderness Act,
Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
(2) Within two years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall complete a report on
the implementation of the hiking trail plan required under
this title. This report shall include the identification of
priority hiking trails for development.
(c) Repeater Site.--Within the Wild Sky Wilderness, the
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to use helicopter
access to construct and maintain a single communication
repeater site to be used jointly by the Forest Service and
Washington State's Snohomish County government to provide
improved communication for safety and health purposes in a
manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness
environment.
(d) Float Plane Access.--As provided by Section 4(d)(1) of
the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)), the use of
floatplanes on Lake Isabel, where such use has already become
established, shall be permitted to continue subject to such
reasonable restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems
desirable.

SEC. 505. AUTHORIZATION FOR LAND ACQUISITION.

(a)(1) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to acquire lands and interests therein, by
purchase, donation, or exchange, and shall give priority
consideration to those lands identified as ``Priority
Acquisition Lands'' on the map entitled ``Wild Sky Wilderness
Proposal'', dated August 2002. The boundaries of the
Snoqualmie National Forest and the Wild Sky Wilderness shall
be adjusted to encompass any land acquired pursuant to this
section.
(2) Corridor.--Upon the acquisition by the Secretary of
Agriculture of the two Priority Acquisition Lands parcels
adjacent to the lands identified as the Corridor on the map
entitled ``Wild Sky Wilderness Proposal'', date August 2002,
the boundary of the Wild Sky Wilderness shall be adjusted to
encompass the Corridor.
(b) Access.--Consistent with section 5(a) of the Wilderness
Act (Public Law 88-577; 16 U.S.C. 1134(a)), the Secretary of
Agriculture shall assure adequate access to private
inholdings within the Wild Sky Wilderness.
(c) Appraisal.--Valuation of private lands shall be
determined without reference to any restrictions on access or
use which arise out of designation as a wilderness area as a
result of this title.

SEC. 506. LAND EXCHANGES.

The Secretary of Agriculture shall exchange lands and
interests in lands, as generally depicted on a map entitled
Chelan County Public Utility District Exchange and dated May
22, 2002, with the Chelan County Public Utility District in
accordance with the following provisions:
(1) If the Chelan County Public Utility District, within
ninety days after the date of enactment of this Act, offers
to the Secretary of Agriculture approximately 371.8 acres
within the Snoqualmie National Forest in the State of
Washington, the Secretary shall accept such lands.
(2) Upon acceptance of title by the Secretary of
Agriculture to such lands and interests therein, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall convey to the Chelan County
Public Utility District a permanent easement, including
helicopter access, consistent with such levels as used as of
date of enactment, to maintain an existing snowtel site on
1.82 acres on the Wenatchee National Forest in the State of
Washington.
(3) The exchange directed by this Act shall be consummated
if Chelan County Public Utility District conveys title
acceptable to the Secretary and provided there is no
hazardous material on the site, which is objectionable to the
Secretary.
(4) In the event Chelan County Public Utility District
determines there is no longer a need to maintain a snowtel
site to monitor the snow pack for calculating expected runoff
into the Lake Chelan hydroelectric project and the
hydroelectric projects in the Columbia River Basin, the
secretary shall be notified in writing and the easement shall
be extinguished and all rights conveyed by this exchange
shall revert to the United States.

TITLE VI--CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF CRAIG, ALASKA

SECTION 601. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Craig Recreation Land
Purchase Act''.

SEC. 602. AUTHORIZATION FOR CONVEYANCE.

If the City of Craig, Alaska, (``City'') tenders all right,
title and interest of the City in and to the municipal lands
identified on the map entitled ``Sunnahae Property and
Trail,'' dated April 22, 1992 and labeled Attachment A, to
the Secretary of Agriculture (``Secretary'') within six
months of the date the City receives the results of the
appraisal conducted pursuant to section 4, the Secretary
shall accept such tender.

SEC. 603. ACQUISITION OF LAND BY THE CITY OF CRAIG.

(a) Funds received by the City under section 2 shall be
used by the City for the purchase of lands shown on the map
entitled ``Wards Cove Property,'' dated March 24, 1969 and
labeled attachment B.
(b) The purchase of lands by the City under subsection (a)
shall be for an amount equal

[[Page 23209]]

to the appraised value of the lands conveyed to the Secretary
by the City, except that the Secretary and the City may
equalize the values by adjusting acreage or by payments not
to exceed $100,000.

SEC. 604. APPRAISAL.

Prior to any conveyance, the Secretary shall conduct an
appraisal of the lands identified for conveyance by the City
in accordance with the United States Department of Justice
Uniform Standards of Appraisal and shall notify the City of
the results of the appraisal.

SEC. 605. MANAGEMENT OF CONVEYED LANDS.

Lands received by the Secretary shall be included in the
Tongass National Forest and shall be managed in accordance
with the laws, regulations, and forest plan applicable to the
Tongass National Forest.

SEC. 606. AUTHORIZATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
______

SA 4978. Mr. REID (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 2556, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain facilities to the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District in the
State of Idaho; as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:

TITLE I--FREMONT-MADISON CONVEYANCE

SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Fremont-Madison Conveyance
Act''.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) District.--The term ``District'' means the Fremont-
Madison Irrigation District, an irrigation district organized
under the law of the State of Idaho.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 103. CONVEYANCE OF FACILITIES.

(a) Conveyance Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall convey to the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District,
Idaho, pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of agreement
(MOA) between the District and the Secretary (Contract No.
1425-0901-09MA-0910-093310), all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to the canals, laterals, drains,
and other components of the water distribution and drainage
system that is operated or maintained by the District for
delivery of water to and drainage of water from lands within
the boundaries of the District as they exist upon the date of
enactment of this Act, consistent with section 108.
(b) Report.--If the Secretary has not completed any
conveyance required under this title by September 13, 2003,
the Secretary shall, by no later than that date, submit a
report to the Congress explaining the reasons that conveyance
has not been completed and stating the date by which the
conveyance will be completed.

SEC. 104. COSTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall require, as a
condition of the conveyance under section 103, that the
District pay the administrative costs of the conveyance and
related activities, including the costs of any review
required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as described in Contract No. 1425-
0901-09MA-0910-093310.
(b) Value of Facilities To Be Transferred.--In addition to
subsection (a) the Secretary shall also require, as condition
of the conveyance under section 103, that the District pay to
the United States the lesser of the net present value of the
remaining obligations owed by the District to the United
States with respect to the facilities conveyed, or $280,000.
Amounts received by the United States under this subsection
shall be deposited into the Reclamation Fund.

SEC. 105. TETON EXCHANGE WELLS.

(a) Contracts and Permit.--In conveying the Teton Exchange
Wells pursuant to section 103, the Secretary shall also
convey to the District--
(1) Idaho Department of Water Resources permit number 22-
097022, including drilled wells under the permit, as
described in Contract No. 1425-0901-09MA-0910-093310; and
(2) all equipment appurtenant to such wells.
(b) Extension of Water Service Contract.--The water service
contract between the Secretary and the District (Contract No.
7-0907-0910-09W0179, dated September 16, 1977) is hereby
extended and shall continue in full force and effect until
all conditions described in this title are fulfilled.

SEC. 106. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

Prior to conveyance the Secretary shall complete all
environmental reviews and analyses as set forth in the
Memorandum of Agreement referenced in section 103(a).

SEC. 107. LIABILITY.

Effective on the date of the conveyance the United States
shall not be liable for damages of any kind arising out of
any act, omission, or occurrence relating to the conveyed
facilities, except for damages caused by acts of negligence
committed by the United States or by its employees, agents,
or contractors prior to the date of conveyance. Nothing in
this section may increase the liability of the United States
beyond that currently provided in chapter 171 of title 28,
United States Code.

SEC. 108. WATER SUPPLY TO DISTRICT LANDS.

The acreage within the District eligible to receive water
from the Minidoka Project and the Teton Basin Projects is
increased to reflect the number of acres within the District
as of the date of enactment of this title, including lands
annexed into the District prior to enactment of this title as
contemplated by the Teton Basin Project. The increase in
acreage does not alter deliveries authorized under the
District's existing water storage contracts and as allowed by
State water law.

SEC. 109. DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLANNING.

Within 60 days of enactment of this title, in collaboration
with stakeholders in the Henry's Fork watershed, the
Secretary shall initiate a drought management planning
process to address all water uses, including irrigation and
the wild trout fishery, in the Henry's Fork watershed. Within
18 months of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall
submit a report to Congress, which shall include a final
drought management plan.

SEC. 110. EFFECT.

(a) in General.--Except as provided in this title, nothing
in this title affects--
(1) the rights of any person; or
(2) any right in existence on the date of enactment of this
Act of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Reservation to water based on a treaty, compact, executive
order, agreement, the decision in Winters v. United States,
207 U.S. 564 (1908) (commonly known as the ``Winters
Doctrine''), or law.
(b) Conveyances.--Any conveyance under this title shall not
affect or abrogate any provision of any contract executed by
the United States or State law regarding any irrigation
district's right to use water developed in the facilities
conveyed.

TITLE II--DENVER WATER REUSE PROJECT

SEC. 201. DENVER WATER REUSE PROJECT.

(a) Authorization.--The Secretary of the Interior, in
cooperation with the appropriate State and local authorities,
may participate in the design, planning, and construction of
the Denver Water Reuse Project (hereinafter referred to as
the ``Project'') to reclaim and reuse water in the service
area of the Denver Water Department of the city and county of
Denver, Colorado.
(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
Project shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost.
(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall not
be used for the operation or maintenance of the Project.
(d) Funding.--Funds appropriated pursuant to section 1631
of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-13) may be used for the
Project.

SEC. 202. RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND
FACILITIES ACT.

Design, planning, and construction of the Project
authorized by this title shall be in accordance with, and
subject to the limitations contained in, the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (106
Stat. 4663-4669; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), as amended.

TITLE III--WALLOWA LAKE DAM REHABILITATION

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Wallowa Lake Dam
Rehabilitation and Water Management Act of 2002''.

SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Associated ditch companies, incorporated.--The term
``Associated Ditch Companies, Incorporated'' means the non-
profit corporation by that name (as established under the
laws of the State of Oregon) that operates Wallowa Lake Dam.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of
Reclamation.
(3) Wallowa lake dam rehabilitation program.-- The term
``Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation Program'' means the program
for the rehabilitation of the Wallowa Lake Dam in Oregon, as
contained in the engineering document entitled, ``Phase I Dam
Assessment and Preliminary Engineering Design'', dated
October 2001, and on file with the Bureau of Reclamation.
(4) Wallowa valley water management plan.--The term
``Wallowa Valley Water Management Plan'' means the program
developed for the Wallowa River watershed, as contained in
the document entitled ``Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation and
Water Management Plan Vision Statement'', dated February
2001, and on file with the Bureau of Reclamation.

SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATION TO PARTICIPATE IN PROGRAM.

(a) Authorization.--The Secretary--
(1) in cooperation with the Associated Ditch Companies,
Incorporated, may participate in the Wallowa Lake Dam
Rehabilitation Program; and
(2) in cooperation with tribal, State and local
governmental entities, may participate in planning, design
and construction of facilities needed to implement the
Wallowa Valley Water Management Plan.

[[Page 23210]]

(b) Cost Sharing.--
(1) in General.--The Federal share of the costs of
activities authorized under this title shall not exceed 80
percent.
(2) Exclusions from federal share.--There shall not be
credited against the Federal share of such costs--
(A) any expenditure by the Bonneville Power Administration
in the Wallowa River watershed; and
(B) expenditures made by individual farmers in any Federal
farm or conservation program.
(c) Compliance With State Law.--The Secretary, in carrying
out this title, shall comply with otherwise applicable State
water law.
(d) Prohibition on Holding Title.--The Federal Government
shall not hold title to any facility rehabilitated or
constructed under this title.
(e) Prohibition on Operation and Maintenance.--The Federal
Government shall not be responsible for the operation and
maintenance of any facility constructed or rehabilitated
under this title.
(f) Ownership and Operation of Fish Passage Facility.--Any
facility constructed using Federal funds authorized by this
title located at Wallowa Lake Dam for trapping and
transportation of migratory adult salmon shall be owned and
operated by the Nez Perce Tribe.

SEC. 304. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW.

Activities funded under this title shall not be considered
a supplemental or additional benefit under the Act of June
17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and all Acts amendatory thereof or
supplementary thereto.

SEC. 305. APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
$32,000,000 for the Federal share of the costs of activities
authorized under this title.

TITLE IV--ALBUQUERQUE BIOLOGICAL PARK TITLE CLARIFICATION

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Albuquerque Biological
Park Title Clarification Act''.

SEC. 402. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) In 1997, the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico paid $
3,875,000 to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District to
acquire two parcels of land known as Tingley Beach and San
Gabriel Park.
(2) The City intends to develop and improve Tingley Beach
and San Gabriel Park as part of its Albuquerque Biological
Park Project.
(3) In 2000, the United States claimed title to Tingley
Beach and San Gabriel Park by asserting that these properties
were transferred to the United States in the 1950's as part
of the establishment of the Middle Rio Grande Project.
(4) The City's ability to continue developing the
Albuquerque Biological Park Project has been hindered by the
United States' claim of title to these properties.
(5) The United States' claim of ownership over the Middle
Rio Grande Project properties is disputed by the City and
MRGCD in Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. John W. Keys, III, No.
CV 99-1320 JP/RLP-ACE (D. N.M. filed Nov. 15, 1999).
(6) Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park are surplus to the
needs of the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States in
administering the Middle Rio Grande Project.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to issue a quitclaim deed conveying
any right, title, and interest the United States may have in
and to Tingley Beach or San Gabriel Park to the City, thereby
removing the cloud on the City's title to these lands.

SEC. 403. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the City of Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
(2) Middle rio grande conservancy district.--The terms
``Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District'' and ``MRGCD'' mean
a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico, created
in 1925 to provide and maintain flood protection and
drainage, and maintenance of ditches, canals, and
distribution systems for irrigation and water delivery and
operations in the Middle Rio Grande Valley.
(3) Middle rio grande project.--The term ``Middle Rio
Grande Project'' means the works associated with water
deliveries and operations in the Rio Grande basin as
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-
858; 62 Stat. 1175) and the Flood Control Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-516; 64 Stat. 170).
(4) San gabriel park.--The term ``San Gabriel Park'' means
the tract of land containing 40.2236 acres, more or less,
situated within Section 12 and Section 13, T10N, R2E,
N.M.P.M., City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
and described by New Mexico State Plane Grid Bearings
(Central Zone) and ground distances in a Special Warranty
Deed conveying the property from MRGCD to the City, dated
November 25, 1997.
(5) Tingley beach.--The term ``Tingley Beach'' means the
tract of land containing 25.2005 acres, more or less,
situated within Section 13 and Section 24, T10N, R2E,
N.M.P.M., City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
and described by New Mexico State Plane Grid Bearings
(Central Zone) and ground distances in a Special Warranty
Deed conveying the property from MRGCD to the City, dated
November 25, 1997.

SEC. 404. CLARIFICATION OF PROPERTY INTEREST.

(a) Required Action.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
issue a quitclaim deed conveying any right, title, and
interest the United States may have in and to Tingley Beach
and San Gabriel Park to the City.
(b) Timing.--The Secretary shall carry out the action in
subsection (a) as soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this title and in accordance with all applicable
law.
(c) No Additional Payment.--The City shall not be required
to pay any additional costs to the United States for the
value of San Gabriel Park and Tingley Beach.

SEC. 405. OTHER RIGHTS, TITLE, AND INTERESTS UNAFFECTED.

(a) In General.--Except as expressly provided in section
404, nothing in this title shall be construed to affect any
right, title, or interest in and to any land associated with
the Middle Rio Grande Project.
(b) Ongoing Litigation.--Nothing contained in this title
shall be construed or utilized to affect or otherwise
interfere with any position set forth by any party in the
lawsuit pending before the United States District Court for
the District of New Mexico, No. CV 99-1320 JP/RLP-ACE,
entitled Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. John W. Keys, III,
concerning the right, title, or interest in and to any
property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project.

TITLE V--HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER HYDROGEOLOGIC MAPPING

SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``High Plains Aquifer
Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and
Monitoring Act''.

SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this title:
(1) Association.--The term ``Association'' means the
Association of American State Geologists.
(2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Western States
Water Council.
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the United States Geological Survey.
(4) Federal component.--The term ``Federal component''
means the Federal component of the High Plains Aquifer
Comprehensive Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping,
Modeling and Monitoring Program described in section 503(c).
(5) High plains aquifer.--The term ``High Plains Aquifer''
is the groundwater reserve depicted as Figure 1 in the United
States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1400-B, titled
``Geohydrology of the High Plains Aquifer in Parts of
Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.''
(6) High plains aquifer states.--The term ``High Plains
Aquifer States'' means the States of Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and
Wyoming.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(8) State component.--The term ``State component'' means
the State component of the High Plains Aquifer Comprehensive
Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and
Monitoring Program described in section 503(d).

SEC. 503. ESTABLISHMENT.

(a) Program.--The Secretary, working through the United
States Geological Survey, and in cooperation with
participating State geological surveys and water management
agencies of the High Plains Aquifer States, shall establish
and carry out the High Plains Aquifer Comprehensive
Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and
Monitoring Program, for the purposes of the characterization,
mapping, modeling, and monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer.
The Program shall undertake on a county-by-county level or at
the largest scales and most detailed levels determined to be
appropriate on a state-by-state and regional basis: (1)
mapping of the hydrogeological configuration of the High
Plains Aquifer; and (2) with respect to the High Plains
Aquifer, analyses of the current and past rates at which
groundwater is being withdrawn and recharged, the net rate of
decrease or increase in High Plains Aquifer storage, the
factors controlling the rate of horizontal and vertical
migration of water within the High Plains Aquifer, and the
current and past rate of change of saturated thickness within
the High Plains Aquifer. The Program shall also develop, as
recommended by the State panels referred to in subsection
(d)(1), regional data bases and groundwater flow models.
(b) Funding.--The Secretary shall make available fifty
percent of the funds available pursuant to this title for use
in carrying out the State component of the Program, as
provided for by subsection (d).
(c) Federal Program Component.--
(1) Priorities.--The Program shall include a Federal
component, developed in consultation with the Federal Review
Panel provided

[[Page 23211]]

for by subsection (e), which shall have as its priorities--
(A) coordinating Federal, State, and local, data, maps, and
models into an integrated physical characterization of the
High Plains Aquifer;
(B) supporting State and local activities with scientific
and technical specialists; and
(C) undertaking activities and providing technical
capabilities not available at the State and local levels.
(2) Interdisciplinary studies.--The Federal component shall
include interdisciplinary studies that add value to
hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and
monitoring for the High Plains Aquifer.
(d) State Program Component.--
(1) Priorities.--Upon election by a High Plains Aquifer
State, the State may participate in the State component of
the Program which shall have as its priorities hydrogeologic
characterization, mapping, modeling, and monitoring
activities in areas of the High Plains Aquifer that will
assist in addressing issues relating to groundwater depletion
and resource assessment of the Aquifer. As a condition of
participating in the State component of the Program, the
Governor or Governor's designee shall appoint a State panel
representing a broad range of users of, and persons
knowledgeable regarding, hydrogeologic data and information,
which shall be appointed by the Governor of the State or the
Governor's designee. Priorities under the State component
shall be based upon the recommendations of the State panel.
(2) Awards.--(A) Twenty percent of the Federal funds
available under the State component shall be equally divided
among the State geological surveys of the High Plains Aquifer
States to carry out the purposes of the Program provided for
by this title. In the event that the State geological survey
is unable to utilize the funding for such purposes, the
Secretary may, upon the petition of the Governor of the
State, direct the funding to some other agency of the State
to carry out the purposes of the Program.
(B) In the case of a High Plains Aquifer State that has
elected to participate in the State component of the Program,
the remaining funds under the State component shall be
competitively awarded to State or local agencies or entities
in the High Plains Aquifer States, including State geological
surveys, State water management agencies, institutions of
higher education, or consortia of such agencies or entities.
A State may submit a proposal for the United States
Geological Survey to undertake activities and provide
technical capabilities not available at the State and local
levels. Such funds shall be awarded by the Director only for
proposals that have been recommended by the State panels
referred to in subsection (d)(1), subjected to independent
peer review, and given final prioritization and
recommendation by the Federal Review Panel established under
subsection (e). Proposals for multi-state activities must be
recommended by the State panel of at least one of the
affected States.
(e) Federal Review Panel.--
(1) Establishment.--There shall be established a Federal
Review Panel to evaluate the proposals submitted for funding
under the State component under subsection (d)(2)(B) and to
recommend approvals and levels of funding. In addition, the
Federal Review Panel shall review and coordinate the Federal
component priorities under subsection (c)(1), Federal
interdisciplinary studies under subsection (c)(2), and the
State component priorities under subsection (d)(1).
(2) Composition and support.--Not later than three months
after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary
shall appoint to the Federal Review Panel: (1) three
representatives of the United States Geological Survey, at
least one of which shall be a hydrologist or hydrogeologist;
and (2) four representatives of the geological surveys and
water management agencies of the High Plains Aquifer States
from lists of nominees provided by the Association and the
Council, so that there are two representatives of the State
geological surveys and two representatives of the State water
management agencies. Appointment to the Panel shall be for a
term of three years. The Director shall provide technical and
administrative support to the Federal Review Panel. Expenses
for the Federal Review Panel shall be paid from funds
available under the Federal component of the Program.
(f) Limitation.--The United States Geological Survey shall
not use any of the Federal funds to be made available under
the State component for any fiscal year to pay indirect,
servicing, or Program management charges. Recipients of
awards granted under subsection (d)(2)(B) shall not use more
than eighteen percent of the Federal award amount for any
fiscal year for indirect, servicing, or Program management
charges. The Federal share of the costs of an activity funded
under subsection (d)(2)(B) shall be no more than fifty
percent of the total cost of that activity. The Secretary may
apply the value of in-kind contributions of property and
services to the non-Federal share of the costs of the
activity.

SEC. 504. PLAN.

The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall, in
consultation with the Association, the Council, the Federal
Review Panel, and the State panels, prepare a plan for the
High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping,
Modeling and Monitoring Program. The plan shall address
overall priorities for the Program and a management structure
and Program operations, including the role and
responsibilities of the United States Geological Survey and
the States in the Program, and mechanisms for identifying
priorities for the Federal component and the State component.

SEC. 505. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Report on Program Implementation.--One year after the
date of enactment of this title, and every two years
thereafter through fiscal year 2011, the Secretary shall
submit a report on the status of implementation of the
Program established by this Act to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate, the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives, and the Governors
of the High Plains Aquifer States. The initial report
submitted by the Secretary shall contain the plan required by
section 504.
(b) Report on High Plains Aquifer.--One year after the date
of enactment of this title and every year thereafter through
fiscal year 2011, the Secretary shall submit a report to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, and
the Governors of the High Plains Aquifer States on the status
of the High Plains Aquifer, including aquifer recharge rates,
extraction rates, saturated thickness, and water table
levels.
(c) Role of Federal Review Panel.--The Federal Review Panel
shall be given an opportunity to review and comment on the
reports required by this section.

SEC. 506. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2011 to
carry out this title.

TITLE VI--CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION

SEC. 601. CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM.

(a) The Secretary of the Interior and the heads of the
other Federal agencies may participate in the Calfed Bay-
Delta Authority established by the California Bay-Delta
Authority Act (2002 Cal. Stat. Chap. 812) to the extent not
inconsistent with other law.
(b) During each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2005, the
Secretary of the Interior and the heads of other Federal
agencies identified in the Record of Decision of August 28,
2000, are also authorized to carry out aspects of the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program for which federal funds are appropriated.

TITLE VII--T'UF SHUR BIEN PRESERVATION TRUST AREA ACT

SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``T'uf Shur Bien Preservation
Trust Area Act''.

SEC. 702. FINDING AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

(a) Finding.--The Congress finds that in 1748, the Pueblo
of Sandia received a grant from a representative of the King
of Spain, which grant was recognized and confirmed by
Congress in 1858 (11 Stat. 374). In 1994, the Pueblo filed a
lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, Civil No. 1:94CV02624, asserting that
federal surveys of the grant boundaries erroneously excluded
certain lands within the Cibola National Forest, including a
portion of the Sandia Mountain Wilderness;
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) establish the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area in
the Cibola National Forest;
(2) confirm the status of National Forest and Wilderness
lands in the Area while resolving issues associated with the
Pueblo's lawsuit and the opinions of the Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior dated December 9, 1988 (M-36963;
96 I.D. 331) and January 19, 2001 (M-37002); and
(3) provide the Pueblo, parties involved in the litigation,
and the public with a fair and just settlement of the
Pueblo's claim.

SEC. 703. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:
(a) Area.--The term ``Area'' means the T'uf Shur Bien
Preservation Trust Area as depicted on the map, and excludes
the subdivisions, Pueblo-owned lands, the crest facilities,
and the special use permit lands as set forth in this Act.
(b) Crest Facilities.--The term ``crest facilities'' means
all facilities and developments located on the crest of
Sandia Mountain, including the Sandia Crest Electronic Site;
electronic site access roads; the Crest House; the upper
terminal, restaurant, and related facilities of Sandia Peak
Tram Company; the Crest Observation Area; parking lots;
restrooms; the Crest Trail (Trail No. 130); hang glider
launch sites; and the Kiwanis cabin; as well as the lands
upon which such facilities are located and the lands
extending 100 feet along terrain to the west of each such
facility, unless a different distance is agreed to in writing
between the Forest Service and the Pueblo and documented in
the survey of the Area.
(c) Existing Uses and Activities.--The term ``existing uses
and activities'' means uses and activities occurring in the
Area on the date of enactment of this Act, or which have been
authorized in the Area after November 1, 1995 but before the
date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page 23212]]

(d) Forest Service.--The term ``Forest Service'' means the
U.S. Forest Service.
(e) La Luz Tract.--The term ``La Luz tract'' means that
tract comprised of approximately 31 acres of land owned in
fee by the Pueblo and depicted on the map.
(f) Local Public Bodies.--The term ``local public bodies''
means political subdivisions of the State of New Mexico as
defined in New Mexico Code Sec. 6-5-1.
(g) Map.--The term ``map'' means the Forest Service map
entitled ``T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area,'' dated
April 2000.
(h) Modified Uses or Activities.--The term ``modified uses
or activities'' means existing uses which are being modified
or re-configured, but which are not being significantly
expanded, including a trail or trailhead being modified, such
as to accommodate handicapped access, a parking area being
reconfigured though not expanded, or a special use
authorization for a group recreation activity being
authorized for a different use area or time period.
(i) New Uses or Activities.--The term ``new uses or
activities'' means uses or activities not occurring in the
Area on the date of enactment of this Act, as well as
existing uses or activities that are being modified such that
they significantly expand or alter their previous scope,
dimensions, or impacts on the land, water, air and/or
wildlife resources of the Area. New uses and activities do
not apply to new uses or activities that are categorically
excluded from documentation requirements pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), or to activities undertaken to comply with the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(j) Piedra Lisa Tract.--The term ``Piedra Lisa tract''
means that tract comprised of approximately 160 acres of land
held in private ownership and depicted on the map.
(k) Pueblo.--The term ``Pueblo'' means the Pueblo of Sandia
in its governmental capacity.
(l) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, except where otherwise expressly indicated.
(m) Settlement Agreement.--The term ``Settlement
Agreement'' means the Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
dated April 4, 2000, between the United States, the Pueblo,
and the Sandia Peak Tram Company.
(n) Special Use Permit.--The term ``special use permit''
means the December 1, 1993, Special Use Permit issued by the
Forest Service to Sandia Peak Tram Company and Sandia Peak
Ski Company, encompassing approximately 46 acres of the
corridor presently dedicated to aerial tramway use, and
approximately 945 acres of the ski area, as well as the lands
described generally in Exhibit A to the December 31, 1993,
Special Use Permit, including the maintenance road to the
lower tram tower, water storage and distribution facilities,
seven helispots, and the other lands described therein.
(o) Subdivisions.--The term ``subdivisions'' means the
subdivisions of Sandia Heights Addition, Sandia Heights North
Units I, II, and 3, Tierra Monte, Valley View Acres, and
Evergreen Hills, as well as any additional plats and
privately owned properties depicted on the map.
(p) Traditional and Cultural Uses.--The terms ``traditional
and cultural uses'' and ``traditional and cultural purposes''
mean ceremonial activities, including the placing of
ceremonial materials in the Area, and the use, hunting,
trapping or gathering of plants, animals, wood, water, and
other natural resources, but only for non-commercial
purposes.

SEC. 704. T'UF SHUR BIEN PRESERVATION TRUST AREA.

(a) Establishment.--The T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust
Area is established within the Cibola National Forest and the
Sandia Mountain Wilderness as depicted on the map:
(1) to recognize and protect in perpetuity the Pueblo's
rights and interests in and to the Area, as specified in
section 705(a) of this Act;
(2) to preserve in perpetuity the Wilderness and National
Forest character of the Area; and
(3) to recognize and protect in perpetuity the public's
longstanding use and enjoyment of the Area.
(b) Administration and Applicable Law.--The Secretary,
acting through the Forest Service, shall continue to
administer the Area as part of the National Forest System and
incorporate the provisions of this Act affecting management
of the Area, including section 705(a)(3) and section 707.
(c) Exceptions.--
(1) Traditional and cultural uses by Pueblo members and
members of other federally recognized Indian tribes
authorized to use the Area by the Pueblo under section
705(a)(4) of this Act shall not be restricted except by the
Wilderness Act and its regulations as they exist on the date
of enactment of this Act and by applicable federal wildlife
protection laws as provided in section 706(a)(2) of this Act.
(2) To the extent that laws enacted or amended after the
date of this Act are inconsistent with this Act, they shall
not apply to the Area unless expressly made applicable by
Congress.
(3) The use of the word ``Trust'' in the name of the Area
is in recognition of the Pueblo's specific rights and
interests in the Area, and does not confer upon the Pueblo
the ownership interest that exists when the Secretary of the
Interior accepts the title to land in trust for the benefit
of an Indian tribe.
(d) Area Defined.--
(1) The Area shall be comprised of approximately 9890 acres
of land within the Cibola National Forest as depicted on the
map.
(2) As soon as practicable after enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall file the map and a legal description of the
Area with the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and with the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate. The map and legal description shall
be on file and available for public inspection in the Office
of the Chief of the Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture, Washington, District of Columbia.
(3) Such map and legal description shall have the same
force and effect as if included in this Act, except that
(A) clerical and typographical errors shall be corrected;
(B) changes that may be necessary pursuant to sections
709(b), 709(d), 709(e), 714(c), and 714(d) shall be made; and
(C) to the extent the map and the language of this Act
conflict, the language of the Act controls.
(e) No Conveyance of Title.--The United States' right,
title and interest in or to the Area or any part thereof
shall not be conveyed to or exchanged with any person, trust,
or governmental entity, including the Pueblo, without
specific authorization of Congress.
(f) Prohibited Uses.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no use prohibited by the Wilderness Act as of the
date of enactment of this Act may occur in the Wilderness
portion of the Area; nor may any of the following uses occur
in any portion of the Area: gaming or gambling of any kind,
mineral production, timber production, and new uses or
activities to which the Pueblo objects pursuant to section
705(a)(3) of this Act. The Area is closed to the location of
mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C.
Sec. 22).
(g) No Modification of Boundaries.--Creation of the T'uf
Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area shall not affect the
boundaries of, nor repeal or disestablish the Sandia Mountain
Wilderness or the Cibola National Forest. Establishment of
the Area does not in any way modify the existing boundary of
the Pueblo grant.

SEC. 705. PUEBLO OF SANDIA RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN THE AREA.

(a) General.--The Pueblo shall have the following rights
and interests in the Area:
(1) free and unrestricted access to the Area for
traditional and cultural uses to the extent not inconsistent
with the Wilderness Act and its regulations as they exist on
the date of enactment of this Act and with applicable federal
wildlife protection laws as provided in section 706(a)(2);
(2) perpetual preservation of the Wilderness and National
Forest character of the Area under this Act;
(3) rights in the management of the Area as set forth in
section 707, which include:
(A) the right to consent or withhold consent to new uses;
(B) the right to consultation regarding modified uses;
(C) the right to consultation regarding the management and
preservation of the Area; and
(D) the right to dispute resolution procedures;
(4) exclusive authority, in accordance with its customs and
laws, to administer access to the Area for traditional and
cultural uses by members of the Pueblo and of other federally
recognized Indian tribes; and
(5) such other rights and interests as are enumerated and
recognized in sections 704, 705(c), 707, 708, and 709.
(b) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (a)(4),
access to and use of the Area for all other purposes shall
continue to be administered by the Secretary through the
Forest Service.
(c) Compensable Interest.--
(1) If, by an Act of Congress enacted subsequent to the
effective date of this Act, Congress diminishes the
Wilderness and National Forest designation of the Area by
authorizing a use prohibited by section 704(f) in all or any
portion of the Area, or denies the Pueblo access for any
traditional and cultural uses in all or any portion of the
Area, the United States shall compensate the Pueblo as if the
Pueblo had held a fee title interest in the affected portion
of the Area and as though the United States had acquired such
interest by legislative exercise of its power of eminent
domain, and the restrictions of sections 704(f) and 706(a)
shall be disregarded in determining just compensation owed to
the Pueblo.
(2) Any compensation made to the Pueblo pursuant to
subsection (c)(1) does not in any way affect the
extinguishment of claims set forth in section 710.

SEC. 706. LIMITATIONS ON PUEBLO OF SANDIA RIGHTS AND
INTERESTS IN THE AREA.

(a) Limitations.--The Pueblo's rights and interests
recognized in this Act do not include:

[[Page 23213]]

(1) any right to sell, grant, lease, convey, encumber or
exchange lands in the Area, or any right or interest therein,
and any such conveyance shall not have validity in law or
equity;
(2) any exemption from applicable federal wildlife
protection laws;
(3) any right to engage in any activity or use prohibited
in section 704(f); or
(4) any right to exclude persons or governmental entities
from the Area.
(b) Exception.--No person who exercises traditional and
cultural use rights as authorized in section 705(a)(4) of
this Act may be prosecuted for a federal wildlife offense
requiring proof of a violation of a state law or regulation.

SEC. 707. MANAGEMENT OF THE AREA.

(a) Process.--
(1) General.--
(A) The Forest Service shall consult with the Pueblo of
Sandia not less than twice a year, unless otherwise mutually
agreed, concerning protection, preservation, and management
of the Area, including proposed new and modified uses and
activities in the Area and authorizations that are
anticipated during the next six months and approved in the
preceding six months.
(2) New uses and activities.--
(A) If after consultation the Pueblo of Sandia denies its
consent for a new use or activity within 30 days of the
consultation, the Forest Service will not be authorized to
proceed with the activity or use. If the Pueblo consents to
the new use or activity in writing or fails to respond within
30 days, the Forest Service may proceed with the notice and
comment process and the environmental analysis.
(B) Before the Forest Service signs a Record of Decision
(ROD) or Decision Notice (DN) for a proposed use or activity,
the Forest Service will again request Pueblo consent within
30 days of the Pueblo's receipt of the proposed ROD or DN. If
the Pueblo refuses to consent, the activity or use will not
be authorized. If the Pueblo fails to respond to the consent
request within 30 days after the proposed ROD or DN is
provided to the Pueblo, the Pueblo will be deemed to have
consented to the proposed ROD or DN and the Forest Service
may proceed to issue the final ROD or DN.
(3) Public involvement.--
(A) For proposed new and modified uses and activities, the
public shall be provided notice of--
(i) the purpose and need for the proposed action or
activity,
(ii) the Pueblo's role in the decision-making process, and
(iii) the Pueblo's position on the proposal.

Any person may file an action in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico to challenge Forest
Service determinations of what constitutes a new or a
modified use or activity.
(b) Emergencies and Emergency Closure Orders.--The Forest
Service shall retain its existing authorities to manage
emergency situations, to provide for public safety, and to
issue emergency closure orders in the Area subject to
applicable law. The Forest Service shall notify the Pueblo of
Sandia regarding emergencies, public safety issues, and
emergency closure orders as soon as possible. Such actions
are not subject to the Pueblo's right to withhold consent to
new uses in the Area as set forth in section 705(a)(3)(i).
(c) Disputes Involving Forest Service Management and Pueblo
Traditional Uses.--
(1) General.--In the event that Forest Service management
of the Area and Pueblo traditional and cultural uses
conflict, and the conflict does not pertain to new or
modified uses subject to the process set forth in subsection
(a), the process for dispute resolution set forth in this
subsection shall take effect.
(2) Dispute resolution process.--(A) When there is a
dispute between the Pueblo and the Forest Service regarding
Pueblo traditional and cultural use and Forest Service
management of the Area, the party identifying the dispute
shall notify the other party in writing addressed to the
Governor of the Pueblo or the Regional Forester respectively,
setting forth the nature of the dispute. The Regional
Forester or designee and the Governor of the Pueblo or
designee shall attempt to resolve the dispute for no less
than 30 days after notice has been provided before filing an
action in United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico.
(B) Disputes requiring immediate resolution.--In the event
of a conflict that requires immediate resolution to avoid
imminent, substantial and irreparable harm, the party
alleging such conflict shall notify the other party and seek
to resolve the dispute within 3 days of the date of
notification. If the parties are unable to resolve the
dispute within 3 days, either party may file an action for
immediate relief in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico, and the procedural exhaustion
requirements set forth above shall not apply.

SEC. 708. JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA.

(a) Criminal Jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, jurisdiction over crimes committed in the
Area shall be allocated as follows:
(1) To the extent that the allocations of criminal
jurisdiction over the Area under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)
of this subsection are overlapping, they should be construed
to allow for the exercise of concurrent criminal
jurisdiction.
(2) The Pueblo shall have jurisdiction over crimes
committed by its members or by members of another federally
recognized Indian tribe who are present in the Area with the
Pueblo's permission pursuant to section 705(a)(4).
(3) The United States shall have jurisdiction over--
(A) the offenses listed in section 1153 of title 18, U.S.
Code, including any offenses added to the list in that
statute by future amendments thereto, when such offenses are
committed by members of the Pueblo and other federally
recognized Indian tribes;
(B) crimes committed by any person in violation of laws and
regulations pertaining to the protection and management of
National Forests;
(C) enforcement of federal criminal laws of general
applicability; and
(D) any other offense committed by a member of the Pueblo
against a non-member of the Pueblo. Any offense which is not
defined and punished by federal law in force within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall be defined
and punished in accordance with the laws of the State of New
Mexico.
(4) The State of New Mexico shall have jurisdiction over
any crime under its laws committed by a person not a member
of the Pueblo.
(b) Civil Jurisdiction.--
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and
(5), the United States, the State of New Mexico, and local
public bodies shall have the same civil adjudicatory,
regulatory, and taxing jurisdiction over the Area as they
exercised prior to the enactment of this Act.
(2) The Pueblo shall have exclusive civil adjudicatory
jurisdiction over--
(A) disputes involving only members of the Pueblo;
(B) civil actions brought by the Pueblo against members of
the Pueblo; and
(C) civil actions brought by the Pueblo against members of
other federally recognized Indian tribes for violations of
understandings between the Pueblo and that member's tribe
regarding use or access to the Area for traditional and
cultural purposes.
(3) The Pueblo shall have no regulatory jurisdiction over
the Area with the exception of:
(A) exclusive authority to regulate traditional and
cultural uses by the Pueblo's own members and to administer
access to the Area by other federally recognized Indian
tribes for traditional and cultural uses, to the extent such
regulation is consistent with this Act; and
(B) The Pueblo shall have exclusive authority to regulate
hunting and trapping in the Area by its members that is
related to traditional and cultural purposes: Provided that
any hunting and trapping conducted by Pueblo members as a
traditional and cultural use within the Area, excluding that
part of the Area contained within Sections 13, 14, 23, 24,
and the northeast quarter of Section 25 of T12N, R4E, and
Section 19 of T12N, R5E, N.M.P.M., Sandoval County, New
Mexico, shall be regulated by the Pueblo in a manner
consistent with the regulations of the State of New Mexico
concerning types of weapons and proximity of hunting and
trapping to trails and residences.
(4) The Pueblo shall have no authority to impose taxes
within the Area.
(5) The State of New Mexico and local public bodies shall
have no authority within the Area to tax the activities or
the property of the Pueblo, its members, or members of other
federally recognized Indian tribes authorized to use the Area
under section 705(a)(4) of this Act.

SEC. 709. SUBDIVISIONS AND OTHER PROPERTY INTERESTS.

(a) Subdivisions.--The subdivisions are excluded from the
Area. The Pueblo shall have no civil or criminal jurisdiction
for any purpose, including adjudicatory, taxing, zoning,
regulatory or any other form of jurisdiction, over the
subdivisions and property interests therein, and the laws of
the Pueblo shall not apply to the subdivisions. The
jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico and local public
bodies over the subdivisions and property interests therein
shall continue in effect, except that upon application of the
Pueblo a tract comprised of approximately 35 contiguous, non-
subdivided acres in the northern section of Evergreen Hills
owned in fee by the Pueblo at the time of enactment of this
Act, shall be transferred to the United States and held in
trust for the Pueblo by the United States and administered by
the Secretary of the Interior. Such trust land shall be
subject to all limitations on use pertaining to the Area
contained in this Act.
(b) Piedra Lisa.--The Piedra Lisa tract is excluded from
the Area notwithstanding any subsequent acquisition of the
tract by the Pueblo. If the Secretary or the Pueblo acquires
the Piedra Lisa tract, the tract shall be transferred to the
United States and is hereby declared to be held in trust for
the Pueblo by the United States and administered by the
Secretary of the Interior subject to all limitations on use
pertaining to the Area contained in this Act. The restriction

[[Page 23214]]

contained in section 706(a)(4) shall not apply outside of
Forest Service System trails. Until acquired by the Secretary
or Pueblo, the jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico and
local public bodies over the Piedra Lisa tract and property
interests therein shall continue in effect.
(c) Crest Facilities.--The lands on which the crest
facilities are located are excluded from the Area. The Pueblo
shall have no civil or criminal jurisdiction for any purpose,
including adjudicatory, taxing, zoning, regulatory or any
other form of jurisdiction, over the lands on which the crest
facilities are located and property interests therein, and
the laws of the Pueblo shall not apply to those lands. The
pre-existing jurisdictional status of those lands shall
continue in effect.
(d) Special Use Permit Area.--The lands described in the
special use permit are excluded from the Area. The Pueblo
shall have no civil or criminal jurisdiction for any purpose,
including adjudicatory, taxing, zoning, regulatory, or any
other form of jurisdiction, over the lands described in the
special use permit, and the laws of the Pueblo shall not
apply to those lands. The pre-existing jurisdictional status
of these lands shall continue in effect. In the event the
special use permit, during its existing term or any future
terms or extensions, requires amendment to include other
lands in the Area necessary to realign the existing or any
future replacement tram line, associated structures, or
facilities, the lands subject to that amendment shall
thereafter be excluded from the Area and shall have the same
status under this Act as the lands currently described in the
special use permit. Any lands dedicated to aerial tramway and
related uses and associated facilities that are excluded from
the special use permit through expiration, termination or the
amendment process shall thereafter be included in the Area
but only after final agency action is no longer subject to
any appeals.
(e) La Luz Tract.--The La Luz tract now owned in fee by the
Pueblo is excluded from the Area and upon application by the
Pueblo shall be transferred to the United States and held in
trust for the Pueblo by the United States and administered by
the Secretary of the Interior subject to all limitations on
use pertaining to the Area contained in this Act. The
restriction contained in section 706(a)(4) shall not apply
outside of Forest Service System trails.
(f) Evergreen Hills Access.--The Secretary, consistent with
section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3210), shall ensure that Forest
Service Road 333D, as depicted on the map, is maintained in
an adequate condition consistent with the terms of section
1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 3210).
(g) Pueblo Fee Lands.--Those properties not specifically
addressed in subsections (a) or (e) of this section that are
owned in fee by the Pueblo within the subdivisions are
excluded from the Area and shall be subject to the
jurisdictional provisions of subsection (a) of this section.
(h) Rights-of-Way.--
(1) Road rights-of-way.--(A) In accordance with the Pueblo
having given its consent in the Settlement Agreement, the
Secretary of the Interior shall grant to the County of
Bernalillo, New Mexico, in perpetuity, the following
irrevocable rights of way for roads identified on the map in
order to provide for public access to the subdivisions, the
special use permit land and facilities, the other leasehold
and easement rights and interests of the Sandia Peak Tram
Company and its affiliates, the Sandia Heights South
Subdivision, and the Area:
(i) a right-of-way for Tramway Road;
(ii) a right-of-way for Juniper Hill Road North;
(iii) a right-of-way for Juniper Hill Road South;
(iv) a right-of-way for Sandia Heights Road; and
v) a right-of-way for Juan Tabo Canyon Road (Forest Road
No. 333).
(B) The road rights-of-way shall be subject to the
following conditions:
(i) Such rights-of-way may not be expanded or otherwise
modified without the Pueblo's written consent, but road
maintenance to the rights of way shall not be subject to
Pueblo consent;
(ii) The rights-of-way shall not authorize uses for any
purpose other than roads without the Pueblo's written
consent.
(iii) Except as provided in the Settlement Agreement,
existing rights-of-way or leasehold interests and obligations
held by the Sandia Peak Tram Company and its affiliates,
shall be preserved, protected, and unaffected by this Act.
(2) Utility rights-of-way.--In accordance with the Pueblo
having given its consent in the Settlement Agreement, the
Secretary of the Interior shall grant irrevocable utility
rights-of-way in perpetuity across Pueblo lands to
appropriate utility or other service providers serving Sandia
Heights Addition, Sandia Heights North Units I, II, and 3,
the special use permit lands, Tierra Monte, and Valley View
Acres, including rights-of-way for natural gas, power, water,
telecommunications, and cable television services. Such
rights-of-way shall be within existing utility corridors as
depicted on the map or, for certain water lines, as described
in the existing grant of easement to the Sandia Peak Utility
Company; provided that use of water line easements outside
the utility corridors depicted on the map shall not be used
for utility purposes other than water lines and associated
facilities. Except where above-ground facilities already
exist, all new utility facilities shall be installed
underground unless the Pueblo agrees otherwise. To the extent
that enlargement of existing utility corridors is required
for any technologically-advanced telecommunication,
television, or utility services, the Pueblo shall not
unreasonably withhold agreement to a reasonable enlargement
of the easements described above.
(i) Forest Service Rights of Way.--In accordance with the
Pueblo having given its consent in the Settlement Agreement,
the Secretary of the Interior shall grant to the Forest
Service the following irrevocable rights-of-way in perpetuity
for Forest Service trails crossing land of the Pueblo in
order to provide for public access to the Area and through
Pueblo lands:
(1) a right-of-way for a portion of the Crest Spur Trail
(Trail No. 84), crossing a portion of the La Luz tract, as
identified on the map;
(2) a right-of-way for the extension of the Foothills Trail
(Trail No. 365A), as identified on the map; and
(3) a right-of-way for that portion of the Piedra Lisa
North-South Trail (Trail No. 135) crossing the Piedra Lisa
tract, if the Pueblo ever acquires the Piedra Lisa tract.

SEC. 710. EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS.

(a) General.--Except for the rights and interests in and to
the Area specifically recognized in sections 704, 705, 707,
708, and 709, all Pueblo claims to right, title and interest
of any kind, including aboriginal claims, in and to lands
within the Area, any part thereof, and property interests
therein, as well as related boundary, survey, trespass, and
monetary damage claims, are hereby permanently extinguished.
The United States' title to the Area is hereby confirmed.
(b) Subdivisions.--Any Pueblo claims to right, title and
interest of any kind, including aboriginal claims, in and to
the subdivisions and property interests therein (except for
land owned in fee by the Pueblo as of the date of enactment
of this Act), as well as related boundary, survey, trespass,
and monetary damage claims, are hereby permanently
extinguished.
(c) Special Use and Crest Facilities Areas.--Any Pueblo
right, title and interest of any kind, including aboriginal
claims, and related boundary, survey, trespass, and monetary
damage claims, are hereby permanently extinguished in and to
(1) the lands described in the special use permit; and
(2) the lands on which the crest facilities are located.
(d) Pueblo Agreement.--As provided in the Settlement
Agreement, the Pueblo has agreed to the relinquishment and
extinguishment of those claims, rights, titles and interests
extinguished pursuant to subsection (a), (b) and (c) of this
section.
(e) Consideration.--The recognition of the Pueblo's rights
and interests in this Act constitutes adequate consideration
for the Pueblo's agreement to the extinguishment of the
Pueblo's claims in this section and the right-of-way grants
contained in section 709, and it is the intent of Congress
that those rights and interests may only be diminished by a
future Act of Congress specifically authorizing diminishment
of such rights, with express reference to this Act.

SEC. 711. CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Strict Construction.--This Act recognizes only
enumerated rights and interests, and no additional rights,
interests, obligations, or duties shall be created by
implication.
(b) Existing Rights.--To the extent there exists within the
Area at the time of enactment of this Act any valid private
property rights associated with the Piedra Lisa tract or
other private lands that are not otherwise addressed in this
Act, such rights are not modified or otherwise affected by
this Act, nor is the exercise of any such right subject to
the Pueblo's right to withhold consent to new uses in the
Area as set forth in section 705(a)(3)(i).
(c) Not Precedent.--The provisions of this Act creating
certain rights and interests in the National Forest System
are uniquely suited to resolve the Pueblo's claim and the
geographic and societal situation involved, and shall not be
construed as precedent for any other situation involving
management of the National Forest System.
(d) Fish and Wildlife.--Except as provided in section
708(b)(3), nothing in this Act shall be construed as
affecting the responsibilities of the State of New Mexico
with respect to fish and wildlife, including the regulation
of hunting, fishing, or trapping within the Area.
(e) Federal Land Policy and Management Act.--Section 316
(43 U.S.C. 1746) of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is amended by adding the
following sentence at the end thereof: ``Any corrections
authorized by this section which affect the boundaries of, or
jurisdiction over, lands administered by another Federal
agency shall be made only after consultation with, and the
approval of, the head of such other agency.''

[[Page 23215]]

SEC. 712. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) Enforcement.--Suit to enforce the provisions of this
Act may be brought to the extent permitted under chapter 7 of
title 5, United States Code. Judicial review shall be based
upon the administrative record and subject to the applicable
standard of review set forth in section 706 of title 5.
(b) Waiver.--Suit may be brought against the Pueblo for
declaratory judgment or injunctive relief under this Act, but
no money damages, including costs or attorney's fees, may be
imposed on the Pueblo as a result of such judicial action.
(c) Venue.--Venue for any suit provided for in this
section, as well as any suit to contest the constitutionality
of this Act, shall lie only in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico.

SEC. 713. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately
upon enactment of this Act.

SEC. 714. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND RELATED
AUTHORITIES.

(a) General.--There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this
Act, including such sums as may be necessary for the Forest
Service to acquire ownership of, or other interest in, lands
within the external boundaries of the Area as authorized in
subsection (d).
(b) Contributions.--
(1) The Secretary is authorized to accept contributions
from the Pueblo, or from other persons or governmental
entities, to perform and complete a survey of the Area, or
otherwise for the benefit of the Area in accordance with this
Act.
(2) The Secretary shall complete a survey of the Area
within one year of the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Land Exchange.--Within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, after consultation with the Pueblo,
the Secretary is directed in accordance with applicable laws
to prepare and offer a land exchange of National Forest lands
outside the Area and contiguous to the northern boundary of
the Pueblo's Reservation within sections 10, 11, and 14 of
T12N, R4E, N.M.P.M., Sandoval County, New Mexico excluding
Wilderness land, for lands owned by the Pueblo in the
Evergreen Hills subdivision in Sandoval County contiguous to
National Forest land, and the La Luz tract in Bernalillo
County. Notwithstanding section 206(b) of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1716(b)), the Secretary
may either make or accept a cash equalization payment in
excess of 25 percent of the total value of the lands or
interests transferred out of Federal ownership. Any funds
received by the Secretary as a result of the exchange shall
be deposited in the fund established under the Act of
December 4, 1967, known as the Sisk Act (16 U.S.C. 484a), and
shall be available to purchase non-Federal lands within or
adjacent to the National Forests in the State of New Mexico.
All lands exchanged or conveyed to the Pueblo are hereby
declared to be held in trust for the Pueblo by the United
States and added to the Pueblo's Reservation subject to all
existing and outstanding rights and shall remain in their
natural state and shall not be subject to commercial
development of any kind. Lands exchanged or conveyed to the
Forest Service shall be subject to all limitations on use
pertaining to the Area under this Act. If the land exchange
offer is not made within 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and
the Committee on Resources of the United States House of
Representatives, a report explaining the reasons for the
failure to make the offer including an assessment of the need
for any additional legislation that may be necessary for the
exchange. If additional legislation is not necessary, the
Secretary, consistent with this section, should proceed with
the exchange pursuant to existing law.
(d) Land Acquisition.--(1) The Secretary is authorized to
acquire lands owned by the Pueblo within the Evergreen Hills
Subdivision in Sandoval County or any other privately held
lands inside of the exterior boundaries of the Area. The
boundaries of the Cibola National Forest and the Area shall
be adjusted to encompass any lands acquired pursuant to this
section.
(2) In the event the Pueblo acquires the Piedra Lisa tract,
the Secretary shall compensate the Pueblo for the fair market
value of:
(A) the right-of-way established pursuant to section
709(i)(3); and
(B) the conservation easement established by the
limitations on use of the Piedra Lisa tract pursuant to
section 709(b).
(e) Reimbursement of Certain Costs.--
(1) The Pueblo, the County of Bernalillo, New Mexico, and
any person who owns or has owned property inside of the
exterior boundaries of the Area as designated on the map, and
who has incurred actual and direct costs as a result of
participating in the case of Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt,
Civ. No. 94-2624 HHG (D.D.C.), or other proceedings directly
related to resolving the issues litigated in that case, may
apply for reimbursement in accordance with this section.
Costs directly related to such participation which shall
qualify for reimbursement shall be--
(A) dues or payments to a homeowner association for the
purpose of legal representation; and
(B) legal fees and related expenses.
(2) The reimbursement provided in this subsection shall be
in lieu of that which might otherwise be available pursuant
to the Equal Access to Justice Act (24 U.S.C. 2412).
(3) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and
directed to make reimbursement payments as provided in this
section out of any money not otherwise appropriated.
(4) Applications for reimbursement shall be filed within
180 days of the date of enactment of this Act with the
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service,
Washington, D.C.
(5) In no event shall any one party be compensated in
excess of $750,000 and the total amount reimbursed pursuant
to this section shall not exceed $3,000,000.

____________________

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. CLELAND. I ask unanimous consent that my press secretary,
Patricia Murphy, be admitted to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of
the floor be granted to Ross Arends, a detailee in the office of
Senator Kohl, during the pendency of the homeland security bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

FOREIGN CURRENCY REPORTS

In accordance with the appropriate provisions of law, the Secretary
of the Senate herewith submits the following report(s) of standing
committees of the Senate, certain joint committees of the Congress,
delegations and groups, and select and special committees of the
Senate, relating to expenses incurred in the performance of authorized
foreign travel:

[[Page 23216]]

Bosnia................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 196.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 196.00
Slovenia............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 355.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 355.00
Maren Leed:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,871.07 ........... ........... ........... 5,871.07
Germany................................ Euro....................................... ........... 470.80 ........... 60.00 ........... 13.00 ........... 543.80
Italy.................................. Euro....................................... ........... 110.75 ........... ........... ........... 18.00 ........... 128.75
Joseph T. Sixeas:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,696.00 ........... ........... ........... 3,696.00
Italy.................................. Euro....................................... ........... 110.75 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 110.75
Germany................................ Euro....................................... ........... 220.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 220.00
Ambrose R. Hock:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,187.83 ........... ........... ........... 3,187.83
South Korea............................ Won........................................ ........... 1,002.86 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,002.86
Daniel J. Cox, Jr.:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 2,522.10 ........... ........... ........... 2,522.10
South Korea............................ Won........................................ ........... 1,090.99 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,090.99
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 5,708.15 ........... 28,701.68 ........... 31.00 ........... 34,440.83
CARL LEVIN,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Oct.
1, 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C. 1754(b), SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE
FOR TRAVEL FROM AUG. 23 TO SEPT. 1, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernadette Kilroy:
Thailand............................... Baht....................................... ........... 358.45 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 358.45
Cambodia............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 152.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 152.50
Viet Nam (HCMC)........................ Dollar..................................... ........... 321.60 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 321.60
Viet Nam (Hanoi)....................... Dollar..................................... ........... 143.80 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 143.80
Hong Kong.............................. Dollar..................................... ........... 703.56 ........... 6,252.83 ........... ........... ........... 6,956.39
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 1,679.91 ........... 6,252.83 ........... ........... ........... 7,932.74
KENT CONRAD,
Chairman, Senate Budget Committee, Oct. 1,
2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23217]]

AMENDMENT TO 2ND QUARTER 2002, CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C.
1754(b), COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES FOR TRAVEL FROM APR. 1 TO JUNE 30, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Neff:
United Kingdom......................... Dollar..................................... ........... 1,200.00 ........... 5,642.56 ........... ........... ........... 6,842.56
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 1,200.00 ........... 5,642.56 ........... ........... ........... 6,842.56
JEFF BINGAMAN,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Sept. 17, 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMENDMENT TO 2ND QUARTER 2002 CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C.
1754(b), COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS FOR TRAVEL FROM APR. 1, 2002 TO JUNE 30, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator George Voinovich:\1\
United Kingdom......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 152.97 ........... 152.97
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 152.97 ........... 152.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Delegation expenses include direct payments and reimbursements to the Department of State under authority of Sec. 502(b) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended by Sec. 22 of P.L. 95-
384.
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental
Affairs, Oct. 7, 2002.

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE FOR TRAVEL FROM JULY 1 TO SEPT. 30, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Richard Lugar...................... ........................................... ........... 2,084.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,084.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,985.34 ........... ........... ........... 4,985.34
Kenneth Myers, Jr.......................... ........................................... ........... 2,320.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,320.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,985.34 ........... ........... ........... 4,985.34
Senator Richard Shelby..................... ........................................... ........... 3,420.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,420.00
Christopher Ford........................... ........................................... ........... 3,086.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,086.00
Anne Caldwell.............................. ........................................... ........... 3,420.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,420.00
Senator Bob Graham......................... ........................................... ........... 1,559.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,559.00
Senator Mike DeWine........................ ........................................... ........... 1,325.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,325.00
Senator Evan Bayh.......................... ........................................... ........... 1,153.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,153.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 2,627.54 ........... ........... ........... 2,627.54
Robert Filippone........................... ........................................... ........... 1,559.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,559.00
James Barnett.............................. ........................................... ........... 1,159.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,159.00
Senator Jon Kyl............................ ........................................... ........... 2,926.83 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,926.83
Matthew Pollard............................ ........................................... ........... 3,272.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,272.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,106.74 ........... ........... ........... 5,106.74
Lorenzo Goco............................... ........................................... ........... 1,066.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,066.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,270.88 ........... ........... ........... 6,270.88
Randy Bookout.............................. ........................................... ........... 150.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 150.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,985.00 ........... ........... ........... 4,985.00
Mary Patricia Lawrence..................... ........................................... ........... 1,133.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,133.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,270.88 ........... ........... ........... 6,270.88
Hyon Kim................................... ........................................... ........... 934.61 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 934.61
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,270.88 ........... ........... ........... 6,270.88
Senator Barbara Mikulski................... ........................................... ........... 1,686.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,686.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,172.52 ........... ........... ........... 9,172.52
George K. Johnson.......................... ........................................... ........... 9,389.66 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 9,389.66
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 8,070.19 ........... ........... ........... 8,070.19
Julia Frifield............................. ........................................... ........... 1,542.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,542.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,172.52 ........... ........... ........... 9,172.52
Tracye Winfrey............................. ........................................... ........... 608.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 608.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,142.11 ........... ........... ........... 5,142.11
James Barnett.............................. ........................................... ........... 953.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 953.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,572.33 ........... ........... ........... 6,572.33
Christopher Ford........................... ........................................... ........... 1,095.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,095.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,243.63 ........... ........... ........... 9,243.63
James Hensler.............................. ........................................... ........... 872.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 872.08
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,243.63 ........... ........... ........... 9,243.63
Christopher Jackson........................ ........................................... ........... 933.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 933.00

[[Page 23218]]

Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,107.22 ........... ........... ........... 9,107.22
Matthew Pollard............................ ........................................... ........... 1,077.34 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,077.34
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,313.63 ........... ........... ........... 9,313.63
Randy Bookout.............................. ........................................... ........... 2,605.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,605.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,004.00 ........... ........... ........... 9,004.00
Peter Dorn................................. ........................................... ........... 1,422.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,422.08
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,107.22 ........... ........... ........... 9,107.22
Linda Taylor............................... ........................................... ........... 1,145.97 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,145.97
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,107.22 ........... ........... ........... 9,107.22
Dana Lesemann.............................. ........................................... ........... 299.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 299.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,930.43 ........... ........... ........... 5,930.43
Linda Taylor............................... ........................................... ........... 1,008.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,008.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,142.11 ........... ........... ........... 5,142.11
Peter Dorn................................. ........................................... ........... 1,187.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,187.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,828.48 ........... ........... ........... 5,828.48
Patti Litman............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 1,008.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,008.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 57,398.57 ........... 160,659.84 ........... ........... ........... 218,058.41
BOB GRAHAM,
Chairman, Committee on Intelligence, Sept.
30, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C. 1754(b), THE COMMISSION ON
SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE FOR TRAVEL FROM JULY 1 TO SEPT. 30, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Schlager:
U.S.A.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,292.38 ........... ........... ........... 3,292.38
Poland................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 2,846.75 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,846.75
Representative Alcee L. Hastings:
U.S.A.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,243.01 ........... ........... ........... 5,243.01
Spain.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 2,317.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,317.00
Janice L. Helwig:
U.S.A.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,807.52 ........... ........... ........... 4,807.52
Austria................................ Dollar..................................... ........... 13,489.51 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 13,489.51
Poland................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 2,988.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,988.00
Marlene Kaufmann:
U.S.A.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 2,916.30 ........... ........... ........... 2,916.30
Romania................................ Dollar..................................... ........... 810.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 810.00
Donald Kursch:
U.S.A.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,292.38 ........... ........... ........... 3,292.38
Poland................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 2,609.67 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,609.67
Ronald McNamara:
U.S.A.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,403.88 ........... ........... ........... 5,403.88
Austria................................ Dollar..................................... ........... 670.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 670.13
Spain.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 132.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 132.00
Michael Ochs:
U.S.A.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 10,047.71 ........... ........... ........... 10,047.71
Azerbaijan............................. Dollar..................................... ........... 1,108.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,108.00
Poland................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 1,328.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,328.00
Dorothy D. Taft:
U.S.A.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,492.97 ........... ........... ........... 3,492.97
Macedonia.............................. Dollar..................................... ........... 613.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 613.00
Poland................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 900.30 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 900.30
Maureen Walsh:
U.S.A.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,966.44 ........... ........... ........... 3,966.44
Poland................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 2,846.75 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,846.75
Robert A. Hand:
U.S.A.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,487.99 ........... ........... ........... 3,487.99
(F.R.) Yugoslavia...................... Dollar..................................... ........... 1,128.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,128.00
Bosnia Herzegovina..................... Dollar..................................... ........... 1,078.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,078.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 34,865.11 ........... 45,950.58 ........... ........... ........... 80,815.69
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,
Chairman, the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe,
Oct. 31, 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23219]]

Latvia.............................. Lat.................................... ........... 514.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 514.00
Ireland............................. Euro................................... ........... 658.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 658.00
Senator Benjamin Nelson:
Russia.............................. Ruble.................................. ........... 1,402.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,402.00
Latvia.............................. Lat.................................... ........... 514.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 514.00
Ireland............................. Euro................................... ........... 658.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 658.00
Dr. John Eisold:
Russia.............................. Ruble.................................. ........... 1,402.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,402.00
Latvia.............................. Lat.................................... ........... 514.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 514.00
Ireland............................. Euro................................... ........... 658.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 658.00
Mr. Ron Bonjean:
Russia.............................. Ruble.................................. ........... 1,357.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,357.00
Latvia.............................. Lat.................................... ........... 514.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 514.00
Ireland............................. Euro................................... ........... 658.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 658.00
Jeff McEvoy:
Russia.............................. Ruble.................................. ........... 1,360.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,360.00
Latvia.............................. Lat.................................... ........... 514.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 514.00
Ireland............................. Euro................................... ........... 658.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 658.00
Lauren Stanton:
Russia.............................. Ruble.................................. ........... 1,302.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,302.00
Latvia.............................. Lat.................................... ........... 514.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 514.00
Ireland............................. Euro................................... ........... 658.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 658.00
Sally Walsh:
Russia.............................. Ruble.................................. ........... 1,402.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,402.00
Latvia.............................. Lat.................................... ........... 514.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 514.00
Ireland............................. Euro................................... ........... 658.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 658.00
Susan Wells:
Russia.............................. Ruble.................................. ........... 1,402.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,402.00
Latvia.............................. Lat.................................... ........... 514.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 514.00
Ireland............................. Euro................................... ........... 658.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 658.00
Robert Wilkie:
Russia.............................. Ruble.................................. ........... 1,402.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,402.00
Latvia.............................. Lat.................................... ........... 514.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 514.00
Ireland............................. Euro................................... ........... 658.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 658.00
Eric Womble:
Russia.............................. Ruble.................................. ........... 1,402.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,402.00
Latvia.............................. Lat.................................... ........... 514.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 514.00
Ireland............................. Euro................................... ........... 658.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 658.00
Delegation Expenses:\1\
Russia.............................. Ruble.................................. ........... .................. ........... ........... ........... 21,404.47 ........... 21,404.47
Latvia.............................. Lat.................................... ........... .................. ........... ........... ........... 10,293.85 ........... 10,293.85
Ireland............................. Euro................................... ........... .................. ........... ........... ........... 14,162.72 ........... 14,162.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. ....................................... ........... 33,275.00 ........... ........... ........... 45,861.04 ........... 79,136.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Delegation expenses include payments and reimbursements to the Department of State, Executive Branch, and the Department of Defense under the authority of Sec. 502(b) of the Mutual Security
Act of 1954, as amended by Sec. 22 of P.L. 95-384, and S. Res. 179 agreed to May 25, 1977.
TRENT LOTT,
Republican Leader, Oct. 16, 2002.

