[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5101-5127]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Smith of Oregon, and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 2194. A bill to hold accountable the Palestine Liberation 
Organization and the Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on behalf of the Senator from 
California and myself, I offer the Arafat Accountability Act. This act 
seeks to create conditions more conducive to stopping the senseless 
violence and flow of innocent blood in the Middle East.
  The act takes aim at the weakest link in ongoing efforts to negotiate 
a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--PLO Chairman 
Yasser

[[Page 5102]]

Arafat. His leadership has been marked by repeated failures--failure to 
forcefully denounce and terminate the spree of horrific homicide 
bombings, failure to serve as a credible and reliable partner in peace, 
and failure to fulfill the aspirations of the Palestinian people for 
stability, economic opportunity, and a viable homeland.
  Instead, he has acquiesced to terror and violence. Documents seized 
during recent counterterrorism operations on the West Bank reveal his 
personal involvement in financing and supporting terrorism against 
Israeli civilians. The successful interception of a cargo vessel from 
Iran earlier this year--loaded with offensive weaponry destined for the 
Palestinian Authority--should have conclusively proven that Chairman 
Arafat was, at best, a balky partner in peace, or, at worst, a foe of 
any meaningful reconciliation.
  The terrorist attacks against Israel must come to an end. And they 
must end on terms that safeguard the lives and livelihoods of innocent 
Israeli and Palestinian civilians. Much like our war against the 
Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, Israel is rotting out terrorist 
cells and destroying their networks.
  It is no understatement that the Israeli military is undertaking its 
operations with precision and professionalism that no other army in the 
region could exert.
  The Arafat Accountability Act will not frustrate or derail the 
important efforts of the administration to secure a political solution 
to the ongoing strife. Rather, it places critical incentives to ensure 
that Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority do not deliver a 
fatal blow to the prospects for peace.
  Specifically, the act denies a visa to Arafat and other senior PLO 
officials to travel to the United States, downgrades the PLO's 
representative office here in Washington, restricts the travel of 
senior PLO officials at the United Nations, and seizes the assets of 
the PLO and the Palestinian Authority and Arafat in the United States. 
It also requires the administration to report to Congress on any acts 
of terrorism committed by the PLO or its constituent elements.
  Importantly, the bill provides the President with flexibility in 
determining the sanctions, but it is my expectation that they would 
remain in place until a cease-fire is achieved and the Tenet plan 
implemented. These are the very same short-term goals that Secretary 
Powell has been trying to achieve over the last few days.
  We should not forget that in 1993 Arafat himself committed the PLO to 
``a peaceful resolution of the conflict,'' so we are not holding Arafat 
to any higher standard than he established for himself already.
  I would offer that Arafat should have listened more carefully to 
Secretary Powell when he said to the Nation and the world from the 
McConnell Center for Political Leadership at the University of 
Louisville last year that solutions to this conflict ``will not be 
created by teaching hate and division, nor will they be born amidst 
violence and war.''
  I emphasize that it is not my intent to push this bill to a vote on 
the Senate floor at this time. We should give the President and his 
advisers more time to pursue their objectives in the region.
  It is my intent, though, and the intent of the Senator from 
California, to send a powerful signal to Chairman Arafat and the 
Palestinian Authority that the Senate will not stand idly by while they 
talk peace in English and practice terror in Arabic.
  No progress toward a political solution to this conflict will be made 
until and unless Yasser Arafat forcefully, clearly, and repeatedly 
condemns homicide bombings and other acts of terrorism against Israel 
and takes concrete measures to restrain Palestinian extremists.
  The bill we introduce today puts added pressure on Arafat and the PLO 
to be responsible and responsive partners in peace. There is no room 
for further failure on Arafat's part. He must either lead his people 
toward peace or get out of the way.
  Let me close by commending President Bush and his administration for 
their superb conduct in the ongoing war against terrorism. They 
certainly have my full support in this endeavor--be it in the West Bank 
or in Gaza or, for that matter, in Iraq.
  My colleagues and I are looking forward to hearing from Secretary 
Powell when he appears before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee next 
week.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky 
for his work and leadership on this issue.
  We are here because we believe any hope for peace in the Middle East 
must begin with the complete renunciation of terrorism by the 
Palestinian Liberation Organization and a strong, unwavering commitment 
to bring such terrorism to an end.
  We also believe that only with the leadership of the United States 
can there be a peaceful settlement and resolution of issues in the 
area.
  For the past 18 months, as the violence of the second Intifada has 
increased, the United States has consistently called upon Yasser Arafat 
to halt the terrorism he pledged to end in the Oslo accords.
  Unfortunately, Arafat has incited the violence and helped financially 
support the terrorists.
  We now know that one of Arafat's top advisers is directly involved in 
financing the illegal weapons purchases and terror activities of the Al 
Aqsa Brigade.
  We now know, according to documents seized by the Israeli Defense 
Forces, that Arafat was directly involved in efforts to illegally 
smuggle more than 50 tons of arms into Israel from Iran a few months 
ago.
  We now know that Arafat has failed to confiscate weapons of terrorist 
suspects.
  We know he has failed to arrest and hold suspected terrorists and is 
harboring suspects in the assassination of an Israeli Cabinet official 
in his own headquarters in Ramallah.
  In fact, much of the terrorism emanates from the heart of the PLO, 
carried out by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, composed of members of 
Arafat's own Fatah faction.
  Since the beginning of the year, 209 people have been murdered and 
more than 1,500 injured in these suicide bombings. These are children, 
women, men--innocent civilians.
  The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed credit for numerous of these 
attacks, including on March 31, central Jerusalem, killing 3 people; 
March 3, killing 10 people in west Jerusalem; and January 31, when the 
first female bomber killed an elderly Israeli.
  A document seized by the Israel Defense Forces in Ramallah, signed by 
Arafat himself, approves funding for the Al Aqsa Brigades.
  On February 3, Arafat wrote a New York Times op-ed opposing violence 
against Israel. Yet he declared a few days later, in Ramallah, that 
``we will make the lives of the infidels Hell'' and led a chant of ``A 
million martyrs marching to Jerusalem!''
  And this past week, while Arafat spoke out against terrorism, his 
wife, in Paris, said she would be proud if she had a son who became a 
suicide bomber.
  I believe, sincerely, that this is not a leader who wants peace for 
his people. In fact, I believe the suicide bombings have been precisely 
calculated to destroy any chance for peace.
  If these suicide bombers cannot be stopped, the situation is going to 
continue to deteriorate, Israel will have to continue to exercise its 
legitimate right of self-defense, and the result will be full-scale 
military conflagration.
  Israel has done no less--and certainly no more--than what any country 
would do to defend itself. There has been a lamentable loss of life in 
the West Bank. And I grieve for it because I believe, very deeply, 
every life--Israeli or Palestinian--has equal value.
  But let us not forget that Israel's military operation has been one 
based on specific intelligence information, with specific military 
goals--to act directly against terrorists who before the start of the 
operation were carrying out daily suicide bombings against Israeli 
civilians--and carried out with considerable restraint.
  Certainly, Israel has not gone beyond what the United States and our 
allies

[[Page 5103]]

have been doing in Afghanistan, or the United Kingdom in Northern 
Ireland, or the bloody French campaign in Algeria--let alone, what 
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, or Iran do on almost a daily basis to 
quell dissent.
  Does anyone doubt that a suicide bombing in Cairo, or Riyadh, or 
Damascus, or Beirut, or Paris would be met with the strongest of 
reactions, as was the 9-11 terrorist incident here?
  There simply is no excuse for arming a teenage girl with bombs around 
her waist to blow up women and children. And this kind of terror is 
happening over and over again.
  So the time is now for this Senate to stand up, in a strong, unified 
voice, to condemn the actions of Chairman Arafat and his PLO and the 
terrorism that has spawned.
  Chairman Arafat has said one thing in English and another in Arabic. 
Chairman Arafat fans the flames and incites the people.
  We offer this bill, after witnessing the failure of efforts by 
Messrs. Tenet, Mitchell, Zinni, and, at least initially, Secretary 
Powell to break the deadlock largely because Chairman Arafat has not 
brought to an end the suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism.
  This legislation would require the President to report to Congress 
every 90 days, detailing the acts of terrorism engaged in by the 
Palestinian Liberation Organization or any of its constituent elements 
and, based on that report, to designate the PLO or its constituent 
elements as terrorist organizations, or explain why not.
  The legislation also finds that Chairman Arafat and the PLO have 
violated his commitment to peace through the recent purchase of 50 tons 
of offensive weaponry from Iran; that they are responsible for the 
murder of hundreds of innocent Israelis and the wounding of thousands 
more since October 2000, and that they have been directly implicated in 
funding and supporting terrorists who have claimed responsibility for a 
number of homicide bombings inside Israel.
  Because of the failure by the Palestinian Liberation Organization to 
renounce terrorism, the act would, A, downgrade PLO representation in 
the United States to before Oslo; B, place travel restrictions on 
senior PLO representatives at the United Nations; C, confiscate assets 
of PLO or Palestinian Authority or Chairman Arafat in the United 
States; D, deny visas to Chairman Arafat or other officials of the PLO 
or the Palestinian Authority.
  It is important to note that the President may, on a case-by-case 
basis, waive this provision based on national security considerations.
  The legislation presents a sense of the Senate outlining the first 
steps needed to reach peace. First, the United States should urge an 
immediate and unconditional end to all terrorist activities and 
commencement of a cease-fire. Two, Arafat and the PLO should turn over 
to Israel for detention and prosecution those wanted by the Israeli 
Government for the assassination of Israeli Minister of Tourism, Mr. 
Zeevi. Third, Arafat and the PLO should take broad and immediate action 
to condemn all acts of terrorism, including and especially suicide 
bombing, which has resulted in the murder of over 125 Israeli men, 
women, and children in the month of March alone and the injury of 
hundreds more; confiscate and destroy the infrastructure of terrorism, 
including weapons, bomb factories and materials, as well as end all 
financial support of terrorist activities; and to take positive steps 
to urge all Arab nations and individuals to cease funding terrorist 
operations and the families of terrorists.
  Finally, the President of the United States, working with the 
international community, with Israel and the Arab States, should 
continue the search for a comprehensive peace in the region.
  There is no question that there are serious differences to be 
reconciled between Israel and the Palestinian people and that only a 
political settlement can hopefully bring the violence in this region to 
an end. I believe the 1967 borders, borders which have the imprimatur 
of the United Nations, hold the key to a settlement. Despite serious 
differences about the refugee problem, ongoing security, and the status 
of Jerusalem, I believe peace can be achieved through negotiation and 
agreement. But I know it cannot be achieved through violence.
  The necessary first step is the end of the violence, the terrorism, 
and the suicide bombing. Once that is done, we are firmly convinced 
that if leaders on both sides want peace, the rest can all be worked 
out.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Carnahan, and Mrs. 
        Feinstein):
  S. 2195. A bill to establish State infrastructure banks for 
education; to the Committees on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the need to rebuild our Nation's 
crumbling schools is clear. The National Center for Education 
Statistics estimates that it would cost $127 billion to repair, 
modernize, and renovate U.S. schools. Fourteen million U.S. students 
currently attend schools that report a need for extensive repair. And a 
study by the American Society of Civil Engineers concludes that public 
schools are in worse condition than any other sector of our national 
infrastructure.
  And yet the Federal Government is doing far too little to help.
  That is why I am introducing the Investing for Tomorrow's Schools Act 
of 2002. I am pleased to have Senators Clinton, Carnahan, and Feinstein 
join with me as co-sponsors.
  This legislation allows States to create ``infrastructure banks'' for 
public schools and libraries. Modeled after State revolving funds, 
which have been used successfully to finance transportation projects, 
these banks would offer low-interest loans to school districts for 
building or repairing public schools, and to public libraries for 
building or repairing libraries. As the loans are repaid, the bank 
funds would be replenished, and the banks could make new loans to other 
schools and libraries. Once the banks got rolling, they would sustain 
themselves, without any need for ongoing Federal appropriations.
  After more than a decade of fighting to rebuild our Nation's 
deteriorating schools, I am well aware that this bill is just one part 
of the solution. Two years ago, as the ranking member on the Senate 
Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I led the effort 
to provide $1.2 billion in grants to schools that urgently need 
repairs. Last year, the Senate approved another $925 million on a 
bipartisan vote, but unfortunately that funding was eliminated during 
conference negotiations with the House.
  I also introduced the America's Better Classrooms Act, which would 
provide tax credits to subsidize $25 billion in new construction. That 
legislation is still pending, and I am hopeful that it will succeed. 
The Investing for Tomorrow 's School Act is the final piece of the 
puzzle.
  If the nicest buildings our kids see in their hometowns are shopping 
malls, sports arenas and movie theaters, and the most rundown place 
they see is their school, what kind of signal are we sending? We can 
and must do better for our children. The Investing for Tomorrow's 
School Act should be a critical part of our strategy to improve 
education, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2195

       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 ``Investing for Tomorrow's 
     Schools Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) According to a 1996 study conducted by the American 
     School & University, $10,420,000,000 was spent to address the 
     Nation's education infrastructure needs in 1995, with the 
     average total cost of a new high school at $15,400,000.
       (2) According to the National Center for Education 
     Statistics, an estimated $127,000,000,000 in repairs, 
     renovations, and modernizations is needed to put schools in 
     the United States into good overall condition.

[[Page 5104]]

       (3) Approximately 14,000,000 American students attend 
     schools that report the need for extensive repair or 
     replacement of 1 or more buildings.
       (4) Academic research has proven that there is a direct 
     correlation between the condition of school facilities and 
     student achievement. At Georgetown University, researchers 
     found that students assigned to schools in poor conditions 
     can be expected to fall 10.9 percentage points behind those 
     in buildings in excellent condition. Similar studies have 
     demonstrated improvement of up to 20 percent in test scores 
     when students were moved from a poor facility to a new 
     facility.
       (5) The Director of Education and Employment Issues at the 
     Government Accounting Office testified that nearly 52 percent 
     of schools, affecting 21,300,000 students, reported 
     insufficient technology elements for 6 or more areas.
       (6) Large numbers of local educational agencies have 
     difficulties securing financing for school facility 
     improvement.
       (7) The challenges facing our Nation's public elementary 
     schools and secondary schools and libraries require the 
     concerted efforts of all levels of government and all sectors 
     of the community.
       (8) The United States competitive position within the world 
     economy is vulnerable if America's future workforce continues 
     to be educated in schools and libraries not equipped for the 
     21st century.
       (9) The deplorable state of collections in America's public 
     school libraries has increased the demands on public 
     libraries. In many instances, public libraries substitute for 
     school libraries, creating a higher demand for material and 
     physical space to house literature and educational computer 
     equipment.
       (10) Research shows that 50 percent of a child's 
     intellectual development takes place before age 4. The 
     Nation's public and school libraries play a critical role in 
     a child's early development because the libraries provide a 
     wealth of books and other resources that can give every child 
     a head start on life and learning.

     SEC. 3. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary of Education 
     (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary''), in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, may enter 
     into cooperative agreements with States under which--
       (A) States establish State infrastructure banks and 
     multistate infrastructure banks for the purpose of providing 
     the loans described in subparagraph (B); and
       (B) the Secretary awards grants to such States to be used 
     as initial capital for the purpose of making loans--
       (i) to local educational agencies to enable the agencies to 
     build or repair elementary schools or secondary schools that 
     provide free public education; and
       (ii) to public libraries to enable the libraries to build 
     or repair library facilities.
       (2) Interstate compacts.--
       (A) Consent.--Congress grants consent to any 2 or more 
     States, entering into a cooperative agreement under paragraph 
     (1) with the Secretary for the establishment of a multistate 
     infrastructure bank, to enter into an interstate compact 
     establishing a multistate infrastructure bank in accordance 
     with this section.
       (B) Reservation of rights.--Congress expressly reserves the 
     right to alter, amend, or repeal this section and any 
     interstate compact entered into pursuant to this section.
       (b) Repayments.--Each infrastructure bank established under 
     subsection (a) shall apply repayments of principal and 
     interest on loans funded by the grant received under 
     subsection (a) to the making of additional loans.
       (c) Infrastructure Bank Requirements.--A State establishing 
     an infrastructure bank under this section shall--
       (1) contribute in each account of the bank from non-Federal 
     sources an amount equal to not less than 25 percent of the 
     amount of each capitalization grant made to the bank under 
     subsection (a);
       (2) identify an operating entity of the State as recipient 
     of the grant if the entity has the capacity to manage loan 
     funds and issue debt instruments of the State for purposes of 
     leveraging the funds;
       (3) allow such funds to be used as reserve for debt issued 
     by the State, so long as proceeds are deposited in the fund 
     for loan purposes;
       (4) ensure that investment income generated by funds 
     contributed to an account of the bank will be--
       (A) credited to the account;
       (B) available for use in providing loans to projects 
     eligible for assistance from the account; and
       (C) invested in United States Treasury securities, bank 
     deposits, or such other financing instruments as the 
     Secretary may approve to earn interest to enhance the 
     leveraging of projects assisted by the bank;
       (5) ensure that any loan from the bank will bear interest 
     at or below the lowest interest rates being offered for 
     bonds, the income from which is exempt from Federal taxation, 
     as determined by the State, to make the project that is the 
     subject of the loan feasible;
       (6) ensure that repayment of any loan from the bank will 
     commence not later than 1 year after the project has been 
     completed;
       (7) ensure that the term for repaying any loan will not 
     exceed 30 years after the date of the first payment on the 
     loan under paragraph (6); and
       (8) require the bank to make an annual report to the 
     Secretary on its status, and make such other reports as the 
     Secretary may require by guidelines.
       (d) Forms of Assistance From Infrastructure Banks.--
       (1) In general.--An infrastructure bank established under 
     this section may make a loan to a local educational agency or 
     a public library in an amount equal to all or part of the 
     cost of carrying out a project eligible for assistance under 
     subsection (e).
       (2) Applications for loans.--
       (A) In general.--A local educational agency or public 
     library desiring a loan under this Act shall submit to an 
     infrastructure bank an application that includes--
       (i) in the case of a renovation project--

       (I) a description of each architectural, civil, structural, 
     mechanical, or electrical deficiency to be corrected with 
     loan funds and the priorities to be applied; and
       (II) a description of the criteria used by the applicant to 
     determine the type of corrective action necessary for the 
     renovation of a facility;

       (ii) a description of any improvements to be made and a 
     cost estimate for the improvements;
       (iii) a description of how work undertaken with the loan 
     will promote energy conservation; and
       (iv) such other information as the infrastructure bank may 
     require.
       (B) Timing.--An infrastructure bank shall take final action 
     on a completed application submitted to it in accordance with 
     this subsection not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     submission of the application.
       (3) Criteria for loans.--In considering an application for 
     a loan, an infrastructure bank shall consider--
       (A) the extent to which the local educational agency or 
     public library desiring a loan would otherwise lack the 
     fiscal capacity, including the ability to raise funds through 
     the full use of such bonding capacity of the agency or 
     library, to undertake the project proposed in the 
     application;
       (B) in the case of a local educational agency, the threat 
     that the condition of the physical plant in the proposed 
     project poses to the safety and well-being of students;
       (C) the demonstrated need for the construction, 
     reconstruction, or renovation based on the condition of the 
     facility in the proposed project; and
       (D) the age of the facility proposed to be reconstructed, 
     renovated, or replaced.
       (e) Qualifying Projects.--
       (1) In general.--A project is eligible for a loan from an 
     infrastructure bank if it is a project that consists of--
       (A) the construction of a new elementary school or 
     secondary school to meet the needs imposed by enrollment 
     growth;
       (B) the repair or upgrading of classrooms or structures 
     related to academic learning, including the repair of leaking 
     roofs, crumbling walls, inadequate plumbing, poor ventilation 
     equipment, and inadequate heating or lighting equipment;
       (C) an activity to increase physical safety at the 
     educational facility involved;
       (D) an activity to enhance the educational facility 
     involved to provide access for students, teachers, and other 
     individuals with disabilities;
       (E) an activity to address environmental hazards at the 
     educational facility involved, such as poor ventilation, 
     indoor air quality, or lighting;
       (F) the provision of basic infrastructure that facilitates 
     educational technology, such as communications outlets, 
     electrical systems, power outlets, or a communication closet;
       (G) work that will bring an educational facility into 
     conformity with the requirements of--
       (i) environmental protection or health and safety programs 
     mandated by Federal, State, or local law, if such 
     requirements were not in effect when the facility was 
     initially constructed; and
       (ii) hazardous waste disposal, treatment, and storage 
     requirements mandated by the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) or similar State laws;
       (H) work that will enable efficient use of available energy 
     resources;
       (I) work to detect, remove, or otherwise contain asbestos 
     hazards in educational facilities; or
       (J) work to construct new public library facilities or 
     repair or upgrade existing public library facilities.
       (2) Davis-bacon.--The wage requirements of the Act of March 
     3, 1931 (referred to as the ``Davis-Bacon Act'' (40 U.S.C. 
     276a et seq.)) shall apply with respect to individuals 
     employed on the projects described in paragraph (1).
       (f) Supplementation.--Any loan made by an infrastructure 
     bank shall be used to supplement and not supplant other 
     Federal, State, and local funds available to carry out school 
     or library construction, renovation, or repair.

