[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18012-18022]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1404. A bill to amend the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports 
Act; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Stevens in 
introducing the United States Olympic Committee Reform Act of 2003. 
This legislation is designed to reform the governance structure of the 
United States Olympic Committee, USOC, in response to a series of 
embarrassing events that has beset the USOC and threatened the 
organization's credibility in the eyes of our athletes, the American 
people, and the international sports community.
  While the current mission of the USOC is to ``preserve and promote 
the Olympic ideal as an effective, positive role model that inspires 
all Americans,'' turmoil within the organization over the past decade 
has seriously compromised that mission and has amplified significant 
problems that exist within its governance structure and culture. By 
failing to place the organization ahead betrayed the Olympic ideals 
that they pledged to preserve.
  The bill that we are introducing today is the product of three 
hearings held this year by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation in response to several USOC scandals and in an 
effort to help begin reforming the organization. It also is informed by 
the report of an independent commission requested by the Commerce 
Committee to review the USOC, and a review by an internal USOC task 
force, both of which were released last month.
  The bill would make significant improvements to the governance 
structure of the USOC by reducing the size of the current board of 
directors from 124 to nine members and by creating an assembly of USOC 
stakeholders. Unlike the current duopolistic leadership structure of 
the USOC, the board would be the primary governing body of the USOC, 
and it would appoint a chief executive officer to carry out its 
policies and run its day-to-day operations. As such, the USOC will 
become a more efficient and effective organization, as well as one with 
a more logical and transparent structure.
  In addition, the bill would maintain the authority of athletes and 
national governing bodies in the operation of the USOC, require 
increased financial transparency, and provide whistle-blower protection 
for USOC employees. Most importantly, however, this bill would 
streamline the organization to allow a larger percentage of USOC 
revenues to be dedicated to support amateur athletes. Instead of 
supporting a large and wasteful corporate structure, the reformed USOC 
will be able to dedicate fewer resources to a small and more effective 
governing body.
  We must be mindful that the Olympic movement is not about people who 
attach themselves to the USOC for their own benefit. It is a movement 
that is driven by athletes who dedicate their bodies and souls to 
improving their God-given talent with the hope of someday realizing 
their Olympic dreams. The USOC is an entity entrusted by the American 
people with the privilege of being the custodian of these dreams. We 
must act quickly to ensure that the self-serving agendas of individual 
USOC constituencies are no longer paramount to the common objectives of 
the organization.
  The problems that plague the USOC compromise the organization's 
ability to operate effectively and efficiently and undermine the 
credibility of the organization. I believe this bill would provide 
realistic remedial measures to these problems, and I urge my colleagues 
to support its expeditious enactment.
  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. 1404

       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 ``United States Olympic 
     Committee Reform Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) There is a widespread loss of confidence in the United 
     States Olympic Committee.
       (2) Restoring confidence in the United States Olympic 
     Committee is critical to achieving the original intent of the 
     Ted Stevens Amateur and Olympic Sports Act.
       (3) Confusion exists concerning the primary purposes and 
     priorities of the United States Olympic Committee.
       (4) The current governance structure of the United States 
     Olympic Committee is dysfunctional.
       (5) The ongoing national corporate governance debate and 
     recent reforms have important implications for the United 
     States Olympic Committee.
       (6) There exists no clear line of authority between the 
     United States Olympic Committee volunteers and the United 
     States Olympic Committee paid staff.
       (7) There is a widespread perception that the United States 
     Olympic Committee lacks financial transparency.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF TED STEVENS OLYMPIC AND AMATEUR SPORTS 
                   ACT.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports 
     Act (36 U.S.C. 220501 et seq.).

     SEC. 4. GOVERNANCE OF THE UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--The Act (36 U.S.C. 220501) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                      ``SUBCHAPTER III. GOVERNANCE

     ``Sec. 220541. Board of directors

       ``(a) In General.--The board of directors is the governing 
     body of the corporation and shall establish the policies and 
     priorities of the corporation. The board of directors shall 
     have the full authority to manage the affairs of the 
     corporation.
       ``(b) Structure of the Board.--
       ``(1) In general.--The board of directors shall consist of 
     9 elected members and the ex officio members described in 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Elected members.--The elected directors, elected as 
     provided in subsection (g), are--
       ``(A) 5 independent directors, as defined in the 
     constitution and bylaws of the corporation;
       ``(B) 2 directors elected from among those nominated by the 
     Athletes' Advisory Council, who at the time of nomination 
     meet the specifications of section 220504(b)(2)(B) of this 
     title; and
       ``(C) 2 directors elected from among those nominated by the 
     National Governing Bodies' Council.
       ``(3) Ex officio members.--The ex officio members are--
       ``(A) the speaker of the assembly; and
       ``(B) the International Olympic Committee member or members 
     from the United States who are required to be ex officio 
     members of the executive organ of the corporation under the 
     terms of the Olympic Charter.
       ``(c) Terms of Office.--
       ``(1) Elected directors.--The term of office of an elected 
     director shall be 4 years. An individual elected to replace a 
     director who does not serve a full 4-year term shall be 
     elected initially to serve only the balance of the expired 
     term of the member that director replaces. No director shall 
     be eligible for reelection, except a director whose total 
     period

[[Page 18013]]

     of service, if elected, would not exceed 6 years. The chair 
     of the board shall be eligible to serve an additional 2 years 
     as required to complete his or her term as chair.
       ``(2) Staggered terms.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), of 
     the directors first elected to the board after the date of 
     enactment of the United States Olympic Committee Reform Act--
       ``(A) 2 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(A) 
     shall be elected for terms of 2 years;
       ``(B) 3 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(A) 
     shall be elected for terms of 4 years;
       ``(C) 1 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(B) 
     shall be elected for a term of 2 years;
       ``(D) 1 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(B) 
     shall be elected for a term of 4 years;
       ``(E) 1 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(C) 
     shall be elected for a term of a term of 2 years; and
       ``(F) 1 of the directors elected under paragraph (2)(C) 
     shall be elected for a term of a term of 4 years.
       ``(3) Ex officio members.--The speaker of the assembly 
     shall serve as a non-voting ex officio member of the board 
     while holding the position of speaker of the assembly. An 
     International Olympic Committee member shall serve as an ex 
     officio member of the board for so long as the member is a 
     member of that Committee.
       ``(d) Voting.--
       ``(1) Elected members.--Each elected director shall have 1 
     vote on all matters on which the board votes, consistent with 
     the constitution and bylaws of the corporation.
       ``(2) Ex officio members.--Each voting ex officio member 
     shall have 1 vote on matters on which the ex officio members 
     vote, consistent with the constitution and bylaws of the 
     corporation, and the votes of the ex officio members shall be 
     weighted such that, in the aggregate, the votes of all voting 
     ex officio members are equal to the vote of one elected 
     director.
       ``(3) Tie votes.--In the event of a tie vote of the board, 
     the vote of the chair of the board shall serve to break the 
     tie.
       ``(4) Quorum.--The board may not take action in the absence 
     of a quorum, which shall be 7 members, of whom at least 3 
     shall be members described in subsection (b)(2)(A).
       ``(e) Chair of the Board.--The board shall elect 1 of the 
     members described in subsection (b)(2) to serve as chair of 
     the board first elected after the date of enactment of the 
     United States Olympic Committee Reform Act. The chair of the 
     board shall preside at all meetings of the board and have 
     such other duties as may be provided in the constitution and 
     bylaws of the corporation. No individual may hold the 
     position of chair of the board for more than 4 years.
       ``(f) Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--The board of directors shall establish 
     the following 4 standing committees:
       ``(A) The Audit Committee.
       ``(B) The Compensation Committee.
       ``(C) The Ethics Committee.
       ``(D) The Nominating and Governance Committee.
       ``(2) Committee membership.--The Compensation Committee 
     shall consist of 3 board members selected by the board. The 
     Audit Committee, Ethics Committee, and Nominating and 
     Governance Committee shall each consist of--
       ``(A) 3 board members described in subsection (b)(2)(A), 
     selected by the board;
       ``(B) 1 board member described in subsection (b)(2)(B), 
     selected by the board; and
       ``(C) 1 board member described in subsection (b)(2)(C), 
     selected by the board.
       ``(3) Additional committees.--The board may establish such 
     additional committees, subcommittees, and task forces as may 
     be necessary or appropriate and for which sufficient funds 
     exist.
       ``(g) Nomination and Election.--
       ``(1) In general.--The nominating and governance committee 
     shall recommend candidates to the board of directors to fill 
     vacancies on the board as provided in the constitution and 
     bylaws of the corporation. For each vacancy that is to be 
     filled by a nominee of the Athletes' Advisory Council or the 
     National Governing Bodies' Council, the Athletes' Advisory 
     Council or the National Governing Bodies' Council shall 
     recommend 3 individuals to the nominating and governance 
     committee, which shall nominate 1 of the recommended 
     individuals to the board of directors.
       ``(2) Recusal of members eligible for re-election.--Any 
     member of the nominating and governance committee who is 
     eligible for re-election by virtue of serving for an initial 
     term of less than 2 years shall be recused from participation 
     in the nominating and recommendation process.
       ``(3) Board to elect members.--Except as provided in 
     section 4(c)(2) of the United States Olympic Committee Reform 
     Act, the board of directors shall elect directors from the 
     candidates proposed by the nominating and governance 
     committee.

