[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10664-10678]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 2631. A bill to amend the temporary assistance to needy families 
program under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide 
grants for transitional jobs programs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the STEP Act 
on behalf of myself and Senator Murray.
  This bill is a companion to the Education Works Act, which I 
introduced a couple of weeks ago. Both bills address the same issue, 
the need to support state efforts to use welfare to work strategies 
that combine work with a flexibility mix of education, training, and 
other supports. Study after study has demonstrated that states that use 
a combination of activities to help families move from welfare to work 
are more successful. For many welfare recipients, vocational training 
and postsecondary education led to work and, through substantial 
increases in earnings and job quality, long-term financial 
independence. This is important because although many have left welfare 
for work during the past several years, many have returned or live in 
poverty dependent on other government supports because they are working 
at low wages with limited benefits. In addition, many with multiple 
barriers remain on the rolls. As we move forward with the 
reauthorization process, we must do more to support state efforts to 
help these people find work and to ensure that all individuals leaving 
welfare are moving to employment that will provide long-term financial 
independence. The STEP Act and the Education Works Act will do just 
that.
  The Education Works Act deals with increasing state flexibility to 
determine the right mix of work with education and training. The STEP 
Act provides resources to States seeking to implement effective 
programs that combine work with education and training. One of the most 
effective types of these programs, particularly for the most difficult 
to serve TANF recipients, are transitional job programs. Transitional 
job programs provide subsidized, temporary, wage-paying jobs for 20 to 
35 hours per week, along with access to job readiness, basic education, 
vocational skills, and other barrier-removal services based on 
individualized plans. The STEP Act would provide states with funding to 
implementing these programs and other training and support programs.
  Existing transitional job programs are achieving great outcomes. A 
Mathematical study released last month demonstrated that between 81 to 
94 percent of those who had completed transitional job programs move on 
to

[[Page 10665]]

unsubsidized jobs with wages. Most of these participants moved into 
full-time employment, median hours worked was 40 hours. Another survey 
revealed that transitional jobs program completers reported average 
wages at placement into unsubsidized employment between $7 and $10 per 
hour.
  Transitional jobs programs can be particularly effective with the 
hardest to serve welfare recipients. Transitional jobs program often 
focus primarily on welfare recipients who have participated in welfare 
employment and training programs without successfully finding steady 
employment. The reasons for their inability to find and sustain 
meaningful employment are complex and varied. For people who face 
barriers, or who lack the skills or experience to compete successfully 
in the labor market, paid work in a supportive environment, together 
with access to needed services provides a real chance to move forward. 
While more expensive than other work first strategies, transitional 
jobs programs are able to do what their cheaper and less intensive 
counterparts have not, help the most difficult to serve TANF 
participants find stable, permanent employment.
  Additional support for transitional jobs programs is needed. The TANF 
and Welfare-to-Work block grants have been the principal sources of 
funding for Transitional Jobs programs. Welfare-to-Work funds have been 
exhausted in many parts of the country and must be spend completely 
during the next year or two. In addition, with an ever growing 
competition for TANF funds in a period of rising caseloads and 
declining State revenues, it will be increasingly difficult to fund 
transitional jobs programs solely with TANF funds.
  I believe that transitional job programs are good investments because 
they serve as stepping stones to permanent employment and decrease 
government expenditures on health care, food stamps, and cash 
assistance. Transitional jobs programs can be particularly important in 
economically depressed and rural areas because they increase work 
opportunities for hard-to-employ individuals, they reduce pressure on 
local emergency systems and, they provide income that stimulates local 
economies.
  Our legislation also supports ``business link'' programs that provide 
individuals with fewer barriers or individuals who have only been able 
to access very low wage employment with intensive training and skill 
development activities designed to lead to long-term, higher paid 
employment. These programs are based on partnerships with the private 
sector.
  In my home State, just such a program is producing great results, the 
Teamworks program. Teamworks provides training in life skills, as well 
as employment skills, during a 12 week course. The program also 
provides necessary supports to participants such as childcare and 
transportation. Teamworks assists participants in their job search and 
provides ongoing support for 18 months after job placement. The results 
are impressive. The average wage of those completing the program is 
$1.50 per hour higher than other programs and job retention rates are 
20 percent higher. This experience is not unique. Welfare programs that 
combine work with education and training with support services are more 
likely to result in work leads to self-sufficiency.
  The legislation that I am introducing today will give States the 
tools to implement what works. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting both the STEP Act and the Education Works Act. I as 
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. 2631

       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 ``Support, Training, 
     Employment Programs Act of 2002'' or the ``STEP Act of 
     2002''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSITIONAL JOBS GRANTS.

       Section 403(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Transitional jobs grants.--
       ``(A) Purpose.--The purpose of this paragraph is to provide 
     funding so that States and localities can create and expand 
     transitional jobs programs that--
       ``(i) combine time-limited employment that is subsidized 
     with public funds, with skill development and barrier removal 
     activities, pursuant to an individualized plan;
       ``(ii) provide job development and placement assistance to 
     individual participants to help them move from subsidized 
     employment in transitional jobs into unsubsidized employment, 
     as well as retention services after the transition to 
     unsubsidized employment; and
       ``(iii) serve recipients of assistance under the State 
     program funded under this part and other low-income 
     individuals who have been unable to secure employment through 
     job search or other employment-related services because of 
     limited skills, experience, or other barriers to employment.
       ``(B) Authority to make grants.--Each transitional jobs 
     State (as determined under subparagraph (C)) shall receive a 
     grant under this paragraph for each fiscal year specified in 
     subparagraph (K) for which the State is a transitional jobs 
     State, in an amount equal to the allotment for the State as 
     specified under subparagraph (D) for the fiscal year.
       ``(C) Transitional jobs state.--A State shall be considered 
     a transitional jobs State for a fiscal year for purposes of 
     this paragraph if the Secretary of Labor determines that the 
     State meets the following requirements:
       ``(i) The State has submitted to the Secretary of Labor and 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in the form of an 
     addendum to the State plan submitted under section 402) a 
     plan which is approved by the Secretary of Labor based on the 
     plan's compliance with the following requirements:

       ``(I) The plan describes how, consistent with this 
     paragraph, the State will use any funds provided under this 
     paragraph during the fiscal year.
       ``(II) The plan contains evidence that the plan was 
     developed in consultation and coordination with appropriate 
     entities including employers, labor organizations, and 
     community-based organizations that work with low-income 
     families, and includes a certification as required under 
     section 402(a)(4) with regard to the transitional jobs 
     services that the State proposes to provide.
       ``(III) The plan specifies the criteria that will be used 
     to select entities who will receive funding to operate 
     transitional jobs programs.
       ``(IV) The plan describes specifically how the State will 
     address the needs of rural areas, Indian tribes, and cities 
     with large concentrations of residents with an income that is 
     less than the poverty line, or who are unemployed.
       ``(V) The plan describes how the State will ensure that a 
     grantee to which information is disclosed pursuant to this 
     paragraph or section 454A(f)(5) has procedures for 
     safeguarding the information and for ensuring that the 
     information is used solely for the purpose described in this 
     paragraph or that section.
       ``(VI) The plan describes categories of jobs that are in 
     demand in various areas of the State and which offer the 
     opportunity for advancement to better jobs. The plan also 
     shall provide assurances that the ability of organizations 
     seeking to operate transitional jobs programs to best prepare 
     participants for those jobs will be given weight in the 
     selection of program operators.

       ``(ii) The State has agreed to negotiate in good faith with 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to 
     the substance and funding of any evaluations and to cooperate 
     with the conduct of any such evaluations.
       ``(D) Allotments to states.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), the 
     amount of the allotment for a transitional jobs State for a 
     fiscal year shall be the available amount for the fiscal year 
     multiplied by the State percentage for the fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Minimum allotment.--The amount of the allotment for 
     a transitional jobs State (other than Guam, the Virgin 
     Islands, or American Samoa) for a fiscal year shall not be 
     less than 0.4 percent of the available amount for the fiscal 
     year.
       ``(iii) Pro rata reduction.--Subject to clause (ii), the 
     Secretary of Labor shall make pro rata reductions in the 
     allotments to States under this subparagraph for a fiscal 
     year as necessary to ensure that the total amount of the 
     allotments does not exceed the available amount for the 
     fiscal year.
       ``(iv) Available amount.--As used in this subparagraph, the 
     term `available amount' means, for a fiscal year, 80 percent 
     of the sum of--

       ``(I) the amount specified in subparagraph (K) for the 
     fiscal year;
       ``(II) any funds available under this subparagraph that 
     have not been allotted due to a determination by the 
     Secretary that any State has not met the requirements of 
     subparagraph (C); and
       ``(III) any available amount for the immediately preceding 
     fiscal year that has not been obligated by the State.

[[Page 10666]]

       ``(v) State percentage.--As used in this subparagraph, the 
     term `State percentage' means, with respect to a fiscal year 
     and a State, \1/2\ of the sum of--

       ``(I) the percentage represented by the number of 
     individuals in the State whose income is less than the 
     poverty line divided by the number of such individuals in the 
     United States; and
       ``(II) the percentage represented by the number of adults 
     who are recipients of assistance under the State program 
     funded under this part divided by the number of adults in the 
     United States who are recipients of assistance under any 
     State program funded under this part.

       ``(vi) Administration of funds.--

       ``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), funds made 
     available to a State under this paragraph shall be 
     administered by an agency or agencies, as determined by the 
     chief executive officer of the State, which may include the 
     agency that administers the State program funded under this 
     part, the State board designated to administer the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) in the State, 
     or any other appropriate agency.
       ``(II) Coordination with tanf agency.--If an agency other 
     than the State agency that administers the State program 
     funded under this part administers funds made available to a 
     State under this paragraph, that agency shall coordinate the 
     planning and administration of such funds with the State 
     agency that administers the State program funded under this 
     part.

       ``(vii) Distribution of funds within States.--

       ``(I) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     this paragraph shall allocate not less than 90 percent of the 
     amount of the grant to eligible applicants for the operation 
     of transitional jobs programs consistent with subparagraph 
     (E). Any funds not used for such operation may be used to 
     provide technical assistance to program operators and 
     worksite employers, administration, or for other purposes 
     consistent with this paragraph.
       ``(II) Eligible applicants.--As used in subclause (I), the 
     term `eligible applicant' means a political subdivision of a 
     State, a local workforce investment board established under 
     section 117 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2832), an Indian tribe, or a private entity.

       ``(E) Limitations on use of funds.--
       ``(i) Allowable activities.--An entity to which funds are 
     provided under subparagraph (D)(vii) shall use the funds to 
     operate transitional jobs programs consistent with the 
     following:

       ``(I) An entity which secures a grant to operate a 
     transitional jobs program (in this subparagraph referred to 
     as a `program operator'), under this paragraph shall place 
     eligible individuals in temporary, publicly subsidized jobs. 
     Individuals placed in such positions shall perform work 
     directly for the program operator, or at other public and 
     nonprofit organizations (in this subparagraph referred to as 
     `worksite employers') within the community. Funds provided 
     under subparagraph (D) shall be used to subsidize 100 percent 
     of the wages paid to participants as well as employer-paid 
     payroll costs for such participants, except as provided in 
     clause (v) regarding placements in the private, for-profit 
     sector.
       ``(II) Transitional jobs programs shall provide paid 
     employment for not less than 30, nor more than 40 hours per 
     week, except that a parent with a child under the age of 6, a 
     child who is disabled, or a child with other special needs, 
     or an individual who for other reasons cannot successfully 
     participate for 30 to 40 hours per week, may, at State 
     discretion, be allowed to participate for more limited hours, 
     but not less than 20 hours per week.
       ``(III) Program operators shall--

       ``(aa) develop an individual plan for each participant, the 
     goal of which shall focus on preparation for unsubsidized 
     jobs in demand in the local economy which offer the potential 
     for advancement and growth;
       ``(bb) develop transitional work placements for 
     participants that will best prepare them for jobs in demand 
     in the local economy that offer the potential for wage growth 
     and advancement; and
       ``(cc) provide case management services and ensure that 
     appropriate education, training, and other services are 
     available to participants consistent with each participant's 
     individual plan.