[[Page 5105]]

       (g) Limitation on Repayments.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the repayment of a loan from an 
     infrastructure bank under this section may not be credited 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any project.
       (h) Secretarial Requirements.--In administering this 
     section, the Secretary shall specify procedures and 
     guidelines for establishing, operating, and providing 
     assistance from an infrastructure bank.
       (i) United States Not Obligated.--The contribution of 
     Federal funds into an infrastructure bank established under 
     this section shall not be construed as a commitment, 
     guarantee, or obligation on the part of the United States to 
     any third party, nor shall any third party have any right 
     against the United States for payment solely by virtue of the 
     contribution. Any security or debt financing instrument 
     issued by the infrastructure bank shall expressly state that 
     the security or instrument does not constitute a commitment, 
     guarantee, or obligation of the United States.
       (j) Management of Federal Funds.--Sections 3335 and 6503 of 
     title 31, United States Code, shall not apply to funds 
     contributed under this section.
       (k) Program Administration.--A State may expend an amount 
     not to exceed 2 percent of the grant funds contributed to an 
     infrastructure bank established by a State or States under 
     this section to pay the reasonable costs of administering the 
     infrastructure bank.
       (l) Secretarial Review and Report.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) review the financial condition of each infrastructure 
     bank established under this section; and
       (2) transmit to Congress a report on the results of such 
     review not later than 90 days after the completion of the 
     review.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Elementary school, free public education, local 
     educational agency, and secondary school.--The terms 
     ``elementary school'', ``free public education'', ``local 
     educational agency'', and ``secondary school'' have the same 
     meanings as in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801);
       (2) Outlying area.--The term ``outlying area'' means the 
     Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall 
     Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic 
     of Palau;
       (3) Public library.--The term ``public library''--
       (A) means a library that serves free of charge all 
     residents of a community, district, or region, and receives 
     its financial support in whole or in part from public funds; 
     and
       (B) includes a research library, which, for purposes of 
     this subparagraph, means a library that--
       (i) makes its services available to the public free of 
     charge;
       (ii) has extensive collections of books, manuscripts, and 
     other materials suitable for scholarly research which are not 
     available to the public through public libraries;
       (iii) engages in the dissemination of humanistic knowledge 
     through services to readers, fellowships, educational and 
     cultural programs, publication of significant research, and 
     other activities; and
       (iv) is not an integral part of an institution of higher 
     education; and
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     and each of the outlying areas.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 2196. A bill to establish the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage 
Area in the State of Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, today it gives me great pleasure to 
introduce for the Senate's consideration legislation establishing the 
National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area.
  Spanning 250 miles, from the small town of Fairview, UT southward to 
our border with Arizona, the area encompassed by the National Mormon 
Pioneer Heritage Area includes outstanding examples of historical, 
cultural, and natural resources shaped by the Mormon pioneers. The 
story of the Mormon pioneers is one of the most compelling and 
captivating in our Nation's history. After traveling 1,400 miles from 
Illinois either by wagon or by pulling a handcart the pioneers came to 
the Great Salt Lake Valley. Along the way, the pioneers experienced 
many hardships including starvation, dehydration, exposure to the 
elements, Indian attacks, and religious persecution to name a few. Many 
people died during their journey. Shortly after arriving in and 
establishing Salt Lake City, Brigham Young dispatched pioneers to 
establish communities in present day Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, and other 
regions of Utah. The vast colonization effort in no way ended the 
hardship experienced by the pioneers. Throughout the area included in 
my proposal are numerous stories of pioneers who perserved through 
challenging circumstances. Communities such as Panguitch have Quilt 
Days every year to commemorate the sacrifice and fortitude of its 
pioneers whose efforts saved the community from starvation in 1864. The 
Quilt Days celebration is a remembrance of an event known as the Quilt 
Walk, in which a group of men from Panguitch attempted to cross over 
the mountains to Parowan, a community to the west, to procure food 
during the community's first winter. Because of deep snows the pioneers 
were unable to trek across the mountains. Using their quilts, the 
pioneers formed a path which would support their weight and were able 
to reach Parowan, secure food, and return to Panguitch. There are other 
remarkable stories in the proposed heritage area that demonstrate the 
tenacity of the Mormon pioneers. At times in order to survive, the 
pioneers had to overcome major natural obstacles. One such obstacle was 
the Hole-in-the-Rock. In 1880 a group of 250 people, 80 wagons, and 
1,000 head of cattle came upon the Colorado River Gorge. After looking 
for sometime to find an acceptable path to the river, the pioneers 
found a narrow crevice leading to the bottom of the gorge. Because the 
crevice was too narrow to accommodate their wagons, the pioneers spent 
six weeks enlarging the crevice by hand, using hammers, chisels, and 
blasting powder, so wagons could pass. Today the Hole-in-the-Rock 
stands as a monument to the resourcefulness of the Mormon pioneers.
  The National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area will serve as special 
recognition to the people and places that have contributed greatly to 
our Nation's development. Throughout the heritage area are wonderful 
examples of architecture, such as the community of Spring City, 
heritage products, and cultural events, such as the Mormon Miracle 
Pageant, that demonstrate the way-of-life of the pioneers.
  This designation will allow for the conservation of historical and 
cultural resources, the establishment of interpretive exhibits, will 
increase public awareness, and specifically allows for the preservation 
of historic buildings. This is a locally based, locally supported 
undertaking. My legislation has broad support from Sanpete, Sevier, 
Piute, Garfield, and Kane Counties. Furthermore, nothing in my 
legislation affects private property, land use planning, or zoning.
  I am very proud to introduce this legislation today. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues in the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources to pass this legislation this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN.
  S. 2197. A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of 
certain entries of roller chain; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation whose 
purpose is to correct a gross injustice that has been carried out for 
more than two decades by bureaucrats at the International Trade 
Administration, ITA, and the U.S. Customs Service, Customs, against a 
small Oregon business, GS Associates, Inc., GS. What has been allowed 
to happen to this company at the hands of the federal government is a 
shocking and ultimately disturbing example of what can happen to 
ordinary, hardworking Americans when an overzealous Federal bureaucracy 
is allowed to run horribly amok.
  In 1973, imports of Japanese roller chain, not bicycle chain, 
potentially became subject to dumping duties, and in 1980, Congress 
instructed the International Trade Administration, ITA, to conduct 
complete annual administrative reviews of outstanding dumping findings 
to determine whether any dumping duties should be assessed. But ITA 
failed to complete its reviews on a timely basis. In fact, for my small 
Oregon importer, GS, the ITA wasn't just a day or two late in reporting 
the findings of its review of the company's Japanese supplier for 
shipments imported

[[Page 5106]]

from April 1, 1981 through March 31, 1982, they were nine-and-a-half 
years late. When ITA finally got around to issuing a notice regarding 
its administrative review on September 22, 1992, a court challenge was 
initiated by the Japanese supplier and a court decision was rendered on 
July 11, 1995. Not surprisingly, ITA failed to publish notice of the 
court's decision in the Federal Register within ten days, as required 
by law. That was in 1995. The year is now 2002, and ITA still has not 
published that notice. And as if all of this ineptitude were not 
enough, ITA then failed to instruct Customs to begin assessing dumping 
duties on and to liquidate GS Associates' shipments until the Spring of 
2000. When Customs finally began assessing duties, they added on 
enormous amounts of interest, dating back almost 20 years, in sums that 
were two to three times greater than the original dumping duty 
assessments. This outrageous pattern of conduct by the federal 
government threatens GS with bankruptcy.
  The level of ineptitude displayed in this case by bureaucrats at ITA 
and the Customs Service is egregious bordering on negligence. 
Legitimate small businesses in this country should have the expectation 
they will be treated fairly and forthrightly by their federal 
government. ITA and the Customs Service deserve a very strong rebuke. 
GS Associates deserves to have its case resolved quickly and fairly, 
and that is the point of my legislation. It will liquidate once and for 
all the $1.7 million in duties and interest that have accumulated over 
the past 20 years on these imports because of federal government 
negligence.
  I intend to work with the Finance Committee to assure that this 
measure is included in the legislation the committee is preparing on 
temporary duty suspensions, and hope that the duty suspension bill will 
enable this Oregon company to be able to put this terrible experience 
behind it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 2199. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
permit additional States to enter into long-term care partnerships 
under the Medicaid Program in order to promote the use of long-term 
care insurance; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term 
Care Insurance Partnership Act.
  In the early 1990's, with support from a grant by the Robert Wood 
Johnson Foundation, four States, California, Connecticut, Indiana and 
New York, initiated programs to create public-private long-term care 
partnerships to provide citizens with options for long-term care 
coverage without having to spend down to Medicaid eligibility. However, 
current law prohibits additional States from including asset protection 
in any public-private partnerships they may develop. Other States may 
set up the policies, but the beneficiaries receive no asset protection 
in the event they exhaust the long-term care insurance policies. They 
would be forced to spend down to Medicaid levels, thereby removing the 
key incentive behind the partnership program--asset protection.
  Under the partnership program, States authorize the sale of approved 
long-term care insurance policies that meet certain benefit 
requirements. Individuals who purchase approved policies, would receive 
a guarantee from the State that should their policy benefits be 
exhausted, the State would then cover the cost of their continuing care 
through Medicaid. The primary incentive for purchasing partnership 
policies is asset protection.
  In other words, the State Medicaid program would become a payer of 
last resort rather than providing first-dollar coverage, in effect 
becoming a long-term care ``stop-loss'' program.
  The benefits of the program are significant for both seniors and 
government: Individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for their 
own long-term care needs rather than relying on a State benefit. It 
avoids forcing middle-class individuals to spend down to Medicaid 
levels, but gives these same individuals the knowledge that the 
government will be there if they need it. This program has been 
successful in the goal of keeping people from needing to use Medicaid. 
Under this program in four States, there are nearly 66,000 policies in 
force and so far only 28 policyholders have exhausted their long-term 
care insurance benefits and accessed Medicaid assistance. At a cost 
averaging $50,000 per year for long-term care services, the savings for 
State Medicaid budgets can be significant.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2199

       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 ``Long-Term Care Insurance 
     Partnership Program Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL STATES TO ENTER INTO LONG-TERM 
                   CARE PARTNERSHIPS TO PROMOTE USE OF LONG-TERM 
                   CARE INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1917(b)(1)(C) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)(C)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``shall seek adjustment'' 
     and inserting ``may seek adjustment''; and
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``had a State plan 
     amendment approved as of May 14, 1993, which provided'' and 
     inserting ``has a State plan amendment approved which 
     provides''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 2200. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 
that the parsonage allowance exclusion is limited to the fair rental 
value of the property; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, today I introduce legislation, along 
with Senator Grassley, to clarify the tax treatment of the clergy 
housing allowance. It is a very simple bill that confirms established 
Internal Revenue Service policy that has lacked the force of law. 
Without this clarification, we risk losing a long-standing benefit that 
is terribly important to hundreds of thousands of ministers, priests, 
rabbis and other clergy all across America.
  Since 1921, the Tax Code has allowed clergy to exclude from their 
taxable income the value of housing provided to them, and since the 
1950's they have also been able to exclude a housing allowance provided 
for the same purpose. This section of the Code is similar to one for 
employer-provided housing for other taxpayers. The one for clergy is 
much simpler, in order to minimize the involvement of the Government in 
the affairs of churches, that is, to keep the separation between Church 
and State.
  The IRS has always interpreted this exclusion to be limited to the 
fair market rental value of the housing. They clearly stated that 
position in 1971, but their statement lacked the force of law. Their 
position has been challenged in Court, and the Court has said that it 
was not clear that Congress meant to impose this limit. That is why we 
must act.
  The vast majority of clergy across America work very hard for very 
modest pay. Especially in rural areas like we have in Montana, many 
congregations are small, pay is low, and ministers are very dependent 
upon their churches providing or paying for their housing. A dispute 
over this issue has led to a controversial attempt by a panel of court 
of appeals judges to call into question the constitutionality of the 
exclusion. If the exclusion is lost, it will cost America's clergy $500 
million each year. That may seem like a small amount of money compared 
to many of our tax bills that add up to billions, but it is a lot of 
money to those who are directly affected, and to the millions of 
Americans in the congregations that they serve.
  The House has passed similar legislation by a vote of 408 to 0. 
Senator Grassley and I will try to expedite passage of the legislation 
here in the Senate.
  It is good tax policy to keep a reasonable limit on the amount of 
this deduction, as the IRS has done for decades. And it is good policy 
to make our intent crystal clear so that government involvement with 
religious affairs is

[[Page 5107]]

kept to a minimum. This bill will do both.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burns, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Nelson 
        of Florida, and Mrs. Carnahan):
  S. 2201. A bill to protect the online privacy of individuals who use 
the Internet; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, today I rise to introduce bipartisan 
legislation that will establish baseline requirements for the 
protection of personal information collected from individuals over the 
Internet. This bill, the Online Personal Privacy Act, represents the 
work of many months and important input from consumer groups, affected 
individuals, and most importantly, many Senators on the Commerce 
Committee. The origin of this emerging consensus position began to take 
shape at a Commerce committee hearing last summer that focused 
generally on whether there was a need for online privacy legislation. 
At that time, members of the committee began to articulate the notion 
that not all personal information is created equal. I agree. Some, 
highly sensitive personal information, such as personal financial or 
medical information or a person's religious beliefs are clearly more 
sensitive than other garden-variety types of information, such as a 
pair of slacks that an individual may purchase. Since that hearing, and 
in numerous meetings with members of the Committee, we have worked hard 
to develop a balanced approach to Internet privacy regulation that 
recognizes and builds upon best practices in the online community while 
establishing a federal baseline standard for the protection of 
individuals' privacy on the Internet.
  Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to Senators Rockefeller, 
Inouye, Breaux, and Cleland, who worked closely with me during the last 
Congress to advocate the need for strong online privacy protections and 
who have agreed to be original cosponsors of this legislation. In 
addition, I would also like to particularly thank Senators Kerry, 
Stevens, and Burns for their invaluable contributions throughout this 
process and their willingness to join with us in working to craft a 
workable, bipartisan, consensus position on legislation that will 
provide individuals with better controls over the use of their personal 
information while fueling the growth of e-commerce as consumer 
confidence in the Internet spurs a significant increase in online 
activity.
  Some have argued that Americans' concerns about privacy no loner 
exist in the aftermath of September 11. But poll after poll 
consistently demonstrates that the American people want companies they 
patronize to seek their permission prior to using their personal 
information for commercial profit. These concerns are heightened with 
respect to the Internet, which, in a digital age, enables the seamless 
compilation of highly detailed personal profiles of Internet users. 
Accordingly, fears about privacy have had palpable effects on the 
willingness of consumers to embrace the full potential of the Internet 
and e-commerce.
  Distrust of false privacy promises has sparked a rage of online self-
defense, especially the providing of false information by individuals. 
Industry analysts estimate that between one-fifth to one-third of all 
individuals provide false personal information on the Internet. This 
response is understandable given that consumers have few tools to 
discover whether their personal information is being disclosed. sold, 
or otherwise misused, and they have virtually no recourse.
  Privacy fears are stifling the development and expansion of the 
Internet as an engine of economic growth. Because of consumer distrust, 
online companies and services are losing potential business and 
collecting bad data, blocking the Internet and its wide range of 
services from reaching its full potential. The lack of enforceable 
privacy protections is a significant barrier to the full embrace by 
consumers of the Internet marketplace. According to a recent Harris/
Business Week poll, almost two-thirds of non-Internet users would be 
more likely to use the Net if the privacy of their ``personal 
information and communications were protected.''
  Moreover, according to a recent Forrester study, online businesses 
lost nearly $15 billion, or 27 percent of e-commerce revenues, due to 
consumer privacy concerns. Those numbers are significant in light of 
the economic downturn and its disproportionate impact on the high-tech 
Internet sectors. Good privacy means good business and the Internet 
economy could use a healthy dose of that right now.
  Accordingly, our legislation offers a win-win proposition for 
consumers and business: it will protect the privacy of individuals 
online and provide online businesses with a new market of willing 
customers. While protecting the necessary business certainty of a 
single Federal standard.
  Online companies have long argued that privacy regulations would 
hamper their ability to efficiently conduct business on-line and give 
consumers the tailored buying experience they now expect from the 
Internet. Online merchants also touted self-regulation as sufficient 
privacy protection. We know otherwise.
  Privacy violations continue to make headlines: a major outcry erupted 
last year after Eli Lilly disclosed a list of hundreds of customers 
suffering from depression, bulimia, and obsessive compulsive disorder 
over the Internet. Moreover, just last week, a New York Times article, 
``Seeking Profits, Internet Companies Alter Privacy Policy,'' recounted 
how Internet companies such as Yahoo had changed their privacy policies 
in order to require consumers to restate their privacy preferences even 
if they had previously withheld consent for the use and 
commercialization of their personal information. Accordingly, these 
companies expanded their ability to use an individual's personal 
information for online and offline marketing purposes notwithstanding 
that individual's prior policy preferences. Still other businesses 
confound consumers with opaque privacy policies that begin with, ``Your 
privacy is important to us,'' but in the subsequent legalese, outline a 
series of exceptions crafted with double-negative verbs that allow 
virtually any use of a consumer's information. Still other commercial 
web sites fail to pass any privacy policy at all, safe in the knowledge 
that they face virtually no legal jeopardy for selling personal 
information.
  To be fair, some companies have taken consumer privacy seriously. 
Earthink launched a national television advertising campaign touting 
its policy of not selling customer information. U-Haul's web site 
simply says: ``We will never sell or share our information with anyone, 
or send you junk mail, we hate that stuff, too.'' Companies like 
Hewlett Packard, Intel, and Microsoft, giants of the high tech 
industry, already provide individuals opt-in protection with respect to 
their personal information. But, in the final analysis, despite the 
best of intentions and some successful efforts, reliance on self-
regulation alone has not proven to provide sufficient protection. In 
its May 2000 Report to Congress, the Federal Trade Commission clearly 
recognized this shortcoming having studied this issue diligently for 5 
years: ``Because self-regulatory initiatives to date fall short of 
broad-based implementation of effective self-regulatory programs, the 
Commission has concluded that such efforts alone cannot ensure that the 
online marketplace as a whole will emulate the standards adopted by 
industry leaders. The Commission recommends that Congress enact 
legislation that, in conjunction with continuing self-regulatory 
programs, will ensure adequate protection of consumer privacy online.''
  Our legislation aims to do just that.
  Fundamentally, our legislation is built upon the five core principles 
of privacy protection identified by the Federal Trade Commission in its 
1995 report to Congress regarding online privacy: 1. Notice, 2. 
Consent, 3. Access, 4. Security and 5. Enforcement. Those principles 
are tried and true and

[[Page 5108]]

formed the framework for the bipartisan Children's Online Privacy 
Protection Act of 1998. Which was hailed by industry far and wide as a 
template for protecting children's personal information that is 
collected on the Internet.
  The bill we introduce today takes a singular approach. It divides 
online personal information into two categories: sensitive information 
and nonsensitive information. Sensitive information is narrowly 
tailored to include actual information about specific financial data, 
health information, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual 
orientation, and political affiliation, or someone's social security 
number. Non-sensitive information is all other personally identifiable 
information collected online.
  In this respect, the legislation is also similar to the two-tiered 
approach taken by the European Union in which companies are required to 
provide baseline protections governing the use of nonsensitive 
information, and stronger consent protections governing the use of 
sensitive data. More than 180 American companies, including Staples, 
Marriott, Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett Packard, DoubleClick Kodak, and 
Acxiom, doing business in Europe have agreed to provide such 
protections with respect to the personal data of European citizens. 
They have signed up for the EU Safe Harbor and their names are listed 
on the Department of Commerce's web site. Our bill simply asks these 
and other companies to provide similar protections for U.S. citizens.
  First, with respect to notice and consent, the bill would require web 
sites and online services to post clear and conspicuous notice of its 
information practices. In other words, plainly state to individuals 
what you plan to do with their personal information. To the extent that 
a web site collects sensitive information, it would also be required to 
obtain a consumer's affirmative consent, so-called ``opt-in'' consent, 
prior to the collection of such data. To the extent that a web site 
collects only non-sensitive personal data, it would be able to collect 
such data for other uses as long as it provides individuals with an 
ability to ``opt out'' of such uses and provides the consumer with 
actual notice at the point of collection, so-called ``robust notice'', 
which briefly and succinctly describes how the information may be used 
or disclosed.
  Many Internet companies are doing this already. For example, on the 
same page where an individual provides his or her personal information, 
the web site for 1-800 Flowers states: ``You will be receiving 
promotional offers and materials from our sites and companies we own. 
Please check the box below if you do not want to receive such materials 
in the future and do not wish us to provide personal information 
collected from you to third parties.'' Similarly, NBC's website says 
the following on the webpage where individuals register their personal 
information: ``As our customer, you will occasionally receive email 
from shopnbc.com about new services, features, and special offers we 
believe would interest you. If you'd rather not receive these updates, 
please uncheck this box.'' It's as simple as that. And it provides the 
individual the ability to make an informed choice at the critical point 
at which he or she is providing a company with personally identifiable 
information.
  Next, our legislation requires companies to provide individuals with 
the ability to find out what personal information a web site has 
collected about them. While important, this right of reasonable access 
is not unqualified. Rather, it considers a variety of factors including 
the sensitivity of the information sought by the consumer and the 
burden and expense on the provider in giving consumers access to their 
personal information. In addition, the bill would permit online 
companies to charge individuals a reasonable fee to access their 
personal data, as is similarly provided under the Fair Credit Reporting 
Act.
  In addition, our bill requires that web sites adopt reasonable 
security procedures to protect the security, confidentiality, and 
integrity of personally identifiable information, just as Congress 
required in the Children's privacy legislation.
  Moreover, the bill grants consumers important rights of redress. 
First, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general are 
empowered to take action. If the FTC collects civil penalties, the bill 
creates a mechanism whereby those injured can petition to receive up to 
$200 of the award. For more serious violations involving sensitive 
information, the bill would additionally permit individuals on their 
own to pursue redress for damages in federal court.
  Finally, in addition to following these fair information principles, 
the legislation also takes the critical step of establishing a uniform 
federal standard for online privacy protection by preempting State 
Internet laws. Inconsistent state regulation of privacy is already 
causing problems for online businesses. Vermont has adopted ``opt-in 
laws'' governing financial and medical privacy. In Minnesota, the state 
Senate has adopted ``opt-in'' online privacy legislation by a vote of 
96-0. In California, state privacy legislation is again moving through 
the state legislature, offering the very real possibility that online 
businesses will sooner rather than later face the prospect of trying to 
bring their online operation into compliance with inconsistent state 
laws.
  Because new technologies make privacy protection a constantly 
evolving issue, the bill requires the FTC not only to implement the 
requirements of the law, but further, to issue periodic reports about 
how the law is working; whether similar privacy protections should 
apply offline or to pre-existing data; whether standardized online 
privacy notices should be developed; if a meaningful safe harbor should 
be constructed; and whether privacy protection technologies in the 
marketplace such as P3P can help facilitate the administration of the 
Act.
  Consumer participation in cyberspace should not be conditioned on a 
willingness to relinquish control over one's personal information. 
Rather, for the medium to truly flourish, we must establish baseline 
consumer protections that will eliminate the tyranny of convenience in 
which consumers are forced to choose between disclosing private, 
personal information, or not using the Internet at all. Congress has a 
moral obligation to protect American individual liberties, including 
the right to better control the commercialization of one's own 
personal, private information.
  This bill is an important first step. The privacy protections in this 
legislation will instill more confidence in people to use the Internet 
and create a consistent legal framework for online businesses. It will 
provide better online privacy protections for consumers, better 
commercial opportunities for businesses who respond to consumer privacy 
concerns, and a better future for Americans who will embrace the 
Internet rather than fear it.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2201

       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 ``Online Personal Privacy 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Findings.
Sec. 4. Preemption of State law or regulations.