     ``Sec. 220542. Assembly

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Forum function.--The assembly shall be a forum for 
     all stakeholders of the corporation. The assembly shall have 
     an advisory function only, except as otherwise expressly 
     provided in this chapter.
       ``(2) Voting on matters relating to the olympic games.--The 
     assembly shall have the right to vote on, and shall have 
     ultimate authority to decide, matters relating to the Olympic 
     Games. The board of directors shall determine whether a 
     matter is a question relating to the Olympic Games on which 
     the assembly is entitled to vote. The determination of the 
     board shall be final and binding.
       ``(3) Meetings.--The assembly shall convene annually in a 
     meeting open to the public. The board of directors may 
     convene special meetings of the assembly.
       ``(4) Annual budget.--The board of directors shall 
     establish an annual budget for the assembly, as provided in 
     the constitution and bylaws of the corporation. In 
     establishing the budget, the board of directors shall take 
     into account the interest of the corporation in minimizing 
     the costs associated with the assembly.
       ``(b) Structure of the Assembly.--
       ``(1) In general.--The assembly shall consist of--
       ``(A) representatives of the constituencies of the 
     corporation specified in section 220504 of this title (other 
     than former United States Olympic Committee members);
       ``(B) the International Olympic Committee's members for the 
     United States; and
       ``(C) not more than 3 individuals who have represented the 
     United States in an Olympic Games not within the preceding 10 
     years, selected through a process to be determined by the 
     board of directors in accordance with the constitution and 
     bylaws of the corporation.
       ``(2) Amateur athlete representation.--Amateur athletes 
     shall constitute not less than 20 percent of the membership 
     in the assembly.
       ``(c) Voting.--
       ``(1) Representatives of the national governing bodies.--
     Representatives of the national governing bodies shall 
     constitute not less than 51 percent of the voting power held 
     in the assembly.
       ``(2) Amateur athletes.--Amateur athletes shall constitute 
     not less than 20 percent of the voting power held in the 
     assembly.
       ``(d) Speaker of the Assembly.--The speaker of the assembly 
     shall be a member of the assembly (who, as a member, is 
     entitled to vote) who is elected by the members of the 
     assembly for a 4-year term. An individual may not serve as 
     speaker for more than 4 years. The speaker shall preside at 
     all meetings of the assembly and serve as a non-voting ex 
     officio member of the board of directors as provided in 
     section 220541. The speaker shall have no other duties or 
     powers (other than the right to vote), except as may be 
     expressly assigned by the board of directors.

     ``Sec. 220543. Chief executive officer

       ``(a) In General.--The corporation shall have a chief 
     executive officer who shall not be a member of the board of 
     directors. The chief executive officer shall be selected by, 
     and shall report to, the board of directors, as provided in 
     the constitution and bylaws of the corporation. The chief 
     executive officer shall be responsible, with board approval, 
     for filling other key senior management positions as provided 
     in the constitution and bylaws of the corporation.
       ``(b) Duties.--The chief executive officer shall, either 
     directly or by delegation--
       ``(1) manage all staff functions and the day-to-day affairs 
     and business operations of the corporation, including but not 
     limited to relations with international organizations; and
       ``(2) implement the mission and policies of the 
     corporation, as determined by the Board.

     ``Sec. 220544. Whistleblower procedures and protections

       ``The corporation, through the board of directors, shall 
     establish procedures for--
       ``(1) the receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints 
     received by the corporation regarding accounting, auditing or 
     ethical matters; and
       ``(2) the protection against retaliation by any officer, 
     employee, director or member of the corporation against any 
     person who submits such complaints.''.
       (b) Transition.--The individuals serving as members of the 
     board of directors of the United States Olympic Committee on 
     the date of enactment of this Act shall continue to serve as 
     the board of directors until a board of directors has been 
     elected under subsection (c)(2) of this section.
       (c) Initial Nominating and Governance Committee.--
       (1) In general.--Until the initial board of directors has 
     been elected and taken office, the nominating and governance 
     committee required by section 220541(f) of title 36, United 
     States Code, shall consist of--
       (A) 1 individual selected by the Athlete's Advisory Council 
     from among its members;
       (B) 1 individual selected by the National Governing Bodies' 
     Council from among its members;
       (C) 1 individual selected by the public-sector directors of 
     the United States Olympic Committee from among such directors 
     serving on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (D) 1 individual selected by the Independent Commission on 
     Reform of the established by the United States Olympic 
     Committee in March, 2003, from among its members, who shall 
     chair the committee; and

[[Page 18014]]

       (E) 1 individual selected by the Governance and Ethics Task 
     Force established by the United States Olympic Committee in 
     February, 2003, from among its members.
       (2) Election of New Board of Directors.--The nominating and 
     governance committee established by paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) elect an initial board or directors who shall serve for 
     the terms provided in section 220541(c)(2) of title 36, 
     United States Code; and
       (B) elect 1 of the members described in section 
     220541(b)(2)(A) of that title to serve as chair until the 
     terms of the members elected under subparagraph (A) have 
     expired.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Representation requirements.--Section 220504(b) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``representation of--'' and inserting 
     ``representation on its board of directors and in its 
     assembly of--''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) ensure that--
       ``(i) the membership and voting power of such amateur 
     athletes is not less than 20 percent of the membership and 
     voting power of each committee, subcommittee, working group, 
     or other subordinate decision-making group, of the 
     corporation; and
       ``(ii) the voting power held by members of the board of 
     directors who were nominated by the Athlete's Advisory 
     Council is not less than 20 percent of the total voting power 
     held in the board of directors;''.
       (2) Constitution and bylaws.--Section 220505(a) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``bylaws.'' and inserting ``bylaws 
     consistent with this chapter, as determined by the board of 
     directors. The board of directors shall adopt and amend the 
     constitution and bylaws of the corporation, consistent with 
     this chapter.'';
       (B) by inserting ``the board of directors proposes and 
     approves by majority vote such an amendment and'' after 
     ``only if''; and
       (C) by striking ``publication,'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``publication and on its website,''.
       (3) Ombudsman to report to board of directors.--Section 
     220509(b) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``the board of directors and'' in 
     paragraph (1)(C) after ``report to'';
       (B) by striking ``corporation's executive director'' in 
     paragraph (2)(A)(i) and inserting ``board of directors'';
       (C) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (2)(A) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) The board of directors shall hire or not hire such 
     person after fully considering the advice and counsel of the 
     Athlete's Advisory Council.'';
       (D) by striking ``corporation'' the first place it appears 
     in paragraph (2)(B) and inserting ``board of directors'';
       (E) by striking ``to the corporation's executive committee 
     by either the corporation's executive director'' in paragraph 
     (2)(B)(ii) and inserting ``by 1 or more members of the board 
     of directors''; and
       (F) by striking ``corporation's executive committee'' in 
     paragraph (2)(B)(iii) and inserting ``board of directors''.
       (4) Eligibility requirements.--Section 220522(a)(4)(B) is 
     amended by striking ``corporation's executive committee'' and 
     inserting ``board of directors''.
       (5) Chapter analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     2205 of title 36, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

                      ``SUBCHAPTER III. GOVERNANCE

``220541. Board of directors
``220542. Assembly
``220543. Chief executive officer
``220544. Whistleblower procedures and protections''.

     SEC. 5. REPORTS.

