[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 499-517]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, 
        Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Craig, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Edwards, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Allen, Ms. Landrieu, 
        Mr. Kohl, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 152. A bill to assess the extent of the backlog in DNA analysis of 
rape kit samples, and to improve investigation and prosecution of 
sexual assault cases with DNA evidence; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise along with the distinguished Senior 
Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to introduce the DNA Sexual 
Assault Justice Act of 2003, a bill that guarantees prompt justice to 
victims of sexual assault crimes through DNA technology. This bill is 
not new to my colleagues. Last session, I introduced the DNA Sexual 
Assault Justice Act with Senators Specter, Cantwell, Clinton, and 
Schumer. The bill was voted favorably out of the Judiciary Committee 
with the key support of my good friend across the aisle, Senator 
Specter. And in September, with twenty co-sponsors, Republicans and 
Democrats, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act unanimously passed the 
Senate. Regrettably, our House counterparts were not able to act so 
quickly or decisively on a DNA bill, so I am back to re-introduce the 
bill and to urge quick passage of the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 
2003. I am pleased that, once again, this bill has strong bipartisan 
support and I look forward to working with my good friend from Utah, 
the distinguished Senior Senator, Senator Hatch, in acting promptly in 
marking up this bill when he assumes chairmanship of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Promoting and supporting DNA technology as a crime-fighting tool is 
not a new endeavor for me. A provision of my 1994 Crime Bill created 
the Combined DNA Index System, called ``CODIS'', which is an electronic 
database of DNA profiles, much like the FBI's fingerprint database. 
CODIS includes two kinds of DNA information, convicted offender DNA 
samples and DNA from crime scenes. CODIS uses the two indexes to 
generate investigative leads in crimes where biological evidence is 
recovered from the scene. In essence, CODIS facilitates the DNA match. 
And once that match is made a crime is solved because of the incredible 
accuracy and durability of DNA evidence.
  99.9 percent--that is how accurate DNA evidence is. 1 in 30 billion, 
those are the odds someone else committed a crime if a suspect's DNA 
matches evidence at the crime scene. 20 or 30 years, that is how long 
DNA evidence from a crime scene lasts.
  Just ten years ago DNA analysis of evidence could have cost thousands 
of dollars and taken months; now testing one sample costs $40 and can 
take days. Ten years ago forensic scientists needed blood the size of a 
bottle cap, now DNA testing can be done on a sample the size of a 
pinhead. The changes in DNA technology are remarkable, and mark a sea 
change in how we can fight crime, particularly sexual assault crimes.
  The FBI reports that since 1998 the national DNA database has helped 
put away violent criminals in 6,257 investigations in 40 States. How? 
By matching the DNA crime evidence to the DNA profiles of offenders. 
Individual success stories of DNA ``cold hits'' in sexual assault cases 
make these numbers all too real.
  Just last month, Alabama authorities charged a man in the rape of an 
85-year-old woman almost ten years ago after he was linked to the case 
by a DNA sample he was compelled to submit while in prison on unrelated 
charges.
  In Colorado Springs, CO, a trial will soon begin of a man accused of 
at least fourteen rapes and sexual assaults. Due to the national DNA 
database, prosecutors were able to trace the defendant to rapes and 
assaults that occurred in Colorado, California, Arizona, Nevada and 
Oklahoma between 1999 and 2002.
  In Florida, Kellie Green was brutally attacked and raped in the 
laundry room of her apartment complex. Because of lack of funds, her 
rape kit sat on the shelf for three years until a persistent detective 
had it analyzed. The evidence matched the profile of a man already 
incarcerated for beating and raping a woman 6 weeks before Kellie.
  Or take, for example, a 1996 case in St. Louis where two young girls 
were abducted from bus stops and raped at opposite ends of the city. 
The police were unable to identify a suspect. In 1999, the police 
decided to re-run the DNA testing to develop new leads. In January 
2000, the DNA database matched the case to a 1999 rape case, and police 
were able to identify the perpetrator.
  Last spring, the New York Police Department arrested a man linked to 
the rape of a woman years ago. In 1997, a woman was horribly beaten, 
robbed and

[[Page 500]]

raped, there were no suspects. Five years later, the perpetrator 
submitted a DNA sample as a condition of probation after serving time 
for burglary. The DNA sample matched the DNA from the 1997 rape. Crime 
solved, streets safer.
  Undoubtedly, DNA matching by comparing evidence gathered at the crime 
scene with offender samples entered on the national DNA database has 
proven to be the deciding factor in solving stranger sexual assault 
cases--it has revolutionized the criminal justice system, and brought 
closure and justice for victims.
  In light of the past successes and the future potential of DNA 
evidence, the reports about the backlog of untested rape kits and other 
crime scene evidence waiting in police warehouses are simply shocking. 
It is a national problem, plaguing both urban and rural areas, that 
deserves national attention and solutions. One woman, in particular, 
has reminded State and Federal lawmakers that we cannot ignore even one 
rape kit sitting on a shelf gathering dust, Debbie Smith. In 1989, Mrs. 
Smith was brutally taken from her home and raped. There were no known 
suspects and Mrs. Smith lived in fear of her attacker's return. Six 
years later, the Virginia crime laboratory discovered a DNA match 
between the rape scene evidence and a State prisoner's DNA sample. Mrs. 
Smith had her first moment of real security and closure and since then, 
she has traveled the country to advocate on behalf of assault victims 
and champion the use of DNA to fight sexual assault. I am pleased that 
the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003 bears a provision entitled, 
``The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants.''
  Today I am introducing legislation, ``The DNA Sexual Assault Justice 
Act of 2003'', to strengthen the existing Federal DNA regime as an 
effective crimefighting tool. My bill addresses five pressing issues.
  First, exactly how bad is the backlog of untested rape kits 
nationwide? A 1999 government report found over 180,000 rape kits were 
sitting, untested, on the storage shelves of police department and 
crime laboratories all across the country.
  While recent press reports estimate that the number today is 
approaching 500,000 untested rape kits, I am told that there are no 
current, accurate numbers of the backlog. Behind every single one of 
those rape kits is a victim who deserves recognition and justice. 
Accordingly, my legislation would require the Attorney General to 
survey law enforcement agencies nationwide to assess the extent of the 
backlog of rape kits waiting to undergo DNA testing. To combat the 
problem of rape kit backlogs, it is imperative to know the real 
numbers, and how best to utilize Federal resources.
  Second, how can existing Federal law be strengthened to make sure 
that State crime labs have the funds for the critical DNA analysis 
needed to solve sex assault cases? To fight crime most effectively, we 
must both test rape kits and enter convicted offender DNA samples into 
the DNA database. There has been explosive growth in the use of 
forensic sciences by law enforcement. A government survey found that in 
2000 alone, crime labs received 31,000 cases--a 47 percent increase 
from almost 21,000 cases in 1999. In addition, the labs received 
177,000 convicted offender DNA samples, an almost 77 percent increase 
from 100,242 samples in 1999.
  The backlog in DNA testing is found all across the country. Last 
month a Michigan newspaper reported that its State police forensic unit 
is expected to have a 10-year backlog of items in need of DNA testing. 
Similar news reports are elsewhere. The Florida crime lab system is 
facing a backlog of more than 2,400 rape, murder and assault and 
burglary cases with DNA evidence waiting for testing. In North 
Carolina, up to 20,000 rape kit tests sit on evidence shelves because 
the lab does not have the resources to conduct timely DNA testing.
  Many crime laboratories report personnel shortages in the face of 
this overwhelming work. According to a government survey, on average, 
there are 6 employees in a State crime lab, a lab that must not only 
conduct DNA testing for hundreds of cases, but also run forensic tests 
on blood, footprints or ballistic evidence.
  The bill I'm introducing would: 1. Increase current funding levels to 
both test rape kits and to process and upload offender samples; and 2. 
allow local governments to apply directly to the Justice Department for 
these grants. I thank my colleagues Senators Kohl and DeWine who began 
this effort with the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 and 
acknowledge their ongoing interest in this area.
  Third, what assistance does the FBI need to keep up with the crushing 
number of DNA samples which need to be tested or stored in the national 
database? I am told that the current national DNA database, ``CODIS'', 
is nearing capacity of convicted offender DNA samples. My bill would 
provide funds to the FBI to: 1. Upgrade the national DNA computer 
database to handle the huge projections of samples; and 2. process and 
upload Federal convicted offender DNA samples into the database.
  Efforts to include more Federal and State convicted offenders in our 
database just makes plain sense to fight crime. We know that sexual 
assault is a crime with one of the highest rates of recidivism, and 
that many sexual assault crimes are committed by those with past 
convictions for other kinds of crime. Their DNA samples from prior 
convictions help law enforcement efforts enormously. We cannot wait; 
the 2001 FBI crime records show that one forcible rape occurs every 5.8 
minutes, and the most recent reports from the first six months of 2002 
indicate a 1.8 percent increase in the number of rapes as compared to 
2001 statistics.
  Fourth, what additional tools are needed to help treat victims of 
sexual assault? One group that understands the importance of gathering 
credible DNA evidence are forensic sexual assault examiners, who are 
sensitive to the trauma of this horrible crime and make sure that 
patients are not revictimized in the aftermath. These programs should 
be in each and every emergency room and play an integral role in police 
departments to bridge the gap between the law and the medicine.
  I first recognized the importance of sexual assault nurse examiners 
in solving rape cases when I authored the Violence Against Women Act. A 
key provision in the Violence Against Women Act requires the Attorney 
General to evaluate and recommend standards for training and practice 
for licensed health care professionals performing sexual assault 
forensic exams. So I knew that any DNA bill aimed at ending sexual 
assault must include resources for sexual forensic examiners, and not 
just one type. My bill ensures that sexual forensic nurses, doctors, 
and response teams are all eligible for assistance.
  Tapping the power of DNA requires well-trained law enforcement who 
know how to collect and preserve DNA evidence from the crime scene. 
Training should be a matter of course for all law enforcement. No rape 
kit evidence will lead to the perpetrator if the DNA evidence is 
collected improperly.
  The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act would create a new grant program 
to carry out sexual assault examiner programs and training. And it 
would train law enforcement personnel and prosecutors in the handling 
of sexual assault cases, including drug-facilitated assaults, and the 
collection and use of DNA samples for use as forensic evidence at 
trial.
  Fifth, what can be done to ensure that sexual assault offenders who 
cannot be identified by their victim are nevertheless brought to 
justice?
  Profound injustice is done to rape victims when delayed DNA testing 
leads to a ``cold hit'' after the statute of limitations has expired. 
For example, Jeri Elster was brutally raped in her California home, and 
for years the police were unable to solve the crime. Seven years later, 
DNA from the rape matched a man in jail for an unrelated crime. Yet the 
rapist was never charged, convicted or sentenced because California's 
statute of limitations had expired the previous year.

[[Page 501]]

  The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003 would change current law 
to authorize Federal ``John Doe/DNA indictments'' that will permit 
Federal prosecutors to issue an indictment identifying an unknown 
defendant by his DNA profile within the five year statute of 
limitations. Once outstanding, the DNA indictment would permit 
prosecution at anytime once there was a DNA ``cold hit'' through the 
national DNA database system.
  John Doe/DNA indictments strike the right balance between encouraging 
swift and efficient investigations, recognizing the durability and 
credibility of DNA evidence and preventing an injustice if a cold hit 
happens years after the crime. Criminal law must catch up with DNA 
technology without the wholesale eradication of prevailing statutes of 
limitations.
  I started looking at the issue of improved prosecution of sexual 
assault crimes almost two decades ago when I began drafting the 
Violence Against Women Act. The DNA Sexual Justice Act of 2003 is the 
next step, a way to connect the dots between the extraordinary strides 
in DNA technology and my commitment to ending violence against women. 
We must ensure that justice delayed is not justice denied.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 152

       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 ``DNA Sexual Assault Justice 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. ASSESSMENT OF BACKLOG IN DNA ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES.

       (a) Assessment.--The Attorney General, acting through the 
     Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall survey 
     Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement 
     jurisdictions to assess the amount of DNA evidence contained 
     in rape kits and in other evidence from sexual assault crimes 
     that has not been subjected to testing and analysis.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the assessment carried out under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) the results of the assessment carried out under 
     subsection (a);
       (B) the number of rape kit samples and other evidence from 
     sexual assault crimes that have not been subjected to DNA 
     testing and analysis; and
       (C) a plan for carrying out additional assessments and 
     reports on the backlog in crime scene DNA testing and 
     analysis.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Justice to carry out 
     this section $500,000 for fiscal year 2004.

     SEC. 3. THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 
     2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading and inserting ``AUTHORIZATION 
     OF DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANTS.''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``including samples from 
     rape kits and samples from other sexual assault evidence, 
     including samples taken in cases with no identified suspect'' 
     after ``crime scene''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) To ensure that DNA testing and analysis of samples 
     from rape kits and nonsuspect cases are carried out in a 
     timely manner.''.

     SEC. 4. INCREASED GRANTS FOR ANALYSIS OF DNA SAMPLES FROM 
                   CONVICTED OFFENDERS AND CRIME SCENES.

       Section 2(j) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 
     2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135(j)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(D) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(E) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(F) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(G) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
     Amounts made available to carry out the purposes specified in 
     subsection (a)(1) shall remain available until expended.''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(C) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(D) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(E) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(F) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(G) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
     Amounts made available to carry out the purposes specified in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) shall remain 
     available until expended.''.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO APPLY FOR AND 
                   RECEIVE DNA BACKLOG ELIMINATION GRANTS.

       Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 
     2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceeding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``, units of local government, or Indian 
     tribes'' after ``eligible States''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``, unit of local government, or Indian 
     tribe'' after ``State''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or by units of local 
     government'' and inserting ``, units of local government, or 
     Indian tribes'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``or unit of local government, or the head of the Indian 
     tribe'' after ``State'' each place that term appears;
       (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'' the first time 
     that term appears;
       (D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State''; and
       (E) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or a unit of local 
     government'' and inserting ``, a unit of local government, or 
     an Indian tribe''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or a unit of local 
     government'' and inserting ``, a unit of local government, or 
     an Indian tribe''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``, units of local 
     government, and Indian tribes,'' after ``States'';
       (5) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or local government'' 
     after ``State'' each place that term appears; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';
       (6) in subsection (f), in the matter preceeding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``, unit of local government, or Indian 
     tribe'' after ``State'';
       (7) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, units of local 
     government, or Indian tribes'' after ``States''; and
       (8) in subsection (h), by inserting ``, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'' each place that 
     term appears.