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C. 1754(b), CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
OF SENATOR TOM DASCHLE FOR TRAVEL FROM AUG. 21 TO SEPT. 1, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Tom Daschle:
South Africa........................... Rand....................................... ........... 522.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 522.00
Kenya.................................. Schilling.................................. ........... 980.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 980.00
Botswana............................... Pula....................................... ........... 432.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 432.00
Nigeria................................ Naira...................................... ........... 660.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 660.00
Senator Jeff Bingaman:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,669.12 ........... ........... ........... 4,669.12
South Africa........................... Rand....................................... ........... 422.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 422.00
Kenya.................................. Schilling.................................. ........... 777.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 777.50
Botswana............................... Pula....................................... ........... 332.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 332.00
Nigeria................................ Naira...................................... ........... 460.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 460.00
Senator Harry Reid:
South Africa........................... Rand....................................... ........... 522.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 522.00
Kenya.................................. Schilling.................................. ........... 975.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 975.00
Botswana............................... Pula....................................... ........... 432.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 432.00
Nigeria................................ Naira...................................... ........... 660.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 660.00
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell:
South Africa........................... Rand....................................... ........... 522.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 522.00
Kenya.................................. Schilling.................................. ........... 977.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 977.50
Botswana............................... Pula....................................... ........... 432.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 432.00
Nigeria................................ Naira...................................... ........... 660.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 660.00
Alton Dillard:
South Africa........................... Rand....................................... ........... 600.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 600.00
Kenya.................................. Schilling.................................. ........... 886.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 886.00
Botswana............................... Pula....................................... ........... 432.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 432.00
Nigeria................................ Naira...................................... ........... 660.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 660.00
Denis McDonough:
South Africa........................... Rand....................................... ........... 528.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 528.00
Kenya.................................. Schilling.................................. ........... 681.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 681.00
Botswana............................... Pula....................................... ........... 427.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 427.00
Nigeria................................ Naira...................................... ........... 500.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 500.00
Laura Petrou:
South Africa........................... Rand....................................... ........... 528.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 528.00
Kenya.................................. Schilling.................................. ........... 678.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 678.50
Botswana............................... Pula....................................... ........... 427.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 427.00
Nigeria................................ Naira...................................... ........... 500.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 500.00
Jim Ryan
South Africa........................... Rand....................................... ........... 600.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 600.00
Kenya.................................. Schilling.................................. ........... 876.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 876.00

[[Page 23220]]

Botswana............................... Pula....................................... ........... 432.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 432.00
Nigeria................................ Naira...................................... ........... 660.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 660.00
Sally Walsh:
South Africa........................... Rand....................................... ........... 600.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 600.00
Kenya.................................. Schilling.................................. ........... 876.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 876.00
Botswana............................... Pula....................................... ........... 432.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 432.00
Nigeria................................ Naira...................................... ........... 660.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 660.00
Delegation Expenses:\1\
South Africa........................... Rand....................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 17,963.33 ........... 17,963.33
Kenya.................................. Schilling.................................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 13,234.70 ........... 13,234,70
Botswana............................... Pula....................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 10,547.53 ........... 10,547.53
Nigeria................................ Naira...................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 9,831.33 ........... 9,831.33
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................ ........................................... ........... 21,749.50 ........... 4,669.12 ........... 51,576.89 ........... 77,995.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Delegation expenses include payments and reimbursements to the Department of State, and the Department of Defense under the authority of Sec. 502(b) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as
amended by Sec. 22 of P.L. 95-384, and S. Res. 179 agreed to May 25, 1977.
TOM DASCHLE,
Majority Leader, Nov. 9, 2002.

____________________

OIL REGION NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 605, H.R. 695.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 695) to establish the Oil Region National
Heritage Area.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause
and inserting in lieu therof the following:
[Strike the part shown in black brackets and insert the part printed
in italic.]

H.R. 695

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

[SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; DEFINITIONS.

[(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Oil
Region National Heritage Area Act''.
[(b) Definitions.--For the purposes of this Act, the
following definitions shall apply:
[(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Oil Region National Heritage Area established in section
3(a).
[(2) Management entity.--The term ``management entity''
means the Oil Heritage Region, Inc., or its successor entity.
[(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

[SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

[(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
[(1) The Oil Region of Northwestern Pennsylvania, with
numerous sites and districts listed on the National Register
of Historic Places, and designated by the Governor of
Pennsylvania as one of the State Heritage Park Areas, is a
region with tremendous physical and natural resources and
possesses a story of State, national, and international
significance.
[(2) The single event of Colonel Edwin Drake's drilling of
the world's first successful oil well in 1859 has affected
the industrial, natural, social, and political structures of
the modern world.
[(3) Six national historic districts are located within the
State Heritage Park boundary, in Emlenton, Franklin, Oil
City, and Titusville, as well as 17 separate National
Register sites.
[(4) The Allegheny River, which was designated as a
component of the national wild and scenic rivers system in
1992 by Public Law 102-271, traverses the Oil Region and
connects several of its major sites, as do some of the
river's tributaries such as Oil Creek, French Creek, and
Sandy Creek.
[(5) The unspoiled rural character of the Oil Region
provides many natural and recreational resources, scenic
vistas, and excellent water quality for people throughout the
United States to enjoy.
[(6) Remnants of the oil industry, visible on the landscape
to this day, provide a direct link to the past for visitors,
as do the historic valley settlements, riverbed settlements,
plateau developments, farmlands, and industrial landscapes.
[(7) The Oil Region also represents a cross section of
American history associated with Native Americans, frontier
settlements, the French and Indian War, African Americans and
the Underground Railroad, and immigration of Swedish and
Polish individuals, among others.
[(8) Involvement by the Federal Government shall serve to
enhance the efforts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
local subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
volunteer organizations, and private businesses, to promote
the cultural, national, and recreational resources of the
region in order to fulfill their full potential.
[(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to enhance a
cooperative management framework to assist the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, its units of local government, and area
citizens in conserving, enhancing, and interpreting the
significant features of the lands, water, and structures of
the Oil Region, in a manner consistent with compatible
economic development for the benefit and inspiration of
present and future generations in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and the United States.

[SEC. 3. OIL REGION NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

[(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established the Oil
Region National Heritage Area.
[(b) Boundaries.--The boundaries of the Heritage Area shall
include all of those lands depicted on a map entitled ``Oil
Region National Heritage Area'', numbered OIRE/20,000 and
dated October, 2000. The map shall be on file in the
appropriate offices of the National Park Service. The
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal
Register, as soon as practical after the date of the
enactment of this Act, a detailed description and map of the
boundaries established under this subsection.
[(c) Management Entity.--The management entity for the
Heritage Area shall be the Oil Heritage Region, Inc., the
locally based private, nonprofit management corporation which
shall oversee the development of a management plan in
accordance with section 5(b).

[SEC. 4. COMPACT.

[To carry out the purposes of this Act, the Secretary shall
enter into a compact with the management entity. The compact
shall include information relating to the objectives and
management of the area, including a discussion of the goals
and objectives of the Heritage Area, including an explanation
of the proposed approach to conservation and interpretation
and a general outline of the protection measures committed to
by the Secretary and management entity.

[SEC. 5. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

[(a) Authorities of the Management Entity.--The management
entity may use funds made available under this Act for
purposes of preparing, updating, and implementing the
management plan developed under subsection (b). Such purposes
may include--
[(1) making grants to, and entering into cooperative
agreements with, States and their political subdivisions,
private organizations, or any other person;
[(2) hiring and compensating staff; and
[(3) undertaking initiatives that advance the purposes of
the Heritage Area.
[(b) Management Plan.--The management entity shall develop
a management plan for the Heritage Area that--
[(1) presents comprehensive strategies and recommendations
for conservation, funding, management, and development of the
Heritage Area;
[(2) takes into consideration existing State, county, and
local plans and involves residents, public agencies, and
private organizations working in the Heritage Area;

[[Page 23221]]

[(3) includes a description of actions that units of
government and private organizations have agreed to take to
protect the resources of the Heritage Area;
[(4) specifies the existing and potential sources of
funding to protect, manage, and develop the Heritage Area;
[(5) includes an inventory of the resources contained in
the Heritage Area, including a list of any property in the
Heritage Area that is related to the themes of the Heritage
Area and that should be preserved, restored, managed,
developed, or maintained because of its natural, cultural,
historic, recreational, or scenic significance;
[(6) recommends policies for resource management which
consider and detail application of appropriate land and water
management techniques, including, but not limited to, the
development of intergovernmental and interagency cooperative
agreements to protect the Heritage Area's historical,
cultural, recreational, and natural resources in a manner
consistent with supporting appropriate and compatible
economic viability;
[(7) describes a program for implementation of the
management plan by the management entity, including plans for
restoration and construction, and specific commitments for
that implementation that have been made by the management
entity and any other persons for the first 5 years of
implementation;
[(8) includes an analysis of ways in which local, State,
and Federal programs, including the role for the National
Park Service in the Heritage Area, may best be coordinated to
promote the purposes of this Act;
[(9) lists any revisions to the boundaries of the Heritage
Area proposed by the management entity and requested by the
affected local government; and
[(10) includes an interpretation plan for the Heritage
Area.
[(c) Deadline; Termination of Funding.--
[(1) Deadline.--The management entity shall submit the
management plan to the Secretary within 2 years after the
funds are made available for this Act.
[(2) Termination of funding.--If a management plan is not
submitted to the Secretary in accordance with this
subsection, the management entity shall not qualify for
Federal assistance under this Act.
[(d) Duties of Management Entity.--The management entity
shall--
[(1) give priority to implementing actions set forth in the
compact and management plan;
[(2) assist units of government, regional planning
organizations, and nonprofit organizations in--
[(A) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in
the Heritage Area;
[(B) developing recreational resources in the Heritage
Area;
[(C) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for
the natural, historical, and architectural resources and
sites in the Heritage Area;
[(D) the restoration of any historic building relating to
the themes of the Heritage Area;
[(E) ensuring that clear, consistent, and environmentally
appropriate signs identifying access points and sites of
interest are put in place throughout the Heritage Area; and
[(F) carrying out other actions that the management entity
determines to be advisable to fulfill the purposes of this
Act;
[(3) encourage by appropriate means economic viability in
the Heritage Area consistent with the goals of the management
plan;
[(4) consider the interests of diverse governmental,
business, and nonprofit groups within the Heritage Area; and
[(5) for any year in which Federal funds have been provided
to implement the management plan under subsection (b)--
[(A) conduct public meetings at least annually regarding
the implementation of the management plan;
[(B) submit an annual report to the Secretary setting forth
accomplishments, expenses and income, and each person to
which any grant was made by the management entity in the year
for which the report is made; and
[(C) require, for all agreements entered into by the
management entity authorizing expenditure of Federal funds by
any other person, that the person making the expenditure make
available to the management entity for audit all records
pertaining to the expenditure of such funds.
[(e) Prohibition on the Acquisition of Real Property.--The
management entity may not use Federal funds received under
this Act to acquire real property or an interest in real
property.

[SEC. 6. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE SECRETARY.

[(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
[(1) In general.--
[(A) Overall assistance.--The Secretary may, upon the
request of the management entity, and subject to the
availability of appropriations, provide technical and
financial assistance to the management entity to carry out
its duties under this Act, including updating and
implementing a management plan that is submitted under
section 5(b) and approved by the Secretary and, prior to such
approval, providing assistance for initiatives.
[(B) Other assistance.--If the Secretary has the resources
available to provide technical assistance to the management
entity to carry out its duties under this Act (including
updating and implementing a management plan that is submitted
under section 5(b) and approved by the Secretary and, prior
to such approval, providing assistance for initiatives), upon
the request of the management entity the Secretary shall
provide such assistance on a reimbursable basis. This
subparagraph does not preclude the Secretary from providing
nonreimbursable assistance under subparagraph (A).
[(2) Priority.--In assisting the management entity, the
Secretary shall give priority to actions that assist in the--
[(A) implementation of the management plan;
[(B) provision of educational assistance and advice
regarding land and water management techniques to conserve
the significant natural resources of the region;
[(C) development and application of techniques promoting
the preservation of cultural and historic properties;
[(D) preservation, restoration, and reuse of publicly and
privately owned historic buildings;
[(E) design and fabrication of a wide range of interpretive
materials based on the management plan, including guide
brochures, visitor displays, audio-visual and interactive
exhibits, and educational curriculum materials for public
education; and
[(F) implementation of initiatives prior to approval of the
management plan.
[(3) Documentation of structures.--The Secretary, acting
through the Historic American Building Survey and the
Historic American Engineering Record, shall conduct studies
necessary to document the industrial, engineering, building,
and architectural history of the Heritage Area.
[(b) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plans.--The
Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of Pennsylvania,
shall approve or disapprove a management plan submitted under
this Act not later than 90 days after receiving such plan. In
approving the plan, the Secretary shall take into
consideration the following criteria:
[(1) The extent to which the management plan adequately
preserves and protects the natural, cultural, and historical
resources of the Heritage Area.
[(2) The level of public participation in the development
of the management plan.
[(3) The extent to which the board of directors of the
management entity is representative of the local government
and a wide range of interested organizations and citizens.
[(c) Action Following Disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves a management plan, the Secretary shall advise the
management entity in writing of the reasons for the
disapproval and shall make recommendations for revisions in
the management plan. The Secretary shall approve or
disapprove a proposed revision within 90 days after the date
it is submitted.
[(d) Approving Changes.--The Secretary shall review and
approve amendments to the management plan under section 5(b)
that make substantial changes. Funds appropriated under this
Act may not be expended to implement such changes until the
Secretary approves the amendments.
[(e) Effect of Inaction.--If the Secretary does not approve
or disapprove a management plan, revision, or change within
90 days after it is submitted to the Secretary, then such
management plan, revision, or change shall be deemed to have
been approved by the Secretary.

[SEC. 7. DUTIES OF OTHER FEDERAL ENTITIES.

[Any Federal entity conducting or supporting activities
directly affecting the Heritage Area shall--
[(1) consult with the Secretary and the management entity
with respect to such activities;
[(2) cooperate with the Secretary and the management entity
in carrying out their duties under this Act and, to the
maximum extent practicable, coordinate such activities with
the carrying out of such duties; and
[(3) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or support
such activities in a manner that the management entity
determines shall not have an adverse effect on the Heritage
Area.

[SEC. 8. SUNSET.

[The Secretary may not make any grant or provide any
assistance under this Act after the expiration of the 15-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

[SEC. 9. USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FROM OTHER SOURCES.

[Nothing in this Act shall preclude the management entity
from using Federal funds available under Acts other than this
Act for the purposes for which those funds were authorized.

[SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

[(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this Act--
[(1) not more than $1,000,000 for any fiscal year; and
[(2) not more than a total of $10,000,000.
[(b) 50 Percent Match.--Financial assistance provided under
this Act may not be

[[Page 23222]]

used to pay more than 50 percent of the total cost of any
activity carried out with that assistance.]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Omnibus National Heritage
Area Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I--OIL REGION NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

Sec. 101. Short title; definitions.
Sec. 102. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 103. Oil Region National Heritage Area.
Sec. 104. Memorandum of Understanding.
Sec. 105. Authorities and duties of management entity.
Sec. 106. Duties and authorities of the Secretary.
Sec. 107. Duties of other Federal entities.
Sec. 108. Use of Federal funds from other sources.
Sec. 109. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 110. Termination of authority.

TITLE II--ARABIA MOUNTAIN NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area.
Sec. 205. Authorities and duties of management entity.
Sec. 206. Management plan.
Sec. 207. Technical and financial assistance.
Sec. 208. Effect on certain authority.
Sec. 209. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 210. Termination of authority.

TITLE III--FREEDOM'S WAY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 303. Definitions.
Sec. 304. Freedom's Way National Heritage Area.
Sec. 305. Management Plan.
Sec. 306. Authorities and duties of the management entity.
Sec. 307. Technical and financial assistance; other Federal agencies.
Sec. 308. Land use regulation; applicability of Federal law.
Sec. 309. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 310. Termination of authority.

TITLE IV--GREAT BASIN NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 403. Definitions.
Sec. 404. Great Basin National Heritage Area.
Sec. 405. Memorandum of Understanding.
Sec. 406. Management Plan.
Sec. 407. Authority and duties of management entity.
Sec. 408. Duties and authorities of Federal agencies.
Sec. 409. Land use regulation; applicability of Federal law.
Sec. 410. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 411. Termination of authority.

TITLE V--NORTHERN RIO GRANDE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Congressional findings.
Sec. 503. Definitions.
Sec. 504. Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area.
Sec. 505. Authorities and duties of the management entity.
Sec. 506. Duties of the Secretary.
Sec. 507. Savings provision.
Sec. 508. Sunset.
Sec. 509. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE VI--NATIONAL MORMON PIONEER HERITAGE AREA

Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 603. Definitions.
Sec. 604. National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area.
Sec. 605. Designation of alliance as management entity.
Sec. 606. Management of the heritage area.
Sec. 607. Duties and authorities of Federal agencies.
Sec. 608. No effect on land use authority and private property.
Sec. 609. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE VII--JOHN H. CHAFEE BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE
AREA

Sec. 701. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE I--OIL REGION NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE; DEFINITIONS.

(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Oil
Region National Heritage Area''.
(b) Definitions.--For the purposes of this title, the
following definitions shall apply:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Oil Region National Heritage Area established in section
103(a).
(2) Management entity.--The term ``management entity''
means the Oil Heritage Region, Inc., or its successor entity.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Oil Region of Northwestern Pennsylvania, with
numerous sites and districts listed on the National Register
of Historic Places, and designated by the Governor of
Pennsylvania as one of the State Heritage Park Areas, is a
region with tremendous physical and natural resources and
possesses a story of State, national, and international
significance.
(2) The single event of Colonel Edwin Drake's drilling of
the world's first successful oil well in 1859 has affected
the industrial, natural, social, and political structures of
the modern world.
(3) Six national historic districts are located within the
State Heritage Park boundary, in Emlenton, Franklin, Oil
City, and Titusville, as well as 17 separate National
Register sites.
(4) The Allegheny River, which was designated as a
component of the national wild and scenic rivers system in
1992 by Public Law 102-271, traverses the Oil Region and
connects several of its major sites, as do some of the
river's tributaries such as Oil Creek, French Creek, and
Sandy Creek.
(5) The unspoiled rural character of the Oil Region
provides many natural and recreational resources, scenic
vistas, and excellent water quality for people throughout the
United States to enjoy.
(6) Remnants of the oil industry, visible on the landscape
to this day, provide a direct link to the past for visitors,
as do the historic valley settlements, riverbed settlements,
plateau developments, farmlands, and industrial landscapes.
(7) The Oil Region also represents a cross section of
American history associated with Native Americans, frontier
settlements, the French and Indian War, African Americans and
the Underground Railroad, and immigration of Swedish and
Polish individuals, among others.
(8) Involvement by the Federal Government shall serve to
enhance the efforts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
local subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
volunteer organizations, and private businesses, to promote
the cultural, national, and recreational resources of the
region in order to fulfill their full potential.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to enhance a
cooperative management framework to assist the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, its units of local government, and area
citizens in conserving, enhancing, and interpreting the
significant features of the lands, water, and structures of
the Oil Region, in a manner consistent with compatible
economic development for the benefit and inspiration of
present and future generations in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and the United States.

SEC. 103. OIL REGION NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established the Oil
Region National Heritage Area.
(b) Boundaries.--The boundaries of the Heritage Area shall
include all of those lands depicted on a map entitled ``Oil
Region National Heritage Area'', numbered OIRE/20,000 and
dated October 2000. The map shall be on file in the
appropriate offices of the National Park Service. The
Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register, as soon as
practical after the date of the enactment of this title, a
detailed description and map of the boundaries established
under this subsection.
(c) Management Entity.--The management entity for the
Heritage Area shall be the Oil Heritage Region, Inc., the
locally-based private, nonprofit management corporation which
shall oversee the development of a management plan in
accordance with section 105(b).

SEC. 104. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.

To carry out the purposes of this title, the Secretary
shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the
management entity. The memorandum shall include information
relating to the objectives and management of the area,
including a discussion of the goals and objectives of the
Heritage Area, including an explanation of the proposed
approach to conservation and interpretation and a general
outline of the protection measures committed to by the
Secretary and management entity.

SEC. 105. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

(a) Authorities.--The management entity may use funds made
available under this title for purposes of preparing,
updating, and implementing the management plan developed
under subsection (b). Such purposes may include--
(1) making grants to, and entering into cooperative
agreements with, States and their political subdivisions,
private organizations, or any other person;
(2) hiring and compensating staff; and
(3) undertaking initiatives that advance the purposes of
the Heritage Area.
(b) Management Plan.--The management entity shall develop a
management plan for the Heritage Area that--
(1) presents comprehensive strategies and recommendations
for conservation, funding, management, and development of the
Heritage Area;
(2) takes into consideration existing State, county, and
local plans and involves residents, public agencies, and
private organizations working in the Heritage Area;
(3) includes a description of actions that units of
government and private organizations have agreed to take to
protect the resources of the Heritage Area;
(4) specifies the existing and potential sources of funding
to protect, manage, and develop the Heritage Area;
(5) includes an inventory of the resources contained in the
Heritage Area, including a list of any property in the
Heritage Area that is related to the themes of the Heritage
Area and that should be preserved, restored, managed,
developed, or maintained because of its natural, cultural,
historic, recreational, or scenic significance;

[[Page 23223]]

(6) recommends policies for resource management which
consider and detail application of appropriate land and water
management techniques, including, but not limited to, the
development of intergovernmental and interagency cooperative
agreements to protect the Heritage Area's historical,
cultural, recreational, and natural resources in a manner
consistent with supporting appropriate and compatible
economic viability;
(7) describes a program for implementation of the
management plan by the management entity, including plans for
restoration and construction, and specific commitments for
that implementation that have been made by the management
entity and any other persons for the first 5 years of
implementation;
(8) includes an analysis of ways in which local, State, and
Federal programs, including the role for the National Park
Service in the Heritage Area, may best be coordinated to
promote the purposes of this title;
(9) list any revisions to the boundaries of the Heritage
Area proposed by the management entity and requested by the
affected local government; and
(10) includes an interpretation plan for the Heritage Area.
(c) Deadline; Termination of Funding.--
(1) Deadline.--The management entity shall submit the
management plan to the Secretary within 2 years after the
funds are made available for this title.
(2) Termination of funding.--If a management plan is not
submitted to the Secretary in accordance with this
subsection, the management entity shall not qualify for
Federal assistance under this title.
(d) Duties of Management Entity.--The management entity
shall--
(1) give priority to implementing actions set forth in the
compact and management plan;
(2) assist units of government, regional planning
organizations, and nonprofit organizations in--
(A) establishing and maintaining interpretative exhibits in
the Heritage Area;
(B) developing recreational resources in the Heritage Area;
(C) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the
natural, historical, and architectural resources and sites in
the Heritage Area;
(D) the restoration of any historic building relating to
the themes of the Heritage Area;
(E) ensuring that clear, consistent, and environmentally
appropriate signs identifying access points and sites of
interest are put in place throughout the Heritage Area; and
(F) carrying out other actions that the management entity
determines to be advisable to fulfill the purposes of the
title;
(3) encourage by appropriate means economic viability in
the Heritage Area consistent with the goals of the management
plan;
(4) consider the interests of diverse governmental,
business, and nonprofit groups within the Heritage Area; and
(5) for any year in which Federal funds have been provided
to implement the management plan under subsection (b)--
(A) conduct public meetings at least annually regarding the
implementation of the management plan;
(B) submit an annual report to the Secretary setting forth
accomplishments, expenses and income, and each person to
which any grant was made by the management entity in the year
for which the report is made; and
(C) require, for all agreements entered into by the
management entity authorizing expenditure of Federal funds by
any other person, that the person making the expenditure make
available to the management entity for audit all records
pertaining to the expenditure of such funds.
(e) Prohibition on the Acquisition of Real Property.--The
management entity may not use Federal funds received under
this title to acquire real property or an interest in real
property.

SEC. 106. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE SECRETARY.

(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Overall assistance.--The Secretary may, upon the
request of the management entity, and subject to the
availability of appropriations, provide technical and
financial assistance to the management entity to carry out
its duties under this title, including updating and
implementing a management plan that is submitted under
section 105(b) and approved by the Secretary and, prior to
such approval, providing assistance for initiatives.
(B) Other assistance.--If the Secretary has the resources
available to provide technical assistance to the management
entity to carry out its duties under this title (including
updating and implementing a management plan that is submitted
under section 105(b) and approved by the Secretary and, prior
to such approval, providing assistance for initiatives, upon
the request of the management entity the Secretary shall
provide such assistance on a reimbursable basis. This
subparagraph does not preclude the Secretary from providing
nonreimbursable assistance under subparagraph (A).
(2) Priority.--In assisting the management entity, the
Secretary shall give priority to actions that assist in the--
(A) implementation of the management plan;
(B) provision of educational assistance and advice
regarding land and water management techniques to conserve
the significant natural resources of the region;
(C) development and application of techniques promoting the
preservation of cultural and historic properties;
(D) preservation, restoration, and reuse of publicly and
privately owned historic buildings;
(E) design and fabrication of a wide range of interpretive
materials based on the management plan, including guide
brochures, visitor displays, audio-visual and interactive
exhibits, and educational curriculum materials for public
education; and
(F) implementation of initiatives prior to approval of the
management plan.
(3) Documentation of structures.--The Secretary, acting
through the Historic American Building Survey and the
Historic American Engineering Record, shall conduct studies
necessary to document the industrial, engineering, building,
and architectural history of the Heritage Area.
(b) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plans.--The
Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of Pennsylvania,
shall approve or disapprove a management plan submitted under
this title not later than 90 days after receiving such plan.
In approving the plan, the Secretary shall take into
consideration the following criteria:
(1) The extent to which the management plan adequately
preserves and protects the natural, cultural, and historical
resources of the Heritage Area.
(2) The level of public participation in the development of
the management plan.
(3) The extent to which the board of directors of the
management entity is representative of the local government
and a wide range of interested organizations and citizens.
(c) Action Following Disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves a management plan, the Secretary shall advise the
management entity in writing of the reasons for the
disapproval and shall make recommendations for revisions in
the management plan. The Secretary shall approve or
disapprove a proposed revision within 90 days after the date
it is submitted.
(d) Approving Changes.--The Secretary shall review and
approve amendments to the management plan under section
105(b) that make substantial changes. Funds appropriated
under this title may not be expended to implement such
changes until the Secretary approves the amendments.

SEC. 107. DUTIES OF OTHER FEDERAL ENTITIES.

Any Federal entity conducting or supporting activities
directly affecting the Heritage Area shall--
(1) consult with the Secretary and the management entity
with respect to such activities;
(2) cooperate with the Secretary and the management entity
in carrying out their duties under this title and, to the
maximum extent practicable, coordinate such activities with
the carrying out of such duties; and
(3) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or support
such activities in a manner that the management entity
determines shall not have an adverse effect on the Heritage
Area.

SEC. 108. USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FROM OTHER SOURCES.

Nothing in this title shall preclude the management entity
from using Federal funds available under Acts other than this
title for the purposes for which those funds were authorized.

SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this title $10,000,000, of which not more than
$1,000,000 may be authorized to be appropriated for any
fiscal year.
(b) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--The Federal share of the
total cost of any activity assisted under this title shall be
not more than 50 percent.

SEC. 110. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this title.

TITLE II--ARABIA MOUNTAIN NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Arabia Mountain Heritage
Area Act of 2002''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Arabia Mountain area contains a variety of natural,
cultural, historical, scenic, and recreational resources that
together represent distinctive aspects of the heritage of the
United States that are worthy of recognition, conservation,
interpretation, and continuing use;
(2) the best methods for managing the resources of the
Arabia Mountain area would be through partnerships between
public and private entities that combine diverse resources
and active communities;
(3) Davidson-Arabia Mountain Nature Preserve, a 535-acre
park in DeKalb County, Georgia--
(A) protects granite outcrop ecosystems, wetland, and pine
and oak forests; and
(B) includes federally-protected plant species;
(4) Panola Mountain, a national natural landmark, located
in the 860-acre Panola Mountain State Conservation Park, is a
rare example of a pristine granite outcrop;
(5) The archaeological site at Miners Creek Preserve along
the South River contains documented evidence of early human
activity;
(6) the city of Lithonia, Georgia, and related sites of
Arabia Mountain and Stone Mountain possess sites that display
the history of granite mining as an industry and culture in
Georgia, and the impact of that industry on the United
States;
(7) the community of Klondike is eligible for designation
as a National Historic District; and

[[Page 23224]]

(8) the city of Lithonia has two structures listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to recognize, preserve, promote, interpret, and make
available for the benefit of the public the natural,
cultural, historical, scenic, and recreational resources in
the area that includes Arabia Mountain, Panola Mountain,
Miners Creek, and other significant sites and communities;
and
(2) to assist the state of Georgia and the counties of
DeKalb, Rockdale, and Henry in the State in developing and
implementing an integrated cultural, historical, and land
resource management program to protect, enhance, and
interpret the significant resources within the heritage area.

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``heritage area'' means the
Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area established by section
204.
(2) Management entity.-- The term ``management entity''
means the Arabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance or its
successor.
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the heritage area developed under
section 206.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Georgia.

SEC. 204. ARABIA MOUNTAIN NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the Arabia
Mountain National Heritage Area in the State.
(b) Boundaries.--The heritage area shall consist of certain
parcels of land in the counties of DeKalb, Rockdale, and
Henry in the State, as generally depicted on the map entitled
``The Preferred Concept'' contained in the document entitled
``Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area Feasibility Study'',
dated February 28, 2001.
(c) Availability of Map.-- The map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of
the National Park Service.
(d) Management Entity.-- The Arabia Mountain Heritage Area
Alliance shall be the management entity for the heritage
area.

SEC. 205. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

(a) Authorities.--For purposes of developing and
implementing the management plan, the management entity may--
(1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements
with, the State, political subdivisions of the State, and
private organizations;
(2) hire and compensate staff; and
(3) enter into contracts for goods and services.
(b) Duties.--
(1) Management plan.--
(A) In general.-- The management entity shall develop and
submit to the Secretary the management plan.
(B) Considerations.--In developing and implementing the
management plan, the management entity shall consider the
interests of diverse governmental, business, and nonprofit
groups within the heritage area.
(2) Priorities.--The management entity shall give priority
to implementing actions described in the management plan,
including--
(A) assisting units of government and nonprofit
organizations in preserving resources within the heritage
area; and
(B) encouraging local governments to adopt land use
policies consistent with the management of the heritage area
and the goals of the management plan.
(3) Public meetings.--The management entity shall conduct
public meetings at least quarterly on the implementation of
the management plan.
(4) Annual report.--For any year in which Federal funds
have been made available under this title, the management
entity shall submit to the Secretary an annual report that
describes--
(A) the accomplishments of the management entity; and
(B) the expenses and income of the management entity.
(5) Audit.--The management entity shall--
(A) make available to the Secretary for audit all records
relating to the expenditure of Federal funds and any matching
funds; and
(B) require, with respect to all agreements authorizing
expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the
receiving organizations make available to the Secretary for
audit all records concerning the expenditure of those funds.
(c) Use of Federal Funds.--
(1) In general.--The management entity shall not use
Federal funds made available under this title to acquire real
property or an interest in real property.
(2) Other sources.--Nothing in this title precludes the
management entity from using Federal funds made available
under other Federal laws for any purpose for which the funds
are authorized to be used.

SEC. 206. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

(a) In General.--The management entity shall develop a
management plan for the heritage area that incorporates an
integrated and cooperative approach to protect, interpret,
and enhance the natural, cultural, historical, scenic, and
recreational resources of the heritage area.
(b) Basis.--The management plan shall be based on the
preferred concept in the document entitled ``Arab Mountain
National Heritage Area Feasibility Study'', dated February
28, 2001.
(c) Consideration of Other Plans and Actions.--The
management plan shall--
(1) take into consideration State and local plans; and
(2) involve residents, public agencies, and private
organizations in the heritage area.
(d) Reqirements.--The management plan shall include--
(1) an inventory of the resources in the heritage area,
including--
(A) a list of property in the heritage area that--
(i) relates to the purposes of the heritage area; and
(ii) should be preserved, restored, managed, or maintained
because of the significance of the property; and
(B) an assessment of cultural landscapes within the
heritage area;
(2) provisions for the protection, interpretation, and
enjoyment of the resources of the heritage area consistent
with the purposes of this title;
(3) an interpretation plan for the heritage area;
(4) a program for implementation of the management plan
that includes--
(A) actions to be carried out by units of government,
private organizations, and public-private partnerships to
protect the resources of the heritage area; and
(B) the identification of existing and potential sources of
funding for implementing the plan; and
(5) a description and evaluation of the management entity,
including the membership and organizational structure of the
management entity.
(e) Submission to Secretary for Approval.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this title, the management entity shall submit
the management plan to the Secretary for approval.
(2) Effect of failure to submit.--If a management plan is
not submitted to the Secretary by the date specified in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not provide any additional
funding under this title until such date as a management plan
for the heritage area is submitted to the Secretary.
(f) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receiving the
management plan submitted under subsection (e), the
Secretary, in consultation with the State, shall approve or
disapprove the management plan.
(2) Action following disapproval.--
(A) Revision.--If the Secretary disapproves a management
plan submitted under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
(i) advise the management entity in writing of the reasons
for the disapproval;
(ii) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(iii) allow the management entity to submit to the
Secretary revisions to the management plan.
(B) Deadline for approval of revision.--Not later than 90
days after the date on which a revision is submitted under
subparagraph (A)(iii), the Secretary shall approve or
disapprove the revision.
(g) Revision of Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--After approval by the Secretary of a
management plan, the management entity shall periodically--
(A) review the management plan; and
(B) submit to the Secretary, for review and approval by the
Secretary, the recommendations of the management entity for
any revisions to the management plan that the management
entity considers to be appropriate.
(2) Expenditure of funds.--No funds made available under
this title shall be used to implement any revision proposed
by the management entity under paragraph (1)(B) until the
Secretary approves the revision.

SEC. 207. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--At the request of the management entity,
the Secretary may provide technical and financial assistance
to the heritage area to develop and implement the management
plan.
(b) Priority.--In providing assistance under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall give priority to actions that
facilitate--
(1) the conservation of the significant natural, cultural,
historical, scenic, and recreational resources that support
the purposes of the heritage area; and
(2) the provision of educational, interpretive, and
recreational opportunities that are consistent with the
resources and associated values of the heritage area.

SEC. 208. EFFECT ON CERTAIN AUTHORITY.

(a) Occupational, Safety, Conservation, and Environmental
Regulation.--Nothing in this title--
(1) imposes an occupational, safety, conservation, or
environmental regulation on the heritage area that is more
stringent than the regulations that would be applicable to
the land described in section 204(b) but for the
establishment of the heritage area by section 204; or
(2) authorizes a Federal agency to promulgate an
occupational, safety, conservation, or environmental
regulation for the heritage area that is more stringent than
the regulations applicable to the land described in section
204(b) as of the date of enactment of this title, solely as a
result of the establishment of the heritage area by section
204.
(b) Land Use Regulation.--Nothing in this title--

[[Page 23225]]

(1) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of the
Federal Government or a State or local government to regulate
any use of land as provided for by law (including
regulations) in existence on the date of enactment of this
title; or
(2) grants powers of zoning or land use to the management
entity.

SEC. 209. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

SEC. 210. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this title.

TITLE III--FREEDOM'S WAY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Freedom's Way National
Heritage Area Act''.

SEC. 302. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the cultural and natural legacies of an area
encompassing 36 communities in Massachusetts and 6
communities in New Hampshire have made important and
distinctive contributions to the national character of
America;
(2) recognizing and protecting those legacies will help
sustain the quality of life in the future;
(3) significant legacies of the area include--
(A) the early settlement of the United States and the early
evolution of democratic forms of government;
(B) the development of intellectual traditions of the
philosophies of freedom, democracy, and conservation;
(C) the evolution of social ideas and religious freedom;
(D) the role of immigrants and industry in contributing to
ethnic diversity;
(E) Native American and African American resources; and
(F) the role of innovation and invention in cottage
industries;
(4) the communities in the area know the value of the
legacies but need a cooperative framework and technical
assistance to achieve important goals by working together;
(5) there is a Federal interest in supporting the
development of a regional framework to assist the States,
local governments, local organizations, and other persons in
the region with conserving, protecting, and bringing
recognition to the heritage of the area for the educational
and recreation benefit of future generations of Americans;
(6) significant examples of the area's resources include--
(A) Walden Pond State Reservation in Concord,
Massachusetts;
(B) Minute Man National Historical Park in the State of
Massachusetts;
(C) Shaker Villages in Shirley and Harvard in the State of
Massachusetts;
(D) Wachusett Mountain State Reservation, Fitchburg Art
Museum, and Barrett House in New Ipswich, New Hampshire; and
(E) Beaver Brook Farms and Lost City of Monson in Hollis,
New Hampshire;
(7) the study entitled ``Freedom's Way Heritage Area
Feasibility Study'', prepared by the Freedom's Way Heritage
Association, Inc., and the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management, demonstrates that there are
sufficient nationally distinctive historical resources
necessary to establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage
Area; and
(8) the Freedom's Way Heritage Association, Inc., should
oversee the development of the Freedom's Way National
Heritage Area.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to foster a close working relationship between the
Secretary and all levels of government, the private sector,
and local communities in the States of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire;
(2) to assist the entities referred to in paragraph (1) in
preserving the special historic identity of the Heritage
Area; and
(3) to manage, preserve, protect, and interpret the
cultural, historical, and natural resources of the Heritage
Area for the educational and inspirational benefit of future
generations.

SEC. 303. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Freedom's Way National Heritage Area established by section
304(a).
(2) Management entity.--The term ``management entity''
means the management entity for the Heritage Area designated
by section 304(d).
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the Heritage Area developed under
section 305.
(4) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled
``Freedom's Way National Heritage Area'', numbered FRWA P-75/
80,000 and dated July 2002.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 304. FREEDOM'S WAY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the Freedom's Way
National Heritage Area in the States of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire.
(b) Boundaries.--
(1) In general.--The Heritage Area shall consist of the
land within the boundaries of the Heritage Area, as depicted
on the Map.
(2) Revision.--The boundaries of the Heritage Area may be
revised if the revision is--
(A) proposed in the management plan;
(B) approved by the Secretary in accordance with section
305(c); and
(C) placed on file in accordance with subsection (c).
(c) Map and Legal Description.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register a legal description of the Heritage Area.
(2) Availability.--The Map shall be on file and available
for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the
National Park Service.
(d) Management Entity.--The Freedom's Way Heritage
Association, Inc., shall serve as the management entity for
the Heritage Area.

SEC. 305. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

(A) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the management entity shall develop
and submit to the Secretary for approval a management plan
for the Heritage Area that presents comprehensive
recommendations and strategies for the conservation, funding,
management, and development of the Heritage Area.
(b) Requirements.--The management plan shall--
(1) take into consideration and coordinate Federal, State,
and local plans to present a unified historic preservation
and interpretation plan;
(2) involve residents, public agencies, and private
organizations in the Heritage Area;
(3) describe actions that units of government and private
organizations recommend for the protection of the resources
of the Heritage Area;
(4) identify existing and potential sources of Federal and
non-Federal funding for the conservation, management, and
development of the Heritage Area; and
(5) include--
(A) an inventory of the cultural, historic, natural, or
recreational resources contained in the Heritage Area,
including a list of property that--
(i) is related to the themes of the Heritage Area; and
(ii) should be conserved, restored, managed, developed, or
maintained;
(B) a recommendation of policies for resource management
and protection that--
(i) apply appropriate land and water management techniques;
(ii) develop intergovernmental cooperative agreements to
manage and protect the cultural, historic, and natural
resources and recreation opportunities of the Heritage Area;
and
(iii) support economic revitalization efforts;
(C) a program of strategies and actions to implement the
management plan that--
(i) identifies the roles of agencies and organizations that
are involved in the implementation of the management plan and
the role of the management entity;
(ii) includes--

(I) restoration and construction plans or goals;
(II) a program of public involvement;
(III) annual work plans; and
(IV) annual reports;

(D) an analysis of ways in which Federal, State, and local
programs may best be coordinated to promote the purposes of
this title;
(E) an interpretive and educational plan for the Heritage
Area;
(F) any revisions proposed by the management entity to the
boundaries of the Heritage Area and requested by the affected
local government; and
(G) a process to provide public access to the management
entity for the purpose of attempting to resolve informally
any disputes arising from the management plan.
(c) Failure To Submit.--If the management entity fails to
submit the management plan to the Secretary in accordance
with subsection (a), the Heritage Area shall no longer
qualify for Federal funding.
(d) Approval or Disapproval of Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receipt of
the management plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
approve or disapprove the management plan.
(2) Criteria.--In determining whether to approve the
management plan, the Secretary shall consider whether--
(A) the management entity afforded adequate opportunity,
including public hearings, for public and governmental
involvement in the preparation of the management plan;
(B) the resource protection and interpretation strategies
contained in the management plan would adequately protect the
cultural and historic resources of the Heritage Area; and
(C) the Secretary has received adequate assurances from the
appropriate State and local officials whose support is needed
to ensure the effective implementation of the State and local
aspects of the management plan.
(3) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves the management plan under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall--
(A) advise the management entity in writing of the reasons
for the disapproval;
(B) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(C) not later than 60 days after the receipt of any
proposed revision of the management plan from the management
entity, approve or disapprove the proposed revision.
(e) Amendments.--

[[Page 23226]]

(1) In general.--In accordance with subsection (b), the
Secretary shall approve or disapprove each amendment to the
management plan that the Secretary determines may make a
substantial change to the management plan.
(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this title
shall not be expended by the management entity to implement
an amendment described in paragraph (1) until the Secretary
approves the amendment.

SEC. 306. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

(a) Authorities.--The Management Entity may, for purposes
of preparing and implementing the management plan, use funds
made available under this title to--
(1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements
with, the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire
(including a political subdivision thereof), a nonprofit
organizations, or any person;
(2) hire and compensate staff;
(3) obtain funds from any source (including a program that
has a cost-sharing requirement); and
(4) contract for goods and services.
(b) Duties of the Management Entity.--In addition to
developing the management plan, the management entity shall--
(1) give priority to the implementation of actions, goals,
and strategies set forth in the management plan, including
assisting units of government and other persons in--
(A) carrying out the programs that recognize and protect
important resource values in the Heritage Area;
(B) encouraging economic viability in the Heritage Area in
accordance with the goals of the management plan;
(C) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in
the Heritage Area;
(D) developing recreational and educational opportunities
in the Heritage Area;
(E) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the
cultural, historical, and natural resources of the Heritage
Area;
(F) restoring historic buildings that are located in the
Heritage Area and relate to the themes of the Heritage Area;
and
(G) installing throughout the Heritage Area clear,
consistent, and appropriate signs identifying public access
points and sites of interest;
(2) prepare and implement the management plan while
considering the interests of diverse units of government,
businesses, private property owners, and nonprofit groups
within the Heritage Area;
(3) conduct public meetings at least quarterly regarding
the development and implementation of the management plan;
(4) for any fiscal year for which Federal funds are
received under this title--
(A) submit to the Secretary a report that describes, for
the year--
(i) the accomplishments of the management entity;
(ii) the expenses and income of the management entity; and
(iii) each entity to which a grant was made;
(B) make available for audit by Congress, the Secretary,
and appropriate units of governments, all records pertaining
to the expenditure of the funds and any matching funds; and
(C) require, for all agreements authorizing expenditure of
Federal funds by any entity, that the receiving entity make
available for audit all records pertaining to the expenditure
of the funds.
(c) Prohibition on the Acquisition of Real Property.--
(1) Federal funds.--The management entity shall not use
Federal funds made available under this title to acquire real
property or any interest in real property.
(2) Other funds.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
management entity may acquire real property or an interest in
real property using non-Federal funds.

SEC. 307. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE; OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCIES.

(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--On the request of the management entity,
the Secretary may provide technical and financial assistance
for the development and implementation of the management
plan.
(2) Priority for assistance.--In providing assistance under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give priority to actions
that assist in--
(A) conserving the significant cultural, historic, and
natural resources of the Heritage Area; and
(B) providing educational, interpretive, and recreational
opportunities consistent with the purposes of the Heritage
Area.
(3) Spending on non-federal property.--The management
entity may expend Federal funds made available under this
title on nonfederally owned property that is--
(A) identified in the management plan; or
(B) listed or eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places.
(4) Other assistance.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with public and private organizations
to carry out this subsection.
(b) Other Federal Agencies.--Any Federal entity conducting
or supporting an activity that directly affects the Heritage
Area shall--
(1) consider the potential effect of the activity on the
purposes of the Heritage Area and the management plan;
(2) consult with the management entity regarding the
activity; and
(3) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or support
the activity to avoid adverse effects on the Heritage Area.

SEC. 308. LAND USE REGULATION; APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL LAW.

(a) Land Use Regulation.--
(1) In general.--The management entity shall provide
assistance and encouragement to State and local governments,
private organizations, and persons to protect and promote the
resources and values of the Heritage Area.
(2) Effect.--Nothing in this title--
(A) Affects the authority of the State or local governments
to regulate under law any use of land; or
(B) grants any power of zoning or land use to the
management entity.
(b) Private Property.--
(1) In general.--The management entity shall be an advocate
for land management practices consistent with the purposes of
the Heritage Area.
(2) Effect.--Nothing in this title--
(A) abridges the rights of any person with regard to
private property;
(B) affects the authority of the State or local government
regarding private property; or
(C) imposes any additional burden on any property owner.

SEC. 309. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this title 10,000,000, of which not more than
$1,000,0900 may be authorized to be appropriate for any
fiscal year.
(b) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--The Federal share of the
total cost of any activity assisted under this title shall be
not more than 50 percent.

SEC. 310. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.

TITLE IV--GREAT BASIN NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Great Basin National
Heritage Area Act of 2002.''

SEC. 402. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the natural, cultural, and historic heritage of the
North American Great Basin is nationally significant;
(2) communities in the Great Basin Heritage Area (including
the towns of Delta, Utah, Ely, Nevada, and the surrounding
communities) are located in a classic western landscape that
contains long natural visits, isolated higher desert valleys,
mountain ranges, ranches, mines, historic railroads,
archaeological sites, and tribal communities;
(3) the Native American, pioneer, ranching, mining, timber,
and railroad heritages in the Great Basin Heritage Area
include the social history and living cultural traditions of
a rich diversity of nationalities;
(4) the pioneer, Mormon and other religious settlements,
ranching, timber, and mining activities of the region played
and continue to play a significant role in the development of
the United States, shaped by--
(A) the unique geography of the Great Basin;
(B) an influx of people of Greek, Chinese, Basque, Serb,
Croat, Italian, and Hispanic descent; and
(C) a Native American presence (Western Shoshone, Northern
and Southern Paiute, and Goshute) that continues in the Great
Basin today;
(5) the Great Basin housed internment camps for Japanese-
American citizens during World War II, one of which, Topaz,
was located within the Heritage Area;
(6) the pioneer heritage of the Heritage Area includes the
Pony Express route and stations, the Overland Stage, and many
examples of 19th century exploration of the western United
States;
(7) the Native American heritage of the Heritage Area dates
back thousands of years and includes--
(A) archaeological sites;
(B) petroglyphs and pictographs;
(C) the westernmost village of the Fremont culture; and
(D) communities of Western Shoshone, Paiute, and Goshute
tribes;
(8) the Heritage Area contains multiple biologically
diverse ecological communities that are home to exceptional
species such as--
(A) bristlecone pines, the oldest living trees in the
world;
(B) wildlife adapted to harsh desert conditions;
(C) unique plant communities, lakes, and streams; and
(D) native Bonneville cutthroat trout;
(9) the air and water quality of the Heritage Area is among
the best in the United States, and the clear air permits
outstanding viewing of the night skies;
(10) the Heritage Area includes unique and outstanding
geologic features such as numerous limestone caves, classic
basin and range topography with playa lakes, alluvial fans,
volcanics, cold and hot springs, and recognizable features of
ancient Lake Bonneville;
(11) the Heritage Area includes an unusual variety of open
space and recreational and educational opportunities because
of the great quantity of ranching activity and public land
(including city, county, and State parks, national forests,
Bureau of Land Management land, and a national park);
(12) there are significant archaeological, historical,
cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational resources in the
Great Basin to merit

[[Page 23227]]

the involvement of the Federal Government in the development,
in cooperation with the Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership
and other local and governmental entities, of programs and
projects to--
(A) adequately conserve, protect, and interpret the
heritage of the Great Basin for present and future
generations; and
(B) provide opportunities in the Great Basin for education;
and
(13) the Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership shall serve
as the management entity for a Heritage Area established in
the Great Basin.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to foster a close working relationship with all levels
of government, the private sector, and the local communities
within White Pine County, Nevada, Millard County, Utah, and
the Duckwater Shoshone Reservation;
(2) to enable communities referred to in paragraph (1) to
conserve their heritage while continuing to develop economic
opportunities; and
(3) to conserve, interpret, and develop the archaeological,
historical, cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational
resources related to the unique ranching, industrial, and
cultural heritage of the Great Basin, in a manner that
promotes multiple uses permitted as of the date of enactment
of this title, without managing or regulating land use.

SEC. 403. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Great basin.--The term ``Great Basin'' means the North
American Great Basin.
(2) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Great Basin National Heritage Area established by section
404(a).
(3) Management entity.--The term ``management entity''
means the Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership established
by section 404(c).
(4) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the plan developed by the management entity under section
406(a).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 404. GREAT BASIN NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the Great Basin
National Heritage Area.
(b) Composition.--The Heritage Area shall include
historical, cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational
resources within White Pine County, Nevada, Millard County,
Utah, and the Duckwater Shoshone Reservation in Nye County,
Nevada. The boundaries of the Heritage Area shall be
specified in detail in the management plan developed in
section 406.
(c) Management Entity.--
(1) In general.--The Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership
shall serve as the management entity for the Heritage Area.
(2) Board of directors.--The Great Basin Heritage Area
Partnership shall be governed by a board of directors that
consists of--
(A) 4 members who are appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners for Millard County, Utah;
(B) 4 members who are appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners for White Pine County, Nevada; and
(C) a representative appointed by each Native American
Tribe participating in the Heritage Area.

SEC. 405. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.

(a) In General.--In carrying out this title, the Secretary,
in consultation with the Governors of the States of Nevada
and Utah, and each tribe participating in the Heritage Area,
shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the
management entity.
(b) Inclusions.--The memorandum of understanding shall
include information relating to the objectives and management
of the Heritage Area, including--
(1) a description of the resources within the Heritage
Area;
(2) a discussion of the goals and objectives of the
Heritage Area, including--
(A) an explanation of the proposed approach to
conservation, development, and interpretation; and
(B) a general outline of the anticipated protection and
development measures;
(3) a description of the management entity;
(4) a list and statement of the financial commitment of the
initial partners to be involved in developing and
implementing the management plan; and
(5) a description of the role of the States of Nevada and
Utah in the management of the Heritage Area.
(c) Additional Requirements.--In developing the terms of
the memorandum of understanding, the Secretary and the
management entity shall--
(1) provide opportunities for local participation; and
(2) include terms that ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, timely implementation of all aspects of the
memorandum of understanding.
(d) Amendments.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review any amendments
of the memorandum of understanding proposed by the management
entity or the Governor of the State of Nevada or Utah.
(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this title
shall not be expended to implement a change made by a
proposed amendment described in paragraph (1) until the
Secretary approves the amendment.

SEC. 406. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this title, the management entity shall develop
and submit to the Secretary for approval a management plan
for the Heritage Area that presents clear and comprehensive
recommendations for the conservation, funding, management,
and development of the Heritage Area.
(b) Considerations.--In developing the management plan, the
management entity shall--
(1) provide for the participation of local residents,
public agencies, and private organizations located within the
counties of Millard County, Utah, White Pine County, Nevada,
and the Duckwater Shoshone Reservation in the protection and
development of resources of the Heritage Area, taking into
consideration State, tribal, county, and local land use plans
in existence on the date of enactment of this title;
(2) identify sources of funding; and
(3) include--
(A) an inventory of the archaeological, historical,
cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational resources
contained in the Heritage Area, including a list of public
and tribal property that--
(i) is related to the themes of the Heritage Area; and
(ii) should be preserved, restored, managed, developed, or
maintained because of the archaeological, historical,
cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational significance of
the property;
(B) a program for implementation of the management plan by
the management entity, including--
(i) plans for restoration, stabilization, rehabilitation,
and construction of public or tribal property; and
(ii) specific commitments by the identified partners
referred to in section 405(b)(4) for the first 5 years of
operation; and
(C) an interpretation plan for the Heritage Area; and
(4) develop a management plan that will not infringe on
private property rights without the consent of the owner of
the private property.
(c) Failure To Submit.--If the management entity fails to
submit a management plan to the Secretary in accordance with
subsection (a), the Heritage Area shall no longer qualify for
Federal funding.
(d) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receipt of a
management plan under subsection (a), the Secretary, in
consultation with the Governors of the States of Nevada and
Utah, shall approve or disapprove the management plan.
(2) Criteria.--In determining whether to approve a
management plan, the Secretary shall consider whether the
management plan--
(A) has strong local support from a diversity of
landowners, business interests, nonprofit organizations, and
governments within the Heritage Area;
(B) is consistent with and complements continued economic
activity in the Heritage Area;
(C) has a high potential for effective partnership
mechanisms;
(D) infringes on private property rights; and
(E) provides methods to take appropriate action to ensure
that private property rights are observed.
(3) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves a management plan under subsection (d)(1), the
Secretary shall--
(A) advise the management entity in writing of the reasons
for the disapproval;
(B) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(C) not later than 90 days after the receipt of any
proposed revision of the management plan from the management
entity, approve or disapprove the proposed revision.
(e) Implementation.--On approval of the management plan as
provided in section 406(d)(1), the management entity, in
conjunction with the Secretary, shall take appropriate steps
to implement the management plan.
(f) Amendments.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review each amendment
to the management plan that the Secretary determines may make
a substantial change to the management plan.
(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this title
shall not be expended to implement an amendment described in
paragraph (1) until the Secretary approves the amendment.

SEC. 407. AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

(a) Authorities.--The management entity may, for purposes
of preparing and implementing the management plan, use funds
made available under this title to--
(1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements
with, a State (including a political subdivision), a tribe, a
private organization, or any person; and
(2) hire and compensate staff.
(b) Duties.--In addition to developing the management plan,
the management entity shall--
(1) give priority to implementing the memorandum of
understanding and the management plan, including taking steps
to--
(A) assist units of government, regional planning
organizations, and nonprofit organizations in--
(i) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in
the Heritage Area;
(ii) developing recreational resources in the Heritage
Area;
(iii) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for
the archaeological, historical, cultural, natural, scenic,
and recreational resources and sites in the Heritage Area;
and
(iv) if requested by the owner, restoring, stabilizing, or
rehabilitating any private, public, or tribal historical
building relating to the themes of the Heritage Area;
(B) encourage economic viability and diversity in the
Heritage Area in accordance with the objectives of the
management plan; and

[[Page 23228]]

(C) encourage the installation of clear, consistent, and
environmentally appropriate signage identifying access points
and sites of interest throughout the Heritage Area;
(2) consider the interests of diverse governmental,
business, and nonprofit groups within the Heritage Area;
(3) conduct public meetings within the Heritage Area at
least semiannually regarding the implementation of the
management plan;
(4) submit substantial amendments (including any increase
of more than 20 percent in the cost estimates for
implementation) to the management plan to the Secretary for
approval by the Secretary; and
(5) for any year for which Federal funds are received under
this title--
(A) submit to the Secretary a report that describes, for
the year--
(i) the accomplishments of the management entity;
(ii) the expenses and income of the management entity; and
(iii) each entity to which any loan or grant was made;
(B) make available for audit all records pertaining to the
expenditure of the funds and any matching funds; and
(C) require, for all agreements authorizing the expenditure
of federal funds by any entity, that the receiving entity
make available for audit all records pertaining to the
expenditure of the funds.
(c) Prohibition on the Acquisition of Real Property.--The
management entity shall not use Federal funds made available
under this title to acquire real property or any interest in
real property.
(d) Prohibition on the Regulation of Land Use.--The
management entity shall not regulate land use within the
Heritage Area.

SEC. 408. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may, on request of the
management entity, provide technical and financial assistance
to develop and implement the management plan and memorandum
of understanding.
(2) Priority for assistance.--In providing assistance under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, on request of the
management entity, give priority to actions that assist in--
(A) conserving the significant archaeological, historical,
cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational resources of the
Heritage Area; and
(B) providing education, interpretive, and recreational
opportunities, consistent with those resources.
(b) Application of Federal Law.--The establishment of the
Heritage Area shall have no effect on the application of any
Federal law to any property within the Heritage Area.

SEC. 409. LAND USE REGULATION; APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL LAW.

(a) Land Use Regulation.--Nothing in this title--
(1) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of the
Federal, State, tribal, or local government to regulate by
law (including by regulation) any use of land; or
(2) grants any power of zoning or land use to the
management entity.
(b) Applicability of Federal Law.--Nothing in this title--
(1) imposes on the Heritage Area, as a result of the
designation of the Heritage Area, any regulation that is not
applicable to the area within the Heritage area as of the
date of enactment of this title; or
(2) authorizes any agency to promulgate a regulation that
applies to the Heritage Area solely as a result of the
designation under this title.

SEC. 410. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

SEC. 411. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this title.

TITLE V--NORTHERN RIO GRANDE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Northern Rio Grande
National Heritage Area Act''.

SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) northern New Mexico encompasses a mosaic of cultures
and history, including eight Pueblos and the descendants of
Spanish ancestors who settled in the area in 1598;
(2) the combination of cultures, languages, folk arts,
customs, and architecture make northern New Mexico unique;
(3) the area includes spectacular natural, scenic, and
recreational resources;
(4) there is broad support from local governments and
interested individuals to establish a National Heritage Area
to coordinate and assist in the preservation and
interpretation of these resources;
(5) in 1991, the National Park Service study Alternative
Concepts for Commemorating Spanish Colonization identified
several alternatives consistent with the establishment of a
National Heritage Area, including conducting a comprehensive
archaeological and historical research program, coordinating
a comprehensive interpretation program, and interpreting a
cultural heritage scene; and
(6) establishment of a National Heritage Area in northern
New Mexico would assist local communities and residents in
preserving these unique cultural, historical and natural
resources.

SEC. 503. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this title--
(1) the term ``heritage area'' means the Northern Rio
Grande Heritage Area; and
(2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.

SEC. 504. NORTHERN RIO GRANDE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established the
Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in the State of
New Mexico.
(b) Boundaries.--The heritage area shall include the
counties of Santa Fe, Rio Arriba, and Taos.
(c) Management Entity.--
(1) The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, Inc., a
non-profit corporation chartered in the State of New Mexico,
shall serve as the management entity for the heritage area.
(2) The Board of Directors for the management entity shall
include representatives of the State of New Mexico, the
counties of Santa Fe, Rio Arriba and Taos, tribes and pueblos
within the heritage area, the cities of Santa Fe, Espanola
and Taos, and members of the general public. The total number
of Board members and the number of Directors representing
State, local and tribal governments and interested
communities shall be established to ensure that all parties
have appropriate representation on the Board.

SEC. 505. AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

(a) Management Plan.--
(1) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this title, the management entity shall develop and forward
to the Secretary a management plan for the heritage area.
(2) The management entity shall develop and implement the
management plan in cooperation with affected communities,
tribal and local governments and shall provide for public
involvement in the development and implementation of the
management plan.
(3) The management plan shall, at a minimum--
(A) provide recommendations for the conservation, funding,
management, and development of the resources of the heritage
area;
(B) identify sources of funding;
(C) include an inventory of the cultural, historical,
archaeological, natural, and recreational resources of the
heritage area;
(D) provide recommendations for educational and
interpretive programs to inform the public about the
resources of the heritage area; and
(E) include an analysis of ways in which local, State,
Federal, and tribal programs may best be coordinated to
promote the purposes of this title.
(4) If the management entity fails to submit a management
plan to the secretary as provided in paragraph (1), the
heritage area shall no longer be eligible to receive Federal
funding under this title until such time as a plan is
submitted to the Secretary.
(5) The Secretary shall approve or disapprove the
management plan within 90 days after the date of submission.
If the Secretary disapproves the management plan, the
Secretary shall advise the management entity in writing of
the reasons therefore and shall make recommendations for
revisions to the plan.
(6) The management entity shall periodically review the
management plan and submit to the Secretary any
recommendations for proposed revisions to the management
plan. Any major revisions to the management plan must be
approved by the Secretary.
(b) Authority.--The management entity may make grants and
provide technical assistance to tribal and local governments,
and other public and private entities to carry out the
management plan.
(c) Duties.--The management entity shall--
(1) give priority in implementing actions set forth in the
management plan;
(2) coordinate with tribal and local governments to better
enable them to adopt land use policies consistent with the
goals of the management plan;
(3) encourage by appropriate means economic viability in
the heritage area consistent with the goals of the management
plan; and
(4) assist local and tribal governments and non-profit
organizations in--
(A) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in
the heritage area;
(B) developing recreational resources in the heritage area;
(C) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for,
the cultural, historical, archaeological and natural
resources and sites in the heritage area;
(D) the restoration of historic structures related to the
heritage area; and
(E) carrying out other actions that the management entity
determines appropriate to fulfill the purposes of this title,
consistent with the management plan.
(d) Prohibition on Acquiring Real Property.--The management
entity may not use Federal funds received under this title to
acquire real property or an interest in real property.
(e) Public Meetings.--The management entity shall hold
public meetings at least annually regarding the
implementation of the management plan.

[[Page 23229]]

(f) Annual Reports and Audits.--
(1) For any year in which the management entity receives
Federal funds under this title, the management entity shall
submit an annual report to the Secretary setting forth
accomplishments, expenses and income, and each entity to
which any grant was made by the management entity.
(2) The management entity shall make available to the
Secretary for audit all records relating to the expenditure
of Federal funds and any matching funds. The management
entity shall also require, for all agreements authorizing
expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the
receiving organization make available to the Secretary for
audit all records concerning the expenditure of those funds.

SEC. 506. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may,
upon request of the management entity, provide technical and
financial assistance to develop and implement the management
plan.
(b) Priority.--In providing assistance under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall give priority to actions that
facilitate--
(1) the conservation of the significant natural, cultural,
historical, archaeological, scenic, and recreational
resources of the heritage area; and
(2) the provision of educational, interpretive, and
recreational opportunities consistent with the resources and
associated values of the heritage area.

SEC. 507. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

(a) No Effect on Private Property.--Nothing in this title
shall be construed--
(1) to modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of
Federal, State, or local governments to regulate any use of
privately owned lands; or
(2) to grant the management entity any authority to
regulate the use of privately owned lands.
(b) Tribal Lands.--Nothing in this title shall restrict or
limit a tribe from protecting cultural or religious sites on
tribal lands.
(c) Authority of Governments.--Nothing in this title
shall--
(1) modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of Federal,
State, tribal, or local governments to manage or regulate any
use of land as provided for by law or regulation; or
(2) authorize the management entity to assume any
management authorities over such lands.
(d) Trust Responsibilities.--Nothing in this title shall
diminish the Federal Government's trust responsibilities or
government-to-government obligations to any federally
recognized Indian tribe.