       Section 220511 is amended--
       (1) by striking so much of subsection (a) as precedes 
     paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Biennial Report.--On or before the first day of June 
     of every other year, the corporation shall transmit 
     simultaneously to the President and to each House of Congress 
     a detailed report of its operations for the preceding 2 
     years, including--
       ``(1) annual financial statements--
       ``(A) audited in accordance with generally accepted 
     accounting principles by an independent certified public 
     accountant; and
       ``(B) certified by the chief executive officer and the 
     chief financial officer of the corporation as to their 
     accuracy and completeness;'';
       (2) by striking ``4-year period;'' in subsection (a)(2) and 
     inserting ``2-year period;''; and
       (3) by inserting ``free of charge on its website (or via a 
     similar medium that is widely available to the public), and 
     otherwise'' in subsection (b) after ``persons''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Fitzgerald):
  S. 1405. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 514 17th Street Moines, Illinois, as the ``David 
Bybee Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 
legislation to name the U.S. Post Office at 514 17th Street in Moline, 
IL after my friend, David Bybee, who suffered a fatal heart attack last 
year.
  Dave was a hard working and dedicated public servant who served as a 
National Business Agent for the Chicago Region of the National 
Association of Letter Carriers for twenty-five years. In 1967, Mr. 
Bybee became a letter carrier for the Postal Service and after just two 
years was elected President of Letter Carriers Local 318. Bybee then 
became the Regional Administrative Assistant for three years and also 
worked as Secretary to the Illinois State Association of Letter 
Carriers from 1971 to 1977. Three years later, Bybee was elected the 
National Business Agent to the National Association of Letter Carriers 
for the 17,000 members of the Chicago Region. Mr. Bybee held that 
position and also served as Vice President of the Illinois AFL-CIO 
until his death on May 31, 2002.
  In recognition of his lifetime work on behalf of the letter carriers 
of Illinois, the local union he first served as President was named the 
David M. Bybee Branch of the National Association of Letter Carriers in 
1992.
  Mr. Bybee did not let his busy work schedule interfere with his 
family life. He was devoted to his wife, Judy, and their two sons, John 
and Michael. Dave Bybee also found time to serve his community as fire 
chief of Carbon Cliff, a school board member, and kept active in the 
Moline Elks Club.
  Post offices are often designated in honor of individuals who have 
made valuable contributions to their community, State, and country. I 
can think of no more fitting way to permanently and publicly recognize 
David Bybee's dedication than to name the Moline, IL post office in his 
honor. It would be a most appropriate way to commemorate his exemplary 
service to the Moline community and to postal workers across Illinois 
and the Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Johnson, 
        Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 1406. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act to permit the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to register a Canadian pesticide; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bipartisan bill 
to remedy a long-standing inequity in pesticide pricing between 
agricultural chemicals sold in Canada and similar use chemicals sold in 
the United States. This pesticide price disparity has caused an undue 
cost burden on our American farmers putting them at a distinct 
disadvantage when competing in the world grain market.
  Currently, American and Canadian farmers use the same chemicals on 
their fields; but they are marketed under different labels and sold at 
much lower cost north of the border. This bill simply eliminates that 
inequity by setting up a process that would allow American farmers to 
access these lower-priced--but substantively identical--pesticides.
  This legislation would direct the Environmental Protection Agency, 
EPA, upon the request of anyone who can comply with the pesticide 
registration requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to register a Canadian pesticide for use in the 
United States. This registration would take effect if, after analysis 
by the EPA, the pesticides are of similar use and composition in both 
countries. The bill also has provisions to allow EPA to delegate 
portions of the registration process to individual states with EPA 
having the final authority over the process. This is to conserve the 
resources of the EPA and at the same time utilize the expertise of 
State agriculture departments around the country.
  The new labels for the chemicals would still be under the strict 
scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency as would their use. 
This would continue to insure safety in the food supply. Food safety is 
a top priority for all of us. Chemical safety is a top priority for all 
of us. This bill keeps those priorities intact.

[[Page 18015]]

  I have come before the Senate time and again to talk about the hidden 
inequities of trade. Trade must be fair, and the pricing inequities of 
Canadian and United States similar use pesticides have been a glaring 
weakness of the free trade initiative. For far too long, American 
farmers have watched their neighbors to the north apply pesticides that 
are used in both countries, used on the same crops, and yet Canadian 
producers get a price cut.
  Our farmers are also concerned that similar use pesticides are being 
utilized by farmers in Canada to produce wheat, barley, and other 
agricultural commodities which are subsequently imported and consumed 
in the United States. They rightfully believe it to be unfair to import 
commodities produced with agricultural pesticides that are not 
available to U.S. producers. If commodities grown with the use of these 
Canadian pesticides are deemed safe enough for import and consumption 
in the United States, why would we make American producers pay 117 
percent to 193 percent more in chemical costs to produce the same 
crops? The current scenario doesn't make sense.
  This bill is not an ending, but a beginning. Hidden trade barriers 
and schemes riddle the fabric of our trade agreements. We cannot 
continue to accept trade practices that on the one hand hamstring 
Americans, and on the other hand, unduly promote our competitors. We 
cannot allow our competitors to sell us commodities treated with lower 
priced chemicals that are used both in Canada and the United States, 
tell our consumers that the chemicals used on those commodities are 
perfectly safe, and yet not give our producers access to those same 
chemicals at a lower price. This is a classic example of free trade 
gone bad.
  We ought not accept second best all of the time, and this bill is a 
step in bringing American producers back to a level playing field.
  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. 1406

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

     SECTION 1. REGISTRATION OF CANADIAN PESTICIDES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, 
     Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Registration of Canadian Pesticides.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Canadian pesticide.--The term `Canadian pesticide' 
     means a pesticide that--
       ``(i) is registered for use as a pesticide in Canada;
       ``(ii) is identical or substantially similar in its 
     composition to a comparable domestic pesticide registered 
     under this section; and
       ``(iii) is registered in Canada by the registrant of the 
     comparable domestic pesticide or by an affiliated entity of 
     the registrant.
       ``(B) Comparable domestic pesticide.--The term `comparable 
     domestic pesticide' means a pesticide--
       ``(i) that is registered under this section;
       ``(ii) the registration of which is not under suspension;
       ``(iii) that is not subject to--

       ``(I) a notice of intent to cancel or suspend under any 
     provision of this Act;
       ``(II) a notice for voluntary cancellation under section 
     6(f); or
       ``(III) an enforcement action under any provision of this 
     Act;

       ``(iv) that is used as the basis for comparison for the 
     determinations required under paragraph (4);
       ``(v) that is registered for use on each site of 
     application for which registration is sought under this 
     subsection;
       ``(vi) for which no use is the subject of a pending interim 
     administrative review under subsection (c)(8);
       ``(vii) that is not subject to any limitation on production 
     or sale agreed to by the Administrator and the registrant or 
     imposed by the Administrator for risk mitigation purposes; 
     and
       ``(viii) that is not classified as a restricted use 
     pesticide under subsection (d).
       ``(2) Authority to register canadian pesticides.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator may register a 
     Canadian pesticide if the registration--
       ``(i) complies with this subsection;
       ``(ii) is consistent with this Act; and
       ``(iii) has not previously been disapproved by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(B) Production of another pesticide.--A pesticide 
     registered under this subsection shall not be used to produce 
     a pesticide registered under this section or section 24(c).
       ``(C) Registrant.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator may register a 
     Canadian pesticide under this subsection on the application 
     of any person.
       ``(ii) Application.--If the Administrator registers a 
     Canadian pesticide under this subsection on application of 
     any person, the applicant shall be considered to be the 
     registrant of the Canadian pesticide for all purposes of this 
     Act.
       ``(D) Administrator.--Not later than 60 days after a person 
     submits a complete application for the registration of a 
     Canadian pesticide under this subsection, the Administrator 
     shall--
       ``(i) approve the application; or
       ``(ii)(I) disapprove the application; and
       ``(II) provide the applicant with a statement of the 
     reasons for the disapproval.
       ``(E) Delegation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the 
     Administrator may delegate a function of the Administrator 
     under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve or 
     disapprove any final action taken under this subsection as 
     the result of a function delegated to a State.
       ``(3) Applicant requirements.--A person seeking 
     registration of a Canadian pesticide under this subsection 
     shall--
       ``(A) demonstrate to the Administrator that the Canadian 
     pesticide is identical or substantially similar in its 
     composition to a comparable domestic pesticide; and
       ``(B) submit to the Administrator a copy of--
       ``(i) the label approved by the Pesticide Management 
     Regulatory Agency for the Canadian pesticide; and
       ``(ii) the label approved by the Administrator for the 
     comparable domestic pesticide.
       ``(4) Criteria for registration.--The Administrator may 
     register a Canadian pesticide under this subsection if the 
     Administrator--
       ``(A) obtains the confidential statement of formula for the 
     Canadian pesticide;
       ``(B) determines that the Canadian pesticide is identical 
     or substantially similar in composition to a comparable 
     domestic pesticide;
       ``(C) for each food or feed use authorized by the 
     registration--
       ``(i) determines that there exists an adequate tolerance or 
     exemption under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 301 et seq.) that permits the residues of the 
     pesticide on the food or feed; and
       ``(ii) identifies the tolerances or exemptions in the 
     notification submitted under subparagraph (E);
       ``(D) obtains a label approved by the Administrator that--
       ``(i) includes all statements, other than the establishment 
     number, from the approved labeling of the comparable domestic 
     pesticide that are relevant to the uses registered by the 
     Administrator; and
       ``(ii) excludes all labeling statements relating to uses 
     that are not registered by the Administrator; and
       ``(E) not later than 10 business days after the issuance of 
     the registration, publish in the Federal Register a written 
     notification of the action of the Administrator that 
     includes--
       ``(i) a description of the determination made under this 
     paragraph; and
       ``(ii) a statement of the effective date of the 
     registration;
       ``(5) Labeling of canadian pesticides.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each container containing a Canadian 
     pesticide registered by the Administrator shall bear the 
     label that is approved by the Administrator under this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Display of label.--The label shall be securely 
     attached to the container and shall be the only label visible 
     on the container.
       ``(C) Original canadian label.--The original Canadian label 
     on the container shall be preserved underneath the label 
     approved by the Administrator.
       ``(D) Preparation and use of labels.--After a Canadian 
     pesticide is registered under this subsection, the registrant 
     shall--
       ``(i) prepare labels approved by the Administrator for the 
     Canadian pesticide; and
       ``(ii) conduct or supervise all labeling of the Canadian 
     pesticide with the approved labeling.
       ``(E) Registered establishments.--Labeling of a Canadian 
     pesticide under this subsection shall be conducted at an 
     establishment registered by the registrant under section 7.
       ``(6) Revocation.--
       ``(A) In general.--After the registration of a Canadian 
     pesticide, if the Administrator finds that the Canadian 
     pesticide is not identical or substantially similar in 
     composition to a comparable domestic pesticide, the 
     Administrator may issue an emergency order revoking the 
     registration of the Canadian pesticide.
       ``(B) Terms of order.--The order--
       ``(i) shall be effective immediately;
       ``(ii) may prohibit the sale, distribution, and use of the 
     Canadian pesticide in a State; and
       ``(iii) may require the registrant of the Canadian 
     pesticide to purchase and dispose of any unopened product 
     subject to the order.