       ``(IV) Program operators shall provide job placement 
     assistance to help participants obtain unsubsidized 
     employment, and shall provide retention services for 12 
     months after entry into unsubsidized employment.
       ``(V) In any work week in which a participant is employed 
     at least 30 hours, a minimum of 20 percent of scheduled hours 
     and a maximum of 50 percent of scheduled hours, shall involve 
     participation in education or training activities designed to 
     improve the participant's employability and potential 
     earnings, or other services designed to reduce or eliminate 
     any barriers that may impede the participant's ability to 
     secure unsubsidized employment.
       ``(VI) The maximum duration of any placement in a 
     transitional jobs program shall not be less than 6 months, 
     nor more than 24 months. Nothing in this subclause shall be 
     construed to bar a participant from moving into unsubsidized 
     employment at a point prior to the maximum duration of the 
     program. States may approve programs of varying durations 
     consistent with this subclause.
       ``(VII) Participants shall be paid at the rate paid to 
     unsubsidized employees of the worksite employer, (or program 
     operator where work is performed directly for the program 
     operator,) who perform comparable work at the worksite where 
     the individual is placed. If no other employees perform the 
     same or comparable work then wages shall be set, at a 
     minimum, at 50 percent of the Lower Living Standard Income 
     Level (in this subparagraph referred to as the `LLSIL'), as 
     specified in section 101(24) of the Workforce Investment Act 
     of 1998, for family of 3 based on 35 hours per week.
       ``(VIII) Participants shall receive supervision from the 
     worksite employer or program operator consistent with the 
     goal of addressing the limited work experience and skills of 
     program participants.

       ``(ii) Consultation.--An application submitted by an entity 
     seeking to become a program operator shall include an 
     assurance by the applicant that the transitional jobs program 
     carried out by the applicant shall--

       ``(I) provide in the design, recruitment, and operation of 
     the program for broad-based input from the community served 
     and potential participants in the program and community-based 
     agencies with a demonstrated record of experience in 
     providing services, prospective worksite employers, local 
     labor organizations representing employees of prospective 
     worksite employers, if these entities exist in the area to be 
     served by the program, and employers, and membership-based 
     groups that represent low-income individuals; and
       ``(II) prior to the placement of participants, consult with 
     the appropriate local labor organization, if any, 
     representing employees in the area who are engaged in the 
     same or similar as that proposed to be carried out by such 
     program to ensure compliance with the nondisplacement 
     requirements specified in subparagraph (L).

       ``(iii) Eligibility for other work supports.--Participants 
     shall be eligible for subsidized child care, transportation 
     assistance, and other needed support services on the same 
     basis as other recipients of cash assistance under the State 
     program funded under this part.
       ``(iv) Wages not considered assistance.--Wages paid to 
     program participants shall not be considered to be assistance 
     for purposes of section 408(a)(7).
       ``(v) Private sector placements.--Placements of 
     participants with private, for-profit entities shall be 
     permitted only under the following conditions:

       ``(I) Except as provided in clause (vi), not more than 20 
     percent of the total number of participants in transitional 
     jobs in a State at any time may be placed at worksite 
     employers which are private, for-profit companies.
       ``(II) When placements are made at private, for-profit, 
     entities the entity shall pay for at least 50 percent of 
     programs costs (including wages) for each participant.
       ``(III) Not more than 5 percent of a private, for-profit 
     entity's workforce may be composed of transitional jobs 
     programs subsidized participants at any point in time, and no 
     supervisor at the entity shall have the responsibility for 
     supervising more than one transitional job program 
     participant.
       ``(IV) A private, for-profit entity shall not be allowed to 
     participate as a worksite employer or program operator if the 
     entity has previously exhibited a pattern of failing to 
     provide transitional jobs participants with continued, 
     unsubsidized employment with wages, benefits, and working 
     conditions, that are equal to those provided to other 
     unsubsidized employees who have worked a similar length of 
     time and are doing similar work.
       ``(V) The duration of any subsidized placement under this 
     clause shall be limited to the period of time required for 
     the participant to become proficient in the performance of 
     the tasks of the job for which the participant is employed.
       ``(VI) Transitional jobs participants shall only be placed 
     with private, for-profit entities in which the participants 
     will have the opportunity for permanent, unsubsidized 
     employment in positions where they will learn skills that 
     provide a clear pathway to higher paying jobs.
       ``(VII) At the time a transitional jobs placement is made, 
     the entity shall agree in writing--

       ``(aa) to hire the participant into an unsubsidized 
     position at the completion of the agreed upon subsidized 
     placement, or sooner, provided that the transitional jobs 
     participant's job performance has been satisfactory; and
       ``(bb) to provide the participant with access to employee 
     benefits that would be available to an individual in an 
     unsubsidized position of the employer within 12 months of the 
     participant's initial placement in the subsidized position.
       ``(vi) Exception to 20 percent limitation on private sector 
     placements.--

       ``(I) In general.--A State may exceed the 20 percent 
     limitation under clause (v)(I) if necessary because of the 
     limited number of

[[Page 10667]]

     placement opportunities in public and non-profit 
     organizations in rural areas of the State, but only if the 
     State includes in its plan a request to exceed such 
     limitation and provides specific information describing why 
     private placements in excess of the 20 percent limitation are 
     necessary, including a specification of the rural areas in 
     the State in which insufficient nonprofit or public sector 
     placements are available and the projected distribution of 
     private sector placements throughout the State.
       ``(II) Consideration of requests.--The Secretary shall by 
     regulation develop procedures for the prompt consideration 
     and resolution of requests by a State to exceed the 20 
     percent limitation under clause (v)(I).
       ``(III) Limitation remains in non-designated areas.--If a 
     request to exceed such 20 percent limitation is approved, the 
     20 percent limitation shall not apply in those areas of the 
     State that have been designated to exceed such limit, but 
     shall continue to apply in those areas of the State not so 
     designated.
       ``(IV) Inclusion of information in annual report.--With 
     respect to any year in which the Secretary authorizes the 
     State to exceed such 20 percent limitation, a State shall 
     report on the number and geographic location of private 
     sector slots used during the year in addition to the 
     information required to be reported by the State under 
     clauses (vii) and (viii) of subparagraph (G) .

       ``(F) General eligibility.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not less than \2/3\ of the participants 
     in a transitional jobs program within a State during a fiscal 
     year shall be individuals who are, at the time they enter the 
     program--

       ``(I) receiving assistance under the State program funded 
     under this part;
       ``(II) not receiving assistance under the State program 
     funded under this part, but who are unemployed, and who were 
     recipients of assistance under a State program funded under 
     this part within the immediately preceding 12-month period;
       ``(III) custodial parents of a minor child who meet the 
     financial eligibility criteria for assistance under the State 
     program funded under this part; or
       ``(IV) noncustodial parents with income below 100 percent 
     of the poverty line (as defined in section 673(2) of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, including any 
     revision required by such section, applicable to a family of 
     the size involved).

       ``(ii) State option to further limit eligibility.--A State 
     may further limit the eligibility of noncustodial parents to 
     those noncustodial parents for whom at least 1 of the 
     following applies to a minor child of the noncustodial 
     parent:

       ``(I) The minor child is eligible for, or is receiving, 
     assistance under the State program funded under this part.
       ``(II) The minor child received assistance under the 
     program funded under this part in the 12-month period 
     preceding the date of the determination but no longer 
     receives such assistance.
       ``(III) The minor child is eligible for, or is receiving, 
     assistance under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, benefits under 
     the supplemental security income program under title XVI of 
     this Act, medical assistance under title XIX of this Act, or 
     child health assistance under title XXI of this Act.

       ``(iii) Consultation.--A transitional jobs program that 
     provides services to non-custodial parents shall consult with 
     the State child support program funded under part D so that 
     child support services are coordinated with transitional jobs 
     program services.
       ``(iv) Limitation.--Not more than \1/3\ of all participants 
     in a transitional jobs program within a State during a fiscal 
     year shall be individuals who have attained at least age 18 
     with income below 100 percent of the poverty line (as defined 
     in section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1981, including any revision required by such section, 
     applicable to a family of the size involved) who are not 
     eligible under clause (i).
       ``(v) Methodology.--A State may use any reasonable 
     methodology in calculating whether a participant satisfies 
     the requirements of clause (i), make up \2/3\ or more of all 
     participants, and whether participants satisfying the 
     requirements of clause (iv) make up not more than \1/3\ of 
     all participants in a fiscal year.
       ``(vi) Authority to provide work-related services to 
     individuals who have reached the 5 year limit.--A program 
     operator under this paragraph may use the funds to provide 
     transitional job program participation to individuals who, 
     but for section 408(a)(7), would be eligible for assistance 
     under the program funded under this part of the State in 
     which the entity is located.
       ``(G) Relationship to other provisions of this part; 
     administrative provisions.--
       ``(i) Rules governing use of funds.--The provisions of 
     section 404, other than subsection (f) of section 404, shall 
     not apply to a grant made under this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Work participation requirements.--With respect to 
     any month in which a recipient of assistance under a State or 
     tribal program funded under this part satisfactorily 
     participates in a transitional jobs program funded under a 
     grant made under this paragraph, such participation shall be 
     considered to satisfy the work participation requirements of 
     section 407 and included for purposes of determining monthly 
     participation rates under subsection (b)(1)(B)(i) of that 
     section.
       ``(iii) Administration.--Section 416 shall not apply to the 
     programs under this paragraph.
       ``(iv) Prohibition against use of grant funds for any other 
     fund matching requirement.--An entity to which funds are 
     provided under this paragraph shall not use any part of the 
     funds to fulfill any obligation of any State or political 
     subdivision under subsection (b) or section 418 or any other 
     provision of this Act or other Federal law.
       ``(v) Deadline for expenditure.--An entity to which funds 
     are provided under this paragraph shall remit to the 
     Secretary of Labor any part of the funds that are not 
     expended within 3 years after the date on which the funds are 
     so provided.
       ``(vi) Regulations.--Within 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of Labor, alter 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to 
     implement this paragraph.
       ``(vii) Reporting requirements.--The Secretary of Labor, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     shall establish requirements for the collection and 
     maintenance of financial and participant information and the 
     reporting of such information by entities carrying out 
     activities under this paragraph. Such reporting requirements 
     shall include, at a minimum, that States report disaggregated 
     data on individual participants that include the following:

       ``(I) Demographic information about the participant 
     including education level, literacy level, and prior work 
     experience.
       ``(II) Identity of the program operator that provides or 
     provided services to the participant, and the duration of 
     participation.
       ``(III) The nature of education, training or other services 
     received by the participant.
       ``(IV) Reason for the participant's leaving the programs.
       ``(V) Whether the participant secured unsubsidized 
     employment during or within 60 days after the employment of 
     the participant in a transitional job, and if so, details 
     about the participant's unsubsidized employment including 
     industry, occupation, starting wages and hours, availability 
     of employer sponsored health insurance, sick and vacation 
     leave.
       ``(VI) The extent to which subsidized and unsubsidized 
     placements are in jobs or occupations identified in the 
     State's plan as being in demand in the local economy and 
     offering the opportunity for advancement and wage growth.

       ``(viii) Additional reporting requirements.--States shall 
     collect and report follow-up data for a sampling of 
     participants reflecting their employment and earning status 
     12 months after entering unsubsidized employment.
       ``(ix) Annual report to congress.--The Secretary of Labor 
     shall submit an annual report to Congress on the activities 
     conducted with grants made under this paragraph that includes 
     information regarding the employment and earning status of 
     participants in such activities.
       ``(H) National competitive grants.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall award 
     grants in accordance with this subparagraph, in fiscal years 
     2003 through 2007, for transitional jobs programs proposed by 
     eligible applicants, based on the following:

       ``(I) The extent to which the proposal seeks to provided 
     services in multiple sites that include sites in more than 1 
     State.
       ``(II) The extent to which the proposal seeks to provide 
     services in a labor market area or region that includes 
     portions of more than 1 State.
       ``(III) The extent to which the proposal seeks to provides 
     transitional jobs in a State that is not eligible to receive 
     an allotment under subparagraph (D).
       ``(IV) The extent to which the applicant proposes to 
     provide transitional jobs in either rural areas or areas 
     where there are a high concentration of residents with income 
     that is less than the poverty line.
       ``(V) The effectiveness of the proposal in helping 
     individuals who are least job ready move into unsubsidized 
     jobs that provide pathways to stable employment and livable 
     wages.