SEC. 508. SUNSET.

The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this title.

SEC. 509. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

TITLE VI--NATIONAL MORMON PIONEER HERITAGE AREA

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``National Mormon Pioneer
Heritage Area Act''.

SEC. 602. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the historical, cultural, and natural heritage legacies
of Mormon colonization and settlement are nationally
significant;
(2) in the area starting along the Highway 89 corridor at
the Arizona border, passing through Kane, Garfield, Piute,
Sevier, Wayne, and Sanpete Counties in the State of Utah, and
terminating in Fairview, Utah, there are a variety of
heritage resources that demonstrate--
(A) the colonization of the western United States; and
(B) the expansion of the United States as a major world
power;
(3) the great relocation to the western United States was
facilitated by--
(A) the 1,400 mile trek from Illinois to the Great Salt
Lake by the Mormon pioneers; and
(B) the subsequent colonization effort in Nevada, Utah, the
southeast corner of Idaho, the southwest corner of Wyoming,
large areas of southeastern Oregon, much of southern
California, and areas along the eastern border of California;
(4) the 250-mile Highway 89 corridor from Kanab to
Fairview, Utah, contains some of the best features of the
Mormon colonization experience in the United States;
(5) the landscape, architecture, traditions, beliefs, folk
life, products, and events along Highway 89 convey the
heritage of the pioneer settlement;
(6) the Boulder Loop, Capitol Reef National Park, Zion
National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and the Highway 89
area convey the compelling story of how early settlers--
(A) interacted with Native Americans; and
(B) established towns and cities in a harsh, yet
spectacular, natural environment;
(7) the colonization and settlement of the Mormon settlers
opened up vast amounts of natural resources, including coal,
uranium, silver, gold, and copper;
(8) the Mormon colonization played a significant role in
the history and progress of the development and settlement of
the western United States; and
(9) the artisans, crafters, innkeepers, outfitters,
historic landscape, customs, national parks, and architecture
in the Heritage Area make the Heritage Area unique.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to establish the
Heritage Area to--
(1) foster a close working relationship with all levels of
government, the private sector, residents, business
interests, and local communities in the State;
(2) empower communities in the State to conserve, preserve,
and enhance the heritage of the communities while
strengthening future economic opportunities;
(3) conserve, interpret, and develop the historical,
cultural, natural, and recreational resources within the
Heritage Area; and
(4) expand, foster, and develop heritage businesses and
products relating to the cultural heritage of the Heritage
Area.

SEC. 603. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Alliance.--The term ``Alliance'' means the Utah
Heritage Highway 89 Alliance.
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors
of the Alliance.
(3) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area established by section
604(a).
(4) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the plan developed by the Board under section 606(a).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(6) State.-- The term ``State'' means the State of Utah.

SEC. 604. NATIONAL MORMON PIONEER HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the National
Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area.
(b) Boundaries.--
(1) In general.--The boundaries of the Heritage Area shall
include areas in the State that are--
(A) related to the corridors--
(i) from the Arizona border northward through Kanab, Utah,
and to the intersection of Highway 89 and Highway 12,
including Highway 12 and Highway 24 as those highways loop
off Highway 89 and rejoin Highway 89 at Sigurd;
(ii) from Highway 89 at the intersection of Highway 12
through Panguitch, Junction, Marysvale, and Sevier County to
Sigurd;
(iii) continuing northward along Highway 89 through Axtell
and Sterling, Sanpete County, to Fairview, Sanpete County, at
the junction with Utah Highway 31; and
(iv) continuing northward along Highway 89 through Fairview
and Thistle Junction, to the junction with Highway 6; and
(B) located in the following communities; Kanab, Mt.
Carmel, Orderville, Glendale, Alton, Cannonville, Tropic,
Henrieville, Escalante, Boulder, Teasdale, Fruita,
Hanksville, Torrey, Bicknell, Loa, Hatch, Panquitch,
Circleville, Antimony, Junction, Marysvale, Koosharem,
Sevier, Joseph, Monroe, Elsinore, Richfield, Glenwood,
Sigurd, Aurora, Salina, Mayfield, Sterling, Gunnison,
Fayette, Manti, Ephraim, Spring City, Mt. Pleasant, Moroni,
Fountain Green, and Fairview.
(2) Map.--The Secretary shall prepare a map of the Heritage
Area, which shall be on file and available for public
inspection in the office of the Director of the National Park
Service.
(3) Notice to local governments.--The Alliance shall
provide to the government of each city, town, and county that
has jurisdiction over property proposed to be included in the
Heritage Area written notice of the proposed inclusion.
(c) Administration.--The Heritage Area shall be
administered in accordance with this title.

SEC. 605. DESIGNATION OF ALLIANCE AS MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

(a) In General.--The Alliance shall be the management
entity for the Heritage Area.
(b) Federal Funding.--
(1) Authorization to Receive funds.--The Alliance may
receive amounts made available to carry out this title.
(2) Disqualification.--If a management plan is not
submitted to the Secretary as required under section 606
within the time period specified in that section, the
Alliance may not receive Federal funding under this title
until a management plan is submitted to the Secretary.
(c) Use of Federal Funds.--The Alliance may, for the
purposes of developing and implementing the management plan,
use Federal funds made available under this title--
(1) to make grants and loans to the State, political
subdivision of the State, nonprofit organizations, and other
persons;
(2) to enter into cooperative agreements with or provide
technical assistance to the State, political subdivisions of
the State, nonprofit organizations, and other organizations;
(3) to hire and compensate staff;
(4) to obtain funds from any source under any program or
law requiring the recipient of funds to make a contribution
in order to receive the funds; and
(5) to contract for goods and services.
(d) Prohibition of Acquisition of Real Property.--The
Alliance may not use Federal funds received under this title
to acquire real property or any interest in real property.

SEC. 606. MANAGEMENT OF THE HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Heritage Area Management Plan.--
(1) Development and submission for review.--Not later than
3 years after the date of enactment of this title, the Board,
with public participation, shall develop and submit for
review to the Secretary a management plan for the Heritage
Area.

[[Page 23230]]

(2) Contents.--The management plan shall--
(A) present comprehensive recommendation for the
conservation, funding, management, and development of the
Heritage Area;
(B) take into consideration Federal, State, county, and
local plans in effect on the date of enactment of this title;
(C) involve residents, public agencies, and private
organizations in the Heritage Area;
(D) include a description of actions that units of
government and private organizations are recommended to take
to protect the resources of the Heritage Area;
(E) specify existing and potential sources of Federal and
non-Federal funding for the conservation, management, and
development of the Heritage Area; and
(F) include--
(i) an inventory of resources in the Heritage Area that--

(I) includes a list of property in the Heritage Area that
should be conserved, restored, managed, developed, or
maintained because of the historical, cultural, or natural
significance of the property as the property relates to the
themes of the Heritage Area; and
(II) does not include any property that is privately owned
unless the owner of the property consents in writing to the
inclusion;

(ii) a recommendation of policies for resource management
that consider the application of appropriate land and water
management techniques, including policies for the development
of intergovernmental cooperative agreements to manage the
historical, cultural, and natural resources and recreational
opportunities of the Heritage Area in a manner that is
consistent with the support of appropriate and compatible
economic viability;
(iii) a program for implementation of the management plan,
including plans for restoration and construction;
(iv) a description of any commitments that have been made
by persons interested in management of the Heritage Area;
(v) an analysis of means by which Federal, State, and local
programs may best be coordinated to promote the purposes of
this title; and
(vi) an interpretive plan for the Heritage Area.
(3) Approval or disapproval of the management plan.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after submission
of the management plan by the Board, the Secretary shall
approve or disapprove the management plan.
(B) Disapproval and revisions.--
(i) In general.--If the Secretary disapproves the
management plan, the Secretary shall--

(I) advise the Board, in writing, of the reasons for the
disapproval; and
(II) make recommendations for revision of the management
plans.

(ii) Approval or disapproval.--The Secretary shall approve
or disapprove proposed revisions to the management plan not
later than 60 days after receipt of the revisions from the
Board.
(b) Priorities.--The Alliance shall give priority to the
implementation of actions, goals, and policies set forth in
the management plan, including--
(1) assisting units of government, regional planning
organizations, and nonprofit organizations in--
(A) conserving the historical, cultural, and natural
resources of the Heritage Area;
(B) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in
the Heritage Area;
(C) developing recreational opportunities in the Heritage
Area;
(D) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the
historical, cultural, and natural resources of the Heritage
Area;
(E) restoring historic buildings that are--
(i) located within the boundaries of the Heritage Area; and
(ii) related to the theme of the Heritage Area; and
(F) ensuring that clear, consistent, and environmentally
appropriate signs identifying access points and sites of
interest are put in place throughout the Heritage Area; and
(2) consistent with the goals of the management plan,
encouraging economic viability in the affected communities by
appropriate means, including encouraging and soliciting the
development of heritage products.
(c) Consideration of Interests of Local Groups.--In
developing and implementing the management plan, the Board
shall consider the interests of diverse units of government,
businesses, private property owners, and nonprofit
organizations in the Heritage Area.
(d) Public Meetings.--The Board shall conduct public
meetings at least annually regarding the implementation of
the management plan.
(e) Annual Reports.--For any fiscal year in which the
Alliance receives Federal funds under this title or in which
a loan made by the Alliance with Federal funds under section
605(c)(1) is outstanding, the Alliance shall submit to the
Secretary an annual report that describes--
(1) the accomplishments of the Alliance;
(2) the expenses and income of the Alliance; and
(3) the entities to which the Alliance made any loans or
grants during the year for which the report is made.
(f) Cooperation With Audits.--For any fiscal year in which
the Alliance receives Federal funds under this title or in
which a loan made by the Alliance with Federal funds under
section 605(c)(1) is outstanding, the Alliance shall--
(1) make available for audit by Congress, the Secretary,
and appropriate units of government all records and other
information relating to the expenditure of the Federal funds
and any matching funds; and
(2) require, with respect to all agreements authorizing
expenditure of the Federal funds by other organizations, that
the receiving organizations make available for audit all
records and other information relating to the expenditure of
the Federal funds.
(g) Delegation.--
(1) In general.--The Alliance may delete the
responsibilities and actions under this section for each area
identified in section 604(b)(1).
(2) Review.--All delegated responsibilities and actions are
subject to review and approval by the Alliance.

SEC. 607. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

(a) Technical Assistance and Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide technical
assistance and, subject to the availability of
appropriations, grants to--
(A) units of government, nonprofit organizations, and other
persons, at the request of the Alliance; and
(B) the Alliance, for use in developing and implementing
the management plan.
(2) Prohibition of certain requirements.--The Secretary may
not, as a condition of the award of technical assistance or
grants under this section, require any recipient of the
technical assistance or a grant to enact or modify any land
use restriction.
(3) Determination regarding assistance.--The Secretary
shall determine whether a unit of government, nonprofit
organization, or other person shall be awarded technical
assistance or grants and the amount of technical assistance--
(A) based on the extent to which the assistance--
(i) fulfills the objectives of the management plan; and
(ii) achieves the purposes of this title; and
(B) after giving special consideration to projects that
provide a greater leverage of Federal funds.
(b) Provision of Information.--In cooperation with other
Federal agencies, the Secretary shall provide the public with
information concerning the location and character of the
Heritage Area.
(c) Other Assistance.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with public and private organizations
for the purposes of implementing this section.
(d) Duties of Other Federal Agencies.--A Federal entity
conducting any activity directly affecting the Heritage Area
shall--
(1) consider the potential effect of the activity on the
management plan; and
(2) consult with the Alliance with respect to the activity
to minimize the adverse effects of the activity on the
Heritage Area.

SEC. 608. NO EFFECT ON LAND USE AUTHORITY AND PRIVATE
PROPERTY.

(a) No Effect on Land Use Authority.--Nothing in this title
modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of Federal,
State, or local government to regulate any use of land under
any other law (including regulations).
(b) No Zoning or Land Use Powers.--Nothing in this title
grants powers of zoning or land use control to the Alliance.
(c) Local Authority and Private Property Not Affected.--
Nothing in this title affects or authorizes the Alliance to
interfere with--
(1) the right of any person with respect to private
property; or
(2) any local zoning ordinance or land use plan of the
State or a political subdivision of the State.

SEC. 609. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this title $10,000,000, of which not more than
$1,000,000 may be made available for any fiscal year.
(b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of any
activity carried out using funds made available under this
title shall not exceed 50 percent.

SEC. 610. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this title.

TITLE VII--JOHN H. CHAFEE BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE
CORRIDOR

SEC. 701. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 10 of Public Law 99-647 (16 U.S.C. 461 note) is
amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Development Funds.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out section 8(c) for the period of
fiscal years 2003 through 2007 not more than $5,000,000, to
remain available until expended.''.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Bingaman
has an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered and agreed to, the committee-reported
substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended,
be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed
in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

[[Page 23231]]

Amendment No. 4970

(Purpose: To designate additional National Heritage Areas)

The amendment (No. 4970) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 695), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

____________________

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a
message from the House of Representatives on S. 941.
The Acting President pro tempore laid before the Senate the following
message from the House of Representatives on S. 941.
Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 941) entitled
``An Act to revise the boundaries of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area in the State of California, to extend the
term of the advisory commission for the recreation area, and
for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

TITLE I--GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

SEC. 101. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

Section 2(a) of Public Law 92-589 (16 U.S.C. 460bb-1(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a) Recreation Area
Lands.--'';
(2) by striking ``The recreation area shall comprise'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The recreation area shall comprise'';
and
(3) by striking ``The following additional lands are also''
and all that follows through the period at the end of the
paragraph and inserting the following:
``(2) Additional land.--In addition to the land described
in paragraph (1), the recreation area shall include--
``(A) the parcels numbered by the Assessor of Marin County,
California, 119-040-04, 119-040-05, 119-040-18, 166-202-03,
166-010-06, 166-010-07, 166-010-24, 166-010-25, 119-240-19,
166-010-10, 166-010-22, 119-240-03, 119-240-51, 119-240-52,
119-240-54, 166-010-12, 166-010-13, and 119-235-10;
``(B) land and water in San Mateo County generally depicted
on the map entitled `Sweeney Ridge Addition, Golden Gate
National Recreation Area', numbered NRA GG-80,000-A, and
dated May 1980;
``(C) land acquired under the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area Addition Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 460bb-1 note;
Public Law 10-299);
``(D) land generally depicted on the map entitled
`Additions to Golden Gate National Recreation Area', numbered
NPS-80-076, and dated July 2000/PWR-PLRPC; and
``(E) land generally depicted on the map entitled `Rancho
Corral de Tierra Additions to the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area', numbered NPS-80,079A and dated July 2001.
``(3) Acquisition authority.--The Secretary may acquire
land described in paragraph (2)(E) only from a willing
seller.''.

TITLE II--ADVISORY COMMISSIONS

SEC. 201. GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA ADVISORY
COMMISSION.

Section 5 of Public Law 92-589 (16 U.S.C. 460bb-4) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``(b) The Commission'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Membership.--
``(1) In general.--The Commission'';
(B) by striking ``Provided, That the'' and all that follows
through the period; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as designated by
subparagraph (A)) the following:
``(2) Considerations.--In appointing members to the
Commission, the Secretary shall ensure that the interests of
local, historic recreational users of the recreation area
shall be represented.''; and
(2) in subsection (g), by striking ``thirty years after the
enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``on December 31,
2012''.

SEC. 202. MANZANAR NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ADVISORY
COMMISSION.

Section 105(h) of Public Law 102-248 (16 U.S.C. 461 note)
is amended by striking ``10 years after the date of enactment
of this title'' and inserting ``on December 31, 2012''.

TITLE III--YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK

SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The three elementary schools serving the children of
employees of Yosemite National Park are served by the Bass
Lake Joint Union Elementary School District and the Mariposa
Unified School District.
(2) The schools are in remote mountainous areas and long
distances from other educational and administrative
facilities of the two local educational agencies.
(3) Because of their remote locations and relatively small
number of students, schools serving the children of employees
of the Park provide fewer services in more basic facilities
than the educational services and facilities provided to
students that attend other schools served by the two local
educational agencies.
(4) Because of the long distances involved and adverse
weather and road conditions that occur during much of the
school year, it is impractical for the children of employees
of the Park who live within or near the Park to attend other
schools served by the two local educational agencies.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to provide supplemental funding and
other services that are necessary to assist the State of
California or local educational agencies in California in
providing educational services for students attending schools
located within the Park.

SEC. 302. PAYMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL SERVICES.

(a) Authority To Provide Funds.--For fiscal years 2003
through 2007, the Secretary may provide funds to the Bass
Lake Joint Union Elementary School District and the Mariposa
Unified School District for educational services to students
who are dependents of persons engaged in the administration,
operation, and maintenance of the Park or students who live
at or near the Park upon real property of the United States.
(b) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Payments made by the
Secretary under this section may not be used for new
construction, construction contracts, or major capital
improvements, and may be used only to pay public employees
for services otherwise authorized by this title.
(c) Limitation on Amount of Funds.--Payments made under
this section shall not exceed the lesser of $750,000 in any
fiscal year or the amount necessary to provide students
described in subsection (a) with educational services that
are normally provided and generally available to students who
attend public schools elsewhere in the State of California.
(d) Adjustment of Payments.--Subject to subsection (c), the
Secretary is authorized to adjust payments made under this
section if the State of California or the appropriate local
educational agencies do not continue to provide funding for
educational services at Park schools at per student levels
that are equivalent to or greater than those provided in the
fiscal year prior to the date of enactment of this title.
(e) Source of Payments.--
(1) Authorized sources.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), in order to make payments under this section, the
Secretary may use funds available to the National Park
Service from appropriations, donations, or fees.
(2) Exceptions.--Funds from the following sources may not
be used to make payments under this section:
(A) Fees authorized and collected under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.).
(B) The recreational fee demonstration program under
section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in section
101(c) of Public Law 104-134; 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note).
(C) The national park passport program established under
section 602 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of
1998 (16 U.S.C. 5992).
(D) Emergency appropriations for Yosemite flood recovery.
(f) Definitions.--For the purposes of this title, the
following definitions apply:
(1) Local educational agencies.--The term ``local
educational agencies'' has the meaning given that term in
section 9101(26) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965.
(2) Educational services.--The term ``educational
services'' means services that may include maintenance and
minor upgrades of facilities and transportation to and from
school.
(3) Park.--The term ``Park'' means Yosemite National Park.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATION FOR PARK FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED
OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF YOSEMITE NATIONAL
PARK.

Section 814(c) of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands
Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 346e) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``and Yosemite National Park'' after
``Zion National Park''; and
(B) by inserting ``transportation systems and'' before
``the establishment of''; and
(2) by striking ``park'' each place it appears and
inserting ``parks''.

TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF GOLDEN CHAIN HIGHWAY AS A NATIONAL HERITAGE
CORRIDOR STUDY

SEC. 401. STUDY; REPORT.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date that
funds are first made available for this section, the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the affected
local governments, the State government, State and local
historic preservation offices, community organizations, and
the Golden Chain Council, shall complete a special resource
study of the national significance, suitability, and
feasibility of establishing Highway 49 in California, known
as the ``Golden Chain Highway'', as a National Heritage
Corridor.
(2) Contents.--The study shall include an analysis of--
(A) the significance of Highway 49 in American history;
(B) options for preservation and use of the highway;
(C) options for interpretation of significant features
associated with the highway; and
(D) private sector preservation alternatives.

[[Page 23232]]

(3) Boundaries of study area.--The area studied under this
section shall be comprised of Highway 49 in California
extending from the city of Oakhurst in Madera County to the
city of Tuttletown in Tuolumne County, and lands, structures,
and cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the
highway.
(b) Report.--Not later than 30 days after completion of the
study required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit
a report describing the results of the study to the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.

TITLE V--JOHN MUIR NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT

SEC. 501. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

(a) Boundary.--The boundary of the John Muir National
Historic Site is adjusted to include the lands generally
depicted on the map entitled ``Boundary Map, John Muir
National Historic Site'' numbered PWR-OL 426-80,044a and
dated August 2001.
(b) Land Acquisition.--The Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to acquire the lands and interests in lands
identified as the ``Boundary Adjustment Area'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a) by donation, purchase with
donated or appropriated funds, exchange, or otherwise.
(c) Administration.--The lands and interests in lands
described in subsection (b) shall be administered as part of
the John Muir National Historic Site established by the Act
of August 31, 1964 (78 Stat. 753; 16 U.S.C. 461 note).

TITLE VI--SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHEDS STUDY

SEC. 601. AUTHORIZATION OF STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter
in this title referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct
a special resource study of the following areas:
(1) The San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of and
including the city of Santa Fe Springs.
(2) The San Gabriel Mountains within the territory of the
San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains
Conservancy (as defined in section 32603(c)(1)(C) of the
State of California Public Resource Code).
(b) Study Conduct and Completion.--Section 8(c) of Public
Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and
completion of the study required by this section.
(c) Consultation With Federal, State, and Local
Governments.--In conducting the study authorized by this
section, the Secretary shall consult with the San Gabriel and
Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and other
appropriate Federal, State, and local governmental entities.
(d) Considerations.--In conducting the study authorized by
this section, the Secretary shall consider regional flood
control and drainage needs and publicly owned infrastructure,
including, but not limited to, wastewater treatment
facilities.

SEC. 602. REPORT.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
concur in the House amendment with a further Bingaman amendment, which
is at the desk; that the amendment be considered and agreed to, and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action
or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 4971

(Purpose: To concur in the House amendment with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute)

The amendment (No. 4971) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')

____________________

MIAMI CIRCLE SITE SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a
message from the House of Representatives on S. 1894.
The Acting President pro tempore laid before the Senate a message
from the House of Representatives on S. 1894.

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1894) entitled
``An Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study to determine the national significance
of the Miami Circle site in the State of Florida as well as
the suitability and feasibility of its inclusion in the
National Park System as part of Biscayne National Park, and
for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

TITLE I--MIAMI CIRCLE SITE SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY

SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 103. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

(a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date
funds are made available, the Secretary shall conduct a
special resource study as described in subsection (b). In
conducting the study, the Secretary shall consult with the
appropriate American Indian tribes and other interested
groups and organizations.
(b) Components.--In addition to a determination of national
significance, feasibility, and suitability, the special
resource study shall include the analysis and recommendations
of the Secretary with respect to--
(1) which, if any, particular areas of or surrounding the
Miami Circle should be included in the Park;
(2) whether any additional staff, facilities, or other
resources would be necessary to administer the Miami Circle
as a unit of the Park; and
(3) any impact on the local area that would result from the
inclusion of Miami Circle in the Park.
(c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after completion of the
study, the Secretary shall submit a report describing the
findings and recommendations of the study to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee
on Resources of the United States House of Representatives.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this title.

TITLE II--GATEWAY COMMUNITIES COOPERATION

SEC. 201. IMPROVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS
AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES TO SUPPORT COMPATIBLE
LAND MANAGEMENT OF BOTH FEDERAL AND ADJACENT
LANDS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Communities that are adjacent to or near Federal lands,
including units of the National Park System, units of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, units of the National Forest
System, and lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management, are vitally impacted by the management and public
use of these Federal lands.
(2) These communities, commonly known as gateway
communities, fulfill an integral part in the mission of the
Federal lands by providing necessary services, such as
schools, roads, search and rescue, emergency, medical,
provisioning, logistical support, living quarters, and
drinking water and sanitary systems, for both visitors to the
Federal lands and employees of Federal land management
agencies.
(3) Provision of these vital services by gateway
communities is an essential ingredient for a meaningful and
enjoyable experience by visitors to the Federal lands because
Federal land management agencies are unable to provide, or
are prevented from providing, these services.
(4) Gateway communities serve as an entry point for persons
who visit the Federal lands and are ideal for establishment
of visitor services, including lodging, food service, fuel
and auto repairs, emergency services, and visitor
information.
(5) Development in these gateway communities affect the
management and protection of these Federal lands, depending
on the extent to which advance planning for the local
development is coordinated between the communities and
Federal land managers.
(6) The planning and management decisions of Federal land
managers can have unintended consequences for gateway
communities and the Federal lands, when the decisions are not
adequately communicated to, or coordinated with, the elected
officials and residents of gateway communities.
(7) Experts in land management planning are available to
Federal land managers, but persons with technical planning
skills are often not readily available to gateway
communities, particularly small gateway communities.
(8) Gateway communities are often affected by the policies
and actions of several Federal land agencies and both the
communities and the agencies would benefit from greater
interagency coordination of those policies and actions.
(9) Persuading gateway communities to make decisions and
undertake actions in their communities that would also be in
the best interest of

[[Page 23233]]

the Federal lands is most likely to occur when such
decisionmaking and actions are built upon a foundation of
cooperation and coordination.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title to require
Federal land managers to communicate, coordinate, and
cooperate with gateway communities in order to--
(1) improve the relationships among Federal land managers,
elected officials, and residents of gateway communities;
(2) enhance the facilities and services in gateway
communities available to visitors to Federal lands, when
compatible with the management of these lands; and
(3) result in better local land use planning and decisions
by Federal land managers.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Gateway community.--The term ``gateway community''
means a county, city, town, village, or other subdivision of
a State, or a federally recognized American Indian tribe or
Alaska Native village, that--
(A) is incorporated or recognized in a county or regional
land use plan; and
(B) a Federal land manager (or the head of the tourism
office for the State) determines is significantly affected
economically, socially, or environmentally by planning and
management decisions regarding Federal lands administered by
that Federal land manager.
(2) Federal land agencies.--The term ``Federal land
agencies'' means the National Park Service, United States
Forest Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Bureau of Land Management.
(3) Federal land manager.--The term ``Federal land
manager'' means--
(A) the superintendent of a unit of the National Park
System;
(B) the manager of a national wildlife refuge;
(C) the field office manager of a Bureau of Land Management
area; or
(D) the supervisor of a unit of the National Forest System.
(d) Participation in Federal Planning and Land Use.--
(1) Participation in planning.--The Federal land agencies
shall provide for meaningful public involvement at the
earliest possible time by elected and appointed officials of
governments of local gateway communities in the development
of land use plans, programs, land use regulations, land use
decisions, transportation plans, general management plans,
and any other plans, decisions, projects, or policies for
Federal public lands under the jurisdiction of these agencies
that will have a significant impact on these gateway
communities. To facilitate such involvement, the Federal land
agencies shall provide these officials, at the earliest
possible time, with a summary in nontechnical language of the
assumptions, purposes, goals, and objectives of such a plan,
decision, project, or policy and a description of any
anticipated significant impact of the plan, decision, or
policy on gateway communities.
(2) Early notice of proposed decisions.--To the extent
practicable, the Federal land agencies shall provide local
gateway communities with early public notice of proposed
decisions of these agencies that may have a significant
impact on gateway communities.
(3) Training sessions.--The Federal land agencies shall
offer training sessions for elected and appointed officials
of gateway communities at which such officials can obtain a
better understanding of--
(A) agency planning processes; and
(B) the methods by which they can participate most
meaningfully in the development of the agency plans,
decisions, and policies referred to in paragraph (1).
(4) Technical assistance.--At the request of the government
of a gateway community, a Federal land agency shall assign,
to the extent practicable, an agency employee or contractor
to work with the community to develop data and analysis
relevant to the preparation of agency plans, decisions, and
policies referred to in paragraph (1).
(5) Review of federal land management planning.--At the
request of a gateway community, and to the extent
practicable, a Federal land manager shall assist the gateway
community to conduct a review of land use, management, or
transportation plans of the Federal land manager likely to
affect the gateway community.
(6) Coordination of land use.--To the extent consistent
with the laws governing the administration of the Federal
public lands, a Federal land manager may enter into a
cooperative agreement with a gateway community to provide for
coordination between--
(A) the land use inventory, planning, and management
activities for the Federal lands administered by the Federal
land manager; and
(B) the land use planning and management activities of
other Federal agencies, agencies of the State in which the
Federal lands are located, and local and tribal governments
in the vicinity of the Federal lands.
(7) Interagency cooperation and coordination.--To the
extent practicable, when the plans and activities of two or
more Federal land agencies are anticipated to have a
significant impact on a gateway community, the Federal land
agencies involved shall consolidate and coordinate their
plans and planning processes to facilitate the participation
of the gateway community in the planning processes.
(8) Treatment as cooperating agencies.--When a proposed
action is determined to require the preparation of an
environmental impact statement, the Federal land agencies
shall, as soon as practicable, but not later than the scoping
process, actively solicit the participation of gateway
communities as cooperating agencies under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(e) Grants To Assist Gateway Communities.--
(1) Grants authorized; purposes.--A Federal land manager
may make grants to an eligible gateway community to enable
the gateway community--
(A) to participate in Federal land planning or management
processes;
(B) to obtain professional land use or transportation
planning assistance necessary as a result of Federal action;
(C) to address and resolve public infrastructure impacts
that are identified through these processes as a likely
result of the Federal land management decisions and for which
sufficient funds are not otherwise available; and
(D) to provide public information and interpretive services
about the Federal lands administered by the Federal land
manager and the gateway community.
(2) Eligible gateway communities.--To be eligible for a
grant under this subsection, a gateway community may not have
a population in excess of 10,000 persons.
(f) Funding Sources.--
(1) General agency funds.--A Federal land agency may use
amounts available for the general operation of the agency to
provide funds to Federal land managers of that agency to make
grants under subsection (e).
(2) Other planning or project development funds.--Funds
available to a Federal land manager for planning,
construction, or project development may also be used to fund
programs under subsection (d) and make grants under
subsection (e).
(3) Combination of funds.--Federal land managers from
different Federal land agencies may combine financial
resources to make grants under subsection (e).

TITLE III--MOUNT NEBO WILDERNESS BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

SEC. 301. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS, MOUNT NEBO WILDERNESS, UTAH.

SEC. 302. MAP.

SEC. 303. TECHNICAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

The boundary of the Mount Nebo Wilderness is adjusted to
exclude the approximately 21.26 acres of private property
located in Andrews Canyon, Utah, and depicted on the Map as
``Dale''.

TITLE IV--BAINBRIDGE ISLAND JAPANESE-AMERICAN MEMORIAL SPECIAL RESOURCE
STUDY

SEC. 401. FINDINGS.

[[Page 23234]]

internment camps. They boarded the ferry Kehloken from the
former Eagledale Ferry Dock, located at the end of Taylor
Avenue, in the city of Bainbridge Island, Washington State.
(4) The city of Bainbridge Island has adopted a resolution
stating that this site should be a National Memorial, and
similar resolutions have been introduced in the Washington
State Legislature.
(5) Both the Minidoka National Monument and Manzanar
National Historic Site can clearly tell the story of a time
in our Nation's history when constitutional rights were
ignored. These camps by design were placed in very remote
places and are not easily accessible. Bainbridge Island is a
short ferry ride from Seattle and the site would be within
easy reach of many more people.
(6) This is a unique opportunity to create a site that will
honor those who suffered, cherish the friends and community
who stood beside them and welcomed them home, and inspire all
to stand firm in the event our Nation again succumbs to
similar fears.
(7) The site should be recognized by the National Park
Service based on its high degree of national significance,
association with significant events, and integrity of its
location and setting. This site is critical as an anchor for
future efforts to identify, interpret, serve, and ultimately
honor the Nikkei- persons of Japanese ancestry- influence on
Bainbridge Island.

SEC. 402. EAGLEDALE FERRY DOCK LOCATION AT TAYLOR AVENUE
STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry out a
special resource study regarding the national significance,
suitability, and feasibility of designating as a unit of the
National Park System the property commonly known as the
Eagledale Ferry Dock at Taylor Avenue and the historical
events associated with it, located in the town of Bainbridge
Island, Kitsap County, Washington.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after funds are first
made available for the study under subsection (a), the
Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report
describing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the study.
(c) Requirements for Study.--Except as otherwise provided
in this section, the study under subsection (a) shall be
conducted in accordance with section 8(c) of Public Law 91-
383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)).

Amendment No. 4972

(Purpose: To concur in the House amendment with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute)

The amendment (No. 4972) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')

____________________

MOCCASIN BEND NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ESTABLISHMENT ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 674, H.R. 980.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 980) to establish the Moccasin Bend National
Historic Site in the State of Tennessee as a unit of the
National Park System.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural
resources, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause
and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
[Strike the part shown in black brackets and insert the part shown in
italic.]

H.R. 980

[SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

[This Act may be cited as the ``Moccasin Bend National
Historic Site Establishment Act''.

[SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

[For the purposes of this Act the following definitions
apply:
[(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
[(2) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the
Moccasin Bend National Historic Site.
[(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
Tennessee.
[(4) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled
``Boundary Map, Moccasin Bend National Historic Site'',
numbered NAMB/80000A, and dated September 2001.

[SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.

[(a) In General.--In order to preserve, protect, and
interpret for the benefit of the public the nationally
significant archeological and historic resources located on
the peninsula known as Moccasin Bend, Tennessee, there is
established as a unit of the National Park System the
Moccasin Bend National Historic Site.
[(b) Boundaries.--The historic site shall consist of
approximately 900 acres generally depicted on the Map. The
Map shall be on file and available for public inspection in
the appropriate offices of the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior. The Secretary may make minor
revisions in the boundaries of the historic site in
accordance with section 7(c) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-9(c)).
[(c) Acquisition of Land and Interests in Land.--
[(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire by donation or
purchase from willing sellers, using donated or appropriated
funds, lands and interests in lands within the exterior
boundary of the historic site.
[(2) Moccasin bend mental health institute.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary may acquire the
State-owned land and interests in land (including structures
on that land) known as the Moccasin Bend Mental Health
Institute for inclusion in the historic site only by donation
and only after the facility is no longer used to provide
health care services, except that the Secretary may acquire
by donation only, at any time, any such State-owned land or
interests in land that the State determines is excess to the
needs of the Moccasin Bend Mental Health Institute. The
Secretary may work with the State through a cost sharing
arrangement for the purpose of demolishing the structures
located on that land that the Secretary determines should be
demolished.
[(3) Easement outside boundary.--To allow access between
areas of the historic site that on the date of the enactment
of this Act are noncontiguous, the Secretary may acquire by
donation or purchase from willing owners, using donated or
appropriated funds, an easement connecting the areas
generally depicted on the Map as the ``Moccasin Bend
Archeological National Historic Landmark'' and the ``Rock-
Tenn'' property.
[(d) Moccasin Bend Golf Course.--On the date of the
enactment of this Act, the boundary of the historic site
shall not include the approximately 157 acres of land
generally depicted on the Map as the ``Golf Course'' as such
lands shall not be within the boundary of the historic site.
In the event that those lands are no longer used as a public
golf course, the Secretary may acquire the lands for
inclusion in the historic site by donation only. Upon such
acquisition, the Secretary shall adjust the boundary of the
historic site to include the newly acquired lands.
[(e) Radio Tower Property.--On the date of the enactment of
this Act, the boundary of the historic site shall not include
the approximately 13 acres of land generally depicted on the
Map as ``WDEF''. In the event that those lands are no longer
used as a location from which to transmit radio signals, the
Secretary may acquire the lands for inclusion in the historic
site by donation or purchase from willing sellers with
appropriated or donated funds. Upon such acquisition, the
Secretary shall adjust the boundary of the historic site to
include the newly acquired lands.

[SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

[(a) In General.--The historic site shall be administered
by the Secretary in accordance with this Act and with the
laws generally applicable to units of the National Park
System.
[(b) Cooperative Agreement.--The Secretary may consult and
enter into cooperative agreements with culturally affiliated
federally recognized Indian tribes, governmental entities,
and interested persons to provide for the restoration,
preservation, development, interpretation, and use of the
historic site.
[(c) Visitor Interpretive Center.--For purposes of
interpreting the historical themes and cultural resources of
the historic site, the Secretary may establish and administer
a visitor center in the development of the center's operation
and interpretive programs.
[(d) General Management Plan.--Not later than three years
after funds are made available for this purpose, the
Secretary shall develop and submit to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives a general
management plan for the historic site. The general management
plan shall describe the appropriate protection and
preservation of natural, cultural, and scenic resources,
visitor use, and facility development within the historic
area consistent with the purposes of this Act, while ensuring
continued access to private landowners to their property.

[SEC. 5. REPEAL OF PREVIOUS ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.

[The Act of August 3, 1950 (Chapter 532; 16 U.S.C. 424a-4)
is repealed.]

[[Page 23235]]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Moccasin Bend National
Archeological District Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Archeological district.--The term ``archeological
district'' means the Moccasin Bend National Archeological
District.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
Tennessee.
(4) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled
``Boundary Map, Moccasin Bend National Archeological
District'', numbered 301/80098, and dated September 2002.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.

(a) In General.--In order to preserve, protect, and
interpret for the benefit of the public the nationally
significant archeological and historic resources located on
the peninsula known as Moccasin Bend, Tennessee, there is
established as a unit of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National
Military Park, the Moccasin Bend National Archeological
District.
(b) Boundaries.--The archeological district shall consist
of approximately 780 acres generally depicted on the Map. The
Map shall be on file and available for public inspection in
the appropriate offices of the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
(c) Acquisition of Land and Interests in Land.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire by donation,
purchase from willing sellers using donated or appropriated
funds, or exchange, lands and interests in lands within the
exterior boundary of the archeological district. The
Secretary may acquire the State, county and city-owned land
and interests in land for inclusion in the archeological
district only by donation.
(2) Easement outside boundary.--To allow access between
areas of the archeological district that on the date of
enactment of this Act are noncontiguous, the Secretary may
acquire by donation or purchase from willing owners using
donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, easements
connecting the areas generally depicted on the Map.

SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--The archeological district shall be
administered by the Secretary in accordance with this Act,
with laws applicable to Chickamauga and Chattanooga National
Military Park, and with the laws generally applicable to
units of the National Park System.
(b) Cooperative Agreement.--The Secretary may consult and
enter into cooperative agreements with culturally affiliated
federally recognized Indian tribes, governmental entities,
and interested persons to provide for the restoration,
preservation, development, interpretation, and use of the
archeological district.
(c) Visitor Interpretive Center.--For purposes of
interpreting the historical themes and cultural resources of
the archeological district, the Secretary may establish and
administer a visitor center in the archeological district.
(d) General Management Plan.--Not later than three years
after funds are made available for this purpose, the
Secretary shall develop a general management plan for the
archeological district. The general management plan shall
describe the appropriate protection and preservation of
natural, cultural, and scenic resources, visitor use, and
facility development within the archeological district
consistent with the purposes of this Act, while ensuring
continued access to private landowners to their property.

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF PREVIOUS ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.

The Act of August 3, 1950 (Chapter 532; 16 U.S.C. 424a-4),
is repealed.
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act To establish the
Moccasin Bend National Archeological District in the State of
Tennessee as a unit of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National
Military Park.''.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman has a substitute amendment
at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
considered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table; that the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed
to; that the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the title
amendment be agreed to, with no intervening action or debate, and that
any statements be printed in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 4973

(Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

The amendment (No. 4973), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed
to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 980), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
The title amendment was agreed to.

____________________

AMENDING THE NATURAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 576, H.R. 37.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 37) to amend the National Trails System Act to
update the feasibility and suitability studies of 4 national
historic trails and provide for possible additions to such
trails.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
[Strike the part shown in black brackets and insert the part printed
in italic.]

H.R. 37

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

[SECTION 1. REVISION OF FEASIBILITY AND SUITABILITY STUDIES
OF EXISTING NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS.

[The National Trails System Act is amended by inserting
after section 5 (16 U.S.C. 1244) the following new section:

[``SEC. 5A. REVISION OF FEASIBILITY AND SUITABILITY STUDIES
OF EXISTING TRAILS FOR POSSIBLE TRAIL
EXPANSION.

[``(a) In General.--
[``(1) Definitions.--In this section:
[``(A) Route.--The term `route' includes a trail segment
commonly known as a cutoff.
[``(B) Shared route.--The term `shared route' means a route
that was a segment of more than one historic trail, including
a route shared with an existing national historic trail.
[``(2) Study requirements and objectives.--The study
requirements and objectives specified in section 5(b) shall
apply to a study required by this section. The study shall
also assess the effect that designation of the studied route
as a component of an existing national scenic trail or
national historic trail may have on private property along
the proposed route.
[``(3) Completion and submission of study.--A study listed
in this section shall be completed and submitted to the
Congress not later than three complete fiscal years from the
date of the enactment of this section, or from the date of
the enactment of the addition of the study to this section,
whichever is later.
[``(4) Implementation of study results.--Upon completion of
a study required by this section, if the Secretary conducting
the study determines that a studied route is a feasible and
suitable addition to the existing national scenic trail or
national historic trail that was the subject of the study,
the Secretary shall designate the route as a component of
that national scenic trail or national historic trail. The
Secretary shall publish notice of the designation in the
Federal Register.
[``(b) Oregon National Historic Trail.--
[``(1) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the routes of the Oregon Trail listed in
paragraph (2) and generally depicted on the map entitled
`Western Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/1993, and
of such shared routes that the Secretary considers
appropriate, to determine the feasibility and suitability of
designation of one or more of the routes as components of the
Oregon National Historic Trail.
[``(2) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
paragraph (1) are the following:
[``(A) Whitman Mission route.
[``(B) Upper Columbia River.
[``(C) Cowlitz River route.
[``(D) Meek cutoff.
[``(E) Free Emigrant Road.
[``(F) North Alternate Oregon Trail.
[``(G) Goodale's cutoff.
[``(H) North Side alternate route.
[``(I) Cutoff to Barlow Road.
[``(J) Naches Pass Trail.
[``(c) Pony Express National Historic Trail.--The Secretary
of the Interior shall undertake a study of the approximately
20-mile southern alternative route of the Pony Express Trail
from Wathena, Kansas, to Troy, Kansas, and such shared routes
that the Secretary considers appropriate, to determine the
feasibility and suitability of designation of one or more of
the routes as components of the Pony Express National
Historic Trail.
[``(d) California National Historic Trail.--
[``(1) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the Missouri Valley, central, and
western routes of the California Trail listed in paragraph
(2) and generally depicted on the map entitled `Western
Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/1993, and of such
shared Missouri Valley, central, and western routes that the
Secretary considers appropriate, to determine the feasibility
and suitability of designation

[[Page 23236]]

of one or more of the routes as components of the California
National Historic Trail.
[``(2) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
paragraph (1) are the following:
[``(A) Missouri valley routes.--
[``(i) Blue Mills-Independence Road.
[``(ii) Westport Landing Road.
[``(iii) Westport-Lawrence Road.
[``(iv) Fort Leavenworth-Blue River route.
[``(v) Road to Amazonia.
[``(vi) Union Ferry Route.
[``(vii) Old Wyoming-Nebraska City cutoff.
[``(viii) Lower Plattsmouth Route.
[``(ix) Lower Bellevue Route.
[``(x) Woodbury cutoff.
[``(xi) Blue Ridge cutoff.
[``(xii) Westport Road.
[``(xiii) Gum Springs-Fort Leavenworth route.
[``(xiv) Atchison/Independence Creek routes.
[``(xv) Fort Leavenworth-Kansas River route.
[``(xvi) Nebraska City cutoff routes.
[``(xvii) Minersville-Nebraska City Road.
[``(xviii) Upper Plattsmouth route.
[``(xix) Upper Bellevue route.
[``(B) Central routes.--
[``(i) Cherokee Trail, including splits.
[``(ii) Weber Canyon route of Hastings cutoff.
[``(iii) Bishop Creek cutoff.
[``(iv) McAuley cutoff.
[``(v) Diamond Springs cutoff.
[``(vi) Secret Pass.
[``(vii) Greenhorn cutoff.
[``(viii) Central Overland Trail.
[``(C) Western routes.--
[``(i) Bidwell-Bartleson route.
[``(ii) Georgetown/Dagget Pass Trail.
[``(iii) Big Trees Road.
[``(iv) Grizzly Flat cutoff.
[``(v) Nevada City Road.
[``(vi) Yreka Trail.
[``(vii) Henness Pass route.
[``(viii) Johnson cutoff.
[``(ix) Luther Pass Trail.
[``(x) Volcano Road.
[``(xi) Sacramento-Coloma Wagon Road.
[``(xii) Burnett cutoff.
[``(xiii) Placer County Road to Auburn.
[``(e) Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail.--
[``(1) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the routes of the Morman Pioneer Trail
listed in paragraph (2) and generally depicted on the map
entitled `Western Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/
1993, and of such shared routes that the Secretary considers
appropriate, to determine the feasibility and suitability of
designation of one or more of the routes as components of the
Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail.
[``(2) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
paragraph (1) are the following:
[``(A) 1846 Subsequent routes A and B (Lucas and Clarke
Counties, Iowa).
[``(B) 1856-57 Handcart route (Iowa City to Council Bluffs)
[``(C) Keokuk route (Iowa).
[``(D) 1847 Alternative Elkhorn and Loup River Crossings in
Nebraska.
[``(E) Fort Leavenworth Road; Ox Bow route and alternates
in Kansas and Missouri (Oregon and California Trail routes
used by Mormon emigrants).
[``(F) 1850 Golden Pass Road in Utah.
[``(f) Shared California and Oregon Trail Routes.--
[``(1) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the shared routes of the California
Trail and Oregon Trail listed in paragraph (2) and generally
depicted on the map entitled `Western Emigrant Trails 1830/
1870' and dated 1991/1993, and of such other shared routes
that the Secretary considers appropriate, to determine the
feasibility and suitability of designation of one or more of
the routes as shared components of the California National
Historic Trail and the Oregon National Historic Trail.
[``(2) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
paragraph (1) are the following:
[``(A) St. Joe Road.
[``(B) Council Bluffs Road.
[``(C) Sublette cutoff.
[``(D) Applegate route.
[``(E) Old Fort Kearny Road (Oxbow Trail).
[``(F) Childs cutoff.
[``(G) Raft River to Applegate.''.]

SECTION 1. REVISION OF FEASIBILITY AND SUITABILITY STUDIES OF
EXISTING NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS.

Section 5 of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.
1244) is amended by inserting the following new subsection
(g):
``(g) The Secretary shall revise the feasibility and
suitability studies for certain national trails for
consideration of possible additions to the trails.
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(i) Route.--The term `route' includes a trail segment
commonly known as a cutoff.
``(ii) Shared route.--The term `shared' route means a route
that was a segment of more than one historic trail, including
a route shared with an existing national historic trail.
``(B) Study requirements and objectives.--The study
requirements and objectives specified in subsection (b) shall
apply to a study required by this subsection.
``(C) Completion and submission of study.--A study listed
in this subsection shall be completed and submitted to the
Congress not later than three complete fiscal years from the
date of the enactment of this subsection, or from the date of
the enactment of the addition of the study to this
subsection, whichever is later.
``(2) Oregon national historic trail.--
``(A) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the routes of the Oregon Trail listed in
subparagraph (B) and generally depicted on the map entitled
`Western Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/1993, and
of such other routes of the Oregon Trail that the Secretary
considers appropriate, to determine the feasibility and
suitability of designation of one or more of the routes as
components of the Oregon National Historic Trail.
``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
``(i) Whitman Mission route.
``(ii) Upper Columbia River.
``(iii) Cowlitz River route.
``(iv) Meek cutoff.
``(v) Free Emigrant Road.
``(vi) North Alternate Oregon Trail.
``(vii) Goodale's cutoff.
``(viii) North Side alternate route.
``(ix) Cutoff to Barlow Road.
``(x) Naches Pass Trail.
``(3) Pony express national historic trail.--The Secretary
of the Interior shall undertake a study of the approximately
20-mile southern alternative route of the Pony Express Trail
from Wathena, Kansas, to Troy, Kansas, and such other routes
of the Pony Express Trail that the Secretary considers
appropriate, to determine the feasibility and suitability of
designation of one or more of the routes as components of the
Pony Express National Historic Trail.
``(4) California national historic trail.--
``(A) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the Missouri Valley, central, and
western routes of the California Trail listed in subparagraph
(B) and generally depicted on the map entitled `Western
Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/1993, and of such
other and shared Missouri Valley, central, and western routes
that the Secretary considers appropriate, to determine the
feasibility and suitability of designation of one or more of
the routes as components of the California National Historic
Trail.
``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
subparagraph (A) shall include the following:

``(ii) Central routes.--

``(I) Cherokee Trail, including splits.
``(II) Weber Canyon route of Hastings cutoff.
``(III) Bishop Creek cutoff.
``(IV) McAuley cutoff.
``(V) Diamond Springs cutoff.
``(VI) Secret Pass.
``(VII) Greenhorn cutoff.
``(VIII) Central Overland Trail.

``(iii) Western routes.--

``(I) Bidwell-Bartleson route.
``(II) Georgetown/Dagget Pass Trail.
``(III) Big Trees Road.
``(IV) Grizzly Flat cutoff.
``(V) Nevada City Road.
``(VI) Yreka Trail.
``(VII) Henness Pass route.
``(VIII) Johnson cutoff.
``(IX) Luther Pass Trail.
``(X) Volcano Road.
``(XI) Sacramento-Coloma Wagon Road.
``(XII) Burnett cutoff.
``(XIII) Placer County Road to Auburn.

``(5) Mormon pioneer national historic trail.--
``(A) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the routes of the Mormon Pioneer Trail
listed in subparagraph (B) and generally depicted on the map
entitled `Western Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/
1993, and of such other routes of the Mormon Pioneer Trail
that the Secretary considers appropriate, to determine the
feasibility and suitability of designation of one or more of
the routes as components of the Mormon Pioneer National
Historic Trail.
``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
``(i) 1846 Subsequent routes A and B (Lucas and Clarke
Counties, Iowa).
``(ii) 1856-57 Handcart route (Iowa City to Council Bluffs)
``(iii) Keokuk route (Iowa).
``(iv) 1847 Alternative Elkhorn and Loup River Crossings in
Nebraska.
``(v) Fort Leavenworth Road; Ox Bow route and alternates in
Kansas and Missouri (Oregon

[[Page 23237]]

and California Trail routes used by Mormon emigrants).
``(vi) 1850 Golden Pass Road in Utah.
``(6) Shared california and oregon trail routes.--
``(A) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
undertake a study of the shared routes of the California
Trail and Oregon Trail listed in subparagraph (B) and
generally depicted on the map entitled `Western Emigrant
Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/1993, and of such other
shared routes that the Secretary considers appropriate, to
determine the feasibility and suitability of designation of
one or more of the routes as shared components of the
California National Historic Trail and the Oregon National
Historic Trail.
``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under
subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
``(i) St. Joe Road.
``(ii) Council Bluffs Road.
``(iii) Sublette cutoff.
``(iv) Applegate route.
``(v) Old Fort Kearny Road (Oxbow Trail).
``(vi) Childs cutoff.
``(vii) Raft River to Applegate.''
Passed the House of Representatives June 6, 2001.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Chairman Bingaman has a substitute amendment
at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered
and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the
committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as
amended, be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed
in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 4974) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 37), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

____________________

NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL ACT OF 2002

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to Calendar No. 600, S. 198.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 198) to require the Secretary of the Interior to
establish a program to provide assistance through States to
eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate
harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
[Striking the part shown in black brackets and insert the part shown
in italic.]

S. 198

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 ``Harmful Nonnative Weed
Control Act of 2000''.

[SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

[(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
[(1) public and private land in the United States faces
unprecedented and severe stress from harmful, nonnative
weeds;
[(2) the economic and resource value of the land is being
destroyed as harmful nonnative weeds overtake native
vegetation, making the land unusable for forage and for
diverse plant and animal communities;
[(3) damage caused by harmful nonnative weeds has been
estimated to run in the hundreds of millions of dollars
annually;
[(4) successfully fighting this scourge will require
coordinated action by all affected stakeholders, including
Federal, State, and local governments, private landowners,
and nongovernmental organizations;
[(5) the fight must begin at the local level, since it is
at the local level that persons feel the loss caused by
harmful nonnative weeds and will therefore have the greatest
motivation to take effective action; and
[(6) to date, effective action has been hampered by
inadequate funding at all levels of government and by
inadequate coordination.
[(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
[(1) to provide assistance to eligible weed management
entities in carrying out projects to control or eradicate
harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land;
[(2) to coordinate the projects with existing weed
management areas and districts;
[(3) in locations in which no weed management entity, area,
or district exists, to stimulate the formation of additional
local or regional cooperative weed management entities, such
as entities for weed management areas or districts, that
organize locally affected stakeholders to control or
eradicate weeds;
[(4) to leverage additional funds from a variety of public
and private sources to control or eradicate weeds through
local stakeholders; and
[(5) to promote healthy, diverse, and desirable plant
communities by abating through a variety of measures the
threat posed by harmful, nonnative weeds.

[SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

[In this Act:
[(1) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee''
means the advisory committee established under section 5.
[(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
[(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.

[SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

[The Secretary shall establish in the Office of the
Secretary a program to provide financial assistance through
States to eligible weed management entities to control or
eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private
land.

[SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

[(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish in the
Department of the Interior an advisory committee to make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual
allocation of funds to States under section 6 and other
issues related to funding under this Act.
[(b) Composition.--The Advisory Committee shall be composed
of not more than 10 individuals appointed by the Secretary
who--
[(1) have knowledge and experience in harmful, nonnative
weed management; and
[(2) represent the range of economic, conservation,
geographic, and social interests affected by harmful,
nonnative weeds.
[(c) Term.--The term of a member of the Advisory Committee
shall be 4 years.
[(d) Compensation.--
[(1) In general.--A member of the Advisory Committee shall
receive no compensation for the service of the member on the
Advisory Committee.
[(2) Travel expenses.--A member of the Advisory Committee
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 Advisory Committee.
[(e) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Advisory
Committee.

[SEC. 6. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO STATES.

[(a) In General.--In consultation with the Advisory
Committee, the Secretary shall allocate funds made available
for each fiscal year under section 8 to States to provide
funding in accordance with section 7 to eligible weed
management entities to carry out projects approved by States
to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public
and private land.
[(b) Amount.--The Secretary shall determine the amount of
funds allocated to a State for a fiscal year under this
section on the basis of--
[(1) the seriousness of the harmful, nonnative weed problem
or potential problem in the State, or a portion of the State;
[(2) the extent to which the Federal funds will be used to
leverage non-Federal funds to address the harmful, nonnative
weed problems in the State;
[(3) the extent to which the State has made progress in
addressing harmful, nonnative weed problems in the State;
[(4) the extent to which weed management entities in a
State are eligible for base payments under section 7; and
[(5) other factors recommended by the Advisory Committee
and approved by the Secretary.

[SEC. 7. USE OF FUNDS ALLOCATED TO STATES.

[(a) In General.--A State that receives an allocation of
funds under section 6 for a fiscal year shall use--
[(1) not more than 25 percent of the allocation to make a
base payment to each weed management entity in accordance
with subsection (b); and
[(2) not less than 75 percent of the allocation to make
financial awards to weed management entities in accordance
with subsection (c).
[(b) Base Payments.--
[(1) Use by weed management entities.--
[(A) In general.--Base payments under subsection (a)(1)
shall be used by weed management entities--
[(i) to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying out
projects described in subsection (d) that are selected by the
State in accordance with subsection (d); or
[(ii) for any other purpose relating to the activities of
the weed management entities,

[[Page 23238]]

subject to guidelines established by the State.
[(B) Federal share.--Under subparagraph (A), the Federal
share of the cost of carrying out a project described in
subsection (d) shall not exceed 50 percent.
[(2) Eligibility of weed management entities.--To be
eligible to obtain a base payment under paragraph (1) for a
fiscal year, a weed management entity in a State shall--
[(A) be established by local stakeholders--
[(i) to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on
public or private land; or
[(ii) to increase public knowledge and education concerning
the need to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on
public or private land;
[(B)(i) for the first fiscal year for which the entity
receives a base payment, provide to the State a description
of--
[(I) the purposes for which the entity was established; and
[(II) any projects carried out to accomplish those
purposes; and
[(ii) for any subsequent fiscal year for which the entity
receives a base payment, provide to the State--
[(I) a description of the activities carried out by the
entity in the previous fiscal year--

[(aa) to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on
public or private land; or
[(bb) to increase public knowledge and education concerning
the need to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on
public or private land; and

[(II) the results of each such activity; and
[(C) meet such additional eligibility requirements, and
conform to such process for determining eligibility, as the
State may establish.
[(c) Financial Awards.--
[(1) Use by weed management entities.--
[(A) In general.--Financial awards under subsection (a)(2)
shall be used by weed management entities to pay the Federal
share of the cost of carrying out projects described in
subsection (d) that are selected by the State in accordance
with subsection (d).
[(B) Federal share.--Under subparagraph (A), the Federal
share of the cost of carrying out a project described in
subsection (d) shall not exceed 50 percent.
[(2) Eligibility of weed management entities.--To be
eligible to obtain a financial award under paragraph (1) for
a fiscal year, a weed management entity in a State shall--
[(A) meet the requirements for eligibility for a base
payment under subsection (b)(2); and
[(B) submit to the State a description of the project for
which the financial award is sought.
[(d) Projects.--
[(1) In general.--An eligible weed management entity may
use a base payment or financial award received under this
section to carry out a project relating to the control or
eradication of harmful, nonnative weeds on public or private
land, including--
[(A) education, inventories and mapping, management,
monitoring, and similar activities, including the payment of
the cost of personnel and equipment; and
[(B) innovative projects, with results that are
disseminated to the public.
[(2) Selection of projects.--A State shall select projects
for funding under this section on a competitive basis, taking
into consideration (with equal consideration given to
economic and natural values)--
[(A) the seriousness of the harmful, nonnative weed problem
or potential problem addressed by the project;
[(B) the likelihood that the project will prevent or
resolve the problem, or increase knowledge about resolving
similar problems in the future;
[(C) the extent to which the payment will leverage non-
Federal funds to address the harmful, nonnative weed problem
addressed by the project;
[(D) the extent to which the entity has made progress in
addressing harmful, nonnative weed problems;
[(E) the extent to which the project will provide a
comprehensive approach to the control or eradication of
harmful, nonnative weeds;
[(F) the extent to which the project will reduce the total
population of a harmful, nonnative weed within the State; and
[(G) other factors that the State determines to be
relevant.
[(3) Scope of projects.--
[(A) In general.--A weed management entity shall determine
the geographic scope of the harmful, nonnative weed problem
to be addressed through a project using a base payment or
financial award received under this section.
[(B) Multiple states.--A weed management entity may use the
base payment or financial award to carry out a project to
address the harmful, nonnative weed problem of more than 1
State if the entity meets the requirements of applicable
State laws.
[(4) Land.--A weed management entity may use a base payment
or financial award received under this section to carry out a
project to control or eradicate weeds on any public or
private land with the approval of the owner or operator of
the land, other than land that is devoted to the cultivation
of row crops, fruits, or vegetables.
[(5) Prohibition on projects to control aquatic noxious
weeds or animal pests.--A base payment or financial award
under this section may not be used to carry out a project to
control or eradicate aquatic noxious weeds or animal pests.
[(e) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the
funds made available under section 8 for a fiscal year may be
used by the States or the Federal Government to pay the
administrative costs of the program established by this Act,
including the costs of complying with Federal environmental
laws.

[SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

[There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Noxious Weed Control Act of
2002''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Noxious weed.--The term ``noxious weed'' has the same
meaning as in the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7702(10)).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
(4) 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).
(5) Weed management entity.--The term ``weed management
entity'' means an entity that--
(A) is recognized by the State in which it is established;
(C) is established for the purpose of controlling or
eradicating harmful, invasive weeds and increasing public
knowledge and education concerning the need to control or
eradicate harmful, invasive weeds; and
(D) is multijurisdictional and multidisciplinary in nature.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

SEC. 4. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.

SEC. 5. ELIGIBILITY AND USE OF FUNDS.

[[Page 23239]]

(6) the extent to which the project will reduce the total
population of a noxious weed;
(7) the extent to which the project uses the principles of
integrated vegetation management and sound science; and
(8) such other factors that the State determines to be
relevant.
(c) Information and Report.--As a condition of the receipt
of funding, States shall require such information from grant
recipients as necessary and shall submit to the Secretary a
report that describes the purposes and results of each
project for which the payment or award was used, by not later
than 6 months after completion of the projects.
(d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of any project or
activity approved by a State or Indian tribe under this Act
may not exceed 50 percent unless the State meets criteria
established by the Secretary that accommodates situations
where a higher percentage is necessary to meet the needs of
an underserved area or addresses a critical need that cannot
be met otherwise.

SEC. 6. LIMITATIONS.

(a) Landowner Consent; Land Under Cultivation.--Any
activity involving real property, either private or public,
may be carried out under this Act only with the consent of
the landowner and no project may be undertaken on property
that is devoted to the cultivation of row crops, fruits, or
vegetables.
(b) Compliance With State Law.--A weed management entity
may carry out a project to address the noxious weed problem
in more than one State only if the entity meets the
requirements of the State laws in all States in which the
entity will undertake the project.
(c) Use of Funds.--Funding under this Act may not be used
to carry out a project--
(1) to control or eradicate animals, pests, or submerged or
floating noxious aquatic weeds; or
(2) to protect an agricultural commodity (as defined in
section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5602)) other than--
(A) livestock (as defined in section 602 of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1471); or
(B) an animal- or insect-based product.

SEC. 7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROGRAMS.

Assistance authorized under this Act is intended to
supplement, and not replace, assistance available to weed
management entities, areas, and districts for control or
eradication of harmful, invasive weeds on public lands and
private lands, including funding available under the Pulling
Together Initiative of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation; and the provision of funds to any entity under
this Act shall have no effect on the amount of any payment
received by a county from the Federal Government under
chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known as
the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act).

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

To carry out this Act there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $100,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2006, of which not more than 5 percent of
the funds made available for a fiscal year may be used by the
Secretary for administrative costs of Federal agencies.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman has a substitute amendment
at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered
and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the
committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as
amended, be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any
statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 4975) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (S. 198), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

____________________

WILDFIRE PREVENTION ACT OF 2002

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 652, S. 2670.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2670) to establish Institutes to conduct
research on the prevention of, and restoration from,
wildfires in forest and woodland ecosystems of the interior
West.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources with an amendment, as follows:
[Strike the part shown in black brackets and insert the part shown in
italic.]

S. 2670

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 ``Wildfire Prevention Act of
2002''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

[[Page 23240]]

(B) the environmental review process; and
(C) affected entities that collaborate in the development
and implementation of wildfire treatment.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to enhance the capacity to develop, transfer, apply,
and monitor practical science-based forest restoration
treatments that will reduce the risk of severe wildfires, and
improve forest and woodland health, in the interior West;
(2) to develop the practical scientific knowledge required
to implement forest and woodland restoration on a landscape
scale;
(3) to develop the interdisciplinary knowledge required to
understand the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of
wildfire control on ecosystems and landscapes;
(4) to require Federal agencies--
(A) to use ecological restoration treatments to reverse
declining forest health and reduce the risk of severe
wildfires across the forest landscape;
(B) to ensure that sufficient funds are dedicated to
wildlife prevention activities, including restoration
treatments; and
(C) to monitor and use wildfire treatments based on the use
of adaptive ecosystem management;
(5) to develop, transfer, and assist land managers in
treating acres with restoration-based treatments and use new
management technologies (including the transfer of
understandable information, assistance with environmental
review, and field and classroom training and collaboration)
to accomplish the goals identified in--
(A) the National Fire Plan;
(B) the report entitled ``Protecting People and Sustaining
Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--A Cohesive Strategy''
(65 Fed. Reg. 67480); and
(C) the report entitled ``10-Year Comprehensive Strategy: A
Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to
Communities and the Environment'' of the Western Governors'
Association; and
(6) to provide technical assistance to collaborative
efforts by affected entities to develop, implement, and
monitor adaptive ecosystem management restoration treatments
that are ecologically sound, economically viable, and
socially responsible.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Adaptive ecosystem management.--The term ``adaptive
ecosystem management'' means a natural resource management
process under which planning, implementation, monitoring,
research, evaluation, and incorporation of new knowledge are
combined into a management approach that is--
(A) based on scientific findings and the needs of society;
and
(B) used to modify future management methods and policy.
(2) Affected entities.--The term ``affected entities''
includes--
(A) land managers;
(B) stakeholders;
(C) concerned citizens; and
(D) the States of the interior West, including political
subdivisions of the States.
(3) Institute.--The term ``Institute'' means an Institute
established under section 5(a).
(4) Interior west.--The term ``interior West'' means the
States of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and
Utah.
(5) Land manager.--
(A) In general.--The term ``land manager'' means a person
or entity that practices or guides natural resource
management.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``land manager'' includes a
Federal, State, local, or tribal land management agency.
(6) Restoration.--The term ``restoration'' means a process
undertaken to return an ecosystem or habitat toward--
(A) the original condition of the ecosystem or habitat; or
(B) a condition that supports a related species, natural
function, or ecological process (including a low intensity
fire).
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service.
(8) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief
of the Forest Service; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior.
(9) Stakeholder.--The term ``stakeholder'' means any person
interested in or affected by management of forest or woodland
ecosystems.
(10) States.--The term ``States'' means--
(A) the [State of Arizona] State of Arizona at Northern
Arizona University;
(B) the State of New Mexico; and
(C) the State of Colorado.