[[Page 18016]]

       ``(C) Request for hearing.--Not later than 10 days after 
     issuance of the order, the registrant of the Canadian 
     pesticide subject to the order may request a hearing on the 
     order.
       ``(D) Final order.--If a hearing is not requested in 
     accordance with subparagraph (C), the order shall become 
     final and shall not be subject to judicial review.
       ``(E) Judicial review.--If a hearing is requested on the 
     order, judicial review may be sought only at the conclusion 
     of the hearing on the order and following the issuance by the 
     Administrator of a final revocation order.
       ``(F) Procedure.--A final revocation order issued following 
     a hearing shall be reviewable in accordance with section 16.
       ``(7) Limits on liability.--No action for monetary damages 
     may be heard in any Federal or State court against--
       ``(A) the Administrator acting as a registering agency 
     under the authority of and consistent with this subsection 
     for injury or damage resulting from the use of a product 
     registered by the Administrator under this subsection; or
       ``(B) a registrant for damages resulting from adulteration 
     or compositional alteration of a Canadian pesticide 
     registered under this subsection if the registrant did not 
     have and could not reasonably have obtained knowledge of the 
     adulteration or compositional alteration.
       ``(8) Provision of information by registrants of comparable 
     domestic pesticides.--
       ``(A) In general.--On request by the Administrator the 
     registrant of a comparable domestic pesticide shall provide 
     to the Administrator that is seeking to register a Canadian 
     pesticide under this subsection information that is necessary 
     for the Administrator to make the determinations required by 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(B) Penalty for noncompliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the registrant of a comparable 
     domestic pesticide fails to provide to the Administrator, not 
     later than 15 days after receipt of a written request by the 
     Administrator, information possessed by or reasonably 
     accessible to the registrant that is necessary to make the 
     determinations required by paragraph (4), the Administrator 
     may assess a penalty against the registrant of the comparable 
     pesticide.
       ``(ii) Amount.--The amount of the penalty shall be equal to 
     the product obtained by multiplying--

       ``(I) the difference between the per-acre cost of the 
     application of the comparable domestic pesticide and the 
     application of the Canadian pesticide, as determined by the 
     Administrator; and
       ``(II) the number of acres in the United States devoted to 
     the commodity for which the registration is sought.

       ``(C) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--No penalty under 
     this paragraph shall be assessed unless the registrant is 
     given notice and opportunity for a hearing in accordance with 
     section 14(a)(3).
       ``(D) Issues at hearing.--The only issues for resolution at 
     the hearing shall be--
       ``(i) whether the registrant of the comparable domestic 
     pesticide failed to timely provide to the Administrator the 
     information possessed by or reasonably accessible to the 
     registrant that was necessary to make the determinations 
     required by paragraph (4); and
       ``(ii) the amount of the penalty.
       ``(9) Penalty for disclosure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall not make public 
     information obtained under paragraph (8) that is privileged 
     and confidential and contains or relates to trade secrets or 
     commercial or financial information.
       ``(B) Disclosure.--Any employee of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency who willfully discloses information 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall be subject to penalties 
     described in section 10(f).
       ``(10) Data compensation.--The Administrator and a person 
     registering a Canadian pesticide under this subsection shall 
     not be liable for compensation for data supporting the 
     registration if the registration of the Canadian pesticide in 
     Canada and the registration of the comparable domestic 
     pesticide are held by the same registrant or by affiliated 
     entities.
       ``(11) Formulation changes.--
       ``(A) In general.--The registrant of a comparable domestic 
     pesticide shall notify the Administrator of any change in the 
     formulation of a comparable domestic pesticide or a Canadian 
     pesticide registered by the registrant or an affiliated 
     entity not later than 30 days before any sale or distribution 
     of the pesticide containing the new formulation.
       ``(B) Statement of formula.--The registrant of the 
     comparable domestic pesticide shall submit, with the notice 
     required under subparagraph (A), a confidential statement of 
     the formula for the new formulation if the registrant has 
     possession of or reasonable access to the information.
       ``(C) Suspension of registration for noncompliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the registrant fails to provide 
     notice or submit a confidential statement of formula as 
     required by this paragraph, the Administrator may issue a 
     notice of intent to suspend the registration of the 
     comparable domestic pesticide for a period of not less than 1 
     year.
       ``(ii) Effective date.--The suspension shall become final 
     not later than the end of the 30-day period beginning on the 
     date of the issuance by the Administrator of the notice of 
     intent to suspend the registration, unless during the period 
     the registrant requests a hearing.
       ``(iii) Hearing procedure.--If a hearing is requested, the 
     hearing shall be conducted in accordance with section 6(d).
       ``(iv) Issues.--The only issues for resolution at the 
     hearing shall be whether the registrant has failed to provide 
     notice or submit a confidential statement of formula as 
     required by this paragraph.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     contents in section 1(b) of the Federal Insecticide, 
     Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. prec. 121) is 
     amended by adding at the end of the items relating to section 
     3 the following:

       ``(4) Mixtures of nitrogen stabilizers and fertilizer 
     products.
     ``(g) Registration review.
     ``(h) Registration requirements for antimicrobial pesticides.
       ``(1) Evaluation of process.
       ``(2) Review time period reduction goal.
       ``(3) Implementation.
       ``(4) Annual report.
     ``(i) Registration of Canadian pesticides.
       ``(1) Definitions.
       ``(2) Authority to register Canadian pesticides.
       ``(3) Applicant requirements.
       ``(4) Criteria for registration.
       ``(5) Labeling of Canadian pesticides.
       ``(6) Revocation.
       ``(7) Limits on liability.
       ``(8) Provision of information by registrants of comparable 
     domestic pesticides.
       ``(9) Penalty for disclosure.
       ``(10) Data compensation.
       ``(11) Formulation changes.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section take effect 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Reid, and Mr. 
        Miller):
  S. 1408. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore 
the deduction for the travel expenses of a taxpayer's spouse who 
accompanies the taxpayer on business travel; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1408

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

     SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF DEDUCTION FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES OF 
                   SPOUSE, ETC. ACCOMPANYING TAXPAYER ON BUSINESS 
                   TRAVEL.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (m) of section 274 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional 
     limitations on travel expenses) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (3).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 1409. A bill to provide funding for infrastructure investment to 
restore the United States economy and to enhance the security of 
transportation and environmental facilities throughout the United 
States; to the Committee on Finance
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Rebuild 
America Act of 2003,'' a bill to improve our national transportation 
and water infrastructure and to stimulate economic growth.
  This bill promises to do what the latest tax cut will not: provide an 
immediate economic stimulus without increasing the Federal budget 
deficit. Whereas the President's economic advisors have said that the 
latest tax cut will create 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2004, at a 
cost of $350 billion, this bill will create as many as 2 million jobs 
at a tenth the cost.
  These jobs could be created in as little as three months, as the bill 
is specifically designed to fund transportation and water 
infrastructure projects which are ready to go within 90 days.
  Not only would those jobs bring some of the 9 million Americans who 
are unemployed and seeking jobs back into the workforce, it would 
generate long-term economic benefits from the increased productivity of 
our transportation infrastructure.