     SEC. 6. IMPROVING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR BACKLOG GRANTS.

       Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 
     2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) if the applicant is a unit of local government, 
     certify that the applicant participates in a State laboratory 
     system;
       ``(7) provide assurances that, not later than 3 years after 
     the date on which the application is submitted, the State, 
     unit of local government, or Indian tribe will implement a 
     plan for forwarding, not later than 180 days after a DNA 
     evidence sample is obtained, all samples collected in cases 
     of sexual assault to a laboratory that meets the quality 
     assurance standards for testing under subsection (d); and
       ``(8) upon issuance of the regulations specified in section 
     10(d), certify that the State, unit of local government, or 
     Indian tribe is in compliance with those regulations.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Attorney General shall give priority to a State or unit of 
     local government that has a significant rape kit or 
     nonsuspect case backlog per capita as compared with other 
     applicants.''.

     SEC. 7. QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS FOR COLLECTION AND 
                   HANDLING OF DNA EVIDENCE.

       (a) National Protocol.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall review 
     national, State, local, and tribal government protocols, that 
     exist on or before the date of enactment of this Act, on the 
     collection and processing of DNA evidence at crime scenes.
       (2) Recommended protocol.--Based upon the review described 
     in paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall develop a 
     recommended

[[Page 502]]

     national protocol for the collection of DNA evidence at crime 
     scenes, including crimes of rape and other sexual assault.
       (b) Standards, Practice, and Training for Sexual Assault 
     Forensic Examinations.--Section 1405(a) of the Victims of 
     Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796gg note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and emergency response 
     personnel'' after ``health care students''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and DNA evidence 
     collection'' after ``sexual assault forensic examinations''.

     SEC. 8. SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAM PROGRAM GRANTS.

       (a) Authorization of Grants.--The Attorney General shall 
     make grants to eligible entities to--
       (1) establish and maintain sexual assault examiner 
     programs;
       (2) carry out sexual assault examiner training and 
     certification; and
       (3) acquire or improve forensic equipment.
       (b) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' means--
       (1) a State;
       (2) a unit of local government;
       (3) a college, university, or other institute of higher 
     learning;
       (4) an Indian tribe;
       (5) sexual assault examination programs, including sexual 
     assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs, sexual assault 
     forensic examiner (SAFE) programs, and sexual assault 
     response team (SART) programs; and
       (6) a State sexual assault coalition.
       (c) Application.--To receive a grant under this section--
       (1) an eligible entity shall submit to the Attorney General 
     an application in such form and containing such information 
     as the Attorney General may require; and
       (2) an existing or proposed sexual assault examination 
     program shall also--
       (A) certify that the program complies with the standards 
     and recommended protocol developed by the Attorney General 
     pursuant to section 1405 of the Victims of Trafficking and 
     Violence Protection Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg note); and
       (B) certify that the applicant is aware of, and utilizing, 
     uniform protocols and standards issued by the Department of 
     Justice on the collection and processing of DNA evidence at 
     crime scenes.
       (d) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Attorney General shall give priority to proposed or existing 
     sexual assault examination programs that are serving, or will 
     serve, populations currently underserved by existing sexual 
     assault examination programs.
       (e) Restrictions on Use of Funds.--
       (1) Supplemental funds.--Funds made available under this 
     section shall not be used to supplant State funds, but shall 
     be used to increase the amount of funds that would, in the 
     absence of Federal funds, be made available from State 
     sources for the purposes of this section.
       (2) Administrative costs.--An eligible entity may not use 
     more than 5 percent of the funds it receives under this 
     section for administrative expenses.
       (3) Nonexclusivity.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit or restrict the ability of proposed or 
     existing sexual assault examination programs to apply for and 
     obtain Federal funding from any other agency or department or 
     any other Federal grant program.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, to remain 
     available until expended, $30,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2008 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 9. DNA EVIDENCE TRAINING GRANTS.

       (a) Authorization of Grants.--The Attorney General shall 
     make grants to eligible entities to--
       (1) train law enforcement personnel and all other first 
     responders at crime scenes, including investigators, in the 
     handling of sexual assault cases and the collection and use 
     of DNA samples for use as forensic evidence;
       (2) train State and local prosecutors on the use of DNA 
     samples for use as forensic evidence; and
       (3) train law enforcement personnel to recognize, detect, 
     report, and respond to drug-facilitated sexual assaults.
       (b) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' means--
       (1) a State;
       (2) a unit of local government;
       (3) a college, university, or other institute of higher 
     learning; and
       (4) an Indian tribe.
       (c) Application.--To receive a grant under this section, 
     the chief executive officer of a State, unit of local 
     government, or university, or the head of a tribal government 
     that desires a grant under this section shall submit to the 
     Attorney General--
       (1) an application in such form and containing such 
     information as the Attorney General may require;
       (2) certification that the applicant is aware of, and 
     utilizing, uniform protocols and standards issued by the 
     Department of Justice on the collection and processing of DNA 
     evidence at crime scenes;
       (3) certification that the applicant is aware of, and 
     utilizing, the national sexual assault forensic examination 
     training protocols developed under section 1405(a) of the 
     Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 
     (42 U.S.C. 3796gg note); and
       (4) if the applicant is a unit of local government, 
     certification that the applicant participates in a State 
     laboratory system.
       (d) Restrictions on Use of Funds.--
       (1) Supplemental funds.--Funds made available under this 
     section shall not be used to supplant State funds, but shall 
     be used to increase the amount of funds that would, in the 
     absence of Federal funds, be made available from State 
     sources for the purposes of this section.
       (2) Administrative costs.--An eligible entity may not use 
     more than 5 percent of the funds it receives under this 
     section for administrative expenses.
       (3) Nonexclusivity.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit or restrict the ability of an eligible 
     entity to apply for and obtain Federal funding from any other 
     agency or department or any other Federal grant program.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Justice $10,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZING JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENTS.

       (a) Limitations.--Section 3282 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Except'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Limitation.--Except''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) DNA Profile Indictment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any indictment found for an offense 
     under chapter 109A, if the identity of the accused is 
     unknown, it shall be sufficient to describe the accused as an 
     individual whose name is unknown, but who has a particular 
     DNA profile.
       ``(2) Exception.--Any indictment described in paragraph 
     (1), which is found within 5 years after the offense under 
     chapter 109A shall have been committed, shall not be subject 
     to--
       ``(A) the limitations period described in subsection (a); 
     and
       ``(B) the provisions of chapter 208 until the individual is 
     arrested or served with a summons in connection with the 
     charges contained in the indictment.
       ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `DNA profile' means a set of DNA identification 
     characteristics.''.
       (b) Rules of Criminal Procedure.--Rule 7 of the Federal 
     Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended in subdivision (c)(1) 
     by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of an 
     indictment referred to in section 3282 of title 18, United 
     States Code, if the identity of the defendant is unknown, it 
     shall be sufficient to describe the defendant, in the 
     indictment, as an individual whose name is unknown, but who 
     has a particular DNA profile, as defined in that section 
     3282.''.

     SEC. 11. INCREASED GRANTS FOR COMBINED DNA INDEX (CODIS) 
                   SYSTEM.

       Section 210306 of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 
     U.S.C. 14134) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``There'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--There''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Increased Grants for CODIS.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to 
     carry out upgrades to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) 
     $9,700,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.

     SEC. 12. INCREASED GRANTS FOR FEDERAL CONVICTED OFFENDER 
                   PROGRAM (FCOP).

       Section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 
     2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to 
     carry out this section $500,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.

     SEC. 13. PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING DNA EVIDENCE AND 
                   DNA ANALYSES.

       (a) Privacy Protection Standard.--Section 10(a) of the DNA 
     Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 
     14135e(a)) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``or in section 3282(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code''.
       (b) Limitation on Access to DNA Information.--Section 10 of 
     the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 
     14135e) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Limitation on Access to DNA Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall establish, by 
     regulation, procedures to limit access to, or use of, stored 
     DNA samples or DNA analyses.
       ``(2) Regulations.--The regulations established under 
     paragraph (1) shall establish conditions for using DNA 
     information to--
       ``(A) limit the use and dissemination of such information, 
     as provided under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 
     210304(b)(3) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3));
       ``(B) limit the redissemination of such information;
       ``(C) ensure the accuracy, security, and confidentiality of 
     such information;
       ``(D) protect any privacy rights of individuals who are the 
     subject of such information; and

[[Page 503]]

       ``(E) provide for the timely removal and destruction of 
     obsolete or inaccurate information, or information required 
     to be expunged.''.
       (c) Criminal Penalty.--Section 10(c) of the DNA Analysis 
     Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135e) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``discloses a sample or 
     result'' and inserting ``discloses or uses a DNA sample or 
     DNA analysis''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``per offense'' after 
     ``$100,000''.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this important 
legislation to address the shameful backlog of unanalyzed DNA evidence 
in rape kits. Senator Biden, Senator Spector and I worked closely on 
this issue last year and this bill is an excellent compromise that 
combines aspects of bills introduced by myself and by Senator Biden. 
This bill provides critical resources to State and Federal Governments 
to ensure that all the DNA evidence sitting in storage rooms across the 
country can be tested and perpetrators found and convicted. As more and 
more states have moved to require DNA samples from all convicted 
felons, the Federal resources that this bill provides to aid in the 
building of convicted offender records has also become more critical. 
The bill unanimously passed both the Judiciary Committee and the full 
Senate last year. It once again has strong bipartisan support, and I 
anticipate that we will work quickly to pass the bill in this new 
Congress, so that the bill can also pass the House of Representatives 
and become law. This bill reauthorizes a 2000 bill and time is of the 
essence as those authorizations expire soon. The power of DNA to find 
and convict rapists in cases where there have never even been an 
identified suspect cannot be overstated. We must act now to help law 
enforcement and prosecutors across the country be able to make full use 
of the most valuable tool at their disposal.
  One of the things that I am most pleased about is that the grant 
program in this bill to fund DNA testing of existing rape kits 
throughout the country will bear the name of Debbie Smith. In her 
testimony before the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee last 
June, she proved herself an extraordinary spokesperson on the power of 
DNA evidence to bring not just justice but peace to victims of sexual 
assault.
  The heart of this bill is about getting DNA evidence from rape cases 
that is currently sitting in police evidence rooms tested and checked 
against the DNA profiles of convicted felons. We all know that DNA is a 
tool that works and as more states begin building their felon data 
bases, more and more cases of rape where police have no suspect are 
being solved.
  We owe every woman in this country who has had the courage to come 
forward and undergo an invasive physical exam and evidence gathering 
after the trauma of a sexual assault, at a minimum, the absolute 
guarantee that the collected evidence is being checked against known 
felons. That is what this bill does.
  In my state of Washington alone, in the past five years at least 
12,950 women have submitted to humiliating and traumatic exams for the 
collection of evidence that has not been analyzed to help solve their 
rape. When applied on a national scale, these findings would indicate a 
national backlog of 615,000 cases of untested evidence. Washington 
State University is currently in the process of conducting a national 
assessment of the backlog of rape kits and I look forward to learning 
those results but we simply must provide the resources to get this 
evidence analyzed now.
  We need to pass this bill and fund this bill to help police solve 
more rapes and give women receive the peace of mind of knowing that 
everything that can be done to catch their attacker is being done.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 152, the DNA 
Sexual Justice Act of 2003. Building on the success of the Kohl-DeWine 
DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act enacted during the 106th Congress, 
this legislation will provide law enforcement and prosecutors with 
critical physical evidence that will help put more criminals behind 
bars. Currently, DNA evidence is languishing untested at laboratories 
nationwide, simply for lack of funding. The DNA Sexual Justice Act will 
assess the extent of the backlog and provide funding for its 
elimination. Further, this legislation will ensure that DNA evidence 
from cases involving sexual assault is handled properly by providing 
training for emergency personnel, medical examiners, law enforcement, 
forensic analysts and prosecutors.
  Currently, all 50 States and the Federal Government require DNA 
samples to be obtained from certain convicted offenders, and these 
samples increasingly can be shared through a national DNA database 
established by Federal law. This national database, part of the 
Combined Database Index System, CODIS, enables law enforcement 
officials to link DNA evidence found at a crime scene with any suspect 
whose DNA is already on file. By identifying repeat offenders, this DNA 
sharing can and does make a difference.
  Before passage of the Kohl-DeWine Backlog Elimination Act in 2000, 
law enforcement was in large part unable to take advantage of DNA 
analysis as a crime-fighting technology. This was primarily due to the 
fact that DNA sample collection was not required of all Federal 
offenders, forensic labs did not have enough resources or equipment to 
analyze collected samples, and State databases were not interoperable 
with Federal databases. This bill will further address these issues by 
directing the Attorney General to survey forensic laboratories across 
the country to determine the scope of the backlog and authorizes the 
funding necessary to eliminate the backlog over the next four years.
  However this legislation goes even further, focusing new, targeted 
grant programs toward DNA evidence collected from crimes of sexual 
assault or violence. By authorizing funding for the training of 
emergency personnel and medical examiners, this legislation ensures 
that DNA evidence will be properly collected. With funding for forensic 
equipment and the training of forensic examiners, it ensures that DNA 
evidence will be accurately analyzed. And by providing funding for the 
training of prosecutors, this legislation ensures that the evidence 
will be used to its greatest possible effect in the courtroom.
  This measure will ensure that women who have been victims of sexual 
assault or violence will have the most reliable tools to bring their 
assailants to justice. Most importantly, this legislation will help 
police use modern technology to solve crimes and prevent repeat 
offenders from committing new ones.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Sessions, and Mr. Craig):
  S. 153. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish 
penalties for aggravated identity theft, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Identity 
Theft Penalty Enhancement Act along with Senator Kyl, Senator Grassley, 
Senator Sessions, and Senator Craig.
  I first introduced this bipartisan legislation last June with the 
full support of the Justice Department. The bill will make it easier 
for prosecutors to target those identity thieves who, as is so often 
the case, steal an identity for the purpose of committing one or more 
other crimes.
  I am hopeful that we can build on the momentum generated by this 
legislation in the 107th Congress. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information conducted a hearing 
on the bill on July 9, 2002.
  The Judiciary Committee subsequently passed the legislation out of 
Committee on November 14, shortly before the Senate went out of 
session.
  As we enter the 108th congress, there remains a compelling need to 
stiffen the penalties for identity thieves.
  A little more than a month ago, the largest single identity theft 
case in U.S. history was uncovered. Federal authorities arrested Philip 
Cummings who, along with two accomplices, allegedly sold the credit 
reports and

