[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7132-7143]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 670. A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 
95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, California, as the ``James R. 
Browning United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am re-introducing legislation today to 
name the courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, California, 
as the ``James R. Browning United States Courthouse.''
  Judge Browning was appointed to the court by President Kennedy and 
has spent 40 years as a circuit judge on the Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit. For twelve of those years, he served as Chief Judge. As 
chief judge, Judge Browning reorganized and modernized the 
administration of the Ninth Circuit. Now, he is on Senior Status.
  He is originally from Montana and graduated from Montana State 
University in 1938 and from Montana University Law School in 1941, 
achieving the highest scholastic record in his class and serving as 
editor-in-chief of the law review. Before being appointed to

[[Page 7133]]

the Court, Judge Browning served in the U.S. Army and worked for 
Department of Justice and in private practice.
  I can think of no more appropriate honor for Judge Browning than to 
place his name on the courthouse building where he has worked for 40 
years.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENSIGN:
  S. 672. A bill to require a 50 hour workweek for Federal prison 
inmates and to establish a grant program for mandatory drug testing, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mandatory 
Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act of 2003. This legislation is the 
continuation of work I did while in the House of Representatives to 
rein in the undeserved privileges that are currently given to Federal 
prisoners.
  Today's criminal justice system is failing, partly because of what 
happens, or more specifically, doesn't happen, once convicted criminals 
arrive in prison. What prisoners are doing is watching cable 
television, getting high on drugs, lifting weights, and learning to be 
better criminals. What they are not doing is working and paying back 
their victims. That's not justice.
  The purpose of the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act is to 
help establish a Federal prison system that provides discipline and 
rehabilitation for our Nation's prisoners and requires that they make 
restitution to their victims.
  First, this legislation requires that all Federal prison inmates have 
a 50-hour work week. Job training, educational and life skills 
preparation study will also be mandated under this provision. Current 
federal law does not mandate a minimum work week for the 100,000 
inmates in the Federal prison system. Sadly, the average workday for a 
prisoner in the United States is 6.8 hours. This is absolutely 
unacceptable. American taxpayers should not have to work full-time to 
provide rest and relaxation for our nation's prisoners.
  Federal prisoners would be paid for the work they do, but their pay 
would be divided and dispersed in the following manner: 25 percent 
would offset the cost of prisoner incarceration, 25 percent would go to 
victim restitution, 25 percent would be made available to the inmate 
for necessary costs of incarceration, 10 percent would be placed in a 
non-interest bearing account to be paid to the inmate upon release, and 
the remaining 15 percent would go to states and local jurisdictions 
that operate correctional facilities which have similar programs.
  Second, this legislation requires the Bureau of Prisons to establish 
a zero-tolerance policy for the use or possession of illegal 
contraband. A drug-free environment is essential to any hopes of 
rehabilitation for our federal prison inmates. Under these provisions, 
inmates would be subject to random searches and inspections for drugs 
not less than 12 times each year. Federal prisons would be required to 
offer residential drug treatment for all inmates. And finally, any 
employee hired to work in a federal prison would undergo a mandatory 
drug test, and all employees would be subject to random testing at 
least twice each year.
  I understand that many State and local prisons would also be 
interested in starting programs to get a drug-free prison, and for that 
reason have included a new grant program. Any State or unit of local 
government may apply for grants if they meet the same drug-testing 
requirements that are mandated for federal prisons under this 
legislation.