                   Title I--Online Privacy Protection

Sec. 101. Collection, use, or disclosure of personally identifiable 
              information.
Sec. 102. Notice and consent requirements.
Sec. 103. Policy changes; privacy breach.
Sec. 104. Exceptions.
Sec. 105. Access.
Sec. 106. Security.

                         Title II--Enforcement

Sec. 201. Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission.
Sec. 202. Violation is unfair or deceptive act or practice.
Sec. 203. Private right of action.

[[Page 5109]]

Sec. 204. Actions by States.
Sec. 205. Whistleblower protection.
Sec. 206. No effect on other remedies.

        Title III--Application to Congress and Federal Agencies

Sec. 301. Exercise of rulemaking power.
Sec. 302. Senate.
Sec. 303. Application to Federal agencies.

                        Title IV--Miscellaneous

Sec. 401. Definitions.
Sec. 402. Effective date.
Sec. 403. FTC rulemaking.
Sec. 404. FTC report.
Sec. 405. Development of automated privacy controls.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The right to privacy is a personal and fundamental 
     right worthy of protection through appropriate legislation.
       (2) Individuals engaging in and interacting with companies 
     engaged in interstate commerce have a significant interest in 
     their personal information, as well as a right to control how 
     that information is collected, used, or transferred.
       (3) Absent the recognition of these rights and the 
     establishment of consequent industry responsibilities to 
     safeguard those rights, the privacy of individuals who use 
     the Internet will soon be more gravely threatened.
       (4) To extent that States regulate, their efforts to 
     address Internet privacy will lead to a patchwork of 
     inconsistent standards and protections.
       (5) Existing State, local, and Federal laws provide minimal 
     privacy protection for Internet users.
       (6) With the exception of Federal Trade Commission 
     enforcement of laws against unfair and deceptive practices, 
     the Federal Government thus far has eschewed general Internet 
     privacy laws in favor of industry self-regulation, which has 
     led to several self-policing schemes, none of which are 
     enforceable in any meaningful way or provide sufficient 
     privacy protection to individuals.
       (7) State governments have been reluctant to enter the 
     field of Internet privacy regulation because use of the 
     Internet often crosses State, or even national, boundaries.
       (8) States are nonetheless interested in providing greater 
     privacy protection to their citizens as evidenced by recent 
     lawsuits brought against offline and online companies by 
     State attorneys general to protect the privacy of individuals 
     using the Internet.
       (9) The ease of gathering and compiling personal 
     information on the Internet, both overtly and 
     surreptitiously, is becoming increasingly efficient and 
     effortless due to advances in digital communications 
     technology which have provided information gatherers the 
     ability to compile seamlessly highly detailed personal 
     histories of Internet users.
       (10) Personal information flowing over the Internet 
     requires greater privacy protection than is currently 
     available today. Vast amounts of personal information, 
     including sensitive information, about individual Internet 
     users are collected on the Internet and sold or otherwise 
     transferred to third parties.
       (11) Poll after poll consistently demonstrates that 
     individual Internet users are highly troubled over their lack 
     of control over their personal information.
       (12) Market research demonstrates that tens of billions of 
     dollars in e-commerce are lost due to individual fears about 
     a lack of privacy protection on the Internet.
       (13) Market research demonstrates that as many as one-third 
     of all Internet users give false information about themselves 
     to protect their privacy, due to fears about a lack of 
     privacy protection on the Internet.
       (14) Notwithstanding these concerns, the Internet is 
     becoming a major part of the personal and commercial lives of 
     millions of Americans, providing increased access to 
     information, as well as communications and commercial 
     opportunities.
       (15) It is important to establish personal privacy rights 
     and industry obligations now so that individuals have 
     confidence that their personal privacy is fully protected on 
     the Internet.
       (16) The social and economic costs of establishing baseline 
     privacy standards now will be lower than if Congress waits 
     until the Internet becomes more prevalent in our everyday 
     lives in coming years.
       (17) Whatever costs may be borne by industry will be 
     significantly offset by the economic benefits to the 
     commercial Internet created by increased consumer confidence 
     occasioned by greater privacy protection.
       (18) Toward the close of the 20th Century, as individuals' 
     personal information was increasingly collected, profiled, 
     and shared for commercial purposes, and as technology 
     advanced to facilitate these practices, the Congress enacted 
     numerous statutes to protect privacy.
       (19) Those statutes apply to the government, telephones, 
     cable television, e-mail, video tape rentals, and the 
     Internet (but only with respect to children).
       (20) Those statutes all provide significant privacy 
     protections, but neither limit technology nor stifle 
     business.
       (21) Those statutes ensure that the collection and 
     commercialization of individuals' personal information is 
     fair, transparent, and subject to law.

     SEC. 4. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW OR REGULATIONS.

       This Act supersedes any State statute, regulation, or rule 
     regulating Internet privacy to the extent that it relates to 
     the collection, use, or disclosure of personally identifiable 
     information obtained through the Internet.

                   TITLE I--ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION

     SEC. 101. COLLECTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF PERSONALLY 
                   IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--An internet service provider, online 
     service provider, or operator of a commercial website on the 
     Internet may not collect personally identifiable information 
     from a user, or use or disclose personally identifiable 
     information about a user, of that service or website except 
     in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
       (b) Application to Certain Third-Party Operators.--The 
     provisions of this Act applicable to internet service 
     providers, online service providers, and commercial website 
     operators apply to any third party, including an advertising 
     network, that uses an internet service provider, online 
     service provider, or commercial website operator to collect 
     information about users of that service or website.

     SEC. 102. NOTICE AND CONSENT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Notice.--Except as provided in section 104, an internet 
     service provider, online service provider, or operator of a 
     commercial website may not collect personally identifiable 
     information from a user of that service or website online 
     unless that provider or operator provides clear and 
     conspicuous notice to the user in the manner required by this 
     section for the kind of personally identifiable information 
     to be collected. The notice shall disclose--
       (1) the specific types of information that will be 
     collected;
       (2) the methods of collecting and using the information 
     collected; and
       (3) all disclosure practices of that provider or operator 
     for personally identifiable information so collected, 
     including whether it will be disclosed to third parties.
       (b) Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information Requires 
     Opt-in Consent.--An internet service provider, online service 
     provider, or operator of a commercial website may not--
       (1) collect sensitive personally identifiable information 
     online, or
       (2) disclose or otherwise use such information collected 
     online, from a user of that service or website,

     unless the provider or operator obtains that user's 
     affirmative consent to the collection and disclosure or use 
     of that information before, or at the time, the information 
     is collected.
       (c) Nonsensitive Personally Identifiable Information 
     Requires Robust Notice and Opt-Out Consent.--An internet 
     service provider, online service provider, or operator of a 
     commercial website may not--
       (1) collect personally identifiable information not 
     described in subsection (b) online, or
       (2) disclose or otherwise use such information collected 
     online, from a user of that service or website,

     unless the provider or operator provides robust 
     notice to the user, in addition to clear and conspicuous 
     notice, and has given the user an opportunity to decline 
     consent for such collection and use by the provider or 
     operator before, or at the time, the information is 
     collected.
       (d) Initial Notice Only for Robust Notice.--An internet 
     service provider, online service provider, or operator of a 
     commercial website shall provide robust notice under 
     subsection (c) of this section to a user only upon its first 
     collection of non-sensitive personally identifiable 
     information from that user, except that a subsequent 
     collection of additional or materially different non-
     sensitive personally identifiable information from that user 
     shall be treated as a first collection of such information 
     from that user.
       (e) Permanence of Consent.--
       (1) In general.--The consent or denial of consent by a user 
     of permission to an internet service provider, online service 
     provider, or operator of a commercial website to collect, 
     disclose, or otherwise use any information about that user 
     for which consent is required under this Act--
       (A) shall remain in effect until changed by the user; and
       (B) shall apply to the collection, disclosure, or other use 
     of that information by any entity that is a commercial 
     successor of, or legal successor-in-interest to, that 
     provider or operator, without regard to the legal form in 
     which such succession was accomplished (including any entity 
     that collects, discloses, or uses such information as a 
     result of a proceeding under chapter 7 or chapter 11 of title 
     11, United States Code, with respect to the provider or 
     operator).
       (2) Exception.--The consent by a user to the collection, 
     disclosure, or other use of information about that user for 
     which consent is required under this Act does not apply to 
     the collection, disclosure, or use of that information by a 
     successor entity under paragraph (1)(B) if--
       (A) the kind of information collected by the successor 
     entity about the user is materially different from the kind 
     of information collected by the predecessor entity;

[[Page 5110]]

       (B) the methods of collecting and using the information 
     employed by the successor entity are materially different 
     from the methods employed by the predecessor entity; or
       (C) the disclosure practices of the successor entity are 
     materially different from the practices of the predecessor 
     entity.

     SEC. 103. POLICY CHANGES; BREACH OF PRIVACY.

       (a) Notice of Policy Change.--Whenever an internet service 
     provider, online service provider, or operator of a 
     commercial website makes a material change in its policy for 
     the collection, use, or disclosure of sensitive or 
     nonsensitive personally identifiable information, it--
       (1) shall notify all users of that service or website of 
     the change in policy; and
       (2) may not collect, disclose, or otherwise use any 
     sensitive or nonsensitive personally identifiable information 
     in accordance with the changed policy unless the user has 
     been afforded an opportunity to consent, or withhold consent, 
     to its collection, disclosure, or use in accordance with the 
     requirements of section 102(b) or (c), whichever is 
     applicable.
       (b) Notice of Breach of Privacy.--
       (1) In general.--If the sensitive or nonsensitive 
     personally identifiable information of a user of an internet 
     service provider, online service provider, or operator of a 
     commercial website--
       (A) is collected, disclosed, or otherwise used by the 
     provider or operator in violation of any provision of this 
     Act, or
       (B) the security, confidentiality, or integrity of such 
     information is compromised by a hacker or other third party, 
     or by any act or failure to act of the provider or operator,

     then the provider or operator shall notify all users whose 
     sensitive or nonsensitive personally identifiable information 
     was affected by the unlawful collection, disclosure, use, or 
     compromise. The notice shall describe the nature of the 
     unlawful collection, disclosure, use, or compromise and the 
     steps taken by the provider or operator to remedy it.
       (2) Delay of notification.--
       (A) Action taken by individuals.--If the compromise of the 
     security, confidentiality, or integrity of the information is 
     caused by a hacker or other external interference with the 
     service or website, or by an employee of the service or 
     website, the provider or operator may postpone issuing the 
     notice required by paragraph (1) for a reasonable period of 
     time in order to--
       (i) facilitate the detection and apprehension of the person 
     responsible for the compromise; and
       (ii) take such measures as may be necessary to restore the 
     integrity of the service or website and prevent any further 
     compromise of the security, confidentiality, and integrity of 
     such information.
       (B) System failures and other functional causes.--If the 
     unlawful collection, disclosure, use, or compromise of the 
     security, confidentiality, and integrity of the information 
     is the result of a system failure, a problem with the 
     operating system, software, or program used by the internet 
     service provider, online service provider, or operator of the 
     commercial website, or other non-external interference with 
     the service or website, the provider or operator may postpone 
     issuing the notice required by paragraph (1) for a reasonable 
     period of time in order to--
       (i) restore the system's functionality or fix the problem; 
     and
       (ii) take such measures as may be necessary to restore the 
     integrity of the service or website and prevent any further 
     compromise of the security, confidentiality, and integrity of 
     the information after the failure or problem has been fixed 
     and the integrity of the service or website has been 
     restored.

     SEC. 104. EXCEPTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 102 does not apply to the 
     collection, disclosure, or use by an internet service 
     provider, online service provider, or operator of a 
     commercial website of information about a user of that 
     service or website necessary--
       (1) to protect the security or integrity of the service or 
     website or to ensure the safety of other people or property;
       (2) to conduct a transaction, deliver a product or service, 
     or complete an arrangement for which the user provided the 
     information; or
       (3) to provide other products and services integrally 
     related to the transaction, service, product, or arrangement 
     for which the user provided the information.
       (b) Protected Disclosures.--An internet service provider, 
     online service provider, or operator of a commercial website 
     may not be held liable under this Act, any other Federal law, 
     or any State law for any disclosure made in good faith and 
     following reasonable procedures in responding to--
       (1) a request for disclosure of personal information under 
     section 1302(b)(1)(B)(iii) of the Children's Online Privacy 
     Protection Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) to the parent 
     of a child; or
       (2) a request for access to, or correction or deletion of, 
     personally identifiable information under section 105 of this 
     Act.
       (c) Disclosure to Law Enforcement Agency or Under Court 
     Order.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, an internet service provider, online service 
     provider, operator of a commercial website, or third party 
     that uses such a service or website to collect information 
     about users of that service or website may disclose 
     personally identifiable information about a user of that 
     service or website--
       (A) to a law enforcement, investigatory, national security, 
     or regulatory agency or department of the United States in 
     response to a request or demand made under authority granted 
     to that agency or department, including a warrant issued 
     under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an equivalent 
     State warrant, a court order, or a properly executed 
     administrative compulsory process; and
       (B) in response to a court order in a civil proceeding 
     granted upon a showing of compelling need for the information 
     that cannot be accommodated by any other means if--
       (i) the user to whom the information relates is given 
     reasonable notice by the person seeking the information of 
     the court proceeding at which the order is requested; and
       (ii) that user is afforded a reasonable opportunity to 
     appear and contest the issuance of requested order or to 
     narrow its scope.
       (2) Safeguards against further disclosure.--A court that 
     issues an order described in paragraph (1) shall impose 
     appropriate safeguards on the use of the information to 
     protect against its unauthorized disclosure.

     SEC. 105. ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--An internet service provider, online 
     service provider, or operator of a commercial website shall--
       (1) upon request provide reasonable access to a user to 
     personally identifiable information that the provider or 
     operator has collected from the user online, or that the 
     provider or operator has combined with personally 
     identifiable information collected from the user online after 
     the effective date of this Act;
       (2) provide a reasonable opportunity for a user to suggest 
     a correction or deletion of any such information maintained 
     by that provider or operator to which the user was granted 
     access; and
       (3) make the correction a part of that user's sensitive 
     personally identifiable information or nonsensitive 
     personally identifiable information (whichever is 
     appropriate), or make the deletion, for all future disclosure 
     and other use purposes.
       (b) Exception.--An internet service provider, online 
     service provider, or operator of a commercial website may 
     decline to make a suggested correction a part of that user's 
     sensitive personally identifiable information or nonsensitive 
     personally identifiable information (whichever is 
     appropriate), or to make a suggested deletion if the provider 
     or operator--
       (1) reasonably believes that the suggested correction or 
     deletion is inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate;
       (2) notifies the user in writing, or in digital or other 
     electronic form, of the reasons the provider or operator 
     believes the suggested correction or deletion is inaccurate 
     or otherwise inappropriate; and
       (3) provides a reasonable opportunity for the user to 
     refute the reasons given by the provider or operator for 
     declining to make the suggested correction or deletion.
       (c) Reasonableness Test.--The reasonableness of the access 
     or opportunity provided under subsection (a) or (b) by an 
     internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     operator of a commercial website shall be determined by 
     taking into account such factors as the sensitivity of the 
     information requested and the burden or expense on the 
     provider or operator of complying with the request, 
     correction, or deletion.
       (d) Reasonable Access Fee.--
       (1) In general.--An internet service provider, online 
     service provider, or operator of a commercial website may 
     impose a reasonable charge for access under subsection (a).
       (2) Amount.--The amount of the fee shall not exceed $3, 
     except that upon request of a user, a provider or operator 
     shall provide such access without charge to that user if the 
     user certifies in writing that the user--
       (A) is unemployed and intends to apply for employment in 
     the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the 
     certification is made;
       (B) is a recipient of public welfare assistance; or
       (C) has reason to believe that the incorrect information is 
     due to fraud.

     SEC. 106. SECURITY.

       An internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     operator of a commercial website shall establish and maintain 
     reasonable procedures necessary to protect the security, 
     confidentiality, and integrity of personally identifiable 
     information maintained by that provider or operator.

                         TITLE II--ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 201. ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

       Except as provided in section 202(b) of this Act and 
     section 2710(d) of title 18, United States Code, this Act 
     shall be enforced by the Commission.

     SEC. 202. VIOLATION IS UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACT OR PRACTICE.

       (a) In General.--The violation of any provision of title I 
     is an unfair or deceptive act or practice proscribed under 
     section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).