[[Page 504]]

other personal information of 30,000 victims for as little as $30 each. 
Investigators have confirmed $2.7 million in losses so far, and the 
totals are expected to be much greater. This case is an example of the 
tremendous damage that an identity thief can cause.
  Moreover, many serious crimes, even including terrorism, are aided by 
stolen identifies.
  Lofti Raissi, a 27-year old Algerian pilot from London who is 
believed to have trained four of the 9/11 hijackers, was identified in 
British court papers as having used the Social Security number of 
Dorothy Hansen, a retired factory worker from Jersey City, NJ, who died 
in 1991.
  Last year, the Department of Justice filed charges against an 
Algerian national who stole the identifies of 21 members of a health 
club in Cambridge, MA. He then transferred those stolen identities to 
one of the individuals convicted in the failed plot to bomb Los Angeles 
International Airport in 1999.
  Joseph Kalady of Chicago was charged with trying to fake his own 
death using the identity of another. Kalady, who was awaiting trial on 
charges of counterfeiting birth certificates, Social Security cards and 
driver's licenses, allegedly suffocated a homeless man and sought to 
have him cremated under Mr. Kalady's identity in order to fake his own 
death and avoid prosecution.
  The stories go on and on, and it is those stories that make the 
legislation we introduce today so vital. Identity theft has become the 
major escalating crime of the new millennium, and Congress needs to 
give law enforcement the tools to prosecute these crimes.
  Let me just outline what this bill would do.
  First, the bill would create a separate crime of ``aggravated 
identity theft'' for any person who uses the identity of another person 
to commit certain serious, Federal crimes.
  Specifically, the legislation would provide for an additional two-
year penalty for any individual convicted of committing one of the 
following serious Federal crimes while using the identity of another 
person: Stealing another's identity in order to illegally obtain 
citizenship in the United States; stealing another's identity to obtain 
a passport or visa; using another's identity to remain in the United 
States illegally after a visa has expired or an individual has been 
ordered to depart this country; stealing an individual's identity to 
commit bank, wire or mail fraud, or to steal from employee pension 
funds; and other serious Federal crimes, all of them felonies.
  Furthermore, the legislation would provide for an additional five-
year penalty for any individual who uses the stolen identity of another 
person to commit any one of the enumerated Federal terrorism crimes 
found in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B). These crimes include: The 
destruction of aircraft; the assassination or kidnapping of high level 
Federal officials; bombings; hostage taking; providing material support 
to terrorism organizations; and other terrorist crimes.
  Under the legislation, aggravated identity theft is a separate crime, 
not just a sentencing enhancement. And the two-year and five-year 
penalties for aggravated identity theft must be served consecutively to 
the sentence for the underlying crime.
  This bill also strengthens the ability of law enforcement to go after 
identity thieves and to provide their case.
  First, the bill adds the word ``possesses'' to current law, in order 
to allow law enforcement to target individuals who possess the identity 
documents of another person with the intent to commit a crime. Current 
Federal law prohibits the transfer or use of false identity documents, 
but does not specifically ban the possession of those documents with 
the intent to commit a crime.
  So if law enforcement discovers a stash of identity documents with 
the clear intent to use those documents to commit other crimes, the 
person who possesses those documents will now be subject to 
prosecution.
  Second, the legislation amends current law to make it clear that if a 
person uses a false identity ``in connection with'' another Federal 
crime, and the intent of the underlying Federal crime is proven, then 
the intent to use the false identity to commitment that crime need not 
be separately proved.
  This simply makes the job of the prosecutor easier when an individual 
is convicted of a Federal crime and uses a false identity in collection 
with that crime.
  This legislation also increases the maximum penalty for identity 
theft under current law from three years to five years.
  And finally, the legislation we introduce today will clarify that the 
current 25-year maximum sentence for identity theft in facilitation of 
international terrorism also applies to identity theft in facilitation 
of domestic terrorism as well.
  Identity theft is a crime on the rise in America, and it is a crime 
with severe consequences not only for the individual victims of the 
identity theft, but for every consumer and every financial institution 
as well.
  Identity theft comes in many forms and can be perpetrated in many 
ways, and that is why I have worked for many years now with Senator Kyl 
and others to put some safeguards into the law that might better 
prevent the fraud from occurring in the first place, and to crack down 
on identity thieves.
  And other legislation I have introduced would put into place certain 
procedural safeguards to protect credit card numbers, personal 
information, and other key data from potential identity thieves.
  The legislation we introduce today is meant to beef up the law in 
terms of what happens after an identity theft takes place. In seriously 
enhancing the penalties for identity thieves who commit other Federal 
crimes, we mean to send a strong signal to all those who would commit 
this increasingly popular crime that the relatively free ride they have 
experienced in recent years is over.
  No longer will prosecutors decline to take identity theft seriously. 
No longer will identity thieves get off with just a slap on the wrist, 
if they are prosecuted at all. Under this legislation, penalties will 
be severe, prosecution will be more likely, and cases against identity 
thieves will be easier to prove.
  Every day in this country serious criminals and criminal 
organizations are stealing and falsifying identities with the purpose 
of doing serious harm to common citizens, government officials, or even 
our Nation itself. It is time we did something about it, and this bill 
is an important step in that process.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 153

       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 ``Identity Theft Penalty 
     Enhancement Act''.

     SEC. 2. AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after section 1028, the following:

     ``Sec. 1028A. Aggravated identity theft

       ``(a) Offenses.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever, during and in relation to any 
     felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly 
     transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a 
     means of identification of another person shall, in addition 
     to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a 
     term of imprisonment of 2 years.
       ``(2) Terrorism offense.--Whoever, during and in relation 
     to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), 
     knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful 
     authority, a means of identification of another person shall, 
     in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be 
     sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
       ``(b) Consecutive Sentence.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law--
       ``(1) a court shall not place on probation any person 
     convicted of a violation of this section;
       ``(2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of 
     imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run 
     concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on 
     the person under any other provision of law, including any 
     term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which

[[Page 505]]

     the means of identification was transferred, possessed, or 
     used;
       ``(3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed 
     for the felony during which the means of identification was 
     transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way 
     reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as to 
     compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate 
     term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a violation 
     of this section; and
       ``(4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a 
     violation of this section may, in the discretion of the 
     court, run concurrently, in whole or in part, only with 
     another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at 
     the same time on that person for an additional violation of 
     this section, provided that such discretion shall be 
     exercised in accordance with any applicable guidelines and 
     policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission 
     pursuant to section 994 of title 28.
       ``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)' means any 
     offense that is a felony violation of--
       ``(1) section 664 (relating to theft from employee benefit 
     plans);
       ``(2) section 911 (relating to false personation of 
     citizenship);
       ``(3) section 922(a)(6) (relating to false statements in 
     connection with the acquisition of a firearm);
       ``(4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to 
     fraud and false statements), other than this section or 
     section 1028(a)(7);
       ``(5) any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to 
     mail, bank, and wire fraud);
       ``(6) any provision contained in chapter 69 (relating to 
     nationality and citizenship);
       ``(7) any provision contained in chapter 75 (relating to 
     passports and visas);
       ``(8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 
     6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by false 
     pretenses);
       ``(9) section 243 or 266 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1253 and 1306) (relating to willfully failing 
     to leave the United States after deportation and creating a 
     counterfeit alien registration card);
       ``(10) any provision contained in chapter 8 of title II of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.) 
     (relating to various immigration offenses); or
       ``(11) section 208, 1107(b), or 1128B(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408, 1307(b), and 1320a-7b(a)) 
     (relating to false statements relating to programs under the 
     Act).''.
       (b) Amendment to Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections 
     for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 1028 the 
     following new item:

``1028A. Aggravated identity theft.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING IDENTITY THEFT PROHIBITION.

       Section 1028 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(7)--
       (A) by striking ``transfers'' and inserting ``transfers, 
     possesses,''; and
       (B) by striking ``abet,'' and inserting ``abet, or in 
     connection with,'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(D), by striking ``transfer'' and 
     inserting ``transfer, possession,'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``three years'' and 
     inserting ``5 years''; and
       (4) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting after ``facilitate'' 
     the following: ``an act of domestic terrorism (as defined 
     under section 2331(5) of this title) or''.
                                 ______
                                 
           By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. INHOFE):
  S. 156. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to reauthorize 
the Price-Anderson provisions; to the Committee on Environmental and 
Public Works.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today, as the Chairman of the 
Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to 
introduce a bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. While the Act 
was first passed in 1957 and has been renewed three times, the current 
authorization expired on August 1, 2002 for Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission licensees. The growth of nuclear power depends greatly on 
the reauthorization of this Act, which provides liability for damages 
to the general public from nuclear incidents.
  It is important for the American public to understand how the Price-
Anderson liability program works. The nuclear industry actually funds 
the program; it is not a Federal subsidy. Each nuclear power plant 
purchases liability insurance from private insurers to cover the first 
$200 million for immediate response in the case of an accident. If the 
damages amounted to more than this amount, a second level of financial 
protection would apply. In these cases, each of the U.S. licensed 
nuclear units would pay up to $10 million annually into a collective 
fund to cover the damages, with a maximum payment of $88.1 million per 
accident. This, together with the $200 million in insurance money, 
provides a total of about $9.3 billion in insurance coverage to 
compensate the public in the case of a nuclear accident. If more than 
this amount is needed, Congress could then go back to the industry and 
demand a larger contribution.
  This is an incredible system. I am not aware of any facility in the 
country or world that is insured for up to $9.3 billion. Neither do I 
know of any other industry in which all of the competitors agree up 
front to pay for the mistakes or acts of God that affect any one 
company. Furthermore, instead of fighting claims in court, the industry 
waives its traditional tort defense so that the fund begins making 
payments immediately. This means that if there were a nuclear disaster 
somewhere, the insurance companies would immediately start paying out 
claims. In fact, after the Three Mile Island incident, claims offices 
were on the site within 24 hours. This program provides extensive 
insurance coverage and provides it up front.
  The expiration of this program affects only new NRC licenses, not 
existing licensees. Without the program, a new nuclear facility would 
be unable to obtain the liability insurance that this program provides, 
making new licenses very improbable, if not impossible.
  Nuclear energy is important to our Nation's national security, 
economy, and environment. America's nuclear energy industry currently 
provides approximately 20 percent of our energy. It is a safe, 
reliable, and zero-emission source of energy. This has had a tremendous 
positive effect on the environment and public health. Since 1973, 
nuclear energy has prevented 62 million tons of sulfur dioxide, a key 
component of acid rain, and 32 million tons of nitrogen oxide, a 
precursor to ozone, from being released into the atmosphere. Arguably, 
nuclear power has contributed more to achieving a reduction in 
emissions than any other source of energy, except possibly solar, wind, 
and hydropower.
  Our Nation needs to do whatever it can to promote a safe and 
efficient nuclear energy industry and encourage the development of new 
nuclear reactors. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act is a major step 
in that direction.
  During the previous administration, both the Department of Energy and 
the NRC issued reports to Congress recommending the reauthorization of 
Price-Anderson. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to reauthorize 
Price-Anderson, S. 1360, and included these provisions in an amendment 
that I proposed to the energy bill. My amendment, S. Amdt. 2983, was 
agreed to by a vote of 78-21 on March 7, 2002. This amendment 
reauthorized the program for both DOE contractors and NRC licensees. 
The amendment falls under the shared jurisdiction of both the Energy 
Committee for contractors and the Environment and Public Works 
Committee for NRC licensees. I look forward to working with the EPW 
Committee to pass this bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act for 
10 years for NRC licensees.
  I thank Senator Inhofe for joining me in cosponsoring this bill. The 
Price-Anderson Act is so vital to the future expansion of our nuclear 
energy industry. I urge the speedy consideration and passage of this 
bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 156

       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 ``Price-Anderson Amendments 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INDEMNIFICATION AUTHORITY.

       (a) Indemnification of Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     Licensees.--Section 170c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     (42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Licenses'' and 
     inserting ``Licensees''; and
       (2) by striking ``August 1, 2002'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``August 1, 2012''.

     SEC. 3. REPORTS.

       Section 170p. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(p)) is amended by striking

[[Page 506]]

     ``August 1, 1998'' and inserting ``August 1, 2008''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act take effect on August 1, 
     2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. 
        Clinton, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 157. A bill to help protect the public against the threat of 
chemical attacks; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce an important 
piece of legislation that I worked on in the 107th Congress, the 
Chemical Security Act. I am proud to be joined by Senators Jeffords, 
Boxer, Clinton, and Lautenberg in reintroducing this bill. Senators 
Jeffords, Boxer, and Clinton were all strong allies in the 107th 
Congress, and I thank them for their continuing support. And I am 
pleased to have Senator Lautenberg as a cosponsor. He has a long 
history of working to protect communities from all types of chemical 
threats. I particularly want to thank Senator Jeffords for his hard 
work on this legislation in the 107th Congress. As Chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works committee, he provided critical leadership 
in bringing this bill through the committee successfully. I thank him 
and his staff for their hard work and look forward to continuing to 
work with them on this important issue.
  I'll describe what the bill does in a minute. But first I want to 
briefly explain why I think this legislation is so important.
  September 11 shocked us into the realization that our assets can be 
turned against us by terrorists. If you are a New Jersey Senator, you 
don't have to think about that idea for too long before you realize 
that chemical plants and other facilities that have hazardous chemicals 
would be high on a terrorist's list. The fact is, that we have a lot of 
those types of facilities in my State, and because we're such a densely 
populated State, chemical releases from these facilities pose grave 
risks. In fact, according to EPA data, there are eight plants in my 
State where a worst-case release of toxic chemicals could threaten more 
than a million people.
  But this is not a parochial issue. The same EPA data shows that there 
are 110 plants nationwide where such a release could threaten more than 
a million people. These plants are located in 22 States. And there are 
44 States that have at least one facility where such a release could 
threaten more than 100,000 people.
  I want to be clear that I am stating these facts here today in an 
effort to advance a measure that would protect workers and communities, 
not in an attempt to vilify our nations' chemical companies. Indeed, 
these companies are a key part of our industrial fabric, providing jobs 
and producing products essential to our lives. This is certainly true 
of my home State of New Jersey, as I have already indicated.
  But when you look at the numbers, as I have laid them out here today, 
you realize that we have a problem to deal with. I'm certainly not 
unique in recognizing this issue, EPA, the Justice Department, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commissions, industry groups, and public safety 
groups all agree. In addition, the White House Strategy for Homeland 
Security recognizes the chemical and hazardous materials sector as an 
infrastructure protection priority. Governor Ridge amplified this point 
in his testimony before the Senate Environment Public Works committee 
on July 10 of last year. He said that:

       The fact is, we have a very diversified economy and our 
     enemies look at some of our economic assets as targets. And 
     clearly, the chemical facilities are one of them. We know 
     that there have been reports validated about security 
     deficiencies at dozens and dozens of those.