       ``(ii) Eligible applicants.--In this subparagraph, the term 
     `eligible applicant' means a local workforce investment board 
     established under section 117 of the Workforce Investment Act 
     of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832), a political subdivision of a State, 
     or a private entity
       ``(iii) Funding.--For grants under this subparagraph for 
     each fiscal year specified in clause (i), there shall be 
     available to the Secretary of Labor an amount equal to 13.5 
     percent of the sum of--

       ``(I) the amount specified in subparagraph (K) for the 
     fiscal year;
       ``(II) any amount available for the immediately preceding 
     fiscal year that has not been obligated by a State; and
       ``(III) any funds available under this paragraph that have 
     not been allotted due to a

[[Page 10668]]

     determination by the Secretary of Labor that the State has 
     not qualified as a transitional jobs State.

       ``(I) Funding for indian tribes.--5 percent of the amount 
     specified in subparagraph (K) for each fiscal year shall be 
     reserved for grants to Indian tribes under subparagraph (P).
       ``(J) Funding for evaluations of transitional jobs 
     programs.--1.5 percent of the amount specified in 
     subparagraph (K) for each fiscal year shall be reserved for 
     use by the Secretary to carry out subparagraph (O).
       ``(K) Appropriations.--
       ``(i) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the 
     United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for grants under this paragraph--

       ``(I) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(II) $375,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       ``(III) $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2007.

       ``(ii) Availability.--The amounts made available pursuant 
     to clause (i) shall remain available for such period as is 
     necessary to make the grants provided for in this paragraph.
       ``(L) Worker protections.--
       ``(i) Nonduplication.--

       ``(I) In general.--Assistance provided through a grant made 
     under this paragraph shall be used only for a program that 
     does not duplicate, and is in addition to, an activity 
     otherwise available in the locality of such program.
       ``(II) Private, nonprofit entity.--Assistance provided 
     through a grant made available under this paragraph shall not 
     be provided to a private nonprofit entity to conduct 
     activities that are the same or substantially equivalent to 
     activities provided by a State or local government agency in 
     the area in which such entity resides, unless the 
     requirements of clause (ii) are met.

       ``(ii) Nondisplacement.--

       ``(I) In general.--An employer shall not displace an 
     employee or position (including partial displacement such as 
     reduction in hours, wages, or employment benefits) or impair 
     existing contracts for services or collective bargaining 
     agreements, as a result of the use by such employer of a 
     participant in a program receiving assistance under a grant 
     made under this paragraph, and no participant shall be 
     assigned to fill any established unfilled position vacancy.
       ``(II) Job opportunities.--A job opportunity shall not be 
     created under this section that will infringe in any manner 
     on the promotional opportunity of an employed individual.
       ``(III) Limitation on services.--

       ``(aa) Supplantation of hiring.--A participant in any 
     transitional job program that receives funds under a grant 
     made under this paragraph shall not perform any services or 
     duties or engage in activities that will supplant the hiring 
     of unsubsidized workers.
       ``(bb) Duties formerly performed by another employee.--A 
     participant in any transitional job program that receives 
     funds under a grant made under this paragraph shall not 
     perform services or duties that are services, duties, or 
     activities with respect to which an individual has recall 
     rights pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement or 
     applicable personnel procedures, or which had been performed 
     by or were assigned to any employee who recently resigned or 
     was discharged, any employee who is subject to a reduction in 
     force, any employee who is on leave (terminal, temporary, 
     vacation, emergency, or sick), or any employee who is on 
     strike or who is being locked out.
       ``(iii) Concurrence of local labor organization.--No work 
     assignment under a transitional job program that receives 
     funds under a grant made under this paragraph shall be made 
     until the program operator has obtained the written 
     concurrence of any local labor organization representing 
     employees who are engaged in the same or substantially 
     similar work as that proposed to be carried out for the 
     program operator or worksite employer with whom a participant 
     is placed.
       ``(iv) Application of worker protection laws.--Participants 
     employed in transitional jobs created under a transitional 
     job program that receives funds under a grant made under this 
     paragraph shall be considered to be employees for all 
     purposes under Federal and State law, including laws relating 
     to health and safety, civil rights, and worker's 
     compensation.
       ``(M) Grievance procedure.--
       ``(i) In general.--The State shall establish and maintain a 
     grievance procedure for resolving complaints by unsubsidized 
     employees of program operators or worksite employers or such 
     employees' representatives alleging violations of clause (i), 
     (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (L), or by participants 
     alleging violations of clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of such 
     subparagraph.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--Except in the case of a grievance that 
     alleges fraud or criminal activity, a grievance shall be made 
     not later than 1 year after the date of the alleged 
     occurrence of the event that is the subject of the grievance.
       ``(iii) Hearing.--A hearing on any grievance made under 
     this subparagraph shall be conducted not later than 30 days 
     after the filing of the grievance.
       ``(iv) Deadline for decision.--A decision on any grievance 
     made under this subparagraph shall be made not later than 60 
     days after the filing of the grievance.
       ``(v) Binding arbitration.--

       ``(I) In general.--In the event of a decision on a 
     grievance that is adverse to the party who filed such 
     grievance, or, in the event on noncompliance with the 60-day 
     period required under clause (iv), the party who filed the 
     grievance may submit the grievance to binding arbitration 
     before a qualified arbitrator who is jointly selected and 
     independent of the interested parties.
       ``(II) Selection of arbitrator.--If the parties cannot 
     agree on an arbitrator, the chief executive officer of the 
     State shall appoint an arbitrator from a list of qualified 
     arbitrators within 15 days after receiving a request for such 
     appointment from a party to the grievance.
       ``(III) Deadline for proceeding.--An arbitration proceeding 
     shall be held not later than 45 days after the request for 
     the arbitration proceeding, or, if the arbitrator is 
     appointed by the chief executive officer of the State in 
     accordance with subclause (II), not later than 30 days after 
     the appointment of such arbitrator.
       ``(IV) Deadline for decision.--A decision concerning a 
     grievance that has been submitted to binding arbitration 
     under this clause shall be made not later than 30 days after 
     the date the arbitration proceeding begins.
       ``(V) Cost.--

       ``(aa) In general.--Except as provided in item (bb), the 
     cost of an arbitration proceeding shall be divided evenly 
     between the parties to the arbitration.
       ``(bb) Employee is prevailing party.--If an employee or 
     such employee's representative prevails under a binding 
     arbitration proceeding under this clause, the State agency 
     shall pay the total cost of such proceeding and the 
     attorneys' fees of such employee or representative.
       ``(vi) Remedies.--Remedies for a grievance filed under this 
     subparagraph include--

       ``(I) prohibition of the work assignment in the program 
     funded under a grant made under this paragraph;
       ``(II) reinstatement of the displaced employee to the 
     position held by such employee prior to displacement;
       ``(III) payment of lost wages and benefits of the displaced 
     employee;
       ``(IV) reestablishment of other relevant terms, conditions, 
     and privileges of employment of the displaced employee; and
       ``(V) such equitable relief as is necessary to make the 
     displaced employee whole.

       ``(vii) Judicial review.--An action to enforce remedy or an 
     arbitration award under this paragraph may be brought in any 
     district court of the United States, without regard to the 
     amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties to 
     the action.
       ``(viii) Non-exclusive procedures.--The grievance 
     procedures specified in this subparagraph are not exclusive 
     and an aggrieved employee or participant in a program funded 
     under a grant made under this paragraph may use alternative 
     procedures available under applicable contracts, collective 
     bargaining agreements, or Federal or State laws.
       ``(N) Non-preemption of state law.--The provisions of 
     subparagraphs (L) and (M) of this paragraph shall not be 
     construed to preempt any provision of State law that affords 
     greater protections to employees or to other participants 
     engaged in work activities under a program funded under this 
     part than is afforded by the provisions of this paragraph.
       ``(O) Evaluation of transitional jobs programs.--
       ``(i) Evaluation.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Labor--

       ``(I) shall develop a plan to evaluate the extent to which 
     transitional jobs programs funded under this paragraph have 
     been effective in promoting sustained, unsubsidized 
     employment for each group of eligible participants;
       ``(II) may evaluate the use of such grants by such grantees 
     as the Secretary deems appropriate, in accordance with an 
     agreement entered into with the grantees after good-faith 
     negotiations; and
       ``(III) should include the following outcome measures in 
     the plan developed under subclause (I):

       ``(aa) Placements in unsubsidized employment.
       ``(bb) Placements in unsubsidized employment that last for 
     at least 12 months, and the extent to which individuals are 
     employed continuously for at least 12 months.
       ``(cc) Earnings of individuals who obtain employment at the 
     time of placement.
       ``(dd) Earnings of individuals one year after placement.
       ``(ee) The occupations and industries in which wage growth 
     and retention performance is greatest.
       ``(ff) Average expenditures per participant.
       ``(P) Grants to indian tribes.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall award a grant in 
     accordance with this subparagraph to an Indian tribe for each 
     fiscal year specified in subparagraph (K) for which the 
     Indian tribe is a transitional jobs tribe, in such amount as 
     the Secretary of Labor deems appropriate.
       ``(ii) Transitional jobs tribe.--An Indian tribe shall be 
     considered a transitional jobs

[[Page 10669]]

     tribe for a fiscal year for purposes of this subparagraph if 
     the Indian tribe meets the following requirements:

       ``(I) The Indian tribe has submitted to the Secretary a 
     plan which describes how, consistent with this paragraph, the 
     Indian tribe will use any funds provided under this 
     subparagraph during the fiscal year. If the Indian tribe has 
     a tribal family assistance plan, the plan referred to in the 
     preceding sentence shall be in the form of an addendum to the 
     tribal family assistance plan.
       ``(II) The Indian tribe is operating a program under a 
     tribal family assistance plan approved by the Secretary, a 
     program described in section 412(a)(2)(C), or an employment 
     program funded through other sources under which substantial 
     services are provided to recipients of assistance under a 
     program funded under this part.
       ``(III) The Indian tribe has agreed to negotiate in good 
     faith with the Secretary with respect to the substance and 
     funding of any evaluation under subparagraph (O), and to 
     cooperate with the conduct of any such evaluation.''.