[[Page 5111]]

       (b) Enforcement by Certain Other Agencies.--Compliance with 
     title I of this Act shall be enforced under--
       (1) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1818), in the case of--
       (A) national banks, and Federal branches and Federal 
     agencies of foreign banks, by the Office of the Comptroller 
     of the Currency;
       (B) member banks of the Federal Reserve System (other than 
     national banks), branches and agencies of foreign banks 
     (other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured 
     State branches of foreign banks), commercial lending 
     companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and 
     organizations operating under section 25 or 25A of the 
     Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601 and 611), by the Board; 
     and
       (C) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation (other than members of the Federal Reserve 
     System) and insured State branches of foreign banks, by the 
     Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation;
       (2) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1818), by the Director of the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, in the case of a savings association the 
     deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation;
       (3) the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) 
     by the National Credit Union Administration Board with 
     respect to any Federal credit union;
       (4) part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to any air 
     carrier or foreign air carrier subject to that part;
       (5) the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et 
     seq.) (except as provided in section 406 of that Act (7 
     U.S.C. 226, 227)), by the Secretary of Agriculture with 
     respect to any activities subject to that Act; and
       (6) the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) by 
     the Farm Credit Administration with respect to any Federal 
     land bank, Federal land bank association, Federal 
     intermediate credit bank, or production credit association.
       (c) Exercise of Certain Powers.--For the purpose of the 
     exercise by any agency referred to in subsection (b) of its 
     powers under any Act referred to in that subsection, a 
     violation of title I is deemed to be a violation of a 
     requirement imposed under that Act. In addition to its powers 
     under any provision of law specifically referred to in 
     subsection (b), each of the agencies referred to in that 
     subsection may exercise, for the purpose of enforcing 
     compliance with any requirement imposed under title I, any 
     other authority conferred on it by law.
       (d) Actions by the Commission.--The Commission shall 
     prevent any person from violating title I in the same manner, 
     by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, 
     and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of 
     the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were 
     incorporated into and made a part of this Act. Any entity 
     that violates any provision of that subtitle is subject to 
     the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities 
     provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act in the same 
     manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, 
     power, and duties as though all applicable terms and 
     provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were 
     incorporated into and made a part of that subtitle.
       (e) Disposition of Civil Penalties Obtained by FTC 
     Enforcement Action Involving Nonsensitive Personally 
     Identifiable Information.--
       (1) In general.--If a civil penalty is imposed on an 
     internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     commercial website operator in an enforcement action brought 
     by the Commission for a violation of title I with respect to 
     nonsensitive personally identifiable information of users of 
     the service or website, the penalty shall be--
       (A) paid to the Commission;
       (B) held by the Commission in trust for distribution under 
     paragraph (2); and
       (C) distributed in accordance with paragraph (2).
       (2) Distribution to users.--Under procedures to be 
     established by the Commission, the Commission shall hold any 
     amount received as a civil penalty for violation of title I 
     for a period of not less than 180 days for distribution under 
     those procedures to users--
       (A) whose nonsensitive personally identifiable information 
     was the subject of the violation; and
       (B) who file claims with the Commission for compensation 
     for loss or damage from the violation at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Commission may 
     require.
       (3) Amount of payment.--The amount a user may receive under 
     paragraph (2)--
       (i) shall not exceed $200; and
       (ii) may be limited by the Commission as necessary to 
     afford each such user a reasonable opportunity to secure that 
     user's appropriate portion of the amount available for 
     distribution.
       (4) Remainder.--If the amount of any such penalty held by 
     the Commission exceeds the sum of the amounts distributed 
     under paragraph (2) attributable to that penalty, the excess 
     shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States as 
     miscellaneous receipts no later than 12 months after it was 
     paid to the Commission.
       (f) Effect on Other Laws.--
       (1) Preservation of commission authority.--Nothing 
     contained in this subtitle shall be construed to limit the 
     authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
       (2) Relation to title ii of communications act.--Nothing in 
     title I requires an operator of a website or online service 
     to take any action that is inconsistent with the requirements 
     of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     222).
       (3) Relation to title vi of communications act.--Section 
     631 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 551) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) To the extent that the application of any provision 
     of this title to a cable operator as an internet service 
     provider, online service provider, or operator of a 
     commercial website (as those terms are defined in section 401 
     of the Online Personal Privacy Act) with respect to the 
     provision of Internet service or online service, or the 
     operation of a commercial website, conflicts with the 
     application of any provision of that Act to such provision or 
     operation, the Act shall be applied in lieu of the 
     conflicting provision of this title.''.

     SEC. 203. ACTIONS BY USERS.

       (a) Private Right of Action for Sensitive Personally 
     Identifiable Information.--If an internet service provider, 
     online service provider, or commercial website operator 
     collects, discloses, or uses the sensitive personally 
     identifiable information of any person or fails to provide 
     reasonable access to or reasonable security for such 
     sensitive personally identifiable information in violation of 
     any provision of title I then that person may bring an action 
     in a district court of the United States of appropriate 
     jurisdiction--
       (1) to enjoin or restrain a violation of title I or to 
     obtain other appropriate relief; and
       (2) upon a showing of actual harm to that person caused by 
     the violation, to recover the greater of--
       (A) the actual monetary loss from the violation; or
       (B) $5,000.
       (b) Repeated Violations.--If the court finds, in an action 
     brought under subsection (a) to recover damages, that the 
     defendant repeatedly and knowingly violated title I, the 
     court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the 
     award available under subsection (a)(2)(B) to an amount not 
     in excess of $100,000.
       (c) Exception.--Neither an action to enjoin or restrain a 
     violation, nor an action to recover for loss or damage, may 
     be brought under this section for the accidental disclosure 
     of information if the disclosure was caused by an Act of God, 
     unforeseeable network or systems failure, or other event 
     beyond the control of the Internet service provider, online 
     service provider, or operator of a commercial website.

     SEC. 204. ACTIONS BY STATES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney 
     general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of 
     the residents of that State has been or is threatened or 
     adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a 
     practice that violates title I, the State, as parens patriae, 
     may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the 
     State in a district court of the United States of appropriate 
     jurisdiction--
       (A) to enjoin that practice;
       (B) to enforce compliance with the rule;
       (C) to obtain damage, restitution, or other compensation on 
     behalf of residents of the State; or
       (D) to obtain such other relief as the court may consider 
     to be appropriate.
       (2) Notice.--
       (A) In general.--Before filing an action under paragraph 
     (1), the attorney general of the State involved shall provide 
     to the Commission--
       (i) written notice of that action; and
       (ii) a copy of the complaint for that action.
       (B) Exemption.--
       (i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with 
     respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of 
     a State under this subsection, if the attorney general 
     determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice 
     described in that subparagraph before the filing of the 
     action.
       (ii) Notification.--In an action described in clause (i), 
     the attorney general of a State shall provide notice and a 
     copy of the complaint to the Commission at the same time as 
     the attorney general files the action.
       (b) Intervention.--
       (1) In general.--On receiving notice under subsection 
     (a)(2), the Commission shall have the right to intervene in 
     the action that is the subject of the notice.
       (2) Effect of intervention.--If the Commission intervenes 
     in an action under subsection (a), it shall have the right--
       (A) to be heard with respect to any matter that arises in 
     that action; and
       (B) to file a petition for appeal.
       (c) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil 
     action under subsection (a), nothing in this subtitle shall 
     be construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from 
     exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by 
     the laws of that State to--
       (1) conduct investigations;
       (2) administer oaths or affirmations; or

[[Page 5112]]

       (3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of 
     documentary and other evidence.
         (d) Actions by the Commission.--In any case in which an 
     action is instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for 
     violation of title I, no State may, during the pendency of 
     that action, institute an action under subsection (a) against 
     any defendant named in the complaint in that action for 
     violation of that rule.
         (e) Venue; Service of Process.--
       (1) Venue.--Any action brought under subsection (a) may be 
     brought in the district court of the United States that meets 
     applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 
     of title 28, United States Code.
       (2) Service of process.--In an action brought under 
     subsection (a), process may be served in any district in 
     which the defendant--
       (A) is an inhabitant; or
       (B) may be found.

     SEC. 205. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--No internet service provider, online 
     service provider, or commercial website operator may 
     discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee with 
     respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of 
     employment because the employee (or any person acting 
     pursuant to the request of the employee) provided information 
     to any Federal or State agency or to the Attorney General of 
     the United States or of any State regarding a violation of 
     any provision of title I.
       (b) Enforcement.--Any employee or former employee who 
     believes he has been discharged or discriminated against in 
     violation of subsection (a) may file a civil action in the 
     appropriate United States district court before the close of 
     the 2-year period beginning on the date of such discharge or 
     discrimination. The complainant shall also file a copy of the 
     complaint initiating such action with the appropriate Federal 
     agency.
       (c) Remedies.--If the district court determines that a 
     violation of subsection (a) has occurred, it may order the 
     Internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     commercial website operator that committed the violation--
       (1) to reinstate the employee to his former position;
       (2) to pay compensatory damages; or
       (3) to take other appropriate actions to remedy any past 
     discrimination.
       (d) Limitation.--The protections of this section shall not 
     apply to any employee who--
       (1) deliberately causes or participates in the alleged 
     violation; or
       (2) knowingly or recklessly provides substantially false 
     information to such an agency or the Attorney General.
       (e) Burdens of Proof.--The legal burdens of proof that 
     prevail under subchapter III of chapter 12 of title 5, United 
     States Code (5 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) shall govern adjudication 
     of protected activities under this section.

     SEC. 206. NO EFFECT ON OTHER REMEDIES.

       The remedies provided by sections 203 and 204 are in 
     addition to any other remedy available under any provision of 
     law.

        TITLE III--APPLICATION TO CONGRESS AND FEDERAL AGENCIES

     SEC. 301. SENATE.

       The Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate shall 
     develop regulations setting forth an information security and 
     electronic privacy policy governing use of the Internet by 
     officers and employees of the Senate that meets the 
     requirements of title I.

     SEC. 302. APPLICATION TO FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this 
     Act applies to each Federal agency that is an internet 
     service provider or an online service provider, or that 
     operates a website, to the extent provided by section 2674 of 
     title 28, United States Code.
       (b) Exceptions.--This Act does not apply to any Federal 
     agency to the extent that the application of this Act would 
     compromise law enforcement activities or the administration 
     of any investigative, security, or safety operation conducted 
     in accordance with Federal law.

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Collect.--The term ``collect'' means the gathering of 
     personally identifiable information about a user of an 
     Internet service, online service, or commercial website by or 
     on behalf of the provider or operator of that service or 
     website by any means, direct or indirect, active or passive, 
     including--
       (A) an online request for such information by the provider 
     or operator, regardless of how the information is transmitted 
     to the provider or operator;
       (B) the use of a chat room, message board, or other online 
     service to gather the information; or
       (C) tracking or use of any identifying code linked to a 
     user of such a service or website, including the use of 
     cookies or other tracking technology.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Trade Commission.
       (3) Cookie.--The term ``cookie'' means any program, 
     function, or device, commonly known as a ``cookie'', that 
     makes a record on the user's computer (or other electronic 
     device) of that user's access to an internet service, online 
     service, or commercial website.
       (4) Disclose.--The term ``disclose'' means the release of 
     personally identifiable information about a user of an 
     Internet service, online service, or commercial website by an 
     internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     operator of a commercial website for any purpose, except 
     where such information is provided to a person who provides 
     support for the internal operations of the service or website 
     and who does not disclose or use that information for any 
     other purpose.
       (5) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an 
     agency, as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (6) Internal operations support.--The term ``support for 
     the internal operations of a service or website'' means any 
     activity necessary to maintain the technical functionality of 
     that service or website.
       (7) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' means collectively the 
     myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, 
     including equipment and operating software, which comprise 
     the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ 
     the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any 
     predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to 
     communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
       (8) Internet service provider; online service provider; 
     website.--The Commission shall by rule define the terms 
     ``internet service provider'', ``online service provider'', 
     and ``website'', and shall revise or amend such rule to take 
     into account changes in technology, practice, or procedure 
     with respect to the collection of personal information over 
     the Internet.
       (9) Online.--The term ``online'' refers to any activity 
     regulated by this Act or by section 2710 of title 18, United 
     States Code, that is effected by active or passive use of an 
     Internet connection, regardless of the medium by or through 
     which that connection is established.
       (10) Operator of a commercial website.--The term ``operator 
     of a commercial website''--
       (A) means any person who operates a website located on the 
     Internet or an online service and who collects or maintains 
     personal information from or about the users of or visitors 
     to such website or online service, or on whose behalf such 
     information is collected or maintained, where such website or 
     online service is operated for commercial purposes, including 
     any person offering products or services for sale through 
     that website or online service, involving commerce--
       (i) among the several States or with 1 or more foreign 
     nations;
       (ii) in any territory of the United States or in the 
     District of Columbia, or between any such territory and--

       (I) another such territory; or
       (II) any State or foreign nation; or

       (iii) between the District of Columbia and any State, 
     territory, or foreign nation; but
       (B) does not include any nonprofit entity that would 
     otherwise be exempt from coverage under section 5 of the 
     Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       (11) Personally identifiable information.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``personally identifiable 
     information'' means individually identifiable information 
     about an individual collected online, including--
       (i) a first and last name, whether given at birth or 
     adoption, assumed, or legally changed;
       (ii) a home or other physical address including street name 
     and name of a city or town;
       (iii) an e-mail address;
       (iv) a telephone number;
       (v) a birth certificate number;
       (vi) any other identifier for which the Commission finds 
     there is a substantial likelihood that the identifier would 
     permit the physical or online contacting of a specific 
     individual; or
       (vii) information that an Internet service provider, online 
     service provider, or operator of a commercial website 
     collects and combines with an identifier described in clauses 
     (i) through (vi) of this subparagraph.
       (B) Inferential information excluded.--Information about an 
     individual derived or inferred from data collected online but 
     not actually collected online is not personally identifiable 
     information.
       (12) Release.--The term ``release of personally 
     identifiable information'' means the direct or indirect, 
     sharing, selling, renting, or other provision of personally 
     identifiable information of a user of an internet service, 
     online service, or commercial website to any other person 
     other than the user.
       (13) Robust notice.--The term ``robust notice'' means 
     actual notice at the point of collection of the personally 
     identifiable information describing briefly and succinctly 
     the intent of the Internet service provider, online service 
     provider, or operator of a commercial website to use or 
     disclose that information for marketing or other purposes.
       (14) Sensitive financial information.--The term ``sensitive 
     financial information'' means--
       (A) the amount of income earned or losses suffered by an 
     individual;

[[Page 5113]]

       (B) an individual's account number or balance information 
     for a savings, checking, money market, credit card, 
     brokerage, or other financial services account;
       (C) the access code, security password, or similar 
     mechanism that permits access to an individual's financial 
     services account;
       (D) an individual's insurance policy information, including 
     the existence, premium, face amount, or coverage limits of an 
     insurance policy held by or for the benefit of an individual; 
     or
       (E) an individual's outstanding credit card, debt, or loan 
     obligations.
       (15) Sensitive personally identifiable information.--The 
     term ``sensitive personally identifiable information'' means 
     personally identifiable information about an individual's--
       (A) individually identifiable health information (as 
     defined in section 164.501 of title 45, Code of Federal 
     Regulations);
       (B) race or ethnicity;
       (C) political party affiliation;
       (D) religious beliefs;
       (E) sexual orientation;
       (F) a Social Security number; or
       (G) sensitive financial information.

     SEC. 402. EFFECTIVE DATE OF TITLE I.

       Title I of this Act takes effect on the day after the date 
     on which the Commission publishes a final rule under section 
     403.

     SEC. 403. FTC RULEMAKING.

       The Commission shall--
       (1) initiate a rulemaking within 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act for regulations to implement the 
     provisions of title I; and
       (2) complete that rulemaking within 270 days after 
     initiating it.

     SEC. 404. FTC REPORT.

       (a) Report.--The Commission shall submit a report to the 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce 18 months 
     after the effective date of title I, and annually thereafter, 
     on--
       (1) whether this Act is accomplishing the purposes for 
     which it was enacted;
       (2) whether technology that protects privacy is being 
     utilized in the marketplace in such a manner as to facilitate 
     administration of and compliance with title I;
       (3) whether additional legislation is required to 
     accomplish those purposes or improve the administrability or 
     effectiveness of this Act;
       (4) whether legislation is appropriate or necessary to 
     regulate the collection, use, and distribution of personally 
     identifiable information collected other than via the 
     Internet;
       (5) whether and how the government might assist industry in 
     developing standard online privacy notices that substantially 
     comply with the requirements of section 102(a);
       (6) whether and how the creation of a set of self-
     regulatory guidelines established by independent safe harbor 
     organizations and approved by the Commission would facilitate 
     administration of and compliance with title I; and
       (7) whether additional legislation is necessary or 
     appropriate to regulate the collection, use, and disclosure 
     of personally identifiable information collected online 
     before the effective date of title I.
       (b) FTC Notice of Inquiry.--The Commission shall initiate a 
     notice of inquiry within 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act to request comment on the matter described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (a).

     SEC. 405. DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATED PRIVACY CONTROLS.

       Section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Development of Internet Privacy Program.--The 
     Institute shall encourage and support the development of one 
     or more computer programs, protocols, or other software, such 
     as the World Wide Web Consortium's P3P program, capable of 
     being installed on computers, or computer networks, with 
     Internet access that would reflect the user's preferences for 
     protecting personally-identifiable or other sensitive, 
     privacy-related information, and automatically execute the 
     program, once activated, without requiring user 
     intervention.''.

  Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, just last week I read an article that 
described the practice of online companies placing prices on people's 
personal information in order to raise revenue. When the Internet 
revolution began, I do not believe anyone thought the buying and 
selling of our personal information would be where these companies 
would turn when they began to experience difficulties in the financial 
markets. My constituents have expressed to me their concerns over such 
practices, and I have responded by co-sponsoring Senator Hollings' bi-
partisan legislation to enact reasonable privacy standards on personal 
information gathered on-line.
  In May 2000, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, issued its third 
report to Congress on the state of online privacy. Due to the fact that 
there remained a great deal of concern by consumers over how their 
information is used by online companies, so much so that some consumers 
provided false information or did not utilize the commercial aspects of 
the Internet altogether, the FTC recommended legislation to establish 
online privacy guidelines. Introduction of this legislation is a step 
in the right direction, and a step closer to the FTC's recommendation.
  This bill calls for sensitive, personally identifiable information, 
such as health information, race, religion, and social security number, 
to be protected by requiring consumers to provide affirmative consent 
for this information to be shared; in other words, they must ``opt 
in.'' Under our proposal, the treatment of non-sensitive, personally 
identifiable information must be described through strict, robust 
notice in plain English. After some consumers received their privacy 
policies required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, they thought it would 
be easier to understand the tax code.
  An important provision in the Hollings measure modeled on allowing 
consumers to access their credit report information would allow online 
consumers to access and correct any incorrect information companies may 
be listing. Additionally, to monitor the effectiveness of this 
legislation, the bill calls for the FTC to report to Congress on this 
matter and to recommend any needed changes in its provisions.
  I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation which I 
believe moves us in the right direction to actually grow the Internet 
and its capability for commerce by easing people's fears over how their 
names, addresses, social security numbers and other important 
information will be secured. The Internet's possibilities are only 
beginning to be realized. In the business world, it creates an easy way 
to share information and conduct transactions. However, if the 
information is personal in nature, I, along with many of my colleagues, 
believe people deserve and are indeed entitled to expect the 
opportunity to elect whether to have that information shared or not, 
and in all cases for it to be securely monitored. I am proud to lend my 
support to this important bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2205. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the 
entitlement to disability compensation of women veterans who have 
service-connected mastectomies, to provide permanent authority for 
counseling and treatment for sexual trauma, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I introduce legislation today that 
would help VA continue to meet the needs of veterans who experienced 
sexual trauma while serving in the military. This legislation would 
also extend special compensation to women veterans whose service led to 
the loss of all or part of a breast, and would help us understand 
better how well VA is meeting the health care needs of women veterans.
  Almost a decade ago, the Committee on Veterans Affairs took a hard 
look at the growing needs of women veterans in a hearing that helped VA 
improve its women's health care and services. Many studies grew from 
this hearing, including investigations that showed that women veterans 
are eight times more likely to report having experienced sexual assault 
during military service than women civilians of the same age.
  In 1992, Congress authorized VA to provide counseling to women who 
experienced sexual trauma during active military service. Two years 
later, recognizing that sexual trauma is not limited to women, Congress 
expanded VA's mandate to offer counseling and treatment to victims of 
sexual harassment or sexual assault without regard to gender. The 
Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999 broadened VA's 
responsibilities toward victims of sexual trauma even farther,

[[Page 5114]]

strengthening outreach efforts and extending the programs through 
December 2004.
  VA has worked, internally and with the Department of Defense, to 
educate health care professionals about the physical and emotional 
legacies of military sexual trauma. Those who have endured such trauma 
need counseling and appropriate treatment, both during and following 
service. Although we must hope that education will eliminate sexual 
violence from our forces, the sad reality is that the programs that VA 
has established will continue to be needed. The legislation I introduce 
today would authorize VA to continue its counseling and treatment 
programs for veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma 
beyond 2004, so that veterans and health care professionals can depend 
upon these critical services.
  The Committee on Veterans Affairs continues to await VA's report on 
rates of military sexual trauma among National Guard and Reservists, 
mandated in the Millennium Act and due in March 2001, to make a sound 
decision on the need for counseling services among these forces who 
might have experienced sexual trauma while on active duty for training.
  Last year, Congress authorized VA to offer special monthly 
compensation to women who had lost one or both breasts, including 
through surgical treatment, as a result of their military service. VA 
recently issued regulations addressing this, which would require 
complete loss of a breast through simple or radical mastectomy in order 
to make a woman eligible for benefits. The intent of Congress in 
passing this legislation was to acknowledge that women who undergo such 
procedures face physical, emotional, and financial challenges in 
returning to health. The need for increased medical attention, and 
concomitant impairment in daily activities, remains consistent, whether 
the loss of a breast is complete or partial. Therefore, the legislation 
that I offer here would extend benefits to women veterans who have lost 
half or more of a breast's tissue as a result of military service, 
rather than drawing an arbitrary clinical line for compensation.
  According to the Veterans Health Administration, women veterans now 
make up about 5 percent of enrolled veterans, a percentage that is 
expected to double over the next two decades. We must ensure that women 
veterans enjoy access to the best possible health care, including for 
gender-specific medical conditions, in the most appropriate setting. 
One of the challenges that Congress and VA face in assessing how well 
the needs of women veterans are being met is understanding exactly what 
services women veterans require, and whether these are being offered by 
VA's medical facilities.
  Many of the advances VA has made in improving women's care and 
services has resulted from the hard work of the Women Veterans 
Coordinators who work within VA's medical centers. These coordinators 
assist women veterans who seek VA medical care, and help VA understand 
which needs still go unmet, frequently as a collateral portion of their 
jobs, while facing many competing demands on their time. As VA health 
care evolves from a primarily hospital-based system to a network of 
outpatient clinics, women veterans coordinators face an even more 
complex set of tasks and a shifting geography of care.
  Women veterans increasingly receive care within general outpatient 
clinics rather than in women's clinics, an issue of special concern as 
women may comprise only a tiny part of the caseload for VA's general 
practitioners, unlike the private sector where women make up half or 
more of a doctor's patients, resulting in less expertise in women's 
health. The legislation I offer here would request a report on how many 
clinics and health care teams remain dedicated specifically to the 
needs of women veterans, and how many hours per week Women Veterans 
Coordinators can allocate to serving women veterans.
  In 1983, Congress responded to the needs of the growing number of 
women veterans by establishing the Advisory Committee on Women 
Veterans. This committee advises the Secretary of VA on the adequacy of 
programs for women veterans, and helps ensure that women veterans have 
the same access to services and benefits as their male counterparts. 
Early this year, the Secretary renewed the charter for the Advisory 
Committee on Women Veterans. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
acknowledging both the Secretary's decision to foster this essential 
voice, and the service of the men and women who share their time and 
experience with VA on behalf of all women veterans. Together, VA and 
the advisory committee have worked to be sure that VA can offer women 
veterans the services they need and the respect they have earned.
  I ask that the text of the bill and a list of the membership of the 
Advisory Committee on Women Veterans be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2205

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

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO WARTIME DISABILITY 
                   COMPENSATION FOR WOMEN VETERANS WHO HAVE 
                   SERVICE-CONNECTED MASTECTOMIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1114(k) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``of half or more of the 
     tissue'' after ``anatomical loss'' the second place it 
     appears.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and shall apply with respect to months that begin on or after 
     that date.