  Third, the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Treatment Act includes a 
requirement that all inmates in the Federal prison system participate 
in a boot camp for not less than four weeks. This boot camp program 
would include strict discipline, physical training, and hard labor to 
deter crime and promote successful integration or reintegration of the 
offender into the prison community. Those prisoners that choose not to 
participate or are physically unable to participate are required to be 
confined to their cells for not less than 23 hours per day during the 
duration that they would otherwise be spending in this program and be 
allowed only those privileges that are granted under Federal law.
  These boot camps work. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Prisons already 
supports two such programs, one for men and one for women. These 
programs place inmates in highly structured, spartan environments where 
they undergo physical training and labor-intensive work assignments, 
coupled with education and vocational training, substance abuse 
treatment, and life skills programs. They focus on promoting positive 
changes in inmates' behavior, including responsible decision-making, 
self-direction and positive self-image. In fact, boot camps have worked 
so well that over 30 states now have them in place.
  Finally, this legislation will further restrict inmates' activities 
and possessions. Under this legislation inmates would not be allowed to 
possess or smoke tobacco, view or read pornographic or sexually 
explicit material, or view cable television that is not educational in 
nature. Inmates would not be allowed to possess microwave ovens, hot 
plates, toaster ovens, televisions, or VCRs. They would not be allowed 
to listen to music that contains lyrics that are violent, vulgar, 
sexually explicit, glamorize gang membership or activities, demean 
women, or disrespect law enforcement. We have to remember that these 
individuals are in Federal prison to be punished for a crime they 
committed. There is no reason for inmates to be given the same, or 
better, privileges than law-abiding citizens have. No one can tell me 
that an inmate has to have cable television when many law-abiding, 
taxpaying families cannot afford such a perk.
  We need to work to ensure that our nation's criminals understand the 
gravity of the crimes they committed. I understand that many of our 
nation's jails and prisons use activities like weight lifting as 
rewards for their inmates. My legislation does not restrict that kind 
of activity. This legislation simply states that it is no longer 
acceptable for our nation's inmates to leisurely go about their day 
instead of working to pay for the crimes they committed. It is time 
that our government send a clear message to the victims of these crimes 
that these criminals will pay, and that restitution, to the maximum 
extent possible, will be made.
  Quite simply, we need to stop the revolving doors of our prison 
system. A study released in June, 2002, by the U.S. Department of 
Justice found that among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states 
in 1994, 67.5 percent were rearrested within three years. It is my hope 
that if Federal prisoners were required to work and given drug 
treatment, instead of perks like cable television and weight training 
time, these individuals would be deterred from committing another crime 
and returning to prison.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and help me 
in getting it passed this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 673. A bill to amend part D of title III of the Public Health 
Service Act to authorize grants and loan guarantees for health centers 
to enable the centers to fund capital needs projects, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece 
of new legislation to help an essential part of our health care safety 
net--our Nation's health centers--serve the uninsured and medically-
underserved.
  The Building Better Health Centers Act will promote health centers' 
mission of providing care to anyone who needs it by getting rid of an 
artificial distinction existing in current law. Right now, federal 
grant dollars to health centers can be used for most things a health 
center needs to do--including salaries, supplies, and basic upkeep. But 
federal grants to health centers cannot be used for one of the most 
critical and expensive needs a health center, or any business or 
nonprofit organizations, will ever face--capital improvements.
  Unless we correct this silly distinction, many of our health centers 
are