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTITUTES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior, shall--
(1) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, establish 3 Institutes to promote the use of
adaptive ecosystem management to reduce the risk of
wildfires, and improve the health of forest and woodland
ecosystems, in the interior West; and
(2) provide assistance to the Institutes to promote the use
of adaptive ecosystem management in accordance with paragraph
(1).
(b) Location.--
(1) Existing institutes.--The Secretary may designate an
institute in existence on the date of enactment of this Act
to serve as an Institute established under this Act.
(2) States.--Of the Institutes established under this Act,
the Secretary shall establish 1 Institute in each of the
States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.
(c) Duties.--Each Institute shall--
(1) plan, conduct, or promote research on the use of
adaptive ecosystem management to reduce the risk of
wildfires, and improve the health of forest and woodland
ecosystems, in the interior West, including--
(A) research that assists in providing information on the
use of adaptive ecosystem management practices to affected
entities; and
(B) research that will be useful in the development and
implementation of practical, science-based, ecological
restoration treatments for forest and woodland ecosystems
affected by wildfires; and
(2) provide the results of research described in paragraph
(1) to affected entities.
(d) Cooperation.--To increase and accelerate efforts to
restore forest ecosystem health and abate unnatural and
unwanted wildfires in the interior West, each Institute shall
cooperate with--
(1) researchers at colleges and universities in the States
that have a demonstrated capability to conduct research
described in subsection (c); and
(2) other organizations and entities in the interior West
(such as the Western Governors' Association).
(e) Annual Work Plans.--As a condition of the receipt of
funds made available under this Act, for each fiscal year,
each Institute shall submit to the Secretary, for review by
the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, an annual work plan that includes assurances,
satisfactory to the Secretaries, that the proposed work of
the Institute will serve the informational needs of affected
entities.

SEC. 6. COOPERATION BETWEEN INSTITUTES AND FEDERAL AGENCIES.

In carrying out this Act, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior--
(1) shall ensure that adequate financial and technical
assistance is provided to the Institutes to enable the
Institutes to carry out the purposes of the Institutes under
section 5, including prevention activities and ecological
restoration for wildfires and affected ecosystems;
(2) shall use information and expertise provided by the
Institutes;
(3) shall encourage Federal agencies to use, on a
cooperative basis, information and expertise provided by the
Institutes;
(4) shall encourage cooperation and coordination between
Federal programs relating to--
(A) ecological restoration;
(B) wildfire risk reduction; and
(C) wildfire management technologies;
(5) notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, United States
Code, may--
(A) enter into contracts, cooperative agreements,
interagency personal agreements to carry out this Act; and
(B) carry out other transactions under this Act;
(6) may accept funds from other Federal agencies to
supplement or fully fund grants made, and contracts entered
into, by the Secretaries;
(7) may support a program of internships for qualified
individuals at the undergraduate and graduate levels to carry
out the educational and training objectives of this Act;
(8) shall encourage professional education and public
information activities relating to the purposes of this Act;
and
(9) may promulgate such regulations as the Secretaries
determine are necessary to carry out this Act.

SEC. 7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION.

(a) In General.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Interior,
shall complete and submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a detailed evaluation of the programs and activities
of each Institute--
(1) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the
research, communication tools, and information transfer
activities of each Institutes meet the needs of affected
entities; and
(2) to determine whether continued provision of Federal
assistance to each Institute is warranted.
(b) Termination of Assistance.--If, as a result of an
evaluation under subsection (a), the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, determines
that an Institute does not qualify for further Federal
assistance under this Act, the Institute shall receive no
further Federal assistance under this Act until such time as
the qualifications of the Institute are reestablished to the
satisfaction of the Secretaries.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $15,000,000 for each fiscal year.

[[Page 23241]]

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-
reported amendment be agreed and the motion to reconsider be laid on
the table. Senator Bingaman has a substitute amendment at the desk. I
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered and agreed to,
the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; that the bill, as
amended, be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table; that there be no intervening action or debate, and
any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4976) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The bill (S. 2670), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

____________________

CAPE FOX LAND ENTITLEMENT ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2002

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 599, S. 2222.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2222) to resolve certain conveyances and provide
for alternative land selections under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act related to Cape Fox Corporation and
Sealaska Corporation, and for other purposes.

S. 2222

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

[SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

[Congress finds and declares that:
[(1) Cape Fox Corporation (Cape Fox) is an Alaska Native
Village Corporation organized pursuant to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act, as amended, (ANCSA) (43 U.S.C. 1601,
et seq.) for the Native Village of Saxman.
[(2) As with other ANCSA village corporations in Southeast
Alaska, Cape Fox was limited to selecting 23,040 acres under
section 16 of ANCSA.
[(3) Except for Cape Fox, all other Southeast Alaska ANCSA
village corporations were restricted from selecting within
two miles of a home rule city.
[(4) To protect the watersheds in the vicinity of
Ketchikan, Cape Fox was restricted from selecting lands
within six miles from the boundary of the home rule City of
Ketchikan under section 22(l) of ANCSA.
[(5) The six mile restriction damaged Cape Fox by
precluding the corporation from selecting valuable timber
lands, industrial sites, and other commercial property, not
only in its core township but in surrounding lands far
removed from Ketchikan and its watershed.
[(6) As a result of the six mile restriction, only the
remote mountainous northeast corner of Cape Fox's core
township, which is nonproductive and of no economic value,
was available for selection by the corporation. Selection of
this parcel was, however, mandated by section 16(b) of ANCSA.
[(7) Cape Fox's land selections were further limited by the
fact that the Annette Island Indian Reservation is within its
selection area, and those lands were unavailable for ANCSA
selection. Cape Fox is the only ANCSA village corporation
affected by this restriction.
[(8) Adjustment of Cape Fox's selections and conveyances of
land under ANCSA requires adjustment of Sealaska
Corporation's (Sealaska) selections and conveyances to avoid
creation of split estate between national forest surface and
Sealaska subsurface lands.
[(9) There is an additional need to resolve existing areas
of Sealaska/Tongass National Forest split estate.
[(10) The Tongass National Forest lands identified in this
Act for selection by and conveyance to Cape Fox and Sealaska,
subject to valid existing rights, provide a means to resolve
certain Cape Fox and Sealaska ANCSA land entitlement issues
without significantly affecting Tongass National Forest
resources, uses or values.
[(11) Adjustment of Cape Fox's selections and conveyances
of land under ANCSA through the provisions of this Act, and
the related adjustment of Sealaska's selections and
conveyances hereunder, are in accordance with the purposes of
ANCSA and otherwise in the public interest.

[SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE.

[This Act may be cited as the ``Cape Fox Land Entitlement
Adjustment Act of 2002''.

[SEC. 3. WAIVER OF CORE TOWNSHIP REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN NON-
PRODUCTIVE LANDS.

[Notwithstanding the provisions of section 16(b) of ANCSA,
Cape Fox Corporation (Cape Fox) shall not be required to
select or receive conveyance of approximately 160
nonproductive acres, more particularly described as within
the following described lands:
[T. 75 S., R. 91 E., C.R.M., section 1.

[SEC. 4. SELECTION OUTSIDE EXTERIOR SELECTION BOUNDARY.

[(a) In addition to lands made available for selection
under ANCSA and [notwithstanding any other provision of law,
within 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
Cape Fox may select, and, upon receiving written notice of
such selection, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey
approximately 99 acres of the surface estate of Tongass
National Forest lands outside Cape Fox's current exterior
selection boundary, specifically that parcel described as
follows:
[T. 73 S., R. 90 E., C.R.M.
[Section 33: SW portion of SE\1/4\: 38 acres.
[Section 33: NW portion of SE\1/4\: 13 acres.
[Section 33: SE\1/4\ of SE\1/4\: 40 acres.
[Section 33: SE\1/4\ of SW\1/4\: 8 acres.
[(b) Upon conveyance to Cape Fox of the surface estate to
the lands identified in subsection (a), the Secretary of the
Interior shall convey to Sealaska Corporation (Sealaska) the
subsurface estate to said lands.
[(c) The Secretary of the Interior shall complete the
interim conveyances to Cape Fox and Sealaska under this
section within 180 days after the Secretary of the Interior
receives notice of the Cape Fox selection under subsection
(a).

[SEC. 5. EXCHANGE OF LANDS BETWEEN CAPE FOX AND THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST.

[(a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall offer, and if
accepted by Cape Fox, shall exchange the Federal lands
described in subsection (b) for lands and interests therein
identified by Cape Fox under subsection (c).
[(b) The lands to be offered for exchange by the Secretary
of Agriculture are Tongass National Forest lands comprising
approximately 2,663.9 acres in T. 36 S., R. 62 E., C.R.M. and
T. 35 S., R. 62 E., C.R.M., as designated upon a map entitled
``Proposed Kensington Project Land Exchange'', dated March
18, 2002, and available for inspection in the Forest Service
Region 10 regional office in Juneau, Alaska. The Secretary of
Agriculture shall exclude from the lands offered all land
from the mean high tide mark to a point five hundred feet
inland of all marine shorelands in and adjacent to the waters
of Berners Bay; Provided, said exclusion shall not include
any lands in the Slate Creek Cove area within T. 36 S., R 62
E., C.R.M., section 1, W\1/2\ W\1/2\ or section 2, E\1/2\
E\1/2\.
[(c) Cape Fox shall be entitled, within 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, to identify for exchange lands
that the Secretary of Agriculture agrees are equal in value
to the Federal exchange lands described in subsection (b).
The lands shall be identified from lands previously conveyed
to Cape Fox comprising approximately 3,000 acres and
designated as parcels A-1 to A-3, B-1 to B-3, and C upon a
map entitled ``Cape Fox Corporation ANCSA Lands Exchange
Proposal'', dated March 15, 2002, and available for
inspection in the Forest Service Region 10 regional office in
Juneau, Alaska. Lands identified for exchange within each
parcel shall be contiguous to adjacent national forest lands
and in reasonably compact tracts. Cape Fox shall notify the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and Sealaska in
writing which lands and interests therein Cape Fox has
identified for exchange. The lands identified for exchange
shall include a public trail easement designated as D on said
map, unless the Secretary of Agriculture agrees otherwise.
[(d) The offer and conveyance of Federal lands to Cape Fox
in the exchange shall, notwithstanding section 14(f) of
ANCSA, be of the surface and subsurface estate, but subject
to valid existing rights and all other provisions of section
14(g) of ANCSA.
[(e) The Secretary of Agriculture shall attempt, within 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act, to enter into
an agreement with Cape Fox to consummate the exchange. The
lands identified in the exchange agreement shall be exchanged
by conveyance at the earliest possible date after the
exchange agreement is signed. Subject only to Cape Fox
agreement and conveyance to the United States of all its
right, title and interest in the Cape Fox lands included in
the exchange, the Secretary of Agriculture shall complete the
exchange. Subject only to said agreement and conveyance, the
Secretary of the Interior shall complete the interim
conveyance to Cape Fox of the Federal lands included in the
exchange within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.

[SEC. 6. EXCHANGE OF LANDS BETWEEN SEALASKA AND THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST.

[(a) Upon conveyance by Cape Fox of all its right, title
and interest in the Cape Fox

[[Page 23242]]

lands included in the exchange under section 5 and conveyance
and relinquishment by Sealaska Corporation of all its right,
title and interest in the lands described in subsection (c),
the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to Sealaska the
Federal lands identified for exchange under subsection (b).
Subject only to said Cape Fox and Sealaska conveyances and
relinquishment, the Secretary of the Interior shall complete
the interim conveyance to Sealaska of the Federal lands
identified for exchange within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
[(b) The lands to be exchanged to Sealaska are to be
selected by Sealaska from Tongass National Forest lands
comprising approximately 9,329 acres in T. 36 S., R. 62 E.,
C.R.M., T. 35 S., R. 62 E., C.R.M., and T. 34 S., Range 62
E., C.R.M., as designated upon a map entitled ``Proposed
Sealaska Corporation Land Exchange Kensington Lands Selection
Area,'' dated April, 2002, and available for inspection in
the Forest Service Region 10 regional office in Juneau,
Alaska. Sealaska shall be entitled, within 60 days after
receiving notice of the identification of Cape Fox exchange
lands under section 5(c), to identify for exchange to
Sealaska lands that the Secretary of Agriculture agrees are
equal in value to the Sealaska exchange lands described in
subsection (c). Lands identified for exchange to Sealaska
shall be in no more than two contiguous and reasonably
compact tracts that adjoin the lands described for exchange
to Cape Fox in section 5(b). Sealaska shall notify Cape Fox
and the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior in
writing which lands Sealaska has identified for exchange. The
exchange conveyance to Sealaska shall be of the surface and
subsurface estate in the lands identified, but subject to
valid existing rights and all other provisions of section
14(g) of ANCSA.
[(c) The lands and interests therein to be exchanged by
Sealaska are the subsurface estate underlying the Cape Fox
exchange lands described in section 5(c), an additional
approximately 2,506 acres of the subsurface estate underlying
Tongass National Forest surface estate, described in Interim
Conveyance No. 1673, and rights to an additional
approximately 2,698 acres of subsurface estate of Tongass
National Forest lands remaining to be conveyed to Sealaska
from Group 1, 2, and 3 lands set forth in the Sealaska
Corporation/United States Forest Service Split Estate
Exchange Agreement of November 26, 1991, at Schedule B, as
modified on January 20, 1995.
[(d) The exchange under this section shall be considered a
further modification of the Sealaska Corporation/United
States Forest Service Split Estate Exchange Agreement, as
ratified in section 17 of Public Law 102-415 (October 14,
1992).

[SEC. 7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

[(a) For the exchanges described in this Act, estimates of
value for exchange purposes shall be completed from available
information, and detailed appraisals of the exchange lands or
additional resource inventories shall not be required.
[(b) Any conveyance of federal surface or subsurface lands
to Cape Fox or Sealaska under this Act shall be considered,
for all purposes, land conveyed pursuant to ANCSA in partial
fulfillment of, respectively, the entitlement of Cape Fox or
Sealaska. The exchanges described in this Act shall be
considered, for all purposes, actions which lead to the
issuance of conveyances to Native Corporations pursuant to
ANCSA. Lands or interests therein transferred to the United
States under this Act shall become and be administered as
part of the Tongass National Forest.
[(c) Lands conveyed to or selected by the State of Alaska
under Public Law 85-508 (72 Stat. 339, 48 U.S.C. note prec.
21) shall not be eligible for selection or conveyance under
this Act without the consent of the State of Alaska.
[(d) The maps referred to in this Act shall be maintained
on file in the Forest Service Region 10 regional office in
Juneau, Alaska. The acreage cited in this section is
approximate, and if there is any discrepancy between cited
acreage and the land depicted on the specified maps, the maps
shall control. The maps do not constitute an attempt by the
United States to convey State or private land.

[SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

[There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
the Department of Agriculture such sums as may be necessary
for any required surveys, value estimation and related costs
of exchanging lands specified in this Act, and for habitat
and timber stand improvement, including thinning and pruning,
on lands acquired by the Department of Agriculture under this
Act.]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Cape Fox Land Entitlement
Adjustment Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that:
(1) Cape Fox Corporation (Cape Fox) is an Alaska Native
Village Corporation organized pursuant to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) for
the Native Village of Saxman.
(2) As with other ANCSA village corporations in Southeast
Alaska, Cape Fox was limited to selecting 23,040 acres under
section 16 of ANCSA.
(3) Except for Cape Fox, all other Southeast Alaska ANCSA
village corporations were restricted from selecting within
two miles of a home rule city.
(4) To protect the watersheds in the vicinity of Ketchikan,
Cape Fox was restricted from selecting lands within six miles
from the boundary of the home rule City of Ketchikan under
section 22(1) of ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1621(1)).
(5) The six mile restriction damaged Cape Fox by precluding
the corporation from selecting valuable timber lands,
industrial sites, and other commercial property, not only in
its core township but in surrounding lands far removed from
Ketchikan and its watershed.
(6) As a result of the six mile restriction, only the
remote mountainous northeast corner of Cape Fox's core
township, which is nonproductive and of no known economic
value, was available for selection by the corporation.
Selection of this parcel was, however, mandated by section
16(b) of ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1615(b)).
(7) Cape Fox's land selections were further limited by the
fact that the Annette Island Indian Reservation is within its
selection area, and those lands were unavailable for ANCSA
selection. Cape Fox is the only ANCSA village corporation
affected by this restriction.
(8) Adjustment of Cape Fox's selections and conveyances of
land under ANCSA requires adjustment of Sealaska
Corporation's (Sealaska) selections and conveyances to avoid
creation of additional split estate between National Forest
System surface lands and Sealaska subsurface lands.
(9) There is an additional need to resolve existing areas
of Sealaska/Tongass split estate, in which Sealaska holds
title or conveyance rights to several thousand acres of
subsurface lands that encumber management of Tongass National
Forest surface lands.
(10) The Tongass National Forest lands identified in this
Act for selection by and conveyance to Cape Fox and Sealaska,
subject to valid existing rights, provide a means to resolve
some of the Cape Fox and Sealaska ANCSA land entitlement
issues without significantly affecting Tongass National
Forest resources, uses or values.
(11) Adjustment of Cape Fox's selections and conveyances of
land under ANCSA through the provisions of this Act, and the
related adjustment of Sealaska's selections and conveyances
hereunder, are in accordance with the purposes of ANCSA and
otherwise in the public interest.

SEC. 3. WAIVER OF CORE TOWNSHIP REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN
LANDS.

SEC. 4. SELECTION OUTSIDE EXTERIOR SELECTION BOUNDARY.

(a) Selection and Conveyance of Surface Estate.--In
addition to lands made available for selection under ANCSA,
within 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
Cape Fox may select, and, upon receiving written notice of
such selection, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey
approximately 99 acres of the surface estate of Tongass
National Forest lands outside Cape Fox's current exterior
selection boundary, specifically that parcel described as
follows:
(1) T. 73 S., R. 90 E., C.R.M.
(2) Section 33: SW portion of SE \1/4\: 38 acres.
(3) Section 33: NW portion of SE \1/4\: 13 acres.
(4) Section 33: SE \1/4\ of SE \1/4\: 40 acres.
(5) Section 33: SE \1/4\ of SW \1/4\: 8 acres.
(b) Conveyance of Subsurface Estate.--Upon conveyance to
Cape Fox of the surface estate to the lands identified in
subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to
Sealaska the subsurface estate to the lands.
(c) Timing.--The Secretary of the Interior shall complete
the interim conveyances to Cape Fox and Sealaska under this
section within 180 days after the Secretary of the Interior
receives notice of the Cape Fox selection under subsection
(a).

SEC. 5. EXCHANGE OF LANDS BETWEEN CAPE FOX AND THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST.

[[Page 23243]]

Juneau, Alaska. Lands identified for exchange within each
parcel shall be contiguous to adjacent National Forest System
lands and in reasonably compact tracts. The lands identified
for exchange shall include a public trail easement designated
as D on said map, unless the Secretary of Agriculture agrees
otherwise. The value of the easement shall be included in
determining the total value of lands exchanged to the United
States.
(d) Valuation of Exchange Lands.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall determine whether the lands identified by
Cape Fox under subsection (c) are equal in value to the lands
described in subsection (b). If the lands identified under
subsection (c) are determined to have insufficient value to
equal the value of the lands described in subsection (b),
Cape Fox and the Secretary shall mutually identify additional
Cape Fox lands for exchange sufficient to equalize the value
of lands conveyed to Cape Fox. Such land shall be contiguous
to adjacent National Forest System lands and in reasonably
compact tracts.
(e) Conditions.--The offer and conveyance of Federal lands
to Cape Fox in the exchange shall, notwithstanding section
14(f) of ANCSA, be of the surface and subsurface estate, but
subject to valid existing rights and all other provisions of
section 14(g) of ANCSA.
(f) Timing.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall attempt,
within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to
enter into an agreement with Cape Fox to consummate the
exchange consistent with this Act. The lands identified in
the exchange agreement shall be exchanged by conveyance at
the earliest possible date after the exchange agreement is
signed. Subject only to conveyance from Cape Fox to the
United States of all its rights, title and interests in the
Cape Fox lands included in the exchange consistent with this
Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall complete the interim
conveyance to Cape Fox of the federal lands included in the
exchange within 180 days after the execution of the exchange
agreement by Cape Fox and the Secretary of Agriculture.

SEC. 6. EXCHANGE OF LANDS BETWEEN SEALASKA AND THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST.

(a) General.--Upon conveyance of the Cape Fox lands
included in the exchange under section 5 and conveyance and
relinquishment by Sealaska in accordance with this Act of the
lands and interests in lands described in subsection (c), the
Secretary of the Interior shall convey to Sealaska the
federal lands identified for exchange under subsection (b).
(b) Lands To Be Exchanged to Sealaska.--The lands to be
exchanged to Sealaska are to be selected by Sealaska from
Tongass National Forest lands comprising approximately 9,329
acres in T. 36 S., R. 62 E., C.R.M., T. 35 S., R. 62 E.,
C.R.M., and T. 34 S., Range 62 E., C.R.M., as designated upon
a map entitled ``Proposed Sealaska Corporation Land Exchange
Kensington Lands Selection Area,'' dated April 2002 and
available for inspection in the Forest Service Region 10
Regional Office in Juneau, Alaska. Within 60 days after
receiving notice of the identification by Cape Fox of the
exchange lands under Section 5(c), Sealaska shall be entitled
to identify in writing to the Secretaries of Agriculture and
the Interior the lands that Sealaska selects to receive in
exchange for the Sealaska lands described in subsection (c).
Lands selected by Sealaska shall be in no more than two
contiguous and reasonably compact tracts that adjoin the
lands described for exchange to Cape Fox in section 5(b). The
Secretary of Agriculture shall determine whether these
selected lands are equal in value to the lands described in
subsection (c) and may adjust the amount of selected lands in
order to reach agreement with Sealaska regarding equal value.
The exchange conveyance to Sealaska shall be of the surface
and subsurface estate in the lands selected and agreed to by
the Secretary but subject to valid existing rights and all
other provisions of section 14(g) of ANCSA.
(c) Lands To Be Exchanged to the United States.--The lands
and interests therein to be exchanged by Sealaska are the
subsurface estate underlying the Cape Fox exchange lands
described in section 5(c), an additional approximately 2,506
acres of the subsurface estate underlying Tongass National
Forest surface estate, described in Interim Conveyance No.
1673, and rights to be additional approximately 2,698 acres
of subsurface estate of Tongass National Forest lands
remaining to be conveyed to Sealaska from Group 1, 2 and 3
lands as set forth in the Sealaska Corporation/United States
Forest Service Split Estate Exchange Agreement of November
26, 1991, at Schedule B, as modified on January 20, 1995.
(d) Timing.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall attempt,
within 90 days after receipt of the selection of lands by
Sealaska under subsection (b), to enter into an agreement
with Sealaska to consummate the exchange consistent with this
Act. The lands identified in the exchange agreement shall be
exchanged by conveyance at the earliest possible date after
the exchange agreement is signed. Subject only to the Cape
Fox and Sealaska conveyances and relinquishments described in
subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior shall complete
the interim conveyance to Sealaska of the federal lands
selected for exchange within 180 days after execution of the
agreement by Sealaska and the Secretary of Agriculture.
(e) Modification of Agreement.--The executed exchange
agreement under this section shall be considered a further
modification of the Sealaska Corporation/United States Forest
Service Split Estate Exchange Agreement, as ratified in
section 17 of Public Law 102-415 (October 14, 1992).

SEC. 7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

(a) Equal Value Requirement.--The exchanges described in
this Act shall be of equal value. Cape Fox and Sealaska shall
have the opportunity to present to the Secretary of
Agriculture estimates of value of exchange lands with
supporting information.
(b) Title.--Cape Fox and Sealaska shall convey and provide
evidence of title satisfactory to the Secretary of
Agriculture for their respective lands to be exchanged to the
United States under this Act, subject only to exceptions,
reservations and encumbrances in the interim conveyance or
patent from the United States or otherwise acceptable to the
Secretary of Agriculture.
(c) Hazardous Substances.--Cape Fox, Sealaska, and the
United States each shall not be subject to liability for the
presence of any hazardous substance in land or interests in
land solely as a result of any conveyance or transfer of the
land or interests under this Act.
(d) Effect on ANCSA Selections.--Any conveyance of federal
surface or subsurface lands to Cape Fox or Sealaska under
this Act shall be considered, for all purposes, land conveyed
pursuant to ANCSA. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
change the total acreage of land entitlement of Cape Fox or
Sealaska under ANCSA. Cape Fox and Sealaska shall remain
charged for any lands they exchange under this Act and any
lands conveyed pursuant to section 4, but shall not be
charged for any lands received under section 5 or section 6.
The exchanges described in this Act shall be considered, for
all purposes, actions which lead to the issuance of
conveyances to Native Corporations pursuant to ANCSA. Lands
or interests therein transferred to the United States under
this Act shall become and be administered as part of the
Tongass National Forest.
(e) Effect on Statehood Selections.--Lands conveyed to or
selected by the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood
Act (Public Law 85-508; 72 Stat. 339; 48 U.S.C. note prec.
21) shall not be eligible for selection or conveyance under
this Act without the consent of the State of Alaska.
(f) Maps.--The maps referred to in this Act shall be
maintained on file in the Forest Service Region 10 Regional
Office in Juneau, Alaska. The acreages cited in this Act are
approximate, and if there is any discrepancy between cited
acreage and the land depicted on the specified maps, the maps
shall control. The maps do not constitute an attempt by the
United States to convey State or private land.
(g) Easements.--Notwithstanding section 17(b) of ANCSA,
federal lands conveyed to Cape Fox or Sealaska pursuant to
this Act shall be subject only to the reservation of public
easements mutually agreed to and set forth in the exchange
agreements executed under this Act. The easements shall
include easements necessary for access across the lands
conveyed under this Act for use of national forest or other
public lands.
(h) Old Growth Reserves.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall add an equal number of acres to old growth reserves on
the Tongass National Forest as are transferred out of Federal
ownership as a result of this Act.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Department of Agriculture.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture such sums as may
be necessary for value estimation and related costs of
exchanging lands specified in this Act, and for road
rehabilitation, habitat and timber stand improvement,
including thinning and pruning, on lands acquired by the
United States under this Act.
(b) Department of the Interior.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior such sums as
may be necessary for land surveys and conveyances pursuant to
this Act.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand Senator Bingaman has a
substitute amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid
on the table; that the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be
agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that the
bill, as amended, be read three times and passed, the motion to
reconsider be laid on the table; that there be no intervening action or
debate, and that any statements related thereto be printed in the
Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 4977) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2222), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

____________________

FREMONT-MADISON CONVEYANCE ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed

[[Page 23244]]

to the consideration of Calendar No. 645, S. 2556.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2556) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to convey certain facilities to the Fremont-Madison
Irrigation District in the State of Idaho.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause
and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
[Strike the part shown in black brackets and insert the part shown in
Italic.]

S. 2556

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 ``Fremont-Madison Conveyance
Act''.

[SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

[In this Act:
[(1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the
memorandum of agreement between the Secretary and the
District identified as Contract No. 1425-01-MA-10-3310, and
dated September 13, 2001.
[(2) District.--The term ``District'' means the Fremont-
Madison Irrigation District, an irrigation district organized
under State law.
[(3) Facility.--The term ``facility'' means--
[(A) the Cross Cut Diversion Dam, the Cross Cut Canal, and
the Teton Exchange Wells in the State;
[(B) any canal, lateral, drain, or other component of the
water distribution and drainage system that, on the date of
enactment of this Act, is operated or maintained by the
District to deliver water to and drainage of water from land
within the boundaries of the District; and
[(C) with respect to the Teton Exchange Wells--
[(i) Idaho Department of Water Resources permit number 22-
7022, including drilled wells under the permit, as described
in the Agreement; and
[(ii) any appurtenant equipment.
[(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
[(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Idaho.

[SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF FACILITIES.

[(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, but not later than September 13, 2003,
subject to applicable laws and in accordance with the
Agreement, the Secretary shall convey to the District all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
facilities.
[(b) Consideration.--
[(1) In general.--In exchange for the conveyance of the
facilities under subsection (a), the District shall pay to
the Secretary an amount equal to the lesser of--
[(A) the net value of any remaining obligations owed to the
United States by the District with respect to the facilities
conveyed, as determined on the date of the conveyance; or
[(B) $280,000.
[(2) Administrative costs.--
[(A) In general.--In addition to amounts paid to the
Secretary under paragraph (1), the District shall pay to the
Secretary, subject to subparagraph (B), any administrative
costs incurred by the Secretary in conveying the facilities,
including the costs of carrying out a review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
[(B) Limitation.--The District shall pay to the Secretary
not more than $40,000 in administrative costs under
subparagraph (A).
[(3) Deposit.--Amounts received by the Secretary under
paragraph (1) or (2) shall be deposited in the reclamation
fund established under the first section of the Act of June
17, 1902 (43 U.S.C. 391).
[(c) Condition.--As a condition of the conveyance under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall, not later than the date
on which the facilities are conveyed, comply with any
applicable requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

[SEC. 4. LIABILITY.

[(a) In General.--Beginning on the date on which the
facilities are conveyed under section 3(a), the United States
shall not be liable, except as provided in subsection (b),
under any Federal or State law for damage from any act,
omission, or occurrence relating to the facilities.
[(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the United
States shall be liable for damage caused by acts of
negligence committed by the United States or by an employee,
agent, or contractor of the United States, before the date on
which the facilities are conveyed under section 3(a).
[(c) Federal Tort Claims.--Nothing in this section
increases the liability of the United States beyond that
provided in chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code
(commonly known as the ``Federal Tort Claims Act'') as in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

[SEC. 5. WATER SUPPLY TO DISTRICT LAND.

[(a) In General.--The Secretary shall increase, by a
quantity equal to the number of acres that are in the
District on the date of enactment of this Act, the number of
acres in the District that are eligible to receive water from
the Minidoka Project and the Teton Basin Project.
[(b) Extension of Water Service Contract.--The water
service contract between the Secretary and the District,
numbered 7-07-10-W0179, and dated September 16, 1977, is
extended until the date on which the conditions of this Act
are fulfilled, as determined by the Secretary.
[(c) Effect.--This section does not authorize the use of
any additional water from a project carried out under Federal
reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388,
chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of
that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.)) beyond that which is
authorized on the date of enactment of this Act under--
[(1) water storage contracts; and
[(2) State water law.

[SEC. 6. EFFECT.

[Except as specifically provided in this Act, nothing in
this Act affects--
[(1) the rights of any person with respect to the
facilities; or
[(2) any contract executed by the United States or under
State law with respect to any right of an irrigation district
to use water made available by the facilities conveyed under
this Act.

[SEC. 7. REPORT.

[If the Secretary has not conveyed the facilities to the
District by the date that is 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, not later than
that date, submit to Congress a report that--
[(1) explains the reasons why the conveyance has not been
completed; and
[(2) specifies the date by which the conveyance is proposed
to be completed.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Fremont-Madison Conveyance
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) District.--The term ``District'' means the Fremont-
Madison Irrigation District, an irrigation district organized
under the law of the State of Idaho.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF FACILITIES.

(a) Conveyance Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall convey to the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District,
Idaho, pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of agreement
(MOA) between the District and the Secretary (Contract No.
1425-0901-09MA-0910-093310), all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to the canals, laterals, drains,
and other components of the water distribution and drainage
system that is operated or maintained by the District for
delivery of water to and drainage of water from lands within
the boundaries of the District as they exist upon the date of
enactment of this Act, consistent with section 8.
(b) Report.--If the Secretary has not completed any
conveyance required under this Act by September 13, 2003, the
Secretary shall, by no later than that date, submit a report
to the Congress explaining the reasons that conveyance has
not been completed and stating the date by which the
conveyance will be completed.

SEC. 4. COSTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall require, as a
condition of the conveyance under section 3, that the
District pay the administrative costs of the conveyance and
related activities, including the costs of any review
required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as described in Contract No. 1425-
0901-09MA-0910-093310.
(b) Value of Facilities To Be Transferred.--In addition to
subsection (a) the Secretary shall also require, as a
condition of the conveyance under section 2, that the
District pay to the United States the lesser of the net
present value of the remaining obligations owed by the
District to the United States with respect to the facilities
conveyed, or $280,000. Amounts received by the United States
under this subsection shall be deposited into the Reclamation
Fund.

SEC. 5. TETON EXCHANGE WELLS.

(a) Contracts and Permit.--In conveying the Teton Exchange
Wells referenced in section 3, the Secretary shall also
convey to the District--
(1) Idaho Department of Water Resources permit number 22-
097022, including drilled wells under the permit, as
described in Contract No. 1425-0901-09MA-0910-093310; and
(2) all equipment appurtenant to such wells.
(b) Extension of Water Service Contract.--The water service
contract between the Secretary and the District (Contract No.
7-0907-0910-09W0179, dated September 16, 1977) is hereby
extended and shall continue in full force and effect until
all conditions described in this Act are fulfilled.

SEC. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Prior to conveyance the Secretary shall complete all
environmental reviews and analyses as set forth in the MOA.

SEC. 7. LIABILITY.

Effective on the date of the conveyance the United States
shall not be liable for damages of

[[Page 23245]]

any kind arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence
relating to the conveyed facilities, except for damages
caused by acts of negligence committed by the United States
or by its employees, agents, or contractors prior to the date
of conveyance. Nothing in this section may increase the
liability of the United States beyond that currently provided
in chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.

SEC. 8. WATER SUPPLY TO DISTRICT LANDS.

The acreage within the District eligible to receive water
from the Minidoka Project and the Teton Basin Projects is
increased to reflect the number of acres within the District
as of the date of enactment of this Act, including lands
annexed into the District prior to enactment of this Act as
contemplated by the Teton Basin Project. The increase in
acreage does not alter deliveries authorized under their
existing water storage contracts and as allowed by State
water law.

SEC. 9. DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLANNING.

Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, in collaboration
with stakeholders in the Henry's Fork watershed, the
Secretary shall initiate a drought management planning
process to address all water uses, including irrigation and
the wild trout fisherey, in the Henry's Fork watershed.
Within 18 months of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall report to Congress with a final drought management
plan.

SEC. 10. EFFECT.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in this Act, nothing in
this Act affects--
(1) the rights of any person; or
(2) any right in existence on the date of enactment of this
Act of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Reservation to water based on a treaty, compact, executive
order, agreement, the decision in Winters v. United States,
207 U.S. 564 (1908) (commonly known as the ``Winters
Doctrine''), or law.
(b) Conveyances.--Any conveyance under this Act shall not
affect or abrogate any provision of any contract executed by
the United States or State law regarding any irrigation
district's right to use water developed in the facilities
conveyed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation
to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal agency
heads to carry out activities during fiscal years 2003 through 2005 to
implement the Calfed Bay-Delta Program. This program is of tremendous
importance to my home State of California. Its mission is to develop
and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that will improve water
management for the Bay-Delta and restore its ecological health. The
program has several goals: improving water supply reliability,
including additional water storage and conveyance; protecting drinking
water quality; restoring ecological health; and protecting Delta
levees.
Mr. President, on August 28, 2000, the Federal Government and the
State of California entered into a Record of Decision (ROD) which
selects a preferred program alternative for the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program, setting forth the overall direction of this program. Under the
ROD, the Calfed agencies (comprised of both Federal and State agencies)
will proceed with the specific actions in Stage 1, which covers the
first 7 years of this program. This legislation authorizes those Stage
1 actions which are to take place in fiscal years 2003 through 2005 for
which there are appropriations. A fundamental tenet of this program is
that all program elements proceed in a balanced manner. The Record of
Decision explicitly requires balance in carrying out the program.
While the provision that the Senate is considering today is scaled
back from the bills that I have previously introduced on this matter,
the intent of the legislation is the same: to provide that the Calfed
Program be carried out in a balanced manner consistent with the Record
of Decision of August 28, 2000, including the principles and schedules
stated therein, and other applicable law. I want to clarify that this
provision in no way affects or modifies any other authority that an
agency has to carry out activities related to, or in furtherance of,
the Calfed Program.
Finally, this legislation would provide authority to the Secretary of
the Interior and the other Federal agency heads identified in the ROD
to participate in the Calfed Bay-Delta Authority established by the
California Bay-Delta Authority Act, to the extent not inconsistent with
other law.
Mr. President, early next Congress, Senator Kyl and I plan to
introduce additional Calfed authorizing legislation on which we have
collaborated that would provide greater specificity. I thank Senator
Kyl for his willingness to work with me on this important matter.
Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is favorably considering
this legislation today. The Calfed Bay-Delta Program enjoys broad-based
support in California and is vital to the future of the State.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased today that the Senate is
passing legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and
other Federal agency heads to participate in the implementation of the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
For decades, water allocation in California was conducted through
endless appeals, lawsuits, and divisive ballot initiatives. Such
battles were painful and they prevented us from finding real solutions
to our state's very real water problems. In 1994, a new state-federal
partnership program called CALFED promised a better way. Through a plan
to provide reliable, clean water to farms, businesses, and millions of
Californians while at the same time restoring our fish, wildlife and
environment, CALFED was committed to identifying a solution that all
water users could share.
Over the years, what has made CALFED work is that it employs a
consensus approach that balances the needs of the various interests
competing for California's scarce water resources. This balance is most
clearly articulated in the Record of Decision (ROD) that was agreed to
on August 28, 2000 by the Federal Government and the State of
California. The CALFED ROD outlines clearly the CALFED Bay-Delta
Programs' goals and repeatedly reiterates the need to move forward with
these goals in a balanced manner.
This legislation authorizes the federal agencies to undertake the
actions and activities identified in the ROD. It is our intent that all
activities are to be implemented in a manner consistent with the ROD.
This legislation is not intended to authorize activities, such as major
construction projects, that would otherwise require completion of
feasibility studies, permits under section 404(a) of the Clean Water
Act and other applicable laws, and project-specific authorizations. In
addition, the legislation requires that federal participation in the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program proceed in a way that is consistent with other
laws.
I want to particularly thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for her
continued leadership on this legislation. This bill will help insure
that the CALFED Bay-Delta Program continues to play a vital role in
meeting California's water needs.

Amendment No. 4978

Mr. REID. Senator Bingaman has a substitute at the desk. I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, the committee-reported substitute,
as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon table, with no intervening action or
debate, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in
the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 4978) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The committee amendment in he nature of a substitute, as amended, was
agreed to.
The bill (S. 2556), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

____________________

CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS IN THE STATE OF ALASKA TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 640, S. 1816.

[[Page 23246]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1816) to provide for the continuation of higher
education through the conveyance of certain public lands in
the State of Alaska to the University of Alaska, and for
other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed
in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The bill (S. 1816) was read the third time and passed, as follows:

S. 1816

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the University of Alaska is the successor to and the
beneficiary of all Federal grants and conveyances to or for
the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines;
(2) under the Acts of March 4, 1915, 38 Stat. 1214, and
January 21, 1929, 45 Stat. 1091, the United States granted to
the Territory of Alaska certain Federal lands for the
University of Alaska;
(3) the Territory did not receive most of the land intended
to be conveyed by the Act of March 4, 1915, before repeal of
that Act by section 6(k) of the Alaska Statehood Act (Public
Law 85-508, 72 Stat. 339);
(4) only one other State land grant college in the United
States has obtained a smaller land grant from the Federal
Government than has the University of Alaska, and all land
grant colleges in the western States of the United States
have obtained substantially larger land grants than has the
University of Alaska;
(5) an academically strong and financially secure state
university system is a cornerstone to the long-term
development of a stable population and to a healthy, diverse
economy and is in the national interest;
(6) the Federal Government now desires to acquire certain
lands for addendum to various conservation units;
(7) the national interest is served by transferring certain
Federal lands to the University of Alaska which will be able
to use and develop the resources of such lands and by
returning certain lands held by the University of Alaska
located within certain Federal conservation system units to
Federal ownership; and
(8) the University of Alaska holds valid legal title to and
is responsible for management of lands transferred by the
United States to the Territory and State of Alaska for the
University and an exchange of lands for lands that are
capable of producing revenues to support the education
objectives of the original grants is consistent with and in
furtherance of the purposes and terms of, and thus not in
violation of, the Federal grant of such lands.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to fulfill the original commitment of Congress to
establish the University of Alaska as a land grant university
with holdings sufficient to facilitate operation and
maintenance of a university system for the inhabitants of the
State of Alaska; and
(2) to acquire from the University of Alaska lands it holds
within Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas
to further the purposes for which those areas were
established.

SEC. 2. LAND GRANT.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject
to valid existing rights, the University of Alaska
(``University'') is entitled to select up to 250,000 acres of
Federal lands or interests in lands in or adjacent to Alaska
as a land grant. The Secretary of the Interior
(``Secretary'') shall promptly convey to the University the
Federal lands selected and approved in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
(b)(1) Within forty-eight (48) months of the enactment of
this Act, the University of Alaska may submit to the
Secretary a description of lands or interests in lands for
conveyance. The initial selection may be less than or exceed
250,000 acres and the University may add or delete lands or
interests in lands, or until 250,000 patented acres have been
conveyed pursuant to this Act, except that the total of land
selected and conveyed shall not exceed 275,000 areas at any
time.
(2) The University may select lands validly selected but
not conveyed to the State of Alaska or to a Native
Corporation organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), except that these lands or
interests in lands may not be approved or convey to the
University unless the State of Alaska or the Native
Corporation relinquishes its selection in writing.
(3) The University may not make selections within a
conversation system unit, as defined in the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101), or in the
Tongass National Forest except within lands classified as LUD
III or LUD IV by the United States Forest Service and limited
to areas of second growth timber where timber harvest
occurred after January 1, 1952.
(4) The University may make selections within the National
Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (``NPRA''), except that--
(A) no selection may be made within an area withdrawn for
village selection pursuant to section 11(a) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act for the Native villages of
Atkasook, Barrow, Nuiqsit and Wainwright;
(B) no selection may be made in the Teshekpuk Lake Special
Management Area as depicted on a map that is included in the
final environmental impact statement for the Northeast NPRA
dated October 7, 1998; and
(C) No selections may be made within those portions of NPRA
north of latitude 69 degrees North in excess of 92,000 acres
and no selection may be made within such area during the two
year period extending from the date of enactment of this Act.
The Secretary shall attempt to conclude an agreement with the
University of Alaska and the State of Alaska providing for
sharing NPRA leasing revenues within the two year period. If
the Secretary concludes such an agreement, the Secretary
shall transmit it to the Congress, and no selection may be
made within such area during the three year period extending
from the date of enactment of this Act. If legislation has
not been enacted within three years of the date of enactment
of this Act approving the agreement, the University of Alaska
may make selections within such area. An agreement shall
provide for the University of Alaska to receive a portion of
annual revenues from mineral leases within NPRA in lieu of
any lands selections within NPRA north of latitude 69 degrees
North, but not to exceed ten percent of such revenues or $9
million annually, whichever is less.
(5) Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a selection,
the Secretary shall publish notice of the selection in the
Federal Register. The notice shall identify the lands or
interest in lands included in the selection and provide for a
period for public comment not to exceed sixty (60) days.
(6) Within six months of the receipt of such a selection,
the Secretary shall accept or reject the selection and shall
promptly notify the University of his decision, including the
reasons for any rejection. A selection that is not rejected
within six months of notification to the Secretary is deemed
approved.
(7) The Secretary may reject a selection if the Secretary
finds that the selection would have a significant adverse
impact on the ability of the Secretary to comply with the
land entitlement provisions of the Alaska Statehood Act or
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601) or
if the Secretary finds that the selection would have a
direct, significant and irreversible adverse effect on a
conservation system unit as defined in the Alaska National
Interest Conservation Act.
(8) The Secretary shall promptly publish notice of an
acceptance or rejection of a selection in the Federal
Register.
(9) An action taken pursuant to this Act is not a major
Federal action within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of
Public Law 91-190 (83 Stat. 852, 853).
(c) The University may not select Federal lands or
interests in lands reserved for military purposes or reserved
for the administration of a Federal agency, unless the
Secretary of Defense or the head of the affected agency
agrees to relinquish the lands or interest in lands.
(d) The University may select additional lands or interest
in lands to replace lands rejected by the Secretary.
(e) Lands or interests in lands shall be segregated and
unavailable for selection by and conveyance to the State of
Alaska or a Native Corporation and shall not be otherwise
encumbered or disposed of by the United States pending
completion of the selection process.
(f) The University may enter selected lands on a non-
exclusive basis to assess the oil, gas, mineral and other
resource potential therein and to exercise due diligence
regarding making a final selection. The University, and its
delegates or agents, shall be permitted to engage in
assessment techniques including, but not limited to, core
drilling to assess the metalliferous or other values, and
surface geological exploration and seismic exploration for
oil and gas, except that exploratory drilling of oil and gas
wells shall not be permitted.
(g) Within one year of the Secretary's approval of a
selection, the University may make a final decision whether
to accept these lands or interests in lands and shall notify
the Secretary of its decision. The Secretary shall publish
notice of any such acceptance or rejection in the Federal
Register within six months. If the University has decided to
accept the selection, effective on the date that the notice
of such acceptance is published, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in the described selection
shall vest in the University.
(h) Lakes, rivers and streams contained within final
selections shall be meandered

[[Page 23247]]

and lands submerged thereunder shall be conveyed in
accordance with section 901 of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (94 Stat. 2371, 2430; 43 U.S.C. 1631).
(i) Upon completion of a survey of lands or interest in
lands subject to an interim approval, the Secretary shall
promptly issue patent to such lands or interests in lands.
(j) The Secretary of Agriculture and the heads of other
Federal departments and agencies shall promptly take such
actions as may be necessary to assist the Secretary in
implementing this Act.

SEC. 3. RELINQUISHMENT OF CERTAIN UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
HOLDINGS.

(a) As a condition to any grant provided by section 2 of
this Act, the University shall begin to convey to the
Secretary those lands listed in ``The University of Alaska's
Inholding Reconveyance Document'' and dated November 13,
2001.
(b) The University shall begin conveyance of the lands
described in section 3(a) of this Act upon approval of
selected lands and shall convey to the Secretary a percentage
of these lands approximately equal to that percentage of the
total grant represented by the approval. The University shall
not be required to convey to the Secretary any lands other
than those referred to in section 3(a) of this Act. The
Secretary shall accept quitclaim deeds from the University
for these lands.

SEC. 4. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

The University of Alaska may bring an appropriate action,
including an action in the nature of mandamus, against the
Department of the Interior, naming the Secretary, for
violation of this Act or for review of a final agency
decision taken under this Act. An action pursuant to this
section may be filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Alaska within two (2) years of the alleged
violation or final agency decision and such court shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over any such suit.

SEC. 5. STATE MATCHING GRANT.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject
to valid existing rights, within forty-eight (48) months of
receiving evidence of ownership from the State, the
University may, in addition to the grant made available in
section 2 of this Act, select up to 250,000 acres of Federal
lands or interests in lands in or adjacent to Alaska to be
conveyed on an acre-for-acre basis as a matching grant for
any lands received from the State of Alaska after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Selections of lands or interests in lands pursuant to
this section shall be in parcels of 25,000 acres or greater.
(c) Grants made pursuant to this section shall be
separately subject to the terms and conditions applicable to
grants made under section 2 of this Act.

____________________

MOUNT NEBO WILDERNESS BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 673, H.R. 451.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 451) to make certain adjustments to the
boundaries of the Mount Nebo Wilderness Area, and for other
purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, that any statements relating to the measure be printed in
the Record, with no intervening action or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The bill (H.R. 451) was read the third time and passed.

____________________

REINSTATE AND EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
OF A HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 663, S. 2872.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will state the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2872) to reinstate the extended deadline for
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in
the State of Illinois.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider laid upon the
table, that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the
Record, with no intervening action or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The bill (S. 2872) was read the third time and passed, as follows:

S. 2872

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION PROJECT.

Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise
apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project
numbered 11214, the Commission may, at the request of the
licensee for the project, and after reasonable notice, in
accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public
interest requirements of that section and the Commission's
procedures under that section--
(1) reinstate the license for the construction of the
project as of the effective date of the surrender of the
license; and
(2) extend the time period during which the licensee is
required to commence the construction of the project for 3
consecutive 2-year periods beyond the date that is 4 years
after the date of issuance of the license.

____________________

GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK LAND EXCHANGE ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a
message from the House on S. 1105.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a message
from the House as follows:

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1105) entitled
``An Act to provide for the expeditious completion of the
acquisition of State of Wyoming lands within the boundaries
of Grand Teton National Park, and for other purposes'', do
pass with the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

TITLE I--GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK LAND EXCHANGE

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 102. ACQUISITION OF STATE LANDS.

(a) Authorization to Acquire Lands.--The Secretary is
authorized to acquire approximately 1,406 acres of State
lands within the exterior boundaries of Grand Teton National
Park, as generally depicted on the map referenced in section
101(4), by any one or a combination of the following--
(1) donation;
(2) purchase with donated or appropriated funds; or
(3) exchange of Federal lands in the State of Wyoming that
are identified for disposal under approved land use plans in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act under section 202
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1712) that are of equal value to the State lands
acquired in the exchange.
(b) Identification of Lands for Exchange.--In the event
that the Secretary or the Governor determines that the
Federal lands eligible for exchange under subsection (a)(3)
are not sufficient or acceptable for the acquisition of all
the State lands identified in section 101(4), the Secretary
shall identify other Federal lands or interests therein in
the State of Wyoming for possible exchange and shall identify
such lands or interests together with their estimated value
in a report to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
of the United States Senate and the Committee on Resources of
the House of Representatives. Such lands or interests shall
not be available for exchange unless authorized by an Act of
Congress enacted after the date of submission of the report.

SEC. 103. VALUATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL INTERESTS.

(a) Agreement on Appraiser.--If the Secretary and the
Governor are unable to agree on the value of any Federal
lands eligible for exchange under section 102(a)(3) or State
lands, then the Secretary and the Governor may select a
qualified appraiser to conduct an appraisal of those lands.
The purchase or exchange under section 102(a) shall be
conducted based on the values determined by the appraisal.

[[Page 23248]]

(b) No Agreement on Appraiser.--If the Secretary and the
Governor are unable to agree on the selection of a qualified
appraiser under subsection (a), then the Secretary and the
Governor shall each designate a qualified appraiser. The two
designated appraisers shall select a qualified third
appraiser to conduct the appraisal with the advice and
assistance of the two designated appraisers. The purchase or
exchange under section 102(a) shall be conducted based on the
values determined by the appraisal.
(c) Appraisal Costs.--The Secretary and the State of
Wyoming shall each pay one-half of the appraisal costs under
subsections (a) and (b).

SEC. 104. ADMINISTRATION OF STATE LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE
UNITED STATES.

The State lands conveyed to the United States under section
102(a) shall become part of Grand Teton National Park. The
Secretary shall manage such lands under the Act of August 25,
1916 (commonly known as the ``National Park Service Organic
Act'') and other laws, rules, and regulations applicable to
Grand Teton National Park.

SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for the purposes of this title.

TITLE II--JAMES V. HANSEN SHOSHONE NATIONAL TRAIL

SEC. 201. SHOSHONE NATIONAL TRAIL.

(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
(1) Appropriate secretary.--The term ``appropriate
Secretary'' means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture when referring to land
under the jurisdiction of that Secretary; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior when referring to any
land except that under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Agriculture.
(2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``James
V. Hansen Shoshone National Trail'' and dated April 5, 2002.
(3) Trail.--The term ``Trail'' means the system of trails
designated in subsection (b) as the James V. Hansen Shoshone
National Trail.
(b) Designation.--The trails that are open to motorized use
pursuant to applicable Federal and State law and are depicted
on the Map as the Shoshone National Trail are hereby
designated as the ``James V. Hansen Shoshone National
Trail''.
(c) Management.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
title, the appropriate Secretary shall manage the Trail
consistent with the requirements of a national recreation
trail in accordance with--
(A) the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241 et
seq.); and
(B) other applicable laws and regulations for trails on
Federal lands.
(2) Cooperation; agreements.--The Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture shall cooperate with the
State of Utah Department of Natural Resources and appropriate
county governments in managing the Trail. The appropriate
Secretary shall make every reasonable effort to enter into
cooperative agreements with the State of Utah Department of
Natural Resources and appropriate county governments
(separately, collectively, or in an any combination, as
agreed by the parties) for management of the Trail.
(3) Primary purpose.--The primary purpose of this title is
to provide recreational trail opportunities for motorized
vehicle use on the Trail. The Trail shall be managed in a
manner that is consistent with this purpose, ensures user
safety, and minimizes user conflicts.
(4) Addition of trails.--
(A) In general.--The appropriate Secretary may add trails
to the Trail in accordance with the National Trails System
Act and this title. The Secretary shall consider the Trail a
national recreation trail for the purpose of making such
additions.
(B) Requirement for addition of trails on non-federal
land.--If a trail to be added to the Trail is located on non-
Federal land, the appropriate Secretary may add the trail
only if the owner of the land upon which the trail is located
has--
(i) consented to the addition of the trail to the Trail;
and
(ii) entered into an agreement with the appropriate
Secretary for management of the additional trail in a manner
that is consistent with this title.
(5) Notice of open routes.--The Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture shall ensure that the public
is adequately informed regarding the routes open for the
Trail, including by appropriate signage along the Trail.
(d) No Effect on Non-Federal Land and Interests in Land.--
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
ownership, management, or other rights related to any non-
Federal land or interests in land, except as provided in an
agreement related to that land entered into by the landowner
under subsection (c)(4)(B)(ii).
(e) Acquisition of Land and Interests in Land.--The
appropriate Secretary may acquire land and interests in land
for the purposes of the Trail only from willing owners.
(f) Map on File; Updated.--The Map shall be--
(1) kept on file at the appropriate offices of the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture;
and
(2) updated by the appropriate Secretary whenever trails
are added to the Trail.

SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title.

TITLE III--McLOUGHLIN HOUSE PRESERVATION

SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this title, the following definitions
shall apply:
(1) Association.--The term ``Association'' means the
McLoughlin Memorial Association, an organization described in
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code.
(2) City.--The term ``City'' means Oregon City, Oregon.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 302. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) On June 27, 1941, Acting Assistant Secretary of the
Interior W.C. Mendenhall, under the authority granted the
Secretary under section 2 of the Historic Sites, Buildings
and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), established the
McLoughlin Home National Historic Site located in the City.
(2) Since January 16, 1945, the site has been known as
McLoughlin House National Historic Site.
(3) The McLoughlin House National Historic Site includes
both the McLoughlin House and Barclay House, which are owned
and managed by the Association.
(4) The McLoughlin House National Historic Site is located
in a Charter Park on Oregon City Block 40, which is owned by
the City.
(5) A cooperative agreement was made in 1941 among the
Association, the City, and the United States, providing for
the preservation and use of the McLoughlin House as a
national historic site.
(6) The Association has had an exemplary and longstanding
role in the stewardship of the McLoughlin House National
Historic Site but is unable to continue that role.
(7) The McLoughlin House National Historic Site has a
direct relationship with Fort Vancouver National Historic
Site due to Dr. John McLoughlin's importance as the Chief
Factor of the Hudson Bay Company's Fort Vancouver, the
headquarters for the Hudson Bay Company's Columbia
Department, and his subsequent role in the early history of
the settlement of the Oregon Territory to the extent that he
is known as the ``Father of Oregon''.
(8) The McLoughlin House National Historic Site has been an
affiliated area of the National Park System and is worthy of
recognition as part of the Fort Vancouver National Historic
Site.

SEC. 303. BOUNDARY OF FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

In recognition of the Secretary's role and responsibilities
since June 27, 1941, and in order to preserve the McLoughlin
House National Historic Site, the Secretary is authorized to
acquire the McLoughlin House, consisting of approximately 1
acre, as generally depicted on the map entitled ``McLoughlin
National Historic Site'', numbered 007/80,000, and dated 12/
01/01, as an addition to the Fort Vancouver National Historic
Site. The map shall be on file and available for inspection
in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.

SEC. 304. ACQUSITION AND ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Acquisition.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire
the McLoughlin House from willing owners only, by donation,
purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange,
except that lands or interests in lands owned by the City may
be acquired by donation only.
(b) Administration.--The Secretary shall administer the
McLoughlin House as an addition to Fort Vancouver National
Historic Site in accordance with the provisions of law
generally applicable to units of the National Park System.

TTLE IV--PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIC SITE STUDY

SEC. 401. PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIC SITE STUDY.

(a) Study and Report.--Not later than 2 years after the
date funds are made available, the Secretary of the Interior
shall--
(1) carry out a study on the suitability and feasibility of
designating the William Jefferson Clinton birthplace home
located in Hope, Arkansas, as a national historic site; and
(2) submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report describing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the study.
(b) Requirements for Study.--Except with regard to deadline
for completion provided in subsection (a), the study under
subsection (a) shall be conducted in accordance with section
8(c) Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)).

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
disagree to the House amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

CORRECTING THE ENROLLMENT OF S. 1843

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 159, submitted
earlier today by Senators Bingaman and Murkowski; that the concurrent
resolution be considered and agreed to and the motion

[[Page 23249]]

to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or
debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 159) was agreed to, as
follows:

S. Con. Res. 159

____________________

VIRGIN RIVER DINOSAUR FOOTPRINT PRESERVE ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 591, H.R. 2385.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2385) to convey certain property to the city
of St. George, Utah, in order to provide for the protection
and preservation of certain rare paleontological resources on
that property, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources with amendments, as follows:
[Strike the part shown in black brackets and insert the part shown in
italic.]

H.R. 2385

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 ``Virgin River Dinosaur
Footprint Preserve Act''.

SEC. 2. VIRGIN RIVER DINOSAUR FOOTPRINT PRESERVE.

[(a) Authorization for Grant To Purchase Footprint
Preserve.--As soon as is practicable after the date of the
enactment of this Act, if the City agrees to the conditions
set forth in subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior
may award to the City a grant equal to the lesser of $500,000
or the fair market value of up to 10 acres of land (and all
related facilities and other appurtenances thereon) generally
depicted on the map entitled ``Proposed Virgin River Dinosaur
Footprint Preserve'', numbered 09/06/2001-A, for purchase of
that property.]
(a) Authorization for Grant To Purchase Preserve.--Of the
funds appropriated in the section entitled ``Land
Acquisition'' of the Fiscal Year 2002 Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, Public Law 107-63, the Secretary
of the Interior shall grant $500,000 to the City for--
(1) the purchase of up to 10 acres of land within the area
generally depicted as the ``Preserve Acquisition Area'' on
the map entitled ``Map B'' and dated May 9, 2002; and
(2) the preservation of such land and paleontological
resources.
(b) Conditions of Grant.--The grant under subsection (a)
shall be made only after the City agrees to the following
conditions:
(1) Use of land.--The City shall use the Virgin River
Dinosaur Footprint Preserve in a manner that accomplishes the
following:
(A) Preserves and protects the paleontological resources
located within the exterior boundaries of the Virgin River
Dinosaur Footprint Preserve.
(B) Provides opportunities for scientific research in a
manner compatible with subparagraph (A).
(C) Provides the public with opportunities for educational
activities in a manner compatible with subparagraph (A).
(2) Reverter.--If at any time after the City acquires the
Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve, the Secretary
determines that the City is not substantially in compliance
with the conditions described in paragraph (1), all right,
title, and interest in and to the Virgin River Dinosaur
Footprint Preserve shall immediately revert to the United
States, with no further consideration on the part of the
United States, and such property shall then be under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior.
(3) Conditions to be contained in deed.--If the City
attempts to transfer title to the Virgin River Dinosaur
Footprint Preserve (in whole or in part), the conditions set
forth in this subsection shall transfer with such title and
shall be enforceable against any subsequent owner of the
Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve (in whole or in
part).
(c) Cooperative Agreement and Assistance.--
[(1) Cooperative agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into
a cooperative agreement with the City for the management of
the Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve by the City.
(2)] (1) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide to the
City--
(A) financial assistance, if the Secretary determines that
such assistance is necessary for protection of the
paleontological resources located within the exterior
boundaries of the Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve;
and
(B) technical assistance to assist the City in complying
with subparagraphs (A) through (C) of subsection (b)(1).
[(3)] (2) Additional grants.--
(A) In general.--In addition to funds made available under
subsection (a) and paragraph (2) of this subsection, the
Secretary may provide grants to the City to carry out its
duties under the cooperative agreement entered into under
paragraph (1).
(B) Limitation on amount; required non-federal match.--
Grants under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed $500,000 and
shall be provided only to the extent that the City matches
the amount of such grants with non-Federal contributions
(including in-kind contributions).
(d) Map on File.--The map shall be on file and available
for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the
Department of the Interior.
(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the
following definitions apply:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of St. George,
Utah.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) Virgin river dinosaur footprint preserve.--The term
``Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve'' means the
property (and all facilities and other appurtenances thereon)
described in subsection (a).

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about S.
1497, the Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve Act and its
companion measure in the House, H.R. 2385. This bill would convey
certain property to the city of St. George, Utah, in order to provide
for the protection and preservation of certain rare paleontological
resources on that property.
This legislation would provide vital protections to one of our
nation's most recent, and most intact pre-Jurassic paleontological
discoveries. In February 2000, Sheldon Johnson of St. George, UT, began
development preparations on his land when he uncovered one of the
world's most significant collections of dinosaur tracks, tail
draggings, and skin imprints in the surrounding rock. Without any
advertising, the site has attracted many tens of thousands of visitors
and the interest of some of the world's top paleontologists.
This was a fantastic discovery that has added important new insights
into the Jurassic period. However, now that these prints have been
uncovered, the fragile sandstone in which the impressions have been
made is in jeopardy due to the heat and wind typical of the southern
Utah climate. We must act quickly if these footprints from our past are
to be preserved. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to purchase the land where the footprints and tail draggings
are found and convey the property to the city of St. George. The city
will work together with the property owners and Washington County to
preserve and protect the area and the resources found there.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Sheldon and LaVerna Johnson who made
this discovery on their land and have dedicated thousands of hours of
their personal time and much of their own money to trying to preserve
this site. They have done all they can to protect it, while at the same
time opening up their land for visitors and scientists to view the new
findings free of costs. They have given so much to this cause, but they
cannot keep it up indefinitely. They desperately hope that the
Government will step up and help carry the burden of managing this
precious resource, and with passage of this legislation tonight we will
provide them with the relief they deserve.
I thank Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, the chairman and ranking
member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, for
their assistance in seeing this measure passed by Congress and sent to
the President. I also thank Representative James Hansen, my good friend
and the sponsor of the companion measure in the House for all he has
done to make this legislation possible.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-
reported amendments be withdrawn; that

[[Page 23250]]

the bill be read the third time and passed; and that the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or
debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The committee amendments were withdrawn.
The bill (H.R. 2385) was read the third time and passed.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before we get to the next matter, let me
express my appreciation to the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett. He has
been here all night. But for him, we would not have made the progress
we have. All Senators should be very grateful for his weighing in on
these delicate matters. I appreciate what the Senator from Utah has
done to help us get to this point.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the assistant majority leader. I
wish to make it clear that without his leadership and cooperation, we
would not be doing what we are doing. It takes two hands to clap. We
were waving our hands uselessly in the air until the Senator from
Nevada stepped in. I am very grateful to him.

____________________

TIMPANOGOS INTERAGENCY LAND EXCHANGE ACT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the
Senate a message from the House on S. 1240.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a message
from the House as follows:

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1240)
entitled ``An Act to provide for the acquisition of land and
construction of an interagency administrative and visitor
facility at the entrance to American Fork Canyon, Utah, and
for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

TITLE I--TIMPANOGOS INTERAGENCY LAND EXCHANGE

SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Facility.--The term ``facility'' means the facility
constructed under section 106 to house--
(A) the administrative office of the Pleasant Grove Ranger
District of the Uinta National Forest; and
(B) the visitor center and administrative office of the
Timpanogos Cave National Monument.
(2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the
parcels of land and improvements to the land in the Salt Lake
Meridian comprising--
(A) approximately 237 acres located in T. 5 S., R. 3 E.,
sec. 13, lot 1, SW\1/4\, NE\1/4\, E\1/2\, NW\1/4\ and E\1/2\,
SW\1/4\, as depicted on the map entitled ``Long Hollow-Provo
Canyon Parcel'', dated March 12, 2001;
(B) approximately 0.18 acre located in T. 7 S., R. 2 E.,
sec. 12, NW\1/4\, as depicted on the map entitled ``Provo
Sign and Radio Shop'', dated March 12, 2001;
(C) approximately 20 acres located in T. 3 S., R. 1 E.,
sec. 33, SE\1/4\, as depicted on the map entitled ``Corner
Canyon Parcel'', dated March 12, 2001;
(D) approximately 0.18 acre located in T. 29 S., R. 7 W.,
sec. 15, S\1/2\, as depicted on the map entitled ``Beaver
Administrative Site'', dated March 12, 2001;
(E) approximately 7.37 acres located in T. 7 S., R. 3 E.,
sec. 28, NE\1/4\, SW\1/4\, NE\1/4\, as depicted on the map
entitled ``Springville Parcel'', dated March 12, 2001; and
(F) approximately 0.83 acre located in T. 5 S., R. 2 E.,
sec. 20, as depicted on the map entitled ``Pleasant Grove
Ranger District Parcel'', dated March 12, 2001.
(3) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
the parcel of land in the Salt Lake Meridian comprising
approximately 37.42 acres located at approximately 4,400
West, 11,000 North (SR-92), Highland, Utah in T. 4 S., R. 2
E., sec. 31, NW\1/4\, as depicted on the map entitled ``The
Highland Property'', dated March 12, 2001.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.