[[Page 18017]]

  This bill will do more to stimulate the economy at less cost than the 
tax cut because it is directed squarely at our most urgent needs. 
Unlike the recent tax cut, which largely benefits high income taxpayers 
who are likely to save any windfall they receive, infrastructure 
spending is necessarily injected into the economy.
  According to the Department of Transportation, each $1 billion in new 
infrastructure investment creates 47,500 new jobs: 26,500 direct jobs 
for construction workers, engineers, contractors, and other on-site 
employees, and 21,000 indirect jobs resulting from the spending 
associated with the investment.
  These are jobs our economy desperately needs, particularly in the 
transportation and nonresidential construction sectors, which have been 
hit hard by the recent downturn. While new home construction has 
sustained the homebuilding trades, there are now 715,000 unemployed 
private construction workers, most of whom were laid off due to a 
downturn in nonresidential building. That represents an 80 percent 
increase from three years ago.
  As anyone who has taken a hard look at our transportation needs can 
attest, federal funding for highways, transit, aviation, high-speed 
rail, and ports, among other areas, remains inadequate.
  Without those funds, we are on the verge of falling behind the rest 
of the developed world in the quality of our infrastructure. I recently 
visited the port of Hong Kong and was amazed by the automated 
technology used to process thousands of containers each day with fewer 
employees than would be required to move an equivalent amount of cargo 
at even our most advanced ports.
  And while many countries around the world, including France, China, 
Germany, and Japan, now have operating MAGLEV train systems, the United 
States does not have a single demonstration MAGLEV line operating 
anywhere in the country.
  Increasingly, global industry demands a level of efficiency and 
reliability which requires substantial upgrades to existing 
infrastructure. In California, where computer and electronic products 
account for 51 percent of the State's manufacturing exports, the trend 
is toward lighter, higher value shipments. Nationwide, shipments of 
below 1,000 lbs accounted for 18 percent of total value in 1977, and 32 
percent of value in 1997, a dramatic increase.
  Those changes put a premium on speed and reliability, without which 
``just-in-time'' manufacturing and lean inventory controls are 
impossible. A company such as Hewlett Packard, which uses Intel 
processors made in California in servers which it assembles in Texas, 
must be able to ship processors without risk of even a 24-hour delay.
  This bill takes a big step toward ensuring that level of speed and 
reliability by dedicating $50 billion to infrastructure upgrades. And I 
must stress the huge incremental value of that spending in the context 
of reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century, TEA-21, which is expected this year.
  Reauthorization of TEA-21 will dedicate more than $250 billion toward 
transportation projects over the next six years, but even that level of 
funding will only allow us to tread water. Maintenance of existing 
infrastructure will consume much of that spending.
  To take one example, the Department of Transportation estimates that 
$20.6 billion is needed annually to maintain and improve performance of 
public transit systems alone.
  The $50 billion provided by the ``Rebuild America Act'' will go 
beyond current maintenance and actually improve overall productivity by 
allowing substantial upgrades to go forward. Specifically, the bill 
provides:

       $5 billion in additional authority for Federal-aid highway 
     capital investments, drawn from the $19 billion surplus in 
     the Highway Trust Fund.
       $3 billion in transit capital and operating grants, drawn 
     from the surplus in the Highway Trust Fund.
       $3 billion in airport development projects, including $2 
     billion in airport improvement program grants to enhance 
     airport safety, efficiency, and capacity.
       $14 billion of tax-credit high-speed rail bonds for 
     infrastructure construction and the acquisition of rolling 
     stock.
       $7.5 billion for capital investment in passenger and 
     freight rail, including $2.5 billion for Amtrak.
       $2.5 billion for port security grants to ports and marine 
     facility operators.
       $11.5 billion for wastewater and drinking water 
     infrastructure, to be administered through the existing Clean 
     Water State Revolving Fund and Safe Drinking Water State 
     Revolving Fund.
       $1.5 billion to fund investment in currently authorized 
     water resources infrastructure projects.
       $1.5 billion in grants to economically distressed 
     communities for economic development.
       $500 million for the repair and alteration of Federal 
     buildings.

  In my home State of California, the infrastructure needs that could 
be addressed by this bill are particularly great. Although the just-
completed BART link to San Francisco International Airport is a major 
achievement, we still remain a long way off from the long-term goal of 
ringing the Bay Area with BART stations.
  And despite the recent economic downturn, California's economy 
remains the engine of much of the country's economic growth, and 
California's population continues to grow. That puts tremendous demands 
on our roads, airports, and transit systems, and is one reason why Los 
Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area are consistently ranked as the 
top two urban areas in the U.S. with the longest annual delays per 
rush-hour driver.
  This bill will provide a total of $1.8 billion in new funds for 
California transportation and safe drinking water infrastructure, and 
more than $1.5 billion more for high speed and passenger and freight 
rail. All told, the bill will create well over 100,000 new jobs in 
California.
  That could bring us farther toward fulfilling one of California's 
most urgent needs, a high speed rail link from the Bay Area all the way 
south to San Diego. Without high speed rail there is little hope of 
taking some of the pressure off of California's over-burdened highways 
and airports.
  In addition to the transportation improvements contemplated by the 
bill, I would like to say a few words about the need for additional 
funds for port security and clean drinking water.
  Since the attacks of September 11 it has become clear that our ports 
should be one of the first lines of defense against attempts to bring 
weapons of mass destruction into this country. And yet the funds we 
have dedicated to securing our ports have been woefully inadequate.
  Last year I introduced comprehensive legislation to improve security 
at our ports, and to inspect more of the 16 million containers which 
come through those ports each year. Currently, only one to two percent 
of those containers are inspected, and the possibility of a dirty bomb 
or nuclear device being shipped in via container remains alarmingly 
real.
  This bill provides an additional $2.5 billion for port security, 
which would go some of the way toward meeting the $6 billion in 
expenses the Coast Guard anticipates over the next 10 years for ports 
to comply with security standards imposed under the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act.
  With respect to clean drinking water, a very different, but equally 
important, priority, this bill provides $11.5 billion for wastewater 
and drinking water infrastructure investment. That funding is important 
because the Administration continues to insist on funding cuts for the 
Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
  Even level funding will not allow us to upgrade existing water 
treatment facilities, many of which were built in the 1970s, when the 
federal government first began to take a major role in the construction 
of drinking water infrastructure. Many of those facilities will require 
substantial improvements and overhauls over the next two decades as 
pipes and equipment fall into disrepair.
  In the West, the magnitude of water supply contamination by 
perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel, has only recently become 
apparent. The costs of cleaning up perchlorate in California

[[Page 18018]]