     SEC. 2. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR COUNSELING AND TREATMENT FOR 
                   SEXUAL TRAUMA.

       Section 1720D of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``During the period 
     through December 31, 2004, the Secretary'' and inserting 
     ``The Secretary''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, during the period 
     through December 31, 2004,''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``establishment and''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``establishing a 
     program'' and inserting ``operating a program''.

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON FURNISHING OF HEALTH CARE TO WOMEN VETERANS 
                   BY VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on 
     the furnishing by the Veterans Health Administration of 
     health care for women veterans.
       (b) Report Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     set forth the following:
       (1) A list of each Women Veterans' Comprehensive Health 
     Center within the Veterans Health Administration, including 
     whether such Center is located in a Department of Veterans 
     Affairs medical center or outpatient clinic.
       (2) For each Center listed under paragraph (1)--
       (A) the staffing level of such Center, expressed in terms 
     of number of full-time equivalent employees (FTEEs);
       (B) the health care services furnished by such Center to 
     women veterans, including the health care services (including 
     breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening) that 
     are furnished only for women; and
       (C) the number of women veterans furnished health care 
     services by such Center during the last fiscal year ending 
     before the date of the report.
       (3) A list of each facility without a Women Veterans' 
     Comprehensive Health Center that furnishes health care 
     services to women veterans through a full-service womens' 
     primary care team, including whether such facility is located 
     in a Department medical center or outpatient clinic.
       (4) For each facility listed under paragraph (3)--
       (A) the staffing level of such facility for the furnishing 
     of health care services to women veterans, expressed in terms 
     of number of full-time equivalent employees (FTEEs);
       (B) the health care services furnished by such facility to 
     women veterans, including the health care services (including 
     breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening) that 
     are furnished only for women; and
       (C) the number of women veterans furnished health care 
     services by such facility during the last fiscal year ending 
     before the date of the report.
       (5) For each Veterans Integrated Service Network and 
     Department medical center, the number of hours per week that 
     the Women Veterans' Coordinator of such network or medical 
     center, as the case may be,

[[Page 5115]]

     is authorized to perform duties relating to the furnishing of 
     health care services to women veterans.
                                  ____


 Current Membership of the VA Advisory Committee on Women Veterans (as 
                            of January 2002)

       Karen L. Ray, RN, MSN, Chair 2000-2002, Colonel, USA 
     (Retired).
       Constance G. Evans, RN, ARNP, Co-Chair 2000-2002, 
     Commander, USPHS (Retired).
       Marsha Tansey Four, USA.
       Bertha Cruz Hall, USAF.
       Marcelite J. Harris, Major General, USAF (Retired).
       Edward E. Hartman, USA.
       Consuelo C. Kickbusch, Lieutenant Colonel, USA (Retired).
       Kathy LaSauce, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (Retired).
       M Joy Mann, Captain, US Air Force Reserve.
       Lory Manning, Captain, USN (Retired).
       Michele (Mitzi) Manning, Colonel, USMC (Retired).
       Kahleen A. Morrissey, RN, BSN, Colonel, NJ. Army National 
     Guard.
       Joan O'Connor, Commander, Naval Reserve (Retired).
       Sheryl Schmidt, USAF.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 2207. A bill to permit an individual to be treated by a health 
care practitioner with any method of medical treatment such individual 
requests, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, last year I introduced S. 1378, the 
Access to Medical Treatment Act of 2001. This bill would allow patients 
to use certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by 
the FDA.
  Alternative therapies constitute an increasingly accepted part of 
medicine. At the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative 
Medicine, scientists are working to expand our knowledge of alternative 
therapies and their safe and effective use. Additionally, more 
Americans are turning to alternative therapies in those frustrating 
instances in which conventional treatments seem to be ineffective in 
combating illness and disease.
  The Access to Medical Treatment Act support patient choice while 
maintaining important patient safeguards. It allows individuals, 
especially those who face life-threatening afflictions for which 
conventional treatments have proven ineffective, to try an alternative 
treatment. This is a choice rightly made by patients.
  Treatments covered under the Access to Medical Treatment Act must be 
prescribed by an authorized health care practitioner. The practitioner 
must fully disclose all available information about the safety and 
effectiveness of any medical treatment, including questions that remain 
unanswered because the necessary research has not been conducted. The 
bill includes detailed informed consent requirements.
  The bill carefully restricts the ability of practitioners to 
advertise or market unapproved drugs or devices or to profit 
financially from prescribing alternative treatments. This provision was 
included to ensure that practitioners keep the best interests of 
patients in mind and to retain incentives for seeking FDA approval.
  The bill also protects patients by requiring practitioners to report 
any adverse reaction that could potentially have been caused by an 
unapproved drug or medical device. If an adverse reaction is reported, 
manufacture and distribution of the drug must cease pending an 
investigation. If it is determined that the adverse reaction was caused 
by the drug or medical device, as part of a total recall, the Secretary 
of the Department of Health and Human Services and the manufacturer 
have the duty to inform all health care practitioners to whom the drug 
or medical device has been provided.
  While I believe that S. 1378 would give patients important new 
choices in health care while maintaining strong consumer protections, 
there has been little discussion or attention given to the issue. 
Meanwhile, some advocates of greater access to alternative therapies 
have urged me to reintroduce a version of the Access to Medical 
Treatment Act similar to the one I and 13 other Senators introduced 
during the 105th Congress in an effort to stimulate further discussion 
of this important policy issue. This measure includes less detail than 
S. 1378 but embodies the same goal of making alternative treatments 
more available to patients who want them.
  I continue to believe that S. 1378, with its detailed informed 
consent and practitioner reporting requirements, is the version of the 
Access to Medical Treatment Act that provides the appropriate vehicle 
for legislative debate, and I am hopeful that the bill Senators Harkin, 
Grassley, and I are introducing today will generate momentum to get 
that debate started.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2209. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide an 
additional program of service disabled veterans' insurance for 
veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am tremendously pleased to 
introduce legislation that would establish a new service-disabled 
veterans life insurance program. Named in honor of Robert Carey, former 
Director of the Philadelphia Regional Office and Insurance Center until 
his untimely death in 1990, this bill will improve enormously the life 
insurance options available to those veterans who are unable to 
purchase commercial policies because they became disabled in service to 
our Nation. I look forward to its swift passage.
  Since 1919, the Department of Veterans Affairs has provided life 
insurance for servicemembers and veterans in various amounts and with 
varying degrees of success, but with the overarching purpose of 
providing them with an insurance benefit comparable to the commercial 
coverage that they are unable to purchase due to their service in the 
Armed Forces. Unfortunately, as described in the Department of Veterans 
Affairs' Program Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of Veterans with 
Service-connected Disabilities, which was released last May, the 
current Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance, or SDVI, program does not 
sufficiently fulfill this purpose.
  The SDVI program insures service-disabled veterans who, but for their 
service-connected disability, would be eligible for commercial life 
insurance. The basic policy currently provides up to $10,000 in 
coverage. Veterans who are deemed totally disabled are eligible for an 
additional $20,000 in supplemental coverage and may apply to have the 
premium on their initial $10,000 policy waived.
  However, according to VA's report, the current SDVI program uses 
mortality tables from 1941 to determine the premiums paid by its 
policyholders. This has led to premiums nearly four times greater than 
those paid by non-veterans. While SDVI policyholders would generally 
expect to pay somewhat higher premiums, many veterans still cited this 
extremely high cost as a major reason for not purchasing an SDVI 
policy. In light of this fact, it is not difficult to understand why 
only 3.5 percent of those eligible actually take advantage of the 
current SDVI program.
  Also cited as a reason for non-participation was the limited benefit 
available under the current SDVI program. According to VA's report, the 
typical private sector employee possesses a life insurance policy two 
to three times his or her annual income, and most financial planners 
recommend even more coverage than that. However, half of all SDVI 
beneficiaries report receiving less than $15,000 in total insurance 
benefits from the loss of a loved one. On average, only $9,000 of this 
comes from their SDVI policy. Forty percent of all SDVI beneficiaries 
sole source of income are the benefits provided by VA. Their lack of 
other coverage, combined with the very limited benefit currently 
available through the current SDVI program, leaves disabled veterans 
woefully under-insured. We simply cannot accept this situation.
  This bill would create a new life insurance program for service-
disabled veterans offering as much as $50,000 in coverage at a price 
comparable to that of commercial coverage. It would also bring the 
premiums charged under the current SDVI program more in line with 
commercial policies by updating

[[Page 5116]]

the mortality tables VA uses to set its rates.
  The motto of the Department of Veterans Affairs is ``To care for him 
that has borne the battle and for his widow and orphan.'' By 
introducing the ``Robert Carey Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance Act 
of 2002,'' I propose that we take yet another step toward fulfilling 
the obligation embodied in those words, and I encourage my colleagues 
to join with me in supporting this very important bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2209

       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 ``Robert Carey Service 
     Disabled Veterans' Insurance Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM OF SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS' 
                   INSURANCE FOR VETERANS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Subchapter I of chapter 19 of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     1922A the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1922B. Service disabled veterans' insurance: level 
       premium term insurance

       ``(a) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person 
     described in subsection (b) shall, upon payment of premiums 
     as provided in subsection (f), be granted insurance by the 
     United States against the death of such person occurring 
     while such insurance is in force.
       ``(b) A person described in this subsection is any person 
     as follows:
       ``(1) A person insured under section 1922(a) of this title 
     if such person applies for insurance under this section 
     within the times provided for under paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     subsection (e).
       ``(2) A person (other than a person described in paragraph 
     (1)) who--
       ``(A) is released from active military, naval, or air 
     service, under other than dishonorable conditions;
       ``(B) is found by the Secretary to be suffering from a 
     disability or disabilities for which compensation would be 
     payable if 10 per cent or more in degree;
       ``(C) except for the disability or disabilities referred to 
     in subparagraph (B), would be insurable according to 
     standards of good health established by the Secretary; and
       ``(D) has not attained the age of 65 years as of the date 
     of application for insurance under this section.
       ``(c)(1) Insurance under this section for a person 
     described in subsection (b)(1) is in addition to the 
     insurance of such person under section 1922(a) of this title 
     and the insurance, if any, of such person under section 1922A 
     of this title.
       ``(2) A person deemed insured under section 1922(b) of this 
     title is not eligible for or entitled to insurance under this 
     section.
       ``(d)(1)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B) and except as 
     provided in paragraph (3), the amount for which a person 
     described by subsection (b)(1) is insured under this section 
     shall, at the election of the person, be--
       ``(i) $45,000; or
       ``(ii) an amount less than $45,000, but more than $5,000, 
     that is evenly divisible by $5,000.
       ``(B) The amount of insurance elected under this paragraph 
     by a person described by subsection (b)(1) may not cause the 
     aggregate amount of insurance of the person under this 
     section and sections 1922(a) and 1922A of this title to 
     exceed $50,000.
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), the amount for 
     which a person described by subsection (b)(2) is insured 
     under this section shall, at the election of the person, be--
       ``(A) $50,000; or
       ``(B) an amount less than $50,000, but more than $5,000, 
     that is evenly divisible by $5,000.
       ``(3) Upon attaining the age of 70 years, the amount for 
     which a person is insured under this section shall be the 
     amount equal to 20 percent of the amount otherwise elected by 
     the person under paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable.
       ``(e)(1) A person seeking insurance under this section 
     shall submit to the Secretary an application in writing for 
     such insurance.
       ``(2) The application of a person under paragraph (1) shall 
     be submitted not later than 10 years after the date of the 
     release of the person from active military, naval, or air 
     service.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
     application of a person under paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted not later than two years after the date on which 
     the Secretary finds the service-connection for the disability 
     or disabilities of the person on which the application is 
     based.
       ``(B) In the case of a person shown by evidence 
     satisfactory to the Secretary to have been mentally 
     incompetent during any part of the two-year period otherwise 
     applicable to the person under subparagraph (A), an 
     application for insurance under this section shall be filed 
     not later than the earlier of--
       ``(i) two years after a guardian for the person is 
     appointed; or
       ``(ii) two years after the removal of such disability or 
     disabilities, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a 
     person insured under this section shall pay premiums for such 
     insurance as determined under paragraph (4).
       ``(2) The provisions of section 1912 of this title shall 
     apply with respect to payment of premiums for insurance under 
     this section.
       ``(3) A person shall not be required to pay premiums for 
     insurance under this section after attaining the age of 70 
     years.
       ``(4) The premium rates for insurance under this section 
     shall be level, and shall be based on the Commissioners 1980 
     Standard Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality and interest at 
     the rate of 5 per cent per annum.
       ``(5) All premiums and other collections for insurance 
     under this section shall be credited directly to a revolving 
     fund in the Treasury established for purposes of this 
     section, and any payments on such insurance shall be made 
     directly from such fund.
       ``(g)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, 
     insurance under this section shall be issued on the same 
     terms and conditions as are contained in standard policies of 
     National Service Life Insurance, except that insurance issued 
     under this section shall have no loan value or extended 
     values.
       ``(2) All settlements on insurance under this section shall 
     be paid in a lump sum.
       ``(h) Insurance under this section may be referred to as 
     `Robert Carey Service Disabled Veterans' Insurance'.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 19 of 
     that title is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 1922A the following new item:

``1922B. Service disabled veterans' insurance: level premium term 
              insurance.''.

       (b) Coordination With Current Service Disabled Veterans' 
     Insurance Program.--Section 1922 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) A person deemed insured under this subsection is not 
     eligible for or entitled to insurance under section 1922B of 
     this title.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) A person insured under subsection (a) may also be 
     eligible for insurance under section 1922B of this title in 
     accordance with the provisions of that section.''.
       (c) Other Amendments to Current Service Disabled Veterans' 
     Insurance Program.--Subsection (a) of such section 1922 is 
     amended by striking ``Commissioners 1941 Standard Ordinary 
     Table of Mortality and interest at the rate of 2\1/4\ per 
     centum per annum'' each place it appears in paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) and inserting ``Commissioners 1980 Standard Ordinary 
     Basic Table of Mortality and interest at the rate of 5 per 
     cent per annum''.
       (d) Review of Applicability of Mortality Tables.--(1) The 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall, from time to time, 
     evaluate the standard ordinary table of mortality being used 
     for purposes of service disabled veterans' insurance under 
     sections 1922 and 1922B of title 38, United States Code, in 
     order to determine whether such table of mortality continues 
     to be suitable for such purposes.
       (2) If as the result of an evaluation under paragraph (1) 
     the Secretary determines that the standard ordinary table of 
     mortality being used for purposes of insurance referred to in 
     that paragraph is no longer suitable for such purposes, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report 
     setting forth that determination and including a 
     recommendation for an alternative standard ordinary table of 
     mortality to be used for such purposes.
       (e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     prescribe regulations for purposes of administering section 
     1922B of title 38, United States Code (as added by subsection 
     (a)), and for purposes of administering the amendments to 
     section 1922 of that title made by subsections (b) and (c). 
     Such regulations shall take effect on October 1, 2003.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations for Revolving Fund.--
     There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for the revolving fund 
     established pursuant to subsection (f)(5) of section 1922B of 
     title 38, United States Code (as added by subsection (a) of 
     this section), such sums as may be necessary for purposes of 
     that section.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     through (c) shall take effect on October 1, 2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Frist, 
        Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Chaffee, and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 2210. A bill to amend the International Financial Institutions Act 
to provide for modification of the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor 
Countries (HIPC) Initiative; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

[[Page 5117]]


  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague, 
Senator Santorum, to introduce legislation to reform the way we provide 
debt relief for the poorest nations of the world. We are joined in this 
effort by Senators Kerry, Frist, Sarbanes, Chafee, and DeWine.
  Earlier today, our friends from the House, Chris Smith, John LaFalce, 
Spencer Baucus, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank met with us to announce the 
introduction of companion legislation on their side of the Hill.
  Looking around at that group of people, it would be fair to wonder 
what we all have in common. Some days, not much. Today, however, what 
we have in common is a shared concern about the fate of the men, women, 
and children in the poorest countries of the world.
  It is true that the war on terrorism has brought home to us more 
clearly than before that conditions of grinding poverty in the rest of 
the world are ignored at our peril. Common sense tells us that our 
national security is at risk in a world where millions of people have 
little to live for, and are ripe for the seductions of radical, even 
violent action against the desperate conditions they face every day.
  As Tom Friedman has said in another context, if you don't visit the 
bad neighborhoods, they will visit you.
  But that cannot be the only reason that we all share a concern about 
poverty in the underdeveloped countries of the world. All of the 
world's great religions charge us to look after each other, and show 
special concern for those who need it most.
  Common decency recoils at the conditions of disease and deprivation 
faced by others while we are so blessed with abundance here.
  Common sense, and common decency. That is what brought us all 
together today.
  Few things offend both common sense and common decency more than the 
situations faced by the poor countries of the world who lack the 
resources to provide the most basic public health care and the most 
basic education, but yet still send money to the international 
financial institutions established by the wealthiest nations of the 
world.
  They send two billion dollars a year here to Washington, home of the 
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and to the regional 
development banks around the world, to pay interest on loans they have 
taken out over the years, money that they desperately need for basic 
human services.
  We set up those institutions to promote conditions for global 
economic growth and stability, and to promote economic development. And 
they do many good things. But the blessings that came when those loans 
went out to poor countries in many cases have turned into a curse. Now 
many of those countries are stuck in a debt trap, where payments to 
simply service the interest on those loans weaken their ability to 
provide the kind of essential public services needed for basic human 
existence, much less sustainable economic growth.
  Tragically, most of the countries with the greatest debt burdens are 
among the worst victims of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The resources needed 
in African countries in the fight against HIV/AIDS are already beyond 
their reach. The burden of debt makes that fight even harder.
  Two years ago, the United States joined with the other members of the 
IMF and the World Bank to reduce the debt burdens of the Heavily 
Indebted Poor Countries. The world's churches led that fight, the 
Jubilee 2000 fight, to undo some of the harm done by this cycle of 
debt. I was proud to be part of that effort.
  The result was a real improvement in the debt situation of many 
countries. Our experience with that program shows that the money we 
free up with debt relief really does go for the important services the 
poor citizens of these countries really need.
  As a matter of fact, about 40 percent of the debt savings in those 
countries is going for education, and 25 percent for health care.
  But realistically, these countries will still be stuck in a debt trap 
far into the future.
  In fact, just this week the Bank and the Fund honestly admitted that 
under the current formula, many countries will simply not reach a 
sustainable level of debt. James Wolfenson, President of the World 
Bank, has said that he is considering deeper debt relief to achieve the 
goals of the existing HIPC program. The legislation I am introducing 
today with Senator Santorum will make success under that HIPC program 
more likely.
  Specifically, for the many countries facing a public health crisis, 
such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic, we say that no more than five percent of 
their budgets should go to service their debt to the international 
financial institutions. For those who do not face such a crisis, debt 
service should exceed no more than ten percent of their budget.
  While the existing HIPC program sets a sustainable level of debt at 
150 percent of a country's income from exports, our bill says that it 
is also important to measure the debt burden against a country's 
budget, as well. That's the best way to see the real impact on a 
country's ability to meet its own pressing domestic needs.
  In fact, given the deep problems the eligible nations have with 
trade--most of them export basic commodities whose prices have been 
declining--using export income should not be the sole basis for 
determining their ability to pay. The HIPC program currently assumes 
that the eligible countries will enjoy much higher growth in that 
export income than they have ever been able to achieve. That is a 
formula for disappointment.
  Deeper debt relief, more sustainable debt levels, measured by a 
country's actual ability to pay as a share of its budget, that is what 
our legislation would establish as the U.S. negotiating position at the 
Bank and the Fund. If those reforms are adopted, an additional billion 
dollars a year of debt service will be lifted from the poorest nations.
  This weekend, the Bank and the Fund will be meeting here in 
Washington, and I expect those very issues will be under discussion. 
The legislation we are introducing today offers a way to achieve the 
original goals of debt relief, and the goals of our own foreign policy 
in the developing world.
  Common sense, and common decency, should help us find some common 
ground to achieve those goals. The broad coalition of support this 
legislation already enjoys tells me that we can succeed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself and Mr. Cleland):
  S. 2211. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to apply the 
additional retired pay percentage for extraordinary heroism to the 
computation of the retired pay of enlisted members of the Armed Forces 
who are retired for any reason, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the 
Heroism Pay Equality Act. This legislation will restore fairness and 
equality to our country's retired military reservists who have been 
cited for extraordinary heroism, by affording them the same 
entitlements offered to their active component counterparts. Current 
law awards members with between 20 and 30 years of service who have 
been cited for extraordinary heroism in the line of duty an additional 
10 percent to their retirement pay for their heroic acts. Typically, 
this equates to a service member who has received the Medal of Honor, 
the Distinguished Service Cross, or the Navy Cross. Yet a service 
member who has been awarded one of these medals, and whose retirement 
eligibility was achieved in the Reserves, is not recognized with the 
same benefit.
  This bill erases this injustice, and is offered in the spirit of 
fairness to the total force. The United States is increasingly reliant 
on the Reserve component of the armed service to meet the challenges 
that face our military. Reserve and National Guard units have served 
with distinction in Bosnia, Kosovo, the Middle East, and are doing so 
today in Afghanistan and countless

[[Page 5118]]

locations across the United States as part of our global war on 
terrorism. The additional pay for heroic acts is awarded for the act 
itself and has nothing to do with the component in which retirement 
eligibility was achieved. Thus, to honor our Nation's military 
reservists, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, which 
Senator Cleland and I are introducing today, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2211

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

     SECTION 1. EXPANDED APPLICABILITY OF ADDITIONAL RETIRED PAY 
                   FOR EXTRAORDINARY HEROISM.