  I want to pick up on that last point that Governor Ridge made about 
security deficiencies, because it speaks to why I am putting this bill 
forward.
  Some companies have taken actions and are continuing to work to 
implement security measures in light of the post-September 11 
environments. Others, however, are not. That's one crucial reason why a 
Federal program is needed. We need to be able to assure our 
constituents that this major vulnerability is being addressed in a 
swift and effective manner. We also want to assure them that certain 
minimum standards are being met throughout the country.
  We already do that to address certain infrastructure vulnerabilities. 
Most notably, we require nuclear power plants to meet extensive 
security standards as a condition of their operating licenses. I think 
we ought to tighten those standards, but the fact is that we have no 
standards at all for our chemical facilities.
  Before I go into specifics, I want to outline the general 
organizational scheme of the bill. In my view, addressing the risk to 
communities from a terrorist-caused release of hazardous chemicals 
requires two fundamental components. The first is improving security, 
so that the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack is lowered. The 
second is reducing hazards so that the impact of a successful attack is 
minimized.
  This requires two fundamentally different types of expertise and 
skills. That's why the bill involves both the EPA and the Department of 
Homeland Security. EPA has the chemical hazard expertise, and the 
Department of Homeland Security has the security expertise. EPA has a 
lead role in most of the bill, because it already has relationships 
with chemical facilities through its existing accident prevention 
programs.
  As to the specifics of the bill, I think it is a common-sense 
approach to dealing with the issue. I want to note that this bill is 
nearly identical to the version of the bill that was reported out of 
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last July by a 19-0 
vote. Two minor technical changes have been made to clarify the intent 
of the legislation, but it is otherwise exactly the same as the 
committee-reported bill that was acted on unanimously by the EPW 
committee last year.
  The heart of the bill is section 4. This section requires EPA and the 
Department of Homeland Security to identify ``high priority'' chemical 
facilities and then require those facilities to assess vulnerabilities 
and hazards, and then develop and implement a plan to improve security 
and use safer technologies.
  Section 4(a)(1) establishes the priority setting process, by which 
the EPA Administrator, in consultation the Secretary of the Department 
of Homeland Security, as well as States and local government entities, 
is directed to identify high priority chemical facilities, based on 
factors identified in section 4(a)(2). These factors include the 
severity of harm that could be caused by a chemical release, proximity 
to population centers, threats to national security or critical 
infrastructure, threshold quantities of substances of concern that pose 
a serious threat, and such other safety or security factors that the 
Administrator considers appropriate.
  Because of the way the bill is structured, this means that EPA and 
the Department of Homeland Security are directed to start with the 
facilities that are subject to EPA's Risk Management Program 
requirements. This program applies to approximately 15,000 facilities 
in the United States that use, produce or store large quantities of 
hazardous chemicals. By applying the factors I mentioned, the priority 
setting process is meant to shorten this list of 15,000 facilities 
considerably. But the bill leaves it up to the Administration to 
determine exactly how many facilities within this universe ought to be 
covered by the bill.
  So that's step one, setting priorities, and that has to be done 
within one year of enactment.
  At this point, I want to mention the first of the clarifying 
technical changes that I have made to the bill. It was never the 
intent, nor I believe the effect, of the bill to include propane 
retailers as potentially regulated entities under this bill. But there 
was some confusion about the point after the bill was marked up last 
July. So last fall, I worked with the National Propane Gas Association 
on language that eliminates this confusion, and it is included

[[Page 507]]

in this bill. So I again want to make clear that the same propane 
retailers who are not subject to the EPA Risk Management Program 
requirements will not be ``high priority'' facilities under this bill, 
and therefore will not be subject to its requirements.
  In addition to identifying high priority facilities within the first 
year, EPA and the Department of Homeland Security must also promulgate 
regulations to require the high priority facilities to take the 
following steps: conduct a vulnerability and hazard assessment within 
one year after the regulations are promulgated; prepare and implement a 
response plan that addresses those vulnerabilities within 18 months 
after the regulations are promulgated.
  I want to say more about the assessments and response plans, because 
these requirements are really the core of the amendment.
  First, the amendment requires chemical facilities to work with local 
law enforcement and first responders, such as firefighters, in 
developing the assessments and plans. The second of the clarifying 
technical changes that I referred to in the opening part of my 
statement is simply to make clear the firefighters are among the first 
responders that the bill is referring to.
  September 11 showed us how brave and important these our first 
responders are. Every day, they are willing to risk their lives to 
respond to terrorist attacks if they need to. So it makes sense that 
they ought to be a part of the process of developing vulnerability 
assessments and response plans, as this bill would require.
  The same goes for employees of the high priority chemical facilities. 
They're on the front lines, which means two things. First, they are 
most at risk in case of a terrorist attack on their plants. Second, 
because they work in the plants every day, they will have ideas about 
how to secure the facilities and reduce hazards. So employees are part 
of the process as well.
  As to the assessments and plans themselves, the requirements in the 
bill are fairly general. There are a variety of vulnerability 
assessment tools that have already been developed by groups such as 
Sandia laboratories and the Center for Chemical Process Safety. I would 
expect that EPA and DHS would take advantage of existing methodologies 
such as these, but the bill leaves it up to the experts to decide what 
types of approaches make the most sense. And that probably won't be the 
same for everyone, I'm not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach 
here. But I do want to be sure that all of the high priority chemical 
facilities do a credible vulnerability assessment.
  The response plan requirements are also fairly general. Each facility 
is required to prepare prevention, preparedness and response plan that 
incorporates the results of the assessments. The plan must include 
actions and procedures, including safer design and maintenance, to 
eliminate or significantly lessen the potential consequences of a 
release.
  What this means in simple terms is that each facility has to develop 
a plan and take steps to reduce both the likelihood of a successful 
attack and to the harm that would occur if an attack were successful. 
In other words, they have to look at traditional security measures, 
such as fences, alarms, and guards. But they also have to look at 
whether they can make the plant safer. In other words, can less 
hazardous chemicals be used? Can containment technology such as fans or 
scrubbers be improved or employed to contain chemicals that may be 
released? Chemical facilities ought to evaluate the full range of 
options, look at the tradeoffs among them, and go forward with the best 
mix of security and technology options.
  Facilities are then required to send their assessments and plans to 
the EPA. EPA and DHS must review those assessments and plans, and 
certify compliance with the regulations. Any deficiencies identified by 
EPA and DHS can be remedied by issuance of an order. But the order can 
only be issued after a deliberate process that includes notification, 
compliance assistance, and an opportunity for a hearing.
  The certification process is there to ensure the public that 
facilities are complying the law. Those certifications will be the only 
information from the assessments and plans that is publicly available. 
The bill exempts all other information produced under the bill, most 
importantly, the assessments and plans themselves, from disclosure 
under the Freedom of Information Act. I don't take FOIA exemptions 
lightly. I believe strongly that, in general, the public has a right to 
information collected by the government. But I think it's pretty 
obvious that in the case of the information that would be submitted to 
the government under this bill, the vulnerability assessments and 
response plans, we simply can't allow the security details in these 
plans to be publicly available. But I think it does make sense that 
people who live near a chemical plant be able to find out from EPA and 
the DHS whether or not that plant has complied with the law.
  The bill goes even beyond FOIA exemptions to protect the assessments 
and plans. To ensure that the assessments and plans are properly 
safeguarded, the bill includes a requirement for EPA and Homeland 
Security to develop protocols to prevent unauthorized disclosure of 
those documents. And it attaches penalties to unauthorized disclosure.
  That's the essence of the bill.
  First, identify ``high priority'' chemical facilities.
  Second, require those facilities to assess vulnerabilities and 
hazards, and then develop and implement a plan to improve security and 
implement safer technologies.
  Third, EPA and the Department of Homeland Security review the 
assessments and plans, and they have the authority to require changes 
if deficiencies are identified.
  Fourth, assessments and plans are protected from unauthorized 
disclosure through a FOIA exemption and penalties that apply to 
unauthorized disclosure.
  The bill also includes an early compliance section that is designed 
to address concerns that the bill might slow ongoing voluntary security 
efforts. This provision enables companies to submit assessments and 
plans prior to promulgation of the regulations and have them judged by 
the standards in the Act. So companies don't have to wait for the 
regulations to come out to continue work or to submit plans.
  In conclusion, I think this is a balanced bill that puts common-sense 
requirements in place to deal with a significant problem. I think the 
bill has moved a long way from the introduced bill. It has accommodated 
many of the concerns that industry raised about the bill I introduced 
in the 107th Congress. It reflects intensive bipartisan negotiations, 
and I think it's a good bill.
  At the same time, I recognize that some of my colleagues have 
continuing concerns about the legislation. Last fall, I worked with 
Senators Inhofe, Breaux, Landrieu and Lincoln on these issues. I want 
them to know that I remain open-minded and committed to working with 
them, the rest of my colleagues and the Administration to resolve these 
issues so we can move quickly to protect Americans from the threat of 
attack on chemical facilities. And I want to extend the same commitment 
not only to the environmental and labor organizations that have 
supported the bill in the past, but also to the various industry groups 
that have worked on this bill. It's vital that we all find common 
ground quickly, and I stand ready to work with all interested parties.
  I want to close by expressing both my sense of urgency about this 
issue and my optimism that we will be able to move legislation quickly. 
Last fall, Governor Ridge and Administrator Whitman wrote to the 
Washington Post expressing their support for bipartisan legislation to 
deal with the chemical security threat. I ask unanimous consent that 
that letter be printed in the Record.
  I believe the letter was sincere, but the Administration has not yet 
engaged the Congress on this issue. I urge President Bush to provide 
leadership to ensure that his Administration works with us as the 
process moves forward.

[[Page 508]]

  I am also encouraged that Senator Inhofe has identified chemical 
security as a legislative priority as he assumes the Chairmanship of 
the Environment and Public Works committee. I congratulate him on his 
new post, and again express my willingness to work with him on this 
important issue.
  With that, I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Oct. 6, 2002]

                         A Security Requirement

       The Bush administration is committed to reducing the 
     vulnerability of America's chemical facilities to terrorist 
     attack and is working to enact bipartisan legislation that 
     would require such facilities to address their 
     vulnerabilities [news story, Oct. 3].
       We applaud voluntary efforts some in the industry have 
     undertaken, but we believe that every one of the 15,000 
     chemical facilities nationwide that contain large quantities 
     of hazardous chemicals must be required to take the steps the 
     industry leaders are taking at their facilities: performing 
     comprehensive vulnerability assessments and then acting to 
     reduce those vulnerabilities.
       Voluntary efforts alone are not sufficient to provide the 
     level of assurance Americans deserve. We will continue to 
     work with Congress to advance this important homeland 
     security goal.
                                  ____


                                 S. 157

       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 ``Chemical Security Act of 
     2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the chemical industry is a crucial part of the critical 
     infrastructure of the United States--
       (A) in its own right; and
       (B) because that industry supplies resources essential to 
     the functioning of other critical infrastructures;
       (2) the possibility of terrorist and criminal attacks on 
     chemical sources (such as industrial facilities) poses a 
     serious threat to public health, safety, and welfare, 
     critical infrastructure, national security, and the 
     environment;
       (3) the possibility of theft of dangerous chemicals from 
     chemical sources for use in terrorist attacks poses a further 
     threat to public health, safety, and welfare, critical 
     infrastructure, national security, and the environment; and
       (4) there are significant opportunities to prevent theft 
     from, and criminal attack on, chemical sources and reduce the 
     harm that such acts would produce by--
       (A)(i) reducing usage and storage of chemicals by changing 
     production methods and processes; and
       (ii) employing inherently safer technologies in the 
     manufacture, transport, and use of chemicals;
       (B) enhancing secondary containment and other existing 
     mitigation measures; and
       (C) improving security.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Chemical source.--The term ``chemical source'' means a 
     stationary source (as defined in section 112(r)(2) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2))) that contains a 
     substance of concern.
       (3) Covered substance of concern.--The term ``covered 
     substance of concern'' means a substance of concern that, in 
     combination with a chemical source and other factors, is 
     designated as a high priority category by the Administrator 
     under section 4(a)(1).
       (4) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means--
       (A) a duly recognized collective bargaining representative 
     at a chemical source; or
       (B) in the absence of such a representative, other 
     appropriate personnel.
       (5) First responder.--The term ``first responder'' includes 
     a firefighter.
       (6) Head of the office.--The term ``head of the Office'' 
     means the Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (7) Safer design and maintenance.--The term ``safer design 
     and maintenance'' includes, with respect to a chemical source 
     that is within a high priority category designated under 
     section 4(a)(1), implementation, to the extent practicable, 
     of the practices of--
       (A) preventing or reducing the vulnerability of the 
     chemical source to a release of a covered substance of 
     concern through use of inherently safer technology;
       (B) reducing any vulnerability of the chemical source to a 
     release of a covered substance of concern through use of 
     well-maintained secondary containment, control, or mitigation 
     equipment;
       (C) reducing any vulnerability of the chemical source to a 
     release of a covered substance of concern by implementing 
     security measures; and
       (D) reducing the potential consequences of any 
     vulnerability of the chemical source to a release of a 
     covered substance of concern through the use of buffer zones 
     between the chemical source and surrounding populations 
     (including buffer zones between the chemical source and 
     residences, schools, hospitals, senior centers, shopping 
     centers and malls, sports and entertainment arenas, public 
     roads and transportation routes, and other population 
     centers).
       (8) Security measure.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``security measure'' means an 
     action carried out to increase the security of a chemical 
     source.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``security measure'', with 
     respect to a chemical source, includes--
       (i) employee training and background checks;
       (ii) the limitation and prevention of access to controls of 
     the chemical source;
       (iii) protection of the perimeter of the chemical source;
       (iv) the installation and operation of an intrusion 
     detection sensor; and
       (v) a measure to increase computer or computer network 
     security.
       (9) Substance of concern.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``substance of concern'' means--
       (i) any regulated substance (as defined in section 112(r) 
     of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(r))); and
       (ii) any substance designated by the Administrator under 
     section 4(a).
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``substance of concern'' does not 
     include liquefied petroleum gas that is used as fuel or held 
     for sale as fuel at a retail facility as described in section 
     112(r)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(4)(B)).
       (10) Unauthorized release.--The term ``unauthorized 
     release'' means--
       (A) a release from a chemical source into the environment 
     of a covered substance of concern that is caused, in whole or 
     in part, by a criminal act;
       (B) a release into the environment of a covered substance 
     of concern that has been removed from a chemical source, in 
     whole or in part, by a criminal act; and
       (C) a release or removal from a chemical source of a 
     covered substance of concern that is unauthorized by the 
     owner or operator of the chemical source.
       (11) Use of inherently safer technology.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``use of inherently safer 
     technology'', with respect to a chemical source, means use of 
     a technology, product, raw material, or practice that, as 
     compared with the technologies, products, raw materials, or 
     practices currently in use--
       (i) reduces or eliminates the possibility of a release of a 
     substance of concern from the chemical source prior to 
     secondary containment, control, or mitigation; and
       (ii) reduces or eliminates the threats to public health and 
     the environment associated with a release or potential 
     release of a substance of concern from the chemical source.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``use of inherently safer 
     technology'' includes input substitution, catalyst or carrier 
     substitution, process redesign (including reuse or recycling 
     of a substance of concern), product reformulation, procedure 
     simplification, and technology modification so as to--
       (i) use less hazardous substances or benign substances;
       (ii) use a smaller quantity of covered substances of 
     concern;
       (iii) reduce hazardous pressures or temperatures;
       (iv) reduce the possibility and potential consequences of 
     equipment failure and human error;
       (v) improve inventory control and chemical use efficiency; 
     and
       (vi) reduce or eliminate storage, transportation, handling, 
     disposal, and discharge of substances of concern.