     SEC. 3. INNOVATIVE BUSINESS LINK PARTNERSHIP FOR EMPLOYERS 
                   AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services and the Secretary of Labor (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Secretaries'') jointly shall award 
     grants in accordance with this section for projects proposed 
     by eligible applicants based on the following:
       (1) The potential effectiveness of the proposed project in 
     carrying out the activities described in subsection (e).
       (2) Evidence of the ability of the eligible applicant to 
     leverage private, State, and local resources.
       (3) Evidence of the ability of the eligible applicant to 
     coordinate with other organizations at the State and local 
     level.
       (b) Definition of Eligible Applicant.--In this section, the 
     term ``eligible applicant'' means a nonprofit organization, a 
     local workforce investment board established under section 
     117 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832), 
     or a political subdivision of a State. In addition, in order 
     to qualify as an eligible applicant for purposes of 
     subsection (e), the applicant must provide evidence that the 
     application has been developed by and will be implemented by 
     a local or regional consortium that includes, at minimum, 
     employers or employer associations, education and training 
     providers, and social service providers.
       (c) Requirements.--In awarding grants under this section, 
     the Secretaries shall--
       (1) consider the needs of rural areas and cities with large 
     concentrations of residents with an income that is less than 
     the 150 percent of the poverty line; and
       (2) ensure that all of the funds made available under this 
     section (other than funds reserved for use by the Secretaries 
     under subsection (j)) shall be used for activities described 
     in subsection (e).
       (d) Determination of Grant Amount.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in determining 
     the amount of a grant to be awarded under this section for a 
     project proposed by an eligible applicant, the Secretaries 
     shall provide the eligible applicant with an amount 
     sufficient to ensure that the project has a reasonable 
     opportunity to be successful, taking into account--
       (A) the number and characteristics of the individuals to be 
     served by the project;
       (B) the level of unemployment in such area;
       (C) the job opportunities and job growth in such area;
       (D) the poverty rate for such area; and
       (E) such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate 
     in the area to be served by the project.
       (2) Award ceiling.--A grant awarded to an eligible 
     applicant under this section may not exceed $10,000,000.
       (e) Allowable Activities.--
       (1) Promote business linkages.--An eligible applicant 
     awarded a grant under this section shall use funds provided 
     under the grant to promote business linkages in which funds 
     shall be used to fund new or expanded programs that are 
     designed to--
       (A) substantially increase the wages of low-income parents, 
     noncustodial parents, and other low-income individuals, 
     whether employed or unemployed, who have limited English 
     proficiency or other barriers to employment by upgrading job 
     and related skills in partnership with employers, especially 
     by providing services at or near work sites; and
       (B) identify and strengthen career pathways by expanding 
     and linking work and training opportunities for low-earning 
     workers in collaboration with employers.
       (2) Consideration of in-kind, in-cash resources.--In 
     determining which programs to fund under this subsection, an 
     eligible applicant awarded a grant under this section shall 
     consider the ability of a consortium to provide funds in-kind 
     or in-cash (including employer-provided, paid release time) 
     to help support the programs for which funding is sought.
       (3) Priority.--In determining which programs to fund under 
     this subsection, an eligible applicant awarded a grant under 
     this section shall give priority given to programs that 
     include education or training for which participants receive 
     credit toward a recognized credential.
       (4) Use of funds.--
       (A) In general.--Funds provided to a program under this 
     subsection may be used for a comprehensive set of employment 
     and training benefits and services, including job 
     development, job matching, curricula development, wage 
     subsidies, retention services, and such others as the program 
     deems necessary to achieve the overall objectives of this 
     subsection.
       (B) Provision of services.--So long as a program is 
     principally designed to assist eligible individuals, funds 
     may be provided to a program under this subsection that is 
     designed to provide services to categories of low-earning 
     employees for 1 or more employers and such a program may 
     provide services to individuals who do not meet the 
     definition of low-income established for the program.
       (f) Definition of Eligible Individual.--In this section, 
     the term ``eligible individual'' means--
       (A) an individual who is a parent who is a recipient of 
     assistance under a State or tribal program funded under part 
     A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et 
     seq.);
       (B) an individual who is a parent who has ceased to receive 
     assistance under such a State or tribal program; or
       (C) a noncustodial parent who is unemployed, or having 
     difficulty in paying child support obligations.
       (g) Application.--Each eligible applicant desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretaries at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretaries may require.
       (h) Assessments and Reports by Grantees.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible applicant that receives a 
     grant under this section shall assess and report on the 
     outcomes of programs funded under the grant, including 
     outcomes related to job placement, 1-year employment 
     retention, wage at placement, and earnings progression, as 
     specified by the Secretaries.
       (2) Assistance.--The Secretaries shall--
       (A) assist grantees in conducting the assessment required 
     under paragraph (1) by making available where practicable 
     low-cost means of tracking the labor market outcomes of 
     participants; and
       (B) encourage States to also provide such assistance.
       (i) Application to Requirements of the State TANF 
     Program.--
       (1) Work participation requirements.--With respect to any 
     month in which a recipient of assistance under a State or 
     tribal program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) who satisfactorily 
     participates in a business linkage program described in 
     subsection (e) that is paid for with funds made available 
     under a grant made under this section, such participation 
     shall be considered to satisfy the work participation 
     requirements of section 407 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 607)) and included for purposes of determining monthly 
     participation rates under subsection (b)(1)(B)(i) of such 
     section.
       (2) Participation not considered assistance.--A benefit or 
     service provided with funds made available under a grant made 
     under this section shall not be considered assistance for any 
     purpose under a State or tribal program funded under part A 
     of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et 
     seq.).
       (j) Assessments by the Secretaries.--
       (1) Reservation of funds.--Of the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (k), $3,000,000 is reserved for use by the 
     Secretaries to prepare an interim and final report 
     summarizing and synthesizing outcomes and lessons learned 
     from the programs funded through grants awarded under this 
     section.
       (2) Interim and final assessments.--With respect to the 
     reports prepared under paragraph (1), the Secretaries shall 
     submit--
       (A) the interim report not later than 4 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act; and
       (B) the final report not later than 6 years after such date 
     of enactment.
       (k) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the 
     United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for carrying out this section, $250,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 2632. A bill to provide an equitable formula for computing the 
annuities of surviving spouses of members of the uniformed services who 
died entitled to retired or retainer pay but before the Survivor 
Benefit Plan existed or applied to the members, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, a couple weeks ago, on Memorial Day, we 
promised to remember and honor those who have sacrificed so much to 
serve our country. In Iowa, Mary ``Beth'' James and her family were 
honoring the memory of her husband, Bob James. But I'm afraid we have 
forgotten Beth, and not done Bob justice. Today I am introducing a bill 
for Beth and the other ``Forgotten Widows.''

[[Page 10670]]

  Bob James proudly served his country as an active member of the Army 
and Army Reserves for 35 years, until he passed away in 1977. Bob's 
service began with the Amphibious Combat Infantry in North Africa and 
Italy in World War II. As a junior officer, Bob James landed with the 
Third Division near Casablanca, and later served with the 34th Division 
through the North African and Tunisian campaigns, as well as in 
amphibious landings at Solarno, Italy, the battle of Mt. Casino and 
four crossings of the Volturno River. He was awarded the Bronze Star 
medal for the Rome-Arno campaign and was given a battlefield promotion 
to First Lieutenant.
  After five years in World War II, he carried a mobilization 
designation as part of his 30-year reserve duty with the Selective 
Service Unit in Cedar Rapids that he proposed and was asked by General 
Hershey to organize. In fact, Bob served longer than the usual 30 years 
because General Hershey personally requested that he remain in active 
Reserves until he reached the age of 60.
  When Bob became ill, he continued to attend Reserve meetings. His 
wife, Beth, now age 83, remembers Bob telling her on April 9, 1977, 
Easter Sunday, ``I only have to live another six months.'' You see, he 
was worried about Beth's welfare after he passed away. He knew he had 
to turn 60 before he could enroll in the military's Survivor Benefit 
Plan to provide for Beth after he passed away. Unfortunately, Bob was 
not able to hold on. Lieutenant Colonel William R. James, USAR, died at 
age 59\1/2\ in 1977, 5\1/2\ months before his 60th birthday.
  Under the military's Survivor Benefit Plan, members who choose to 
enroll in the plan have a small deduction taken from their retirement 
benefit each month so that their spouses can continue to receive a 
portion of the benefit after the member dies. When the Reserve 
Component Survivor's Benefit Plan was established in 1972, members 
could not sign up for survivors benefits until they became eligible for 
the retirement benefit at age 60. Because of this arbitrary rule, and 
because Bob died at 59\1/2\, Beth received no survivor's benefit even 
though Bob served in the military for 35 years and had more than the 
maximum number of points used in calculating retirement benefits.
  Congress quickly became aware of this unjust consequence of the SBP 
law. One year after Bob's death, Congress took action to correct the 
unfair enrollment structure of the Reserve Component Survivor's Benefit 
Plan. Legislation passed in 1978 allows Reserve Component members to 
decide whether or how they will participate in the RCSBP when they are 
notified of retirement eligibility, but not yet eligible to receive 
retired pay, in almost all cases, many years before reaching age 60. 
Had this legislation been enacted earlier, Bob could have provided for 
Beth's security.
  Unfortunately, when drafting the legislation in 1978, Congress forgot 
about Beth and thousands of spouses like her whose husbands, despite 
having served their country for at least 20 years, died before they 
were allowed to enroll in the program to provide for their survivors.
  Congress continued to ignore these widows until 1997. Led by my 
colleague from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, Congress finally took 
an important, but limited, step to recognize the ``Forgotten Widows,'' 
as Beth and the other spouses had come to be known. Congress created a 
special annuity of $165 per month for the Forgotten Widows. For the 
first time in 20 years, Beth James received some support from our 
government in return for Bob James' service to his country.
  While the annuity for certain military surviving spouses created in 
1997 was certainly a step in the right direction, it is by no means 
adequate. The forgotten widows currently receive about $185 per month, 
after cost of living increases since 1997. In comparison, the monthly 
SBP benefits average is about $580 for beneficiaries over 62 and the 
monthly RC-SBP benefits average about $325 for beneficiaries over 62. 
The current benefit for forgotten widows is low for two reasons. First, 
the fiscal year 1998 legislation initially set the ACMSS benefit at the 
minimum allowable amount a service member could elect, even though most 
members participate at a higher level. Second, the 1997 legislation did 
not take into account cost of living increases that the widows would 
have received for more than two decades. If these widows had been 
enrolled in these programs in 1972 at the minimum level, their monthly 
benefit today would be approximately $434, rather than $185.
  The Forgotten Widows' Benefit Equity Act of 2002 amends the Annuity 
for Certain Military Surviving Spouses program established in the 
fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization Bill. It does not change the 
eligibility criteria for the program. It directs the Department of 
Defense to calculate each surviving spouse's annuity assuming that the 
member had enrolled in the SBP before he died and had elected a base 
amount equal to his retired pay. For almost all forgotten widows this 
will be much more than the current annuity; if it is not, the survivor 
will continue to receive the current benefit. This approach ensures 
that the survivors' annuities take into account the members' rank and 
years of service, and the past cost of living increases.
  It is possible that some of the members would not have elected to 
participate in the SBP, or would not have chosen a base amount of 100 
percent of retired pay, and thus the survivors would have received a 
lower benefit. However, they were never given that choice. And most 
members today do choose to participate at or near the highest level. In 
addition, this legislation is not retroactive; the forgotten widows 
will not be compensated for the thousands of dollars of benefits they 
would have received for over 20 years.
  These women, whose husbands devoted over 20 years of their lives to 
defending our freedoms and some of whom received no pensions of their 
own, were abandoned by our government for at least 20 years. While 
Congress recognized our responsibility to them in 1998, we have not 
fully met our obligation to provide them with an adequate, fair 
benefit. We can and must do better. We must stand by our Memorial Day 
promises to remember those who sacrificed for our country. I ask my 
colleagues to do what is right and support passage of the Forgotten 
Widow's Benefit Equity Act of 2002.
  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. 2632

       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 ``Forgotten Widows' Benefit 
     Equity Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. EQUITABLE AMOUNT OF SURVIVOR ANNUITIES FOR CERTAIN 
                   MILITARY SURVIVING SPOUSES.

       (a) Formula.--Subsection (b) of section 644 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 
     105-85; 10 U.S.C. 1448 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) An annuity payable under this section for the 
     surviving spouse of a deceased member shall be equal to the 
     higher of $186 per month, as adjusted from time to time under 
     paragraph (3), or the applicable amount as follows:
       ``(A) In the case of the surviving spouse of a deceased 
     member described in subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(1) who 
     died before September 21, 1972, the amount computed under the 
     SBP program, from the day after the date of death, as if--
       ``(i) the SBP program had become effective on the day 
     before the date of the death of the deceased member; and
       ``(ii) the member had effectively elected to provide the 
     maximum survivor annuity for the surviving spouse under the 
     SBP program.
       ``(B) In the case of the surviving spouse of a deceased 
     member described in subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(1) who 
     died after September 20, 1972, the amount computed under the 
     SBP program, from the day after the date of death, as if the 
     member had effectively elected to provide the maximum 
     survivor annuity for the surviving spouse under that program.
       ``(C) In the case of the surviving spouse of a deceased 
     member described in subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(1) who 
     died before October 1, 1978, the amount computed under the 
     SBP program, from the day after the date of death, as if--

[[Page 10671]]