alone will likely stretch into the billions of dollars, and some of 
those funds must come from the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving 
Fund, which would receive $1.5 billion under this bill.
  With the Federal budget deficit certain to top $400 billion this 
year, and with the gross federal debt projected to increase by over $5 
trillion by 2013, there is a real question as to where these funds will 
come from.
  I am glad to say, therefore, that this bill is fully offset and would 
not add at all to our deficit. The bill uses three offsets to recoup 
the $34 billion cost of the bill, two of which are designed to limit 
corporate fraud, and the last of which extends customs user fees.
  The bulk of the funds used to offset the bill are generated by 
limiting the ability of large corporations to shelter income from 
taxation. A recent report by the Joint Economic Committee on corporate 
fraud at the Enron Corporation speaks to the magnitude of this problem.
  For several years Enron reported huge profits to its shareholders, 
while reporting little or no taxable income to the IRS. We now know 
that Enron executives treated their tax division as a for-profit entity 
within the company and set annual revenue targets for the division.
  Between 1996 and 1999, Enron reported aggregate profits of $2.1 
billion on its income statement, while claiming aggregate losses, for 
tax purposes, of $3 billion. Some of that gap can be explained by the 
massive tax deductions Enron took for employee stock deductions, and 
the rest stemmed from the closely guarded tax-shelter transactions 
designed for the company by banks, accountants, and legal firms.
  This bill closes those Enron-specific loopholes, but also strengthens 
a very simple provision which will have a big impact on shutting down 
future loopholes.
  The so-called ``Economic Substance Doctrine'' imposed by the bill 
states that any transaction which has no material economic impact on 
the business of the company, but which is purely designed for the 
purpose of tax avoidance, shall be disallowed for tax purposes.
  That will allow enhance the ability of tax courts to crack down on 
companies that engage in off balance sheet transactions, artificial 
income shifting, uneconomic financing transactions, and other tax 
avoidance schemes which are not designed to provide any profit to the 
company beyond a tax savings.
  In the same vein, the bill puts an end to the practice of setting up 
corporate headquarters offshore in order to avoid corporate taxes at 
home. This practice is not only blatantly unpatriotic, but also creates 
an imbalanced playing field for companies that abide by the spirit of 
the law but are forced to compete with firms that don't.
  This bill will require such corporate expatriates to continue to pay 
U.S. taxes even if they move abroad. All told, these provisions fully 
offset the cost of the infrastructure improvements included in the 
bill.
  Just about any American you talk to will tell you that our economy is 
not in good shape. A quick look at the front page of newspapers shows 
that our stock markets remain well below their 2000 high, that more 
people face long-term unemployment than at any time in the past two 
decades, and that businesses are not making new investments.
  The tax cut which was recently signed into law is the wrong medicine 
for our economy, and will do little to reverse our current course. In 
fact, it may well increase uncertainty and act as a long-term drag on 
the economy by increasing the federal debt and putting pressure on 
long-term interest rates.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a much better means of 
stimulating economic growth, and one which will pay long-term dividends 
in terms of improved roads, railways, and water treatment facilities.
  Rather than simply hand down a burden of debt to our children and 
grand-children, this bill would create a lasting legacy of modern 
infrastructure for their benefit.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Grassley, 
        and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 1410. A bill to permit an individual to be treated by a health 
care practitioner with any method of medical treatment such individual 
requests, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President. Today, I am introducing legislation 
called, ``The Access to Medical Treatment Act, AMTA'', on behalf of 
myself and my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Inouye, Grassley, and 
Daschle.
  This legislation is important for thousands of Americans who suffer 
from illness or disease for which conventional medical treatments offer 
little or no promise of cure or relief. Many Americans are plagued with 
the hopelessness of debilitating pain caused by illness. For some of 
these patients, non-conventional treatments could offer much needed 
relief. Thousands of other Americans live with potentially fatal 
diseases that are unresponsive to traditional medical treatments. 
Increasing the options for treatment by utilizing unconventional 
therapy could provide newfound hope for lifesaving results.
  AMTA addresses limits placed on unconventional medical care and would 
allow Americans access to many promising, even proven, treatments that 
are currently restricted. For example, the bill would lift some 
restrictions on treatments that have been approved and used in other 
countries. The bill would also allow access for many additional 
patients to drugs or therapies otherwise available through the Food and 
Drug Administration, FDA, human clinical trials.
  This legislation establishes parameters for the use of such non-
conventional therapies. A health care practitioner may provide the 
medical treatment requested by a patient under certain guidelines. 
First, the health care practitioner must personally examine the 
patient, the treatment must be within the practitioner's appropriate 
range of practice, it must not violate any existing licensing laws, and 
the treatment must comply with the Controlled Substances Act. Next, 
there must be no reason for the practitioner to conclude that the 
treatment will cause danger to the patient. The patient must be 
informed, in writing, of the contents and methods of treatment, its 
possible side effects, anticipated benefits, results of prior use of 
treatment on other patients, and any other information necessary to 
fully meet the requirements for informed consent of human subjects in 
FDA regulations.
  I believe we have some of the best medicine, technology, and health 
care providers in the United States. However, there are vast amounts of 
information yet to be learned on disease and treatment. We must not 
allow ourselves to be exclusively, perhaps, myopically, focused on 
traditional forms of treatment when some Americans find no relief from 
them. Those with debilitating pain and disease should have access to 
new options for relief, especially when conventional treatments fail.
  We owe it to the American people to engage in this crucial discussion 
on access to non-conventional forms of medical treatments. There are 
many questions that need to be addressed. We must begin to address them 
by exploring the new and innovative forms of therapy that exist, and by 
engaging in an educated dialogue on this issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 1411. A bill to establish a National Housing Trust Fund in the 
Treasury of the United States to provide for the development of decent, 
safe, and affordable housing for low-income families, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our Nation is facing an affordable housing 
crisis. Recent changes in the housing market have limited the 
availability of affordable rental housing across the country and have 
dramatically increased the cost of those that remain. More families are 
forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income for

[[Page 18019]]

housing at a time when Federal spending on housing programs are under 
attack. That is why, along with Senator Chafee, I am again proposing to 
address the severe shortage of affordable housing by introducing 
legislation that will establish a National Affordable Housing Trust 
Fund and begin a rental housing production program.
  The Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is established in this 
legislation would create a production program that will ensure 1.5 
million new rental units are built over the next 10 years for extremely 
low-income families and working families. The goal is to create long-
term affordable, mixed-income developments in areas with the greatest 
opportunities for low-income families. Seventy-five percent of Trust 
Fund assistance will be awarded, based on need, through matching grants 
to States and local jurisdictions. The States and local jurisdictions 
will allocate funds on a competitive basis to projects that meet 
Federal requirements, such as mixed-income projects and long-term 
affordability, and that address local needs. The remainder of the 
funding will be competitively awarded by the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, HUD, to intermediaries, such as the Enterprise 
Foundation, which will be required to leverage private funds. A portion 
of the Trust Fund will be used to promote home ownership activities for 
low-income Americans.
  The Trust Fund would be paid for out of surplus revenue generated by 
the Federal Housing Administration and Government National Mortgage 
Administration after ensuring their fiscal safety and soundness. These 
Federal housing programs generate billions of dollars in excess income, 
which currently goes to the general Treasury for use on other Federal 
priorities. It is time to stop taking housing money out of housing 
programs. These excess funds should be used to help alleviate the 
current housing crisis. According to current projections, approximately 
$28 billion will be available for the Trust Fund between now and 2008.
  The need for affordable housing is severe. Many working families have 
been unable to keep up with the increase in housing costs. Today, for 
many low-income families and their children, the cost of privately 
owned rental housing is simply out of reach. According to the National 
Housing Conference, more than 14 million families spent over half of 
their income on housing in 2001. Today, working families in this 
country increasingly find themselves unable to afford housing. A person 
trying to live in Boston would have to make more than $35,000 annually, 
just to afford a two-bedroom apartment. This means teachers, janitors, 
social workers, police officers and other full-time workers may have 
trouble affording even a modest two-bedroom apartment.
  The cost of rental housing keeps going up. According to the Consumer 
Price Index, CPI, contract rents began to rise above the rate of 
inflation in 1997 and have continued every year since. Rental costs 
have outpaced renter income gains for households across the board. Low 
wage workers have been hardest hit by the increase in cost of rental 
housing.
  Because of the lack of affordable housing, too many families are 
forced to live in substandard living conditions putting their children 
at risk. Children living in substandard housing are more likely to 
experience violence, hunger, lead poisoning and to suffer from 
infectious diseases such as asthma. They are more likely to have 
difficulties learning and more likely to fall behind in school. Our 
Nation's children depend upon access to affordable rental housing.
  At the same time the cost of rental housing has been increasing, 
there has been a significant decrease in affordable rental housing 
units. More than 1.8 million affordable housing units have been 
demolished over the past decade. Making matters worse, many current 
affordable housing providers are deciding to opt-out of their Section 8 
contracts or are prepaying their HUD-insured mortgages. These decisions 
have further limited the availability of affordable housing across the 
country. Many more providers will be able to opt-out of their Section 8 
contracts in the next few years, further limiting the availability of 
affordable housing in our nation. The current decline has already 
forced many working families eligible for Section 8 vouchers in Boston 
to live outside the city because there are no available rental housing 
units which accept vouchers.
  The loss of affordable housing has exacerbated the housing crisis in 
this country, and the Federal Government must take action. We have the 
resources, yet we are not devoting these resources to fix the problem. 
Despite the fact that more families are unable to afford housing and 
there are fewer affordable rental housing units, we have decreased 
Federal spending on critical housing programs. Between 1978 and 1995, 
the number of households receiving Federal housing assistance was 
increased by almost 3 million. From 1978 through 1984, an additional 
230,000 families received Federal housing assistance each year. This 
number dropped significantly to 126,000 additional households each year 
from 1985 through 1995.
  In 1996, this nation's housing policy went all the way back to square 
one-- not only was there no increase in families receiving housing 
assistance, but the number of assisted units actually decreased. From 
1996 to 1998, the 
number of HUD-assisted households dropped by 51,000.
  During this time of rising rents, increased housing costs, and the 
loss of affordable housing units, it is incomprehensible that we are 
not doing more to increase the amount of housing assistance available 
to working families. Yet in the face of these critical housing problems 
and the effect it has on our children, the Bush Administration is 
working to dismantle many federal programs that help Americans find 
affordable housing. The Bush Administration has proposed to block grant 
the Section 8 Voucher program, which I believe will reduce the number 
of families with children eligible for Federal housing assistance and 
increase housing costs for those families who remain. A recent Center 
on Budget and Policy Priorities study that shows President Bush's 
fiscal year 2004 budget request is inadequate to fund all Section 8 
housing vouchers needed in fiscal year 2004. Specifically, the lack of 
funding in the voucher program request means that approximately 184,000 
vouchers now in use serving low-income families will not be funded. In 
Massachusetts, this would mean a reduction of more than 6,000 vouchers 
or nearly ten percent of the vouchers projected to be in use in October 
2003. If the President's request is enacted into law, the Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities believes that it is likely that some 
families that now rely on vouchers to help pay their rent will lose 
assistance, placing these families at high risk of eviction and, in 
some cases, homelessness. President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget 
request also proposes cutting an additional $2.45 billion from existing 
housing programs and eliminating the HOPE VI program, which has helped 
revitalize neighborhoods around the country. These cuts come on top of 
an earlier Bush Administration action to abolish the Public Housing 
Drug Elimination Grant program.
  The Bush Administration changes in Federal housing programs mean that 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and many other States will likely 
receive a reduction in Federal housing funds in fiscal year 2004. 
Almost every State is facing serious budget deficits and are forced to 
dramatically increase spending on homeland security. Additional funds 
are not available to make up the decline in Federal spending. The 
future is even bleaker. These reductions at HUD follow the enactment of 
two separate tax cuts, which primarily benefit the wealthiest in our 
society, that will make it almost impossible for any significant 
increases in the HUD's budget over the next decade. We need to bring 
housing resources back to where they belong. The National Affordable 
Housing Trust Fund will provide desperately needed funds to begin 
production of affordable housing in the United States. Enacting the 
Housing Trust Fund legislation is an important step in the right 
direction to add resources to housing and to help begin producing 
housing again.