     SEC. 4. DESIGNATION OF AND REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH PRIORITY 
                   CATEGORIES.

       (a) Designation and Regulation of High Priority Categories 
     by the Administrator.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the head of the Office and State and local agencies 
     responsible for planning for and responding to unauthorized 
     releases and providing emergency health care, shall 
     promulgate regulations to designate certain combinations of 
     chemical sources and substances of concern as high priority 
     categories based on the severity of the threat posed by an 
     unauthorized release from the chemical sources.
       (2) Factors to be considered.--In designating high priority 
     categories under paragraph (1), the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the head of the Office, shall consider--
       (A) the severity of the harm that could be caused by an 
     unauthorized release;
       (B) the proximity to population centers;
       (C) the threats to national security;
       (D) the threats to critical infrastructure;
       (E) threshold quantities of substances of concern that pose 
     a serious threat; and

[[Page 509]]

       (F) such other safety or security factors as the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the head of the Office, 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (3) Requirements for high priority categories.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the head of the Office, the United States Chemical 
     Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and State and local 
     agencies described in paragraph (1), shall promulgate 
     regulations to require each owner and each operator of a 
     chemical source that is within a high priority category 
     designated under paragraph (1), in consultation with local 
     law enforcement, first responders, and employees, to--
       (i) conduct an assessment of the vulnerability of the 
     chemical source to a terrorist attack or other unauthorized 
     release;
       (ii) using appropriate hazard assessment techniques, 
     identify hazards that may result from an unauthorized release 
     of a covered substance of concern; and
       (iii) prepare a prevention, preparedness, and response plan 
     that incorporates the results of those vulnerability and 
     hazard assessments.
       (B) Actions and procedures.--A prevention, preparedness, 
     and response plan required under subparagraph (A)(iii) shall 
     include actions and procedures, including safer design and 
     maintenance of the chemical source, to eliminate or 
     significantly lessen the potential consequences of an 
     unauthorized release of a covered substance of concern.
       (C) Threat information.--To the maximum extent permitted by 
     applicable authorities and the interests of national 
     security, the head of the Office, in consultation with the 
     Administrator, shall provide owners and operators of chemical 
     sources with threat information relevant to the assessments 
     and plans required under subsection (b).
       (4) Review and revisions.--Not later than 5 years after the 
     date of promulgation of regulations under each of paragraphs 
     (1) and (3), the Administrator, in consultation with the head 
     of the Office, shall review the regulations and make any 
     necessary revisions.
       (5) Addition of substances of concern.--For the purpose of 
     designating high priority categories under paragraph (1) or 
     any subsequent revision of the regulations promulgated under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator, in consultation with the 
     head of the Office, may designate additional substances that 
     pose a serious threat as substances of concern.
       (b) Certification.--
       (1) Vulnerability and hazard assessments.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of promulgation of regulations under 
     subsection (a)(3), each owner and each operator of a chemical 
     source that is within a high priority category designated 
     under subsection (a)(1) shall--
       (A) certify to the Administrator that the chemical source 
     has conducted assessments in accordance with the regulations; 
     and
       (B) submit to the Administrator written copies of the 
     assessments.
       (2) Prevention, preparedness, and response plans.--Not 
     later than 18 months after the date of promulgation of 
     regulations under subsection (a)(3), the owner or operator 
     shall--
       (A) certify to the Administrator that the chemical source 
     has completed a prevention, preparedness, and response plan 
     that incorporates the results of the assessments and complies 
     with the regulations; and
       (B) submit to the Administrator a written copy of the plan.
       (3) 5-year review.--Not later than 5 years after each of 
     the date of submission of a copy of an assessment under 
     paragraph (1) and a plan under paragraph (2), and not less 
     often than every 3 years thereafter, the owner or operator of 
     the chemical source covered by the assessment or plan, in 
     coordination with local law enforcement and first responders, 
     shall--
       (A) review the adequacy of the assessment or plan, as the 
     case may be; and
       (B)(i) certify to the Administrator that the chemical 
     source has completed the review; and
       (ii) as appropriate, submit to the Administrator any 
     changes to the assessment or plan.
       (4) Protection of information.--
       (A) Disclosure exemption.--Except with respect to 
     certifications specified in paragraphs (1) through (3) of 
     this subsection and section 5(a), all information provided to 
     the Administrator under this subsection, and all information 
     derived from that information, shall be exempt from 
     disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
       (B) Development of protocols.--
       (i) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the head of the Office, shall develop such protocols as are 
     necessary to protect the copies of the assessments and plans 
     required to be submitted under this subsection (including the 
     information contained in those assessments and plans) from 
     unauthorized disclosure.
       (ii) Requirements.--The protocols developed under clause 
     (i) shall ensure that--

       (I) each copy of an assessment or plan, and all information 
     contained in or derived from the assessment or plan, is 
     maintained in a secure location;
       (II) except as provided in subparagraph (C), only 
     individuals designated by the Administrator may have access 
     to the copies of the assessments and plans; and
       (III) no copy of an assessment or plan or any portion of an 
     assessment or plan, and no information contained in or 
     derived from an assessment or plan, shall be available to any 
     person other than an individual designated by the 
     Administrator.

       (iii) Deadline.--As soon as practicable, but not later than 
     1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator shall complete the development of protocols 
     under clause (i) so as to ensure that the protocols are in 
     place before the date on which the Administrator receives any 
     assessment or plan under this subsection.
       (C) Federal officers and employees.--An individual referred 
     to in subparagraph (B)(ii) who is an officer or employee of 
     the United States may discuss with a State or local official 
     the contents of an assessment or plan described in that 
     subparagraph.

     SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Review of Plans.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the head of the Office, shall review each assessment and plan 
     submitted under section 4(b) to determine the compliance of 
     the chemical source covered by the assessment or plan with 
     regulations promulgated under paragraphs (1) and (3) of 
     section 4(a).
       (2) Certification of compliance.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator shall certify in writing 
     each determination of the Administrator under paragraph (1).
       (B) Inclusions.--A certification of the Administrator shall 
     include a checklist indicating consideration by a chemical 
     source of the use of 4 elements of safer design and 
     maintenance described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of 
     section 3(6).
       (C) Early compliance.--
       (i) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the head of the Office, shall--

       (I) before the date of publication of proposed regulations 
     under section 4(a)(3), review each assessment or plan 
     submitted to the Administrator under section 4(b); and
       (II) before the date of promulgation of final regulations 
     under section 4(a)(3), determine whether each such assessment 
     or plan meets the consultation, planning, and assessment 
     requirements applicable to high priority categories under 
     section 4(a)(3).

       (ii) Affirmative determination.--If the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the head of the Office, makes an 
     affirmative determination under clause (i)(II), the 
     Administrator shall certify compliance of an assessment or 
     plan described in that clause without requiring any revision 
     of the assessment or plan.
       (D) Schedule for review and certification.--
       (i) In general.--The Administrator, after taking into 
     consideration the factors described in section 4(a)(2), shall 
     establish a schedule for the review and certification of 
     assessments and plans submitted under section 4(b).
       (ii) Deadline for completion.--Not later than 3 years after 
     the deadlines for the submission of assessments and plans 
     under paragraph (1) or (2), respectively, of section 4(b), 
     the Administrator shall complete the review and certification 
     of all assessments and plans submitted under those sections.
       (b) Compliance Assistance.--
       (1) Definition of determination.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``determination'' means a determination by the 
     Administrator that, with respect to an assessment or plan 
     described in section 4(b)--
       (A) the assessment or plan does not comply with regulations 
     promulgated under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 4(a); or
       (B)(i) a threat exists beyond the scope of the submitted 
     plan; or
       (ii) current implementation of the plan is insufficient to 
     address--
       (I) the results of an assessment of a source; or
       (II) a threat described in clause (i).
       (2) Determination by administrator.--If the Administrator, 
     after consultation with the head of the Office, makes a 
     determination, the Administrator shall--
       (A) notify the chemical source of the determination; and
       (B) provide such advice and technical assistance, in 
     coordination with the head of the Office and the United 
     States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, as is 
     appropriate--
       (i) to bring the assessment or plan of a chemical source 
     described in section 4(b) into compliance; or
       (ii) to address any threat described in clause (i) or (ii) 
     of paragraph (1)(B).
       (c) Compliance Orders.--
       (1) In general.--If, after the date that is 30 days after 
     the later of the date on which the Administrator first 
     provides assistance, or a chemical source receives notice, 
     under subsection (b)(2)(B), a chemical source has not brought 
     an assessment or plan for which the assistance is provided 
     into compliance with regulations promulgated under paragraphs 
     (1) and (3) of section 4(a), or the chemical

[[Page 510]]

     source has not complied with an entry or information request 
     under section 6, the Administrator may issue an order 
     directing compliance by the chemical source.
       (2) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--An order under 
     paragraph (1) may be issued only after notice and opportunity 
     for a hearing.
       (d) Abatement Action.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding a certification under 
     section 5(a)(2), if the head of the Office, in consultation 
     with local law enforcement officials and first responders, 
     determines that a threat of a terrorist attack exists that is 
     beyond the scope of a submitted prevention, preparedness, and 
     response plan of 1 or more chemical sources, or current 
     implementation of the plan is insufficient to address the 
     results of an assessment of a source or a threat described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(B)(i), the head of the Office shall notify 
     each chemical source of the elevated threat.
       (2) Insufficient response.--If the head of the Office 
     determines that a chemical source has not taken appropriate 
     action in response to a notification under paragraph (1), the 
     head of the Office shall notify the chemical source, the 
     Administrator, and the Attorney General that actions taken by 
     the chemical source in response to the notification are 
     insufficient.
       (3) Relief.--
       (A) In general.--On receipt of a notification under 
     paragraph (2), the Administrator or the Attorney General may 
     secure such relief as is necessary to abate a threat 
     described in paragraph (1), including such orders as are 
     necessary to protect public health or welfare.
       (B) Jurisdiction.--The district court of the United States 
     for the district in which a threat described in paragraph (1) 
     occurs shall have jurisdiction to grant such relief as the 
     Administrator or Attorney General requests under subparagraph 
     (A).

     SEC. 6. RECORDKEEPING AND ENTRY.

       (a) Records Maintenance.--A chemical source that is 
     required to certify to the Administrator assessments and 
     plans under section 4 shall maintain on the premises of the 
     chemical source a current copy of those assessments and 
     plans.
       (b) Right of Entry.--In carrying out this Act, the 
     Administrator (or an authorized representative of the 
     Administrator), on presentation of credentials--
       (1) shall have a right of entry to, on, or through any 
     premises of an owner or operator of a chemical source 
     described in subsection (a) or any premises in which any 
     records required to be maintained under subsection (a) are 
     located; and
       (2) may at reasonable times have access to, and may copy, 
     any records, reports, or other information described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Information Requests.--In carrying out this Act, the 
     Administrator may require any chemical source to provide such 
     information as is necessary to--
       (1) enforce this Act; and
       (2) promulgate or enforce regulations under this Act.

     SEC. 7. PENALTIES.

       (a) Civil Penalties.--Any owner or operator of a chemical 
     source that violates, or fails to comply with, any order 
     issued may, in an action brought in United States district 
     court, be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 
     for each day in which such violation occurs or such failure 
     to comply continues.
       (b) Criminal Penalties.--Any owner or operator of a 
     chemical source that knowingly violates, or fails to comply 
     with, any order issued shall--
       (1) in the case of a first violation or failure to comply, 
     be fined not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day 
     of violation, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both; and
       (2) in the case of a subsequent violation or failure to 
     comply, be fined not more than $50,000 per day of violation, 
     imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
       (c) Administrative Penalties.--
       (1) Penalty orders.--If the amount of a civil penalty 
     determined under subsection (a) does not exceed $125,000, the 
     penalty may be assessed in an order issued by the 
     Administrator.
       (2) Notice and hearing.--Before issuing an order described 
     in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall provide to the 
     person against which the penalty is to be assessed--
       (A) written notice of the proposed order; and
       (B) the opportunity to request, not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which the notice is received by the person, 
     a hearing on the proposed order.

     SEC. 8. NO EFFECT ON REQUIREMENTS UNDER OTHER LAW.