       ``(i) the SBP program, as in effect on October 1, 1978, had 
     become effective on the day before the date of the death of 
     the deceased member;
       ``(ii) the member had been 60 years of age on that day; and
       ``(iii) the member had effectively elected to provide the 
     maximum survivor annuity for the surviving spouse under the 
     SBP program.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after ``the annuity that 
     is payable under this section'' the following: ``in the 
     amount under paragraph (1) that is adjustable under this 
     paragraph''.
       (b) SBP Program Defined.--Subsection (d) of such section is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) The term `SBP program' means subchapter II of chapter 
     73 of title 10, United States Code.''.
       (c) Effective Date and Applicability.--(1) The amendments 
     made by subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect on October 
     1, 2002.
       (2) The Secretary concerned shall recompute under section 
     644 of Public Law 105-85 (as amended by subsections (a) and 
     (b)) the amounts of the survivor annuities that are payable 
     under such section for months beginning after the effective 
     date under paragraph (1).
       (3) No benefit shall be payable for any period before the 
     effective date under paragraph (1) by reason of the 
     amendments made by subsections (a) and (b).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 2633. A bill to prohibit an individual from knowingly opening, 
maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available 
for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, 
distributing, or using any controlling substance, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, over the past several years, I have 
become increasingly concerned with the trafficking and use of the 
newest fad drug, Ecstasy. All across the country, thousands of 
teenagers are treated for overdoses and Ecstasy-related health problems 
in emergency rooms each year. And recent statistics from the 
Partnership for a Drug Free America show that teen use of Ecstasy has 
increased 71 percent since 1999. Unless we mount a major education 
campaign across schools and campuses nationwide, we may not be able to 
counter the widespread misconception that Ecstacy is harmless, 
fashionable and hip.
  Much of the abuse of Ecstasy and other club drugs happens at all-
night dance parties known as ``raves.'' A few months ago in the Caucus 
on International Narcotics Control I held a hearing to take an in-depth 
look at the phenomenon of these all-night dance parties and recent 
efforts at the Federal, State and local levels to crack down on rave 
promoters who allow rampant drug use at their events and do everything 
they can to profit from it.
  It is common for rave organizers to go to great lengths to portray 
their events as safe so that parents will allow their kids to attend. 
They advertise them as alcohol-free parties and some even hire off-duty 
police officers to patrol outside the venue. But the truth is that many 
of these raves are drug dens where use of Ecstasy and other ``club 
drugs,'' such as the date rape drugs Rohypnol, GHB and Ketamine, is 
widespread.
  But even as these promoters work to make parents think that their 
events are safe, they send a different message to kids. Their 
promotional flyers make clear that drugs are an integral part of the 
party by prominently featuring terms associated with drug use, such as 
the letters ``E'' or ``X,'' street terms for Ecstasy, or the term 
``rollin,'' which refers to an Ecstasy high. They are, in effect, 
promoting Ecstasy along with the rave.
  By doing so, the promoters get rich as they exploit and endanger 
kids. Many supplement their profits from the $10 to $50 cover charge to 
enter the club by selling popular Ecstasy paraphernalia such as baby 
pacifiers, glow sticks, or mentholated inhalers. And party organizers 
know that Ecstasy raises the core body temperature and makes the user 
extremely thirsty, so they sell bottles of water for $5 or $10 apiece. 
Some even shut off the water faucets so club goers will be forced to 
buy water or pay admission to enter an air-conditioned ``cool down 
room.''
  Despite the conventional wisdom that Ecstasy and other club drugs are 
``no big deal,'' a view that even the New York Times Magazine espoused 
in a cover story, these drugs can have serious consequences, and can 
even be fatal.
  After the death of a 17-year-old girl at a rave party in New Orleans 
in 1998, the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted an assessment of 
rave activity in that city which showed the close relationship between 
these parties and club drug overdoses. In a two year period, 52 raves 
were held at the New Orleans State Palace Theater, during which time 
approximately 400 teenagers overdosed and were treated at local 
emergency rooms. Following ``Operation Rave Review'' which resulted in 
the arrest of several rave promoters and closing the city's largest 
rave, overdoses and emergency room visits dropped by 90 percent and 
Ecstasy overdoses have been eliminated.
  State and locals governments have begun to take important steps to 
crack down on rave promoters who allow their events to be used as 
havens for illicit drug activity. In Chicago, where Mayor Daley has 
shown great leadership on this issue, it is a criminal offense to 
knowingly maintain a place, such as a rave, where controlled substances 
are used or distributed. Not only the promoter, but also the building 
owner and building manager can be charged under Mayor Daley's law. The 
State of Florida has a similar statute making such activity a felony.
  And in Modesto, California, police officers are offering ``rave 
training classes'' to parents to educate them about the danger of raves 
and the club drugs associated with them.
  And at the Federal level, there have been four cases in which Federal 
prosecutors have used the so called ``crack house statute'' or other 
Federal charges to go after rave promoters. These cases, in Little 
Rock, AR, Boise, ID, Panama City, FL, and New Orleans, LA, have had 
mixed results, culminating in two wins, a loss and a draw, suggesting 
that there may be a need to tailor this Federal statute more precisely 
to the problem at hand. Today I am proposing legislation, Reducing 
Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, or the ``RAVE'' Act, which 
will do just that. I am pleased to have Senator Grassley as the lead 
cosponsor.
  The bill tailors the crack house statute to address rave promoters' 
actions more specifically so that Federal prosecutors will be able to 
use it to prosecute individuals who allow rampant drug use at their 
events and seek to profit from putting kids at risk. The legislation 
also addresses the low penalties for trafficking gamma hydroxybutyric 
acid, GHB, by directing the United States Sentencing Commission to 
examine the current penalties and consider increasing them to reflect 
the seriousness of offenses involving GHB.
  But the answer to the problem of drug use at raves is not simply to 
prosecute irresponsible rave promoters and those who distribute drugs. 
There is also a responsibility to raise awareness among parents, 
teachers, students, coaches, religious leaders, etc. about the dangers 
of the drugs used and sold at raves. The RAVE Act directs funds to the 
DEA for that purpose. Further, the bill authorizes nearly $6 million 
for the DEA to hire a Demand Reduction Coordinator in each state who 
can work with communities following the arrest of a significant local 
trafficker to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and 
treatment programs.
  It is the unfortunate truth that most raves are havens for illicit 
drugs. Enacting the RAVE Act will help to prosecute the promoters who 
seek to profit from exploiting and endangering young lives and will 
take steps to educate youth, parents and other interested adults about 
the dangers of Ecstasy and other club drugs associated with raves.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me and support this legislation.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague 
Senator Biden today in introducing the RAVE Act, or Reducing America's 
Vulnerability to Ecstacy Act of 2002. I believe this legislation will 
help America's law enforcement go after the latest methods drug dealers 
are using to

[[Page 10672]]

push drugs on our kids. As drug dealers discover new drugs and new 
methods of pushing their poison, we must make sure our legal system is 
adequately structured to react appropriately. I believe this 
legislation does that.
  Many young people perceive Ecstasy as harmless and it is wrongly 
termed a recreational or ``kid-friendly'' drug. This illegal substance 
does real damage to real lives. Although targeted at teenagers and 
young adults, its use has spread to the middle-aged population and 
rural areas, including my own State of Iowa. Ninety percent of all drug 
treatment and law enforcement experts say that Esctasy is readily 
accessible in this country. We cannot continue to allow easy access to 
this drug or ignore the consequences of its use.
  The sale of illicit narcotics, whether on a street corner here in 
Washington, D.C., or a warehouse in Des Moines, IA, must be confronted 
and halted wherever possible. One of the new, ``trendy'' illicit 
narcotics is Ecstasy, an especially popular club drug that is all too 
often being sold at all-night dance parties, or raves. Ecstasy is an 
illegal drug that has extremely dangerous side effects. In general, 
Ecstasy raises the heart rate to dangerous levels, and in some cases 
the heart will stop. It also causes severe dehydration, a condition 
that is exacerbated by the high levels of physical exertion that 
happens at raves. Users must constantly drink water in an attempt to 
cool off, a fact that some rave promoters take advantage of by charging 
exorbitant fees for bottles of water. Too often, users collapse and die 
because their bodies overheat. And even those who survive the short-
term effects of Ecstasy use can look forward to long-term problems such 
as depression, paranoia, and confusion, as scientists have learned that 
Ecstasy causes irreversible changes to the brain.
  The legislation that we introduce today is the result of information 
gathered during a series of hearings held by the Caucus on 
International Narcotics Control. It will help U.S. attorneys shut down 
raves and prosecute rave promoters who knowingly maintain a place where 
drugs are used, kept, or sold by expanding the existing statute that 
allows the closure and prosecution of crack house operators.
  The statute would only be applicable if the rave promoters or 
location owners ``knowingly and intentionally'' either use or allow to 
be used space for an event where drugs will be ``manufactured, stored, 
distributed, or used.'' This legislation will not eliminate all raves. 
Provided rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so 
often advertized, as places for people to come dance in a safe, 
alcohol-free environment, then they have nothing to fear from this law. 
But this legislation will give law enforcement the tools needed to shut 
down those rave operators and promoters who use raves as a cover to 
sell drugs. Innocent owners or proprietors will remain exempt from 
prosecution.
  This legislation is an important step, but a careful one. Our future 
rests with the young people of this great nation and America is at 
risk. Esctasy has shown itself to be a formidable threat and we must 
confront it on all fronts, not only through law enforcement but 
education and treatment as well. I hope my colleagues will join us in 
supporting the RAVE Act, and help us work towards its quick passenge.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY:
  S. 2638. A bill to encourage health care facilities, group health 
plans, and health insurance issuers to reduce administrative costs, and 
to improve access, convenience, quality, and safety, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today I am introducing the Efficiency 
in Health Care, eHealth Care, Act. The time is long overdue to improve 
the efficiency and effectiveness of America's antiquated healthcare 
information technology systems. We can achieve large cost savings and 
improve patient care by bringing the nation's health care systems into 
the information age.
  The eHealth Care Act provides modern standards for financial 
transactions such as billing and claims processing that can only be met 
by adoption of the same kind of high volume, speedy, cost-efficient 
technology that has dramatically lowered administrative costs in other 
industries. The new standards will be coupled with grants to health 
care providers to assist them in upgrading their information 
technologies to meet these new demands.
  Estimates are that administrative costs currently represent 20 to 30 
percent of health care spending, or up to $420 billion each year. While 
other industries are making full use of available information 
technology, health care has been a very slow adopter. And this bill 
will reduce health care administration by as much as $300 billion a 
year, enough to provide universal health coverage for every American 
many times over.
  The sad fact is that processing a single health care transaction can 
cost as much as 25 dollars. Other industries have drastically reduced 
administrative costs by using modern information technology. Banks and 
brokerages have cut their costs to less than a penny per transaction 
using modern technology. Health care remains one of the few industries 
clinging to antiquated 20th century technology while the rest of the 
Nation's businesses have moved into the 21st century. This bill will 
provide the tools for health care systems to make a great leap forward 
by using new technologies to cut costs.
  Recent breakthroughs in technology not only can save money, but also 
can provide more timely and accurate billing and claims transactions. 
Today, only 10 or 15 percent of all patient charts are available 
electronically, and it costs about $9 each and every time a doctor has 
to pull a patient's chart. Even worse, despite the high cost, the 
patient's chart is often incomplete. Through advances in technology, 
doctors should be able to access complete patient records at a huge 
cost saving. That is not only more efficient care, it is better care.
  Today, 30 percent of doctor's claims leave the physician's office 
with errors, and nearly 15 percent get lost. Manual procedures for 
handling referrals, eligibility, treatment authorizations, and 
explanations of benefits can add anywhere from $10 to $85 per 
transaction. In fact, estimates are that $250 billion is spent each 
year on medical claims paperwork. Paper claims processing amounts to 
$28,000 per physician and $12.7 billion for all physicians each year. 
Conducting these transactions online could cut that figure tenfold. We 
are clearly not getting much bang for our buck. The eHealth Care Act 
will provide the standards needed for health plans, insurers, 
providers, and patients to realize both the cost savings and better 
billing and claims transactions.
  But the cost to the health care system is not just monetary. The 
eHealth Care bill will also set standards for physicians ordering 
prescription medications. Medication errors are responsible for over 
7,000 deaths annually, but doctors currently write only 1 percent of 
prescriptions electronically. By requiring adoption of computerized 
systems for writing prescriptions, errors due to mistaken prescriptions 
or illegible handwriting will be reduced. There is no excuse for 
patients to be harmed and even die when we have the technology to save 
them.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to 
get this very important legislation passed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 2639. A bill to provide health benefits for workers and their 
families; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today I am introducing the Health Care 
for Working Families Act, a bill that will make the basic human right 
to health care a reality for millions of working Americans and their 
families.
  The tragedy of September 11 created a special obligation to address 
the injustices that have festered for far too long within our national 
family. The brave passengers of Flight 93 fought and defied the 
terrorists and saved the lives of thousands. Construction and health 
workers braved the treacherous fire and debris to rescue survivors and