[[Page 18020]]

  We can no longer ignore the shortage of affordable housing in 
America, and the impact it is having on families and children around 
the country. It is still unclear to me why this lack of housing has not 
caused more uproar. How many families are to be pushed out of their 
homes and into the streets, before action is taken. I believe it is 
time for our nation to take a new path--one that ensures that all 
Americans, especially our children, has the opportunity to live in 
decent, affordable and safe housing. Everyone knows that decent 
housing, along with neighborhood and living environment, play enormous 
roles in shaping young lives. Federal housing assistance, has assisted 
millions of low-income children across the nation and has helped 
develop stable home environments. However, too many children still live 
in families that have substandard housing or are homeless. These 
children are less likely to do well in school and less likely to be 
productive citizens. Because of the positive effect that this 
legislation would have on America's children, the Trust Fund was 
included in the Act to Leave No Child Behind, a comprehensive proposal 
by the Children's Defense Fund to assist in the development of our 
nation's children.
  I urge you to support this legislation to restore our commitment to 
provide affordable housing for all families. We can no longer turn our 
backs on those who struggle every day just to put a roof over their 
family's head.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Levin):
  S. 1412. A bill to suspend the implementation of the revised 
definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas applicable to Kent, 
Ottawa, Muskegon, and Allegan Counties in the State of Michigan; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
along with Mr. Levin, that would stop the implementation of a new 
Metropolitan Statistical Area, MSA, in the Michigan counties of Kent, 
Ottawa, Muskegon, and Allegan, KOMA.
  On June 6, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget issued its 
Bulletin No. 03-04 on Revised Definition of Metropolitan Statistical 
Areas, New Definitions of Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined 
Statistical Areas, and Guidance on the Use of the Statistical 
Definitions in These Areas.
  This bulletin finalizes a process that began with the last census. 
Statistical areas, as explained by the OMB, are designed solely for 
statistical purposes. As stated in the bulletin, they are designed to 
``provide nationally consistent definitions in collecting, tabulating, 
and publishing Federal statistics for a set of geographic areas.'' The 
problem is that they are used for much more than that. They are a 
principal tool for allocating Federal dollars. And, although OMB 
recognizes this, it will ``not take into account or attempt to 
anticipate any nonstatistical uses that may be made of the MSAs.''
  This is a serious problem. On one hand, we are implementing new MSAs 
to serve basic statistical purposes. On the other hand, these new MSAs 
are critical for the allocation of Federal money and OMB does not 
consider, in the least bit, how these new MSAs may negatively or 
positively affect communities. It is easy for OMB staff to say that 
their hands are tied by rules and strict methodologies, but this is not 
about number-crunching. This is about real dollars for Michigan.
  I have heard from numerous constituents in West Michigan who are 
concerned about how these new statistical, designations will affect 
Medicaid and Medicare payments, Housing and Urban Development grants, 
Community Development Block Grants, and other important programs in 
Michigan. I share these concerns and want to make sure that we do not 
allow a new system of Federal dollar allocations to come into effect 
that would hurt West Michigan. We need time to study the impact of the 
new MSAs. That is why I am offering legislation to stay the 
implementation of the new West Michigan MSAs until October 1, 2004, 
leaving the current Kent-Ottawa-Muskegon-Allegan, KOMA, MSA in place.
  The KOMA region has developed a common identity over the last decade. 
It shares regional challenges such as tourism, transportation networks, 
environmental protection, and community health. Business leaders have 
worked hard to market the region as a common community with much to 
offer potential new businesses and families looking to relocate. I do 
not want these leaders to lose this marketing tool. By the OMB setting 
up a new MSA with no consideration of the economic and social 
integration of the existing MSA, we could see the undermining of a 
great deal of progress for this part of Michigan.
  We, in Congress, should eventually look at this issue of MSAs 
comprehensively. We should ensure that communities do not have to face 
this uncertainty every decade with a new census. We should either 
ensure that the OMB takes into account economic and other community 
concerns when creating MSAs or we should make sure that Federal funding 
allocations are not made through MSAs. Regardless, in the short run, it 
is essential that the hospitals, the community development 
organizations, the business leaders, and the social service providers 
of West Michigan who are raising these concerns with me have time to 
study the problem and understand the impact of OMB's decision. Once 
that has been studied, we can work with OMB and the interested parties 
to ensure that there is no loss of Federal money to West Michigan.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1413. A bill to authorize appropriations for conservation grants 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, to direct the Secretary of the 
Army and the Secretary of the Interior to conduct expedited feasibility 
studies of certain water projects in the State of California, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the California 
Affordable Quantity and Quality Water Act of 2003, CAL-AQQWA.
  Nowhere is the need for a comprehensive water policy that includes 
innovative recycling and reuse principles more urgently felt than in 
California. Water agencies and elected officials throughout the State 
are constantly planning, and struggling, to balance California's 
agricultural, municipal, industrial and environmental water needs.
  This challenge becomes all the more acute in the face of the State's 
declining Colorado River surplus allocation and growing population. 
California is facing an annual loss of about 800,000 acre feet from the 
Colorado River. And population forecasts project an additional 15 
million residents in California over the next 20 years.
  Unfortunately, funding to pursue and implement much-needed, 
environmentally beneficial water infrastructure projects is not readily 
available, and many good water management ideas are left languishing on 
the shelf. CAL-AQQWA can help move many of these ideas forward and into 
production.
  There are two sections in this bill. The first section authorizes 
expedited feasibility studies for 22 water projects in California. 
Funding priority would be given to projects that would provide 
environmental and other benefits. Costs for these studies would be 
shared between the local sponsors and the Federal Government.
  Studies in this bill explore a variety of innovative water supply 
strategies, including groundwater recharge; recycled water distribution 
for landscaping, wetlands restoration, agricultural use, industrial 
use, and general irrigation; surface water storage alternatives; 
groundwater storage; desalination; conservation; and groundwater 
demineralization. If fully implemented, these water projects may 
provide up to 630,000 acre feet of water per year in California. These 
additional acre feet would allow local authorities to decrease their 
dependence on imported water sources.
  The second section of this bill increases funding for the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Conservation Grant programs, 
including $2 billion in

[[Page 18021]]