       Nothing in this Act affects any duty or other requirement 
     imposed under any other Federal or State law.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Bond):
  S. 158. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the depreciation benefits available to small business, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small 
Business Expensing Improvement Act of 2003 on behalf of the Nation's 
millions of small businesses and self-employed individuals. I am 
pleased to be joining with my colleague in the House, Congressman Wally 
Herger, to move this important initiative for small business toward 
enactment.
  This legislation embodies a leading provision of the President's 
economic recovery package for small businesses and entrepreneurs in 
this country. By enabling small firms to expense more of the equipment 
they purchase, this bill provides a tailor-made incentive for the small 
business sector of our economy to invest in new technology and expand 
their operations.
  We should never under-state the role that small businesses play in 
our economy. They represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 
percent of the private-sector workforce, provide about 75 percent of 
the net new jobs, contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output, 
and represent 96 percent of all exporters of goods. In short, size is 
the only ``small'' aspect of small business.
  The bill I introduce today recognizes the vitality of the small 
business and entrepreneurs in America. Regrettably, when we enacted 
stimulus legislation last year, we missed a tremendous opportunity to 
improve a provision of the tax law aimed directly at small firms, 
Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code, which enables small 
businesses to write off the cost of new equipment, rather than 
depreciate it over a period of years. During the Senate's consideration 
of last year's stimulus bill, we approved an increase to the expensing 
limits by a vote of 90-2. Sadly, that provision was dropped from the 
final package that was sent to the President.
  As the incoming Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I intend to correct that error by responding to the 
calls from small businesses in my State of Maine and from across the 
country for greater expensing of new equipment. I applaud the President 
for making this issue a key part of his economic recovery proposal.
  By tripling the current expensing limit to $75,000, broadening the 
phaseout of this provision, and indexing these amounts for inflation, 
this bill will achieve two important objectives. First, qualifying 
businesses will be able to write off more of the equipment purchases 
today, instead of waiting five, seven or more years to recover their 
costs through depreciation.
  That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time 
small businesses would otherwise have to spend complying with the 
complex depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment will contribute to 
continued productivity growth in the business community, which Federal 
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly stressed is essential to 
the long-term vitality of our economy.
  Second, as a result of this bill, more businesses will qualify for 
this benefit because the phase-out limit will be increased from the 
current $200,000 to $325,000 in new equipment purchases. At the same 
time, small business capital investment will be pumping more money into 
the retail-sector of the economy. Accordingly, this is a win-win for 
small business and the economy as a whole.
  I am confident that small businesses will lead us out of the current 
economic problems as they have in past downturns. We have a tremendous 
opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive 
for reinvestment and leaving them more of their earnings to do just 
that. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation as we work with the President to enact this bill into law.
  I ask unanimous consent that following my statement, the text of the 
bill and an explanation of its provisions be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 511]]



                                 S. 158

       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 ``Small Business Expensing 
     Improvement Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO EXPENSING UNDER SECTION 179.

       (a) Increase of Amount Which May Be Expensed.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate cost which may be 
     taken into account under subsection (a) for any taxable year 
     shall not exceed $75,000.''
       (2) Increase in phaseout threshold.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 179(b) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``$200,000'' and inserting ``$325,000''.
       (3) Inflation adjustment of dollar amounts.--Subsection (b) 
     of section 179 of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning in a calendar year after 2003, each dollar 
     amount contained in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be increased 
     by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins by substituting `calendar year 2002' for 
     `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

     If any amount, as adjusted under the preceding sentence, is 
     not a multiple of $1,000 ($10,000 in the case of the dollar 
     amount contained in paragraph (2)), such amount shall be 
     rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000 or $10,000, as the 
     case may be.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2002.
                                  ____


      Small business Works Act of 2001--Description of Provisions

       The bill amends section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code to 
     increase the amount of equipment purchases that small 
     businesses may expense each year from the current $25,000 to 
     $75,000. This change will eliminate the complexity and 
     burdensome recordkeeping involved in depreciating such 
     equipment and free up capital for small businesses to grow 
     and create jobs.
       The bill also increases the phase-out limitation for 
     equipment expensing from the current $200,000 to $325,000, 
     thereby expanding the number of small businesses that can 
     qualify for section 179 expensing and the value of equipment 
     that can be expensed currently. This limitation along with 
     the annual expensing amount will be indexed for inflation 
     under the bill beginning in 2004.
       The equipment-expensing provisions will be effective for 
     equipment placed in service in taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Allen):
  S. 159. A bill to require the Federal Communications Commission to 
allocate additional spectrum for unlicensed use by wireless broadband 
devices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, Senator Allen and I are introducing 
the Jumpstart Broadband Act. The Act directs the FCC to set aside an 
additional 255 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for 
unlicensed devices to use to deploy broadband connections. It also 
directs the FCC to establish rules to minimize interference in that 
spectrum among devices and to ensure that Department of Defense systems 
operating in that spectrum are not compromised.
  We need this legislation to unleash the potential of new, exciting 
technologies that promise to deliver high-speed broadband connections 
wirelessly. Currently, congestion and interference from numerous 
devices such as cordless phones, ham radios, microwave ovens, ham 
radios and garage door openers is limiting the potential of these new 
networks. If we can tap the potential of high-speed broadband, then we 
can provide numerous benefits to the American people as well as create 
jobs in high tech industries.
  I know that talking about megahertz and spectrum seems somewhat 
esoteric. But we strongly believe our bill will have real world 
implications for families, workers, and communities. Making additional 
spectrum available for new wireless broadband technologies will help 
make broadband connections more attractive to consumers by extending 
the reach of those connections. That means more people will sign up for 
wired connections, creating jobs in the turbulent telecommunications 
and high-tech industries. Also, as technologies thrive in this area, 
manufacturers will also create jobs producing and selling more devices 
to make the connections work.
  One such technology is called wireless fidelity, or Wi-Fi for short. 
In the home, wireless networking can link all the digital products in 
your house, computers, printers, handheld organizers, DVD players, to 
each other and to the Internet without cables. Imagine a PC in the 
bedroom transfering songs to a music system in a car parked in the 
garage. Imagine an oven being turned on via the Internet by a worker 
stuck at the office, allowing him to get home to a meal that cooked 
while he or she commuted.
  In rural areas, wireless technologies have the potential to allow 
communities to use signal repeaters to bring Internet connections to 
places where wires do not reach, or where the signal over the wire is 
too weak. Another possibility is that current or new technologies can 
be manipulated to extend the reach of the initial connection longer 
distances without repeaters. Our legislation will make all of those 
kinds connections more likely and reliable.
  The benefits greater use of wireless broadband connections are 
numerous. For rural health clinics, for example, these new wireless 
connections would connect them quickly to resources at hospitals in 
cities hundreds of miles away. For schools anywhere, an efficient 
wireless connection would save them the cost of knocking down walls to 
wire the entire school.
  Senator Allen and I circulated a draft of this legislation in 
November 2002 and the response we received from the technology and 
consumer electronics communities was very positive. We made some 
modifications to address the concerns that some in the cellular 
community expressed and worked hard to ensure that the new spectrum 
would allow a variety of new technologies to thrive with minimum rules 
of operation in the spectrum . Our first modification was to specify 
that the spectrum would be allocated in the 5 gigahertz band rather 
than below 6 gigahertz. The previous language was of concern to 
cellular companies that operate below 3 gigahertz. The second 
modification was to limit any new FCC rules only to rules that ensure 
robust and efficient use of the spectrum for broadband delivery 
devices.
  It is our hope that this bill will provide the sparkplug necessary to 
help jumpstart the broadband market. I look forward to working on this 
bill with Senator Allen and the rest of our colleagues in the 108th 
Congress.
  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. 159

       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 ``Jumpstart Broadband Act''.

     SEC. 2. ENCOURAGEMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure 
     Devices.--
       (1) Immediate allocation of spectrum.--Within 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall 
     allocate not less than an additional 255 megahertz of 
     contiguous spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for unlicensed 
     use by wireless broadband devices while ensuring that 
     Department of Defense devices and systems are not 
     compromised.
       (2) Interference protection.--Within 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration shall, 
     after consultation with all interested agencies and parties, 
     including the Department of Defense, establish standards for 
     interference protection that is reasonably required to enable 
     incumbent Federal government agency users of spectrum 
     allocated under paragraph (1) to continue to use that 
     spectrum, and advise the Commission of those standards.
       (3) Device requirements.--Within 360 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall--
       (A) with respect to spectrum allocation under paragraph 
     (1), adopt minimal technical and device rules to facilitate 
     robust

[[Page 512]]

     and efficient use for wireless broadband devices; and
       (B) amend its rules to require that all wireless broadband 
     devices manufactured after the effective date of those rules 
     that operate in the spectrum allocated under paragraph (1)--
       (i) be capable of 2-way digital communications;
       (ii) meet the interference protection standards established 
     under paragraph (2).

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (2) Broadband service.--The term ``broadband service'' 
     means high rate digital transmission service--
       (A) via cable modem, digital subscriber line, wireless, 
     satellite, or other telecommunications technology; and
       (B) capable of reliably transmitting voice, data, and/or 
     video simultaneously between and among digital devices and 
     between these devices and the Internet, on a consistent 
     basis, at data transfer rates no slower than those defined 
     from time to time by the Commission.
       (3) Wireless broadband device.--The term ``wireless 
     broadband device'' includes--
       (A) U-NII devices (as defined in section 15.403(i) of title 
     47, Code of Federal Regulations); and
       (B) other devices used to access wireless broadband 
     services.
       (b) Terms Defined in the Communications Act of 1934.--
     Except as provided in subsection (a), any term used in this 
     Act that is defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 153) has the meaning given that term in that 
     section.

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce and present to my 
colleagues the Jumpstart Broadband Act of 2003. I am happy to be the 
lead Republican sponsor of this legislation and I want to thank my 
colleague from across the aisle, Senator Boxer, for working with me on 
this positive important issue.
  The goal of the Jumpstart Broadband Act is to create an environment 
that embraces innovation and encourages the adoption of next-generation 
wireless broadband Internet devices. Most important, our legislation 
will build confidence among consumers, investors and innovators in the 
telecommunications and technology industries to eventually make the 
broadband dream a reality.
  Unfortunately, we are all too familiar with the recession in the 
telecom sector. Analysts estimate that over the last 24 months 
approximately 500,000 jobs have been lost. Debt loads in the 
telecommunications sector range from anywhere between $500 billion to 
$1 trillion dollars. Since 1999 approximately $2 trillion dollars in 
market value has been lost in the telecom sector.
  We know that promises of the Internet doubling every 100 days were 
never realized. Fanciful expectations like these have left this country 
with Internet bandwidth capacities that no levels of demand can 
sustain. Unfortunately for investors and the industry the ``if you 
build it, they will come'' business model did not materialize and is 
the primary reason the telecom and technology sectors are in a weak 
economic state.
  Over this past few years Congress, and specifically the Senate, have 
been locked in debate over the best approach to promote and encourage 
widespread broadband adoption. There is no doubt that consumers, 
businesses and government officials fully recognize the importance of 
broadband to our communications capabilities and the economy. Indeed, 
the proliferation of next-generation broadband Internet connections 
will reinvigorate growth in the technology and telecommunications 
industries and improve our lives.
  Economists at the Brookings Institution estimate that widespread, 
high-speed broadband access would increase the national GDP by $500 
billion annually by 2006. Full deployment of broadband will 
substantially change and significantly impact every aspect of our 
society. Whether in education, healthcare, commerce, entertainment or 
government services; broadband deployment is a key aspect to improving 
this nation's overall economy and competitiveness.
  However, the current debate over broadband has focused only on two 
platforms, Digital Subscriber Line, DSL, and cable and the regulatory 
treatment of those services. This perspective fails to consider that 
alternative modes or other technologies are available that can 
jumpstart consumer driven investment and demand in broadband services. 
I think it is beneficial to shift the policy discussion away from this 
debate and focus on something positive Congress can do that fosters 
innovation, stimulates the technology and telecom sectors, and 
encourages the adoption of broadband services.
  The Jumpstart Broadband Act seeks to create an environment where 
alternative modes of broadband communications can be created and 
deployed into homes, schools, public places and businesses by making 
more spectrum available for exciting, new unlicensed wireless 
technologies. In doing so, the legislation directs the Federal 
Communications Commission, FCC, to set aside an additional 255 
megahertz of spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for unlicensed broadband 
devices. This allocation will harmonize wireless devices in the United 
States with the international allocation in countries like Japan, 
Brazil, Canada and Europe. The 5 gigahertz band also contains favorable 
propagation and power levels to provide reliable wireless service. Our 
legislation also directs the FCC to establish minimum rules of 
interference protection for devices in that spectrum and to ensure that 
Department of Defense systems operating in that spectrum are not 
compromised.
  Our legislation complements and encourages the exciting work being 
done in the area of Wireless Local Area Networks, WLANs. Also known as 
Wireless Fidelity or WiFi, this technology provides wireless broadband 
service operating in the unlicensed spectrum bank with up to 10 
megabits of capacity and an always-on connection. WiFi is a technology 
driven platform, viewed by many as a possible answer to wire-line 
limitations and obstacles that exist in the current marketplace. WiFi 
however is only the beginning and this legislation will create an 
environment where cognitive radios and dynamic frequency selection of 
technologies can grow and innovate to offer services that are 
unimaginable today.
  While I support a competitive telecommunications environment and have 
been an advocate for federal deregulation, the Jumpstart Broadband Act 
of 2003 moves the policy discussion away from this stagnant maginot 
line battle and offers an alternative invigorating approach that 
encourages innovation and creates confidence in the market.
  Providing a way to jump start high speed broadband Internet access 
through the adoption of wireless broadband devices is vital to helping 
us keep pace with the new global economy. The benefits to Americans 
would include more jobs, increased productivity, improved health care 
delivery, and more accessible education. Our economy needs it, our 
technology sector needs it, and the American people will benefit from 
these new and innovative technologies.
  I have been working together in a bipartisan fashion with Senator 
Boxer, and I am hopeful by also working with technologists, the Federal 
Communications Commission and the Department of Defense, we can move 
forward to create an alternative that promotes broadband adoption using 
advances in technology and spectrum efficiency.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bunning, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Graham of South 
        Carolina).
  S. 160. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the expensing of broadband Internet access expenditures, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my colleague 
from Montana to introduce legislation to provide tax incentives to 
accelerate the deployment of ``broadband'' high-speed Internet access 
across the country. Broadband is an issue about which I feel very 
strongly, and upon which I will be very focused this year as chairman 
of the telecommunications subcommittee of the Commerce, Science and 
Transportation Committee.
  Although many urban and suburban areas now have access to a broadband

[[Page 513]]

connection, many rural areas still do not. And that places rural areas 
at a disadvantage in a number of ways in terms of economic development, 
educational opportunities, health care and numerous other applications. 
By creating a financial incentive to encourage broadband providers to 
extend their networks into rural and other underserved areas, we can 
help overcome that disadvantage.
  The bill will create a temporary tax incentive for providers in the 
form of ``expensing,'' allowing an immediate deduction of a capital 
expenditure in the first year of service rather than depreciating that 
investment over time. In the case of ``current generation'' broadband 
investments in rural and underserved areas, the bill will allow 50 
percent expensing of the investment, with the rest to be depreciated 
according to normal depreciation schedules. And where providers build 
out ``next generation'' broadband networks, which are typically more 
expensive, the bill will provide for 100 percent expensing.
  This legislation generally mirrors the broadband tax credit 
legislation introduced by my friend from West Virginia, Senator 
Rockefeller, in the last Congress. I want to thank the Senator from 
West Virginia for his leadership on this issue. The only difference in 
that bill and the one we are introducing today is the form of the 
incentive, expensing rather than tax credits.
  I am proud to tell you that the first broadband tax incentive in the 
Nation occurred in great State of Montana. In 1999, Montana enacted a 
broadband tax credit, which was in effect for 2 years. In those 2 years 
it had very positive results. Here is a quote from one of our public 
utility commissioners, Bob Rowe, in one of our State newspapers, The 
Missoulian, in June 2001, describing the effect of the Montana 
broadband credit:

       The results are impressive. Dozens of projects were awarded 
     tax credits, most of them in rural Montana, places like 
     Circle, Crow Agency, Superior and Big Timber. Projects 
     included DSL, cable modems, and wireless. They also included 
     projects to provide ``redundant'' access that is critical to 
     many technology businesses in case service goes out.