[[Page 10673]]

recover the remains of those who lost their lives. Police and 
firefighters, and ordinary citizens, gave their lives so that others 
might live. And thousands of Americans all over the country lined up to 
donate blood to help the victims.
  I believe that the most enduring legacy of the September 11 attacks 
is a new sense of community among all Americans. A nation that has 
united to battle a terrorist threat from abroad can also unite to 
vanquish the conditions here at home that curtail the opportunities and 
sadden the lives of so many of our fellow citizens. Just as the British 
people came together after World War II to provide health care for all 
citizens of the United Kingdom, we join hands after September 11 to 
guarantee all citizens of the United States the protection and 
opportunity that should be their birthright. There is no area where 
action is more urgently needed than health care.
  Americans are rightly proud to be at the forefront of medical and 
scientific advancement. In the past year, we successfully mapped the 
human genome. We developed new pharmaceuticals to target specific 
cancers. We have seen the promise stem cell research gives to millions 
suffering from chronic diseases. We clearly recognize the value of 
scientific achievement and have always been supportive of the great 
institutions and individuals that are driving our progress.
  But our successes in the science of medicine must not blind us to the 
great failure of our health care system, the failure to provide 
affordable, quality health insurance to all our people. We lead the 
world in medical research. We lead the world in our capacity to cure 
and treat the most complex and deadly illnesses. But we lag behind 
every country in the industrial world in guaranteeing all our people 
access to the best medical care we can offer. And today we face another 
health care crisis as the number of the uninsured has begun to rise and 
rise rapidly.
  Health care is not just another commodity. It is not a gift to be 
rationed based on the ability to pay. The state of a family's health 
should not be determined by the size of a family's wealth.
  Yet, thirty-nine million Americans now have no health insurance at 
all. Over the course of a year, 30 million more will lack coverage for 
an extended period. It is unacceptable that any American is uninsured. 
It is shameful that thirty-nine million Americans are uninsured. And it 
is intolerable that the number of uninsured is now rising again and, if 
we do nothing, could reach more than 52 million by the end of the 
decade.
  Who are the 39 million uninsured Americans who must go without the 
health care they need because they must do without the health insurance 
they deserve? Over 80 percent are members of working families. They are 
grocery baggers, car mechanics, construction workers. They are factory 
workers, nurses and nurses aides, secretaries and the self-employed. 
They are child care workers and waiters and cooks. They are teachers 
and social workers. They are veterans. They are people who wake up 
every morning and go to work. They work hard 40 hours a week and fifty-
two weeks a year, but all their hard work cannot buy them the health 
insurance they need to protect themselves and their families, because 
they can't afford it and their employers don't provide it.
  They play by the rules. They stand by their families and their 
country. But when it comes to health insurance, America has let them 
down.
  A recent report by the Institute of Medicine lays out the stark 
result of America's failure to provide health insurance. Cancer, 
stroke, heart disease, leukemia, AIDS, and other serious illnesses know 
nothing about insurance, or economic class or race or creed. They can 
strike anyone equally. And when they do, the uninsured are left out and 
left behind. In hospital or out, young or old, black or white, the 
uninsured receive less care, suffer more pain, and die at higher rates 
than those who are insured.
  One-third of uninsured Americans will simply go without care when 
they get sick instead of seeking medical attention. They stop and ask 
themselves whether their symptoms or their childrens symptoms are truly 
worth a doctor visit. Is this cough just a cold or could it be strep 
throat? Is this pain in my bones indicative of something more serious 
or will it eventually go away if I ignore it? Millions of families are 
forced to decide between their health and other necessities of life. 
They ration health care for themselves and their children, and too 
often they pay a terrible price.
  Every year, 8 million uninsured Americans fail to take their 
medications because they can't afford to pay for their prescriptions. 
300,000 children with asthma never get treated by a doctor. Uninsured 
women diagnosed with breast cancer are 50 percent more likely to die 
from the disease because their cancer is diagnosed later. 32,000 
Americans with heart disease go without life-saving bypass surgery or 
angioplasty. The chilling bottom line is that Americans without health 
insurance are one-quarter more likely to die prematurely solely because 
they lack coverage.
  The legislation I am introducing today is a major step forward toward 
the day when all Americans will enjoy the health insurance that should 
be their birthright This measure will require every firm with more than 
100 workers to provide health insurance coverage for employees and 
their dependents. This coverage must be as good as the coverage now 
provided for Federal employees. If good health insurance coverage is 
available to every member of the Senate, to every member of the House, 
and to the President of the United States, it ought to be available to 
every other American too.
  This measure alone would assure coverage for more than a third of 
today's uninsured workers.
  For generations we have required employers to contribute to Social 
Security and then to Medicare. We have required them to pay a minimum 
wage, and contribute to unemployment insurance. Now it is time to say, 
at least for large firms, that they also have an obligation to 
contribute to the cost of health insurance for their employees. The 
vast majority of large businesses already do so, and the rest should 
fulfill that obligation, too.
  The legislation I am introducing is supported by more than 100 
health, labor, elderly, disability, church, and family groups. It 
deserves the support of Congress as the single most important way to 
move America closer to the goal of health care for all.
  This legislation is an important first step toward the day when the 
fundamental right to health care will be a reality for every American. 
But it is only a first step. Later this year, after broad consultation 
with affected groups, I will introduce legislation to assure that all 
Americans, wherever they work, wherever they live, have the quality, 
affordable health insurance coverage they deserve.
  Health care is a defining test of our commitment and our national 
character. The American people have shown that they are ready for great 
missions. They are the creators of the new spirit of September 11. Now, 
we in public life must live up to the standards they have set.
  We must strive to do what is best, in health and education as well as 
national defense, and we must measure our success by what we accomplish 
not just for one political party or another, not for this or that 
interest group, but for America and its enduring ideal of liberty and 
justice for all.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2640. A bill to provide for adequate school facilities in Yosemite 
National Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce this 
legislation today to authorize the Interior Department to provide 
critical services to three national parks in my home State of 
California.
  With the passage of this bill, Yosemite, Manzanar, and Golden Gate 
National Parks will receive the Federal support needed to continue to 
offer a broad range of services to the millions of tourists and 
Californians who visit these national treasures each year.

[[Page 10674]]

  This bill meets four distinct needs in these parks: it authorizes the 
Interior Secretary to designate Federal emergency funds to small 
schools in Yosemite National Park, allows the Yosemite Area Regional 
Transportation System, YARTS, to continue operating and extends the 
Manzanar and Golden Gate National Recreational Area, GGNRA, Advisory 
Commissions for ten more years.
  The first component of this bill provides critical funds to three 
small schools nestled in the heart of Yosemite National Park.
  Approximately 126 children of park service employees are taught in 
the quaint one-room buildings of Wawona, El Portal, and Yosemite Valley 
elementary schools. The remote location of these schools, along with 
their small sizes and California's unique method for funding education, 
have all contributed to the schools amassing a combined deficit of 
$241,000. In their efforts to continue to provide basic educational 
services to students, the schools have had to cut supplemental 
instruction that would normally be available to students taught outside 
of the Park.
  In light of these facts, this bill allows the Interior Secretary to 
assist these schools if their combined state funding falls below 
$750,000. It also clarifies how funds will be used by limiting 
allocations to providing general upkeep, maintenance, and classroom 
instruction.
  Furthermore, this legislation allows the Park Service to allot 
federal funds for the continuing operation of the Yosemite Area 
Regional Transportation System, YARTS.
  YARTS is a bus service that gives visitors the option of taking a 
free shuttle through Yosemite National Park instead of driving on their 
own. Since it began operating in 2000, this service has played a 
crucial role in improving visitor accessibility to the Park's 
attractions, alleviating traffic congestion on access roads and 
reducing the amount of air pollution emitted by incoming cars.
  The Federally funded demonstration project that allowed YARTS to 
offer services on a temporary basis expired in May and since then, 
YARTS has leveraged local funds to ensure that services were not 
discontinued.
  Both the Park Service and YARTS are supportive of continuing their 
mutually beneficial agreement. This legislation would do just that by 
taking the burden off local entities and providing the necessary 
assistance that this service needs.
  The last component of this bill will extend the advisory commissions 
of the Manzanar Historic Site and Golden Gate National Recreation Area 
for ten more years.
  Both of these commissions have active committees that represent a 
wide range of user groups from bicyclists to bird watchers to outdoor 
enthusiasts. They provide a vital communications link between the Park 
Service and the surrounding communities that enjoy the attractions that 
these national sites have to offer. Without these commissions, the Park 
Service would be hard pressed to provide the same level of service and 
attention to the broad interests and diverse communities that they 
serve.
  I continue to be a strong advocate for public involvement in Park 
Service decisions. I believe that these commissions have been essential 
in ensuring that the Park Service upholds its commitment to allow 
community participation in its decision making process, particularly 
when it comes to contentious issues.
  California's national parks are truly invaluable, each one of the 
parks that this bill supports offers an opportunity for visitors and 
residents to enjoy unique national habitats and open spaces. This 
legislation mark the beginning of a process that I hope will result in 
the Park Service and the community working together not only to protect 
the environment, but also the interests of the nearby communities. I 
invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Dayton, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 2641. A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce 
the health risks posed by asbestos-containing products; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today I rise and join my colleagues 
Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton, and Wellstone in introducing 
legislation to improve protections for workers and consumers against a 
known carcinogen: asbestos. The primary purpose of the Ban Asbestos in 
America Act of 2002 is to require the Environmental Protection Agency, 
EPA, to ban the substance by 2005.
  Most Americans believe that asbestos has already been banned. People 
have this misconception in part because EPA tried to ban it in 1989, 
and the ban was well publicized. But what wasn't so publicized was the 
fact that in 1991, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA's 
ban, and the first Bush Administration didn't appeal the decision to 
the Supreme Court. While new uses of asbestos were banned, existing 
ones were not.
  People also believe asbestos has been banned because the mineral has 
been heavily regulated, and some uses are now prohibited. But the 
sweeping ban that EPA worked for ten years to put in place never went 
into effect. As a result, products such as asbestos clothing, pipeline 
wrap, roofing felt, vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestos-cement shingle, 
disc brake pads, gaskets and roof coatings still contain asbestos 
today. Had EPA's ban gone into effect, these products would no longer 
be allowed to contain this deadly substance.
  This morning I met with three people who wish there had been better 
protections in place against the dangers of asbestos years ago. I had 
the honor of meeting Mrs. Susan Vento, the wife of the beloved 
Congressman Bruce Vento from Minnesota who died from a disease caused 
by asbestos in October of 2000 at the age of 60. Representative Vento 
was exposed to asbestos when he worked in factories in St. Paul during 
college.
  I also had the privilege of meeting Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, the son 
of the legendary Navy Admiral Elmo Zumwalt who also died in 2000 of 
mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the lungs and internal 
organs caused by asbestos. Like so many others who served in the Navy, 
Admiral Zumwalt was exposed to asbestos during his military service.
  In addition, I had the pleasure to meet Mr. Brian Harvey, a former 
English teacher from Washington State University and a survivor of the 
deadly disease. Like Congressman Vento, Mr. Harvey was exposed to 
asbestos working summers during college, only Mr. Harvey worked in a 
timber mill in Shelton, WA instead of in factories in St. Paul. Mr. 
Harvey received aggressive treatment from the University of Washington, 
and his triumph over the deadly disease offers all of us hope.
  You don't have to tell Mrs. Vento, Lt. Colonel Zumwalt or Mr. Harvey 
that asbestos can kill, or that it hasn't been banned. Unfortunately, 
they already know about asbestos.
  I have also heard from other Washington State residents about the 
devastating effects that asbestos exposure can have on people's lives. 
I'd like to take a moment to tell you about an e-mail I received from 
two of my constituents, Mr. Charles Barber and his wife, Ms. Karen 
Mirante, who live in Seattle. They wrote to me last year to express 
support for my efforts on asbestos. Mr. Barber and Ms. Mirante had just 
recently learned that both of their fathers were diagnosed with 
mesothelioma, the same deadly disease that took the lives of 
Congressman Vento and Admiral Zumwalt.
  Mr. Barber's father, Rudolph ``Rudy'' Barber, was a World War II 
veteran who worked at Todd shipyards. Then he worked for Boeing for 35 
years building airplanes. According to his son, when Rudy served on a 
troopship during the war he recalled sleeping in a bunk under asbestos-
coated pipes which flaked so badly that he had to shake out his 
sleeping bag every morning.
  A few years after retiring from Boeing, Rudy Barber started to 
develop breathing problems. First he was told