SEC. 103. MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.

(a) Availability of Maps.--The maps described in paragraphs
(2) and (3) of section 102 shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the Office of the Chief of the Forest
Service until the date on which the land depicted on the maps
is exchanged under this title.
(b) Technical Corrections to Legal Descriptions.--The
Secretary may correct minor errors in the legal descriptions
in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 102.

SEC. 104. EXCHANGE OF LAND FOR FACILITY SITE.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary
may, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may
prescribe, convey by quitclaim deed all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the Federal land in
exchange for the conveyance of the non-Federal land.
(b) Title to Non-Federal Land.--Before the land exchange
takes place under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
determine that title to the non-Federal land is acceptable
based on the approval standards applicable to Federal land
acquisitions.
(c) Valuation of Non-Federal Land.--
(1) Determination.--The fair market value of the land and
the improvements on the land exchanged under this title shall
be determined by an appraisal that--
(A) is approved by the Secretary; and
(B) conforms with the Federal appraisal standards, as
defined in the publication entitled ``Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions''.
(2) Separate appraisals.--
(A) In general.--Each parcel of Federal land described in
subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 102(2) shall be
appraised separately.
(B) Individual property values.--The property values of
each parcel shall not be affected by the unit rule described
in the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions.
(d) Cash Equalization.--Notwithstanding section 206(b) of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1716(b)), the Secretary may, as the circumstances require,
either make or accept a cash equalization payment in excess
of 25 percent of the total value of the lands or interests
transferred out of Federal ownership.
(e) Administration of Land Acquisition by United States.--
(1) Boundary adjustment.--
(A) In general.--On acceptance of title by the Secretary--
(i) the non-Federal land conveyed to the United States
shall become part of the Uinta National Forest; and
(ii) the boundaries of the national forest shall be
adjusted to include the land.
(B) Allocation of land and water conservation fund
moneys.--For purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-099), the
boundaries of the national forest, as adjusted under this
section, shall be considered to be boundaries of the national
forest as of January 1, 1965.
(2) Applicable law.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
Secretary shall manage any land acquired under this section
in accordance with--
(A) the Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.)
(commonly known as the ``Weeks Act''); and
(B) other laws (including regulations) that apply to
National Forest System land.

SEC. 105. DISPOSITION OF FUNDS.

SEC. 106. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF FACILITY.

(a) Construction.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), as soon as
practicable after funds are made available to carry out this
title, the Secretary of the Interior shall construct, and
bear responsibility for all costs of construction of, a
facility and all necessary infrastructure on non-Federal land
acquired under section 104.
(2) Design and specifications.--Prior to construction, the
design and specifications of the facility shall be approved
by the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior.
(b) Operation and Maintenance of Facility.--The facility
shall be occupied, operated, and maintained jointly by the
Secretary (acting through the Chief of the Forest Service)
and the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the
Director of the National Park Service) under terms and
conditions agreed to by the Secretary and the Secretary of
the Interior.

SEC. 107. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title.

[[Page 23251]]

TITLE II--UTAH PUBLIC LANDS ARTIFACT PRESERVATION

SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 203. ASSISTANCE FOR UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MUSEUM OF NATURAL
HISTORY.

(a) Assistance for Museum.--The Secretary shall make a
grant to the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah, to
pay the Federal share of the costs of construction of a new
facility for the Museum, including the design, planning,
furnishing, and equipping of the Museum.
(b) Grant Requirements.--
(1) In general.--To receive a grant under subsection (b),
the Museum shall submit to the Secretary a proposal for the
use of the grant.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

TITLE III--SALT RIVER BAY NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK AND ECOLOGICAL
PRESERVE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT

SEC. 301. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

The first sentence of section 103(b) of the Salt River Bay
National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve at St.
Croix, Virgin Islands, Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 410tt-1(b)) is
amended to read as follows: ``The park shall consist of
approximately 1015 acres of lands, waters, and interests in
lands as generally depicted on the map entitled `Salt River
Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve, St.
Croix, U.S.V.I.', numbered 141/80002, and dated May 2,
2002.''.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
concur in the House amendment to the bill, and that the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

THE CALENDAR

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
to consider en bloc the following measures: Calendar No. 577, H.R. 38;
Calendar No. 437, H.R. 308; Calendar No. 606, H.R. 706; Calendar No.
587, H.R. 1712; Calendar No. 579, H.R. 1776; Calendar No. 580, H.R.
1814; Calendar No. 588, H.R. 1870; Calendar No. 589, H.R. 1906;
Calendar No. 581, H.R. 1925; Calendar No. 612, H.R. 2099; Calendar No.
590, H.R. 2109; Calendar No. 607, H.R. 2115; Calendar No. 675, H.R.
2628; Calendar No. 676, H.R. 2818; Calendar No. 608, H.R. 2828;
Calendar No. 677, H.R. 2990; Calendar No. 681, H.R. 3858; Calendar No.
592, H.R. 3048; Calendar No. 678, H.R. 3401; Calendar No. 682, H.R.
3909; Calendar No. 614, H.R. 3449; Calendar No. 684, H.R. 3954;
Calendar No. 685, H.R. 4682; Calendar No. 687, H.R. 5125; Calendar No.
611, H.R. 4953; Calendar No. 613, H.R. 4638; Calendar No. 686, H.R.
5099. The following bills are at the desk: H.R. 3747, H.R. 5436, H.R.
4750, H.J. Res. 117, H.R. 4129, H.R. 4874 and H.R. 4944. I ask
unanimous consent that H.R. 2937, Clark County shooting range, be
discharged from the Energy Committee and the Senate proceed to its
consideration; that the bills be read three times and passed en bloc;
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that the
consideration of these measures appear separately in the Record, and
that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without
further intervening action or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

HOMESTEAD NATIONAL MONUMENT OF AMERICA ADDITIONS ACT

The bill (H.R. 38) to provide for additional lands to be included
within the boundaries of the Homestead National Monument of America in
the State of Nebraska, and for other purposes, was considered, ordered
to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

____________________

GUAM WAR CLAIMS REVIEW COMMISSION ACT

The bill (H.R. 308) to establish the Guam War Claims Review
Commission, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third
time, and passed.

____________________

LEASE LOT CONVEYANCE ACT OF 2002

The bill (H.R. 706) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain properties in the vicinity of the Elephant Butte Reservoir and
Caballo Reservoir, New Mexico, was considered, ordered to a third
reading, read the third time, and passed.

____________________

ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE NATIONAL PARK OF AMERICAN SAMOA

The bill (H.R. 1712) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
make adjustments to the boundary of the National Park of American Samoa
to include certain portions of the islands of Ofu and Olosega within
the park, and for other purposes, was considered, ordered to a third
reading, read the third time, and passed.

____________________

BUFFALO BAYOU NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY ACT

The bill (H.R. 1776) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
study the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Buffalo Bayou
National Heritage Area in west Houston, Texas, was considered, ordered
to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

____________________

METACOMET-MONADNOCK-MATTABESETT TRAIL STUDY ACT OF 2001

The bill (H.R. 1814) to amend the National Trails System Act to
designate the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail extending through
western Massachusetts and central Connecticut for study for potential
addition to the National Trails System, was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and passed.

____________________

FALLON RAIL FREIGHT LOADING FACILITY TRANSFER ACT

The bill (H.R. 1870) to provide for the sale of certain real property
within the Newlands Project in Nevada, to the city of Fallon, Nevada,
was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

PU'UHONUA O HONAUNAU NATIONAL PARK ADDITION ACT OF 2002

The bill (H.R. 1906) to amend the Act that established the Pu'uhonua
O Honaunau National Historical Park to expand the boundaries of that
park, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time,
and passed.

____________________

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF DESIGNATING THE WACO MAMMOTH SITE AS A UNIT OF THE
NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

The bill (H.R. 1925) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study
the suitability and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth Site
Area in Waco, Texas, as a unit of the National Park System, and for
other purposes, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the
third time, and passed.

____________________

AMENDMENTS TO THE OMNIBUS PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1996

The bill (H.R. 2099) to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands
Management Act of 1996 to provide adequate

[[Page 23252]]

funding authorization for the Vancouver National Historic Reserve, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

A SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY OF VIRGINIA KEY BEACH PARK IN BISCAYNE BAY,
FLORIDA

The bill (H.R. 2109) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a special resource study of Virginia Key Beach Park in Biscayne
Bay, Florida, for possible inclusion in the National Park System, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

LAKEHAVEN, WASHINGTON, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT

The bill (H.R. 2115) to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of a
project to reclaim and reuse wastewater within and outside of the
service area of the Lakehaven Utility District, Washington, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

MUSCLE SHOALS NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY ACT OF 2002

The bill (H.R. 2628) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing the
Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area in Alabama, and for other
purposes, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third
time, and passed.

____________________

CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN LANDS WITHIN THE SAND MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS STUDY
AREA IN THE STATE OF IDAHO

The bill (H.R. 2818) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain public land within the Sand Mountain Wilderness Study
Area in the State of Idaho to resolve an occupancy encroachment dating
back to 1971, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the
third time, and passed.

____________________

KLAMATH BASIN EMERGENCY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REFUND ACT OF 2001

The bill (H.R. 2828) to authorize payments to certain Klamath Project
water distribution entities for amounts assessed by the entities for
operation and maintenance of the Project's transferred works for 2001,
to authorize refunds to such entities of amounts collected by the
Bureau of Reclamation for reserved works for 2001, and for other
purposes, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third
time, and passed.

____________________

LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT
ACT OF 2002

The bill (H.R. 2990) to amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water
Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to authorize
additional projects under that Act, and for other purposes, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

NEW RIVER GORGE BOUNDARY ACT OF 2002

The bill (H.R. 3858) to modify the boundaries of the New River Gorge
National River, West Virginia, was considered, ordered to a third
reading, read the third time, and passed.

____________________

RUSSIAN RIVER LAND ACT

The bill (H.R. 3048) to resolve the claims of Cook Inlet Region,
Inc., to lands adjacent to the Russian River in the State of Alaska,
was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

CALIFORNIA FIVE MILE REGIONAL LEARNING CENTER TRANSFER ACT

The bill (H.R. 3401) to provide for the conveyance of Forest Service
facilities and lands comprising the Five Mile Regional Learning Center
in the State of California to the Clovis Unified School District, to
authorize a new special use permit regarding the continued use of
unconveyed lands comprising the Center, and for other purposes, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

GUNN McKAY NATURE PRESERVE ACT

The bill (H.R. 3909) to designate certain Federal lands in the State
of Utah as the Gunn McKay Nature Preserve, and for other purposes, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

REVISION OF THE BORDERS OF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BIRTHPLACE NATIONAL
MONUMENT

The bill (H.R. 3449) to revise the boundaries of the George
Washington Birthplace National Monument, and for other purposes, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

CARIBBEAN NATIONAL FOREST WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT OF 2002

The bill (H.R. 3954) to designate certain waterways in the Caribbean
National Forest in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

ALLEGHENY PORTAGE RAILROAD NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY REVISION ACT

The bill (H.R. 4682) to revise the boundary of the Allegheny Portage
Railroad National Historic Site, and for other purposes, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ACT OF 2002

The bill (H.R. 5125) to amend the American Battlefield Protection Act
of 1996 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
battlefield acquisition grant program, was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and passed.

____________________

GRANT OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY TO DESCHUTES AND CROOK COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF
OREGON TO WEST BUTTE ROAD

The bill (H.R. 4953) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to grant
Deschutes and Crook Counties in the State of Oregon a right-of-way to
West Butte Road, was ordered to a third reading, read the third time,
and passed.

____________________

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MNI WICONI RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

The bill (H.R. 4638) to reauthorize the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply
Project, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third
time, and passed.

____________________

EXTENDING PERIOD OF AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERIOR SECRETARY TO IMPLEMENT
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

The bill (H.R. 5099) to extend the periods of authorization for the
Secretary of the Interior to implement capital construction projects
associated with the endangered fish recovery implementation programs
for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins, was considered,
ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

[[Page 23253]]

____________________

BAINBRIDGE ISLAND JAPANESE-AMERICAN MEMORIAL STUDY ACT OF 2002

The bill (H.R. 3747) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a study of the site commonly known as Eagledale Ferry Dock at
Taylor Avenue in the State of Washington for potential inclusion in the
National Park System, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read
the third time, and passed.

____________________

EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT IN STATE OF OREGON

The bill (H.R. 5436) to extend the deadline for commencement of
construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Oregon, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

BIG SUR WILDERNESS AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 2002

The bill (H.R. 4750) to designate certain lands in the State of
California as components of the National Wilderness Preservation
System, and for other purposes, was considered, ordered to a third
reading, read the third time, and passed.

____________________

FORMER PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS MEMORIAL

The resolution (H.J. Res. 117) approving the location of the
commemorative work in the District of Columbia honoring former
President John Adams, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read
the third time, and passed.

____________________

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT

The bill (H.R. 4129) to amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act
to clarify the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior with
respect to the Central Utah Project, to redirect unexpended budget
authority for the Central Utah Project for wastewater treatment and
reuse and other purposes, to provide for prepayment of repayment
contracts for municipal and industrial water delivery facilities, and
to eliminate a deadline for such prepayment, was considered, ordered to
a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

____________________

DISCLAIMER OF ANY FEDERAL INTEREST IN LANDS ADJACENT TO SPIRIT LAKE AND
TWIN LAKES IN STATE OF IDAHO

The bill (H.R. 4874) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
disclaim any Federal interest in lands adjacent to Spirit Lake and Twin
Lakes in the State of Idaho resulting from possible omission of lands
from an 1880 survey, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read
the third time, and passed.

____________________

CEDAR CREEK AND BELLE GROVE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ACT

The bill (H.R. 4944) to designate the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

____________________

CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND IN CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

The bill (H.R. 2937) to provide for the conveyance of certain public
land in Clark County, Nevada, for use as a shooting range, was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to engage my friend, the
chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, in a discussion
regarding the Clark County Shooting Range bill, S. 1451. The chairman
has been very helpful in moving this important legislation through the
process and I appreciate and am grateful for his hard work. As we moved
this bill through the committee process, the chairman made two
constructive suggestions regarding how my bill might be improved. I
believe that it would benefit the full Senate for us to review those
issues briefly at this time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I share the assistant majority leader's view that this
bill would address an important need for a safe recreational shooting
facility in southern Nevada and believe that S. 1451, which my
committee reported favorably with amendment, is a good bill. The two
primary concerns raised by many interested parties were that the
original bill would have released land from wilderness study area
status and that the parcel of land conveyed was possibly too large, and
therefore the bill might set an unfortunate precedent on those two
issues.
Mr. REID. As the chairman knows, we worked together on these two
issues and developed a compromise solution that he, Senator Murkowski,
Senator Ensign, Congressman Gibbons, Congresswoman Berkley, Clark
County and I could all support. The compromise included conveying the
full 2800 acres to Clark County but requiring that only the core of the
area, 640 acres, be developed for facilities and that the remainder of
the area remain as open space to serve as a valuable buffer around the
range. This compromise if completely consistent with Clark County's
intended use of the land because the county realizes the absolute
necessity of having a substantial buffer around a shooting range. In
fact, the county provided their plans for the facility, which embody
the compromise.
As I have noted many times on the floor of the Senate, Clark County
has nearly doubled in population from 770,000 to more than 1.4 million
people since 1990. This growth has placed greater demands on public
lands throughout Clark County for recreational activities such as
hunting, fishing and target shooting. There are literally dozens, if
not hundreds, of makeshift shooting ranges across Las Vegas Valley that
pose extreme danger to nearby homes and our increasingly busy roads.
This facility will provide a great public benefit by creating a safe
centralized location for this important purpose. It will enhance public
safety by reducing indiscriminate shooting. The need for this shooting
range is crystal clear and I am grateful that the chairman has
recognized the urgency associated with this issue.
In addition, I would like the Record to reflect that the issue of
wilderness study area release is now a moot point because the
wilderness study area in question was released earlier this month when
President Bush signed the Clark County Conservation of Public Lands and
Natural Resources Act into law. Public law 107-282 designated about
450,000 acres as wilderness and released 220,000 acres from wilderness
study area consideration in Clark County. Having made this point, I
would like to ask the chairman whether he shares my view that no
precedent could be set on the issue of wilderness study area release
given that there is no wilderness study area in existence?
Mr. BINGAMAN. I do share that view and appreciate the fact that
wilderness study area release is no longer a concern in this
legislation.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the chairman's concurrence on that point and
his leadership on this and other public land related issues very much.
We now face a dilemma. The very good Clark County Shooting Range bill
that was earlier reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee cannot pass this year because the House of Representatives
has gone home for the year. However, the House passed a similar bill
earlier this year. The substantive difference in the House bill is that
it does not include the buffer requirement we put in the Senate version
of the bill. Given that we agree that no wilderness study area
precedents can be set here, and given that the county's plan for the
range were used to create our buffer compromise. I hope the chairman
might allow for the passage of the House version of this bill so that
this important project can be started this year.

____________________

VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL EDUCATION ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed

[[Page 23254]]

to the consideration of Calendar No. 444 S. 281; that the Bingaman
amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the
committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to
reconsider by laid upon the table; and there be no intervening action
or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there an objection?
Mr. BENNETT. On behalf of several Senators on this side, I do object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
Mr. REID. I am disappointed. The morning is early but there will be
no speeches.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations:
Calendar No. 1137, Air Force promotions, with the exception of COL
Bruce E. Burda, and COL Stephen L. Lanning; Calendar Nos.
1180 through 1186, and the nominations placed on the Secretary's desk;
that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, and the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

air force

The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:

To be brigadier general

Colonel Christ T. Anzalone
Colonel Dana T. Atkins
Colonel Philip M. Breedlove
Colonel Bradley W. Butler
Colonel Robert E. Dehnert, Jr.
Colonel Delwyn R. Eulberg
Colonel Maurice H. Forsyth
Colonel Patrick D. Gillett, Jr.
Colonel Sandra A. Gregory
Colonel Gregory J. Ihde
Colonel Kevin J. Kennedy
Colonel Lyle M. Koenig, Jr.
Colonel Ronald R. Ladnier
Colonel Erwin F. Lessel, III
Colonel John W. Maluda
Colonel Mark T. Matthews
Colonel Gary T. McCoy
Colonel Kimber L. McKenzie
Colonel Stephen J. Miller
Colonel Richard Y. Newton, III
Colonel Thomas J. Owen
Colonel Richard E. Perraut, Jr.
Colonel Polly A. Peyer
Colonel Douglas L. Raaberg
Colonel Robertus C.N. Remkes
Colonel Eric J. Rosborg
Colonel Paul J. Selva
Colonel Mark E. Stearns
Colonel Thomas E. Stickford
Colonel Johnny A. Weida
Colonel Thomas B. Wright

department of defense

Arthur James Collingsworth, of California, to be a Member
of the National Security Education Board for a term of four
years.

air force

The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve
of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 12203:

To be major general

Brigadier General Richard C. Collins
Brigadier General Scott R. Nichols
Brigadier General David A. Robinson
Brigadier General Mark V. Rosenker
Brigadier General Charles E. Stenner, Jr.
Brigadier General Thomas D. Taverney
Brigadier General Kathy E. Thomas

To be brigadier general

Colonel Ricardo Aponte
Colonel Frank J. Casserino
Colonel Charles D. Ethredge
Colonel Thomas M. Gisler, Jr.
Colonel James W. Graves
Colonel John M. Howlett
Colonel Martin M. Mazick
Colonel Hanferd J. Moen, Jr.
Colonel James M. Mungenast
Colonel Jack W. Ramsaur, II
Colonel David N. Senty
Colonel Bradley C. Young

The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:

To be lieutenant general

Maj. Gen. Arthur J. Lichte

army

The following Army National Guard officers for appointment
in the Reserve of the Army to the grades indicated under
title 10, U.S.C., Section 12203:

To be brigadier general

Colonel Terry W. Saltsman

The following Army National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:

To be brigadier general

Col. Michael H. Sumrall

The following Army National Guard of the United States
officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:

To be major general

Brigadier General Daniel D. Densford
Brigadier General Daniel E. Long, Jr.
Brigadier General Michael J. Squier
Brigadier General Roy M. Umbarger
Brigadier General Antonio J. Vicens-Gonzalez
Brigadier General Walter E. Zink, II

To be brigadier general

Colonel Norman E. Arflack
Colonel Jerry G. Beck, Jr.
Colonel Raymond W. Carpenter
Colonel Herman M. Deener
Colonel Robert P. French
Colonel John T. Furlow
Colonel Charles L. Gable
Colonel Francis P. Gonzales
Colonel Dean E. Johnson
Colonel David A. Lewis
Colonel Thomas D. Mills
Colonel Vern T. Miyagi
Colonel Roque C. Nido Lanausse
Colonel J.W. Noles
Colonel Thomas R. Ragland
Colonel Terry L. Robinson
Colonel Charles G. Rodriguez
Colonel Charles D. Safley
Colonel Randall E. Sayre
Colonel Donald C. Storm
Colonel William H. Wade
Colonel Gregory L. Wayt
Colonel Merrel W. Yocum

navy

The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:

To be vice admiral

Rear Adm. Stanley R. Szemborski

Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk

air force

PN2276 Air Force nominations (2) beginning Branford J.
McAllister, and ending Alice Smart, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of October 16, 2002.
PN2289 Air Force nominations of David G. Smith, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of October 17, 2002.

army

PN2294 Army nominations (2) beginning Tom R. Mackenzie, and
ending Terrence D. Wright, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
November 12, 2002.
PN2295 Army nominations (759) beginning Stephen M. Ackman,
and ending Joseph M. Zima, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
November 12, 2002.
PN2306 Army nominations (4) beginning William C. Cannon,
and ending Charles F. Maguire, III, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of November 14, 2002.

navy

PN2277 Navy nominations (19) beginning Rowland E. McCoy,
and ending Alan K. Wilmot, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
October 16, 2002.
PN2290 Navy nominations (459) beginning Rodney D. Abbott,
and ending Bernerd C. Zwahlen, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of October 17, 2002.
PN2296 Navy nomination of Phillip K. Pall, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of November 12, 2002.
PN2297 Navy nomination of Stephanie L. O'Neal, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of November 12, 2002.
PN2298 Navy nomination of Thomas P. Rosdahl, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of November 12, 2002.
PN2307 Navy nominations (34) beginning Robert D. Beal, and
ending Steven J. Zaccari, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
November 14, 2002.

[[Page 23255]]

____________________

NOMINATIONS DISCHARGED

Mr. REID. I ask consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from
further consideration of the following nominations, and the Senate
proceed to their immediate consideration en bloc: Margaret Scarlett and
David Donath to be members of the National Museum Services Board;
Carmel Borders, William Hiller, Robin Morris, Jean Osborn, and Mark
Yudof, to be members of the National Institute for Literacy Board;
Michael Duffy to be a member of the Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission; that these nominees be confirmed, and the motion to
reconsider be laid on the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

Margaret Scarlett, of Wyoming, to be a Member of the
National Museum Services Board for a term expiring December
6, 2007.
David Donath, of Vermont, to be a Member of the National
Museum Services Board for a term expiring December 6, 2004.
Carmel Borders, of Kentucky, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of three
years.
William T. Hiller, of Ohio, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of one year.
Robin Morris, of Georgia, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of one year.
Jean Osborn, of Illinois, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of two
years.
Mark G. Yudof, of Minnesota, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of two
years.
Michael F. Duffy, of the District of Columbia, to be a
Member of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission for a term of six years expiring August 30, 2006.

Mr. REID. I ask consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be
discharged from further consideration of the following nominees, and
the Senate proceed to their immediate consideration en bloc: Alejandro
Sanchez, Andrew Saul, Gordon Whiting, to be members of the Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board; that the nominees be confirmed, and
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

Alejandro Modesto Sanchez, of Florida, to be a Member of
the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board for a term
expiring October 11, 2006.
Andrew Saul, of New York, to be a Member of the Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board for a term expiring
September 25, 2004.
Gordon Whiting, of New York, to be a member of the Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board of a term expiring
September 25, 2006.

____________________

NOMINATION OF WILLIAM CAMPBELL TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Veterans Affairs
Committee be discharged from the following nomination and the Senate
proceed to its immediate consideration: The nomination of William
Campbell to be Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs; that the
nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and any statements relating to Mr. Campbell be printed in the
Record--in fact, Mr. President, any statements on any of the above
nominees that I have just read to the Chair be printed in the Record,
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action on all the
nominations, and the Senate return to legislative session.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The nomination considered and confirmed is as follows:

William H. Campbell, of Maryland, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Management).

____________________

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will return to legislative session.

____________________

OMBUDSMAN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2002

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar
No. 737, S. 606.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 606) to provide additional authority to the
Office of Ombudsman of the Environmental Protection Agency.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:
[Strike the part shown in black brackets and insert the part shown in
italic.]

S. 606

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 ``Ombudsman Reauthorization
Act of 2001''.

[SEC. 2. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN.

[The Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) is
amended by striking section 2008 (42 U.S.C. 6917) and
inserting the following:

[``SEC. 2008. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN.

[``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
[``(1) Assistant administrator.--The term `Assistant
Administrator' means the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
[``(2) Office.--The term `Office' means the Office of the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response of the Environmental Protection Agency.
[``(3) Ombudsman.--The term `Ombudsman' means the director
of the Office of Ombudsman established under subsection (b).
[``(b) Establishment.--
[``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish
within the Office an Office of Ombudsman, to be directed by
an Ombudsman.
[``(2) Oversight.--The Ombudsman shall report directly to
the Administrator.
[``(c) Duties.--The Ombudsman shall--
[``(1) receive, and render assistance concerning, any
complaint, grievance, or request for information submitted by
any person relating to any program or requirement under this
Act; and
[``(2)(A) identify areas in which citizens have, and assist
citizens in resolving, problems with the Office;
[``(B) propose changes in the administrative practices of
the Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate or, to the
maximum extent practicable, mitigate those problems; and
[``(C) conduct investigations, make findings of fact, and
make nonbinding recommendations concerning those problems.
[``(d) Powers and Responsibilities.--In carrying out this
section, the Ombudsman--
[``(1) may, on receipt of a complaint or at the discretion
of the Ombudsman, investigate any action of the Assistant
Administrator without regard to the finality of the action;
[``(2) may, under the authority of this section or section
104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(e)),
examine any record or document of, and enter and inspect
without notice any property under the administrative
jurisdiction of, the Environmental Protection Agency;
[``(3) in a case in which the Ombudsman experiences
difficulty in gathering information pertaining to an
investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, may request the
Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency to
subpoena any person to appear to give sworn testimony
concerning, or to produce documentary or other evidence
determined by the Ombudsman to be reasonably material to, the
investigation;
[``(4) may carry out and participate in, and cooperate with
any person or agency involved in, any conference, inquiry on
the record, public hearing on the record, meeting, or study
that, as determined by the Ombudsman--
[``(A) is reasonably material to an investigation conducted
by the Ombudsman; or
[``(B) may lead to an improvement in the performance of the
functions of the Office;
[``(5) shall maintain as confidential and privileged any
and all communications concerning any matter pending, and the
identities of any parties or witnesses appearing, before the
Ombudsman; and
[``(6) shall administer a budget for the Office of
Ombudsman.
[``(e) Administration.--
[``(1) In general.--The Ombudsman may--
[``(A) appoint an Associate Ombudsman for each region of
the Environmental Protection Agency; and
[``(B) evaluate and carry out personnel actions (including
hiring and dismissal) with

[[Page 23256]]

respect to any employee of the Office of Ombudsman.
[``(2) Contact information.--The Ombudsman shall maintain,
in each region of the Environmental Protection Agency, a
telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mail address,
and post office address for the Ombudsman that are different
from the numbers and addresses of the regional office of the
Environmental Protection Agency located in that region.
[``(3) Cooperation.--All Federal agencies shall--
[``(A) assist the Ombudsman in carrying out functions of
the Ombudsman under this section; and
[``(B) promptly make available, in such format as may be
determined by the Ombudsman, all requested information
concerning--
[``(i) past or present agency waste management practices;
and
[``(ii) past or present hazardous waste facilities owned,
leased, or operated by the agency.
[``(4) Reports.--The Ombudsman shall, at least annually,
publish in the Federal Register and submit to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the Committee
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, the
President, and, at the discretion of the Ombudsman, any other
governmental agency, a report on the status of health and
environmental concerns addressed in complaints and cases
brought before the Ombudsman in the period of time covered by
the report.
[``(f) Penalties.--Any person that willfully--
[``(1) obstructs or hinders the proper and lawful exercise
of the powers of the Ombudsman; or
[``(2) misleads or attempts to mislead the Ombudsman in the
course of an investigation;
shall be subject, at a minimum, to penalties under sections
1001 and 1505 of title 18, United States Code.
[``(g) Applicability.--
[``(1) In general.--This section--
[``(A) shall not limit any remedy or right of appeal; and
[``(B) may be carried out notwithstanding any provision of
law to the contrary that provides that an agency action is
final, not reviewable, or not subject to appeal.
[``(2) Effect on procedures for grievances, appeals, or
administrative matters.--The establishment of the Office of
Ombudsman shall not affect any procedure concerning
grievances, appeals, or administrative matters under this Act
or any other law (including regulations).
[``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
[``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section--
[``(A) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003;
[``(B) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2006; and
[``(C) $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through
2010.
[``(2) Separate line item.--In submitting the annual budget
for the Federal Government to Congress, the President shall
include a separate line item for the funding for the Office
of Ombudsman.
[``(i) Termination.--The Office of Ombudsman shall cease to
exist on the date that is 10 years after the date of
enactment of the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2001.''.]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Ombudsman Reauthorization
Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN.

Section 2008 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6917) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 2008. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Agency.--The term `Agency' means the Environmental
Protection Agency.
``(2) Deputy ombudsman.--The term `Deputy Ombudsman' means
any individual appointed by the Ombudsman under subsection
(e)(1)(A)(i).
``(3) Office.--The term `Office' means the Office of the
Ombudsman established by subsection (b)(1).
``(4) Ombudsman.--The term `Ombudsman' means the director
of the Office.
``(b) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established within the Agency
an office to be known as the `Office of the Ombudsman'.
``(2) Oversight.--
``(A) In general.--The Office shall be an independent
office within the Agency.
``(B) Structure.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
structure of the Office shall conform to relevant
professional guidelines, standards, and practices.
``(3) Head of office.--
``(A) Ombudsman.--The Office shall be headed by an
Ombudsman, who shall--
``(i) be appointed by the President by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate; and
``(ii) report directly to the Administrator.
``(B) Qualifications for and restrictions on employment.--A
person appointed as Ombudsman--
``(i) shall have experience as an ombudsman in a Federal,
State, or local government entity; and
``(ii) shall not have been an employee of the Agency at any
time during the 1-year period before the date of appointment.
``(C) Term.--The Ombudsman--
``(i) shall serve for a term of 5 years; and
``(ii) may be reappointed for not more than 1 additional
term.
``(D) Removal.--
``(i) In general.--The President may remove or suspend the
Ombudsman from office only for neglect of duty or malfeasance
in office.
``(ii) Communication to congress.--If the President removes
or suspends the Ombudsman, the President shall communicate
the reasons for the removal or suspension to Congress.
``(c) Duties.--The Ombudsman shall--
``(1) receive, and render assistance concerning, any
complaint, grievance, or request for information submitted by
any person relating to any program or requirement under--
``(A) this Act;
``(B) the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et
seq.); or
``(C) any other program administered by the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response of the Agency; and
``(2) conduct investigations, make findings of fact, and
make nonbinding recommendations to the Administrator
concerning the programs and requirements described in
paragraph (1).
``(d) Powers and Responsibilities.--In carrying out this
section, the Ombudsman--
``(1) may investigate any action of the Agency without
regard to the finality of the action;
``(2) may select appropriate matters for action by the
Office;
``(3) may--
``(A) prescribe the methods by which complaints shall be
made to, and received and addressed by, the Office;
``(B) determine the scope and manner of investigations made
by the Office; and
``(C) determine the form, frequency, and distribution of
conclusions and recommendations of the Office;
``(4) may request the Administrator to provide the
Ombudsman notification, within a specified period of time, of
any action taken on a recommendation of the Ombudsman;
``(5) may request, and shall be granted by any Federal
agency or department, assistance and information that the
Ombudsman determines to be necessary to carry out this
section;
``(6) may examine any record of, and enter and inspect
without notice any property under the administrative
jurisdiction of--
``(A) the Agency; or
``(B) any other Federal agency or department involved in a
matter under the administrative jurisdiction of the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response of the Agency;
``(7) may--
``(A) issue a subpoena to compel any person to appear to
give sworn testimony concerning, or to produce documentary or
other evidence determined by the Ombudsman to be reasonable
in scope and relevant to, an investigation by the Office; and
``(B) seek enforcement of a subpoena issued under
subparagraph (A) in a court of competent jurisdiction;
``(8) may carry out and participate in, and cooperate with
any person or agency involved in, any conference, inquiry on
the record, public hearing on the record, meeting, or study
that, as determined by the Ombudsman--
``(A) is material to an investigation conducted by the
Ombudsman; or
``(B) may lead to an improvement in the performance of the
functions of the Agency;
``(9) may administer oaths and hold hearings in connection
with any matter under investigation by the Office;
``(10) may engage in alternative dispute resolution,
mediation, or any other informal process that the Ombudsman
determines to be appropriate to carry out this section;
``(11) may communicate with any person, including Members
of Congress, the press, and any person that submits a
complaint, grievance, or request for information under
subsection (c)(1); and
``(12) shall administer a budget for the Office.
``(e) Administration.--
``(1) In general.--The Ombudsman shall--
``(A)(i) appoint a Deputy Ombudsman for each region of the
Agency; and
``(ii) hire such other assistants and employees as the
Ombudsman determines to be necessary to carry out this
section; and
``(B) supervise, evaluate, and carry out personnel actions
(including hiring and dismissal) with respect to any employee
of the Office.
``(2) Delegation of authority.--The Ombudsman may delegate
to other employees of the Office any responsibility of the
Ombudsman under this section except--
``(A) the power to delegate responsibility;
``(B) the power to issue subpoenas; and
``(C) the responsibility to make recommendations to the
Administrator.
``(3) Contact information.--The Ombudsman shall maintain,
in each region of the Agency, a telephone number, facsimile
number, electronic mail address, and post office address for
the Ombudsman that are different from the numbers and
addresses of the regional office of the Agency located in
that region.
``(4) Reports.--The Ombudsman--
``(A) shall, at least annually, publish in the Federal
Register and submit to the Administrator, the President, the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and
the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives a report on the status of health and
environmental concerns addressed in complaints and cases
brought before the Ombudsman in the period of time covered by
the report;

[[Page 23257]]

``(B) may issue reports, conclusions, or recommendations
concerning any other matter under investigation by the
Office;
``(C) shall solicit comments from the Agency concerning any
matter under investigation by the Office; and
``(D) shall include any comments received by the Office in
written reports, conclusions, and recommendations issued by
the Office under this section.
``(f) Penalties.--An investigation conducted by the
Ombudsman under this section constitutes--
``(1) a matter under section 1001 of title 18, United
States Code; and
``(2) a proceeding under section 1505 of title 18, United
States Code.
``(g) Employee Protection.--
``(1) In general.--No employer may discharge any employee,
or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect
to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment of the employee, because the employee (or any
person acting at the request of the employee) complied with
any provision of this section.
``(2) Complaint.--Any employee that, in the opinion of the
employee, is discharged or otherwise discriminated against by
any person in violation of paragraph (1) may, not later than
180 days after the date on which the violation occurs, file a
complaint in accordance with section 211 of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
``(h) Applicability.--
``(1) In general.--This section--
``(A) does not limit any remedy or right of appeal; and
``(B) may be carried out notwithstanding any provision of
law to the contrary that provides that an agency action is
final, not reviewable, or not subject to appeal.
``(2) Effect on procedures for grievances, appeals, or
administrative matters.--The establishment of the Office does
not affect any procedure concerning grievances, appeals, or
administrative matters under this Act or any other law
(including regulations).
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section--
``(A) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004;
``(B) $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through
2008; and
``(C) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through
2012.
``(2) Separate line item.--In submitting the annual budget
for the Federal Government to Congress, the President shall
include a separate line item for the funding for the
Office.''.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-
reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be
read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the
table, and any statements be printed in the Record, with no intervening
action or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 606), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

____________________

AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL DIABETES
PROGRAMS FOR TYPE I DIABETES AND INDIANS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5738.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 5738) to amend the Public Health Service Act
with respect to special diabetes programs for Type I diabetes
and Indians.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the
table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The bill (H.R. 5738) was read the third time and passed.
Mr. REID. I also ask that any statements be printed in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2002

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until today,
November 20, at 10 a.m.; that following the prayer and the pledge, the
morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved
to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later
in the day, and there be a period for morning business with Senators
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. REID. There will be no rollcall votes today, or the rest of the
year, we hope.
Again, Mr. President, before you bang the gavel, thank you very much
for your patience and for waiting through all this for us.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It was my pleasure doing it.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TODAY

Mr. REID. If there is no further business to come before the Senate,
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:45 a.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 10 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate November 19, 2002:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

HUMBERTO S. GARCIA, OF PUERTO RICO, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO FOR THE TERM OF FOUR
YEARS, VICE DANIEL F. LOPEZ ROMO, RESIGNED.
LEONARDO M. RAPADAS, OF GUAM, TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE GUAM AND CONCURRENTLY UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS FOR
THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS, VICE K. WILLIAM O'CONNOR, RESIGNED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB, OF MARYLAND, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING APRIL 30,
2007, VICE KARL J. SANDSTROM, TERM EXPIRED.

____________________

CONFIRMATIONS

Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate November 19, 2002:

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

WILLIAM H. CAMPBELL, OF MARYLAND, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (MANAGEMENT).

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

MICHAEL F. DUFFY, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW
COMMISSION FOR A TERM OF SIX YEARS EXPIRING AUGUST 30, 2006.

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

ALEJANDRO MODESTO SANCHEZ, OF FLORIDA, TO BE A MEMBER OF
THE FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD FOR A TERM
EXPIRING OCTOBER 11, 2006.
ANDREW SAUL, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL
RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2004.
GORDON WHITING, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL
RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY

MARK G. YUDOF, OF MINNESOTA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM OF TWO
YEARS.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY ADVISORY BOARD

CARMEL BORDERS, OF KENTUCKY, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM OF THREE
YEARS.
WILLIAM T. HILLER, OF OHIO, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR.
ROBIN MORRIS, OF GEORGIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR.
JEAN OSBORN, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM OF TWO
YEARS.

NATIONAL MUSEUM SERVICES BOARD

MARGARET SCARLETT, OF WYOMING, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL MUSEUM SERVICES BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER
6, 2007.
DAVID DONATH, OF VERMONT, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
MUSEUM SERVICES BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 6, 2004.

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be brigadier general

COLONEL CHRIS T. ANZALONE
COLONEL DANA T. ATKINS
COLONEL PHILIP M. BREEDLOVE
COLONEL BRADLEY W. BUTLER
COLONEL ROBERT E. DEHNERT, JR.
COLONEL DELWYN R. EULBERG
COLONEL MAURICE H. FORSYTH
COLONEL PATRICK D. GILLETT, JR.
COLONEL SANDRA A. GREGORY
COLONEL GREGORY J. IHDE
COLONEL KEVIN J. KENNEDY
COLONEL LYLE M. KOENIG, JR.
COLONEL RONALD R. LADNIER
COLONEL ERWIN F. LESSEL III
COLONEL JOHN W. MALUDA
COLONEL MARK T. MATTHEWS
COLONEL GARY T. MCCOY

[[Page 23258]]

COLONEL KIMBER L. MCKENZIE
COLONEL STEPHEN J. MILLER
COLONEL RICHARD Y. NEWTON III
COLONEL THOMAS J. OWEN
COLONEL RICHARD E. PERRAUT, JR.
COLONEL POLLY A. PEYER
COLONEL DOUGLAS L. RAABERG
COLONEL ROBERTUS C. N. REMKES
COLONEL ERIC J. ROSBORG
COLONEL PAUL J. SELVA
COLONEL MARK E. STEARNS
COLONEL THOMAS E. STICKFORD
COLONEL JOHNNY A. WEIDA
COLONEL THOMAS B. WRIGHT

THE JUDICIARY

DENNIS W. SHEDD, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

ARTHUR JAMES COLLINGSWORTH, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER
OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION BOARD FOR A TERM OF FOUR
YEARS.

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE
OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be major general

BRIGADIER GENERAL RICHARD C. COLLINS
BRIGADIER GENERAL SCOTT R. NICHOLS
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID A. ROBINSON
BRIGADIER GENERAL MARK V. ROSENKER
BRIGADIER GENERAL CHARLES E. STENNER, JR.
BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS D. TAVERNEY
BRIGADIER GENERAL KATHY E. THOMAS

To be brigadier general

COLONEL RICARDO APONTE
COLONEL FRANK J. CASSERINO
COLONEL CHARLES D. ETHREDGE
COLONEL THOMAS M. GISLER, JR.
COLONEL JAMES W. GRAVES
COLONEL JOHN M. HOWLETT
COLONEL MARTIN M. MAZICK
COLONEL HANFERD J. MOEN, JR.
COLONEL JAMES M. MUNGENAST
COLONEL JACK W. RAMSAUR II
COLONEL DAVID N. SENTY
COLONEL BRADLEY C. YOUNG

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general

MAJ. GEN. ARTHUR J. LICHTE

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT
IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE GRADES INDICATED UNDER
TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be brigadier general

COLONEL TERRY W. SALTSMAN

THE FOLLOWING ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE
GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be brigadier general

COL. MICHAEL H. SUMRALL

THE FOLLOWING ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE
GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be major general

BRIGADIER GENERAL DANIEL D. DENSFORD
BRIGADIER GENERAL DANIEL E. LONG, JR.
BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL J. SQUIER
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROY M. UMBARGER
BRIGADIER GENERAL ANTONIO J. VICENS-GONZALEZ
BRIGADIER GENERAL WALTER E. ZINK II

TO BE BRIGADIER GENERAL

COLONEL NORMAN E. ARFLACK
COLONEL JERRY G. BECK, JR.
COLONEL RAYMOND W. CARPENTER
COLONEL HERMAN M. DEENER
COLONEL ROBERT P. FRENCH
COLONEL JOHN T. FURLOW
COLONEL CHARLES L. GABLE
COLONEL FRANCIS P. GONZALES
COLONEL DEAN E. JOHNSON
COLONEL DAVID A. LEWIS
COLONEL THOMAS D. MILLS
COLONEL VERN T. MIYAGI
COLONEL ROQUE C. NIDO LANAUSSE
COLONEL J. W. NOLES
COLONEL THOMAS R. RAGLAND
COLONEL TERRY L. ROBINSON
COLONEL CHARLES G. RODRIGUEZ
COLONEL CHARLES D. SAFLEY
COLONEL RANDALL E. SAYRE
COLONEL DONALD C. STORM
COLONEL WILLIAM H. WADE
COLONEL GREGORY L. WAYT
COLONEL MERREL W. YOCUM

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be vice admiral

REAR ADM. STANLEY R. SZEMBORSKI

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING BRANFORD J. MCALLISTER AND
ENDING ALICE SMART, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON OCTOBER
16, 2002.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF DAVID G. SMITH.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING TOM R. MACKENZIE AND ENDING
TERRENCE D. WRIGHT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER
12, 2002.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING STEPHEN M. ACKMAN AND ENDING
JOSEPH M. ZIMA, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE
AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 12,
2002.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WILLIAM C. CANNON AND ENDING
CHARLES F. MAGUIRE III, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
NOVEMBER 14, 2002.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING ROWLAND E MCCOY AND ENDING ALAN
K. WILMOT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON OCTOBER 16, 2002.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING RODNEY D. ABBOTT AND ENDING
BERNERD C. ZWAHLEN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON OCTOBER
17, 2002.
NAVY NOMINATION OF PHILLIP K. PALL.
NAVY NOMINATION OF STEPHANIE L. O'NEAL.
NAVY NOMINATION OF THOMAS P. ROSDAHL.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING ROBERT D. BEAL AND ENDING STEVEN
J. ZACCARI, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 14, 2002.

[[Page 23259]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

ESSAY BY RACHEL SPELLMAN

______

HON. JOHN B. LARSON

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to insert an
essay by one of my constituents, Ms. Rachel Spellman, into the
Congressional Record. Rachel's eloquent remarks regarding her struggle
with cancer have been an inspiration to me and I believe that we all
can benefit from her positive outlook and the thankfulness with which
she greets each day. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues
to read this wonderful essay and join me in saluting Rachel for her
strength in her battle with this disease.

I Can Breathe

(By Rachel Spellman)

You have cancer. Imagine hearing that. You have cancer. I
was only two and didn't understand. Everyone has to go to the
hospital everyday and get tested, pricked, poked and x-rayed,
right? I hadn't the faintest idea how in danger my life was.
I am glad I was so young and naive, so I didn't emotionally
fall apart. But it does bother me that I cannot remember
anything. Only little flashbacks and stories from my parents
can evoke the slightest hint of a memory. I am fighting an
emotional and sometimes a physical battle everyday. I learn
to take one day at a time. I can do it. Just one day at a
time.
Having lived with cancer has taught me many of life's hard
lessons. I feel an immense appreciation for life itself. Just
being alive. Now, eleven years in remission, I know how lucky
I am and I am so very grateful for my second chance. My
experience has taught me to believe in something stronger
than myself. I learned to have hope and faith during hard
times. One must slow down to notice the small things and how
simply pure and wonderful they are. Even those little,
annoying things you know you wouldn't have any other way.
The doctor called my parents three days early and he said
to come in right away. It's not important. I had
myelodysplasia, a malignant disease of the bone marrow cells.
Chemotherapy and radiation were not enough. I needed a bone
marrow transplant. Allyson, my sister, was a match. I was
very lucky. It is very hard to find donors. The procedure
hurt her more than it hurt me. I was in the hospital for
about 4 months straight. The next year I was in, on and off,
for follow up. I had an IV put in my chest to put meds, and
sometimes food, through. I still have a scar on my neck and
chest from it. I was on immunosuppressive drugs for 8 years,
until I was 10. An endless list of pills and liquids to take
everyday. I am now doing much better and only go to the
hospital about every three months or so. It's very hard to
listen to people tell me about their little cuts and bruises
when I know the things that really do hurt.
I often feel alienated and different. ``Friends'' do not
understand me, but I really shouldn't expect them to. That
doesn't make it any easier. I am so different. Girls talk of
their highlights and sloppily braid each other's hair.
Looking in the mirror, I think about how great it would feel
to pull my hair back into a ponytail and not have a wig fall
off. Flowing. Like the little mermaid, her long hair dancing
about her as she swims. Yeah, that's it, I want to be Ariel.
It really would be great. In gym class the kids are sweeping
past, I am unable to keep up. My skin is scarred. My hands
are wrinkly. I am constantly being mistaken for 10 when
actually being 14. The list could go on forever. But what
hurts the most is not having a friend to talk with. No one
ever takes me seriously. I often blame this lack of true
companions on cancer. I find my favorite part of the day is
coming home. I finally get to remove the things that I use to
try to fit in and appear normal. Shut the front door, take
off the heeled shoes, remove the itchy wig to reveal my short
dull brown wisps, and slip into some comfy clothes that are
more me. I feel like a player exiting the stage. Removing my
costume, I shake off the character of the day. On stage, I
must hide my true emotions and let this other character shine
through. I get so good at it, I even fool myself.
However, the tears are real; that is irrefutable. That is
when I know I have stopped pretending. Show's over. My
mother, a strong and inspiring woman, has always been there
for me, but this need to connect with peers is overwhelming.
Sometimes, I feel guilty for my emotions. There are so many
amazing things about life! What right do I have to feel like
this? I am selfish. I'm alive, aren't I? Survivor guilt
perhaps. My mother says its OK to be upset. I guess I believe
her. Juggling these feelings and those of a regular teenager
can get very nerve racking. I'm not sure of too much, but I
know one thing. It'll take time. Just time.
One must remember that painful days will pass. Often they
pass too soon. Waste not your time here; we live in a
wonderful place. Smile. Take pleasure in the simple things
and see the complicated ones as a challenge, a new journey.
The little stresses of each day should be seen as a comedy of
errors; enjoy your mistakes and remember to keep your life in
perspective. Above all, love. Love simply the fact that you
are here, and that when you awake each morning, you can
breathe. For your breath might stagger occasionally, but
you're still going. In. Out. In. Out. One day at a time. In.
Out. In.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DAVID LUCCHETTI

______

HON. ROBERT T. MATSUI

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to David Lucchetti, one of
Sacramento's most outstanding citizen leaders. David is retiring after
many years of wonderful contributions to the Sacramento Neighborhood
Housing Service Board of Trustees. As his friends and family gather to
celebrate David's numerous achievements, I ask all of my colleagues to
join with me in saluting one of Sacramento's most accomplished
citizens.
David began his illustrious career in 1970 when he was hired by
Anderson Lumber Company, a division of Pacific Coast Building Products,
Inc. Through his trademark hard work and dedication, David was named
the Chief Financial Officer for Pacific Coast Building Products in
1979. Under his leadership, Pacific Coast Building Products was awarded
the prestigious ``Best in the Business'' awarded by the Sacremento
Chamber of Commerce. In addition, the company was also recently
recognized as one of the ten Most Admired Companies in the Sacramento
area. Perhaps, most impressively, the company has maintained a regular
presence on the influential Forbes 500 list under David's tenure. All
in all, David has steadfastly represented the interests of Pacific
Coast Building Products with great honor and results for the past three
decades.
Aside from his contributions to Pacific Coast Building Products,
David has also offered his valuable services to a number of worthy
community organizations. David has been a long time member of the Big
Brother/Big Sisters Foundation. In addition David has also been a
member of the Sutter Club, California State University Sacramento, the
Sacramento Business Advisory Board, and a Board of Trustee member to
the Sacramento Regional Foundation and Sacramento Neighborhood Housing
Service. David is also associated with Succeed Catholic Social Service.
It is not surprising that David has been widely recognized for his
involvement in the community. In 1996, David was named by the
Sacramento Diocese as the Distinguished Catholic School Graduate of the
year. Earlier in 1993, David was appointed by Governor Pete Wilson to
serve on the California Contractors State License Board. In 1997, David
and his wife, Chris, were the proud recipients of the Philanthropist
Couple Award in recognition for all their charitable work over the
years.
Dave's unparalleled success in the boardroom and in the community
truly makes him one of Sacramento's most accomplished and treasured
citizens. His commitment to help others is a shining example to
everyone who follows his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, as David Lucchetti's friends and family gather for his
honorary luncheon, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's
most honorable residents. His successes are considerable, and it is a
great honor for me to have the opportunity to pay tribute to his
contributions. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in wishing David
Lucchetti continued success in all his future endeavors.

[[Page 23260]]

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE SANDRA L. KOFFMAN

______

HON. SAM FARR

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very
special woman, the Honorable Sandra L. Koffman, the Mayor of Pacific
Grove, California. Sandy, as she is known throughout town, has been a
true leader in Pacific Grove and in the wider Monterey Bay region. As
she steps down after four consecutive terms as Mayor, I want to take
this time to honor her public service. I think it is particularly
important that this House, at the pinnacle of American democracy, honor
the fundamentally important role that local elected officials such as
Mayor Kaufman play in the governance of our great nation. Local
politics is the foundation on which our nation rests. Members of
Congress simply stand on the shoulders of the Mayors, City Council
members, County Supervisors, School Board Members, and the other local
elected office holders who give so generously of their time to make our
communities work. Sandy is just such a local official. She is the kind
of leader who is the first to arrive, the last to leave, and is always
there with persistence and energy to move Pacific Grove forward.
Sandy was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois. After college, Sandy
made her way to California where she began a career in retailing in the
Los Angeles area. Sandy and her husband Dan moved to Pacific Grove in
1990, where she immediately became active in the community, serving as
a docent for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, cofounding Pacific Grove Eco-
Corps in 1991 and the Pacific Grove Residents Association in 1993, and
participating in the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce and many other
local, national and international organizations. In 1994, the citizens
of her adopted city elected Sandy their mayor.
Since her election as mayor, Sandy has contributed in numerous ways
to the improvement of Pacific Grove, including protection of the
environment, preservation of historic homes, and revitalization of the
downtown business district. Sandy has led the City Council effectively
through major projects, including a new Youth Center, restoration of
historic City Hall and an addition to the Civic Center, approved plans
for affordable housing for senior citizens, and a comprehensive sewer
maintenance and improvement project.
Sandy has been a highly public, accessible and outgoing Mayor,
spending countless hours with all segments of the community to build
consensus and bridges of understanding, and has unfailingly conducted
meetings with a skillful combination of cordiality and focus. She has
participated actively in regional planning and policy-making as Pacific
Grove's representative to the Fort Ord Reuse Authority and other
organizations, and has worked closely and effectively with the other
mayors on a wide range of countywide issues.
On behalf of this House I want to commend Mayor Koffman for her
dedicated service and call on her to continue her good work on behalf
of the people of Pacific Grove and the United States.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO ABBA EBAN

______

HON. TOM LANTOS

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen hero
in the cause of peace, Mr. Abba Eban. In nearly a half-century of
service as Israel's premier diplomat, Mr. Eban played a critical role
in securing the future of his embattled nation and in defending
democracy in the Middle East. News of his passing Sunday grieves all
those who knew him and knew his historic work.
My wife and I had the honor of first meeting Abba Eban nearly four
decades ago. Even at this early stage in his extraordinary career, he
had distinguished himself as one of the most passionate, articulate and
compelling voices on the world stage. In introducing President Harry S.
Truman to Israel's future leaders, Mr. Eban helped forge a partnership
between our two countries that has grown only stronger with the passage
of time. Throughout Israel's struggle to survive, Abba Eban provided
the words that emboldened the Israeli people and persuaded the world.
Perhaps his finest moment came in 1967, when he addressed the United
Nations in a heroic and spirited defense of Israel's right to exist.
Israel's continued survival is the lasting legacy of his immortal
words.
Abba Eban's Churchillian orations at the United Nations are the stuff
of legend, capturing the spirit of a brave nation and captivating an
anxious world. He instilled pride in all who shared his vision of a
free and independent homeland for the Jewish people--and he earned the
respect of all who did not. If the pen is mightier than the sword, then
Abba Eban's eloquence was among the strongest weapons in Israel's
arsenal. He personified his nation's fearless quest for peace.
Abba Eban was also a character the likes of whom the world may never
again know. His brilliant intellect, cosmopolitan style and biting wit
cast him as the consummate diplomat. He was the picture of
professionalism. But behind this polished public persona was a human
being who, like his countrymen, struggled to live in peace and with
dignity.
Reflecting on the life of Abba Eban, we better understand that a
nation's greatness is defined not by the strength of its arms or the
extent of its wealth, but by the virtues of its people. Abba Eban was
indeed a great and virtuous man, a most fitting emissary of a great and
virtuous people. Let us commemorate his life by leading our own as he
led his.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE TIM ROEMER

______

HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

of west virginia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the
most highly regarded members of the House of Representatives, the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Select Education, Tim Roemer,
from Indiana's Third District.
As David Broder, the esteemed Washington journalist wrote of Tim, he
is ``ending a singularly useful House career by retiring.''
Throughout his 12 years as a member of the House, Tim has focused on
important matters aimed at improving our way of life such as education
and the AmeriCorps program. Likewise, he brought his considerable
talents to bear as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Most notably, his tenure here has been marked by his consistent
willingness to put aside partisan differences in effort to find
reasonable and worthwhile solutions.
I recently had the privilege of working with Tim on a matter that we
both considered to be very important, the Adams Memorial, which will
honor our second president, John Adams, and his wife, Abigail. As the
ranking member of the Resources Committee, which passed the bill out,
I'm proud to say that President Bush signed the bill into law last
year. Similarly, just the other day, the House passed legislation
approving the Secretary of the Interior's decision on placement of the
memorial.
Mr. Speaker, Tim is the embodiment of the true civil servant who
interrupts his career in order to serve his Nation. And when his
service is complete, he simply chooses to return to private life as
still a young man with great potential for even more achievement.
While we here will miss Tim and his valuable contributions, we wish
him well as he returns to private life, and most importantly, to his
wife and their children.

____________________

RECOGNIZING LIEUTENANT COLONEL GARY WOODWARD

______

HON. DAVID L. HOBSON

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of my
constituent, Lieutenant Colonel Gary Woodward, U.S. Air Force Reserve,
who will be retiring on November 30th of this year.
Col. Woodward began his service as a member of the Ohio Air National
Guard, USAF Security Police (Air Police) and was a graduate of the
first class of the ANG Academy of Military Sciences (NCO Academy) at
the McGhee-Tyson Air Force Base in Knoxville, Tennessee.
He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in 1972, and named Commander
of the 178th Security Police unit at Springfield, Ohio. In 1974, Lt.
Woodward's unit was mobilized to provide humanitarian support to the
Xenia tornado disaster. Under his leadership, this unit was awarded the
Air Force's Outstanding Unit Award, recognized for its excellent
support to the Ministry of Defense in the United Kingdom concerning a
number of successful European deployments, and also was recognized for
its outstanding inspection ratings.
In 1993, Lt. Col. Woodward was promoted to his present grade and
awarded the USAF

[[Page 23261]]

Commendation Medal. In 1995, he was recognized for his professionalism
and outstanding support to the Space and Missile Center, Los Angeles
AFB, and three years later the U.S. Secretary of Defense acknowledged
Lt. Col. Woodward's leadership as the Project Officer for the National
Defense Conference at Wright-Patterson AFB. Identified as mission
critical and extremely valuable to the USAF, Lt. Col. Woodward was
selected and approved to continue service beyond his retirement date.
During all of this, Lt. Col. Woodward had a successful, 25-year
banking career and served on the Fairborn City Council. He and his
wife, Diana, still reside in Fairborn, and are the proud parents of two
daughters, Elizabeth and Melody.
As a former member of the Ohio Air National Guard, I am proud to come
to the floor to recognize Lt. Col. Gary Woodward's service to his
nation, his community and his family, and congratulate him on the
occasion of his retirement.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE HARTFORD PUBLIC LIBRARY

______

HON. JOHN B. LARSON

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute
to the Hartford Public Library as one of only six recipients of this
year's National Award for Museum and Library Service.
The Hartford Public Library's Chief Librarian, Ms. Louise Blalock,
and the Board President, Mr. Paul Shipman, recently attended an awards
ceremony at the White House during which First Lady Laura Bush
presented them with the citation for their innovative efforts to expand
the Library's services to the community. The Hartford Public Library
received the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) award, in
part, for developing community partners and innovative programs to
address current educational, social, economic and environmental issues.
Major partnerships developed by the Library include the Partnership
Library, the Integrated Library Information and Management System and
the Creating Readers program.
The National Award for Library Service was established in 2000 and is
the only national award of its kind to recognize the public service
record of America's libraries. The award is presented in conjunction
with the National Award for Museum Services, which was established in
1994.
This year the Hartford Public Library has truly transformed the
traditional meaning of a library with the development and installation
of its ``Community Information Database''. The Hartford Public Library
has responded directly to the needs of Hartford residents by compiling
this database with such helpful information as employment
opportunities, social services, and neighborhood council reports.
In addition to its model partnership with the Hartford Public System
in which it has helped schools achieve curriculum goals for language
development, the Library has forged a stronger relationship with the
Hartford community this year by connecting all its residents to a
distinguished collection of books, technology, social services, and
community expertise.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in offering my most
sincere congratulations to the Hartford Public Library for its
exemplary service to Hartford and Connecticut's First Congressional
District and for setting an example for innovation and excellence for
libraries across the country.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO VALERIE DOMBROWSKI

______

HON. JANE HARMAN

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the
distinguished life and career of a constituent and community leader,
Redondo Beach School Board Member Valerie Dombrowski, who passed away
on November 11, 2002.
Valerie served the city of Redondo Beach as a dedicated school board
member for twenty-five years. She was a tireless advocate for special
and fine arts education. Among her accomplishments are the equalization
of funding for girls' and boys' sports programs and the procurement of
musical instruments for children who could not afford them.
Her dedication served the students in the community while gaining her
respect from others who were impressed by her resolve to fight for
causes she thought worthy. As a woman who always spoke her mind and
asked the tough questions, she was the voice of the teachers, parents,
and administrators in the district.
While being a matriarch of the Redondo Beach community, she was also
a mother of eleven, grandmother of nineteen, and great-grandmother of
one. Widowed in 1980, Valerie raised her children alone and ran the two
family businesses. Her strength and leadership is an inspiration to us
all.
In keeping with the spirit of Valerie's commitment to special
education and fine arts education, her children have established the
Valerie K. Dombrowski Scholarship Fund to help children with special
needs and arts programs in Redondo Beach.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join Valerie's family and friends in
commemorating the loss of an outstanding educator, mother, and
community leader. Valerie's tireless efforts and unwavering dedication
have touched the community. We will miss her dearly, but her spirit
will continue to survive.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MR. JACK COLWELL

______

HON. TIM ROEMER

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great
American, an accomplished journalist, and an astute observer of
politics, Mr. Jack Colwell of South Bend, Indiana. After nearly 40
years as the political writer for the South Bend Tribune, Mr. Colwell
will soon be stepping down from that post. It is my great honor to have
this opportunity to wish him well as he embarks on his well-deserved
retirement.
In an age when political communication often generates more heat than
light and political discourse is dominated by cynicism and spin, Mr.
Colwell has set the standard for accuracy, fairness, and integrity in
political journalism. The insights and observations found in his weekly
column and regular news articles for the Tribune have inspired
generations of readers to engage in the political process. As a
longtime reader and frequent subject of Mr. Colwell's pieces, I have
marveled at his ability to inform and entertain, report the facts while
also providing the broader context of an issue, and share his knowledge
with a characteristic modesty, humor, and respect for the political
process.
Although Hoosiers now proudly claim him as one of their own, Mr.
Colwell originally hails from Ottawa, Illinois. Upon graduation from
the University of Illinois College of Journalism, he began his
professional journalistic career at the Champaign-Urbana Courier.
Later, Mr. Colwell honed his journalistic skills while serving our
country in the United States Army as the editor for the Fifth Army
newspaper. Upon completion of his service, he joined the South Bend
Tribune as a night police reporter. In 1964, Mr. Colwell assumed the
position of political reporter for the Tribune--a post he has held ever
since.
Over the course of his 38 years covering politics, Mr. Colwell's
relentless pursuit of political news led to coverage of every major
politician in Indiana, 20 national political conventions, and too many
local, state, and national elections to count. His distinguished career
in journalism earned him numerous writing awards from the Hoosier State
Press Association and the Indiana Associated Press Managing Editors.
In addition to his obligations to the South Bend Tribune, since 1988,
Mr. Colwell has provided a forum for conversations between citizens and
their elected officials as the host of a local public affairs
television program. He also finds time to share the insights of his
craft with the next generation of journalists as an adjunct associate
professor of journalism at the University of Notre Dame.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine following politics in
Northern Indiana without the benefit of Jack Colwell's contributions. I
believe that Jack Powers, the former managing editor of the South Bend
Tribune, perhaps put it most succinctly when he said at the time of Mr.
Colwell's induction into the Indiana Journalism Hall of Fame in 2000,
``Jack Colwell is the greatest single journalist in the history of the
community and the newspaper. He made us all look good. He still does.''
I join my constituents in thanking Jack for his years of service and
wish him much success in his future endeavors.