  That is the kind of effect which a broadband tax incentive can have. 
Circle, Crow Agency, Superior and Big Timber are not large metropolitan 
areas. They are small communities of a few hundred people. If a 
broadband incentive can have that kind of effect in those places, it 
can have that kind of effect anywhere.
  Now, what has happened to the Montana broadband credit? Like many 
other State tax breaks all across the Nation, it has been suspended, 
not repealed, but suspended, because of the current budget shortfall 
which the state is facing, which is exactly why we should consider a 
Federal broadband incentive at this time, when we are beginning the 
process of crafting a package of growth measures to put our economy 
back on a solid footing.
  And I firmly believe that broadband can have a positive effect on our 
economy. A number of very solid studies lead me to this conclusion. A 
study conducted by economists at the Federal Reserve Board concluded 
that information technology accounted for over 60 percent of the 
productivity growth occurring from 1995 to 1999.
  During the first half of the 1990s, the average productivity increase 
was only 1.5 percent per year. Then, when the Internet began to be 
widely used, average annual productivity jumped to 2.8 percent in the 
second half of the decade. That is a very significant increase, and it 
occurred largely from the ``network effect'' of linking our computers. 
Now, what broadband will do is allow us to use those linked computers 
for much more advanced applications, video conferencing, real-time 
collaboration on large computer files, telemedicine, distance learning, 
etc.
  And, for those of us from agricultural States, we should be aware of 
the applications that our farmers and ranchers might use: Remote 
livestock sales, remote monitoring of irrigation facilities, tele-
veterinary, etc. Anyone who thinks farmers don't care about technology 
should spend some time on today's modern farm, and they will learn that 
American agriculture is one of the most innovative industries in the 
world.
  Let me give you an example. Deere and Company, the farm equipment 
maker, has supported legislation of this type. Others may dismiss this 
company as they just make tractors. However, if you were to talk to 
them, you would learn that the tractor of tomorrow, indeed of today, 
has a lot of high-tech equipment on board that, as it drives through 
the fields, gathers information on plant conditions and soil conditions 
and moisture content and so forth.
  And that is incredibly valuable information to a farming operation. 
But to really use that information, you need a broadband connection to 
send it from the tractor to, say, a plant specialist a hundred miles 
away. Without that broadband connection, it will take a very long time 
to transmit the data, which makes it a lot less useful.
  One economist, Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institute, has 
estimated that accelerated deployment of broadband will generate up to 
$500 billion in economic growth annually. Talk about an economic 
stimulus. I think we would all be delighted to have that happen, and I 
believe we should take steps to allow it to do so. This legislation is 
an important step in that direction.
  And one important reason for us to encourage more broadband 
investment is international competitiveness. A number of other 
countries, like Japan and China, are now making much greater 
investments than the United States in optical fiber and other advanced 
telecommunications infrastructure. Japan is now the world's largest 
purchaser of fiber, much of which is going to deploy fiber-to-the-home. 
In 1 month last year, they wired more homes with fiber than we did in 
the entire year.
  And although China has been playing catch up on building out their 
Internet backbone, they are doing so at a very fast pace and could soon 
overtake Japan as the world's biggest fiber market.
  It is also happening in Europe. The Government of Sweden has 
dedicated $800 million for broadband deployment in rural areas of the 
country, while they have already wired much of Stockholm with fiber-to-
the-home. Last year, France announced that it would invest $1.5 billion 
on broadband infrastructure over the next 5 years.
  I believe it is extremely important that the United States not fall 
behind in telecom and Internet technology, and a financial incentive of 
the type provided by this legislation will help ensure that we do not.
  Let me briefly describe the specifics of the bill. As I said earlier, 
it provides 50 percent expensing for investments in rural and 
underserved areas of ``current generation'' broadband technologies, 
which are defined as those delivering at least 1.0 megabits per second 
of information downstream to the subscriber, and at least 128 kilobits 
per second upstream from the subscriber.
  It provides 100 percent expensing for investments in ``next 
generation'' broadband technologies, which are defined as those 
delivering at least 22 megabits per second of information downstream to 
the subscriber, and at least 5 megabits per second upstream from the 
subscriber. It is technology neutral, it makes no difference if you are 
using as your medium copper wire, coaxial cable, optical fiber, 
terrestrial wireless, satellite or something else. If you deliver the 
threshold speeds, you are eligible for the benefit. And it sunsets in 5 
years. The intent is not to provide a permanent benefit to the telecom 
sector, but rather to provide incentive to build out new infrastructure 
within a short time period.
  And so that my colleagues and the public can read the specifics 
themselves, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed 
in the Record.
  Let me just conclude by saying that I believe this is important 
legislation, and I hope that my colleagues will join in supporting it. 
I look forward to working with my home State colleague, Senator Baucus, 
and also Senator Rockefeller and others to ensure that we push it 
through the Congress

[[Page 514]]

this year and send it to the President for signature.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and fellow 
Montanan, Senator Burns, in introducing the Broadband Expensing Act. 
Montana has led the way in the innovation of a tax incentive to promote 
broadband deployment to rural and underserved areas. And today, Senator 
Burns and I are continuing to work together to provide Montana and the 
Nation with the tools it needs to stay on the cutting edge of 
communication technology.
  My top goal for my State and the country is to help boost our economy 
and create more good paying jobs. This bill will help to do that.
  The Broadband Expensing Act will allow businesses to depreciate their 
capital investment quicker, allowing them to deploy next generation 
networks at a faster pace. In short, the benefits are two-fold: 
businesses will benefit by receiving an incentive to roll out their 
network into rural areas. And customers will benefit by being able to 
send and receive massive amounts of data much faster than before.
  The ability to communicate clearly, quickly and effectively is vital 
to a healthy economy. The Internet has been an incredible innovation, 
but its abilities are limited by an outdated infrastructure. Much of 
the network still relies on the same copper wire that Alexander Graham 
Bell used when he first designed our telephone system.
  It is time to update that infrastructure to soup up the copper wire, 
to soup up coaxial cable, to move to optical technologies, and to 
develop new wireless products.
  As many in the industry have told me, our communications network is 
slowly being upgraded all across the country--but often not in rural 
America. The main reason is cost. Companies are in business to make 
money, and if their costs are too high, they are reluctant to make the 
investment. But rural Americans deserve the same kind of high-speed 
service that urban Americans have access to.
  Long ago we determined that rural Americans deserved the same basic 
services electricity, telephone and transportation--and we found 
creative ways to provide them with those services. Now it is time to 
ensure they have access to broadband as well.
  In addition to helping us bring ``current generation'' broadband to 
rural and underserved areas, this bill that Senator Burns and I have 
introduced will help us move to the ``next generation'' of broadband 
state-of-the-art systems that carry much greater amounts of data than 
copper wire and coaxial cable.
  It is fitting that we introduce this bill today, as we are beginning 
discussions about an economic stimulus package. Boosting broadband 
service across the country is one more way to boost the economy and 
bring more jobs to our rural areas. Broadband will help ensure that our 
productivity remains high and that our citizens receive the best 
services modern telecommunications have to offer.
  The potentials of broadband are limitless. From telemedicine to 
distance learning to video conferencing. In rural areas, we will find 
even more ways to use broadband, such as tele-veterinary services, 
remote monitoring of crops or on-line livestock auctions.
  And I want to echo Senator Burns concerns about international 
competitiveness. A recent study by the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development found that the United States is now sixth 
in the world in broadband penetration. Two years ago, we were third. 
Last year, we were fourth. Now we are sixth, behind South Korea, 
Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium.
  We need to move back up the ladder. The United States invented the 
Internet. We invented the computer. We invented optical fiber. We 
invented many of the devices upon which the Internet depends. So we 
can't allow ourselves to fall behind in high-speed Internet service.
  I also want to thank my colleague from West Virginia, Senator 
Rockefeller, for his important work on the broadband tax credit 
legislation. I look forward to his reintroduction of that important 
bill and working together to provide Americans with broadband 
incentives.
  Let me conclude by asking my Senate colleagues for their support of 
this bill that will stimulate broadband investment around the country. 
Every single American, urban or rural, rich or poor, young or old, 
deserve access to this new and exciting technology. I look forward to 
working with Senator Burns and others to get this legislation enacted 
this year.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join my 
colleagues from Montana in introducing the Broadband Expensing Act. If 
enacted, this legislation would bring economic growth to rural America, 
and it would help bring community benefits to rural and underserved 
areas of the Nation, including many in my home State of Utah.
  I think it is striking that most Americans still rely on very 
outdated telecommunications infrastructure, the same copper wire we 
have used for decades, for their connection to one of the most 
important communications innovations in history, the Internet.
  This is true in my home State of Utah, where the telecommunications 
infrastructure has not kept pace with the growing number of high-tech 
firms, manufacturing companies, and very sophisticated workers. Our 
major metropolitan areas, of course, have access to high-speed Internet 
services. But the connections to most homes and many businesses have 
not been upgraded, meaning that data signals hit a bottleneck there and 
slow down dramatically.
  Consequently, many wonderful Internet applications, such as video 
conferencing, large file sharing, telemedicine, and distance learning, 
are ineffective or unavailable. And this is certainly true outside the 
metropolitan areas of Utah, in the rural communities that are found all 
over the State.
  One way to help overcome this situation is to offer a financial 
incentive to encourage broadband providers to extend their networks to 
underserved areas of the Nation. That is what this legislation would 
do. It would help broadband providers reduce the cost of new 
infrastructure. But it is important to note that they will only receive 
the benefit of this incentive if they actually build new infrastructure 
and actually provide broadband service. No new broadband network, no 
tax benefit. That is eminently fair and reasonable, and it is good tax 
and public policy.
  This is a two-tiered tax incentive. Companies that bring new 
``current generation broadband'' to rural and underserved areas would 
be able to expense, or write-off, half of their investment immediately. 
Companies that bring new ``next generation broadband'' to those rural 
or underserved areas, or to other residential areas, would get to write 
off immediately 100 percent of their investment.
  What is ``current generation'' broadband? It is essentially cable 
modem, digital subscriber line, DSL, or wireless broadband service, and 
is generally five to ten times faster than a dial-up connection. 
Current generation broadband brings photo images to a computer screen 
very quickly, and allows the use of simple video applications. ``Next 
generation'' broadband, on the other hand, is hundreds of times faster 
than dial-up and allows television-quality images to flow from one 
computer to another.
  In many rural areas of the Nation, dial-up service is all that is 
available. Current generation broadband is available in many urban and 
suburban communities, but still generally unavailable in rural areas. 
And next-generation broadband is only in its infant stages, available 
to fewer than 100,000 homes in the United States.
  This legislation is well crafted to meet the broadband needs of the 
Nation. It would help spur current generation broadband deployment in 
areas of the Nation still relying on dial-up, but it would not provide 
tax incentives to areas that already have a broadband connection. And 
it would help spur the deployment of next generation broadband 
everywhere, since that level of service is available to very few people 
in the country today.