       (a) Army.--Section 3991(a)(2) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``If a member who is retired under section 
     3914 of this title'' and inserting ``If an enlisted member 
     entitled to monthly retired pay under this subtitle''; and
       (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following new 
     sentence: ``The first sentence does not apply with respect to 
     retired pay computed under section 12733 of this title.''.
       (b) Navy and Marine Corps.--(1) Chapter 571 of such title 
     is amended by inserting after section 6334 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 6334a. Computation of retired pay: additional 10 
       percent for enlisted members credited with extraordinary 
       heroism

       ``If an enlisted member entitled to monthly retired pay 
     under this subtitle has been credited by the Secretary of the 
     Navy with extraordinary heroism in the line of duty, the 
     member's retired pay shall be increased by 10 percent of the 
     amount determined under section 6333 or 6334 of this title, 
     as the case may be, but to not more than 75 percent of the 
     retired pay base upon which the computation of such retired 
     pay is based. The first sentence does not apply with respect 
     to retired pay computed under section 12733 of this title. 
     The Secretary's determination as to extraordinary heroism is 
     conclusive for all purposes.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``6334a. Computation of retired pay: additional 10 percent for enlisted 
              members credited with extraordinary heroism.''.

       (c) Air Force.--Section 8991(a)(2) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``If a member who is retired under section 
     8914 of this title'' and inserting ``If an enlisted member 
     entitled to monthly retired pay under this subtitle''; and
       (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following new 
     sentence: ``The first sentence does not apply with respect to 
     retired pay computed under section 12733 of this title.''.
       (d) Disability Retirement.--(1) Section 1201 of such title 
     is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``, with retired pay 
     computed under section 1401 of this title,''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Computation of Retired Pay.--(1) The retired pay to 
     which a member is entitled under this section shall be 
     computed under section 1401 of this title.
       ``(2) If an enlisted member entitled to monthly retired pay 
     under this section has been credited by the Secretary 
     concerned with extraordinary heroism in the line of duty, the 
     member's retired pay shall be increased by 10 percent of the 
     amount determined under section 1401 of this title (but to 
     not more than 75 percent of the retired pay base upon which 
     the computation of such retired pay is based).''.
       (2) Section 1202 of such title is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(a) Retirement.--'' before the text of 
     such section;
       (B) by striking ``with retired pay computed under section 
     1401 of this title'' and inserting ``and pay retired pay to 
     the member.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Computation of Retired Pay.--(1) The retired pay to 
     which a member is entitled under this section shall be 
     computed under section 1401 of this title.
       ``(2) If an enlisted member entitled to monthly retired pay 
     under this section has been credited by the Secretary 
     concerned with extraordinary heroism in the line of duty, the 
     member's retired pay shall be increased by 10 percent of the 
     amount determined under section 1401 of this title (but to 
     not more than 75 percent of the retired pay base upon which 
     the computation of such retired pay is based).''.
       (e) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall not apply with respect to months beginning on or before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 2212. A bill to establish a direct line of authority for the 
Office of Trust Reform Implementations and Oversight to oversee the 
management and reform of Indian trust funds and assets under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and to advance tribal 
management of such funds and assets, pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determinations Act and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I am introducing a discussion bill 
intended to provide the basis for further reform of the administration 
and management of the assets and funds held by the United States in 
trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual Indians. 
I'm pleased to be joined by my two distinguished colleagues from South 
Dakota, Senators Daschle and Johnson.
  As a result of over 300 treaties and an extensive course of dealings 
between the United States and Indian tribes, the Federal Government 
holds the legal title to lands held in trust for Indian tribes and 
individual tribal members. The revenues derived from the use of these 
lands and the resources found on trust lands, along with the proceeds 
from claims that have arisen from the wrongful taking or the loss of 
use of the assets, comprise the funds that are held in trust by the 
United States for the benefit of individual Indians and Indian tribes.
  Today, the United States maintains approximately 1,400 trust fund 
accounts for 315 Indian tribes with funds in excess of $2.6 billion, 
and over 260,000 individual Indian money, IIM, accounts with about $400 
million in funds. Approximately 45 million acres of land are held in 
trust by the United States for the benefit of Indian tribes and about 
11 million acres are held in trust for individual Indians. These lands 
contain vast amounts of minerals, coal, oil and gas, water, forest 
resources, and agricultural resources.
  These funds, lands, and resources comprise the trust estate held by 
the United States for the benefit of tribes and individual Indians. The 
Interior Department distributes leasing and sales revenues of $300 
million per year to more than 225,000 individual Indian money accounts 
and about $800 million a year to the 1,400 tribal accounts. It manages 
income from more than 100,000 active leases for tribes and individual 
Indians.
  Indian tribes depend on the revenues from these trust assets to 
provide basic governmental services. IIM account holders are often 
living at, or near, the poverty level, and they rely on these revenues 
for basic essentials such as housing, food, and transportation. The 
manner in which trust assets and trust funds are managed by the 
Department has very real impacts on the lives of hundreds of thousands 
of Indian people every day. All too often, those impacts are not 
positive.
  The administration and management of individual Indian trust assets 
and funds are extremely difficult due to the problem of fractionated 
heirship of lands that are a continuing legacy of the misguided and 
discredited allotment policies of the late nineteenth and early 
twentieth centuries. Today, the Department and individual Indians are 
left with the nightmare of 1.4 million fractional interests of two 
percent or less involving 58,000 tracts of individually owned trust and 
restricted lands, each of which requires administration and often 
provides nothing but frustration in return for all involved. For some 
of these accounts, it may cost more to print and mail statements 
annually than the assets themselves are worth. A lasting solution needs 
to be found that reconsolidates these assets under Indian ownership.
  Many of my colleagues are familiar with the never-ending stream of 
GAO reports, news accounts, and hearings detailing the deplorable 
history of the Federal effort to manage these trust funds. Far less is 
known about the condition of trust assets and the history of their 
management. However, it doesn't take very long to recognize that the 
problem of mismanagement extends far beyond trust funds to the lands 
and resources that generate most of the funds. The Interior Department 
cannot provide accurate information on the number of leases on Indian 
lands for any purpose or the amount of revenues

[[Page 5119]]

that should be attributed to any parcel of trust land despite repeated 
attempts to develop the necessary database and record keeping systems. 
In addition, the records for some lands and trust accounts have been 
lost or destroyed for entire time periods.
  In 1994, the Congress enacted the American Indian Trust Fund 
Management Reform Act. This law was intended to bring about a series of 
major reforms in the management of Indian trust funds and assets under 
the auspices of a Special Trustee in the Interior Department. Some 
positive changes have occurred. Most trust account holders now receive 
regular statements on their accounts. Most of the revenues derived from 
Indian trust assets are now posted to the correct account in a 
reasonable period of time.
  However, the major structural reforms that were called for in the 
1994 Act have not been achieved. It is still not possible to tell with 
complete certainty what tribal lands and resources are leased and what 
revenues are generated from all tribal lands and resources. The 
original intent of the 1994 Act was for the Special Trustee to go out 
of business after completing a plan for the restructuring of the day-
to-day management of tribal and individual trust funds and assets.
  The Special Trustee did develop a plan that called for the creation 
of a government sponsored enterprise to take control of the entire 
Indian trust estate and manage it. The tribes and individual 
beneficiaries of the trust were nearly unanimous in their condemnation 
and rejection of this plan.
  The 1994 Act also established a procedure through which tribes can 
withdraw their trust funds from federal trust and manage them directly. 
Only a few tribes have taken this course. The Interior Department has 
not encouraged tribes to withdraw their funds and the tribes have been 
reluctant to do so for the simple reason that the federal trust is 
terminated by the act of withdrawing the funds. Anyone who is familiar 
with the devastation brought about by the various efforts over the 
years to terminate the unique relationship between the tribes and the 
Federal Government will not be surprised by the lack of success in the 
implementation of this part of the 1994 Act.
  The 1994 Act also called for the completion of audits of all 
individual and tribal trust fund accounts. After years of effort and 
the expenditure of millions of dollars, in 1997, the Interior 
Department finally provided the tribal account holders with a 
``reconciliation'' of their accounts. These reconciliation reports only 
covered a small fraction of the years the accounts have been maintained 
and the reports were not audits as was required by the 1994 Act. Some 
tribes accepted the results of the reconciliation of their accounts. 
Most did not. None of the IIM accounts were reconciled and have not 
been to this day, despite the requirements of the 1994 Act. There are 
no plans to comply with the mandate of the 1994 Act for an actual 
accounting for any of the trust fund accounts. Conducting such an 
accounting would be difficult due to the lack of records. But it can be 
accomplished and every reasonable effort should be made to make sure 
this important work gets done soon.
  Last fall, Secretary Norton unveiled a proposal to take all of the 
trust fund and asset management functions out of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, in order to vest them in a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset 
Management, BITAM. This proposal is estimated to have a price tag of 
about $300 million in its first year or two.
  Secretary Norton's proposal was intended to respond to the short-
comings of the 1994 Act and the orders of Judge Lamberth in the Cobell 
v. Norton litigation that has been in the Federal District Court for 
the District of Columbia since 1997. This litigation involves the 
individual trust accounts and seeks an accounting of the funds managed 
by the Departments of the Interior and Treasury since 1887. Past 
failures to reconcile accounts led to contempt orders against former 
Secretaries Babbitt and Rubin. Judge Lamberth is currently considering 
contempt orders against Secretary Norton and Assistant Secretary 
McCaleb for actions they have taken or have failed to take with regard 
to these trust funds and for misleading the court about what is 
actually being done.
  Indian leaders across the country have condemned Secretary Norton's 
proposal to establish BITAM and have since offered a variety of 
alternative proposals. As I understand it, while the Secretary is 
working with tribal leaders to evaluate different options proposed by 
the tribes, the BITAM proposal remains the Department's preferred 
option.
  Representatives of the Tribes have been working on a range of 
possible reforms through a special Task Force established by Secretary 
Norton at their request. We have been in contact with members of the 
Task Force and am somewhat heartened by the fact that they believe they 
are making real progress toward meaningful reforms. The bill we are 
introducing is not intended to undermine that process, but will 
hopefully assist it. In any event, we must give careful consideration 
to the recommendations the Task force ultimately develops and try to 
act on them at the appropriate time. I believe Senators Daschle and 
Johnson would join me in urging the Department to continue to work with 
the Task Force as it completes its work in the months ahead.
  Even as we monitor these developments, I, and many others in 
Congress, continue to be concerned about the future management of trust 
funds and assets. We believe that further reform is necessary and that 
it must comport with the Interior Department's trust responsibility at 
the same time that it advances the self-determination policies that 
have been so successful in the past 30 years. The status quo is simply 
not acceptable.
  Just to reinforce our intent, the bill we are introducing today is 
not intended to be the ultimate solution to the problems that have been 
revealed in the management of the trust funds and trust assets. 
However, we believe it critical to the on-going reform process to 
introduce a bill that focuses on two elements that are important to 
achieving a lasting reform in the management of these funds and assets.
  First, the bill will establish a direct line-of-authority over the 
management of the trust funds and trust assets at the highest levels 
within the Department. Judge Lamberth, and other oversight agencies 
such as the General Accounting Office, have lamented the lack of 
accountability in the Interior Department and strongly recommended the 
designation of one official who will ultimately be responsible for the 
management of the trust funds and assets.
  This bill addresses this issue by establishing the Office of Trust 
Management and Reform in the Department of the Interior. This office 
will be under the authority of a Deputy Secretary who will report 
directly to the Secretary and who will oversee the work of the 
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the special Trustee, the 
Director of the Minerals Management Service and the Director of the 
Bureau of Land Management with regard to trust funds and trust assets.
  I am certain that many of my colleagues who are concerned about this 
issue will join me in ensuring that candidates nominated by the 
President for the Deputy Secretary position are not only qualified in 
financial management, natural resource management, and federal Indian 
policy, but also are widely supported by the tribal community.
  The new Deputy Secretary will be the person ultimately responsible 
for the overall management of these funds and assets. The Deputy 
Secretary will have the authority to require the Special Trustee and 
the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, along with the Directors of 
the Bureau of Land Management and the Minerals Management Service, to 
take the steps necessary to put into place the changes needed to ensure 
the proper administration and management of the trust funds and assets. 
The Deputy Secretary will be appointed by the President, subject to the 
advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of six years and may only 
be removed for cause. This should give the Deputy Secretary the 
independence necessary to bring about

[[Page 5120]]

meaningful reform, while still ensuring accountability.
  The current Tribal task force working with the Secretary is 
considering a structure for the management of Indian affairs that would 
elevate all of the current responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary 
for Indian Affairs, the Special Trustee, and the Deputy Commissioner, 
to the Deputy Secretary level in the Department. We look forward to 
learning more about the scope of the Task Force proposal and its costs 
or cost savings. As necessary, this bill can be modified to accommodate 
such a proposal if the Task Force concludes that doing so would be 
appropriate.
  This Task Force has served an important role to the tribes in working 
with the Department on these matters and many would like to see its 
function continue as a collaborative component to the Department's 
management. In order to ensure a continuing role for the tribes in the 
day-to-day activities of the Department with respect to the management 
of the trust funds and the trust assets, this bill amends the 1994 Act 
to provide that the advisory board that was established to assist the 
Special Trustee will be reconstituted and continue as an advisory board 
for the Deputy Secretary. The composition of the advisory board is 
broad enough to enable the Deputy Secretary to include members with 
expertise in the areas of trust fund management, investment, and 
related responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary.
  The other major feature of the bill is the focus on the successful 
policy of self-determination. Any fair review of Federal Indian policy 
over the course of the last century will point to the policies of 
termination and assimilation through allotment as abject failures. Many 
of the most intractable problems the tribes and federal policy makers 
wrestle with today stem from the wreckage caused by these misguided 
policies of the past.
  On the other hand, the policy of self-determination, which was first 
proposed by President Nixon in 1971, has shown itself to be the single 
most successful Federal Indian policy in the history of our Nation. The 
reasons for this success are many, but the core reason is one we can 
all recognize and relate to: self-determination involves Indian people 
directly in identifying and defining the problems facing the tribes, 
and more importantly, it empowers them to implement the solutions they 
know will work best. Putting it in slightly different terms, the self-
determination policy recognizes the fact that the government closest to 
the people is the best government to recognize and resolve local 
problems. Indian policy made by the Federal Government for the Federal 
Government has never worked and never will work. Indian policy made by 
the tribal governments with appropriate Federal assistance has shown 
that it does work.
  Portions of the 1994 Act and Secretary Norton's BITAM proposal have 
some things in common. In varying degrees, both are attempts by the 
Federal Government to make Indian policy for the federal government. 
Neither provides a proper role for tribal governments. This bill 
provides a framework by which tribes can become more involved in the 
day-to-day management of their trust assets and trust funds through the 
Indian Self-Determination Act. It does not dismantle the BIA. It does 
provide a foundation for the tribes, the Department, and the Congress 
to develop and implement meaningful reform over the next several years. 
Every major provision of this bill is based on solutions that have been 
proposed by the tribes.
  The bill builds on the concept of beneficiary co-management of trust 
funds and assets. This is not a new idea. It was advanced by the tribes 
in the 1980's and 1990's. It is embodied in the Indian Forest Resources 
Management Act that Congress enacted in 1990 and the Indian 
Agricultural Resources Management Act enacted in 1994. It is implicit 
in the Indian Self-Determination Act and it is a proven formula for 
progress.
  This bill does not deal with the issues of the past. It does not 
address concerns about claims for past mismanagement. It does not deal 
with the need for an accounting of tribal and individual trust funds. 
It does not deal with the condition of the trust lands and assets. 
These are all very serious matters.
  My purpose is not to avoid these issues or indicate any disregard for 
them. Rather, we are simply trying to find a way to move forward on a 
more constructive basis. Representatives of the tribes have been 
working on a way to move forward on these issues a more constructive 
basis. We must give careful consideration to the recommendations they 
develop and try to act on them at the appropriate time.
  Both the House and the Senate recently passed S. 1857 to deal with 
the statute of limitations on past claims for mismanagement of the 
tribal trust funds. Judge Lamberth is considering remedies for 
mismanagement of the individual Indian trust funds. Secretary Norton 
has established the Office of Historical Trust Accounting to try to 
produce an accounting for the individual funds. We need to monitor all 
of these efforts and be prepared to enact additional legislation if 
necessary and if sought by the tribes.
  We are hopeful that we can build on the modest successes realized 
under the 1994 Act by providing greater accountability in the 
Department of the Interior and recognizing the fact that the tribes 
must be involved as active participants in the management and 
administration of the trust funds and assets without the threat of 
termination of the trust responsibility. It took over 100 years to 
create the problems we now confront with the Indian trust funds and 
assets. The Indian people did not create these problems. The Federal 
Government did. It is going to take many more years to resolve the 
problems. The 1994 Act was a step in the right direction. We believe 
this bill can lead to further progress through greater accountability 
and direct involvement of those who have the most at stake, the tribes 
and Indian people.
  Once again, Senators Daschle, Johnson and I propose this legislation 
as a vehicle for discussion for all those concerned with ending decades 
of mismanagement of Indian trust funds and trust assets. We look 
forward to receiving comments on this legislation and call on our 
friend, the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, to use this 
bill as the basis for hearings on these matters when the committee is 
prepared to do so.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section-by-section 
summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2212

       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 ``Indian Trust Asset and Trust 
     Fund Management and Reform Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR TRUST MANAGEMENT AND REFORM.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 2 of the American Indian Trust 
     Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) The term'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(8) Special trustee.--The term'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) The term'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4) Indian tribe.--The term'';
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``(3) The term'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(7) Secretary.--The term'';
       (4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(4) The term'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(5) Office.--The term'';
       (5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``(5) The term'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Bureau.--The term'';
       (6) in paragraph (6), by striking ``(6) The term'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Department.--The term'';
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Deputy secretary.--The term `Deputy Secretary' means 
     the Deputy Secretary for Trust Management and Reform 
     appointed under section 307(a)(2).
       ``(6) Reform office.--The term `Reform Office' means the 
     Office of Trust Reform Implementation and Oversight 
     established by section 307(e).'';
       (8) by moving paragraphs (1) through (8) (as redesignated 
     by this subsection) so as to appear in numerical order; and
       (9) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Trust assets.--The term `trust assets' means all 
     tangible property including land, minerals, coal, oil and 
     gas, forest resources, agricultural resources, water and