fiscal year 2004 for the drinking water state revolving loan program. 
EPA conservation grants provide funding for measures that include: 
urban conservation, low-flow toilets, water meter installation or 
retrofit, desalination projects, wastewater treatment system upgrades 
for compliance with Clean Water Act requirements, and groundwater 
recharge facilities projects.
  Water agencies and local officials throughout California are 
constantly struggling to meet all of our state's water needs. My hope 
is that this legislation will bring us closer to meeting the challenges 
facing our growing population by studying and expanding the proven 
benefits of water conservation and recycling.
  Let me conclude by noting that seven of the studies in the bill would 
be conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. I support moving forward 
with additional Corps studies. But I also recognize we need to reform 
the Corps. As part of any reform effort for the Corps, I would like to 
see that costly or controversial Corps projects be subject to 
independent review; that any environmental harm caused by Corps 
projects be fully mitigated in a timely manner; that the public will 
have access to the information necessary to fully participate in the 
Corps' planning process; that the Corps' procedures for determining 
project costs and benefits will be modernized; and that Corps projects 
will be designed and operated in a manner that protects our precious 
natural resources.
  I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this bill, and I 
ask for their support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Miller, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Craig, 
        Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. 
        Burns, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Allen, Mr. 
        Stevens, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Graham of 
        South Carolina, and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 1414. A bill to restore second amendment rights in the District of 
Columbia; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of 
Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is an extremely important piece 
of legislation. Most importantly, this bill goes a long way toward 
restoring the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans who reside 
in the District of Columbia to possess firearms.
  It is no secret that the District of Columbia, our great Nation's 
Capital, suffers from the most startling violent crime rates in the 
country. It has the highest, the absolute highest, murder rate per 
capita in the country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
and despite the most stringent gun control laws in the country, in 8 
out of the 9 years between 1994 and 2002, Washington DC had the highest 
murder rate in the country. In fact, the results are in for 2002, and 
unfortunately they continue to paint a grim picture. The District of 
Columbia has again reclaimed its rather unenviable title as the 
``Murder Capital of the United States''.
  It is time, to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect 
themselves and to defend their families against murderous predators. 
All to often, we read in the paper about yet another vicious murder 
carried out against an innocent District of Columbia resident. Try to 
imagine the horror that the victim felt when he faced a gun-toting 
criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself. 
We must act now to stop the carnage and put law-abiding citizens in a 
position to exercise their right to self defense. It is time to tell 
the citizens of the District of Columbia that the Second Amendment of 
the Constitution applies to them, and not only to their fellow 
Americans in the rest of the country. The District of Columbia Personal 
Protection Act would do exactly that.
  Let me take a moment to highlight what this legislation would do. 
This bill would: 1. permit law-abiding citizens to possess handguns and 
rifles in their homes and businesses; 2. repeal the registration 
requirements for firearms and ammunition; 3. eliminate criminal 
penalties for possession and carrying of firearms in their homes and 
businesses; and 4. correct an erroneous provision which wrongly treats 
some firearms as if they were machineguns.
  Over the years, I have heard over and over again from some of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle that the way you reduce violent, 
gun-related crime is by prohibiting the possession of firearms. Even if 
law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms, my 
liberal friends argue, it is a small price to pay for safety and 
security.
  Well, I want to take this opportunity to dispel these unfounded 
myths. These myths, I might add, are exposed as such by situations like 
we have today in the District of Columbia. I have said it before, but I 
will say it again, excessive regulation and the systematic erosion of 
the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment do not deter violent, 
gun-toting criminals. Enacting and vigorously enforcing stiff penalties 
for those that commit crimes with guns deters violent crime. Not only 
is this the proven and effective approach to reducing gun violence, it 
also preserves the constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding 
men and women to own and possess firearms.
  In fact, I recently held a hearing that examined the Administration's 
gun crime reduction initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. This 
initiative has been incredibly successful. It takes the precise 
approach that I have advocated--strict and vigorous enforcement of 
crimes committed with guns. It says to criminals, ``If you use a gun 
during the commission of a crime, you will do very serious and very 
hard time.'' And it does so, without trampling on the rights of law-
abiding American men and women.
  Today, unfortunately but not surprisingly, the state of affairs in 
the District of Columbia has highlighted exactly what those of us who 
care deeply about the Second Amendment of the Constitution have always 
feared: murderous criminals possess firearms and are free to prey upon 
law-abiding citizens; and law-abiding citizens--precisely because they 
are law-abiding citizens--may not possess a firearm in their homes to 
protect themselves and their families.
  The prohibition of firearms in the District of Columbia is as 
ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional; it is high-time 
we rectify this wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  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. 1414

       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 ``District of Columbia 
     Personal Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
     shall not be infringed.
       (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     protects the rights of individuals, including those who are 
     not members of a militia or engaged in military service or 
     training, to keep and bear arms.
       (3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia 
     are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns 
     that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the 
     rest of the United States for sporting use and for lawful 
     defense of persons, homes, and families.
       (4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita 
     murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to 
     local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding 
     persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and 
     their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.
       (5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the 
     Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady 
     Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide 
     comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District 
     of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of 
     Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of 
     firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there 
     is no need for local laws which only disarm law-abiding 
     citizens.
       (6) Legislation is required to correct the District of 
     Columbia's law in order to restore

[[Page 18022]]

     the rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the 
     United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.

     SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.

       Section 303.43 of title 1, District of Columbia Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``This section 
     shall not be construed to permit the Council, the Mayor, or 
     any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of 
     Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly 
     burden the ability of persons otherwise permitted to possess 
     firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in 
     their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-
     protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither 
     prohibited by Federal law nor regulated by the National 
     Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have 
     authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or 
     eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.''.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.

       Section 2501.01(10) of title 7, District of Columbia Code, 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(10) Machine gun means any firearm which shoots, is 
     designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to 
     shoot automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of 
     the trigger.''.

     SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

       Section 2502.01 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``, and no person or organization in the 
     District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the 
     person or organization holds a valid registration certificate 
     for the firearm''; and
       (B) by striking beginning with ``A registration'' through 
     paragraph (3); and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``firearm or'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the semicolon at the end 
     and inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (3).

     SEC. 6. REPEAL D.C. HANDGUN BAN.

       Section 2502.02 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
     period;
       (C) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (D) by striking ``(a)''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b).

     SEC. 7. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.

       Section 2506.01 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 8. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.

       Section 2507.02 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 9. ADDITIONAL REPEALS.

       Sections 2502.03, 2502.04, 2502.05, 2502.06, 2502.07, 
     2502.08, 2502.09, 2502.10, and 2502.11 of title 7, District 
     of Columbia Code, are repealed.

     SEC. 10. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF 
                   UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

       Section 2507.06 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``that:'' through ``(1) A'' and inserting 
     ``that a''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).

     SEC. 11. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING PISTOL IN 
                   ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.

       Section 4504(a) of title 22, District of Columbia Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by inserting ``, 
     except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other 
     land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded,'' 
     before ``a pistol''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a pistol, without a 
     license pursuant to District of Columbia law, or''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 1415. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 141 Weston Street in Hartford, Connecticut, as the 
``Barbara B. Kennelly Post Office Building'', to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today proudly to introduce 
legislation to rename the postal facility at 141 Weston Street in 
Hartford, CT, as the ``Barbara B. Kennelly Post Office Building.'' 
Barbara Kennelly is a dear friend, a former member of the House of 
Representatives, and an outstanding citizen of Connecticut who has 
dedicated her life to public service on behalf of the citizens of our 
great State. It is long past time, and the very least that we can do to 
pay tribute to her in this small but lasting way.
  Barbara's life of public service came as no surprise to those of us 
who knew her and her family--the first family of Connecticut politics, 
I might add. Her father, John M. Bailey, was one of the all time great 
political legends of our State--a powerful political leader, confidante 
of John F. Kennedy, and Democratic Party chairman under Presidents 
Kennedy and Johnson. I devoted the better half of my senior year at 
Yale to the study of Bailey and wrote my senior thesis, later turned 
into a book, on his brilliant and sophisticated use of political power. 
Barbara's mother was active in Democratic politics long after the death 
of her husband in 1975, her brother Jack served as the chief state 
attorney in Connecticut, and her late husband Jim was a Speaker of the 
Connecticut House. Politics has been in Barbara's bones practically 
from the time she was born.
  She once told a newspaper that politics didn't ``come naturally, but 
certainly it's a lot easier when you see members of your family doing 
it. Obviously I was watching my father all the time and learning 
through osmosis.''
  She had good instructors and she learned well. After serving on the 
Hartford City Council and as Connecticut's Secretary of State, Barbara 
was elected to Congress in 1982 and served with distinction until 1999, 
when she answered her party's call to run for governor.
  Like her father, she was a hard-driving and skilled tactician in the 
House, working the back corridors of politics and shunning the bright 
lights of the modern media ever in search of a nine-second sound bite.
  She was an insider, a loyal Member of the House leadership, and a 
golf partner to the likes of Danny Rostenkowski. She rose in through 
the party ranks making few enemies, seeking consensus, playing fair, 
and gathering strength one vote at a time.
  Through the 1980s and 1990s, she was one of the more powerful women 
in the Congress--part feminist hero, part backroom pol. She had a knack 
for getting along with the good old boys even as she pushed the 
boundaries for women's rights.
  In 1984, she was thrilled to be chosen to nominate Geraldine Ferraro 
as the first woman Vice Presidential candidate on a Democratic ticket. 
Years afterward, Barbara said that moment was one of the high points of 
her career. But there would be many others. In her second term, House 
Speaker Tip O'Neill recognized her ability and appointed her to serve 
on the prestigious tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, a committee 
most members wait years to join. She also became the first woman member 
of the House Intelligence Committee. And in 1991, she became the first 
woman to join the House leadership as a chief deputy whip.
  We miss her strong presence and her wise counsel here in Congress but 
are grateful for her continuing work on behalf of seniors as the 
President of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare. I appreciate the opportunity to help honor a great woman in 
this way. 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. 1415

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

     SECTION 1. BARBARA B. KENNELLY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

       (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
     Service located at 141 Weston Street in Hartford, 
     Connecticut, shall be known and designated as the ``Barbara 
     B. Kennelly Post Office Building''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the Barbara B. Kennelly Post Office Building.

                          ____________________