[[Page 23262]]

____________________

TRIBUTE TO BETTY PERRY

______

HON. ROBERT T. MATSUI

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a friend with a
noteworthy career in advocacy and public service. On November 19, 2002,
the National Chapter of the Older Women's League will honor Betty Perry
with the OWL Chapter Leader Award for her tireless work on behalf of
OWL California. As her associates and friends gather to recognize her
passionate work in the advocacy arena, I ask all of my colleagues to
join with me in saluting one of Sacramento's outstanding citizens.
Born and raised in Sacramento, Betty was first exposed to the public
arena when she often attended committee hearings and legislative
sessions in the state capitol with her father. In 1948, Betty received
her M.A. degree from U.C. Berkeley where she also earned her B.A. a few
years earlier. In pursuit of a career in teaching and counseling, Betty
returned home to Sacramento, where she began an almost 4 decade long
career at Kit Carson Jr. High and McClatchy High School.
In 1984, shortly after her husband Calvin Perry passed away, Betty
joined the Sacramento Capitol Chapter of OWL. What started out as a
limited volunteer activity soon manifested into a full time volunteer
position. Whether the task called for making phone calls or serving as
chapter Secretary, Betty demonstrated her trademark commitment to
excellence in all her duties. Betty would go on to serve every chapter
office with distinction, including President, in 1993 and 1994. After a
one-year stint as Co-President OWL California, Betty was ultimately
elected to serve as statewide President in 1995.
As President, Betty remained a strong voice for older women by
representing OWL on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisor's Task
Force on Long Term Care. In 1997, she became OWL-CA's Education and
Research Coordinator and following, Public Policy Director. Along with
her work in public policy, Betty played an instrumental role in the
coordination of the OWL-CA Mother's Day program. She aggressively
advocates for legislation that benefits women and seniors in
California. In 2001, she worked passionately on behalf of OWL to secure
the passage of a resolution in the California State Senate that
recognized the goals of OWL including, the staunch opposition of
privatizing social security.
Despite a hectic schedule, her involvement in community service is
not exclusive to OWL. She has been the co-chair of the local Breast
Cancer Early Detection Program and works closely with the Congress of
California Seniors, Gray Panthers, California Seniors Coalition, AARP,
and the Consumer Federation of California, to protect and advance the
interests of California citizens on a myriad of issues. She has worked
on a variety of social causes promoting issues such as the California
Patient Bill of Rights and reducing prescription drug prices for people
on Medicare.
Her continuous leadership is a true testament to her devotion to help
others. Her career as a social and political activist is commendable
and I am pleased to acknowledge one of Sacramento's outstanding
citizens. Mr. Speaker, as Betty Perry is honored with the OWL Chapter
Leader award, I ask my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute to
her numerous accomplishments.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MR. RAYMOND F. DASMANN

______

HON. SAM FARR

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life
of Mr. Raymond F. Dasmann, a founder of international environmentalism
and a tireless proponent of increased efforts for sustainability on a
planet with limited resources. Mr. Dasmann, a UC Santa Cruz professor
emeritus of ecology, passed away on November 5, 2002, and is survived
by daughters Marlene, Sandra, and Lauren, five grandchildren; and one
great-grandchild. His wife of 45 years, Elizabeth Sheldon, passed away
in 1996.
Raymond was fascinated with our living Earth from an early age. His
undergraduate education in biology was interrupted by World War II; he
served in Australia and New Guinea. Upon his return he enrolled at UC
Berkeley, where he studied zoology under the famed wildlife biologist
Starker Leopold.
Mr. Dasmann began working as a conservation biologist in the 1950s,
when the field was in its infancy. His early research documented
threats to the environment from population growth and pollution.
Raymond wrote over a dozen influential books in his lifetime, on
subjects ranging from endangered species to the loss of irreplaceable
wildlands to environmental decline. Mr. Dasmann's works were must-reads
for national researchers concerned about the environment.
Raymond did pioneering work in the 1960s with the United Nations
Educational Scientific, and Cultural Organization, where he helped
launch the Man and the Biosphere program. During the 1970s he worked in
Switzerland as a senior ecologist for the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature.
Mr. Dasmann was recognized many times for his work. He was honored by
the World Wildlife Society and the Smithsonian Institute. The
prestigious Order of the Golden Ark, which recognizes internationally
distinguished conservationists, honored Raymond in 1978. He became an
elected fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science in 1984 and received the Distinguished Service Award from the
Society for Conservation Biology in 1988. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor
to recognize the life and achievements of Raymond Dasmann.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JOHN LaFALCE

______

HON. NANCY PELOSI

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to put in the Congressional
Record the tremendous accomplishments of John LaFalce, who has served
this body with such great distinction since 1974.
In 1999, John steered the financial Services Act through Congress,
which began the process of modernizing the financial services industry.
And this year, his magnificent leadership brought about tough,
comprehensive investor protections that will help preserve pensions for
years to come.
As this record attests, John LaFalce made a great deal of law during
his outstanding career, without making a great deal of noise.
I wish John and his family the very best, which is what he had given
his fellow Americans day in and day out for nearly 30 years.

Congressman John J. LaFalce

John J. LaFalce was first elected to the 94th Congress in
1974 and was re-elected to each succeeding Congress through
the 107th, serving his Western New York congressional
district for 28 years, from 1975-2002. He served as Chairman
of the House Small Business Committee from 1987-1994, and as
Ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee
from 1998-2002. He declined to seek re-election to the 108th
Congress.

Personal

John LaFalce was born in Buffalo, New York, on October 6,
1939. He graduated from Public School 49 (1953), Canisius
High School (1957), Canisius College (1961), and Villanova
University School of Law in 1964. From 1965 to 1967, Rep.
LaFalce served in the United States Army during the Vietnam
era, leaving active duty with the rank of Captain.
He returned from military service to practice law in
Western New York with the law firm of Jaeckle, Fleischman and
Mugel, and soon became active in public service. In 1970, he
ran successfully for the New York State Senate, and in 1972
was elected to the State Assembly.
He is married to the former Patricia Fisher and they have
one son, Martin, now a senior at Georgetown University.

Congressional Service

In 1974, at the age of 35, Rep. LaFalce became only the
second Democrat, and the first since 1912, to win election to
what was then the 36th Congressional District of New York.
During his career in the House of Representatives, he served
on both the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs (now the Committee on
Financial Services). In January 1987, he was elected by the
Democratic Caucus as Chairman of the Committee on Small
Business, thus becoming the first member of his class (those
elected in 1974) to chair a full, standing committee of the
House. Following the change in control of Congress in 1994,
he continued to play the key role as the Committee's Ranking
Democrat. In February 1998, he was elected the Ranking
Democrat on the Financial Services Committee and served in
that capacity through 2002.
In Congressional Quarterly's Politics in America profile of
Rep. LaFalce, he was characterized as ``one of the smartest
members of Congress.'' A Buffalo News article referred to him
as ``a workhorse, not a showhorse.''

LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES

As Ranking Democrat of the Banking Committee since 1998,
Rep. LaFalce became the point man for the Clinton
Administration on

[[Page 23263]]

all financial economic issues, and consistently demonstrated
his leadership by initiating, advocating and securing the
enactment of numerous laws designed to increase consumer
protection; expand housing and community development;
increase competition to provide consumers the widest range of
financial services at the lowest cost; ensure the safety,
soundness and competitive strength of the banking system; and
improve the efficacy and fairness of international
development programs.
His leadership role was enlarged further in 2001, at the
beginning of the 107th Congress, when the House Banking
Committee became the House Financial Services Committee, with
expanded jurisdiction that encompassed all three pillars of
the U.S. financial system: banking, securities, and
insurance. Since that change, Rep. LaFalce has played the key
leadership role in developing and enacting new regulatory
oversight and increased investor protections in the
securities area, to restore market confidence after the
corporate abuses revealed by Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom
and others.

Financial services

Financial Services Modernization (Gramm-Leach-Bliley)--For
decades, Rep. LaFalce served as a leader in congressional
efforts to modernize the Nation's complex financial services
system, consistently advocating legislation that would
eliminate the arbitrary barriers between commercial and
investment banking. His dedication to modernizing the
financial services system increased with his chairmanship of
a special Task Force formed in 1989--The International
Competitiveness of U.S. Financial Institutions. Concluding
that the current system increased costs to consumers, denied
them easy access to a full range of integrated services,
impeded necessary diversification, and put U.S. institutions
at a clear disadvantage vis-a-vis foreign competitors in a
newly-global marketplace, he made enactment of financial
modernization a top priority.
Early in 1999, working closely with the Clinton Treasury
Department, Rep. LaFalce crafted bipartisan legislation that
jump-started consideration of financial modernization by
garnering Administration support, led by Treasury Secretary
Robert Rubin, for the first time in the recent history of
that debate. Working co-operatively with the Committee
Chairman, and acting as the ``point man'' both for the
Administration and House Democrats, he was able to fashion a
revised bipartisan bill that ultimately served as the basis
for committee passage of the legislation with a strong
bipartisan vote of 51-8. That bill provided the basis for the
bipartisan agreement that led to enactment of the Financial
Services Act of 1999, referred to by The New York Times as
``landmark legislation. . . . The pre-eminent legislative
accomplishment of the year.'' The Associated Press referred
to Rep. LaFalce's ``leading role'' in crafting the final
compromise measure and National Journal's Congress Daily
called him the Administration's ``point man on financial
issues.''
For his leadership role, Rep. LaFalce, along with Senate
Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm, House Banking
Committee Chairman James Leach, and former Treasury Secretary
Robert Rubin, was given the ``American Financial Leadership
Award'' by the Financial Services Roundtable.
Federal Reserve Board and Banks--Over the years, Rep.
LaFalce has worked closely with the various Chairmen of the
Federal Reserve Board, the individual Board Members, and the
heads of the various Federal Reserve Banks, particularly the
New York Federal Reserve, on a variety of macro- and micro-
economic, financial services, consumer and international
issues. Most recently, he has worked closely with Chairman
Alan Greenspan in an effort to pass important corporate
netting legislation that would reduce systemic risk related
to financial contracts; with New York Federal Reserve Bank
President Bill McDonough, Vice-Chairman Roger Ferguson and
Governors Susan Bies, Mark Olsen, and Ned Gramlich on the
development of the Basel II Accord, on improving the Federal
Reserve's regulatory oversight of predatory lending, and on
unfair and deceptive trade practices.
In prior years, Rep. LaFalce worked closely with Federal
Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and New York Federal Reserve
Bank President Gerald Corrigan on efforts to resolve the
Third World debt crisis that was undermining Latin American
economies. He also worked closely with the Federal Reserve
leadership over many years to ensure the progressive
implementation of the existing Glass-Steagall statute, and
subsequently, to effectively implement the Glass-Steagall Act
repeal contained in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation.
New York City Bail-Out and Chrysler Loan Guarantee
Program--In 1978, the Banking Committee played a central role
in devising a loan guarantee program to address the economic
difficulties and pending bankruptcy of New York City. Again
in 1980, the Committee devised another loan guarantee program
to secure the economic viability and continued existence of
one of the country's major auto manufacturers and major
employers, the Chrysler Corporation. Rep. LaFalce played a
central role in the development of both loan guarantee
programs. His key contributions, which became central
elements in both legislative initiatives, were his insistence
on ``conditionality'' to ensure that the government
assistance was conditioned on changes that would ensure each
recipient's independent viability in the longer term, and
shared sacrifice by all parties in a position to benefit.

Corporate accountability and investor protection

Rep. LaFalce has been Congress's leading advocate for
strong investor protections. In 2001, he played a prescient
role in alerting the world to the warning signs that these
problems were just around the corner. Long before Enron was
front page news, in early 2001, he repeatedly warned that the
earnings manipulation and deceptive accounting practices of
large corporations in America threatened the very integrity
of our capital markets. At the same time, he repeatedly
expressed strong concerns that the significant number of
financial restatements and investigations into earnings
manipulation--by corporate officers, directors, and
accountants, undetected by stock analysts--represented only
the tip of the iceberg.
As the Buffalo News reported, ``If the warning signals of
two men in government had been heeded many months ago, the
Enron disaster possibly could have been averted. One voice
heard but not listened to was that of Arthur Levitt, the
former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. .
. . A second figure who sounded a warning early on is our own
Western New York Congressman, John J. LaFalce. The ranking
member of the House Financial Services Committee, in a letter
to his constituents in June 2001, wrote: ``Investing has
become more risky for Americans. Practices such as earnings
manipulation by corporate management, unchecked by boards of
directors or auditors, often create a misleading or false
story of the financial position of the companies that you may
invest in. In addition, stock analysts who recommend stocks
often have conflicts of interest that compromise them.''
LaFalce, elaborating on his concerns, added: ``Since
compensation for management and boards of directors is
closely tied to companies' stock prices, the pressure on
corporations to manipulate earnings can only increase. While
auditors should be acting as watchdogs for shareholders, many
have become dependent on consulting revenues from the
companies they audit, creating a conflict that makes it
difficult for them to stand up to their clients.''
LaFalce's remarks, made many months before the Enron
failure, are prophetic of the practices that have since come
to light. LaFalce also stated in his newsletter that: ``I
believe we may have seen only the tip of the iceberg of
accounting irregularities, and I have called for the
Financial Services Committee to focus on accounting issues,
which have such a profound effect on the integrity of our
markets.''
The colossal failures of Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing
and other firms, and the devastating impact on investors and
on the working men and women of those companies, have
justified LaFalce's concerns. At the same time, Rep. LaFalce
has also worked with financial regulators and his colleagues
to eliminate conflicts of interest by stock analysts, who in
many cases hyped stocks in order to win and maintain
investment banking business.
Corporate Accountability Act (Sarbanes-Oxley)--Rep. LaFalce
was the prime mover of the sweeping corporate accounting
reform legislation signed into law on July 25, 2002, marking
the first step toward bringing about needed change to U.S.
capital markets and restoring credibility to corporate
America. The new Corporate Accountability Act largely
parallels the original bill introduced by Rep. LaFalce in
February 2002. That bill, the Comprehensive Investor
Protection Act (HR 3818), was the first comprehensive
legislative solution to bring substantial and systemic reform
to capital markets that have been rocked by corporate
bankruptcy scandals. The Senate bill subsequently introduced
by Banking Committee Chairman Paul Sarbanes was modeled on
the LaFalce bill, and its strong provisions remain the
centerpiece of the new Corporate Accountability law. As
former SEC Chief Accountant Lynn Turner said ``while
[lsqb]the Sarbanes-Oxley bill[rsqb] may not have the LaFalce
name on it, it will have the LaFalce intent and heart behind
it.''
Rep. LaFalce was also widely praised by consumer, investor,
and labor groups, and the House Democratic Leadership, for
his leadership in bringing about these essential auditing
reforms. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney praised his
``courageous leadership'' and said ``I particularly want to
thank Congressman LaFalce, who has really stood out these
last few months as a leader ready to take on powerful Wall
Street and big money interests on behalf of working
families.''
House Minority Leader Rep. Richard Gephardt said ``The
LaFalce approach does more than make cosmetic reform. It
restores accountability to corporate America. . . .
[lsqb]LaFalce has been[rsqb] a Patton-like General
[lsqb]winning[rsqb] an unconditional surrender from
opponents. . . . He has been a gold standard on this issue.''
House Minority Whip Rep. Nancy Pelosi said ``kudos to
Financial Services Ranking Member John LaFalce for a
magnificent display of leadership

[[Page 23264]]

. . . in passing the LaFalce-Sarbanes corporate reform
legislation.''
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said, ``You should
enact the LaFalce legislation.'' Both the Consumer Federation
of America and U.S. Public Interest Group also commended
Representative LaFalce ``for proposing tough, far-reaching
auditing reform.''
SEC Oversight and Resources--In order to address widespread
problems with our system of financial disclosure, Rep.
LaFalce in early 2001 began calling for a significant
increase, 200-300 percent, in the budget of the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) to strengthen its personnel,
oversight, and enforcement. In early 2002, President Bush
signed legislation to reduce the fees that American
corporations pay to the SEC for transactions and registration
of stock. The new law also included provisions that would
authorize the SEC to pay its staff on a basis that is
comparable to the other Federal financial regulatory
agencies, potentially improving the ability of the SEC to
attract and retain the highest quality staff.
Rep. LaFalce opposed the bill because of provisions that
actually could have reduced the resources available to the
SEC. He said of the legislation: ``One of our greatest
priorities is the critical need to ensure adequate government
oversight of our securities markets. This legislation does
nothing to ensure that the SEC has the additional resources
it greatly needs to address the many significant issues
investors face in these markets.'' In the June 2001 debate on
the floor, prior to Enron, Rep. LaFalce said: ``the SEC
budget . . . should be beefed up at least 200 percent to 300
percent in order to protect the American investor . . .
today's bill precludes the type of effective investment I
believe we need.''
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act
(The S&L Crisis)--Rep. LaFalce warned of the impending S&L
crisis in the early 1980's and sought to address the
inadequate regulation, supervision and funding that
threatened the solvency of thrift institutions. As the
Buffalo News reported, ``Congressman John J. LaFalce, a
member of the House Banking Committee, warned that
deregulation of the thrifts had gone too far. . . . LaFalce
worried that the thrifts' assets were simply thin air, buoyed
by a ponzi scheme of overpriced acquisitions.'' He was a
staunch critic of the legislation developed to address the
crisis, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), and ultimately opposed its
enactment.
Throughout the 1980s, Rep. LaFalce consistently supported
legislation that would have improved the examination and
supervision regime governing thrift institutions and
recapitalized the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
Corporation, which consistently had inadequate funding to
resolve the problems of insolvent thrift institutions.
By 1989, a combination of years of inadequate regulation
and supervision, and inadequate funding, had resulted in a
crisis situation. In February 1989, the Bush Administration
unveiled the broad outlines of a plan to borrow $50 billion
to close down or sell more than 350 weak Savings and Loan
institutions. The proposed FIRREA legislation, which evolved
from congressional consideration of this broad plan,
dramatically restructured federal regulation of thrifts and
provided $50 billion over three years to close down or sell
off hundreds of insolvent savings institutions.
While Rep. LaFalce voted for the bill in the House to move
it forward with the hope of improving it in conference, he
opposed the final legislation, believing it would be
ineffective, overly restrictive, costly to taxpayers, and
would have serious unintended consequences. He emphasized
several problems with the legislation during debate on the
bill. First, he noted that the Administration's estimates
were based on a series of unreasonably rosy assumptions that
resulted in a gross underestimation of the ultimate cost to
the taxpayer. Had the enormity of the costs been better
appreciated, he was convinced closer scrutiny might have been
applied in determining how the bail-out would be structured
and how the costs would be funded. He emphasized that, under
the plan, it was only the taxpayers' obligation that was
indeterminate, and that the structure of the program made the
taxpayer the ultimate recourse for any increased financial
burden beyond preliminary estimates. The cost of the bail-out
was eventually hugely in excess of original estimates, and
substantial additional funding was subsequently required.
Rep. LaFalce also believed that borrowing to pay for the
bail-out unnecessarily increased the costs and unfairly
passed those costs onto future generations. He argued that it
was fiscally irresponsible to borrow to cover even present
consumption, let alone the past consumption represented by
thrift losses. He emphasized that borrowing the money would
turn what was more likely to be a $130 billion problem into a
$500 billion drain over the next several decades, imposing
the problem on future generations and diverting funds from
more pressing social needs.
Rep. LaFalce also objected to the fact that the states were
held harmless from assuming any responsibility for the cost
of the bail-out, even though the vast majority of the problem
was attributable to state-chartered institutions operating,
in many cases, under lax state regulation and supervision. It
was his view that having federal taxpayers assume the entire
burden for these problems was an abuse of the dual banking
system and he called for greater regional equity in bearing
the financial burden for the bail-out.
Rep. LaFalce also argued that the precipitous application
of new capital standards made weak, but potentially, viable
institutions into problem institutions, and made strong
thrift institutions vulnerable. He believed that the
structure of the legislation made it virtually impossible for
potentially healthy thrifts that could form the core of a
revitalized industry to survive. Many weak but viable
institutions were in fact lost, and institutions became
increasingly risk averse, contributing to a subsequent credit
crunch that he had predicted.
Finally, Rep. LaFalce argued strongly during Committee
consideration and subsequently that the suggested treatment
of supervisory goodwill under the proposed legislation was a
breach of contract that the government could not expect to
engage in without the ultimate payment of damages. Thrifts
had entered into contracts with their regulator which allowed
them to count supervisory goodwill as capital under defined
terms and conditions. The legislation would no longer permit
such capital treatment.
As a practical matter, Rep. LaFalce argued that this would
result in more thrift failures and a higher cost associated
with resolution of the crisis. As a legal matter, Rep.
LaFalce foresaw that litigation would ensue and that the
government would ultimately be required to pay damages for
breaking the contracts that governed the treatment of
supervisory goodwill, again increasing the cost of the bail-
out. His judgment and foresight was vindicated when the U.S.
Supreme Court, in July 1996, in the case of United States v.
Winstar Corporation, held that contracts were broken and the
government was liable for damages.
In an effort to construct a more workable proposal, Rep.
LaFalce advanced a number of amendments in the course of the
legislative process. Those amendments, first of all, would
have eliminated reliance on the borrowing which was
unnecessarily increasing the overall cost of the bail-out;
second, would have given weak, but viable, institutions
better prospects of improving their situation, so they would
not eventually have to be bailed out by the taxpayer; and
third, would have required the states to make some reasonable
contribution to the cost of the bail-out. Unfortunately,
those amendments were not adopted.
Credit Union Membership--Rep. LaFalce recognized early in
his congressional career the important role played by credit
unions within a diversified financial services marketplace.
Upon taking a leadership role in the Banking Committee, he
provided an influential voice for permitting credit unions to
serve a broader segment of American consumers, while also
attempting to moderate the banking industry's competitive
objections to an expanded credit union industry. In 1997,
when it appeared that banker-initiated litigation would
completely stall future credit union growth, he introduced
legislative proposals designed to reopen opportunities for
credit union membership and to address key competitive
concerns expressed by the banks. This balanced proposal
provided the framework for the Credit Union Membership Access
Act of 1998, which was passed by Congress with huge
majorities and signed by President Clinton within months of
its formal introduction. The legislation provided a new
framework for multiple-group credit unions and for community
charter conversions that has significantly expanded credit
union membership. Rep. LaFalce has continued to advocate
legislative changes that offer new opportunities to expand
credit union membership and services within the balanced
framework of the 1998 Act.
His work on behalf of credit unions was recognized with
special awards from the Credit Union National Association in
1999 and the New York Credit Union League in 1998, and a
special career recognition award from the National
Association of Federal Credit Unions in October, 2002.
Interstate Banking/Branching--Rep. LaFalce was one of the
first advocates in Congress for repealing outdated federal
prohibitions on interstate banking. In 1985, he introduced
one of the first bills to authorize interstate branching by
national banks, bank holding companies, and thrifts. The bill
would have permitted a bank of one state to establish a
branch in another state to the same extent as those of other
states allowed interstate branching by state banks. His
initial bill became the model for the landmark 1994 law, the
Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act,
which repealed prohibitions on interstate banking, increased
availability of credit to our communities nationwide, and led
to the emergence of a more competitive, safer and sounder
banking system.
Insurance--Rep. LaFalce recognized very early in his career
that state-by-state regulation of the insurance industry
severely limits the ability of the national government to
respond to crises in the insurance industry that affect the
national economy. The

[[Page 23265]]

1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act assured that insurance companies
would remain under state regulation and that they would enjoy
a limited exemption from antitrust laws.
The Act led to a situation in the 1970s and 1980s that
caused businesses, particularly small firms, to have
difficulty in obtaining product liability insurance. When the
insurance was available, the premiums were very expensive. As
Chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Capital,
Investment and Business Opportunities, Rep. LaFalce led an
extensive investigation into the product liability crisis.
His Subcommittee determined that much of the blame for the
crisis could be pinned on panic pricing by insurance
companies that was left unchecked by most state regulators.
The Subcommittee also found evidence that the antitrust
exemption led to a lack of competition in the pricing of
product liability insurance, and that a fairer Uniform
Product Liability law would be far preferable to 50 separate
state laws.
Rep. LaFalce introduced legislation to address the crisis
through the establishment of a national insurance commission,
which would have ensured that premiums for product liability
and other types of insurance were reasonable and that
policyholders were protected from unfair and deceptive
practices of insurance companies. Rep. LaFalce's legislation
would have limited McCarran-Ferguson by eliminating the
industry's antitrust exemption, thereby curbing anti-
competitive practices. He also worked with Professor Victor
Schwartz to introduce in Congress the first Uniform Product
Liability Act, a bill that was, unfortunately, then opposed
by Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Although the Commerce Committee never took up the
legislation, persistent crisis in the insurance industry
confirmed Rep. LaFalce's belief that the Federal Government
must play a role in regulating an industry that is so vital
to the national economy. Following the terrorist attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11,
2001, the market for reinsurance for risks related to
terrorism began to evaporate. Rep. LaFalce was among the
first in Congress to call for the creation of a federal
backstop for terrorism insurance. He believed that the lack
of adequate and affordable terrorism insurance could slow
reconstruction of New York City and weaken the nation's
entire economy. The Federal Government was slow to respond to
that crisis, in part, because there was no insurance
expertise within the Executive Branch.
Rep. LaFalce also was one of the first in Congress to
recognize that state regulation of the insurance industry
increases costs for both insurance companies and consumers.
This regulatory structure also creates inconsistent
protections for consumers and regulatory requirements for
companies because not all states can do a good job of
protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive practices in
the insurance industry. In February 2002, Rep. LaFalce
introduced the Insurance Industry Modernization and Consumer
Protection Act (IIMCPA), which provides insurance companies
the option of a single federal insurance regulator rather
than 50 state regulators. The IIMCPA would protect consumers
by establishing for the first time national minimum standards
to combat unfair and deceptive practices in the insurance
industry.

Consumer protections

Rep. LaFalce has been a longstanding consumer and community
advocate as reflected in his work on the landmark Financial
Services Act of 1999 as well as on numerous other legislative
initiatives during his career on the House Banking Committee.
He authored key provisions of the financial modernization
that are designed to protect consumers against deceptive
practices in the sales of insurance and investment products
in a bank's lobby. At his insistence, the Financial Services
Act of 1999 incorporates strong safeguard to (1) ensure that
consumers are not confused about new financial products, the
risk they carry, and whether or not they are insured; (2)
prevent a bank from forcing its customers to purchase another
product, such as an insurance policy, as a condition for
receiving a loan; (3) ensure a consumer grievance process is
put in place; and (4) require full disclosure of ATM
surcharges.
Upon his retirement, the Consumer Federation of America, in
a letter dated June 27, 2002, praised Rep. LaFalce for his
effort on behalf of consumers: ``No one in Congress has
fought harder for everyday consumers and investors than John
LaFalce. He combines a bedrock commitment to consumer
protection with a savvy awareness of how to move important
legislation through Congress in the face of special interest
opposition.''
Financial Privacy--In the area of financial privacy, it was
legislation that Rep. LaFalce had introduced in 1998 and 1999
that laid the basis for the historic financial privacy
protections that Congress included within the Financial
Services Act. He led a bipartisan effort to craft provisions
that provided the strongest consumer privacy protections ever
enacted into law. Considering these efforts as only a first
step in safeguarding consumer privacy, Rep. LaFalce joined
with the Clinton Administration early in 2000 to introduce
new legislation to further enhance these financial privacy
protections, and he helped usher through the Banking
Committee new legislation providing strong policy protections
for consumer health and medical information.
Enhancing Access to Credit--Rep. LaFalce was a staunch
defender of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) during
numerous attempts to repeal or limit its mandate that
financial institutions serve all segments of their community.
He was instrumental in expanding the CRA within the context
of the financial modernization legislation to require all
banking institutions seeking new, non-banking activities to
demonstrate a continuing commitment to meeting the financial
services needs of low-income and minority communities. As a
result of his efforts, the Financial Services Act ensure that
the CRA, which requires that financial institutions meet
local community needs, will remain of central importance in
the new, evolving financial marketplace.
Rep. LaFalce also led the effort to incorporate many of the
nation's ``un-banked'' low- and moderate-income individuals
into the financial mainstream. His legislation, the First
Accounts Act of 2000, became the basis for a pilot program
initiated by the U.S. Treasury Department. The program is
designed to help more than eight million low- and moderate-
income people for whom the cost of checking or savings
accounts are too high. Working in partnership with financial
institutions, the U.S. Treasury helps these individuals gain
access to basic, low-cost financial services, including ATM
access and checking accounts. The First Accounts program will
widen access for many Americans to the mainstream banking and
credit system so that no family may be left behind.
Mortgage Servicing Rights and Protections--Rep. LaFalce
authored the initial legislation that resulted in the 1990
amendments to improve consumer protections in the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Those improvements provide
for advance notice to homeowners--now known as ``LaFalce''
notices--alerting them that their mortgage servicing is to be
transferred to another financial institution. The notices
also provide certain protections to consumers during the
transfer, including assurance of the proper handling of
monthly mortgage payments and prompt payment of insurance and
tax obligations from escrow accounts.
Rep. LaFalce also was instrumental in securing enactment of
``Mortgage Loan Consumer Protection Act'' (H.R. 4818) in 1996
that granted consumers new rights, based on New York law, to
cancel unnecessary and costly private mortgage insurance
(PMI). In the 107th Congress, he also introduced legislation
providing for comprehensive reform of RESPA's mortgage
settlement procedures to help simplify the mortgage
settlement process and further enhance protections for
consumers.
Abusive Credit Card Practices--Rep. LaFalce led the effort
in Congress to identify and address a growing number of
abusive practices in connection with credit card
solicitations and the management of credit card accounts. He
first introduced the ``Consumer Credit Card Protection
Amendments'' in 1999 to protect consumers against the most
egregious practices common to most credit cards, including
misleading ``teaser'' interest rate claims in card
solicitations, inadequately disclosed late payment penalties
and default interest rates, and penalties for paying card
balances in full. A key provision of the bill also sought to
prohibit issuing credit cards to minors without parental
approval or evidence of means of repayment. The Lafalce bill
served as the basis for Democratic efforts to add credit card
reform proposals to a bankruptcy bill strongly favored by the
credit card industry.
Press reports during 1999 and 2000 began to focus public
attention on fraudulent schemes to withhold the posting of
credit card payments to generate late fees and to trap
vulnerable consumers in high-cost credit accounts with
misleading ``bait and switch'' tactics. Rep. LaFalce
responded by introducing the ``Credit Card Predatory
Practices Prevention Act'' (H.R. 1060) in 2001 to require
federal banking regulators to issue detailed regulations
defining unfair and deceptive practices in credit card
accounts. The bill proposed to expand the scope of the
federal Truth in Lending Act to address abuses in the
administration of credit card accounts as well as impose new
restrictions on deceptive practices in credit card
solicitations.
Unfair and Deceptive Credit Practices--from his work
drafting legislative responses to predatory mortgage lending
and abusive credit card practices, Rep. LaFalce discerned
that federal law provided little, if any, protection for
consumers against unfair or deceptive practices generally in
credit transactions. A 1975 change in law exempted financial
institutions from the general prohibition against unfair and
deceptive business practices in the Federal Trade Commission
Act. The Federal Reserve Board was given responsibility for
issuing separate rules defining unfair and deceptive
practices for regulated financial institutions, which it has
failed to use. Beginning in 2000, Rep. LaFalce used the
opportunity of Committee oversight hearings to challenge the
Federal Reserve

[[Page 23266]]

Board for its continuing failure over a twenty-five year
period to write comprehensive rules prohibiting unfair and
deceptive credit practices. In a series of direct meetings
and letter exchanges with Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, he
continued to press the need for more specific prohibitions on
unfair credit practices. The exchanges led to a change in
Federal Reserve Board policy in June 2002 in which the Board
acknowledged its authority to prohibit unfair practices by
regulation and, in the absence of such regulations, that the
banking regulatory agencies could act to prohibit unfair
practices on a case-by-case basis. The change in policy
provided support for enforcement actions by the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency against several credit card
companies and new guidance on unfair and deceptive banking
practices from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Automobile Leasing Protections--Rep. LaFalce was the first
Member of Congress to recognize automobile leasing as an
important consumer transaction and an area of growing
consumer abuse. Consumer unfamiliarity with the complex terms
and cost factors of leases make them particularly vulnerable
to manipulation and abuse. He joined with the Consumer
Federation of American in drawing attention to the lack of
clear and accurate cost information in auto lease advertising
and in information provided by auto dealerships. In 1995, and
again in succeeding Congresses, he introduced the ``Consumer
Automobile Lease Advertising Improvement Act'' (H.R. 1056 in
the 107th Congress) to provide uniform cost disclosures in
lease advertisements, prevent abusive practices in connection
with advertised lease offers, and require that all relevant
information on available lease terms and manufacturer
incentives be made available to consumers upon request. The
bill sought to apply, for the first time, the traditional
principle of the consumer's ``right to know'' to more complex
auto lease transactions.

Economic and community revitalization

Rep. LaFalce has been a leader in economic revitalization
and community development issues throughout his career in
Congress, using his position on the Banking Committee to
direct federal dollars to institutions that invest in
economic development and job growth in distressed communities
and to provide targeted assistance to those communities. He
worked especially hard to assure that federal funds were
available to assist needed housing and economic development
efforts throughout Western New York.
Renewal Communities--Rep. LaFalce played a key role in
creating and enacting into law Renewal Community legislation,
which provides a broad range of investment tax incentives
designed to spur economic development and create jobs in 40
Renewal Communities nationwide. He also played a critical
role in having three of those 40 Renewal Communities
designated locally--in Niagara Falls, Buffalo, and Rochester.
In October 2002, the House adopted Rep. LaFalce's bill (HR
3100) to expand these renewal community areas to include
those census tracts that declined economically over the past
decade.
Urban Development Action Grants--In 1977, Rep. LaFalce co-
authored legislation creating the federal Urban Development
Action Grants (UDAG) program, which has targeted billions of
dollars over the years for distressed cities to help spur
private development and create jobs.
Community Development Block Grants[dash]Rep. LaFalce worked
hard to assure the continuation of Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funding for Buffalo, Rochester, Niagara
Falls, Erie County and other jurisdictions, which they have
used to revitalize downtown shopping areas, redevelop
waterfront areas, create historic districts, develop
industrial parks, and rehabilitate thousands of units of
needed moderate-priced housing. He also was the driving force
in changing the formulas to advantage other communities,
largely in the Northeast.

Small business

During his time as Chairman of the House Small Business
Committee (1987-1994), and as Ranking Member (1995-1998),
Rep. LaFalce was an active, committed advocate for the needs
and concerns of America's vital small business community. He
worked to create and expand federal programs that provide
loan guarantees for new and growing small businesses; direct
federal loans to micro-enterprises; expand the authority of
the Federal Home Loan Bank System to invest in economic
development and small business projects; make loans more
readily available to women entrepreneurs; provide technical
and managerial assistance to new small businesses; and
increase small business participation in federal procurement.
Rep. LaFalce's long history of support for our nation's small
businesses continued into his final term in Congress, when he
worked to help small businesses recover from the September 11
terrorist attacks (see Terrorism Response, below).
Small Business Innovation & Research--As author of the
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program in 1982,
Rep. LaFalce helped create thousands of jobs through
development of new and innovative technology. This program
calls on federal agencies to direct a portion of their
research and development budgets to small businesses that use
creative technology to solve problems. To date, the SBIR
program has shifted more than two billion dollars in federal
research and development funds to the nation's small high-
tech firms. The leading small business magazine, INC., termed
Rep. LaFalce's bill ``the most important piece of small
business legislation yet enacted in our lifetime.''
In 1992, Rep. LaFalce incorporated a new initiative into
this policy called the Small Business Technology Transfer
program, which connects small firms with government and
university research laboratories. The result is a weather of
new research and technology with practical applications for
business and industry.
Small Business Investment Companies--As a member and
Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, Rep. LaFalce led
the way in increasing the availability of capital and loans
to small businesses. He authored the Small Business Equity
Enhancement Act, enacted in 1992, which brought important
reforms to the Small Business Investment Company program to
help small businesses obtain financing for starting,
maintaining and expanding operations. SBICs provide funding
to small businesses equity investments (purchasing their
stock) and debt (issuing loans).
As Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee, Rep.
LaFalce successfully led congressional efforts to persuade
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to
reconsider a regulatory proposal that would have imposed
extremely burdensome capital requirements on bank-owned SBICs
and that could have significantly decreased SBIC equity
investments in small businesses.
Women Business Owners--As Chairman of the Small Business
Committee, Rep. LaFalce took a special interest in the needs
and concerns of the growing number of women small business
entrepreneurs. He authored the Women's Business Ownership
Act, which continues to successfully fulfill its purpose: to
improve access to credit and provide other opportunities for
women in today's marketplace. Rep. LaFalce subsequently
authored the Women's Business Development Act which re-
authorized and built upon the original landmark legislation.
He also created the Interagency Committee on Women's Business
Issues, to ensure that actions and policies of all federal
agencies take women's business concerns into account. For his
efforts, he was honored by the National Association of Women
Business Owners as Congressional Advocate of the Year.
Tax Code Section 89 Repeal--Rep. LaFalce scored a major
victory on behalf of small businesses in 1988 when he
succeeded in his legislative effort to repeal the onerous
provisions of Section 89 of the Tax Code relating to employee
benefits. The newly enacted Section 89 required annual,
complex data collection and record-keeping to ensure that
employer-provided benefits meet certain criteria in order to
retain their tax-exempt status. Its provisions were
especially burdensome for small businesses and were causing
many to drop all employee benefits to avoid Section 89's
costly record-keeping requirements. For his successful
efforts, Rep. LaFalce won nationwide acclaim from such
diverse groups as the National Federation of Independent
Business, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers, and a host of labor
organizations.
Franchising--Rep. LaFalce is the leading authority in
Congress on business franchising and the franchising
industry. As Chairman of the House Committee on Small
Business, he initiated what became a five-year Committee
study of franchising practices, involving numerous hearings,
staff studies and legislation. The Committee's activities
constituted Congress's first comprehensive review of the
economy's important franchising sector in more than 20 years.
Based on his initial hearings, Rep. LaFalce introduced the
``Federal Franchise Disclosure and Consumer Protection Act''
in 1992 to require public disclosure of all material facts
about franchise business opportunities and provide investor
protections against fraud and misrepresentation. Many
provisions of the bill were later used by the Federal Trade
Commission and the North American Securities Administrators
Association to improve federal and state franchise disclosure
forms. A second bill introduced in 1993, the ``Federal Fair
Franchise Practices Act,'' continues to be the primary
legislation in Congress to prohibit unfair franchising
practices and establish minimum standards of conduct in
franchise relationships. Both bills have also served as
models for many other legislative initiatives.
Rep. LaFalce's continuing efforts to identify and examine
unfair franchising practices brought both immediate and long-
term changes to franchising. It led to increased enforcement
against fraudulent franchise schemes by the Federal Trade
Commission. It prompted the International Franchise
Association to announce a series of industry reforms,
including an expanded industry Code of Ethics and the
introduction of franchisees into the Association's
membership. In addition, Rep. LaFalce was instrumental in
encouraging the formation of new organizations to represent
the interests of individual

[[Page 23267]]

franchise business owners, including the American Association
of Franchisees and Dealers and the American Franchisee
Association.
Small Business Loan Programs--Rep. LaFalce has been a
leader in the Congress in protecting government loan programs
for small businesses. He consistently fought off attempts to
scale back and scuttle the SBA's loan guarantee program which
supports many billions of dollars annually in loans to small
firms. He also sought innovative ways to increase lending to
small businesses. In 1989, he proposed the establishment of a
federally chartered private corporation to encourage long-
term financing to small businesses (``Velda Sue''--HR 3179).
This would create a secondary market for these loans--similar
to the one created through Fannie Mae with housing loans--and
would match investors with small businesses in need of long-
term capital.
Small Business Development Centers--Rep. LaFalce has been a
champion of the Small Business Development Center program,
which is a cooperative effort of the private sector, the
educational community and state, federal and local
governments. The program enhances economic development by
providing small businesses with management and technical
assistance at no charge.
Rep. LaFalce authored legislation, enacted in 1990, that
established the Central European Small Business Enterprise
Development Commission, with the mandate to assist Poland,
Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (now the
Czech Republic and Slovakia) in developing self-sustaining
systems of SBDCs to provide management and technical
assistance to small business owners in those countries. The
Commission established several SBDCs under the joint
sponsorship of the United States Government and the
governments of the host countries, with the host countries
eventually assuming responsibility for funding the centers.
SBA Disaster Office in Niagara Falls--As Chairman of the
Small Business Committee, Rep. LaFalce worked with the George
H.W. Bush Administration to bring one of four Small Business
Administration Disaster Area offices to the City of Niagara
Falls in 1989. That office administers the SBA's Disaster
Loan program for 13 states in the northeast. It employs about
125 people full-time, rising to 300 or more during peak
periods. After 9-11, for example, the Niagara Falls office
processed and administered more than $400 million in disaster
assistance to business and individuals in New York City and
metropolitan Washington, D.C. When the office sought to
relocate out of Niagara County in 2002, Rep. LaFalce
spearheaded a successful effort to keep the Disaster Office
in downtown Niagara Falls.
White House Conference on Small Business--In order to
establish a national, broad-based agenda and policy on behalf
of small businesses that are so important to the nation's
economy, Rep. LaFalce led the effort to convene a White House
Conference on Small Business. Legislation he authored to
mandate such a conference was enacted in October 1990, and
the White House Conference was held in the spring of 1995.
This gathering of more than 1,500 small businessmen and women
gave them a unique opportunity to influence the course of
government policymaking. The delegates were addressed by
President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and prominent Members
of Congress, including Rep. LaFalce. His message was simple:
it is important that the voice of small business, as the
engine of job creation in the United States, be heard loudly
and clearly, and he promised to take the conferees'
recommendations to the Congress in order to address their
concerns.
Minority Business Set-Aside--In the 100th Congress, Rep.
LaFalce successfully reformed the scandal-plagued SBA
Minority Business Development program (Section 8a) which was
riddled with fraud and abuse. His bill, the Business
Opportunity Development Program, enacted in October 1988
(P.L. 100-656), ensured that the Capital Ownership
Development Program and the Section 8(a) authority would be
used exclusively to help develop small businesses, owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals, in order to enable them to compete on an equal
basis in the mainstream of the American economy.

Housing

Rep. LaFalce used his position on the Financial Services
Committee to fight for increased funding for key housing and
community development programs, and to enact numerous housing
initiatives designed to expand home-ownership, meet the
challenges of providing affordable housing and services to a
growing seniors population, and to address the problems of
homelessness.
Elderly Housing--At the beginning of the 106th Congress,
Rep. LaFalce introduced his comprehensive ``Elderly Housing
Quality Improvement Act'' (HR 4817). The vast majority of
these provisions were enacted into law by that Congress,
including a $50 million initiative to convert affordable
seniors' housing projects to assisted living facilities; a
doubling of federal funding for service coordinators, which
help seniors access community services and maintain their
independence; and expanded funding for capital repair of
affordable seniors' rental housing. The 106th Congress also
approved legislation authored by Rep. LaFalce to make it
easier for elderly homeowners to use reverse mortgages to
purchase long-term care insurance.
Federal Home Loan Banks--Rep. LaFalce contributed
significantly to the modernization of the Federal Home Loan
Bank System, a nationwide cooperative of twelve regional
banks formed in 1932 to improve the flow of long-term funds
and liquidity into housing. In 1989, as part of FIRREA, he
supported broadening its mission to include rural housing,
affordable housing, and economic and community development.
He was actively involved in improving federal oversight of
the system through the establishment of a stronger, more
independent federal regulator--the Federal Housing Finance
Board--and by toughening capital and safety and soundness
regulation. Throughout his career, Rep. LaFalce worked
closely with the various home loan banks, particularly the
Federal Home Loan Bank of New York, and their executives,
financial institution members, and state, local and community
organizations, to maximize the contribution to both housing
and economic development.
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac--A major factor contributing to
record national homeownership rates is the ready availability
of affordable mortgage loans offered by Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private
companies, but are federally chartered and federally
regulated.
Rep. LaFalce has constructively supported the important
role of these two lenders in our mortgage markets in the face
of congressional attacks, while at the same time supporting
strong federal safety and soundness regulation and increased
goals with respect to the percentage of mortgage loans made
by Fannie and Freddie to low- and moderate-income families
and under-served areas.
He successfully persuaded Fannie Mae to establish a
partnership office in Buffalo and to commit $5 billion for
new housing investments in the region, a figure which the
office has greatly exceeded.
HOUSE Act--In the 106th Congress, Rep. LaFalce introduced
the HOUSE Act, innovative legislation that authorizes one
percent down payment FHA loans for teachers, police, and
firefighters buying a home in their local school district or
employing jurisdiction. He shepherded this bill through the
House in 2000 and, though the bill died in conference as a
result of opposition from Senate Republicans, it continues to
gain widespread support and stands a good chance of enactment
in the near future.
Homelessness--In 2000, Rep. LaFalce spearheaded an
emergency funding initiative that restored rental assistance
for tens of thousands of families nationwide (including 178
in Erie County, NY) who faced eviction and homelessness as a
result of HUD cutting off funding. He subsequently took the
lead in Congress on an initiative that resulted in action by
the Appropriations Committee to provide a separate funding
source for renewal of homeless rental assistance in order to
prevent a recurrence of the funding cutoff experienced in
2000.

Environment

Superfund--The infamous Love Canal toxic waste scandal in
Niagara County was the impetus for federal legislation to
hold corporations liable to pay for the clean-up of hazardous
waste sites across the country. Rep. LaFalce first discovered
the problems at the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls
in the summer of 1977, and immediately wrote to Douglas
Costle, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator, about the problem. He made the first of many
personal inspections of Love Canal a few weeks later, and
brought President Jimmy Carter, Governor Hugh Carey, Rep. Al
Gore, and others to Western New York for on-site visits. Rep.
LaFalce urged swift action on relocation of the residents and
cleanup of the site. As a result, the following year
President Carter declared a health emergency at Love Canal,
paving the way for the relocation and cleanup.
In response to the events at Love Canal, Rep. LaFalce
crafted and introduced the first Superfund legislation aimed
at compensating victims and taxing polluters to pay for the
cleanup of toxic wastes they generated. President Carter
later submitted a scaled-down version of the LaFalce bill,
and Congress subsequently approved it in December 1980.
In 1986, when the Superfund law was reauthorized, Rep.
LaFalce drafted and successfully fought for an amendment that
specifically targeted Love Canal, committing the Federal
Government to purchase rental homes and commercial property
in the Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area and to maintain
property there, as well as to take the steps necessary to
ensure that Love Canal was fully remediated and monitored for
years to come.
In 1998, Rep. LaFalce was recognized for his efforts by the
Center for Health, Environment and Justice, headed by former
Love Canal activist Lois Gibbs, at an awards ceremony in
Washington to mark the 20th anniversary of the emergency
declaration at Love Canal.
Radioactive Waste Cleanups--Rep. LaFalce has been a
national leader on the issue of

[[Page 23268]]

cleaning up sites contaminated by Manhattan Project
radioactive waste materials. During his years of service in
Congress, he has helped secure hundreds of millions of
dollars for the remediation of many such sites in Erie and
Niagara Counties: Linde, Ashland I and II, and Seaway (all in
Tonawanda), and the Niagara Falls Storage Site in Lewiston.
Most recently, Rep. LaFalce urged the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to investigate the possibility of including the
former Simonds Saw and Steel plant in Lockport for
remediation under the FUSRAP program.

Health Care

Rep. LaFalce has long been an outspoken leader in the
ongoing debate on a variety of national health care issues,
always insisting that adequate health care should be a basic
right of citizenship, not a privilege of employment.
Expanding Health Care Coverage--Rep. LaFalce has long been
an advocate for a universal coverage/single payer approach to
solving America's health care crisis which leaves 40 million
people uninsured. He has promoted legislation that would
ensure access to affordable, high quality health care for
everyone, regardless of employment, income, or health status.
All Americans would be guaranteed health care coverage and
would have complete freedom in their choice of providers.
Rep. LaFalce proposed this plan not only to improve America's
health care system, but to relieve businesses of the
financial burden of paying for most of our health care
coverage.
Diabetes--Rep. LaFalce has been a leading advocate for
diabetes research and increased healthcare coverage for
diabetes prevention and treatment programs. In 1997, he and
his colleagues on the Congressional Diabetes Caucus convinced
Congress to show their commitment to conquering diabetes with
the creation of the Diabetes Research Working Group (DRWG), a
panel of leading diabetes researchers appointed by the
National Institutes of Health, to develop a comprehensive
plan for the 21st Century for all NIH-funded diabetes
research efforts, and to recommend future diabetes research
initiatives. In 1999, Rep. LaFalce authored H. Res. 325,
expressing the support of Congress for increased federal
funding for diabetes research, awareness and early detection
programs. The LaFalce resolution passed the House
unanimously, 414-0.
Rep. LaFalce also worked closely with the National Office
of the American Diabetes Association to protect coverage of
Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) under Medicare for people
with diabetes and to distinguish it from diabetes self-
management training (DSMT), a separate, though complimentary,
service integral to diabetes care. He was honored in 2000 and
2002 by the American Diabetes Association with its Valor
Award in recognition of his continuing efforts to secure
increased funding for diabetes research and ``for his
outstanding service to people with diabetes.''
Multiple Sclerosis--Rep. LaFalce introduced the Multiple
Sclerosis Treatment Act in 1997, and again in 2001, to
provide for Medicare Part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance)
coverage of certain self-administered beta interferons and
other biologicals and drugs approved by the Federal Drug
Administration for treatment of multiple sclerosis. In 1995,
he was honored by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society as
``Congressman of the Year'' for his ``deep personal
appreciation and commitment to the needs of people with MS.''
Sleep Disorders--Rep. LaFalce has been a leader in
advocating increased public awareness of and research into
sleep disorders, which affect nearly two-thirds of American
adults. In 2001, he secured $125,000 in federal funds for a
joint educational program coordinated between the University
of Buffalo Medical School, Mount St. Mary's Hospital Sleep
Disorder Center in Lewiston, and Millard Fillmore-Gates
Hospital's Sleep Disorder Center in Buffalo. In 2001, Rep.
LaFalce received the National Sleep Foundation's very first
Public Policy Leadership Award as ``Congressman of the Year''
in recognition of his efforts to increase national attention
to the problem of sleep disorders.
Respiratory Studies--Rep. LaFalce has long been concerned
about the respiratory health of Western New Yorkers, and the
effects of air pollution on respiratory disease and other
illnesses. In 2001, he obtained $213,000 from the Centers for
Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health
for Buffalo General's Center for Asthma and Environmental
Exposure to conduct a study of the respiratory health of
residents in neighborhoods adjacent to four international
bridges: the Peace Bridge, the Rainbow Bridge, the Whirlpool
Bridge and the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge.
The study was conducted to help determine to what extent,
and in what ways, the health of local residents is adversely
affected by bridge traffic. It will also help bring health
concerns to the forefront of discussions about reducing
congestion and improving traffic flow at each of the four
bridges and border-crossings

Gambling

National Gambling Study Commission--Rep. LaFalce has been
one of the House's leading activists on gambling issues. As
Chairman of the Small Business Committee, he conducted a
hearing in 1994 that documented the rise in business failures
and other economic problems following the introduction of
casino and river boat gambling in a number of U.S.
communities. The hearing convinced him that local officials
required more comprehensive information before considering
high stakes gambling as an economic development strategy. He
introduced the first legislation in Congress in 1994 calling
for a special national commission to conduct a comprehensive
study of all aspects of the gambling issue. His chief co-
sponsor on the bill was Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA). With the
shift in control of the House in 1995, he joined with Rep.
Wolf in introducing a bipartisan commission proposal that was
enacted by Congress in 1996. The National Gambling Impact
Study Commission began work in 1997 and submitted its
detailed report to Congress in June, 1999. The Commission
succeeded in taking one of the most difficult and divisive
issues in America and producing an extremely detailed and
thoughtful study with more than 70 recommendations for
federal, state and tribal policy.
Gambling and Credit Cards--The National Gambling Impact
Study Commission reported that problems associated with
compulsive or pathological gambling had increased
dramatically with the spread of high stakes gambling to more
U.S. cities. It attributed part of the problem to the growing
availability of cash and credit in and around gambling
establishments and called for legislation to remove ATM,
credit card and other electronic funds transfer devices from
gambling areas. Within months of receiving the Commission's
report, Rep. LaFalce introduced legislation to implement
these important recommendations. The ``Gambling ATM and
Credit/Debit Card Reform Act of 1999'' prohibited gambling
establishment from placing credit card terminals, debit card
point of sale devices or ATM machines within the immediate
area of gambling activity. Its purpose was to minimize the
possibility of financial institutions becoming unwitting
accomplices in encouraging compulsive behavior.
Internet Gambling--The National Commission strongly
reaffirmed the principle of state regulation of gambling, but
made an important exception for Internet gambling. One of the
Commission's few unanimous recommendations was a call for
congressional action to restrict illegal Internet gambling,
and specifically legislation to block credit card and other
electronic payments that make on-line betting possible. Rep.
LaFalce introduced the ``Internet Gambling Payments
Prohibition Act'' in 2000 to implement the Commission's
recommendation to prohibit all forms of payment for gambling
bets over the Internet. This bill was merged with a similar
proposal by Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 2001 and provided the
basis for the bipartisan ``Leach-LaFalce Internet Gambling
Enforcement Act'' (HR 556) that was approved by the House by
voice vote in October, 2002.

Trade and competitiveness

Can-Am Free Trade--Rep. LaFalce became the principal leader
in Congress on the subject of free trade with Canada, our
largest trading partner. He conducted several hearings on the
issue and spoke continuously on its behalf, both in the U.S.
and Canada. His efforts reached fruition with implementation
of the historic U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. It was a
step Rep. LaFalce had been advocating since 1986, when he
began his series of seven hearings on trade with Canada. In
recognition of his work, President Reagan gave Rep. LaFalce a
pen at the signing ceremony and chose Niagara Falls as the
site of the National Conference on the Can-Am Free Trade
Agreement. The U.S. sent Trade Representative Carla Hills,
and Canada sent its Ambassador to the U.S., Derek Burney to
join LaFalce as keynoters.
NAFTA--As leader in Congress for free--but fair--trade
pacts with other nations, Rep. LaFalce was a leading opponent
in 1993 of the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement
with Mexico and Canada. He chaired a series of hearings in
the Congress which exposed the potential difficulties of
NAFTA for all three nations and continued to raise concerns
about the effects the agreement would have on environmental,
labor, and political standards in North America.
Rep. LaFalce argued at the time that the economies and
political institutions in the United States and Mexico were
far too different to allow for open markets between the two
countries. He pointed to important political and judicial
reforms, as well as basic labor and environmental
protections, that were needed in Mexico before both countries
could reasonably benefit from a trade agreement. He also
highlighted the environmental blight and desperate economic
and health conditions evident in the trade zones along
Mexico's border, commonly known as maquiladoras.
Rep. LaFalce also pointed to the dangers of macroeconomic
instability in Mexico in the context of the trade agreement,
accurately predicting a major devaluation of the Mexican
peso. The peso devaluation necessitated a massive financial
bailout provided by the United States and the International
Monetary Fund.
Industrial Policy Hearings--As Chairman of the Banking
Committee's Subcommittee

[[Page 23269]]

on Economic Stabilization, Rep. LaFalce led an unprecedented
effort to examine the need for an industrial policy to
enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness vis-a-vis our major
trading partners. He held over 30 days of hearings on the
subject with over 150 witnesses testifying before the
Subcommittee. The witnesses represented all walks of life,
including: representatives from all levels of government; the
business community, including small firms and large
corporations; labor leaders; the financial services industry;
representatives from industries such as steel, autos,
semiconductors, computers, and machine tools; academics;
educator; scientists; economists; community and citizens
groups; agricultural specialists; representatives of the
military and the defense industry. The Buffalo News said
these hearings, held over a four-year period ``assembled this
century's most complete record on the inter-workings of
American manufacturing, monetary and trade policy.''
In the course of these hearings in 1983, Rep. LaFalce first
focused national attention on the economic growth strategies
of many academics and other experts who would one day be
household names: Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Ira Magaziner, Robert
Reich, and a young governor from Arkansas arguing for
innovative approaches to economic policy, Bill Clinton.
Rep. LaFalce introduced legislation to address these
industrial competitiveness problems. His bill, H.R. 4360,
created (1) a Council on Industrial Competitiveness to
provide a forum for labor, business, government, academia,
and public interest groups so that they could work
cooperatively to develop a competitiveness strategy; (2) a
Bank for Industrial Competitiveness to provide financial
assistance for the restructuring of basic industries and for
the capitalization of new and innovative products and/or
technologies; and (3) a Federal Industrial Mortgage
Association designed to improve the functioning of capital
markets for small- and medium-sized businesses by increasing
the availability of long-term capital. The bill was co-
sponsored by 103 House Members.
White House Conference on Productivity--As Chairman of the
House Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Economic
Stabilization, Rep. LaFalce aggressively tackled realistic
ways to rectify the nation's dismal performance in those
years in the areas of productivity and competitiveness. He
worked on the productivity issue for years to focus the
attention of the President, leaders of American labor and
industry, and all Americans on the importance of increasing
U.S. productivity for the nation's economic well-being. In
1982, as Chairman of a Small Business Subcommittee, he won
enactment of legislation mandating a White House Conference
on Productivity, which was held in the fall of 1983 with over
1,000 participants. Keynote speakers included President
Reagan, Vice President Bush, the Secretaries of State,
Commerce, Treasury, and Labor, and Rep. LaFalce.
Trade with China--Rep. LaFalce's support was instrumental
in passage of legislation extending Permanent Normal Trade
Relations (PNTR) with China in 2000. He was one of handful of
senior Democrats whose support ultimately swayed other
Members and led to passage of the historic legislation; his
May 2000 speech in support of PNTR was widely cited and
reprinted at the time of the debate. Rep. LaFalce argued that
engaging with China economically would provide a powerful
boost to pro-democracy forces within the country, contrasting
the failure of U.S. policy toward Cuba with the benefits of a
more open policy toward China. Rep. LaFalce also worked with
congressional leaders to ensure that passage of PNTR came
with adequate attention and protections in the areas of human
rights and import surges.
Exchange Rates--Rep. LaFalce's concern over the destructive
economic impact of currency crises and misaligned exchange
rates led to legislative provisions in The Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, which requires the U.S. Treasury
to focus more closely on exchange rates and report to
Congress semiannually on the performance of exchange rates.
Since then, the Treasury Department has been writing and
sending the ``LaFalce Report'' to Congress every six months
on currency exchange rates and highlighting potential
problems.
Currency Devaluation--Rep. LaFalce has been a leader in
Congress on issues related to the performance of
international currencies. He held hearings in 1993 on the
probable devaluation of the Mexican peso, which occurred in
1994, and has been actively engaged in U.S. responses to
currency crises globally over the past 20 years.
Regarding the Mexican peso devaluation, the late Washington
Post columnist, Hobart Rowen, wrote in a February, 1995
column: ``Rep. John J. LaFalce has a right to say, `I told
you so.' (LaFalce) predicted that peso devaluation was
inevitable . . . and begged the Clinton administration to
recognize that the North American Free Trade Agreement
provided no method to coordinate the two countries' monetary
policies. . . . If Clinton and his advisers had paid
attention to LaFalce and his supporters, he might not now be
engaged in an indefensible bailout of Wall Street investors,
including major mutual fund managers who made greedy, high-
yield gambles in Mexico after the passage of NAFTA.''
Debt Relief--Rep. LaFalce authored the provision in the
1988 Trade Act that would have created an international
mechanism to avoid sovereign debt defaults in the aftermath
of the Latin American debt crises. Subsequent reluctance by
the Reagan Administration ultimately blocked the
implementation of the debt mechanism. Yet, nearly 15 years
later, the International Monetary Fund introduced a similar
proposal to address sovereign debt crises, this time in
reaction to a string of debt crises during the 1990s and into
2001.
Ex-Im Bank--Rep. LaFalce was instrumental in the creation
and passage of the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of
2002. The Ex-Im Bank promotes U.S. exports to other countries
and has been an engine of job creation in the nation's
economy. His work on the 2002 legislation greatly expanded
Ex-Im Bank's support for small business exporters, as well as
women and minority-owned businesses. In July 2002, Rep.
LaFalce was honored by the Coalition for Employment through
Exports for his work on the Ex-Im Bank Reauthorization Act
and was recognized as a leader in the Congress in promoting
U.S. exports.

Northern Border

Throughout his career in Congress, Rep. LaFalce has worked
tirelessly to strengthen the U.S.-Canada relationship. From
meetings with Canadian Ambassadors to the United States and
our nation's ambassadors to Canada, annual meetings of the
Can-Am Interparliamentary conference, to frequent
conversations with Canadian counterparts across the Niagara
River and colleagues in the House and Senate, he has been a
leader on every bilateral issue between our two countries
that affect his congressional district:
Northern Border Caucus--Rep. LaFalce is the founding member
and Chairman of the Congressional Northern Border Caucus, an
officially recognized Congressional Member Organization
consisting of Members representing the northern border
states. The Caucus, which he founded in 1994 when the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented, deals
with policy concerns and issues that affect U.S.-Canadian
relations and the two nations' economic partnership.
The Caucus has worked to obtain increased funding for the
U.S. Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
and the Border Patrol for activities along the Northern
Border.
The Caucus was also a major force behind successfully
postponing implementation of Section 110 of the 1996
Immigration Reform Act, which would have hampered trade and
tourist traffic by imposing a cumbersome entry-exit
documentation system. In addition, the Caucus has provided
Members with numerous forums to discuss their concerns about
the border with U.S. and Canadian officials.
In recognition of his leadership on U.S.-Canadian Border
Issues, Rep. LaFalce was honored in 2002 by the Canadian/
American Border Trade Alliance for his ``many meaningful
contributions to the improvement of U.S.-Canadian Trade,
Transportation and Border Management.''
Repeal of New Entry-Exit Implementation System, Section
110--The 1996 Immigration Reform Act directed the INS to
implement a new entry-exit documentation system at points of
entry along the nation's borders. Because of concerns about
the harmful impact on trade and tourism that this would have
on Western New York, repeal of Section 110 was the top
legislative priority of local chambers of commerce in the
Buffalo-Niagara region. Rep. LaFalce authored the legislation
in 1997 to repeal the implementation of Section 110 and later
negotiated a 30-month implementation delay just days before
the original start date of September 30, 1998. But it
remained clear that a delay could not sufficiently satisfy
his concerns that the INS might develop an entry-exit system
at the border that would prove disastrous to the people of
New York and other northern border states. Throughout the
spring of 2000, Rep. LaFalce negotiated with a bipartisan
group of Members the ``Section 110 Reform Act,'' a de facto
repeal of this injurious provision. In June, 2000, the
President signed the act into law and ended the threat to our
border.
Commuter Students--In August 2002, Rep. LaFalce
successfully persuaded the Bush Administration to reverse the
INS decision to prevent part-time students from Canada and
Mexico from commuting to classes at U.S. colleges and
universities along the border. When the INS announced its
sudden change of policy in May 2002, he immediately
introduced legislation in Congress to ensure that Mexican and
Canadian part-time students could continue to enroll in
educational institutions across the border. As Chairman of
the Congressional Northern Border Caucus, he also mobilized
30 of his colleagues and New York's two Senators to join in
demanding an immediate reversal of the INS decision. On
August 24, the Bush Administration relented and announced
that the INS would reverse its previous decision so that
part-time students would again be able to enroll in U.S.
academic institutions.

[[Page 23270]]

NEXUS--NEXUS is an inspection program that allows pre-
screened, low-risk travelers to be processed with little or
no delay by U.S. and Canadian border officials. On April 29,
2002, Rep. LaFalce urged the INS and the Customs Service to
select Buffalo for the next implementation of NEXUS. The
agencies agreed. NEXUS enrollment centers opened in Buffalo
in October, 2002, and will be operational at the Peace Bridge
beginning in January, 2003. It will be expanded to the
Lewiston-Queenstown Bridge and the Rainbow Bridge (and
potentially the Whirlpool Bridge) by spring of 2003.
Niagara Bridges--Rep. LaFalce authored special legislation
permitting the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission (NFBC) to move
forward with $121 million in bridge improvements in 1991.
Specifically, he worked to amend federal law to lift the
interest rate cap on NFBC bonds and to make the interest on
NFBC bonds tax-exempt. The changes allowed the NFBC to move
forward with its plans to modernize and renovate the Rainbow,
Whirlpool and Lewiston-Queenston bridges at a cost of $121
million.
In June, 2002, Rep. LaFalce helped bring $5.1 million in
federal transportation grants to Western New York for
upgrading and strengthening U.S.-Canadian border crossings to
help keep pace with the growing number of trucks and
passenger vehicles using those bridges each day.
Border Staffing Levels--With respect to staffing and
infrastructure concerns along the Northern Border and in
Western New York specifically, Rep. LaFalce has been the most
active and vociferous Member in Congress. During the 106th
Congress alone, in order to highlight the needs of the
Niagara River bridges, he met with Raymond Kelly,
Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service; Bob Trotter, Northern
Border Coordinator, U.S. Customs Service; Elisabeth Bresee,
Assistant Secretary (Enforcement), Treasury Department; Doris
Meissner, Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service; and Jack Lew, Director, Office of Management and
Budget.
As a result of his efforts as co-chair of the Northern
Border Caucus, the USA-PATRIOT Act, signed into law on
October 26, 2001, included provisions to triple the
authorization for staffing for the INS and the Customs
Service for the Northern Border. As a result, the FY02
appropriations bill included funding for 348 new INS border
ports-of-entry inspectors, an additional $55.8 million for
additional INS inspectors and support staff on the Northern
Border, and at least 142 Border Patrol agents at the Northern
Border. In addition, the Customs Service received funding for
more than 300 Customs officials at the Northern Border.
Finally, $2.3 million to support 100 National Guard troops
for three months to enhance security and expedite U.S.
Customs Service checks at U.S.-Canadian ports of entry was
also appropriated for FY02.