[[Page 5121]]

     water sources, and fish and wildlife held by the Secretary 
     for the benefit of an Indian tribe or an individual member of 
     an Indian tribe pursuant to Federal law.
       ``(10) Trust funds.--The term `trust funds' means all funds 
     held by the Secretary for the benefit of an Indian tribe or 
     and individual member of an Indian tribe pursuant to Federal 
     law.''.
       (b) Deputy Secretary for Trust Management and Reform.--
     Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform 
     Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4041 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 307. DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR TRUST MANAGEMENT AND REFORM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established within the 
     Department the position of Deputy Secretary for Trust 
     Management and Reform.
       ``(2) Appointment and removal.--
       ``(A) Appointment.--The Deputy Secretary shall be appointed 
     by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate.
       ``(B) Term.--The Deputy Secretary shall be appointed for a 
     term of 6 years.
       ``(C) Removal.--The Deputy Secretary may be removed only 
     for good cause.
       ``(3) Administrative authority.--The Deputy Secretary shall 
     report directly to the Secretary.
       ``(4) Compensation.--The Deputy Secretary shall be paid at 
     a rate determined by the Secretary to be appropriate for the 
     position, but not less than the rate of basic pay prescribed 
     for Level II of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Deputy Secretary shall--
       ``(1) oversee all trust fund and trust asset matters of the 
     Department, including--
       ``(A) administration and management of the Reform Office; 
     and
       ``(B) financial and human resource matters of the Reform 
     Office; and
       ``(2) engage in appropriate government-to-government 
     relations and consultations with Indian tribes and individual 
     trust asset and trust fund account holders on matters 
     involving trust asset and trust fund management and reform 
     within the Department.
       ``(c) Staff.--In carrying out this section, the Deputy 
     Secretary may hire such staff having expertise in trust asset 
     and trust fund management, financial organization and 
     management, and tribal policy as the Deputy Secretary 
     determines is necessary to carry out this section.
       ``(d) Effect on Duties of Other Officials.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish any 
     responsibility or duty of the Assistant Secretary of the 
     Interior for Indian Affairs or the Special Trustee relating 
     to any duty of the Assistant Secretary or Special Trustee 
     established under this Act or any other provision of law.
       ``(2) Trust asset and trust fund management and reform.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Deputy 
     Secretary shall have overall management and oversight 
     authority on matters of the Department relating to trust 
     asset and trust fund management and reform.
       ``(e) Office of Trust Reform Implementation and 
     Oversight.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Office of the Secretary the Office of Trust Reform 
     Implementation and Oversight.
       ``(2) Reform office head.--The Reform Office shall be 
     headed by the Deputy Secretary.
       ``(3) Duties.--The Reform Office shall--
       ``(A) supervise and direct the day-to-day activities of the 
     Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, the 
     Special Trustee, the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, and the Director of the Minerals Management 
     Service, to the extent they administer or manage any Indian 
     trust assets or funds;
       ``(B) administer, in accordance with title II, all trust 
     properties, funds, and other assets held by the United States 
     for the benefit of Indian tribes and individual members of 
     Indian tribes;
       ``(C) require the development and maintenance of an 
     accurate inventory of all trust funds and trust assets;
       ``(D) ensure the prompt posting of revenue derived from a 
     trust fund or trust asset for the benefit of each Indian 
     tribe (or individual member of each Indian tribe) that owns a 
     beneficial interest in the trust fund or trust asset;
       ``(E) ensure that monthly statements of accounts are 
     provided to all trust fund account holders;
       ``(F) ensure that all trust fund accounts are audited at 
     least annually, and more frequently as determined to be 
     necessary by the Deputy Secretary;
       ``(G) ensure that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior 
     for Indian Affairs, the Special Trustee, the Director of the 
     Bureau of Land Management, and the Director of the Minerals 
     Management Service provide to the Secretary current and 
     accurate information relating to the administration and 
     management of trust funds and trust assets;
       ``(H) provide for regular consultation with trust fund 
     account holders on the administration of trust funds and 
     trust assets to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable in 
     accordance with applicable law, the greatest return on those 
     funds and assets for the trust fund account holders; and
       ``(I) enter into contracts and compacts under section 102 
     of the Indian Self-Determination Act (25 U.S.C. 450f) or 
     section 403 of the Indian Self Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458cc) to provide for the 
     management of trust assets and trust funds by Indian tribes 
     pursuant to a Trust Fund and Trust Asset Management and 
     Monitoring Plan developed under section 202 of this Act.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section.''.
       (c) Advisory Board.--
       (1) In general.--Section 306 of the American Indian Trust 
     Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4046) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 306. ADVISORY BOARD.

       ``(a) Establishment and Membership.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Deputy Secretary described in 
     section 307 shall establish an advisory board to provide 
     advice on all matters within the jurisdiction of the Office 
     of Trust Reform. The advisory board shall consist of 9 
     members, appointed by the Deputy Secretary after consultation 
     with Indian tribes and appropriate Indian organizations, of 
     which--
       ``(1) 5 members shall represent trust fund account holders, 
     including both tribal and Individual Indian Money accounts;
       ``(2) 2 members shall have practical experience in trust 
     fund and financial management;
       ``(3) 1 member shall have practical experience in fiduciary 
     investment management; and
       ``(4) 1 member, from academia, shall have knowledge of 
     general management of large organizations.
       ``(b) Term.--Each member shall serve a term of 2 years.
       ``(c) FACA.--The advisory board shall not be subject to the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act.''.
       (2) Previous Advisory Board.--The advisory board authorized 
     under section 306 of the American Indian Trust Fund 
     Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4046) as in effect 
     on the day before the date of enactment of this Act shall 
     terminate on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 302 of the American Indian Trust Fund 
     Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4042) is amended--
       (A) in the second sentence of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``who shall'' and inserting ``who, except as provided in 
     subsection (b)(3), shall''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Trust fund management.--The Special Trustee shall 
     report directly to the Deputy Secretary with respect to 
     matters relating to trust fund management and reform.''.
       (2) Section 303 of the American Indian Trust Fund 
     Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4043) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (a);
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``The Special 
     Trustee'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section 
     307(d), the Special Trustee'';
       (C) in subsection (c)(5)(A), by striking ``or which is 
     charged with any responsibility under the comprehensive 
     strategic plan prepared under subsection (a) of this 
     section,'';
       (D) by striking subsection (f); and
       (E) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as 
     subsections (a) through (d), respectively.

     SEC. 3. INDIAN PARTICIPATION IN TRUST FUND ACTIVITIES.

       Title II of the American Indian Trust Fund Management 
     Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4021 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking sections 202 and 203; and
       (2) by inserting after section 201 the following:

     ``SEC. 202. PARTICIPATION IN TRUST FUND AND TRUST ASSET 
                   MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES BY INDIAN TRIBES.

       ``(a) Planning Program.--To meet the purposes of this 
     title, a 10-year Indian Trust Fund and Trust Asset Management 
     and Monitoring Plan (in this section referred to as the 
     `Plan') shall be developed and implemented as follows:
       ``(1) Pursuant to a self-determination contract or compact 
     under section 102 of the Indian Self-Determination Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450f) or section 403 of the Indian Self Determination 
     and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458cc), an Indian 
     tribe may develop or implement a Plan. Subject to the 
     provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4), the tribe shall have 
     broad discretion in designing and carrying out the planning 
     process.
       ``(2) To include in a Plan particular trust funds or assets 
     held by multiple individuals, an Indian tribe shall obtain 
     the approval of a majority of the individuals who hold an 
     interest in any such trust funds or assets.
       ``(3) The Plan shall be submitted to the Secretary for 
     approval pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450f et seq.).
       ``(4) If a tribe chooses not to develop or implement a 
     Plan, the Secretary shall develop or implement, as 
     appropriate, a Plan in close consultation with the affected 
     tribe.

[[Page 5122]]

       ``(5) Whether developed directly by the tribe or by the 
     Secretary, the Plan shall--
       ``(A) determine the amount and source of funds held in 
     trust;
       ``(B) identify and prepare an inventory of all trust 
     assets;
       ``(C) identify specific tribal goals and objectives;
       ``(D) establish management objectives for the funds and 
     assets held in trust;
       ``(E) define critical values of the Indian tribe and its 
     members and provide identified management objectives;
       ``(F) identify actions to be taken to reach established 
     objectives;
       ``(G) use existing survey documents, reports and other 
     research from Federal agencies, tribal community colleges, 
     and land grant universities; and
       ``(H) be completed within 3 years of the initiation of 
     activity to establish the Plan.
       ``(b) Management and Administration.--Plans developed and 
     approved under subsection (a) shall govern the management and 
     administration of funds and assets held in trust by the 
     Bureau and the Indian tribal government.
       ``(c) No Termination Requirement.--Indian tribes 
     implementing an approved Plan shall not be required to 
     terminate the trust relationship in order to implement such 
     Plan.
       ``(d) Plan Does Not Terminate Trust.--Developing or 
     implementing a Plan shall not be construed or deemed to 
     constitute a termination of the trust status of the assets or 
     funds that are included in, or subject to, the Plan.
       ``(e) Liability.--An Indian tribe managing and 
     administering trust funds and trust assets in a manner that 
     is consistent with a Plan shall not be liable for waste or 
     loss of an asset or funds that are included in such Plan.
       ``(f) Indian Participation in Management Activities.--
       ``(1) Tribal recognition.--The Secretary shall conduct all 
     management activities of funds and assets held in trust in 
     accordance with goals and objectives set forth in a Plan 
     approved pursuant to and in accordance with all tribal laws 
     and ordinances, except in specific instances where such 
     compliance would be contrary to the trust responsibility of 
     the United States.
       ``(2) Tribal laws.--
       ``(A) In general.--Unless otherwise prohibited by Federal 
     law, the Secretary shall comply with tribal law pertaining to 
     the management of funds and assets held in trust.
       ``(B) Duties.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) provide assistance in the enforcement of tribal laws 
     described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) provide notice of such tribal laws to persons or 
     entities dealing with tribal funds and assets held in trust; 
     and
       ``(iii) upon the request of an Indian tribe, require 
     appropriate Federal officials to appear in tribal forums.
       ``(3) Waiver of regulations.--In any case in which a 
     regulation or administrative policy of the Department of the 
     Interior conflicts with the objectives of the Plan, or with a 
     tribal law, the Secretary may waive the application of such 
     regulation or administrative policy unless such waiver would 
     constitute a violation of a Federal statute or judicial 
     decision or would conflict with the Secretary's trust 
     responsibility under Federal law.
       ``(4) Sovereign immunity.--This section does not constitute 
     a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States, nor 
     does it authorize tribal justice systems to review actions of 
     the Secretary.
       ``(5) Trust responsibility.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to diminish or expand the trust responsibility 
     of the United States toward Indian funds and assets held in 
     trust, or any legal obligation or remedy resulting from such 
     funds and assets.
       ``(g) Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Indian 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the 
     House of Representatives.
       ``(2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall detail the following:
       ``(A) The efforts of the Department to implement this 
     section.
       ``(B) The nature and extent of consultation between the 
     Department, Tribes, and individual Indians with respect to 
     implementation of this section.
       ``(C) Any recommendations of the Department for further 
     changes to this Act, accompanied by a record of consultation 
     with Tribes and individual Indians regarding such 
     recommendations.''.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     promulgate regulations to carry out the amendments made by 
     this Act.
       (b) Active Participation.--All regulations promulgated in 
     accordance with subsection (a) shall be developed with the 
     full and active participation of Indian tribes that have 
     trust funds and assets held by the Secretary.
                                  ____


     Section-by-Section Summary--Indian Trust Asset and Trust Fund 
                   Management and Reform Act of 2002


                         section 1. short title

       This section provides that the Act may be cited as the 
     ``Indian Trust Asset and Trust Fund Management and Reform Act 
     of 2002.''


      section 2. deputy secretary for trust management and reform

       Paragraph (a) of this section provides that Section 2 of 
     the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 
     (25 U.S.C. 4001) is amended to add new definitions for the 
     terms ``Deputy Secretary,'' ``Reform Office,'' ``Trust 
     Assets,'' and ``Trust Funds,'' and to redesignate the 
     paragraphs of Section 2 of the 1994 Act.
       Paragraph (b) of this section amends Title III of the 1994 
     Act by adding provisions to establish the position of Deputy 
     Secretary for Trust Management and Reform in the Department 
     of the Interior. The Deputy Secretary will be appointed by 
     the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for 
     a term of six years and may only be removed for cause. The 
     Deputy Secretary will report directly to the Secretary and 
     will be responsible for the oversight of all trust fund and 
     trust asset administration and management, including 
     consultation with Indian tribes and individual Indian trust 
     asset and trust fund account holders.
       This section authorizes the Deputy Secretary to hire staff 
     in the Reform Office with expertise in trust fund and asset 
     management, financial organization and management and tribal 
     policy. The existing responsibilities of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Indian Affairs and the Special Trustee would 
     not be affected by the duties of the Deputy Secretary, except 
     that each will be required to report to the Deputy Secretary 
     on matters involving trust funds and trust assets.
       This section also provides for the establishment of the 
     Office of Trust Reform Implementation and Oversight which 
     shall be headed by the Deputy Secretary and which will be 
     responsible for the supervision of the day-to-day activities 
     of the Assistant Secretary, the Special Trustees, the 
     Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the Director of 
     the Minerals Management Service in their administration of 
     management of any Indian trust funds or assets, consistent 
     with the provisions of Title II of the Act, as amended.
       The duties of the Office of Trust Reform include: 
     authorization to require the development and maintenance of 
     an accurate inventory of all trust properties, funds and 
     other assets; ensure the prompt posting of revenues derived 
     from trust funds, properties and assets; ensure that trust 
     fund account holders receive monthly statements; ensure that 
     trust fund accounts are audited at least once a year or more 
     frequently if necessary; ensure that the Secretary receives 
     current and accurate information relating to the 
     administration and management of trust funds, properties and 
     assets; provide for regular consultation with trust fund 
     account holders to ensure the greatest return on trust assets 
     and properties for the trust account holders; and enter into 
     contracts and compacts under the Indian Self-Determination 
     Act to provide for the management of trust assets and funds 
     by Indian tribes.
       Such sums as maybe necessary are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out the provisions of Section 307 of 
     the Act.
       Paragraph (c) of Section 2 amends Section 306 of the 1994 
     Act to reconstitute the Advisory Board for the Special 
     Trustee as the Advisory Board for the Deputy Secretary. The 
     Advisory Board will be comprised of nine members, five of 
     whom shall be representative of tribal and individual trust 
     fund account holders; two of the Board members shall have 
     experience in trust fund and financial management; one Board 
     member shall be experienced in fiduciary investment 
     managements and one member shall be from academia and shall 
     have knowledge of management of large organizations. Each 
     member of the Advisory Board will serve for a term of two 
     years. The Board will not be subject to the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act.
       Paragraph (d) of Section 2 sets forth conforming amendments 
     to Section 302 and Section 303 of the 1994 Act.


        Section 3. Indian Participation in Trust Fund Activities

       Section 3 amends the 1994 Act by striking Sections 202 and 
     203 of the Act relating to the withdrawal of trust funds and 
     the termination of the trust responsibility. It inserts a new 
     Section 202 to provide for the development and implementation 
     of Indian Trust Fund and Trust Asset Management and 
     Monitoring Plans by the Secretary and Indian tribes pursuant 
     to the Indian Self-Determination Act. Indian tribes are to be 
     afforded broad discretion in designing and carrying out the 
     planning process. Funds and assets held in trust for multiple 
     individuals may be included in a Tribal Plan with the consent 
     of a majority of the individuals who hold an interest in any 
     such assets or funds.
       If a Tribe chooses not to develop or implement a plan, the 
     Secretary is required to do so in close consultation with the 
     affected Tribe.
       Each plan is required to: determine the amount and source 
     of funds held in trust; identify and prepare an inventory of 
     all trust assets; identify specific tribal goals and 
     objectives; establish management objectives for the funds and 
     assets held in trust; define the critical values of the 
     Indian tribe and

[[Page 5123]]

     provide identified management objectives; use existing 
     surveys, reports and other research from Federal agencies, 
     tribal community colleges and land grant universities; and, 
     be completed within three years after the start of activity 
     to establish a plan.
       Approved plans will govern the management and 
     administration of funds and assets held in trust by the 
     Secretary and the Indian Tribes. The development and 
     implementation of a plan by an Indian Tribe or the Secretary 
     does not require the termination of the trust responsibility 
     and shall not be construed or deemed to constitute a 
     termination of the trust status of the assets or funds that 
     are included in or subject to the Plan. An Indian tribe shall 
     not be liable for waste or loss of a trust asset or trust 
     funds if it is acting in accordance with an approved plan.
       The Secretary is required to conduct all trust fund and 
     trust asset management activities in accordance with tribal 
     law and to provide assistance in the enforcement of tribal 
     law unless doing so is prohibited by Federal law or would be 
     contrary to the trust responsibility of the United States. 
     The Secretary may waive any regulations or administrative 
     policies of the Department of the Interior that are in 
     conflict with Tribal law or an approved plan unless such a 
     waiver would constitute a violation of a Federal statute or 
     judicial decision or would conflict with the Secretary's 
     trust responsibility.
       This Section of the Act does not constitute a waiver of the 
     sovereign immunity of the United States or authorize Tribal 
     justice systems to review actions of the Secretary. Nothing 
     in this Section shall be construed to diminish or expand the 
     trust responsibility of the United States toward Indian trust 
     funds and assets held in trust.
       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment, and 
     annually thereafter, the Secretary is required to file a 
     report with the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.
       The report shall detail: the efforts of the Department to 
     implement this Section; the nature and extent of the 
     consultation between the Department, Tribes and individual 
     Indians with respect to the implementation of this section; 
     and, any recommendations of the Department for further 
     changes to the Act, along with a record of the Department's 
     consultation with Tribes and individual Indians regarding 
     such recommendations.


                         section 4. regulations

       Section 4 requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations 
     for the implementation of the amendments to the Act within 
     one year after enactment, with the full and active 
     participation of the Indian tribes that have trust funds and 
     assets held by the Secretary.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, today I am joining with Senators John 
McCain and Tim Johnson to introduce a legislation that is intended to 
focus attention on the need to address and correct the longstanding 
problem of inefficient management of the assets and funds held by the 
United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and 
individual American Indians.
  Indian Country has faced many challenges over the years. Few, 
however, have been more important, or more difficult, than ending the 
mismanagement of the Indian trust fund and restoring integrity to this 
administrative process.
  For over 100 years, the Department of Interior has managed a trust 
funded with the proceeds of leasing of oil, gas, land, and mineral 
rights for the benefit of Indian people. Today, the trust fund may owe 
as much as $10 billion to as many as 500,000 Indians.
  To give some perspective, the 16 tribes of the Great Plains in South 
Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska comprise 10 million acres of trust 
lands representing over one-third of the trust accounts. Many enrolled 
members of the nine South Dakota tribes have trust accounts.
  How these trust funds have been and will be managed is being 
litigated in Cobell versus Norton, and the resolution of this lawsuit 
will have far-reaching implications throughout Indian country. It is 
impossible not to evaluate potential solutions in the context of this 
lawsuit.
  There is clear consensus in Indian Country that the current 
administration of the trust fund is a failure. The daunting question 
has always been how to reform it.
  Last fall, the Secretary of the Interior unveiled plans to reorganize 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA and segregate the oversight and 
accounting of trust-related assets in a new Bureau of Indian Trust 
Asset Management, BITAM. In testimony before the U.S. District Court, 
she acknowledged that, ``We undoubtedly do have some missing data--and 
we are all going to have to find a way to deal with the fact that some 
information no longer exists.''
  The Secretary's controversial reorganization proposal was presented 
to the court in a hasty effort to avoid being held in contempt of court 
with minimal consultation with the tribes or individual Indian account 
holders, not to mention Congress. In South Dakota, tribal leaders 
communicated to Tim Johnson and me their concern that the Secretary's 
solution appeared to be a fait accompli, conceived without meaningful 
participation of the stakeholders most directly affected by it. They 
felt strongly that this proposal should not be implemented without 
further consultation with the tribes.
  Earlier this year, in the face of administration assurances that its 
reorganization plan was not set in stone, the Interior Department 
requested that $200 million from the BIA and $100 million from the 
Office of the Special Trustee, be reprogrammed to ``a single 
organization that will report to the Secretary through an Assistant 
Secretary, Indian Trust.'' This contradiction set off red flags in 
Congress, and a clear and direct message was sent to Secretary Norton 
by Senators Inouye, Campbell, Byrd, Johnson and others that no action 
should be taken to implement her proposed reorganization plan 
administratively.
  Given these developments, Senators McCain, Johnson, and I felt that 
Congress should be more assertive in forcing discussing about what role 
Congress might play in ensuring that tribes and individual Indian 
account holders have a voice on shaping trust reform policy. It is our 
hope that this bill will stimulate better dialogue among the Congress, 
the Interior Department, and Indian Country on this problem.
  With that goal in mind, the bill has been reviewed by representatives 
of the Great Plains tribes at a meeting in Rapid City. Mike Jandreau, 
chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, has been an effective advocate 
and champion of trust reform, not only for his tribe, but also for all 
Indian people. Mike and Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribal chairman and 
Great Plains Tribal chairman's association president, Tom Ranfranz led 
a very impressive and productive working session with tribal leaders 
from South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, and Wyoming that 
both raised awareness of the stakes of this issue and built support for 
the bill that is being introduced today.
  I commend the willingness of these participating tribal leaders to be 
a part of a public process that will hopefully not stop until Indian 
country feels comfortable with a final product they create. The McCain-
Johnson-Daschle bill is intended to be a starting point for promoting 
greater understanding of what needs to occur to achieve meaningful 
trust reform.
  At this point, I would like to share with my colleagues some initial 
observations on this proposal that were raised yesterday by 
participating South Dakota treaty tribes and tribes of the Great Plains 
and Rocky Mountain regions. These comments demonstrate how thoughtfully 
Indian leaders are approaching the trust problem, and I fully expect 
that their suggestions will be considered and incorporated as the bill 
moves through the committee process.
  The following issues are of great importance to the Great Plains 
Tribal Chairman's Association.
  Providing the Deputy Secretary with sufficient authority to ensure 
that reform of the administration of trust assets is permanent; They do 
not believe the bill at present gives the Deputy Secretary the full and 
unified authority needed.
  Including cultural resources as a trust asset for management 
purposes.
  Incorporating the Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Reclamation 
and other related agencies within the Department of Interior and the 
Federal government under the purview of the Deputy Secretary.
  Assuring that the legislation not infringe on tribal sovereingnty by 
interfeering with tribal involvement in the management of individual 
trust assets or tribal assets, or both.