[[Page 10675]]

by one doctor that his disease could be cured with surgery, but it 
wasn't. After undergoing surgery, another doctor diagnosed him with 
mesothelioma. After a year and a half of suffering and of enduring 
repeated radiation and chemotherapy treatments, Mr. Barber died on 
April 28, 2002. According to his family, he never complained and 
continued to help his family and neighbors with maintenance and farm 
work for as long as he could.
  Karen Mirante's father, Fred Mirante, was a retired truck driver who 
was active in labor issues. While the source of Mr. Mirante's exposure 
to asbestos is unknown, it is likely that he breathed in asbestos from 
brakes when he worked on cars. After receiving experimental therapies 
for the disease and after a two and one-half year battle, he died on 
June 4, 2002. June 16, last Sunday, was the first Father's Day that Mr. 
Barber and Ms. Mirante had to spend without their cherished, hard-
working dads.
  I mention Bruce Vento, Admiral Zumwalt, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Barber and 
Mr. Mirante to demonstrate that asbestos disease strikes all different 
types of people in different professions who were exposed to asbestos 
at some point in their lives. Asbestos knows no boundaries. It is still 
in thousands of schools and buildings throughout the country, and is 
still being used in some consumer products.
  I first became interested in this issue because, like most people, I 
thought asbestos had been banned. But in 1999, the Seattle Post-
Intelligencer starting running stories about a disturbing trend in the 
small mining town of Libby, Montana. Residents there suffer from high 
rates of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. These findings 
prompted Montana Senator Max Baucus to ask EPA to investigate. The 
agency found that the vermiculite mine near Libby, which operated from 
the 1920s until 1990, is full of tremolite asbestos. EPA is still 
working to clean up Libby, which is now a Superfund site.
  W.R. Grace, the company which ran the mine, had evidence of the 
harmful health effects of its product, but did not warn workers, town 
residents or consumers. Instead, the product was shipped to over 300 
sites nationally for processing and then was used to make products such 
as home insulation and soil additives. EPA and the Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, have determined that 22 sites 
are still contaminated today, including one in Spokane, WA.
  At many plants where vermiculite from Libby was processed, waste rock 
left over from the expansion process was given away for free, and 
people used it in their yards, driveways and gardens. During its 
investigation into sites around the country which processed vermiculite 
from Libby, ATSDR discovered a picture taken of two darling little 
boys, Justin and Tim Jorgensen, climbing on waste rock given out by 
Western Minerals, Inc. in Minneapolis, MN sometime in the late 1970s. 
According to W.R. Grace records, this rock contained between 2 and 10 
percent tremolite asbestos. This rock produced airborne asbestos 
concentrations 135 times higher than the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration's current standard for workers. Thankfully, neither 
Justin nor Tim has shown any signs of disease, but their risks of 
developing asbestos diseases, which have latency periods of 15 to 40 
years, are increased from their childhood exposures.
  People may still today be exposing themselves to harmful amounts of 
asbestos in vermiculite. As many as 35 million homes and businesses may 
have insulation made with harmful minerals from Libby. And EPA has also 
tested agricultural products, soil conditioners and fertilizers, made 
with vermiculite, and determined that some workers may have been 
exposed to dangerous concentrations of tremolite asbestos.
  As I learned more about Libby, and how asbestos has ended up in 
products by accident, I was shocked to learn that asbestos is still 
being used in products on purpose. While some specific uses have been 
banned, the EPA's more sweeping ban was never put into effect because 
of an asbestos industry backed lawsuit. As a result, new uses of 
asbestos were banned, but most existing ones were not. Asbestos is 
still used today to make roofing products, gaskets, brakes and other 
products. In 2001 the U.S. consumed 13,000 metric tons of it. Asbestos 
is still entering the product stream in this country, despite its known 
dangers to human health.
  In contrast, asbestos has been banned in these 20 countries: 
Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, 
Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, 
Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Now 
it is time for the United States to ban asbestos, too. According to 
EPA, 27 million Americans had significant exposure to the material on 
the job between 1940 and 1980. It is time for the sad legacy of 
asbestos disease we have witnessed during the 20th century to come to 
an end. I want to ensure our government does all it can to minimize 
future suffering and death caused by this substance.
  That is why today I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 
2002. The legislation has four main parts. First and foremost, this 
bill protects public health by doing what the EPA tried to do 13 years 
ago: ban asbestos in the United States. The bill requires EPA to ban it 
by 2005. Like the regulations EPA finalized in 1989, companies may file 
for an exemption to the ban if there is no substitute material 
available: if there is no substitute material available and EPA 
determines the exemption won't pose an unreasonable risk of injury to 
public health or the environment.
  Second, the bill requires EPA to conduct a public education campaign 
about the risks of asbestos products. Within 6 months of passage, the 
EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission will begin educating 
people about how to safely handle insulation made with vermiculite. I 
believe the government needs to warn people that their insulation, if 
made with vermiculite, may be contaminated with asbestos. Home owners 
and workers may be unknowingly exposing themselves to asbestos when 
they conduct routine maintenance near this insulation. While EPA has 
agreed to remove vermiculite insulation from homes in Libby, the agency 
currently has no plans to do this nation-wide.
  The legislation also requires EPA to conduct a survey to determine 
which foreign and domestic products being consumed in the United States 
today have been made with asbestos. There is no solid, up-to-date 
information about which products contain it, although EPA has estimated 
that as many as 3,000 products still do.
  The survey will provide the foundation for a broader education 
campaign so consumers and workers will know how to handle as safely as 
possible asbestos products that were purchased before the ban goes into 
effect.
  Third, the legislation requires funding to improve treatment for 
asbestos diseases. The bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, working through the National Institutes of Health, to 
``expand, intensify and coordinate programs for the conduct and support 
of research on diseases caused by exposure to asbestos.'' The Ban 
Asbestos in America Act requires the creation of a National 
Mesothelioma Registry to improve tracking of the disease. If there had 
been an asbestos disease tracking system in place, public health 
officials would have detected the health problems in Libby much sooner, 
and may have saved lives.
  In addition, the bill authorizes funding for 7 mesothelioma treatment 
centers nationwide to improve treatments for and awareness of this 
fatal cancer. As was the case with Mr. Harvey, who received treatment 
from the University of Washington, early detection and proper treatment 
make the difference between life and death. This bill authorizes 
$500,000 for each center for five years. This means more mesothelioma 
patients will receive treatments that can prolong their lives.
  In response to the EPA Inspector General's report on Libby, Montana, 
EPA committed to create a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos and other 
durable fibers. However, because of insufficient resources, EPA has now 
narrowed

[[Page 10676]]

the focus of the Panel to address issues surrounding only the six 
regulated forms of asbestos. The bill requires EPA to expand its Blue 
Ribbon Panel on Asbestos to address issues beyond those surrounding the 
six regulated forms of asbestos.
  The Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002 expands the Blue Ribbon 
Panel's scope to include nonasbestiform asbestos and other durable 
fibers. The Panel shall include participation by the Department of 
Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission. In its response to the Inspector General, 
EPA was originally planning for the Panel to address implementation of 
and grant programs under Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, 
creation of a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Pollutants 
under the Clean Air Act for contaminant asbestos, and other legislative 
and regulatory options for protecting public health.
  The Administration also promised for the Panel to review the 
feasibility of establishing a durable fibers testing program within 
EPA, options to improve protections against exposure to asbestos in 
asbestos-containing products in buildings, and public education. The 
Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002 requires the Panel to address these 
subjects as EPA originally planned.
  The legislation also requires the Panel to explore the need to 
establish across federal agencies a uniform asbestos standard and a 
protocol for detecting and measuring asbestos. Currently, asbestos is 
regulated under at least 11 statutes. There are different standards 
within EPA and across federal agencies, and agencies rely on different 
protocols to detect and measure the substance. This has led to 
widespread confusion for the public, for example, in 2000, there were 
reports that there was asbestos in crayons. There has also been 
confusion surrounding asbestos exposure in New York City following the 
collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. And in Libby, the EPA 
Inspector General's report cited split jurisdiction and multiple 
standards as one of the reasons EPA didn't do a better job of 
protecting the people of Libby from exposure to asbestos in the first 
place.
  The Blue Ribbon Panel will also review the current state of the 
science on the human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other 
durable fibers, whether the current definition of asbestos containing 
material should be modified throughout the Code of Federal Regulations, 
and current research on and technologies for disposal of asbestos-
containing products and contaminant asbestos products. The bill leaves 
up to the discretion of the Panel whether it will expand its scope to 
include manmade fibers, such as ceramic and carbon fibers. The Blue 
Ribbon Panel's recommendations are due 2 years after enactment of the 
Act.
  Our Federal agencies need to do a better job of coordinating and 
working together on asbestos, which will mean less confusion for the 
public and improved protection for everyone.
  The toll that asbestos has taken on people's lives in this country is 
staggering. And while Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton, Wellstone, and 
I continue to mourn the loss of Congressman Bruce Vento, Admiral Elmo 
Zumwalt, more than 200 people from Libby and thousands of others, today 
our message is one of hope.
  Our hope is that by continuing to work together, we will build 
support for the Ban Asbestos in America Act. If we can get this 
legislation passed, fewer people will be exposed to asbestos, fewer 
people will contract asbestos diseases in the first place, and those 
who already have asbestos diseases will receive treatments to prolong 
and improve quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ban 
Asbestos in America Act of 2002 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2641

       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 ``Ban Asbestos in America Act 
     of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency has classified asbestos as a category A human 
     carcinogen, the highest cancer hazard classification for a 
     substance;
       (2) there is no known safe level of exposure to asbestos;
       (3)(A) in hearings before Congress in the early 1970s, the 
     example of asbestos was used to justify the need for 
     comprehensive legislation on toxic substances; and
       (B) in 1976, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.);
       (4) in 1989, the Administrator promulgated final 
     regulations under title II of the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 2641 et seq.) to phase out asbestos in 
     consumer products by 1997;
       (5) in 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th 
     Circuit overturned the regulations, and the Administrator did 
     not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court;
       (6) as a result, while new uses of asbestos were banned, 
     asbestos is still being used in some consumer and industrial 
     products in the United States;
       (7) available evidence suggests that--
       (A) imports of some types of asbestos-containing products 
     may be increasing; and
       (B) some of those products are imported from foreign 
     countries in which asbestos is poorly regulated;
       (8) many people in the United States incorrectly believe 
     that--
       (A) asbestos has been banned in the United States; and
       (B) there is no risk of exposure to asbestos through the 
     use of new commercial products;
       (9) asbestos has been banned in Argentina, Austria, 
     Belgium, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, 
     Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, 
     Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United 
     Kingdom;
       (10) asbestos will be banned throughout the European Union 
     in 2005;
       (11) the World Trade Organization recently upheld the right 
     of France to ban asbestos, with the United States Trade 
     Representative filing a brief in support of the right of 
     France to ban asbestos;
       (12) the 1999 brief by the United States Trade 
     Representative stated, ``In the view of the United States, 
     chrysotile asbestos is a toxic material that presents a 
     serious risk to human health.'';
       (13) people in the United States have been exposed to 
     harmful levels of asbestos as a contaminant of other 
     minerals;
       (14) in the town of Libby, Montana, workers and residents 
     have been exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos for 
     generations because of mining operations at the W.R. Grace 
     vermiculite mine located in that town;
       (15) the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
     found that over a 20-year period, ``mortality in Libby 
     resulting from asbestosis was approximately 40 to 60 times 
     higher than expected. Mesothelioma mortality was also 
     elevated.'';
       (16)(A) in response to this crisis, in January 2002, the 
     Governor of Montana requested that the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency designate Libby as a 
     Superfund site; and
       (B) the Administrator is in the process of placing Libby on 
     the National Priorities List;
       (17)(A) vermiculite from Libby was shipped for processing 
     to 42 States; and
       (B) Federal agencies are investigating potential harmful 
     exposures to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite at sites 
     throughout the United States; and
       (18) although it is impracticable to ban asbestos entirely 
     because asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral in the 
     environment and occurs in several deposits throughout the 
     United States, Congress needs to do more to protect the 
     public from exposure to asbestos.