International financial issues

Rep. LaFalce distinguished himself throughout his career
for his leadership on international financial, trade, and
development issues. His work in these areas reflects both his
moral sense and mastery of complex financial and economic
issues. His ability to meld the cause of social justice with
an understanding of global markets has made him a uniquely
effective advocate and policymaker in areas such as debt
relief for poor countries and the resolution of international
financial crises.
The Multilateral Development Banks and the International
Monetary Fund--Rep. LaFalce has been a leader in crafting
U.S. policy in the Multilateral Development Banks and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). As the Senior Democrat on
the House Banking Committee, he helped craft landmark reforms
in the IMF and the World Bank during the 1990s, bringing more
transparency and accountability to the institutions and
focusing their missions to bring greater effectiveness in
achieving global economic development and poverty reduction.
Rep. LaFalce also co-authored the bill creating the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). This
regional multilateral development bank was established in
1991 when communism was crumbling in central and eastern
Europe and ex-soviet countries needed support to nurture a
new private sector in a democratic environment. Through his
travels in the region after the fall of communism, Rep.
LaFalce recognized the need for a private sector development
institutions and worked aggressively in the Congress to
authorize creation of the EBRD. Today the EBRD is helping to
build market economies and democracies in 27 countries from
central Europe to central Asia.
Third World Debt Relief--During 2000, Rep. LaFalce fought
hard and successfully to pass historic legislation on
international debt relief. Although few believed that
legislation could be enacted to cancel the oppressive debts
of highly indebted poor countries, he joined with the
Chairman of the House Banking Committee to introduce H.R.
1095, the Debt Relief for Poverty Reduction Act of 1999. In
2000, Rep. LaFalce's efforts were instrumental in securing
$435 million for debt relief in the FY 2001 Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act.
In helping to make the debt relief initiative a reality,
Rep. LaFalce worked closely with the Episcopal Church, the
Catholic Church, and relief groups like Oxfam. For his
leadership on debt relief and his humanitarian work in
Congress, Rep. LaFalce was honored by both Bread for the
World and Oxfam America, two major global anti-poverty
organizations.
Debt-for-Equity/Environment--Rep. LaFalce was a leader in
the Congress in addressing the Latin American debt crisis of
the 1980s. He fought for language in the 1988 Trade Act that
would have created an international mechanism to address debt
problems. President Reagan vetoed an earlier version of the
Trade Act, in part over opposition to the LaFalce debt plan.
As signed into law, the debt language in the 1988 Trade Act
was substantially weakened due to the Reagan Administration's
influence.
Rep. LaFalce also promoted innovative debt relief
strategies such as debt for equity and debt for environment
``swaps,'' which provided debt relief for developing
countries while also ensuring sound economic and
environmental policies in these countries. After traveling to
post-communist Central and Eastern Europe, Rep. LaFalce
introduced legislation in 1990 directing the Secretary of the
Treasury to negotiate for the establishment within the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development of: (1) an
Environmental Trust Fund to make loans available at
concessional interest rates for environmental protection
projects; and (2) requirements for environmental impact
assessments of all proposed operations with potential
environmental impacts. The legislation also authorized the
President to permit Central European countries (defined for
purposes of this Act as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and
Yugoslavia) with emerging market economies to pay debt owed
to the United States into local currency trust accounts to be
used for environmental protection and economic development
projects.
Brady Plan--Rep. LaFalce long argued for a new regime for
Third World debt restructuring, beginning during the time
James Baker was Secretary of the Treasury. He was delighted
when Nicholas Brady was appointed Treasury Secretary by
President Reagan and called Rep. LaFalce to his office to
discuss debt restructuring. Rep. LaFalce had authored an op-
ed on the subject in the September/October 1988 issue of The
International Economy, in which he urged the new Treasury
Secretary to ignore the advice of his predecessor Baker on
Third World Debt relief. The Administration subsequently
adopted Rep. LaFalce's recommendations to devise and
implement a new regime for debt restructuring, which came to
be known as the ``Brady Plan.'' In arguing for the importance
of debt forgiveness tied to sound policy reform in poor
countries, Rep. LaFalce would help lay the groundwork for the
landmark Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative a decade
later.
AIDS Trust Fund--Rep. LaFalce was instrumental in passage
of legislation in 2000 to create an international trust fund
in support of efforts to eradicate AIDS, tuberculosis, and
malaria globally. The fund will use public and private
contributions to assist poor countries in implementing
programs to address these devastating diseases. So far,
financial commitments to the fund from donor countries and
private institutions have exceeded $1.5 billion.
Human Rights and International Finance--Rep. LaFalce has
been a leading voice for the cause of human rights across the
globe. As Chairman of the House Small Business Committee,
Rep. LaFalce was actively engaged in promoting human rights
in Mexico, meeting with key human rights activists such as
Jorge Castaneda. He convened hearings to examine the
mistreatment of activists by the Mexican government. Concern
about human rights abuses in Mexico contributed to his
decision to oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement.
As Ranking Democrat on the former House Banking Committee,
Rep. LaFalce won enactment of landmark human rights
provisions contained in authorizing legislation for the IMF,
the World Bank, and the regional development banks, as well
as in legislation to forgive debt in poor countries. As a
result of these provisions, all government-sponsored
international financial institutions are now required to
incorporate human rights considerations into their
oppositions, and debt relief is only provided countries with
acceptable human rights records. Rep. LaFalce was also
successful in creating a commission to monitor human rights
in China as part of legislation authorizing permanent normal
trade relations.
In 2000, Rep. LaFalce led congressional efforts to ratify a
new International Labor Organization Convention on abusive
child labor. Rep. LaFalce stood at President Clinton's side
as he signed the ratification legislation into law in
Seattle.
Privatization--In the midst of rapid economic change in the
former communist countries during the 1990s, Rep. LaFalce
became a leading proponent for the view that privatization of
state-owned industries, while often necessary, needed to be
implemented in the context of sound regulatory regimes. He
believed that the architects and proponents of privatization
schemes, both in

[[Page 23271]]

the post-communist countries and in institutions like the IMF
and World Bank, were exclusively focused on the efficiencies
achieved through privatization, paying no attention to equity
concerns. Without adequate anti-corruption measures,
protections for workers, and small business owners and
investors, Rep. LaFalce argued that rapid privatization could
ultimately leave the countries in worse shape. He spoke out
against ``nomenklatura'' privatization in Russia and
``patron'' privatization in Mexico, first as Chairman of the
Small Business Committee in 1994 and later during hearings in
the House Banking Committee.
Rep. LaFalce's concern that reckless privatization programs
were being supported through U.S. foreign aid and through the
international financial institutions (IFIs) led him to
introduce privatization provisions in authorizing legislation
for the IFIs in 2001. His concern was confirmed recently by
analysis released by the International Monetary fund, which
indicated that failed privatization efforts during the 1990s
were the result of inadequate regulatory oversight,
Reflecting Rep. LaFalce's earlier statements, the IMF study
suggested that the IFIs were too quick to support rapid
privatization without adequate regulation.

Terrorism response

Rep. LaFalce authored several key bills to address the
impacts of the September 11th terrorist attacks on our
nation. He authored key sections of the anti-terrorist
``PATRIOT Act,'' primarily those dealing with money
laundering. He played a leading role in House passage of
legislation to provide for continued insurance coverage
against terrorist attacks. And he worked with the Bush
Administration to secure disaster assistance for small
businesses.
The USA PATRIOT Act--In the wake of the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks, Rep. LaFalce called on President Bush to
take bold steps in the international arena to support
enactment of tougher anti-money laundering laws here at home.
He called for the passage of an anti-money laundering bill he
had worked closely with the Clinton Administration and Sen.
John Kerry (D-MA) to introduce during the 106th Congress.
Rep. LaFalce successfully shepherded his legislation into law
in the 107th Congress. The legislation he authored was
incorporated as a separate title in the landmark USA PATRIOT
Act (PL 107-56), a comprehensive law intended to bolster the
U.S. government's ability to fight terrorism. Rep. LaFalce's
legislation represented the PATRIOT Act's ``financial war on
terrorism'' component.
His legislation provided the United States with new tools
to combat money laundering threats from overseas, and to
prevent the use of the domestic financial system by money
launderers, terrorists, and corrupt foreign officials. The
bill specifically addressed the abuse of offshore secrecy
havens by criminals and terrorists who seek to launder their
illicit monetary gains. By strengthening the Treasury
Secretary's ability to curb terrorists' abuse of offshore
secret accounts, the legislation authored by Rep. LaFalce
should help immensely to dismantle existing terrorists'
financial networks--a key battle in the global war on
terrorism.
The law provides the Treasury Secretary with the authority
and discretion to address specific money laundering
infractions, which U.S. law enforcement agencies could not do
under the previous legal regime. That regime offered limited
options for law enforcement: the Treasury Secretary could
either issue informational advisories to U.S. financial
institutions about specific offshore jurisdictions or take
the more extreme approach of invoking sweeping and often
disruptive economic sanctions. The new law allows the
Secretary to identify specific overseas financial
institutions as engaging in money laundering and to prevent
U.S. institutions from doing business with such institutions.
Rep. LaFalce's legislation provided the Treasury Secretary
new discretionary authority, which can be invoked under
certain select circumstances. For example, the Secretary
could use this authority if he or she were to identify an
area of ``primary money laundering concern'' offshore. If
invoked by the Treasury Secretary, this discretionary tool
would only apply to the overseas activities of U.S. financial
institutions, not domestic activities. The approach taken in
the LaFalce legislation offers the kind of regulatory
flexibility, which did not exist previously, needed to tackle
a fast-moving and remarkably adaptable class of criminals,
particularly terrorists. More recently, various provisions in
the legislation have been successfully used by U.S. law
enforcement officials in their efforts to track down the
sources of funding for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist
organizations.
Small Business Relief--In the immediate aftermath of
September 11th, Rep. LaFalce introduced legislation to help
small businesses impacted by the terrorist attacks. The
``Terrorist Disaster Relief for Small Business Act''
addresses the economic hardships of small businesses who are
suffering ripple effects from the September 11th attacks.
Just weeks after Rep. LaFalce's introduction of the bill, the
Bush Administration undertook regulatory changes to make more
small businesses eligible for disaster assistance. The
Administration's action expanded eligibility for loans to
disaster-impacted businesses at interest rates as low as 4
percent, and for terms of up to 30 years. The Bush
Administration has indicated that it plans to allocate funds
in the FY 2002 budget to leverage approximately $1 billion in
new Small Business Administration disaster loans.
Victory Bonds--Following the September 11th terrorist
attacks, Rep. LaFalce received numerous calls from his
constituents about how they could help in the recovery
efforts, and how they could show their support against
international terrorists. Rep. LaFalce heeded these calls by
immediately introducing legislation to authorize the issuance
of special ``Victory'' savings bonds. The effort was modeled
on a proud tradition in America that dates back to the Second
World War, when government bond sales generated over $200
billion to fund the war effort. Recently, the U.S. Treasury
responded by re-designating its current series EE savings
bonds as ``Patriot Bonds.'' This move is intended to
encourage Americans to contribute to the government's anti-
terrorism campaign.
Terrorism Reinsurance--Rep. LaFalce played a leading role
in the House's passage of legislation that would provide for
the continuation of insurance coverage against terrorist
attacks, which was in danger of disappearing, or being too
costly, after September 11th. Agreement has been reached on
the bill and the conference report should be approved in
November.
Islam Resolution/Imam Guest Chaplain--Rep. LaFalce has
always been a strong advocate for freedom of religious
expression in America. In the aftermath of September 11, he
grew increasingly concerned that this precious freedom might
be compromised, particularly with respect to Muslims, out of
fear and in the name of ``defense against terrorism.'' In
November 2001, Rep. LaFalce introduced H. Res. 280, a
resolution recognizing Islam as one of the great religions of
the world and commending Muslims on their faith, particularly
during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. At Rep. LaFalce's
request, the U.S. House of Representatives marked the
commencement of Ramadan for the very first time, when, with
the concurrence of Speaker Dennis Hastert, he arranged an
invitation to Muslim Chaplain at Georgetown University, Imam
Yahya Hendi, to offer the opening prayer before the U.S.
House of Representatives.

Italian-American heritage

Rep. LaFalce is one of our nation's leading Italian-
Americans. Over the years, he has been showered with honors
for his leadership, his integrity, and his dedication to
those he serves.
Italian-American Heritage Award--Rep. LaFalce received the
``Italian Heritage Award'' from the Italian Heritage and
Culture Club of Western New York. The club then renamed the
award the ``JOHN J. LaFALCE Italian Heritage Award'' for
future recipients.
Delegation Dean--As the most senior Italian-American
serving in the U.S. Congress, Rep. LaFalce was the Dean of
the Italian-American Congressional Delegation. In 2001, he
led a fact-finding trip to Italy sponsored by the National
Italian-American Foundation (NIAF), the leading advocacy
group for Americans of Italian descent. The LaFalce/NIAF
delegation traveled to Rome, the Vatican and the southern
region of Calabria.
In the village of Marcedusa, in the Province of Catanzaro,
in the Region of Calabria, Rep. LaFalce was made an honorary
citizen of both Marcedusa and Calabria. His paternal
grandparents--Giovanni LaFalce and Concetta Mancuso--came
from Calabria, were married and lived in Marcedusa
(population 500), before emigrating to the United States.
While he appreciated his honorary citizenship, he especially
prized the gift of a bottle of olive oil made from the olives
of the trees planted and nourished by his grandfather.
The pastor of St. Andrea the Apostle Church in Marcedusa,
where Rep. LaFalce's grandparents were married, showed him a
statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary that was bought by his
grandparents and donated to the Church in gratitude for the
blessings they had received in America and in appreciation to
the people of Marcedusa who had given them their roots.
Order of Merit--Rep. LaFalce received Italy's highest rank
of decoration, the Order of Merit, from Italian Ambassador to
the U.S. Boris Biancheri. The Ambassador journeyed to Western
New York to make the presentation, awarded for Rep. LaFalce's
accomplishments as a leading Italian-American. The award
named him a Knight-Commander of the Order of Merit of the
Republic of Italy, or ``Commendatore,'' that country's
highest civilian honor.

Caucus/conference participation

U.S.-Canada Inter-Parliamentary Group--Rep. LaFalce has
been an active member of the United states--Canada Inter-
Parliamentary Group. The group meets annually to create a
network among Canadian and American legislators to discuss
issues of mutual interest in the areas of Trade and Economic
Issues, International Relations, and Transborder Issues.

[[Page 23272]]

Congressional Study Group on Germany--Rep. LaFalce has long
been a member of the Congressional Study Group on Germany; in
1999 he served as vice chair, and in 2000 as chairman. The
group meets once a year alternating between Germany and the
U.S. In 2000, when Rep. LaFalce was chairman, the members of
the German Bundestag came to the annual conference in Niagara
Falls, New York.
Argentina Task Force--In 2002, Rep. LaFalce was asked by
the Inter-American Dialogue to co-chair an elite group of
policymakers charged with offering recommendations to resolve
Argentina's economic crisis. Rep. LaFalce co-chairs the task
force with Ambassador Carla Hills. In his appointment as co-
chair, Rep. LaFalce was recognized for his leadership on
international debt issues and his expertise in Latin America.
Bilderberg Conference--Rep. LaFalce was the only Member of
the U.S. House of Representatives to participate as a member
of the fiftieth meeting of the Bilderberg Conference, held in
Virginia from May 30th--June 2nd 2002. The Bilderberg Meeting
gathered 115 of the world's most influential leaders from 20
countries to discuss a variety of national and international
issues. Participants included leaders of government,
business, and academia, such as Henry Kissinger, David
Rockefeller, Donald Rumsfeld, Larry Summers, Carla Hills,
Alan Greenspan, Fannie Mae Chairman Franklin Raines, World
Bank President James Wolfensohn, DaimlerChrysler Chairman
Jurgen Schrempp, and Deutsche Bank Chairman Hilmar Kopper.
The next meeting of the Bilderberg Conference will be in May,
2003 in Versailles.
Diabetes Caucus--Rep. LaFalce is Co-Vice Chair and a
founding member of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, one of
the largest and most influential congressional organizations.
Founded in 1995, the Diabetes Caucus strives to increase the
awareness of diabetes in Congress and to promote greater
research into diabetes and diabetes-related complications.
Due to Rep. LaFalce and the influence of the Caucus, Congress
established the Diabetes Working Group to advise the NIH on
research needs and priorities. Most recently, in October,
2002, Rep. LaFalce and his colleagues in the Caucus
introduced the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act to
help advance islet cell transplantation, the most exciting
advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin
in 1921. Rep. LaFalce and the Caucus have secured millions in
federal funding for Medicare coverage of diabetes education
and supplies, research and treatment initiatives through the
National Institutes of Health, the Departments of Health and
Human Services, Veterans Administration, Indian Health
Service and the Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service.

Sampling of honors and awards

Honorary Doctorates--Rep. LaFalce has received four
honorary degrees from universities that awarded him for his
public service, his integrity, and his leadership.
In 1991, the Villanova University School of Law recognized
him with an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree. In 1990, Canisius
College awarded Rep. LaFalce an honorary Doctor of Humane
Letters degree for his ``Extraordinary leadership as a Member
of Congress and champion of the citizens of Western New
York.''
St. John's University awarded him an honorary Doctor of
Laws degree in 1989, emphasizing in their commendation that
Rep. LaFalce proves that ``public service in a democracy can
be the most noble of professions.''
Niagara University also awarded him an honorary Doctor of
Laws in 1979. The Niagara University citation read in part:
``...Three qualities emerge as best describing the man:
honesty, energy and conviction. His honesty is attested by
the estimation that he knows who he is, whom he represents,
and what he is doing in Congress. His energy is realized in
the extent and diversity of his involvement and legislative
efforts...as well as his thoroughness, his dogged
determination to see a matter through to its completion. His
conviction is demonstrated by a creed which avows: regardless
of which side of the aisle it originated, `Truth is truth,
Justice will out, and the Law must be upheld'.''
Homeownership Alliance--the ``Homeownership Hero'' award
was presented to Rep. LaFalce by the Homeownership Alliance
to recognize his ``outstanding contribution to the expansion
of homeownership opportunities for all Americans.'' 2002
Financial Services Roundtable--Rep. LaFalce was honored by
the Financial Services roundtable with its ``American
Financial Leadership Award'' for ``his superb leadership . .
. in reforming the financial services industry which is so
vital to the economy of our state and nation.'' 2000
National Association of Federal Credit Unions--A special
career recognition award was given to Rep. LaFalce by the
National Association of Federal Credit Unions ``for being a
champion for federal credit unions and their members for more
than twenty-five years.'' 2002
Oxfam International & Bread for the World--For his
successful humanitarian work in Congress on behalf of debt
relief for the world's poor, Rep. LaFalce was honored by
Oxfam International and Bread for the World, two global anti-
poverty organizations, ``for helping break the cycle of
poverty.'' 1999
National Association of Realtors--Rep. LaFalce was awarded
the National Association of Realtors' ``Legislative
Leadership Award'' in the 106th Congress ``In appreciation
for his outstanding leadership in supporting legislation to
help families achieve the American dream of homeownership.''
Center for Health, Environment and Justice--On the 20th
anniversary of the Love Canal crisis in his district, Rep.
LaFalce was honored ``for his significant role in assisting
residents to obtain justice'' and for his ``tireless efforts
to move various agencies at all levels of government that was
above and beyond the call of duty.'' 1998
New York Credit Union--Rep. LaFalce was awarded the
``Freedom of Consumer Choice Award'' by the New York Credit
Union Campaign for Consumer Choice ``for actively defending
the rights of consumers to choose their financial
institutions and for protecting the future of America's
credit unions.'' 1998
Small Business Council of America--In recognition of his
work as Chairman of the Small Business Committee, where he
wrote laws creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the
small business sector, Rep. LaFalce received the
``Congressional Award'' from the Small Business Council of
America, which read in part: ``when others trample asunder
the rights and best interests of small business, he steps
forward and moves mountains.''
Associated General Contractors (NY State Chapter)--In 1975,
Rep. LaFalce had the distinction of being the first of the
newly-elected Members to have a bill he authored signed into
law. That bill preserved and created more than one-million
construction jobs--300,000 in New York State alone. For his
work, the New York State Chapter of the Associated General
Contractors honored Rep. LaFalce with its annual ``Man of the
Year'' award.
American Diabetes Association--As Chairman and Vice-
Chairman of the House Diabetes Caucus, Rep. LaFalce was
honored twice by the American Diabetes Association with its
Valor Award in recognition of his continuing efforts to
secure increased funding for diabetes research and ``for his
outstanding service to people with diabetes.'' 2000, 2002
National Multiple Sclerosis Society--Rep. LaFalce was
honored as ``Congressman of the Year'' by the National MS
Society for his ``deep personal appreciation and commitment
to the needs of people with MS who have lost access to
breakthrough treatments because they are dependent on
Medicare reimbursements.'' 1995
National Sleep Foundation--The National Sleep Foundation
awarded Rep. LaFalce its very first Public Policy Leadership
Award in 2001 for his efforts in bringing the problem of
sleep disorders to the nation's attention. He secured
$125,000 in federal funds for a sleep disorder educational
program to be conducted jointly by the University at Buffalo
Medical School, Mount St. Mary's Hospital Sleep Disorder
Center in Lewiston, and Millard Fillmore-Gates Hospital's
Sleep Disorder Center in Buffalo.
National Association of Women Business Owners--Rep. LaFalce
received the ``Congressional Advocate of the Year'' award
from the National Association of Women Business Owners for
his work in enacting the Women's Business Ownership Act,
which expanded federal assistance programs to businesses
owned by women.
New York State Association of Renewal and Housing
Officials, Inc.--Rep. LaFalce was recognized by the NYSARHO
``for his outstanding contributions to national housing and
community development programs while serving as a member of
the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development
and in appreciation for his cooperation with the committees,
officers, and members of this Association.''
New York State Realtors--Rep. LaFalce was honored by the
New York Realtors for his ``consistent contributions to the
development of the community by participation in civic
affairs and by leadership and dedication to making America
better.''
Housing Agencies of New York State--Rep. LaFalce received
the New York state Housing Agencies' Housing award ``in
recognition of and appreciation of your continued support of
those programs which provide housing opportunities for low
and moderate income people in the United States.''

____________________

H.R. 4664

______

speech of

HON. RALPH M. HALL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, November 14, 2002

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act, H.R. 4664, which provides a 5-
year reauthorization for the National Science Foundation's research and
education programs.
The bill represents a bipartisan effort to provide the level of
resources necessary to sustain the important work of the National

[[Page 23273]]

Science Foundation in science and engineering research and education.
I want to congratulate Research Subcommittee Chairman Smith and
Ranking Democratic Member Eddie Bernice Johnson for their efforts to
craft the bill. I also want to thank Science Committee Chairman
Boehlert for his leadership and for working closely with this side of
the aisle in developing the bill.
NSF is our premier agency for support of basic research at academic
institutions in the physical sciences and the non-medical biological
sciences, in mathematics, and in engineering. Basic research
discoveries launch new industries that bring returns to the economy far
exceeding the original public investment.
In fact, over the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic productivity
can be attributed to technological innovation and the science that has
supported it. Unfortunately, the simple truth is that during the 1990s
we under invested in the fields of science that NSF supports.
A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences provides
specific examples that make this case. The report shows that between
1993 and 1999 federal research support at academic institutions fell by
14 percent in mathematics, by 7 percent in physics, by 2 percent in
chemistry, and by 12 percent in electrical engineering.
Inadequate funding for basic research in such important fields
imposes a price on society, because new ideas are lost that would
otherwise underpin future technological advances.
Of even more importance, anemic funding of academic science and
engineering research reduces the numbers of new young scientists and
engineers, who constitute the essential element necessary to ensure the
nation's future economic strength and security.
H.R. 4664 authorizes funding growth for NSF of 15 percent per year
for 5 years, bringing the total authorization level to $9.8 billion by
the final year. This follows the funding path to double NSF's budget
over 5 years, as was proposed by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in the NSF
authorization bill she introduced, and I cosponsored, last year.
The funding growth proposed by H.R. 4664 will enable the Foundation
to expand its investments in cutting-edge research initiatives and
shore up its core research programs.
In particular, this new funding will enable NSF to increase average
grant size and duration, as well as increase the number of new awards.
Due to budget constraints, NSF now declines more than $1 billion
dollars worth of research applications each year that receive merit
review scores as high or higher than the average score for funded
applications.
The funding authorized by H.R. 4664 will also begin to address the
growing imbalance in federal support for fundamental research in the
physical sciences and engineering relative to the biomedical fields.
This is a serious matter because, for any field of science, progress is
dependent on advances made in other fields. As pointed out by the past
director of the National Institutes of Health, Nobel Laureate Harold
Varmus, most of the revolutionary changes that have occurred in biology
and medicine are rooted in new methods that, in turn, are usually
rooted in fundamental discoveries in many different fields.
For the past half-decade, we have been very free in our support of
biomedical research. I consider that to be a very good thing for all of
our people. However, investing too narrowly in medical fields without
investing in all the other sciences--sciences that contribute to the
base of knowledge necessary for medical breakthroughs--will lead to a
slowdown in medical progress in the long run.
H.R. 4664 will provide the resources needed by NSF to support
multidisciplinary research initiatives in such areas as nanotechnology,
information technology, and the mathematical sciences. It will allow
construction of new national user facilities for astronomers,
computational scientists, earth and atmospheric scientists, and life
scientists.
And equally important, the bill institutes new programs to strengthen
science and math education in the schools and to train the scientists
and engineers the nation needs for the future. Without a constant
infusion of well-trained, talented young people into technically
challenging fields, our country would lose its edge on the rest of the
world.
H.R. 4664 incorporates many provisions from the National Mathematics
and Science Partnerships Act that passed the House earlier this year.
These important provisions are designed to bring more support to our K-
12 science and math teachers, their students, and their schools. The
overall goal is to help our children become much more proficient in
science and math, and I am confident that the programs authorized by
this bill will do just that.
I would particularly like to highlight some programs incorporated in
H.R. 4664 that originated in H.R. 1693, a science education bill I
introduced with many of my Democratic colleagues from the Science
Committee. These include research to explore ways to effectively use
educational technologies in the classroom and programs to encourage and
support women and minorities in pursuing careers in science and
engineering.
H.R. 4664 also includes substantial provisions from the Undergraduate
Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education Improvement
Act, H.R. 3130, that authorize several programs at the National Science
Foundation to strengthen undergraduate education in these fields of
study. Basically, these programs will help increase the numbers of
students graduating in science, math and engineering and will help
improve the quality of undergraduate science education.
The undergraduate educational programs build on existing NSF programs
that have proven their effectiveness, such as Research Experiences for
Undergraduates. Similarly, the bill will provide support for the
expansion of successful, small-scale undergraduate education reform
activities that some colleges and universities have been engaged in.
H.R. 4664 is an important bill that will help ensure the nation
maintains a vigorous basic research enterprise, which is an essential
component for a strong economy and for national security. And equally
important, it will help educate the next generation of scientists and
engineers, the essential ingredient in ensuring the nation's
technological strength.
Mr. Speaker, I commend this measure to my colleagues and ask for
their support for its passage by the House.

____________________

H.R. 4664

______

speech of

HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, November 14, 2002

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Hall, and Chairman Smith for working
with me in a bipartisan manner on this important piece of legislation
that makes a strong statement about our commitment to invest in
America's future. I would also like to extend my appreciation to
Senator Kennedy, Senator Hollings, Senator Gregg, and Senator Bond in
the other body.
As Ranking Member of the House Science Research Subcommittee, I am
pleased to say that this is truly an historic piece of legislation for
science policy in the United States. The conference report of H.R. 4664
begins the process of doubling NSF's budget, which was the goal of H.R.
1472, the NSF authorization bill I introduced in April of 2001. I
introduced H.R. 1472 because I strongly believe that investing in basic
science, math, and engineering research is essential to the future
economic prosperity and global competitiveness of our country. Many of
today's scientific breakthroughs in medicine, consumer electronics,
homeland security and other technical fields are the direct result of
investments made in basic research decades ago.
To appreciate the importance of NSF to scientists in America,
consider some facts. NSF provides 23 percent of basic research funding
at academic institutions and as much as 72 percent and 78 percent of
the research in critical areas such as mathematics and science. Yet
despite its importance to key sectors of our nation's economy, NSF
previously had to decline more than $1 billion worth of high quality
research proposals each year due to insufficient funds. With the
passage of today's conference report, that situation has begun to
change. The increase is applied equally to research and education
programs, and specific funding authorizations are made for the focused
research initiatives in some of the most promising frontiers of
science, such as information technology and nanoscale science and
engineering. The bill also makes a number of improvements in the way
major research projects are funded, the transparency of the agency, and
the coordination with other federal research agencies.
NSF also plays a leading role in educating our youth in the math and
sciences and training the scientists and engineers of tomorrow, and the
agency is working to ensure that tomorrow's high-tech workers reflect
the diversity of America. This legislation includes a number of
important initiatives that will improve upon science education in the
United States. With Senator Kennedy's help, H.R. 4664 includes portions
of H.R. 1660, the Mathematics and Science Proficiency Partnership Act I
introduced in May of 2001 to help

[[Page 23274]]

secondary schools leverage private sector funds for math, science, and
engineering scholarships. The Technology Talent Act of 2002, H.R. 3130,
is also included in the NSF reauthorization. This initiative will
increase the number of students studying and receiving associate's or
bachelor's degrees in established or emerging fields within science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology. It also establishes specific
grant programs in these fields at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and enables eligible nonprofit organizations to work with
NSF and public-private consortia to improve science and math education.
My home state of Texas has an excellent track record of these
innovative partnerships.
I am also pleased that the conference report of H.R. 4664 includes
the text of H.R. 2051, the Regional Plant Genome and Gene Research
Expression Act Chairman Smith and I developed together and that passed
the House in May of 2002. The legislation establishes competitive,
merit based grants to eligible entities to conduct basic research on
crops that can be grown in the developing world. The research supported
by these grants will help scientists discover innovative solutions to
some of the developing world's most intractable problems, such as
hunger, malnutrition, and disease. An important feature of this
authorization is that U.S. scientists are required to partner with
their colleagues in developing nations, which will help develop the
scientific capacity of developing nations and stimulate the free flow
of ideas, which is so essential to the progress of science.
If we want future Americans to enjoy the pace of progress that we are
blessed with today, it is imperative that we bolster funding for our
nation's premier basic research agency, the National Science
Foundation. H.R. 4664 is a step in the direction of making that dream
possible. The legislation that passed last week provides our nation's
premier science research agency with the resources it needs to continue
and improve upon its excellent track record and authorizes a number of
important science policy initiatives. I urge the President to sign H.R.
4664 into law, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle in both chambers to ensure that NSF is fully funded
under these new authorization levels.

____________________

H.R. 3609

______

speech of

HON. DON YOUNG

of alaska

in the house of representatives

Thursday, November 14, 2002

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of H.R. 3609
pipeline safety legislation, Congress has completed a critical step in
improving the safety and reliability of the nation's interstate natural
gas pipeline system. The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), within the
Department of Transportation has principal responsibility for
developing, applying, and enforcing the pipeline safety rules that
enhances the safety of the nation's pipelines and protects the public.
OPS is required to enforce these rules without regard to market
conditions or commercial considerations. It must diligently seek to
promote safety above any competing objectives. Among the most important
of existing pipeline safety rules is the requirement that natural gas
pipelines not exceed maximum allowable operating pressure, or MAOP. A
pipeline's MAOP is established on the basis of engineering principles,
testing, historical operations, and experience. Pipeline operators who
exceed MAOP violate the Department of Transportation's pipeline safety
regulations and may be fined for such violations.
No agency other than OPS should be allowed to re-interpret or water
down pipeline safety regulations based on its view of market or
commercial concerns. Allowing any other agency to usurp OPS's function
will undermine the hard work the Congress has completed to enhance
pipeline safety and minimize the risks of pipeline ruptures that may
cause serious injury and death.

____________________

H.R. 4664

______

speech of

HON. JOHN B. LARSON

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Thursday, November 14, 2002

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, H.R. 4664, passed by
the House on November 14, 2002, a bill which doubles funding for one of
the most efficient and essential agencies of the Federal government,
the National Science Foundation. In particular, I am proud to support
this bill because it contains two provisions I authored, both of which
will address growing needs in our educational system, our workforce and
the economy.
The first provision will have a positive impact on our educational
system's ability to integrate cutting edge technology into the
classroom instruction of advanced disciplines at the primary and
secondary education levels and which will, therefore, improve the
educational opportunities of America's students. The second provision
will address a growing problem in our nation's workforce: fewer and
fewer Americans are seeking degrees in the scientific and technical
fields as demand grows and more jobs go unfilled. Both provisions will
improve the nation's capacity to maintain an innovative edge in
technical fields, which is the backbone of America's prosperous
economic system.
The first provision is simple: it tasks the National Science
Foundation to identify the best educational practices to provide
educators and policy makers with tools for using existing and evolving
Internet technology more effectively as a part of the nation's
educational strategy. It does this by tasking NSF to study:
(1) The current status of high-speed, large bandwidth capacity access
to all public elementary and secondary schools and libraries in the
United States;
(2) How high-speed, large bandwidth capacity access to the Internet
to such schools and libraries can be effectively utilized within each
school and library;
(3) The effect that specific or regional circumstances may have on
the ability of such institutions to acquire high-speed, large bandwidth
capacity access to achieve universal connectivity as an effective tool
in the education process; and
(4) Present various options and recommendations for the entities
responsible for elementary and secondary education to address the
challenges and issues identified in the report.
In essence, in order to prepare our public schools for the 21st
century, we must reexamine how our children's education is delivered
into the classrooms. The provision would provide our schools with the
best data available from some of the nation's top researchers to help
schools enter the 21st century by assisting them to establish effective
educational pipelines--broadband pipelines--through which we can supply
the energy necessary to fuel the new digital economy.
The second provision is, essentially, a bill I co-authored and
introduced with Science Committee Chairman, Sherwood Boehlert, the Tech
Talent Act, H.R. 3130. That bill's main provision, which made it into
the NSF Authorization bill, consists of a new effort to address the
tech worker shortage by establishing a competitive grant program at the
National Science Foundation that rewards universities and community
colleges that pledge to increase the number of U.S. citizens or
permanent residents obtaining degrees in science, math, engineering and
technology (SMET) fields.
It is no secret that America has long recognized that its long-term
strength and security, and its ability to recover and sustain high
levels of economic growth, depends on maintaining its edge in
scientific achievement and technological innovation. Biomedical
advances have permitted us to live longer, healthier, and more
productively. Advances in agricultural technology have permitted us to
be able to feed more and healthier people at a cheaper cost. The
information revolution can be seen today in the advanced instruments
schools are using to instruct our children and in the vast information
resources that are opened up as a result of the linkages created by a
networked global society. Our children today can grow up to know, see,
and read more, be more diverse, and have more options in their lives
for learning and growing. Other emerging technologies--such as
nanotechnology--have untold potential to make our lives more exciting,
secure, prosperous, and challenging.
Many countries also recognize this and they, therefore, focus their
industrial, economic, and security policies on the nurturing and
diffusion of technological advancement through all levels of society in
a deliberate fashion. Countries that follow this path of nurturing
innovation focus a lot of their efforts into recruiting and training
the very best engineers and scientists, ensuring that a pipeline which
pumps talented and imaginative minds and skills is connected to the
needs of the country's socio-economic and security enterprise.
Yet here in this country, this pipeline is broken, threatening the
competitive edge we enjoy in the business of technological innovation.
Fewer and fewer Americans are getting degrees in scientific and
technical fields--even

[[Page 23275]]

as the demand grows. For example, the number of bachelors degrees
awarded in math, computer science, and electrical engineering has
fallen 35 percent and 39 percent respectively from their peaks in 1987,
at a time when total BA degrees have increased. The number of graduate
degrees in those fields has either fallen noticeably or stayed flat.
And only about half of all engineering doctoral degrees granted in the
U.S. are earned by Americans.
The nation has dealt with this crisis in the recent past by expanding
the H1B Visa program to let more foreign residents with science and
engineering degrees enter the country. But the H1B program was never
intended to be more than an interim solution. The long-term solution
has to be ensuring that more Americans get into these fields. The Tech
Talent provision included in this bill represents a new effort aimed at
producing just such people.
It always pays to be mindful of the fact--especially in the wake of
the September 11 events--that there is a strong and tight linkage
between our national security and the level of science and technology
proficiency in America. Our strength and leadership in the world is
based on the might of our defense, strength of our economy, and the
quality of our education system. Without any one of these three
components the global preeminence of the nation suffers.
In the House Science Committee room there is an inscription: Where
there is no vision, the people perish. To remain a strong nation, we
must ensure that the single most important element that keeps us
dynamic, innovative, prosperous, and secure--and therefore mighty--is
there for us: our students, teachers, researchers, engineers,
scientists, and technologists. In short, we need more people with
vision. The provisions I authored and the underlying legislation will
address the deficiencies in our ability to replenish our workforce with
visionary individuals and I urge President Bush to sign this
legislation.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JERRY ENOMOTO

______

HON. ROBERT T. MATSUI

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a friend with a
remarkable career in law enforcement and criminal justice. To say that
Jerry Enomoto has been a trailblazer in American law enforcement would
only begin to skim the surface of the extraordinary contributions that
he has made to our communities over the years. After 45 remarkable
years of outstanding public service, Jerry recently retired from the
post of United States Marshal for the Eastern District of California.
As his friends, family, and colleagues gather to celebrate Jerry's
illustrious career, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting
this outstanding citizen of Sacramento.
Jerry Enomoto, a second generation Japanese American, was born in San
Francisco. His education at the prestigious Lowell High School in San
Francisco was abruptly interrupted by the wartime hysteria against
Japanese Americans in the 1940s. Undeterred by the experience, Jerry
remained dedicated to his studies and graduated as a valedictorian of
his high school class while interned at the Tule Lake War Recreation
Center. After his release, Jerry started his career in public service
by serving a successful stint in the United States Army. Upon
completion of his military commitment, Jerry returned to California to
pursue a college education. Using his trademark dedication and
determination, Jerry would ultimately receive his Bachelors and Masters
degrees from the University of California in Berkeley.
Jerry has earned a number of ``firsts'' in his distinguished career.
In recognition of his outstanding service to the California Department
of Corrections, Jerry was tapped by Governor Reagan to become the first
Asian Pacific American to serve as a state prison warden. A few years
later, as Director of Corrections, Jerry would become the first Asian
Pacific American to manage a state department in California history.
Seven years ago, Jerry secured the greatest honor of his unparalleled
career when he became the first Asian Pacific American appointed as a
United States Marshal.
As United States Marshal for the Eastern District of California,
Jerry worked tirelessly to bring together local, state, and federal law
enforcement agencies and improve the communities that cover the thirty-
four inland county district that stretches from Bakersfield to the
Oregon border. Under Jerry's leadership, the Eastern District of
California received the Volunteer and Community Services Award from the
Attorney General in 2000. Jerry's commitment to improve the lives of
his fellow citizens is not exclusive to strictly law enforcement. Jerry
remains one of the preeminent civil rights activists in the region.
Jerry was twice elected to the distinguished post of National President
of the Japanese American Citizen League (JACL). As the National Chair
of the Legislative Education Committee of the JACL, Jerry played an
instrumental role in spearheading the successful lobby for the passage
of the Civil Liberties Act of 1987, an act which authorized redress for
the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. For his
efforts, Jerry was the recipient of the JACL's highest award,
``Japanese American of the Biennium'' in 1992.
Until today, Jerry and his wife, Dorothy, remain active in community
affairs. Whether it is through their participation in the Greater
Sacramento Area Hate Crimes Task Force, or their intimate involvement
in organizing the annual Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. dinner, Jerry and
Dorothy are still steadfastly committed to make Sacramento a better
place for people from all different walks of life.
Mr. Speaker, as Jerry's friends, family, and colleagues gather to
celebrate his great career, I am honored to pay tribute to one of
Sacramento's most honorable citizens. Jerry's continuous leadership is
a true testament to public service. If a template for leadership could
be made, it would surely bear the resemblance of my dear friend, Jerry
Enomoto. Although his career in law enforcement may be over, his
involvement in community service is, fortunate for us, far from over. I
ask all of my colleagues to join with me in wishing Jerry Enomoto
continued success in all his future endeavors.

____________________

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

______

speech of

HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Thursday, November 14, 2002

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 5005,
legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security.
Like all Americans, I stand with the President and my colleagues in
Congress determined to win the war against terrorism and to make our
country more secure. Regrettably, I do not believe this bill will
significantly enhance the safety of the American people, but I believe
it will disrupt the balance of power between the executive and
legislative branches of the federal government as defined by the
Constitution.
Never has a member of the executive branch, in times of peace or war,
ever had the vast authority granted in this legislation to unilaterally
authorize the expenditure of federal resources without consultation
with the Congress. This is the excessive power granted to the new
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I am concerned this
excessive power will obstruct the legitimate role of Congress to
provide the appropriate level of oversight and accountability in the
war on terrorism.
I also remain absolutely opposed to terms in this bill that allow
airline pilots to carry guns in the cockpit without proper testing to
address safety concerns, indefinitely postpones the deadline for
deployment of explosive detection devices at our nation's airports, and
limits the legal liability for certain anti-terrorism products
certified by the new department. I am disappointed these provisions
were included in the final legislation.
I remain committed to a strong and effective defense of America's
interests. The American people must have confidence that terrorism will
be defeated through vigilant cooperation between our nation's defense
and intelligence apparatus, as well as all essential federal, state and
local agencies.
If done properly, a Department of Homeland Security could increase
efficiency and coordination between key agencies needed to protect us
against future terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, the legislation falls
short of this important goal.
We must do all we can to ensure the safety of the American people
from the threat of terrorism. I look forward to working with my
colleagues in Congress and the Administration on this important
challenge.

____________________

H.R. 5738

______

speech of

HON. DIANA DeGETTE

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, November 14, 2002

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5738.
Passage of this bill will

[[Page 23276]]

continue to fund important Type 1 diabetes research programs and
additional treatment and prevention programs for American Indians and
Alaska Natives through the Indian Health Service.
Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill could not have come at a more
critical time. Juvenile diabetes has a dramatic impact on the lives and
families of those affected. Diabetes also places a significant strain
on our health care system, costing the nation more than $100 billion
annually and accounting for one in four Medicare dollars. Individuals
with juvenile diabetes and their families are full of hope, however,
due to recent scientific advances that show real promise for curing
this disease. But federal support for such research must be increased
to continue this progress.
The Special Diabetes Program for Type 1 funding provided in this bill
will be used to continue progress in this area. The additional funding
will help develop and clinically test methods that will render the need
for insulin obsolete. Clinical trials are underway involving the
transplantation of insulin producing cells into individuals with
juvenile diabetes. The procedure, known as the Edmonton Protocol, has
provided success for the approximately 80 percent of the patients who
have received these transplants as they have been cured of juvenile
diabetes and no longer require insulin injections. As of Janaury 2002,
there were 68 islet transplantation centers around the world. The
increased dollars provided in this measure would help researchers
replicate and expand upon this success.
With regard to American Indians and Alaska Natives, this population
has a much heavier disease burden than the general population. This
includes a higher death rate from a variety of diseases, including
diabetes, than other Americans. Type 2 adult-onset diabetes is a
particular problem, with 12.2% of American Indians those over 19 years
old suffering from the disease.
Special Diabetes Program funding for American Indians and Alaska
Natives has given tribes the ability to focus diabetes prevention and
treatment activities where they can make the biggest difference--at the
local level. There are approximately 318 diabetes prevention and
treatment programs serving American Indians and Alaska Natives as a
result of program.
This funding will make a big difference in reducing the incidence of
diabetes in the community.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Juvenile Diabetes Research
Foundation, the National Indian Health Board and the National Congress
of American Indians and their member tribes, and the entire staffs of
these organizations for their tireless efforts in working to get this
bill passed.
Mr. Speaker, we have won several victories in improving health care
for people with diabetes. Passage of H.R. 5738 ensures another victory
for people with diabetes. It also moves us one step closer to our goal
of finding a cure.

____________________

IN HONOR OF LEWIS GOLDSTEIN

______

HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lew Goldstein, who I
have known for more years than I can count. Lew has been a dedicated
public servant for more than 30 years, whether serving as a local
Democratic party committee member of working the New York City School
system.
Lew was born and raised in the Bronx. Born to Leo and Gertrude
Goldstein on April 1, 1943, his first twelve years were spent in the
Highbridge section of the Bronx. After that he lived on the Grand
Concourse and then moved to the Pelham Parkway section of the Bronx. He
now resides in the Pelham Bay section of the Bronx.
Lew's first year as a teacher was spent at PS 100 in Harlem. After
that he served as a teacher and an administrator in the Bronx. He has
dedicated his professional life to ensuring that the children of New
York have a better life. For more than ten years, he has focused his
efforts on placing children with special needs in the best and most
appropriate learning environment. Even after retiring in August he
continued to serve the educational needs of the young by going to work
part time for Supreme Evaluations and Starting Point Services for
Children.
Lew has been involved politically since the mid 1960s. His first
elected position was as a delegate to the 1968 National Convention in
Chicago. He was originally committed to Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Lew
has been an active member of the NYS Democratic Committee to which he
was first elected to that position in 1970.
Lew has been active in fighting for the gay, lesbian, bisexual,
transgender community. He is the only openly gay elected official from
the Bronx. Lew is an active member of congregation Beth Simchat Torah,
the largest Gay and Lesbian synagogue in the country.
Mr. Speaker, Lew Goldstein has made the Bronx proud. However, I am
quite certain that he will continue to use his energy and determination
to continue to make the Bronx an even greater place to live. Lew ski
certainly one of a kind, and it has been a privilege and pleasure to
call him a good friend for so many years.

____________________

H.R. 5005--CREATION OF A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

______

speech of

HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, November 14, 2002

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
As a New Yorker, I know all too well the importance of a secure
homeland. On September 11th, my constituents and I witnessed firsthand
the devastation caused by terrorist attacks and we understand the
urgent need to find new ways to improve the nation's safety. Because of
this, in July, I felt it was my duty to vote for H.R. 5005, the House
version of the Homeland Security legislation and I will do so again
today.
H.R. 5005, the bill currently before us, creates a permanent,
cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, headed by a Secretary of
Homeland Security who shall be appointed by the President, with the
consent of the Senate. As stated by my colleagues, the legislation
consolidates 22 federal agencies into one new Department responsible
for intelligence analysis and dissemination, science and technology,
border and transportation security, and emergency preparedness and
response.
I had hoped that the conference committee would have corrected a
number of flaws in the House bill. I appreciate that H.R. 5005 is
slightly better on worker protections, however, I am still very
concerned that the final product includes troubling provisions that
weaken civil service protections for the new Department's employees,
undermines Freedom of Information Act compliance, and disregards the
need for accountability for corporation by giving blanket immunity to
companies that produce anti-terrorist devices.
Yet, we have to do everything we can to prevent a tragedy like 9/11.
We have to make sure we can respond as quickly as possible to future
attacks. The Homeland Security Act will help us reduce our
vulnerability to terrorism and ensure that the nation becomes better
prepared.
Securing our homeland must be made a priority. I urge my colleagues
to support H.R. 5005.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE HARVEY A. JONES ENGINEERING COMPANY'S 150 YEARS OF
BUSINESS EXCELLENCE

______

HON. KAREN McCARTHY

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
accomplishments of Mr. Robert H. Jones and his ascendants. Mr. Robert
Jones is the fourth generation family member to lead the Harvey A.
Jones Engineering Company as president in the historic region of
Independence, Missouri.
The company celebrates its 150th anniversary this year serving our
community through the surveying and engineering services it offers to
our local businesses and city infrastructure. I salute the remarkable
longevity of the company in creating jobs and providing robust economic
development throughout our local counties and communities in Missouri
and Kansas. The Harvey A. Jones Engineering Company is an outstanding
example of the significant contributions that small business makes to
our economy.
In 1849, Martin O. Jones came from New York to found his company. The
patriarch of the Jones family was appointed Jackson County Surveyor by
Missouri Governor Sterling Price and was hired by the United States

[[Page 23277]]

government in 1874 to survey the Santa Fe Trail from Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas to Fort Union, New Mexico.
Martin's son, Robert H. Jones, later directed the family business and
in 1919 was appointed City Engineer for the City of Independence. His
son, Harvey A. Jones took over the position of City Engineer when his
father retired in 1943. Harvey A. Jones, a prestigious civic leader was
also appointed as City Engineer for the cities of Sugar Creek, Buckner,
Lee's Summit, Raytown, Grandview, and Blue Springs. He was also the
first Chairman of the Missouri Water Pollution Board.
Throughout its illustrious development, the Harvey A. Jones
Engineering Company was instrumental in building the Little Blue Valley
Sewer District covering 225 square miles, widening the Noland Road, as
well as constructing the Harry S. Truman Sports Complex.
Robert H. Jones now directs the company and continues the tradition
his great grandfather began. Under his leadership, the company is now a
leader in using advanced computerized instruments in hazardous waste
remediation projects, subdivision planning, and commercial
developments.
I wish to congratulate the Harvey A. Jones Engineering Company, its
fourth generation president, Mr. Robert H. Jones, and all of its
employees, on this meaningful anniversary. Our community is grateful
and looks forward to the company's continued growth and success.

____________________

PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR EXCHANGE WITH NORTH KOREA

______

HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my grave concern
regarding Pakistan's transfer of equipment to support North Korea's
covert nuclear weapons program.
Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that North Korea has violated its
commitment to the United States, established in a 1994 accord, to
freeze its nuclear program. According to reports by your
administration, North Korea has in fact been secretly building a
program to enrich uranium since the late 1990's.
What I find appalling is that this nuclear program that the United
States worked tirelessly to halt, was in fact sustained through the
assistance of Pakistan. Not only did the transfer of critical equipment
from Pakistan to North Korea take place around 1997, in addition, this
relationship has continued even after President Musharraf seized power
by force in 1999. Lastly, Pakistan is thought to have provided
technology up to even three months ago--I find this particularly
outrageous.
The Bush administration has declined to openly discuss Pakistan's
involvement in this crucial situation with North Korea. Although the
administration seems to have evidence pointing to Pakistan's direct
involvement, I see no punitive measures taking place because Pakistan
is a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. In fact, Pakistan has received
over one billion dollars' worth of direct and indirect assistance from
the U.S. since September 11, 2001. I find it incredible that the U.S.
has provided virtually all the assistance President Musharraf has
requested, yet at the same time, Pakistan still continues to consort
with North Korea by exchanging nuclear equipment for missiles.
Mr. Speaker, I sent a letter to President Bush last month urging the
administration to conduct a full investigation of Pakistan's role in
providing North Korea with nuclear information and equipment. We must
fully investigate President Musharraf's relationship with North Korea
since his military coup in 1999, and even more important, to what
extent this relationship between the two nations continued after
September 11, 2001. To this day, I have not received a response to my
request.
In addition, I requested that the administration take immediate steps
to ban all military sales to Pakistan and to reimpose Symington
sanctions on Pakistan for assisting a foreign nuclear weapons program.
Lastly, I urged the administration to also take similar steps and ban
any future arms sales they have with Pakistan. I have not received a
response to these requests either, however, it seems clear that the
administration is opposed to imposing any corrective measures on
Pakistan.
Mr. Speaker, I am reiterating these requests that I had previously
made to the administration because I think it is important for us to
understand that Pakistan should not be exempted of its responsibility
in colluding with North Korea over a nuclear weapons program. This
situation poses a direct threat to our allies in Asia and to our safety
in the United States.
Since the administration is not inclined to recognize the severity of
Pakistan's relationship with North Korea, an ``axis of evil'', and
since the administration is not willing to use its authority to
reimpose the Symington Sanctions, I will introduce legislation early in
the 108th Congress to sanction Pakistan for delivering nuclear
enrichment equipment without international safeguards as determined by
the Symington Amendment of 1976.
Mr. Speaker, we must show Pakistan that their promise to help us in
our war on terrorism cannot be an empty promise. They cannot have it
both ways and until President Musharraf learns this lesson we must
reinstate the Symington Sanctions to protect our allies in Asia and our
own nation.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO NORMAN T. SCHINDLER

______

HON. TOM LANTOS

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying
tribute to Norman T. Schindler who will celebrate his 100th birthday
tomorrow--November 20. It is an extremely noteworthy event to mark the
centennial of Norman's birth, but it is more important--and deserving
of attention at any age--to acknowledge his remarkable record of public
service.
Norman Schindler was the son of a successful Austrian father and a
regal Romanian mother, who left Europe to find a new life in the United
States. Although he faced great challenges in his new country, his
timely departure for America may have saved his life because he avoided
the horrors of the Holocaust which took the lives of 6 million of his
fellow Jews in Austria and elsewhere in Europe, including many of his
own family.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Schindler's life in many ways was the America
dream--he began as an industrious eight-year-old selling fresh eggs and
delivering packages on the streets of New York City during the era of
horse-drawn carriages. His ambition and hard work led him to found the
Nortex and Schindler companies, which were headquartered on the 43rd
floor of the Empire State Building. He married his wonderful wife Fran,
and they have enjoyed a happy 45 years together.
His family and business success is matched by an enviable record of
public service. Just two years after the end of the Second World War,
his family received notification from the Government of Austria that
they were heirs to property in the city of Vienna. In memory of the
members of his family who were victims of the Holocaust, the family
directed that the property be turned over the city for use as a park.
In 1962 he established the first corporate day care and nursery
facility in the United States for the children of working mothers at
his manufacturing plant in Fall River, Massachusetts. Norman Schindler
has been a leader in a number of areas, particularly since he and Fran
established their home in Florida. He served as president of the South
Florida Humane Society for fifteen years, was treasurer of the
Papanicolou Cancer Research Center (now the Sylvester Cancer Center)
for seven years, was a founder of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation of
Miami Beach, on the board of the Hebrew Academy of Miami Beach, and
became a ``Grand Donor'' to the Miami Beach Alzheimers Foundation.
Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to
Norman T. Schindler for his exemplary public service on the occasion of
the centennial of his birth.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE SONNY CALLAHAN

______

HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

of west virginia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in tribute and express
my appreciation and affection for my colleague and friend from Alabama,
Sonny Callahan.
Sonny has traveled a career path from the ranks of the small
businessman to serving in the Alabama legislature to ultimately
representing Alabama's First District for the past 18 years in the
United States Congress.
From his work first as Chairman of the House Appropriations
subcommittee on foreign operations, and then more recently as Chairman
of the subcommittee on energy and water development, Sonny has been
unfailingly equitable in his consideration of members' appropriations
requests.

[[Page 23278]]

Now, in stepping down from the lofty positions he has served with
such distinction, he will have more time for his family, his
grandchildren, and his friends back home.
We will miss Sonny's friendly manner, his thoughtfulness, and his
affability.
But our loss in Sonny's retirement is certainly a clear gain for
Sonny's family and the folks of southwest Alabama to whom he now
returns.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE RECIPIENTS OF THE RING LARDNER AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN
SPORTS JOURNALISM

______

HON. DANNY K. DAVIS

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Athletic Association
(CAA) was one of the nation's first sports clubs to be created when it
was formed in 1890. It was ready for business--and sports--when it
opened its doors to athletes and sports fans, just in time for the
World's Fair Columbia Exposition in 1893. Amos Alonzo Stagg, Avery
Brundage, William Wrigley and Ring Lardner were among the scores of
sports celebrities who have called the CAA their second home. William
Wrigley even took the club's logo for the use of his new baseball team.
Today, that team is known as the Chicago Cubs.
While dozens of awards programs exist for athletes, there are few
programs that recognize excellence in sports journalism. The leadership
of CAA has decided to create a special award for excellence in sports
journalism, in honor of Ring Lardner, premier sports reporter and
writer. The inaugural recipients of the new Ring Lardner Award were
chosen by a distinguished panel, including: Mike Houlihan, Lardner
Award creator, Chicago Sun-Times; Mike Conklin, Chicago Tribune; Rick
Kogan, Chicago Tribune; Mike Mulligan, Chicago Sun-Times; Don Pierson,
Chicago Tribune; Norman Potash, WBBM-TV (CBS); Jennifer Weigel, WLS-
RADIO; Susan Prather, founder of the Chicago Sports Hall of Fame; and
William T. Darnton, immediate past president of the CAA.
The recipients of the inaugural Ring Lardner Award are:
In the broadcast category, NFL Host and play-by-play Announcer Greg
Gumbel, CBS Sports;
In the print category, former Chicago Sun-Times Columnist and Sports
Editor Ray Sons; and
In the posthumous award for both print and broadcast, former Chicago
Daily News Sports Reporter, Chicago Sun-Times Columnist and WBBM-TV
Sports Director Tim Weigel.
The award ceremony is being held Thursday evening, November 21, 2002,
at the Chicago Athletic Association, and is benefiting Maryville
Academy for abused children. The profession of sports journalism lost a
gifted reported in Tim Weigel last year. His award is especially
poignant, because his daughter, Jennifer Weigel, is serving as Master
of Ceremonies for the award ceremony, and his widow, Vicki Truax, will
accept the posthumous award.
Congratulations to the leadership and members of the Chicago Athletic
Association for creating and establishing this award, to Ring Lardner's
great-nephew, Rex, for his support and cooperation, and to the
recipients.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF LYNDA VAN DeVANTER BUCKLEY

______

HON. LANE EVANS

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Lynda Van DeVanter
Buckley, the author of ``Home Before Morning: Story of an Army Nurse in
Vietnam'', who passed away after a long-time illness last week. Lynda
served in Vietnam 1969-70 at 71st Evacuation Hospital in Pleiku. I had
the good fortune to know Lynda from her testimony to the House
Committee on Veterans Affairs and from her longstanding advocacy as a
very early member of the Vietnam Veterans as America. Like so many in
the veterans' community, I felt a tremendous loss upon hearing that
Lynda had left us after her long and courageous struggle.
As a friend, a Vietnam era veteran and lifetime member of Vietnam
Veterans of America, I remember Lynda's perseverance, her indomitable
spirit and her humanity. As a then-junior Member of the House Committee
on Veterans Affairs she helped shape my views on policy for Vietnam
veterans--particularly on women veterans' issues, and the health
effects of Agent Orange on veterans and their children. Even in her
illness, Lynda continued to fight for her daughter, Molly, whose
conditions Lynda suspected were related to her own exposure to Agent
Orange.
``Home Before Morning: Story of an Army Nurse in Vietnam'' became a
clarion call to women Vietnam veterans. It reminded them that they were
not alone in their struggles and gave voice to the problems and
concerns of both this particular group of Vietnam veterans and the
entire generation. So many of the pre-eminent leaders in this community
have been affected by her character and her courage. I know her fight
lives on in them.
My good friend, Dr. Linda Spoonster Schwartz, a Vietnam nurse who is
also a Vietnam Veterans of America member, had this to say about
Lynda's life which speaks volumes of the loss we all sense in her
passing:
``She was our first Sister. I say that because she took her own
Odyssey and put it in print. Her struggle was very much like our own.
We began to see we were not alone . . . . Her words came like
thunderbolts to part the curtain of anonymity, demoralization and
released the years of quiet turmoil suffered by many women who served
in Vietnam and during the Vietnam era . . . . She became the Elder
Statesman, supporting, advising, and nurturing a new team to continue
her work. She taught us how to share, how to disagree without demeaning
each other. Mostly she understood with a deep sense of reckoning which
never wavered from her vision . . . . She created a voice for women
veterans and all past, present and to come are the beneficiary of her
legacy.''
Lynda will be missed by many, but her commitment and contributions
will endure. Yes, Lynda will be missed, but never forgotten.

____________________

PAYING TRIBUTE TO THE CAPITAL AREA MICHIGAN WORKS!

______

HON. MIKE ROGERS

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
the Capital Area Michigan Works! for their receipt of an exemplary
service provider award from the U.S. Department of Labor. This award
was presented at the U.S. Department of Labor's annual Salute to
Veterans on November 13, 2002.
Mr. Speaker, the Capital Area Michigan Works! is part of a regional
consortium of local governments that provide workforce development
services. The exemplary service provider award was presented to only
nine organizations and individuals for their outstanding efforts in
providing employment and training services to veterans.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in
congratulating the Capital Area Michigan Works! for their distinguished
service to America's veterans. Furthermore, I would also ask my
colleagues to join me in extending our thanks to the Capital Area
Michigan Works! for their service to our community.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO REVEREND DR. ALICIA BROADOUS-DUNCAN

______

HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to my good
friend and one of the most active, passionate and hard-working
advocates for older Americans I have ever known, Reverend Dr. Alicia
Broadous-Duncan. This year Reverend Alicia will be 65 years old and the
Northeast Valley Multipurpose Senior Center will recognize her
dedicated service as their Director by having a birthday celebration in
her honor.
I have known Reverend Alicia for many years and I have watched with
great admiration the tireless and energetic work that she has given to
the North Valley Multipurpose Senior Center. Her energy is astounding.
The depth of her concern for the center and her genuine love for
humanity has made the center into a warm and welcoming environment. No
matter how busy, Rev. Alicia's first priority is to provide help and
guidance to those in need.
Rev. Alicia has done outstanding work during her years of dedicated
service to the community. For example, she served on the Chaplaincy
Services Advisory Board of Holy Cross Hospital and was a member of the
City of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission.

[[Page 23279]]

Reverend Broadous-Duncan has made significant contributions to
education and children's causes. Recently, she served on the Board of
Directors for Calvary Christian School and played an integral part in
Hathaway Children's Village Outreach Services. She has displayed
exemplary leadership in Christian service. For example, she was the
Founder and Executive Minister of Adonai Covenant Ministries and also
an Associate Minister for Calvary Baptist Church in Pacoima. She is
extremely devoted to her community.
Among the greatest achievements in Rev. Alicia's life are her seven
outstanding children she has raised during her 43-year marriage to
Lonnie T. Duncan, and among the great pleasures in her life now are her
17 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren.
Reverend Alicia Broadous-Duncan has positively affected the lives of
so many, and I join the Northeast Valley Multipurpose Senior Center in
wishing her a very happy birthday. It is my distinct pleasure to ask my
colleagues to join me in saluting Reverend Alicia Broadous-Duncan.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO CONGRESSWOMAN PATSY TAKEMOTO MINK

______

HON. JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, we gather today to highlight the
legacy of one of the most distinguished and honorable Members of this
august body, my colleague and friend--Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto
Mink.
Though Patsy made it to one of the highest elected offices in the
land, she never lost the common touch. Patsy was a champion of the
dispossessed; the downtrodden; the disenfranchised; the forgotten; she
was the people's representative. She was a mentor to many of us in
Congress. As the co-chair to the Congressional Caucus for Women's
Issues, she helped me many times to redirect my course if barriers were
placed in front of me! But that was vintage Patsy. She was always able
to redirect her course if barriers were placed before her. Having been
denied entrance to medical school, she chose the legal profession; and
was the first Japanese woman to pass the bar in Hawaii. As I received
the call of Patsy passing by my daughter Valerie, I was saddened only
for a short time, because I began to recall all the fond memories we
had together as a source of strength.
We must all draw on those memories. We must celebrate the life of our
dear friend Patsy and remember how her 24 years of distinguished
services shaped the lives of those who had social impediments, economic
inequality and educational restrictions. The passage of the landmark
Title IX legislation, which opened doors that had been closed to girls
in the athletic programs at schools around this Nation, will be a
lasting memory of how tenaciously she fought to improve the lives of
girls for generations to come.
In a career that began before territorial Hawaii became a state in
1959, Patsy Mink, with authority, wit and clear perspective, became one
of the best-known women politicians in the United States, and the first
woman of color elected to Congress. Patsy challenged us all! She
challenged us with the question, ``Does it matter whether women are
involved in politics?'' Her career speaks volumes to that question and
her accomplishments exemplify the answer. Decisions are being made at
the national level that will determine the quality of our lives into
the next generation.
Patsy Takemoto Mink--by crossing our paths--has given us the
leadership tools to advance the agenda for the common good. Thank you
Patsy! Mr. Speaker, on behalf of many women and Asian American
organizations, I would like to submit to the Congressional Record, the
following statements that highlight the life and legacy of
Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink.