[[Page 5124]]

  Maintaining the Bureau of Indian Affair's role as an advocate for 
tribe.
  Maintaining current levels of Bureau of Indian Affairs employment.
  Applying Indian employment preference to all positions created by the 
legislation.
  Providing in law that Bureau of Indian Affairs funds not be used to 
fund the Deputy Secretary appointed by the legislation.
  Stressing the importance of appropriating adequate funding allow 
reform to succeed.
  Reflecting in the legislative history that much of the funding needed 
for real trust reform be allocated at the local agency and regional 
levels of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  Placing more tribal representatives, including tribal resources 
managers, from the various Bureau of Indian Affairs regions on the 
advisory board to the Office of Trust Reform.
  The issues of trust reform and reorganization within the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs are nothing new to us here on Capitol Hill, or in Indian 
Country. Collectively, we have endured many efforts, some well 
intentioned and some clearly not, to fix, reform, adjust, improve, 
streamline, downsize, and even terminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
and its trust activities.
  These efforts have been pursued in both Republican and Democratic 
administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely sought meaningful 
involvement from tribal leadership, or recognized the Federal 
Government's treaty obligation to tribes.
  Both meaningful consultation and acceptance of tribal status are 
critical if we expect to find a workable solution to the very real 
problem of trust management. The bill Senators McCain, Johnson, and I 
are introducing today reflects this conviction.
  There is no more important challenge facing the tribes and their 
representatives in Congress than that of restoring accountability and 
efficiency to trust management. And nowhere do the bedrock principles 
of self-determination and tribal sovereignty come more into play than 
in the management and distribution of trust funds and assets.
  This measure recognizes that the only effective long-term solution to 
the trust problem must be based on government-to-government dialog. I 
believe the discussion the bill generates will not only provide the 
catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the search for solutions 
but also form the basis for true trust reform. I look forward to 
participating with tribal leaders in pursuit of this important 
objective.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues, 
Senator John McCain and Senator Tom Daschle, as sponsors of the Indian 
Trust Asset and Trust Fund Management and Reform Act of 2002. This 
legislation we are introducing today is intended as simply the first 
step in the legislative process as we continue to work closely with 
tribes to address the need for further reform of the management of the 
trust funds and assets that have been mismanaged for decades. I am 
hopeful that by taking this action today, we will begin to further the 
discussion of this critical issue, knowing full well that there will be 
ongoing consultation and input from tribal leaders and tribal members 
all across the country.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, the issue of trust fund 
mismanagement is one of the most urgent problems we are faced with in 
Indian Country. Of all the extraordinary circumstances we find in 
Indian Country, and especially in South Dakota, I do not think there is 
any more complex, more difficult and more shocking than the 
circumstances we have surrounding trust fund mismanagement.
  This problem has persisted literally for generations, and continues 
today. Administrations of both political parties have been inadequate 
in their response, and the level of direction and the resources 
provided by Congresses over past decades has also been sadly 
inadequate. The Federal Government, by law, is to be the trustee for 
Native American people. When the Trust Fund Management Act of 1994 was 
passed, I was hopeful that this accounting situation would at last be 
remedied. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
  Last year's attempt by Secretary Norton and the Department of the 
Interior to address this ongoing problem has also fallen far short of 
what is needed. In fact, Indian leaders all across the country widely 
opposed the plan released by the Secretary last November to create a 
new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management, BITAM. Unfortunately, the 
Secretary released the Department's plan without seeking input and 
consulting with the very people who are supposed to benefit from these 
trust fund accounts.
  Many tribal leaders have offered counter proposals to the 
Department's plan, however, Secretary Norton continues to stand behind 
and defend BITAM as the best alternative to addressing this problem. I 
believe it is now time for Congress to attempt once again to make real 
progress on this issue. As I stated earlier, the bill my colleagues and 
I have introduced today is not intended to be a final product, but 
rather the beginning of a process that will lead to further 
improvements, revisions and refinements based on the continued input of 
tribal leadership.
  One of the main provisions of our legislation is to establish the 
position of a Deputy Secretary for Trust Management and Reform in the 
Department of the Interior. The Deputy Secretary will be appointed by 
the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of 
6 years and may only be removed for cause. The Deputy Secretary will 
report directly to the Secretary and will be responsible for the 
oversight of all trust fund and trust asset administration and 
management, including consultation with Indian tribes. It is my hope 
that the Deputy Secretary is provided the adequate authority to 
administer the trust assets and to ensure that reform of the 
administration of trust assets is permanent.
  In addition, we must maintain and strengthen the integrity of 
services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, as the primary agency 
providing trust services directly to tribes. This reorganization should 
not by any means diminish the BIA in it's role as advocate for tribes 
and must include the necessary funding to allow for real trust reform 
to be implemented at the regional and agency levels.
  We have already benefitted from the input of the many tribal 
officials in South Dakota, including the input of the Great Plains 
Tribal Region and Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders' Council. I would like 
to take this opportunity to thank Mike Jandreau, chairman of the Lower 
Brule Sioux Tribe and a member of the Interior Department's Tribal Task 
Force, as well as Tom Ranfranz, president of the Flandreau Santee and 
chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association for their 
advice and counsel as we attempt to address the many challenges facing 
trust reform. Their important insight into the trust fund management 
issues and their leadership, along with the other tribal chairs in the 
Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Regions who have been very helpful to 
me as we to address the shortcomings of the Department's plan and try 
to find a legislative approach that will finally begin to improve this 
situation,.
  Madam President, I have high hopes that this issue may finally be 
laid to rest. It is crucial that the first Americans of this proud 
country be treated with the dignity and respect that has been so sadly 
lacking for far too long. This legislation provides a new foundation 
from which we may once again begin to rebuild the trust that the U.S. 
Government has, in the eyes of the Indian people, let crumble into the 
rubble of a bureaucratic maze.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself,
  Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 2214. A bill to provide compensation and income tax relief for the 
individuals who were victims of the terrorist-related bombing of the 
World Trade Center in 1993 on the same basis as compensation and income 
tax relief is provided to victims of the terrorist-related aircraft 
crashes on September 11, 2001; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 5125]]


  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, today along with Senators Torricelli, 
Schumer and Clinton, I am introducing legislation to ensure that the 
families of the victims of the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist 
bombing receive the same compensation for their devastating losses as 
those whose loved ones perished in the horrific attacks of September 
11. They too deserve aid in rebuilding their lives and it is up to 
Congress to make certain their needs are met and their losses 
acknowledged. I am pleased to join my colleague Representative Robert 
Menendez of New Jersey, who has introduced this legislation in the 
House of Representatives.
  On February 26, 1993, a car bomb exploded on the second level of the 
World Trade Center parking basement. The blast injured over 1,000 
people working in the towers and left 6 individuals dead. Among those 
lost was 57-year-old William Macko of Bayonne, NJ.
  I recently met with the Macko family to discuss their loss and their 
struggle for recovery. Though it has been nearly a decade since 
William's death, it is clear that they are still suffering from the 
unimaginable pain of his loss. And as though this tragedy is not enough 
for them to bear, the family was dealt yet another blow when Carol, 
William's widow, was diagnosed with cancer just nine months after 
losing her husband.
  Congress has responded with tremendous generosity to the tragedy of 
September 11, creating a Victim Compensation Fund to compensate those 
injured and the families of those deceased for economic and non-
economic losses, as well as providing substantial Federal income tax 
relief.
  These programs should also be made available to those who lost loved 
ones in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. They too should be 
compensated for the unbearable pain and sorrow they endured at the 
hands of terrorists. That is why I am introducing the 1993 World Trade 
Center Victims Compensation Act, which would include those injured or 
killed in the 1993 bombing in both the Victim Compensation Fund and 
Victims Tax Relief.
  When I met with the Macko family, they asked that William's death not 
be forgotten or dismissed. They asked for Congress to ensure that their 
suffering and that of the other families who lost loved ones on that 
cold February day be recognized as well. Their request was clear and 
simple, and we must not let them down.
  I urge my colleagues to show their support for these families and 
cosponsor this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 2215. A bill to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its 
occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass 
destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and by so doing 
hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today Senator Santorum and I are proud 
to introduce the Syria Accountability Act, a bill that will ensure that 
Syria is held accountable for its actions in the Middle East and for 
its support of international terrorism.
  As a state-sponsor of terrorism, Syria has supported and provided 
safe haven to several terrorist groups, such as Hizballah, Hamas, and 
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. This is in violation 
of U.N. Security Council resolutions that call on U.N. member states to 
refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to 
entities or persons involved in terrorist acts.
  Syria is also in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions that 
call for the sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. More 
than 20,000 Syrian troops and security personnel occupy much of the 
sovereign territory of Lebanon and it is time for them to leave.
  The legislation we are offering today would expand sanctions on Syria 
until the President certifies that Syria has met four conditions.
  First, that it does not support international terrorist groups;
  Second, that it has withdrawn all military, intelligence, and other 
security personnel from Lebanon;
  Third, that it has stopped developing ballistic missiles and has 
stopped the development and production of biological and chemical 
weapons; and
  Fourth, that it no longer in violation of relevant U.N. Security 
Council Resolutions.
  To give maximum flexibility to the President, we have included a 
``menu'' of sanctions for the President to choose from and a provision 
that would waive sanctions should the President find that it is in the 
national security interest of the United States.
  I hope my colleagues can support this legislation and ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2215

       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 ``Syria Accountability Act of 
     2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On September 20, 2001, President George Bush stated at 
     a joint session of Congress that ``[e]very nation, in every 
     region, now has a decision to make . . . [e]ither you are 
     with us, or you are with the terrorists . . . [f]rom this day 
     forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support 
     terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile 
     regime''.
       (2) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 
     (September 28, 2001) mandates that all states ``refrain from 
     providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities 
     or persons involved in terrorist acts'', take ``the necessary 
     steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts'', and 
     ``deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or 
     commit terrorist acts''.
       (3) The Government of Syria is currently prohibited by 
     United States law from receiving United States assistance 
     because it is listed as state sponsor of terrorism.
       (4) Although the Department of State lists Syria as a state 
     sponsor of terrorism and reports that Syria provides ``safe 
     haven and support to several terrorist groups'', fewer United 
     States sanctions apply with respect to Syria than with 
     respect to any other country that is listed as a state 
     sponsor of terrorism.
       (5) Terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, the 
     Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the 
     Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command 
     maintain offices, training camps, and other facilities on 
     Syrian territory and operate in areas of Lebanon occupied by 
     the Syrian armed forces and receive supplies from Iran 
     through Syria.
       (6) United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 
     (September 17, 1982) calls for ``strict respect of the 
     sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political 
     independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive 
     authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese 
     Army throughout Lebanon''.
       (7) More than 20,000 Syrian troops and security personnel 
     occupy much of the sovereign territory of Lebanon exerting 
     undue influence upon its government and undermining its 
     political independence.
       (8) Since 1990 the Senate and House of Representatives have 
     passed seven bills and resolutions which call for the 
     withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon.
       (9) Large and increasing numbers of the Lebanese people 
     from across the political spectrum in Lebanon have mounted 
     peaceful and democratic calls for the withdrawal of the 
     Syrian Army from Lebanese soil.
       (10) Israel has withdrawn all of its armed forces from 
     Lebanon in accordance with United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 425 (March 19, 1978), as certified by the United 
     Nations Secretary General.
       (11) Even in the face of this United Nations certification 
     that acknowledged Israel's full compliance with Resolution 
     425, Syria permits attacks by Hizballah and other militant 
     organizations on Israeli outposts at Shebaa Farms, under the 
     false guise that it remains Lebanese land, and is also 
     permitting attacks on civilian targets in Israel.
       (12) Syria will not allow Lebanon--a sovereign country--to 
     fulfill its obligation in accordance with Security Council 
     Resolution 425 to deploy its troops to southern Lebanon.
       (13) As a result, the Israeli-Lebanese border and much of 
     southern Lebanon is under the control of Hizballah which 
     continues to attack Israeli positions and allows Iranian 
     Revolutionary Guards and other militant groups to operate 
     freely in the area, destabilizing the entire region.
       (14) The United States provides $40,000,000 in assistance 
     to the Lebanese people through private nongovernmental 
     organizations, $7,900,000 of which is provided to Lebanese-
     American educational institutions.

[[Page 5126]]

       (15) In the State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, 
     President Bush declared that the United States will ``work 
     closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state 
     sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and 
     deliver weapons of mass destruction''.
       (16) The Government of Syria continues to develop and 
     deploy short and medium range ballistic missiles.
       (17) The Government of Syria is pursuing the development 
     and production of biological and chemical weapons.
       (18) United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 (August 
     6, 1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions restrict the 
     sale of oil and other commodities by Iraq, except to the 
     extent authorized by other relevant resolutions.
       (19) Syria, a non-permanent United Nations Security Council 
     member, is receiving between 150,000 and 200,000 barrels of 
     oil from Iraq in violation of Security Council Resolution 661 
     and subsequent relevant resolutions.
       (20) Syrian President Bashar Assad promised Secretary of 
     State Powell in February 2001 to end violations of Security 
     Council Resolution 661 but this pledge has not been 
     fulfilled.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Government of Syria should immediately and 
     unconditionally halt support for terrorism, permanently and 
     openly declare its total renunciation of all forms of 
     terrorism, and close all terrorist offices and facilities in 
     Syria, including the offices of Hamas, Hizballah, the Popular 
     Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front 
     for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command;
       (2) the Government of Syria should immediately declare its 
     commitment to completely withdraw its armed forces, including 
     military, paramilitary, and security forces, from Lebanon, 
     and set a firm timetable for such withdrawal;
       (3) the Government of Lebanon should deploy the Lebanese 
     armed forces to all areas of Lebanon, including South 
     Lebanon, in accordance with United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982), in order to assert the 
     sovereignty of the Lebanese state over all of its territory, 
     and should evict all terrorist and foreign forces from 
     southern Lebanon, including Hizballah and the Iranian 
     Revolutionary Guards;
       (4) the Government of Syria should halt the development and 
     deployment of short and medium range ballistic missiles and 
     cease the development and production of biological and 
     chemical weapons;
       (5) the Government of Syria should halt illegal imports and 
     transshipments of Iraqi oil and come into full compliance 
     with United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 and 
     subsequent relevant resolutions;
       (6) the Governments of Lebanon and Syria should enter into 
     serious unconditional bilateral negotiations with the 
     Government of Israel in order to realize a full and permanent 
     peace; and
       (7) the United States should continue to provide 
     humanitarian and educational assistance to the people of 
     Lebanon only through appropriate private, nongovernmental 
     organizations and appropriate international organizations, 
     until such time as the Government of Lebanon asserts 
     sovereignty and control over all of its territory and borders 
     and achieves full political independence, as called for in 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 520.

     SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       It should be the policy of the United States that--
       (1) Syria will be held responsible for all attacks 
     committed by Hizballah and other terrorist groups with 
     offices or other facilities in Syria, or bases in areas of 
     Lebanon occupied by Syria;
       (2) the United States will work to deny Syria the ability 
     to support acts of international terrorism and efforts to 
     develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction;
       (3) the Secretary of State will continue to list Syria as a 
     state sponsor of terrorism until Syria ends its support for 
     terrorism, including its support of Hizballah and other 
     terrorist groups in Lebanon and its hosting of terrorist 
     groups in Damascus, and comes into full compliance with 
     United States law relating to terrorism and United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 1373 (September 28, 2001);
       (4) the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty, 
     political independence, and territorial integrity is in the 
     national security interest of the United States;
       (5) Syria is in violation of United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982) through its 
     continued occupation of Lebanese territory and its 
     encroachment upon its political independence;
       (6) Syria's obligation to withdraw from Lebanon is not 
     conditioned upon progress in the Israeli-Syrian or Israeli-
     Lebanese peace process but derives from Syria's obligation 
     under Security Council Resolution 520;
       (7) Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and 
     ballistic missile programs threaten the security of the 
     Middle East and the national interests of the United States;
       (8) Syria is in violation of United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 661 (August 6, 1990) and subsequent 
     relevant resolutions through its continued purchase of oil 
     from Iraq; and
       (9) the United States will not provide any assistance to 
     Syria and will oppose multilateral assistance for Syria until 
     Syria withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon, halts the 
     development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction and 
     ballistic missiles, and complies with Security Council 
     Resolution 661 and subsequent relevant resolutions.

     SEC. 5. SANCTIONS.

       (a) Sanctions.--Until the President makes the determination 
     that Syria meets the requirements described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (4) of subsection (c) and certifies such 
     determination to Congress in accordance with such 
     subsection--
       (1) the President shall prohibit the export to Syria of any 
     item, including the issuance of a license for the export of 
     any item on the United States Munitions List or Commerce 
     Control List of dual-use items in the Export Administration 
     Regulations (15 C.F.R. part 730 et seq.);
       (2) the President shall prohibit United States Government 
     assistance, including loans, credits, or other financial 
     assistance, to United States businesses with respect to 
     investment or other activities in Syria;
       (3) the President shall prohibit the conduct of programs of 
     the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade and 
     Development Agency in or with respect to Syria; and
       (4) the President shall impose two or more of the following 
     sanctions:
       (A) Prohibit the export of products of the United States 
     (other than food and medicine) to Syria.
       (B) Prohibit United States businesses from investing or 
     operating in Syria.
       (C) Restrict Syrian diplomats in Washington, D.C., and at 
     the United Nations in New York City, to travel only within a 
     25-mile radius of Washington, D.C., or the United Nations 
     headquarters building, respectively.
       (D) Reduce United States diplomatic contacts with Syria 
     (other than those contacts required to protect United States 
     interests or carry out the purposes of this Act).
       (E) Block transactions in any property in which the 
     Government of Syria has any interest, by any person, or with 
     respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States.
       (b) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of 
     either paragraph (2) or (3) (or both) of subsection (a) if 
     the President determines that it is in the national security 
     interest of the United States to do so.
       (c) Certification.--A certification under this subsection 
     is a certification transmitted to the appropriate 
     congressional committees of a determination made by the 
     President that--
       (1) the Government of Syria does not provide support for 
     international terrorist groups and does not allow terrorist 
     groups, such as Hamas, Hizballah, the Popular Front for the 
     Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the 
     Liberation of Palestine-General Command to maintain 
     facilities in Syria;
       (2) the Government of Syria has withdrawn all Syrian 
     military, intelligence, and other security personnel from 
     Lebanon;
       (3) the Government of Syria has ceased the development and 
     deployment of ballistic missiles and has ceased the 
     development and production of biological and chemical 
     weapons; and
       (4) the Government of Syria is no longer in violation of 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 and subsequent 
     relevant resolutions.

     SEC. 6. REPORT.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter until 
     the conditions described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of 
     section 5(c) are satisfied, the Secretary of State shall 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report 
     on--
       (1) Syria's progress toward meeting the conditions 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 5(c); and
       (2) connections, if any, between individual terrorists and 
     terrorist groups which maintain offices, training camps, or 
     other facilities on Syrian territory, or operate in areas of 
     Lebanon occupied by the Syrian armed forces, and the attacks 
     against the United States that occurred on September 11, 
     2001, and other terrorist attacks on the United States or its 
     citizens, installations, or allies.
       (b) Form.--The report submitted under subsection (a) shall 
     be in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITION OF APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.

       In this Act, the term ``appropriate congressional 
     committees'' means the Committee on International Relations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate.

[[Page 5127]]



                          ____________________