     SEC. 3. ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 2641 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by inserting before section 201 (15 U.S.C. 2641) the 
     following:

                  ``Subtitle A--General Provisions'';

     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

               ``Subtitle B--Asbestos-Containing Products

     ``SEC. 221. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Asbestos-containing product.--The term `asbestos-
     containing product' means any product (including any part) to 
     which asbestos is deliberately or knowingly added or in which 
     asbestos is deliberately or knowingly used in any 
     concentration.
       ``(2) Contaminant-asbestos product.--The term `contaminant-
     asbestos product' means any product that contains asbestos as 
     a contaminant of any mineral or other substance, in any 
     concentration.
       ``(3) Covered person.--The term `covered person' means--
       ``(A) any individual;
       ``(B) any corporation, company, association, firm, 
     partnership, joint venture, sole

[[Page 10677]]

     proprietorship, or other for-profit or nonprofit business 
     entity (including any manufacturer, importer, distributor, or 
     processor);
       ``(C) any Federal, State, or local department, agency, or 
     instrumentality; and
       ``(D) any interstate body.
       ``(4) Distribute in commerce.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `distribute in commerce' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 3.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `distribute in commerce' does 
     not include--
       ``(i) an action taken with respect to an asbestos-
     containing product in connection with the end use of the 
     asbestos-containing product by a covered person that is an 
     end user; or
       ``(ii) distribution of an asbestos-containing product by a 
     covered person solely for the purpose of disposal of the 
     asbestos-containing product.
       ``(5) Durable fiber.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `durable fiber' means a 
     silicate fiber that--
       ``(i) occurs naturally in the environment; and
       ``(ii) is similar to asbestos in--

       ``(I) resistance to dissolution;
       ``(II) leaching; and
       ``(III) other physical or chemical processes expected from 
     contact with lung cells and fluids.

       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `durable fiber' includes--
       ``(i) richterite;
       ``(ii) winchite;
       ``(iii) erionite; and
       ``(iv) nonasbestiform varieties of chrysotile, crocidolite, 
     amosite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite.
       ``(6) Fiber.--The term `fiber' means an acicular single 
     crystal or similarly elongated polycrystalline aggregate 
     particle with a length to width ratio of 3 to 1 or greater.

     ``SEC. 222. PANEL ON ASBESTOS AND OTHER DURABLE FIBERS.

       ``(a) Panel.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall continue the 
     panel (established by the Administrator and in existence on 
     the date of enactment of this subtitle) to study asbestos and 
     other durable fibers.
       ``(2) Participation.--The Secretary of Labor, the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services, and the Chairman of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission shall participate in the 
     activities of the panel.
       ``(b) Issues.--The panel shall study and, not later than 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this section, provide 
     the Administrator recommendations for, public education 
     programs relating to--
       ``(1) the need to establish, for use by all Federal 
     agencies--
       ``(A) a uniform asbestos exposure standard; and
       ``(B) a protocol for measuring and detecting asbestos;
       ``(2) the current state of the science relating to the 
     human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other 
     durable fibers;
       ``(3) implementation of subtitle A;
       ``(4) grant programs under subtitle A;
       ``(5) revisions to the national emissions standards for 
     hazardous air pollutants promulgated under the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.);
       ``(6) legislative and regulatory options for improving 
     consumer and worker protections against harmful health 
     effects of exposure to asbestos and durable fibers;
       ``(7) whether the definition of asbestos-containing 
     material, meaning any material that contains more than 1 
     percent asbestos by weight, should be modified throughout the 
     Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(8) the feasibility of establishing a durable fibers 
     testing program;
       ``(9) options to improve protections against exposure to 
     asbestos from asbestos-containing products in buildings;
       ``(10) current research on and technologies for disposal of 
     asbestos-containing products and contaminant-asbestos 
     products; and
       ``(11) at the option of the panel, the effects on human 
     health that may result from exposure to ceramic, carbon, and 
     other manmade fibers.

     ``SEC. 223. STUDY OF ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS AND 
                   CONTAMINANT-ASBESTOS PRODUCTS.

       ``(a) In General.--In consultation with the Secretary of 
     Labor, the Chairman of the International Trade Commission, 
     the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and 
     the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, 
     the Administrator shall conduct a study on the status of the 
     manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, ownership, 
     importation, and disposal of asbestos-containing products and 
     contaminant-asbestos products in the United States.
       ``(b) Issues.--In conducting the study, the Administrator 
     shall examine--
       ``(1) how consumers, workers, and businesses use asbestos-
     containing products and contaminant-asbestos products that 
     are entering commerce as of the date of enactment of this 
     subtitle; and
       ``(2) whether consumers and workers are being exposed to 
     unhealthful levels of asbestos through exposure to products 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2005, the 
     Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the 
     results of the study.

     ``SEC. 224. PROHIBITION ON ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the 
     Administrator shall promulgate--
       ``(1) not later than January 1, 2004, proposed regulations 
     that prohibit covered persons from manufacturing, processing, 
     or distributing in commerce asbestos-containing products; and
       ``(2) not later than January 1, 2005, final regulations 
     that prohibit covered persons from manufacturing, processing, 
     or distributing in commerce asbestos-containing products.
       ``(b) Exemptions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person may petition the 
     Administrator for, and the Administrator may grant an 
     exemption from the requirements of subsection (a) if the 
     Administrator determines that--
       ``(A) the exemption would not result in an unreasonable 
     risk of injury to public health or the environment; and
       ``(B) the person has made good faith efforts to develop a 
     substance, or identify a mineral, that--
       ``(i) does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to 
     public health or the environment; and
       ``(ii) may be substituted for an asbestos-containing 
     product.
       ``(2) Terms and conditions.--An exemption granted under 
     this subsection shall be in effect for such period (not to 
     exceed 1 year) and subject to such terms and conditions as 
     the Administrator may prescribe.
       ``(c) Inventory.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), each covered 
     person (other than an individual) that possesses an asbestos-
     containing product that is subject to the prohibition 
     established under this section shall establish an inventory 
     of the asbestos-containing product possessed by the covered 
     person as of January 1, 2005.
       ``(2) Contents.--The inventory of a covered person subject 
     to paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) be in writing; and
       ``(B) include--
       ``(i) the type of each asbestos-containing product 
     possessed by the covered person;
       ``(ii) the number of product units of each asbestos-
     containing product in the inventory of the covered person; 
     and
       ``(iii) the location of the product units.
       ``(3) Records.--The information in an inventory of a 
     covered person shall be maintained for a period of not less 
     than 3 years.
       ``(4) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the application 
     of this subsection to an end user that possesses a de minimis 
     quantity of an asbestos-containing product, as determined by 
     the Administrator.
       ``(d) Disposal.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     later than June 1, 2005, each covered person that possesses 
     an asbestos-containing product that is subject to the 
     prohibition established under this section shall dispose of 
     the asbestos-containing product, by a means that is in 
     compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local 
     requirements.
       ``(2) Exemption.--Nothing in paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) applies to an asbestos-containing product that--
       ``(i) is no longer in the stream of commerce; or
       ``(ii) is in the possession of an end user; or
       ``(B) requires that an asbestos-containing product 
     described in subparagraph (A) be removed or replaced.

     ``SEC. 225. PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than March 1, 2005, and 
     subject to subsection (c), in consultation with the Chairman 
     of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Secretary 
     of Labor, the Administrator shall establish a program to 
     increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-
     containing products and contaminant-asbestos products in the 
     marketplace, including homes and workplaces.
       ``(b) Greatest Risks.--In establishing the program, the 
     Administrator shall--
       ``(1) base the program on the results of the study 
     conducted under section 223;
       ``(2) give priority to asbestos-containing products and 
     contaminant-asbestos products used by consumers and workers 
     that pose the greatest risk of injury to human health; and
       ``(3) at the option of the Administrator on receipt of a 
     recommendation from the panel, include in the program the 
     conduct of projects and activities to increase public 
     awareness of the effects on human health that may result from 
     exposure to--
       ``(A) durable fibers; and
       ``(B) ceramic, carbon, and other manmade fibers.
       ``(c) Minimal Risks.--If the Administrator determines, on 
     the basis of the study conducted under section 223, that 
     asbestos-containing products used by consumers and workers do 
     not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to human health, the 
     Administrator shall not be required to conduct a program 
     under this section.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section.''.

[[Page 10678]]

       (b) Vermiculite Insulation.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission shall begin a national campaign to educate 
     consumers concerning--
       (1) the dangers of vermiculite insulation that may be 
     contaminated with asbestos; and
       (2) measures that homeowners and business owners can take 
     to protect against those dangers.

     SEC. 4. ASBESTOS-CAUSED DISEASES.

       Subpart 1 of part C of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 417D. RESEARCH ON ASBESTOS-CAUSED DISEASES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of NIH and the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention shall expand, intensify, and 
     coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research 
     on diseases caused by exposure to asbestos, particularly 
     mesothelioma, asbestosis, and pleural injuries.
       ``(b) Administration.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section--
       ``(1) through the Director of NIH and the Director of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
       ``(2) in collaboration with the Administrator of the Agency 
     for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the head of any 
     other agency that the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       ``(c) Registry.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, in cooperation with the 
     Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety 
     and Health and the Administrator of the Agency for Toxic 
     Substances and Disease Registry, shall establish a National 
     Mesothelioma Registry.
       ``(2) Contents.--The Registry shall contain information on 
     diseases caused by exposure to asbestos, particularly 
     mesothelioma.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts made available for the purposes described in 
     subsection (a) under other law, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section such sums as are 
     necessary for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.

     ``SEC. 417E. MESOTHELIOMA TREATMENT PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Funding.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Director of NIH and the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, shall provide not to exceed $500,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to each 
     institution described in subsection (b) to strengthen the 
     mesothelioma treatment programs carried out at those 
     institutions.
       ``(b) Institutions.--The institutions described in this 
     subsection are the following:
       ``(1) The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital, New York, New 
     York.
       ``(2) The Karmanos Cancer Institute at Wayne State 
     University, Detroit, Michigan.
       ``(3) The University of California at Los Angeles Medical 
     School, Los Angeles, California.
       ``(4) The University of Chicago Cancer Research Center, 
     Chicago, Illinois.
       ``(5) The University of Pennsylvania Hospital, 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
       ``(6) The University of Texas, through the M.D. Anderson 
     Cancer Research Center Houston, Texas.
       ``(7) The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.''.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       The table of contents in section 1 of the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act (15 U.S.C. prec. 2601) is amended--
       (1) by inserting before the item relating to section 201 
     the following:

                  ``Subtitle A--General Provisions'';

     and
       (2) by adding at the end of the items relating to title II 
     the following:

               ``Subtitle B--Asbestos-Containing Products

``Sec. 221. Definitions.
``Sec. 222. Panel on asbestos and other durable fibers.
``Sec. 223. Study of asbestos-containing products and contaminant-
              asbestos products.
``Sec. 224. Prohibition on asbestos-containing products.
``Sec. 225. Public education program.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, and Mr. Bayh):
  S. 2642. A bill to require background checks of alien flight school 
applicants without regard to the maximum certificated weight of the 
aircraft for which they seek training, and to require a report on the 
effectiveness of the requirement; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, in the wake of the September 
11 terrorist attacks, it was discovered that many of the hijackers 
received flight training in the United States. In addition, Zacarias 
Moussaoui, the alleged ``20th hijacker,'' was apprehended by 
investigators in Minnesota after accounts that he was only interested 
in learning to fly, not land, an airplane.
  Section 113 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act requires 
background checks of all foreign flight school applicants seeking 
training to operate aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or more. While this 
provision should help ensure that events like the September 11 attacks 
are not performed by U.S.-trained pilots using hijacked jets in the 
future, it does nothing to prevent different types of potential attacks 
against our domestic security.
  The FBI recently issued a terrorism warning indication that small 
planes might be used to carry out attacks. We need to ensure that we 
are not training terrorists to perform these activities. We can't allow 
critical warnings to go unheeded.
  Today I am introducing legislation that would close this dangerous 
loophole by requiring background checks on all foreign applicants to 
U.S. flight schools, regardless of the aircraft on which they plan to 
train. I am joined in this effort by Senators Thomas, Feinstein, and 
Bayh, and I look forward to the Senate's prompt consideration of this 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2642

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

     SECTION 1. FLIGHT SCHOOL BACKGROUND CHECKS.

       Section 44939(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``having a maximum certificated takeoff 
     weight of 12,500 pounds or more''.

     SEC. 2. REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF BACKGROUND CHECK 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Transportation and the Attorney General shall 
     submit a joint report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure evaluating the 
     effectiveness of activities conducted under section 44939 of 
     title 49, United States Code.

                          ____________________