Tribute to Congresswoman Patsy Mink

Remarks of Karen K. Narasaki, President and Executive Director,
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium

I believe that Patsy is looking down on us today and
smiling at the beautiful mosaic of faces. It is fitting that
this memorial has brought together so many strands of her
work--organizations and congressional leaders who advocate on
behalf of women, civil rights, immigrants, workers, children
and the poor have all come together to celebrate her life.
The Asian American and Pacific Islander community misses
her greatly. She served as a role model and an inspiration
for so many of us. She forged a path that made it possible
for Japanese American women like me and other women of color
to pursue our dreams and aspirations. She taught us that it
was possible to obtain great stature without having to be
physically tall, by defying the stereotypes that too often
become barriers for Asian American women who come from
cultures where women were expected to be seen and not heard.
She was a feminist before being a feminist was cool and she
remained one her whole life.
The other day, my niece in third grade ran for student body
secretary. I asked my sister to tell her that when she was
ready to run for Congress, I would work on her campaign.
Julia asked my sister to tell me that she intended to be the
first woman president and didn't see any reason to start with
Congress. This is one of Patsy's greatest legacies--because
of her life and work it is possible today for a young
Japanese American girl to believe she can be president.
Like many others in this room, I can still hear her voice
gently and not-so-gently pushing us to challenge authority
and popular opinion and fight fiercely for those most
vulnerable in our communities. She was a tough task master
who was never one to suffer fools gladly and she asked a lot
of her talented and loyal staff, but never more than she
asked of herself.
I remember her call for fairness for immigrants and
families in poverty when she voted against the tide on harsh
welfare reform legislation. I hear the echoes of her
passionate speeches on the floor of the House about the need
to invest in quality education for all and job training that
would allow working families a living wage and access to
health care. Because she was never one to toot her own horn,
people visiting Washington would be surprised when I told
them to try to catch one of her speeches because she was one
of the last of the great orators. She was always about the
work--always focused on the people she served.
Robert F. Kennedy once said, ``each time a man stands up
for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes
out against injustice he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. .
. .'' When Patsy stood up, she sent out tidal waves of hope
and the lives of all Americans are the better because of her.

REMARKS OF DR. JANE SMITH

Thank you. I am Jane Smith, the Chief Executive Officer of
Business and Professional Women/USA.
I join the many Members of Congress and other
representatives from the women's community here today because
Congresswoman Mink and BPW share a very long history. The
Congresswoman was a member of BPW for at least four decades.
But Congresswoman Mink was not simply an affiliate member.
She truly epitomized what BPW considers its greatest
strength--the grassroots member.
Congresswoman Mink attended the meetings of her local BPW
organization regularly and even cast votes in BPW's
leadership elections. She spoke at our annual policy
conference many times, sharing her insight on the ins and
outs of what was happening here on Capitol Hill. In fact,
each year before BPW's policy conference she would call her
BPW contacts in Hawaii to find out who would be attending the
conference and when the BPW members arrived in Washington she
took them all out to lunch.
One of my favorite stories about the Congresswoman took
place about six years ago when BPW's leadership was asked to
testify in front of the House Education and Workforce
Committee about increasing the minimum wage. A number of BPW
members, who were also small business owners, presented
testimony and at the conclusion of the hearing Congresswoman
Mink said that the hearing was her proudest day as a BPW
member.
In 1998, the BPW Foundation awarded Congresswoman Mink a
Women Mean Business Award and BPW's political arm--BPW/PAC--
has endorsed her for Congress every time she ran. BPW has
honored Congresswoman Mink because she was a grassroots
member who exhibited incredible leadership and vision. In the
words of BPW's past National President and BPW/Hawaii
member--Leslie Wilkins, ``We have lost one of our greatest
mentors. My only solace is the legacy she has left behind.
She has inspired countless women--and men--to go forward with
her work.''

Remarks of Bernice R. Sandler, Senior Scholar, Women'S Research and
Education Institute

Title IX was easily passed because hardly anyone recognized
the enormous changes it would require, and because it was
hidden away in the Education Amendments of 1972. It passed
easily because two women laid the groundwork for it in the
House Committee on Education and Labor, one, Rep. Edith Green
who introduced the bill and shepherded it through the
Congress, and Rep. Patsy Mink. They were the only two women
on the committee with 32 men. But together, they forged a
revolution.
Of course after Title IX was passed, people found out what
it would do. Between 1974 and 1977 there were at least 10
bills introduced to weaken Title IX, and Patsy Mink was in
the forefront defending Title IX. If supporting Title IX and
other women's issues were all she had done, it would have
been enough. But she didn't stop there.
Let me start by telling you about Arlene Horowitz, then a
secretary on the Hill who

[[Page 23280]]

came to me about an idea for a Congressional bill in 1971,
before Title IX was even passed. She asked: Why not have a
bill so that the government will fund materials for teachers
and others about women and girls to counter the effects of
sex role stereotyping? I thought Arlene was crazy and--no one
in their right mind in Congress would ever support such a
bill. Arlene, fortunately did not listen to me. She went to
other women who were also skeptical, and then to Patsy Mink.
Patsy Mink did not think Arlene was crazy. She gave us the go
ahead and so the Women's Educational Equity Act,
affectionately known as WEEA, was born.
Even while we worked on the drafting of the bill, many of
us still thought it wouldn't pass but that if hearings were
held, maybe it would send a message to publishers to begin
publishing such materials on their own. In 1973, Patsy Mink
held hearings and convinced Senator Mondale to do the same in
the Senate, and in 1974 the bill passed.
Just like Title IX WEEA was hidden away in another bill,
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Patsy Mink knew
her politics.
As the mother of the Women's Educational Equity Act, she
started a program that has developed hundreds of all kinds of
resources for educators and other concerned about the
education of women and girls. Yesterday I looked through the
catalogue of the Educational Development Center which
publishes and disseminates WEEA materials. In addition to
materials such as 600 Strategies That Really Work to Increase
Girls Participation in Sciences, Mathematics and Computers,
there were materials about working with immigrant girls,
Native American women and girls, Latina women and girls,
materials about women of the South, about Cuban American
Women, single sex education, a resource manual for single
mothers, materials for working with disabled girls and yes,
even materials for providing equity for boys. All of these
materials have had an enormous impact on not only on teachers
but on so many the children and women in our educational
institutions. Patsy Mink leaves us a legacy--not only the
legacy of defending Title IX but one which enriched Title IX.
She gave us the educational tools to deal with the effects of
sex discimination and indeed to prevent sex discrimination
from occurring in the first place. Thank you, thank you,
Patsy. You have made a lasting difference.

Remarks From the Every Mother Is a Working Mother Network

Grassroots women suffered a great loss with the passing of
Congresswoman Patsy Mink. Herself a woman of color, she stood
for us, she stood with us, and she stood as one of us and we
wonder now who will be our voice on the Hill. We are proud to
have known Congresswoman Mink, to have worked with her and to
have her encourage us. The last time we saw her was at a
Congressional briefing we held in June of this year on
valuing the work of caregivers in welfare policy. We invited
her to the briefing because we wanted to honor her for her
unswerving insistence that the work of mothers and other
caregivers be valued. She told us that we should not be
honoring her, that instead she should be thanking us for our
work in the face of all odds.
You must understand we were not a typical beltway crowd. We
were a rather rag tag multiracial group of mothers and
grandmothers on welfare, some of us with disabilities, some
with our grandchildren in tow, who along with other
caregivers had gathered our pennies and traveled to DC to
press our case from cities on the West and East Coasts, as
well as the Mid-West. We are women who are studied but not
listened to, spoken about but not given an opportunity to
speak for ourselves. But her tone to us was one of respect.
She spoke to us as a sister, as a friend, as people to whom
she was accountable. Many of us who heard her at our briefing
speak with such truth, conviction and clarity were moved to
tears.
From South Central LA to inner city Philadelphia,
grassroots women in our network were devastated by the news
of Congresswoman Mink's passing and devastated further by her
passing being treated in much of the mainstream media as
merely a passing event. She touched the lives of those living
daily the impact of welfare ``reform:'': those of us on the
bottom taking care of children and other loved ones. To her
colleagues on the Hill, we hope she will always be a shining
example of principle, commitment, integrity and compassion
from which you can draw courage. To advocates we hope you
will not forget her message. EMWM honors Representative Patsy
Mink, her spirit; her courage in the face of sexism, racism
and ageism is one that will continue to inspire us, and lives
on in us in our daily work for justice. Congresswoman Mink,
you honored us, and we now in return are honoring you. Our
deepest condolences to Wendy and other loved ones you have
left behind.

Remarks by Kim Gandy, president and the members of the National
organization for Women.

The world lost one of its greatest citizens on September 28
with the death of Hawaii Congresswoman Patsy Mink. Girls and
women also lost one of the most valiant and steadfast
champions. Every woman today who is enjoying the fruits of
her education and job opportunities, and every girl who has a
chance to play sports in school, owes a nod of thanks to Mink
who unremittingly and dauntlessly challenged old stereotypes
about ``women's place'' and helped engineer the steady
progress for women over the last four decades--parallel to
Mink's career in politics.
Patsy Mink stood up and showed up for girls and women,
often outnumbered and sometimes outmaneuvered. But she
persisted, cajoled, humored and demanded of her colleagues
that Congress attend to the business of over half its
constituents. Among many accomplishments, she was a leader in
shepherding the passage of Title IX in 1972 to promote
educational equity. One of only two women ever to receive
this honor, Patsy Mink was named a NOW Woman of Vision in
June, 2002, in a ceremony honoring the 30th anniversary of
Title IX. In celebrating her life we must rededicate
ourselves to protecting her legacy by preventing the current
efforts to dismantle this landmark legislation.
In the last decade of her political leadership, Patsy Mink
was a vigorous advocate on behalf of poor families. Faced
with the bi-partisan tidal wave that pounded poor women,
insisting that they ``get to work'', Mink worked tirelessly
to promote policies that truly addressed the realities of
poverty and last year garnered substantial support in the
House of Representatives for her legislation to provide
additional education and skills that would support true self-
sufficiency.
Patsy Mink will always be remembered with love and respect
and gratitude. She was our champion--a tireless advocate and
a hero to women and girls everywhere.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO CONGRESSWOMAN PATSY TAKEMOTO MINK

______

HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE

of hawaii

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit to the
appropriate Congressional Record, the following statements on
Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink.

On the Passing of the Honorable Patsy Takemoto Mink

(Statement of Jacqueline Woods, Executive Director, American
Association of University Women, October 1, 2002)

On behalf of the 150,000 members of the American
Association of University Women (AAUW), we express our
profound sadness at the loss of Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto
Mink. Congresswoman Mink was a true pioneer in breaking down
barriers in education and the workplace for women and girls,
and ensuring that the rights of all Americans are advanced
and protected. Mrs. Mink often said that her greatest
accomplishments was passage of Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972. AAUW will continue to ensure that Title
IX is protected in order to carry on Congresswoman Mink's
legacy so that future generations can enjoy full access to
all aspects of education. AAUW's mission is to promote equity
for all women and girls, lifelong education, and positive
societal change. Congresswoman Mink's lifetime commitment to
these issues has made it possible for AAUW's mission to be
realized in so many areas that have touched the lives of
countless numbers of women and families. AAUW's long-term
relationship with Congresswoman Mink included her membership
with the Hilo Branch of AAUW of Hawaii and that partnership
was maintained throughout her stellar career and lifetime. It
was an honor and pleasure to work with Congresswoman Mink to
promote educational equity for all women and girls, and we
will continue in these efforts in her honor and in her honor
and in her memory.
____

Irene Natividad of Women Vote Patsy Mink Tribute

For anyone who still asks ``What difference does a woman
make in public office?'' just tell them about Patsy Mink. She
was the force behind that one bill that created an earthquake
in women's and girls' lives. Whenever I see a little girls
soccer team playing on the weekend, or hear about a great
woman basketball player, or about another women's team
winning Olympic Gold, or the predominance of women students
at all levels of higher education, I think of how much we
owed to her. She changed American Women and Girls' lives
forever.
I have been to many women sports events, when women
athletes invoke with knowing familiarity Title IX (They even
know the number) and I came away impressed that they knew
their debt to this piece of legislation that the average
person does not know. Yet, I regretted that they did not know
their debt to an Asian American Women Legislator who crafted
the language that made their athletic or educational lives
possible. There are women leaders who did not know of Patsy's
role in this piece of legislation. There are Asian American
who don't know of Patsy's great gift to all Americans,
whether female or male.
But that is not their fault. Patsy Mink was an original.
She was extremely effective but

[[Page 23281]]

not self-promoting. She seemed slight and small, but she
possessed a spine of steel, as anyone who ever worked with
her on a bill would know. She seemed so polite and self-
effacing, but she was full of determination and passion. I
told her one time how I loved to watched people's reactions
when she speaks. They see this tiny woman and out springs
from her mouth this great big voice and this electric
presentation. She said ``There's value in being
underestimated. We surprise them each time.''
I was proud to have had Patsy Mink as one of my political
mothers, along with Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm. When I
first came to Washington many years ago, Bella gave me a
piece of advice: ``Honey, just watch Patsy. She'll show you
how to get things done.'' And indeed she has. Bella loved
Patsy and she thought the world of her and her work.
In this town full of statutes and buildings to commemorate
men's achievements, it is important for us here in the room
to remember not to let our heroines leave us without
acknowledging their great work while they're still with us.
____

[lsqb]Dialogue on Diversity, October 16, 2002[rsqb]

Representative Patsy Mink--a Tribute

(Ma. Cristina Caballero, President, Dialogue on Diversity)

Dialogue on Diversity counted Patsy Mink a friend,
supporter, and inspirer. With our organizational goal of
advancing a creative dialogue among women of America's and
the world's many diverse ethnic and cultural communities, we
found a natural ally and kindred spirit in Rep. Mink, and an
energizing source of encouragement and counsel in her ideas
and passions as they had evolved over a long and illustrious
career in public service.
It was our great honor to present to Patsy Mink the
Diversity Award as part of Dialogue on Diversity's Public
Policy/Legislative Forum of 1997. Rep. Xavier Becerra, who
presented the award, recalled his own first days in the
Congress. He had been brought under heavy pressure to vote
against a measure that his good conscience told him was
proper public policy. Rep. Mink came to him and asked: Are
you going to cave on your first day in Congress? No more
needed to be said. Conscience won on that occasion, and it
was the powerful moral and political presence of Patsy Mink
that ensured it did. We were delighted to welcome Rep. Mink
to our conferences and forums on several occasions, She
generously give her precious time and attentive counsel, and
brought her ever persuasive and heartening message to her
hearers.
Patsy Mink was a person of passionate energies and of great
vitality of intellect as she busied herself with the wide
range of issues concerning women, minorities, and others
among the often forgotten and disadvantaged in every corner
of the Republic. To reflect on her career and her friendship
is to call forth a great many memories of the battles and
achievements in the civic life of America in the last quarter
of the twentieth century, and to focus on her figure, the
untiring champion of those in American society who most
needed her aid. It is therefore hard to realize that she is
gone from our arena of action. Her example has its own
vitality, of course, which persists in her many colleagues
and admirers, and in a nation of friends.
____

Tribute by Marcia Greenberger and Nancy Duff Campbell, National Women's
Law Center, to Congresswomen Patsy T. Mink

The National Women's Law Center is celebrating its 30th
anniversary this year, along with Title IX.
So, from the Center's very beginning, we have known of and
been grateful for the work of Congresswoman Patsy Mink. Title
IX has been one of the most important laws ever enacted to
expand young women's horizons and transform their lives. In
the Center's efforts since its founding to ensure that Title
IX is enforced, we have relied on Patsy Mink's ringing words
in the floor debates on Title IX's sweeping purposes and its
broad reach. Her words have been especially powerful in court
cases we have brought to secure strong interpretations of
Title IX's reach and effectiveness. The Center has called on
her wisdom and leadership to keep Title IX strong in Congress
and in the court of public opinion as well--up to the very
time she became ill this summer.
Make no mistake--Title IX is under attack, and her
willingness to speak up and speak out was essential. On the
occasion of the National Women's Law Center's 30th
Anniversary Dinner this November 13, 2002, we will honor
Congresswoman Mink for all she did to make and keep Title IX
strong, as well as for the battles she waged, in which the
Center has joined, to fight poverty and to create real
support systems for women and families most in need.
Of course, her legislative accomplishments and leadership
are remarkable, and have enriched our nation and the world.
But, she also gave of herself for the National Women's Law
Center. She served on the Board of the National Women's Law
Center at a key juncture in its history, and even gave the
Center its name. She exhorted us as advocates to always
persevere, but never set for us a higher standard than the
one she followed for herself. She taught us to never give up,
and never give in to the status quo of unfairness and
inequity. And she supported us and was always there to fight
with us and lend us her expertise.
She has made such a difference, and will into the future.
She will live on, we hope, in the work that we do and the
work of so many others with whom we join. We are proud to
count among our colleagues her daughter Gwendolyn Mink, a
professor of Women's Studies at Smith College, whose
scholarship and activism--like her mother's public service--
have focused on ways to improve the lives of the least
fortunate women and children in our society. As Patsy Mink
well knew, and often said, our children are our future. May
we not only hold that thought, but continue to act on it.
____

[lsqb]Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies,
October 16, 2002[rsqb]

Remembering Patsy Mink

(Daphne Kwok, Executive Director)

Thank you so much Congresswoman Millender-McDonald for the
invitation to participate today. I would like to begin by
saying to Patsy Mink's former and current staff members a
very big thank you for all of their work that they did for
the national Asian Pacific American community all of these
years. We greatly appreciated the commitment you had to all
of our needs and for helping to advance the Asian Pacific
American agenda.
How will the Asian Pacific American community remember
Congresswoman Patsy Mink? We will remember her as:
The tireless advocate who always voted her conscience--from
fighting for justice for 2000 Asian Pacific American cannery
workers of the Wards Cove Packing Co. left out of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991 to voting against campaign finance reform
because of a provision that would deny legal permanent
residents the right to contribute to political campaigns.
The fighter who was always ready to make a verbal statement
or a symbolic statement on the issues that she was so
passionate about. How can we ever forget the image a few
years ago of the Reverend Jesse Jackson and a mass group of
Members and advocates flooding a House Committee mark-up
session on an anti-affirmative action bill. The overwhelming
support against the bill caused the chairman to cancel the
mark-up. The group then marched over to the Senate side. And
guess who was standing next to Rev. Jackson and standing just
as tall as him? Patsy!
Or the time that we were at the Lincoln Memorial on a
blistery cold winter day for a press conference demanding
that Bill Lann Lee receive a Senate vote for his nomination
as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Who was there
all bundled up in big wool coat, scarf, hat, gloves with her
fiery oratory keeping us warm as she ignited the flames
within us of this unfairness? Patsy!
But most especially, we will remember Patsy for the
generous time she carved out from her jam packed schedule to
always graciously meet with and inspire Asian Pacific
American elected officials, Asian Pacific American student
interns, Asian Pacific American community leaders, and the
Asian Pacific American grassroots community sending them home
with pearls of wisdom and a charge to do good for others and
to serve this nation.
This is how the Asian Pacific American community will
forever remember the incredibly vibrant Congresswoman from
Hawaii--Patsy T. Mink.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO OFFICER GLEN KIRKLAND

______

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Officer Glen Kirkland
for his significant contributions in making his community and society a
better and safer place to live. Officer Kirkland has always been a
beacon in the community with his ability to serve as a conscientious
and honorable role model for many youth in the community.
Officer Kirkland was born on March 27, 1955 in Brooklyn, New York to
Ruthel and David Fredrick and has five siblings, two sisters and three
brothers. During his formative years, he attended Brooklyn public
schools. Officer Kirkland began serving his community at an early age;
during his teen years he was involved with the Faith, Hope and Charity
Community Center. At this community center, Officer Kirkland was
involved in projects that kept him off the streets and helped him
secure summer employment.
Glen Kirkland became a New York City Police Officer in 1980. During
his career as a police officer he has had various assignments dealing
with the youth of the community. At

[[Page 23282]]

the 75th Precinct, Officer Kirkland became the Youth Officer and Union
Delegate for the Guardians organization. He has received numerous
certificates, awards and plaques from the local community, state and
federal entities for his efforts in working with youth.
Officer Kirkland is known not only as a trendsetter on his parole
beat but also as a neighbor and family man. On more than one occasion,
during the winter snows, he would shovel his sidewalk as well as his
neighbors. He is a loving son, brother, devoted husband and father. He
is the type of man you can call on at any hour of the day or night for
assistance and he will be there.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Officer Glen
Kirkland for his leadership specifically with youth and the many other
contributions to his community. His endeavors and accomplishments
deserve our praise and appreciation.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO GARRY BROWN

______

HON. RICHARD E. NEAL

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to
bestow a special recognition to Garry Brown, chief Boston Red Sox
writer and standout sportswriter for the past 52 years. Let me just
say, there is no finer baseball writer in America. Gary Brown was
recently awarded the top honors in sports writing during the annual New
England Associated Press News Executives Association award
presentations which were held in Ogunquit, Maine.
In commenting on Brown's first place award, the judges noted that
``his columns had good starts and even stronger endings. This is column
writing the way it should be.'' Garry has successfully tackled various
topics in his columns from the New York City terror attacks to racism.
There is no doubt that he is a talented and gifted writer and the
people of New England have enjoyed his writing over the last half
century.
I am personally a fan of his columns and have read them for many
years. So today, I wish to personally congratulate Garry Brown on his
first place award and for his outstanding achievement in sports
writing. Surely, he has created a dynamic legacy in New England.

____________________

LABOR VIOLATIONS UNDERMINE U.S.-ECUADOR TRADE RELATIONSHIP

______

HON. GEORGE MILLER

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on October 29, the
United States Trade Representative (USTR) recommended to the White
House that Ecuador be designated a beneficiary country under the Andean
Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). The White House
issued a proclamation adopting the recommendation on October 31, one
day before trade ministers met for a summit in Quito, Ecuador.
The United States has once again chosen to extend special trading
benefits to Ecuador despite blatant and rampant violations of worker
rights in that country's banana industry.
Our Administration had a golden opportunity to promote democratic
ideals abroad by placing universal labor rights above economic self-
interest. It should have withheld trade benefits until Ecuador proved
it was serious about eradicating child labor on its plantations,
improving the hostile climate toward the right to organize, and
bringing to justice those who attacked striking workers in February and
May.
In February 2002, hoodlums attacked striking workers on a banana
plantation in the middle of the night. Soon thereafter, Human Rights
Watch released a damning report which documented a long litany of labor
abuses on Ecuadorian banana plantations. As concerned members of the
International Worker Rights Caucus, we sent down staffers to
investigate the situation. They were given few helpful answers.
On September 23, we wrote to USTR Ambassador Zoellick and made the
case that Ecuador did not deserve renewed trading benefits. Throughout
the summer, the Ecuadorian government and much of the banana industry
had continued to dismiss conclusions reached in the Human Rights Watch
Report. It had become clear that the case of the attacked workers was
nowhere near resolution. In short, the Ecuadorian government had shown
little enthusiasm for instituting necessary labor reforms to keep trade
beneficiary status.
USTR took our letter and its recommendations seriously by conferring
renewed trading benefits on Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia but withholding
Ecuador's cause for further review. The recent decision to go ahead and
renew Ecuador's status is dependent upon Ecuador fulfilling certain
medium-term conditions at a later date.
We believe those conditions would be satisfied earlier if our country
held Ecuador to the labor standards that U.S. trading agreements
demand. The truth is that Ecuador sells more bananas to the U.S. than
it does to any other country. It enjoys a beneficial trading
arrangement that is contingent upon a respect for basic human rights.
It should be held accountable.
We have included the September 23 letter we sent to the USTR. Under
each of our recommendations, we have included an update of what the
Ecuadorian government has done on this concern. We hope these measures
will have been fully adopted by Ecuador when USTR revisits the issue in
the future. Until then, we will continue to support rights for workers
in Ecuador and elsewhere.

Robert B. Zoellick,
Ambassador, United States Trade Representative, Washington,
DC.
Dear Ambassador Zoellick: As you know, in order for
countries to be eligible under the Andean Trade Promotion and
Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), they must provide for
internationally recognized worker rights. We are writing to
express our concern that Ecuador has not met this criteria.
We are particularly concerned about abuses in the banana
sector.
Ecuador does not effectively enforce its laws governing the
worst forms of child labor in its banana sector nor do the
minimal penalties for violating those laws effectively deter
employers from employing children in hazardous conditions. In
Ecuador's banana sector, harmful child labor is widespread,
children work long hours, are exposed to toxic pesticides,
use sharp tools, haul heavy loads of bananas, lack sanitary
water and access to restroom facilities, and, in a few cases,
experience sexual harassment. Although the government of
Ecuador and the Ecuadorian banana industry have recently
pledged to take steps to address the problem, the promised
steps are insufficient, as they fail to address adequately
the problem of ineffective enforcement of child labor laws
and inadequate sanctions for their violation.
Ecuadorian laws intended to protect freedom of association
are seriously deficient. Employers who fire workers for
organizing are not required to reinstate the workers and, if
caught, usually pay only a minimal fine. Employers are not
prohibited from interfering with unionization efforts or
attempting to control workers' organizations. And legal
loopholes allow employers to string together short-term
contracts to create a vulnerable ``permanent temporary''
workforce. Subcontracted workers, also used widely in the
sector, lack job stability and can only bargain collectively
with their subcontractors, not with the companies that
actually control their employment terms. These factors create
a climate of fear among banana workers in Ecuador and have
largely prevented them from organizing, resulting in a banana
worker union affiliation rate of roughly 1 percent, far lower
than that of Colombia or any Central American banana-
exporting country.
Despite all the impediments to organizing, in February
2002, workers on the Los Alamos banana plantations, owned by
the Noboa Corporation, began the first serious banana worker
organizing drive in Ecuador in over five years. The Los
Alamos workers, whose three unions were recognized by the
Ministry of Labor in April and who began a legal strike on
May 6 in an effort to get their employers to engage in good-
faith negotiations, have been the victims of alleged anti-
union dismissals; anti-union violence, including shootings on
May 16; government failure to investigate the violence and
prosecute the perpetrators; employer interference with
Special Committees representing the workers before
government-convened arbitration panels; and the unlawful use
of strikebreakers. If the Los Alamos workers' right to
organize is not fully protected, other banana workers will
likely be deterred from organizing for fear of suffering
similar consequences, creating a chilling effect on the
exercising of fundamental worker rights. labor abuses in
Ecuador's banana sector were extensively documented earlier
this year in Human Rights Watch's report, Tainted Harvest:
Child Labor and Obstacles to Organizing on Ecuador's Banana
Plantations, and have also been widely reported in U.S. and
foreign media, including the New York Times, Washington Post,
Financial Times, and Economist.
Because Ecuador has failed to fulfill its commitments to
eliminate the worst forms of child labor and to protect
workers' right to organize, the country should be denied
ATPDEA designation until benchmarks addressing the
enforcement of child labor laws and the abuses suffered by
Los Alamos workers are met. We urge the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) to send a delegation

[[Page 23283]]

to Ecuador to verify compliance with the benchmarks. If the
benchmarks are met, ATPDEA designation should be granted on a
provisional basis for six months, on the condition that
reforms to bring labor laws into compliance with
international standards be made within that time frame.
We also recommend that Ecuador be asked to take the
following measures to address urgent labor rights problems
prior to ATPDEA designation:

The Los Alamos Case

Undertake a comprehensive investigation of the violence
against the striking banana workers and effectively prosecute
those responsible, including any parties who may have hired
the perpetrators.
Not only was this condition not fulfilled prior to granting
Ecuador ATPDEA beneficiary status, but Ecuador committed to
the United States only, generally, that it would continue to
investigate and take further action in the Los Alamos case,
failing to address specifically any of the very serious
concerns, detailed below, with regards to the investigation
undertaken.
At approximately 2:00 a.m. on May 16, 2002, some two
hundred armed individuals attacked striking workers on Los
Alamos, looting their homes, beating many of them, and
shooting at least one. Around 6:00 p.m. that same day, the
armed men allegedly shot eight more workers and a policeman.
In October 2002, Ecuador concluded a sorely inadequate
investigation of this case. According to a report by the
prosecutor handling the case, only sixteen of the assailants
were charged with any crime. The events of 2:00 a.m. were
never investigated. No attempt was made to identify who hired
the armed individuals, nor were any workers interviewed. The
investigation examined only the case of the injured
policeman, mentioning only that a local newspaper had
reported that one worker was also shot. The Los Alamos case
is now before a criminal judge, Even if the case proceeds to
trial, as the prosecutor has requested, and further
investigation is undertaken at that stage, the trial will
focus solely on the incidents and charges set forth in the
prosecutor's report, which forms the basis for the case.
Thus, unless another case is opened and a new investigation
undertaken, those who may have contracted the roughly two
hundred perpetrators of the violence and all but sixteen of
the perpetrators will enjoy impunity, and the sixteen accused
will face charges for only a fraction of the illegal
activities of May 16, also enjoying impunity with respect to
the others.
Investigate whether replacement workers were hired
illegally and whether employers attempted to place workers'
Special Committees under employer control, violating the
right of workers' associations to function free of employer
interference. If so determined, these violations should cease
and the employers should face appropriate penalties, adequate
to deter future abuses. This condition was also not fulfilled
prior to granting Ecuador ATPDEA beneficiary status, and,
instead, Ecuador committed to the United States, generally
that it would establish a ``high level commission'' to
investigate this and other issues related to the Los Alamos
case and report back to the United States with findings and
recommendations for improvements. Ecuador did not, however,
commit that this ``high level commission'' nor any other
government body would punish the employers if guilty of
violating Ecuadorian law governing the use of replacement
workers or if guilty of violating workers' right to freedom
of association by interfering with workers' organizations.

Child Labor

Designate, as required by Ecuadorian law, at least one
labor inspector for children in each province-a total of
twenty-two inspectors-and provide them with sufficient
resources to effectively implement child labor laws. These
inspectors should be in addition to, not in lieu of, existing
labor inspectors.
Ecuador's Minister of Labor issued a decree addressing
enforcement of child labor laws that blatantly fails to meet
this condition. On October 4, 2002, Ecuador's Minister of
Labor decreed a new ``System for the Inspection and
Monitoring of Child Labor.'' However, this initiative is
insufficient to address the country's egregious failure to
enforce its child labor laws. The new system does not provide
for new labor inspectors, but explicitly states that existing
inspectors charged with enforcing other labor laws shall be
shifted to this new bureaucracy. Furthermore, although the
decree states that the Ministry of Labor will ensure that the
system is provided with sufficient financial and human
resources to complete its functions, there is no guarantee
that additional funding will be provided to the Ministry of
labor for these purposes.
Ecuador has committed to the United States, generally, to
improve enforcement of child labor laws and comply with
International labor Organization (ILO) convention 182
concerning the prohibition and Immediate Elimination of the
Worst Forms of Child Labor. Ecuador did not specifically
commit, however, to fully fund the system created to uphold
these commitments nor to address that system's significant
inadequacies.
Ecuador should be required to commit, prior to ATPDEA
designation, to make the following labor law reforms within
six months, as a condition for continued designation:
Increase the penalty for violating child labor laws and
require a portion of punitive fine to be dedicated to the
rehabilitation of displaced child workers.
Explicitly prohibit employers from interfering in the
establishment or functioning of workers' organizations and
attempting to dominate or control workers' organizations.
Require reinstatement of workers fired for engaging in
union activity and payment of lost wages during the period
when they were wrongfully dismissed.
Prohibit explicitly employer failure to hire workers due to
organizing activity and establish adequate penalties to deter
employers from engaging in this or other anti-union
discrimination.
Allow subcontracted workers to organize and bargain
collectively with the person or company for whose benefit
work is realized if that person or company has the power to
dictate workers' terms and conditions of employment.
Reduce the minimum number of workers required to form a
union.
Ecuador has not explicitly made any of these commitments.
Instead, Ecuador committed to look seriously at the
consistency of its labor laws with ILO obligations. This
falls significantly short of promising to submit labor law
reforms to congress to address specifically the areas,
highlighted above, in which Ecuadorian labor laws fail to
meet international standards on freedom of association and
child labor.
Ecuador also agreed to send seven labor rights-related
international law instruments to its congress for future
ratification. Of these seven, however, two- the U.N. Protocol
to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
Especially Women and Children and ILO Convention 138, the
Minimum Age Convention-were already ratified by Ecuador. One-
the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination for Reasons of Gender and Age-does not even
exist. Therefore, only four of the instruments could, in
practice, be submitted for ratification, none of which
address the concerns highlighted above.
After these essential measures have been taken and reforms
adopted, Ecuador should be required to commit to continuing
to reform labor legislation and improve labor law enforcement
until internationally recognized worker rights are fully
respected throughout the country.
We thank you for your consideration of this very important
matter and would be happy to discuss it with you further. We
look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Member of Congress.
Janice D. Schakowsky,
Member of Congress.

____________________

ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER

______

HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit a letter from
28 Members of Congress, and an enclosure from the National Physicians
Center for Family Resources, requesting that the National Cancer
Institute correct scientific inaccuracies in their Fact Sheet on the
link between abortion and breast cancer. I commend the National Cancer
Institute for the steps they have already taken to revisit their fact
sheet and I look forward to a scientifically accurate fact sheet in the
near future.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2002.
Hon. Tommy Thompson,
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Department of Health
and Human Services, Hubert Humphrey Building, Washington,
DC
Dear Secretary Thompson: We write to request a review of
the National Cancer Institute (NCI) fact sheet FS #35.3,
labeled ``Abortion and Breast Cancer.'' As we work together
to make sure the American public has the most accurate and up
to date information on health risks, especially related to
the serious disease of breast cancer, we wanted to
specifically ask for a review of the official NCI information
on the link between abortion and breast cancer. Even though
this fact sheet was updated March 6th of this year, we
believe it is scientifically inaccurate and misleading to the
public.
Even though, to date, 28 out of 37 scientific studies
worldwide, and 13 out of 15 in the United States show a
positive association between abortion and breast cancer risk,
the NCI fact sheet on this topic emphatically states ``The
current body of scientific evidence suggests that women who
have had either induced or spontaneous abortions have the
same risk as other women for developing breast cancer.'' This
glossing over of the weight of published scientific evidence
does

[[Page 23284]]

not provide the public with the information they deserve.
Furthermore, it seems inappropriate for the NCI to rely so
heavily on one study to support its claims regarding abortion
and breast cancer. The NCI fact sheet relies on Melbye et
al., 1997, although that study contains many significant
flaws. In particular the Melbye study: misclassified 60,000
women as not having abortions when, in fact, the women did
undergo an abortion; included medical records that did not
consistently record a history of abortion; and, included over
350,000 women who were generally too young to be diagnosed
with breast cancer because their ages were twenty five years
of age and younger. We believe NCI has given this flawed
study too much weight and that the entire body of evidence
needs to revisited as soon as possible.
We respectfully request that the fact sheet be reevaluated
for accuracy and bias and that it be removed from the
Department website until that review is completed. We thank
you for your attention to this important health issue and to
our concerns about the NCI fact sheet on the link between
abortion and breast cancer.
Sincerely,
Christopher Smith; Joseph R. Pitts; John Shadegg; W. Todd
Akin; Joe Wilson; Robert B. Aderholt; Walter B. Jones;
Sue Myrick; Milissa A. Hart; Sam Johnson; Roscoe G.
Bartlett; Todd Tiahrt; Pete Hoekstra; Bob Schaffer;
Mike Pence; Gil Gutknecht; Van Hilleary; Henry E.
Brown, Jr.; Jim Ryun; Barbara Cubin; Dave Weldon; Jim
DeMint; John Sullivan; Mark Souder; John N. Hostettler;
JoAnn Davis; Ernest Istook; Cliff Stearns.
____

National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet Analysis, The Abortion--Breast
Cancer Connection (ABC Link), National Physicians Center for Family
Resources (NPC), April, 2002

Overall tone of denial of abc link: ``. . . it appears that
there is no overall association between spontaneous or
induced abortion and breast cancer risk, . . .'', even
though, to date, 28 out of 37 studies worldwide and 13 out of
15 in the U.S. report a positive association.
Confusion of induced and spontaneous abortion: These two
terms appear together repeatedly, as if they are equivalent.
Never is the proper equation of spontaneous abortion and
miscarriage made; in fact, the word miscarriage never
appears. Yet paradoxically, the ``inability to separate
induced from spontaneous abortions'' is offered as a
criticism of earlier studies on the abc link.
Misrepresentation of the published medical literature on
the abc link:
(a) A key study on American women which relied on
prospective medical records (Howe et al., 1989), and which
found a significant abc link (overall RR = 1.9), is not cited
at all, even though much more weight is given to data ``from
studies that collected data on abortion history before the
breast cancers occurred'', and even though it is presented as
a weakness that ``Most of the early studies relied on self-
reports of induced abortion''.
(b) The study specifically funded by the NCI to examine the
abc link (Daling et al., 1994), which study reported a
significant overall link (RR = 1.5) and much higher risks for
teenagers (RR = 2.5) and actually reported ``RR = [squ]'' for
teenagers with any family history of breast cancer, is not
cited at all.
(c) The only comprehensive review and meta-analysis on the
abc link (Brind et al., 1996), which reported a positive
association in 18 out of 23 studies worldwide (9 out of 10 in
the US), is not cited at all.
Reliance on flawed studies which do not show an abc link,
merely because they are based on prospective data, namely:
(a) the study by Melbye et al., 1997, even though it
misclassified 60,000 abortion-positive women as abortion
negative, used breast cancer records which antedated abortion
records, and included over 350,000 women under age 25, among
other flaws;
(b) the study by Goldacre et al., 2001, even though it
misclassified over 90 percent of the abortion-positive women
in the study as abortion-negative;
(c) the null studies by Newcomb and Mandelson (2000) and
Lazovich (2000), even though both are so small (23 and 26
patients with induced abortion, respectively) and of such low
statistical power that neither could even detect a RR as low
as 1.5 with statistical significance.
Inclusion of inaccurate statements, i.e.:
(a) ``In three of the (four) studies, information was based
on medical records than on the woman's self-report;''. In
fact, this is true of only two (i.e., Goldacre and Newcomb &
Mandelson) of the four studies referred to.
(b) ``The strength of this study (Melbye 1997) include . .
. the ability to account for breast cancer risk factors that
may differ between those women who have had abortions and
those who have not,''. In fact, the lack of such data on
potential confounders was a weakness of the Melbye study,
which only adjusted for age and age at first term pregnancy.
Most studies also adjust for age at menarche, age at
menopause, etc.
(c) ``Most of the early studies necessarily relied on self-
reports of induced abortion, which have been shown to differ
between breast cancer patients and other women.'' In fact,
the opposite is true. Even the only study cited on the fact
sheet which examined this question reported: ``The authors'
data do not suggest that controls are more reluctant to
report a history of induced abortion than are women with
breast cancer.''
Disguising the established breast cancer risk factor that
is directly affected by abortion in a substantial proportion
of abortion patients, i.e.: ``Well established breast cancer
risk factors include . . . a late age at the time of the
first birth of a full-term baby''. Abortion, which, in
childless girls and women, necessarily delays the first full-
term pregnancy, is not mentioned at all in this context.

____________________

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1214, MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT OF
2002

______

speech of

HON. STEPHEN HORN

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, November 14, 2001

Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1214, the Port
and Maritime Security Act of 2002 Conference Report. As many of you
know, I have been privileged to represent the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach for the past 10 years. Each day these ports receive cargo
from points around the globe. The San Pedro Bay port complex is the
third largest seaport in the world. These ports are responsible for
over 30 percent of all U.S. waterborne trade with an estimated value of
$162 billion a year. The bulk of these imports arrive in 20- or 40-foot
containers aboard some of the world's largest cargo ships.
Additionally, our ports handle millions of cruise passengers annually.
Insuring the safety of containers and passengers entering and exiting
the ports of this country is a daunting task. Currently, only about 2
percent of the shipping containers entering the country are inspected.
This simply will not do. Passing this comprehensive port security
legislation will insure that more containers are inspected and that our
ports are properly protected.
I am particularly pleased that Section 203 of this legislation
incorporates a bill that I introduced in the 106th Congress. This
section authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to
the American Merchant Marine Veterans Memorial Committee to construct
an addition to the American Merchant Marine Memorial Wall of Honor in
San Pedro, California. Thus far, the Committee has already raised well
over $500,000 to begin construction on the second phase of this
memorial. Plans for the addition to the memorial call for panels to
list the names of those who died while serving in the U.S. Merchant
Marine.
Since 1775, the maritime community has played a critical role in
gaining and preserving American freedom. The Merchant Marine served as
our first Navy and defeated the British Navy in our fight for
independence. We owe much to the brave mariners past and present who
have served in the Merchant Marine. The American Merchant Marine
Memorial Wall of Honor located in San Pedro, California, is a symbol of
the debt we own those who have served so bravely.
Many of my colleagues will remember how the Merchant Marine secured
its place in American history during the Second World War. During that
conflict, the 250,000 men and women in the U.S. merchant fleet made
enormous contributions to the eventual winning of the war, keeping the
lifeline of freedom open to our troops overseas and to our allies. This
fleet was truly the ``Fourth Arm of Defense'' as it was called by
President Franklin D. Roosevelt and other military leaders.
The members of the U.S. Merchant Marine faced danger from submarines,
mines, armed raiders, destroyers, aircraft, ``kamikaze,'' and the
elements. At least 6,800 mariners were killed at sea and more than
11,000 were wounded at sea. Of those injured, at least 1,100 later died
from their wounds. More than 600 men and women were taken prisoner by
our enemies. In fact, one in 32 mariners serving aboard merchant ships
in the Second World War died in the line of duty, suffering a greater
percentage of war-related deaths than all other U.S. services.
Since that time, the U.S. Merchant Marine has continued to serve our
nation, promoting freedom and meeting the high ideals of its past
members. It is fitting to honor the past and present members of the
U.S. Merchant Marine. This is why I introduced legislation in the
previous Congress that would provide additional federal funding for the
memorial wall in San Pedro. Twice the House has approved legislation
authorizing funds for this worthy memorial, today I am pleased that the
House and Senate are moving to approve this authorization in the port
security conference report.

[[Page 23285]]

Throughout the development of the conference report, I have sought to
provide the greater protection for ports and the communities that
surround them against terrorist attacks. I am pleased that the
conferees have included port security grants and research and
development grants that will encourage the development and use of
state-of-the-art technology. Like the conferees, I believe it is
important to encourage the private sector to continually advance the
state of the art as a means of enhancing detection capabilities and
thus enhancing deterrence over time.
When he is reviewing project proposals and awarding grants, I
encourage the Secretary of Transportation to give preference to those
projects that incorporate technologies that are capable of
automatically detecting shielded nuclear weapons, liquid and other
explosives, and chemical and biological agents weapons in fully loaded
cargo containers without the need for humans to open the containers to
manually inspect them. Based on testimony received by the Congress, it
would appear that pulsed fast neutron technology is capable today of
meeting this need. As a result, I hope that this technology and other
technologies will be identified, developed, and installed in our ports
as part of the ongoing process of enhancing port security through this
legislation.
Long Beach State's Center for the Commercial Deployment of
Transportation Technologies (CCDoTT) has been developing maritime
technology for many years, and has recently turned their attention to
port security technology as well. In the FY03 Defense Appropriations
bill CCDoTT was granted $4.3 million for continuation of their
important work to develop more efficient cargo handling in ports, high-
speed ship designs, and port security research. This funding will allow
the center to continue assessing cargo inspection technologies that can
help meet the needs of agencies such as the U.S. Customs Service and
the Coast Guard.
Section 70107 of the accompanying report authorizes an additional $15
million for fiscal years 2003 through 2008 for research and development
grants for port security. I am pleased that report language for the
Port and Maritime Security Act of 2002 particularly notes the
importance of the research being done at Long Beach State's Center for
the Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies. This language
encourages the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Defense
to obligate any current and prior year appropriations under the
continuing cooperative agreement. The Center is sponsored by the U.S.
Maritime Administration and U.S. Department of Defense and I am certain
it will continue to provide invaluable research for America's maritime
interests. Again, I am pleased with, and strongly support, this timely
port security legislation.

____________________

PROJECT 19

______

HON. MARY BONO

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the brave American
civilians who volunteered to assist our allies in the fight against an
enemy that was threatening democracy for the entire world. These
patriotic Americans chose to enter World War II to participate in a
mission referred to as Project 19.
In the fall of 1941, prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill
to discuss the United States assisting Britain in its battle with
Hitler's Reich.
President Roosevelt responded by authorizing a secret Air Depot to be
established and operated by American civilian volunteers in Eritrea,
East Africa under the direction of Douglas Aircraft Company. Due to the
fact that the U.S. had not yet entered the war and for obvious
diplomatic reasons, Project 19 was classified as ``secret.''
The goal of the volunteers, also referred to as ``Tech Reps'' and
``Feather Merchants,'' was to assemble P-40's and repair hundreds of
worn out and damaged allied aircraft, first for the Royal Air Force
(RAF), and after America entered the conflict, B-24's and B-17's for
the United States Army Air Corps. When this group of freedom loving
Americans first began their volunteer mission, they helped the RAF
repair planes that had been damaged during horrific battles. When the
secret mission was terminated, many volunteers joined the military to
fight alongside our allies and some of them gave the ultimate
sacrifice, their lives.
Many lives have been affected by the sacrifice these valiant men made
and I believe the time has come to recognize these heroes who
volunteered their services and their lives to their country and its
allies.
Mr. Speaker, as long as our Nation is served by men and women who
place the defense of freedom above their personal safety and well being
our Nation will endure. The men of Project 19 served with pride and
distinction, and deserve the recognition of our Nation and this
Congress.

____________________

THANKING MY CONGRESSIONAL STAFF

______

HON. GEORGE W. GEKAS

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, the end of a congressional career brings
about many emotions. Over the last twenty years I have happily spent
representing the fine people of the 17th Congressional District of
Pennsylvania I have had the pleasure of working with thousands of
constituents, local, state and federal officials, and many former and
current distinguished members of the U.S. House of Representatives and
the U.S. Senate. To all of them I say, thanks for working with me
towards a better America.
And, of course, every Member of Congress works with many, many
competent staff, from the staff in their own personal offices to the
Committee and Subcommittee staff and the leadership and floor staff. It
has often been said that without staff where would this institution be?
And I concur with that statement, for without the many fine staff with
whom I have had good fortune to work, I and other Members of Congress
of the United States would be far worse off. While I cannot mention all
the fine staff who have worked with me over the years, let me at least
mention the current personal and subcommittee staffers who have
endeavored to achieve our common goals and to whom I give my hearty
thanks and wish them well in their future careers.
In my Harrisburg district office, Arlene Eckels, my long-time
personal secretary who has worked for me since the early days in the
Pennsylvania State Senate and to whom I wish a happy and much deserved
retirement; Tom Templeton, my hardworking district director, who so
ably kept my entire district staff working smoothly; Suzanne Stoll, an
old friend and superb caseworker; Paul Giannaris, whose ability to
handle INS problems has made him invaluable; and Tim Vollrath, a
recently returned former employee whose military and veterans help has
been superb. In our Lebanon Office, Reg Nyman has been the voice of
Lebanon for these many years, and his excellent knowledge and service
will be missed. And in our Elizabethtown office, Susan Melendez has
kept our Lancaster County constituents well served by her kind and
efficient manner. Over the last twenty years my district office staff
has handled hundreds of thousands of phone calls and constituent
casework requests. A superb record by a superb staff.
My Washington office staff have proven themselves time and time
again, regularly going beyond the call of duty. (The tally of my
hundreds of legislative measures, nearly 30 Public Laws, thousands of
office meetings and countless committee and other initiatives over the
years speaks truth to that assertion.) First, on my personal staff,
Patrick Sheehan, my Counsel and Legislative Director, has been a
dynamic and intelligent thinker and leader, who offered sage advice on
immigration, military and veterans affairs; Greg Herman, my Senior
Legislative Counsel kept pace with my many Judiciary and legislative
demands especially bankruptcy reform and appropriations (as I would
expect from a Palmyra, PA native); Becky Smith, my office manager and
health legislative assistant, kept my schedule and personal affairs
humming along smoothly and ably managed my most favorite of projects,
the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus of which I was founder and
Co-Chairman; David Greineder, who did a multitude of duties as my
talented systems manager, legislative correspondent and Legislative
Assistant covering education and labor issues; Bill Tighe, another LC
and Legislative Assistant whose insights into the Agriculture and
Natural Resources needs of Pennsylvania and the district were more than
invaluable, they were accurate; Mike Shields, my recent press secretary
extraordinaire, who did an excellent job under difficult situations;
and, of course, Alan Cagnoli, my long time Chief of Staff from Hershey,
PA, a superb leader of the office and jack-of-all-trades who kept the
office running and productive no matter what the crisis.
My Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims,
of which I was Chairman, was ably staffed by George Fishman, Lora Ries,
Art Arthur, Cynthia Blackston and Emily Sanders, as well as Brian

[[Page 23286]]

Zimmer of the Full Committee staff. They handled the extremely
important legislation necessitated by the new domestic and
international threats we now face. Their assistance to me during the
challenges of this year is impossible to measure. The House of
Representatives has much to look forward to with their continued work.
And last but not least, is the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law, of which I was a member this last Congress but on
which I served as Chairman from 1994-2000. On this subcommittee we
dealt with the hundreds of regulatory reform issues developed by the
Republican Majority through the Contract With America and following
initiatives. My major Bankruptcy Reform measure began with me in this
subcommittee; Administrative Law Judges; Legal Services Reform; the
Federal Agency Compliance Act; The Regulatory Fair Warning Act;
Executive Orders; Internet Tax reform; the Federal Arbitration Act;
Interstate Compacts; the Independent Counsel Act; and many, many other
topics. While bankruptcy reform took center stage, there was no end to
the amount of topics and work my staff and I pursued. For this I thank
them, the current and former staffers of the subcommittee, for all
their exceptional work: Chief Counsel Ray Smietanka, who has worked
with me as a chief committee counsel since I came to the 98th Congress
in 1983; Susan-Jensen Conklin, whose superb work on bankruptcy reform
got us where we are today; Rob Tracci, formerly of the Subcommittee,
was an invaluable source of assistance; and all the other members of
the CAL staff who have helped this Member of Congress over the many
productive years. I thank them all for their work to the Nation and me.
To all I have mentioned, and those who I have regrettably not, please
accept my sincere thanks for making my tenure in the United States
House of Representatives a productive and pleasant one. Any current
Member of Congress or Committee would be well served by the high-
quality staff with whom it has been my pleasure to work over these many
years.

____________________

THE HONORABLE TIM ROEMER

______

HON. STEVE BUYER

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to show my appreciation for the
distinguished member from Indiana's Third District. For the past twelve
years, Congressman Tim Roemer has served the people of Northcentral
Indiana with a steadfast commitment and dedication to their needs.
A Hoosier, born and bred, Tim Roemer came to Washington, D.C. to
represent the fundamental Indiana values of strong faith in God and an
unwavering duty to country and to family. As a member of Congress and a
father of four, he has been a strong advocate for trying to make the
House of Representatives more family-friendly.
As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, he has
worked tirelessly to improve our children's education from Head Start
all the way to the college-level, supporting public school choice and
making college education more affordable for all Americans.
I want to thank Congressman Tim Roemer for his hard work on behalf of
the Third District, the State of Indiana and the country. I wish him,
his wife Sally and their four children--Patrick Hunter, Matthew
Bennett, Sarah Kathryn and Grace Elizabeth, all the best in the future.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall
votes 483 and 484. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on
rollcall vote 483, and ``no'' on rollcall vote 484.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE L.A. FREE CLINIC

______

HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Los
Angeles Free Clinic. L.A. Free Clinic, a tremendous and vital health
care resource which is celebrating its 35th anniversary this year. The
L.A. Free Clinic has become a true beacon of light in our ever
uncertain health care system in Los Angeles. It is synonymous with
quality and accessible health care for the homeless, the uninsured and
under-insured, the working poor and runaway and high-risk youth.
The L.A. Free Clinic came into being during the summer of 1967 when a
small group of volunteers opened a storefront clinic on Fairfax Avenue
to serve the thousands of ``flower children'' who were living in the
streets and parks that summer. They crowded the clinic with an array of
health issues, and the crowds have been coming ever since. Today, the
clinic is a sophisticated but accessible string of three separate sites
serving 100,000 patients annually. As the longest continuously running
free clinic in our Nation, the L.A. Free Clinic serves as a remarkable
model.
Its mission is to serve as a community-based clinic which identifies
the health care and social service needs of under-served populations.
It develops comprehensive resources and quality programs to meet those
needs and provides the services free of charge and free of judgement in
a caring environment.
The clinic's most important mission is to provide health care to
those who can not or will not receive care elsewhere. The L.A. Free
Clinic believes that health and human services are a right and not a
privilege.
The clinic offers a wide range of primary care and specialty care for
the entire family. In addition, the clinic houses broad and important
social services to treat the whole patient. It has a domestic violence
advocate available to recognize and work with patients who are victims
of domestic violence. There is also a legal clinic on site to assist
with a variety of issues such as immigration and child custody. There
are case managers and mental health professionals at the ready to treat
any number of concerns that patients may present when they come to the
clinic.
Part of what makes the L.A. Free Clinic so successful is its more
than 500 volunteers who eagerly answer phones, translate diagnoses,
speak at health fairs and organize fundraisers. The clinic's board is
equally dedicated and impressive, still represented by some original
founders. The L.A. Free Clinic is also lucky to have a number of
support organizations without which it could not function. They include
Friends of the L.A. Free Clinic, New Friends of the L.A. Free Clinic
and L.A. Free Clinic Auxiliary.
It has been my distinct privilege to represent and support the L.A.
Free Clinic for much of its existence. The residents of Los Angeles and
our health care system owe the L.A. Free Clinic a great debt of
gratitude and we will continue to rely on its superb service and
caring. We are looking forward to the next 35 years to come.
I ask all of my colleagues to join me in wishing the L.A. Free Clinic
a very heartfelt and happy 35th anniversary.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO REPRESENTATIVE TODD SALIMAN

______

HON. MARK UDALL

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor State
Representative Todd Saliman for his exemplary public service in the
Colorado General Assembly from 1995 through 2003. I would like to thank
him in this forum, not only for his service to my state, but also for
the example he has shown to young people all across America, that
public service is not contingent on one's seniority.
A native of Littleton, Colorado, Todd studied at the Unversite de
Savoie in Chambery, France and graduated in 1989 from the University of
Colorado in Boulder. He worked on the U.S. Senate campaign for Josie
Heath and the Boulder County Field organization in 1990, the Local Open
Space Sales Tax in 1993, the Executive Committees of the State and
County Democratic parties for many years, and the Rocky Flats Local
Impacts Initiative from 1991 to 1994.
In 1994, Todd was elected to represent House District 11 in north
Boulder and was one of the youngest members in the history of the
Colorado General Assembly. His constituents overwhelmingly approved of
his service and returned him to office by over 70% of the vote in every
subsequent election. In the Legislature, he quickly earned the
affection and respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
his intelligence, good judgment, and keen analysis on a wide range of
issues. Todd was a member of the Joint Budget and Appropriations
Committees overseeing the state's

[[Page 23287]]

$13 billion budget. He provided thoughtful and skilled bipartisan
leadership in the areas of budget policy, taxes, health care, higher
education, children's issues and the environment. He served
successfully on such diverse committees as Finance, State Affairs,
Local Government and Transportation, and he co-chaired the Kid's
Caucus. He was valued as an experienced voice on substantive policy
issues when working on the Governor's 1996 Health Care Task Force and
the 1997 Old Age Pension Plan Committee.
From 1997 to 1999, I had the good fortune to be Todd's junior
colleague in the State House of Representatives. I appreciated Todd's
generosity and loyalty, his professionalism and his code of ethics. He
has been unswerving in his commitment to policies that serve the
environment, the education and the health of people, and principles of
integrity and fairness. An important part of his legislative focus has
been responsible growth management and environmental preservation.
He has been especially effective in his support for early
intervention and prevention for children at risk of abuse and neglect
and for improving our public education by reducing class size and fully
funding public education. He has been honored as Legislator of the Year
by the Colorado Association of Nonprofit Organizations, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, the Colorado Behavioral Health Care Council, the
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, the Community Health
Network, the University of Colorado at Boulder, the Colorado Social
Legislation Committee, the Colorado Community Center Boards, and the
Sierra Club. Last year, he was honored for his distinguished service by
the Colorado Children's Campaign. During his tenure as an elected
official, Todd was also the Development Director for the People's
Clinic and a policy consultant with the Bell Policy Center.
I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to
Representative Saliman for his example of idealistic public service and
the many contributions he has made to the people of Colorado. My family
and I wish him, his wife, Michelle, and their son, Max, good health and
happiness in their future together.

____________________

HONORING DR. TOM[Aacute]S ARCINIEGA

______

HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr.
Tom[aacute]s Arciniega, who has served my community for 20 years as the
President of California State University, Bakersfield. During his
tenure, Dr. Arciniega has played an important role in developing CSU
Bakersfield into an institution that offers outstanding educational,
professional and athletic programs in the Central Valley.
Dr. Tom[aacute]s Arciniega has served as the President of CSU
Bakersfield since 1983. During his first year, 3,383 students were
enrolled and Arciniega oversaw a $16.7 million budget. Since then, the
budget has increased to more than $60 million and the school annually
enrolls more than 7,700 students. During his tenure, 13,568 students
have earned baccalaureate degrees and 3,692 have earned master's
degrees from CSU Bakersfield.
Dr. Arciniega's commitment to improving the educational opportunities
at CSU Bakersfield was vital to the University being accepted into the
prestigious California State University system in 1987. In 1998 he was
successful in creating a Master's of Social Work program, meeting a
long-time community need. Dr. Arciniega has become a recognized leader
among Kern County educators for his involvement as the chairman of a
local teacher education committee, which aims to develop better
teachers for the future.
In addition, Dr. Arciniega has provided a boost to the professional
development of CSU Bakersfield. In 1990, the University hosted its
first annual Bakersfield Business Conference, which was attended by
over 10,000 participants. A year later, the Bakersfield Business
Conference drew 12,500 participants. In 2000, CSU Bakersfield
celebrated its 30th anniversary and concluded the year long Cornerstone
Campaign that raised more than $12 million, making it the most
successful fundraising efforts in Kern County history.
Under Dr. Arciniega's leadership, CSU Bakersfield also developed an
athletics program that has been successful competing on the national
level while promoting gender equity. In 1993, CSU Bakersfield pledged
to achieve gender equity in athletics and in 1998 they reached their
goal of providing greater opportunities for women student-athletes. The
athletic program was so successful in the 1997-1998 school year that
they were presented with the Sears Cup for the best NCAA Division II
athletic program in the nation. In addition, the Men's Basketball team
won the NCAA Division II National championship in 1993 and 1994.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating
Dr. Tom[aacute]s Arciniega for his contributions to the Bakersfield
community as the President of California State University, Bakersfield
for the past 20 years.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THOMAS J. KELLY

______

HON. ROBERT A. BRADY

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the
accomplishments of my friend and brother in the labor movement, Mr.
Thomas J. Kelly. Mr. Kelly has been honored by our fellow
Philadelphians for his unyielding role as a driving force within
Philadelphia's powerful labor movement for over a quarter of a century.
As a prime example of successful labor leadership that exemplifies
this ``Union Town'', he has served as President and Business Manager of
Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union 19 from 1979 to 2002. He recently
accepted an appointment to serve as the General Secretary-Treasurer of
the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Kelly began his apprenticeship with Local 19 in 1965 at the age
of 19. He went on to become a business agent and finally was elected to
Local 19's top position which he has held for eight consecutive terms.
Under his stewardship, union membership has grown to over 4,000,
development has increased with the construction of the multi-million
dollar Administrative Building, the adjacent state-of-the-art Training
Center, and the highly successful Penn's Landing Caterers, and Mr.
Kelly was instrumental in negotiations for a historic gambling casino
enterprise.
He has been recognized for many achievements and held numerous union
leadership roles; however, he cherishes most the plaque received from
Local 19's rank and file membership, which cites him ``. . . for
leading the Union with Courage, Wisdom, and Tenacity.''
Married to Linda, Tom's family includes his three children, Susan
Tympel, Thomas Jr., and Kathleen and one grandchild, Lauren Tympel. I
am quite sure Tom's entire family is very proud of his numerous
accomplishments.
It is a privilege to recognize a person whose leadership and
commitment to community has enriched the lives of countless
individuals. I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me
in commending Mr. Kelly for his lifetime of service and dedication to
Pennsylvania's First Congressional District.

____________________

ELIZABETH BELL LAYTON PEEK, MOTHER OF REVEREND V. LONNIE PEEK, JR.,
MEMORIALIZED IN DETROIT, MICHIGAN

______

HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on November 19, 2002, the mother of
Reverend V. Lonnie Peek was memorialized at Greater Christ Baptist
Church, whose renowned pastor is Reverend James Perkins.
Mrs. Peek was an activist, writer and deeply religious person greatly
admired in her community and throughout metropolitan Detroit. She
raised and had a strong influence on her son, Reverend Peek.
The following excerpts from her writings capture the style, wit and
philosophy of this amazing 20th century African American woman. We are
proud of her contributions and she will be sorely missed.

Elizabeth Bell Layton Peek is my name and I was born on
March 27, 1921 in Northport, Alabama as the 7th child of
Willie Cunningham Layton and Vonnie Layton. Back then life
was simple and strong family values were the keys that bind
us together. I was the ``twinkle in my father's eye'' so I
didn't have to work the cotton fields, and besides I was kind
of skinny. So I became mother's helper--not in the kitchen .
. . my job was ironing the clothes for the family.
Education was a vital part of our life, and we worked hard
to be good students. A very good speller, I won the
``Spelling B'' and father showed his pride by telling
everyone I could pick a bale of cotton faster than anyone he
knew. Daddy died when I was 15. This event forcefully made us
not only endure but excel at what my father taught us about
survival and family. The older children quickly

[[Page 23288]]

took on the responsibility of the younger ones--my brother
Mack was my provider. Mack always bought me the best of
clothes and because of his generosity I out-dressed everyone
in the family.
I had a special bond with my brother Vonnie, who would
sneak me out of the house to go dancing; I loved to dance, we
could really ``cut a rug'' together. Vonnie had a friend that
I met named Vassie who played on the football team. Boy, was
he something!! Vonnie would help us to see each other,
because I was not allowed to date. Vassie later became my
husband . . . the love of my life. On January 8, 1939 we
eloped, and were married by Vassie's pastor Rev. Harvey. On
our wedding night I went back home to sleep without Vassie.
The word got out the next day and my younger sister Jessie
Ray came home and told mother ``Lizzie B (that's what they
called me) had married that gray haired Vassie Peek.'' He was
really something!!
Soon Vassie decided that the only way to make a good life
for us was to move to Detroit. Vassie started out for
Detroit, but stopped in Asbury Park, New Jersey to work
temporarily. He immediately joined Mt. Pisgal Baptist Church
and became the surrogate son to two families, the Sims and
the Griffins. He decided to stay and sent for me soon after.
I was a homemaker, who was accused by her friends of always
staying home ``shaking the pots and pans.'' My kitchen was
the gathering place for all my friends. Everyday I had a hot
meal ready for Vassie--a meat, starch, and ``fresh''
vegetables, along with hot homemade bread . . . everyday!!
To this Alabama girl Asbury Park was the ``big city.'' Two
of my brothers later joined us in New Jersey, Vonnie and
Mack, and you know what, I was the only female in my family
to ever leave home. One weekend we decided to really do it up
big since we were only 45 miles from New York City, we
decided to go to this club called Smalls Paradise in Harlem.
We stayed at the ritzy St. Theresa Hotel, and woke up with
bed bugs all over our bodies.
After moving to Detroit and applying for social security I
found out that I was a whole year younger than I thought!
Throughout my married life, Vassie liked to brag about being
10 years older than me, but little did he know he was 11
years older.
I now reside with Lonnie and my ``other daughter'' Eunice,
his wife, who helps me to get ready and takes me to church
with them.
I am blessed to have had two wonderful sons-in-law, the
late Chuck Russell, who could always make me laugh and Freddy
Haynes who I love to cheat while playing Chinese checkers.
Lonnie has given me my two oldest grandchildren: Monique,
who resides in Los Angeles and Lonnie III, of Detroit. Patty
has given me three grandchildren: Chalaze, Charles III and
Chavin all of Detroit. Debbie has given me my youngest
grandchild Abeni, who lives in Dallas. I am a great
grandmother of 4: Choree, Chambel, Charli and Chad-Elizabeth.
I am blessed. My family and friends truly loves me and I
love them. I am loved and pampered in two states. I spend
part of the year in Detroit under the watchful eye of Lonnie
and Patty, and the other part in Dallas with the boss of the
family, Debbie.
I hope you have enjoyed these little stories of my life.
It's always good to remember our unique link to the past . .
. I treasure mine. The world is moving so rapidly, and I know
we must move with it. I am bringing my ``values'' with me as
I go forward from day-to-day.
Today I am blessed to have all of you celebrate my 80th
birthday before I leave for Dallas on tomorrow. Make sure you
all give me a big hug and at least 80 kisses and prayers!!!