[[Page 515]]

  I look forward to taking a leading role in helping move this bill 
through the Finance Committee and the Senate. I am confident that this 
legislation will make an important contribution to the construction of 
a 21st century telecommunications network that will serve the Nation 
well.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Dorgan, and Mrs. 
        Hutchison):
  S. 161. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require 
that violent video programming is limited to broadcast after the hours 
when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion 
of the audience, unless it is specifically rated on the basis of its 
violent content so that it is blockable by electronic means 
specifically on the basis of that content; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's 
Protection from Violent Programming Act. This legislation is of vital 
importance to our young children and their families.
  The purpose of the bill is to require the Federal Communications 
Commission to consider whether to institute a ``Safe Harbor'' during 
which gratuitously violent television programming could not be 
televised to America's children. Today, I am joined in this effort by 
several of my colleagues, Senators Hutchison, Inouye, and Dorgan, who 
are all original cosponsors of the legislation. I have sponsored 
similar legislation in each of the last five Congresses and this same 
legislation was reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee during 
the 106th Congress by a vote of 17 to 1. I feel compelled to 
reintroduce this bill again to stem the tide of violent programming 
that is becoming more and more prevalent in our society. Unfortunately, 
violence in the media begets violence by our youths and we have an 
obligation to address this societal problem head on. We know commercial 
interests will not, so we must act.
  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. 161

       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 ``Children's Protection from 
     Violent Programming Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Television influences children's perception of the 
     values and behavior that are common and acceptable in 
     society.
       (2) Broadcast television, cable television, and video 
     programming are--
       (A) uniquely pervasive presences in the lives of all 
     American children; and
       (B) readily accessible to all American children.
       (3) Violent video programming influences children, as does 
     indecent programming.
       (4) There is empirical evidence that children exposed to 
     violent video programming at a young age have a higher 
     tendency to engage in violent and aggressive behavior later 
     in life than those children not so exposed.
       (5) There is empirical evidence that children exposed to 
     violent video programming have a greater tendency to assume 
     that acts of violence are acceptable behavior and therefore 
     to imitate such behavior.
       (6) There is empirical evidence that children exposed to 
     violent video programming have an increased fear of becoming 
     a victim of violence, resulting in increased self-protective 
     behaviors and increased mistrust of others.
       (7) There is a compelling governmental interest in limiting 
     the negative influences of violent video programming on 
     children.
       (8) There is a compelling governmental interest in 
     channeling programming with violent content to periods of the 
     day when children are not likely to comprise a substantial 
     portion of the television audience.
       (9) A significant amount of violent programming that is 
     readily accessible to minors remains unrated specifically for 
     violence and therefore cannot be blocked solely on the basis 
     of its violent content.
       (10) Age-based ratings that do not include content rating 
     for violence do not allow parents to block programming based 
     solely on violent content thereby rendering ineffective any 
     technology-based blocking mechanism designed to limit violent 
     video programming.
       (11) The most recent study of the television ratings system 
     by the Kaiser Family Foundation concludes that 79 percent of 
     violent programming is not specifically rated for violence.
       (12) Technology-based solutions, such as the V-chip, may be 
     helpful in protecting some children, but cannot achieve the 
     compelling governmental interest in protecting all children 
     from violent programming when parents are only able to block 
     programming that has, in fact, been rated for violence.
       (13) Restricting the hours when violent programming can be 
     shown protects the interests of children whose parents are 
     unavailable, unable to supervise their children's viewing 
     behavior, do not have the benefit of technology-based 
     solutions, are unable to afford the costs of technology-based 
     solutions, or are unable to determine the content of those 
     shows that are only subject to age-based ratings.
       (14) After further study, pursuant to a rulemaking, the 
     Federal Communications Commission may conclude that content-
     based ratings and blocking technology do not effectively 
     protect children from the harm of violent video programming.
       (15) If the Federal Communications Commission reaches the 
     conclusion described in paragraph (14), the channeling of 
     violent video programming will be the least restrictive means 
     of limiting the exposure of children to the harmful 
     influences of violent video programming.

     SEC. 3. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT RATING SYSTEM 
                   FOR VIOLENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF V-CHIP IN 
                   BLOCKING VIOLENT PROGRAMMING.

       (a) Report.--The Federal Communications Commission shall--
       (1) assess the effectiveness of measures to require 
     television broadcasters and multichannel video programming 
     distributors (as defined in section 602(13) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522(13)) to rate and 
     encode programming that could be blocked by parents using the 
     V-chip undertaken under section 715 of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 715) and under subsections (w) and (x) of 
     section 303 of that Act (47 U.S.C. 303(w) and (x)) in 
     accomplishing the purposes for which they were enacted; and
       (2) report its findings to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the United States Senate and 
     the Committee on Commerce of the United States House of 
     Representatives, within 12 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, and annually thereafter.
       (b) Action.--If the Commission finds at any time, as a 
     result of its ongoing assessment under subsection (a), that 
     the measures referred to in subsection (a)(1) are 
     insufficiently effective, then the Commission shall complete 
     a rulemaking within 270 days after the date on which the 
     Commission makes that finding to prohibit the distribution of 
     violent video programming during the hours when children are 
     reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the 
     audience.
       (c) Definitions.--Any term used in this section that is 
     defined in section 715 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 715), or in regulations under that section, has the 
     same meaning as when used in that section or in those 
     regulations.

     SEC. 4. UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF VIOLENT VIDEO PROGRAMMING 
                   THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY RATED FOR VIOLENCE AND 
                   THEREFORE IS NOT BLOCKABLE.

       Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 701 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 715. UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF VIOLENT VIDEO 
                   PROGRAMMING NOT SPECIFICALLY BLOCKABLE BY 
                   ELECTRONIC MEANS.

       ``(a) Unlawful Distribution.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     person to distribute to the public any violent video 
     programming not blockable by electronic means specifically on 
     the basis of its violent content during hours when children 
     are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of 
     the audience.
       ``(b) Rulemaking Proceeding.--The Commission shall conduct 
     a rulemaking proceeding to implement the provisions of this 
     section and shall promulgate final regulations pursuant to 
     that proceeding not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Children's Protection from Violent 
     Programming Act. As part of that proceeding, the Commission--
       ``(1) may exempt from the prohibition under subsection (a) 
     programming (including news programs and sporting events) 
     whose distribution does not conflict with the objective of 
     protecting children from the negative influences of violent 
     video programming, as that objective is reflected in the 
     findings in section 551(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 
     1996;
       ``(2) shall exempt premium and pay-per-view cable 
     programming and premium and pay-per-view direct-to-home 
     satellite programming; and
       ``(3) shall define the term `hours when children are 
     reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the 
     audience' and the term `violent video programming'.
       ``(c) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Forfeiture penalty.--The Commission shall impose a 
     forfeiture penalty of not more than $25,000 on any person who 
     violates this section or any regulation promulgated

[[Page 516]]

     under it for each such violation. For purposes of this 
     paragraph, each day on which such a violation occurs is a 
     separate violation.
       ``(2) License revocation.--If a person repeatedly violates 
     this section or any regulation promulgated under this 
     section, the Commission shall, after notice and opportunity 
     for hearing, revoke any license issued to that person under 
     this Act.
       ``(3) License renewals.--The Commission shall consider, 
     among the elements in its review of an application for 
     renewal of a license under this Act, whether the licensee has 
     complied with this section and the regulations promulgated 
     under this section.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Blockable by electronic means.--The term `blockable 
     by electronic means' means blockable by the feature described 
     in section 303(x).
       ``(2) Distribute.--The term `distribute' means to send, 
     transmit, retransmit, telecast, broadcast, or cablecast, 
     including by wire, microwave, or satellite, but it does not 
     include the transmission, retransmission, or receipt of any 
     voice, data, graphics, or video telecommunications accessed 
     through an interactive computer service as defined in section 
     230(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     230(f)(2)), which is not originated or transmitted in the 
     ordinary course of business by a television broadcast station 
     or multichannel video programming distributor as defined in 
     section 602(13) of that Act (47 U.S.C. 522(13)).
       ``(3) Violent video programming.--The term `violent video 
     programming' as defined by the Commission may include matter 
     that is excessive or gratuitous violence within the meaning 
     of the 1992 Broadcast Standards for the Depiction of Violence 
     in Television Programs, December 1992.''.

     SEC. 5. FTC STUDY OF MARKETING STRATEGY IMPROVEMENTS.

       The Federal Trade Commission shall study the marketing of 
     violent content by the motion picture, music recording, and 
     computer and video game industries to children, including the 
     marketing practices improvements described by industry 
     representatives at the hearing held by the Senate Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on September 13, 
     2000. The Commission shall assess the extent to which these 
     marketing practices have improved under the model of self-
     regulation as recommended by the Commission in its September, 
     2000, report, Making Violent Entertainment to Children: A 
     Review of Self Regulation and Industry Practices in the 
     Motion Picture, Music Recording and Electronic Game 
     Industries. The Commission shall report the results of the 
     study, including findings, and recommendations, if any, to 
     the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     and the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce within 
     18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. SEPARABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or any provision of an 
     amendment made by this Act, or the application thereof to 
     particular persons or circumstances, is found to be 
     unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act or that 
     amendment, or the application thereof to other persons or 
     circumstances shall not be affected.

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The prohibition contained in section 715 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (as added by section 2 of this 
     Act) and the regulations promulgated thereunder shall take 
     effect 1 year after the regulations are adopted by the 
     Commission.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S.J. Res. 3. A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress with 
respect to human rights in Central Asia; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the Joint Resolution expressing the sense of the Congress with respect 
to human rights in Central Asia, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 3

       Whereas the Central Asian nations of Kazakhstan, 
     Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan provided 
     the United States with important assistance in the war in 
     Afghanistan, from military basing and overflight rights to 
     the facilitation of humanitarian relief;
       Whereas America's victory over the Taliban in turn provided 
     important benefits to the Central Asian nations, removing a 
     regime that threatened their security, and significantly 
     weakening the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a terrorist 
     organization that had previously staged armed raids from 
     Afghanistan into the region;
       Whereas, the United States has consistently urged the 
     nations of Central Asia to open their political systems and 
     economies and to respect human rights, both before and since 
     the attacks of September 11, 2001;
       Whereas Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, 
     and Uzbekistan are members of the United Nations and the 
     Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, both of 
     which confer a range of human rights obligations on their 
     members;
       Whereas, according to the State Department Country Reports 
     on Human Rights Practices, the Government of Kazakhstan 
     harasses and monitors independent media and human rights 
     activists, restricts freedom of association and opposition 
     political activity, and allows security forces to commit 
     extrajudicial executions, torture, and arbitrary detention 
     with impunity;
       Whereas, according to the Department of State, the 
     Government of the Kyrgyz Republic engages in arbitrary arrest 
     and detention, restricts the activities of political 
     opposition figures, religious organizations deemed 
     ``extremist,'' human rights activists, and nongovernmental 
     organizations, and discriminates against ethnic minorities;
       Whereas, according to the Department of State, the 
     Government of Tajikistan remains authoritarian, curtailing 
     freedoms of speech, assembly, and association, with security 
     forces committing extrajudicial executions, kidnappings, 
     disappearances, and torture;
       Whereas, according to the Department of State, Turkmenistan 
     is a Soviet-style one-party state centered around the 
     glorification of its president, which engages in serious 
     human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrest and 
     detention, severe restrictions of personal privacy, 
     repression of political opposition, and restrictions on 
     freedom of speech and nongovernmental activity;
       Whereas, according to the Department of State, the 
     government of Uzbekistan continues to commit serious human 
     rights abuses, including arbitrary arrest, detention and 
     torture in custody, particularly of Muslims who practice 
     their religion outside state controls, the severe restriction 
     of freedom of speech, the press, religion, independent 
     political activity and nongovernmental organizations, and 
     detains over 7,000 people for political or religious reasons;
       Whereas the United States Commission on International 
     Religious Freedom has expressed concern about religious 
     persecution in the region, recommending that Turkmenistan be 
     named a Country of Particular Concern under the International 
     Religious Freedom Act of 1998, and that Uzbekistan be placed 
     on a special ``Watch List'';
       Whereas, by continuing to suppress human rights and to deny 
     citizens peaceful, democratic means of expressing their 
     convictions, the nations of Central Asia risk fueling popular 
     support for violent and extremist movements, thus undermining 
     the goals of the war on terrorism;
       Whereas President Bush has made the defense of ``human 
     dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, 
     respect for women and private property and free speech and 
     equal justice and religious tolerance'' strategic goals of 
     United States foreign policy in the Islamic world, arguing 
     that ``a truly strong nation will permit legal avenues of 
     dissent for all groups that pursue their aspirations without 
     violence''; and
       Whereas the Congress has expressed its desire to see deeper 
     reform in Central Asia in past resolutions and other 
     legislation, most recently conditioning assistance to 
     Uzbekistan on its progress in meeting human rights and 
     democracy commitments to the United States: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it 
     is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the governments of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, 
     Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan should accelerate democratic 
     reforms and fulfill their human rights obligations including, 
     where appropriate, by--
       (A) releasing from prison all those jailed for peaceful 
     political activism or the nonviolent expression of their 
     political or religious beliefs;
       (B) fully investigating any credible allegations of torture 
     and prosecuting those responsible;
       (C) permitting the free and unfettered functioning of 
     independent media outlets, independent political parties, and 
     nongovernmental organizations, whether officially registered 
     or not;
       (D) permitting the free exercise of religious beliefs and 
     ceasing the persecution of members of religious groups and 
     denominations not registered with the state;
       (E) holding free, competitive, and fair elections; and
       (F) making publicly available documentation of their 
     revenues and punishing those engaged in official corruption;
       (2) the President, the Secretary of State, and the 
     Secretary of Defense should--
       (A) continue to raise at the highest levels with the 
     governments of the nations of Central Asia specific cases of 
     political and religious persecution, and urge greater respect 
     for human rights and democratic freedoms at every diplomatic 
     opportunity;
       (B) take progress in meeting the goals outlined in 
     paragraph (1) into account when determining the level and 
     frequency of United States diplomatic engagement with the 
     governments of the Central Asian nations, the allocation of 
     United States assistance, and

[[Page 517]]

     the nature of United States military engagement with the 
     countries of the region;
       (C) ensure that the provisions of the foreign operations 
     appropriations Acts are fully implemented to ensure that no 
     United States assistance benefits security forces in Central 
     Asia implicated in violations of human rights;
       (D) follow the recommendations of the United States 
     Commission on International Religious Freedom by designating 
     Turkmenistan a Country of Particular Concern under the 
     International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and by making 
     clear that Uzbekistan risks designation if conditions there 
     do not improve;
       (E) press the Government of Turkmenistan to respect the 
     right of imprisoned opposition leader Boris Shikmuradov to 
     due process and a fair trial and to release democratic 
     activists and their family members from prison, and urge the 
     Government of Russia not to extradite to Turkmenistan members 
     of that country's political opposition;
       (F) work with the Government of Kazakhstan to create a 
     political climate free of intimidation and harassment, 
     including releasing political prisoners and permitting the 
     return of political exiles, most notably Akezan Kazegeldin, 
     and to reduce official corruption, including by urging the 
     Government of Kazakhstan to cooperate with the ongoing 
     Department of Justice investigation; and
       (G) support through United States assistance programs those 
     individuals, nongovernmental organizations, and media outlets 
     in Central Asia working to build more open societies, to 
     support the victims of human rights abuses, and to expose 
     official corruption; and
       (3) increased levels of United States assistance to the 
     governments of the Central Asian nations made possible by 
     their cooperation in the war in Afghanistan can be sustained 
     only if there is substantial and continuing progress towards 
     meeting the goals outlined in paragraph (1).

                          ____________________