[[Page 7134]]

destined to be shackled to slowly deteriorating facilities. Over time, 
this will sap their ability to provide care. If we are serious about 
maximizing health centers' ability to deal with our health care access 
needs, we must allow Federal grant dollars to be used to meet our 
health centers' capital needs.
  I've been down here on the Senate floor many times to talk about 
health centers, but let me cover the basics once again. Health 
centers--which include community health centers, migrant health 
centers, homeless health centers, and public housing health centers--
address the health care access problem by providing primary care 
service in thousands of rural and urban medically-underserved 
communities throughout the United States.
  And as we all know, the health care access problem remains a serious 
issue in our country. Many health care experts believe that Americans' 
lack of access to basic health services is our single most pressing 
health care problem. Nearly 50 million Americans do not have access to 
a primary care provider, whether they are insured or not. In addition, 
over 41 million Americans lack health insurance and have difficulty 
accessing care due to the inability to pay.
  Health centers help fill part of this void. More than 3,400 health 
center clinics nationwide provide basic health care services to more 
than 12 million Americans, almost 8 million minorities, nearly 850,000 
farmworkers, and almost 750,000 homeless individuals each year. The 
care they provide has been repeatedly shown by studies to be high-
quality and cost-effective. In fact, health centers are one of the best 
health care bargains around--the average yearly cost for a health 
center patient is just over one dollar per day.
  I believe that one of the most effective ways to address our health 
care access problem is by dramatically expanding access to health 
centers. And I am pleased to report a strong consensus is developing to 
do exactly that. The Senate has voted in support of a proposal I have 
made with Sen. Hollings to double access to health centers by doubling 
funding over a five-year period. In addition, President Bush has 
proposed that we double the number of people that health centers care 
in the years ahead.
  But over the next few years, as we hopefully see additional resources 
flow to health centers, we will increasingly encounter problems that 
stem from an artificial distinction we see in current law. As I 
mentioned, Federal health center grants are currently allowed to be 
used for most purposes--including salaries for health professionals and 
administrators, medical supplies, basic upkeep of clinic facilities, 
even lease payments if the health center rents. But they simply cannot 
be used for capital improvements.
  This means that unless health centers can find some other way to 
finance their capital needs--and I will talk in a moment about the 
significant barriers they face in doing this--major projects that could 
provide substantial benefit to patients will never happen.
  It means that an urban community health center that has been slowly 
expanding staff and services over many years until it's bursting at the 
seams of its modest two-story building will have to continue to find 
ways to cope, even if that prevents additionally-needed expansion or 
even if upkeep costs on the old building begin to spiral out-of-
control.
  It means that a rural community health center in an area desperately 
in need of dental services may not be able to expand the facility and 
purchase dental chairs, X-ray machines and other major dental equipment 
needed for the desired expansion into dental services.
  It means that even if Federal Government is willing to commit grant 
funds to open a new health center in one of the hundreds of underserved 
communities nationwide which lacks any health care professionals for 
miles around, the new center may never come to be due to lack of 
funding for a facility in which to house it.
  This is more than theory--the evidence shows that many existing 
health centers operate in facilities that desperately need renovation 
or modernization. Approximately one of every three health centers 
reside in a building more than 30 years old, and one of every eight 
operate out of a facility more than half a century old.
  Moreover, a recent survey of health centers in 12 states showed that 
more than two-thirds of health centers had a specifically-identified 
need to renovate, expand, or replace their current facility. The 
average cost of a needed capital project was $1.8 million, and the 
needs ranged from ``small'' projects of $400,000 to major $5 million 
efforts. The survey demonstrates that there may be as much as $1.2 
billion in unmet capital needs in our nation's health centers.
  And that is just for existing health centers. As I mentioned, 
hundreds of medically-underserved areas lack--and could desperately 
use--the services of a health center. This further shows the need for 
new facilities--and more capital--as we expand access to new 
communities.
  So what about possible sources of capital? There are plenty of ways--
in theory--that health centers might be able to get money for capital 
improvements. Businesses--large and small--do it all the time. So do 
other nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals. They use 
built-up equity. They take out loans. They float bonds. They raise 
money through private donations as part of a capital campaign.
  But unfortunately, health centers just aren't quite like most other 
businesses or nonprofits, and many times these options are unrealistic 
as a way to provide the entire cost of a major project.
  Health centers simply don't have loads of cash in the bank. The 
revenue these clinics are able to cobble together from federal grants, 
low-income patients, Medicaid, private donations, and other health 
insurers is typically all put back into to patient care.
  Health centers already work hard to maximize the money they can raise 
through private donations and non-Federal grant sources. In fact, an 
average of 9 percent of health center revenue comes from these sources. 
Most of this private and public funding is used to meet operating 
expenses, and it is difficult to go back to the same sources to request 
further donations for capital needs. In fundraising, health centers 
also face a huge disadvantage compared to nonprofit organizations like 
universities and hospitals because health centers lack a natural 
middle- and upper-class donor base. And raising private funds is 
particularly hard in isolated rural areas that are often quite poor and 
which can have the most dire health care access problems.
  Finally, health centers have difficulties obtaining private loans for 
capital needs for a variety of reasons. The high number of uninsured 
patients health centers treat and the poor reimbursement rates received 
from most Medicaid programs mean health centers rarely have significant 
operating margins. Without these margins, banks are leery about loans 
because they don't feel assured that a health center will have 
sufficient cash flow to successfully manage loan payments. Banks are 
made even more nervous by the high proportion of health center revenue 
that comes from sometimes-unreliable government sources--such as the 
health centers' grant funding and Medicine and Medicaid reimbursements.
  So what should we do? This isn't exactly rocket science. We have a 
need--many health centers require significant help to build or maintain 
adequate facilities because they can't raise the money or obtain the 
loans themselves. And we have an existing law that prevents the federal 
government from using health center funding to do exactly that.
  We simply need to get rid of the artificial distinction we have right 
now and allow our health center grant dollars to go to further the 
health center mission in the best way possible--and that is going to 
mean at times that we should support some new construction or major 
renovation projects. If a crumbling building is constantly in need of 
repair, is soaking up money, and is reducing the number of patients a 
health center can reach out to, the Federal Government should help with

[[Page 7135]]

the major renovation or the new construction needed.
  The Building Better Health Centers Act authorizes the Federal 
Government to make grants to health centers for facility construction, 
modernization, replacement, and major equipment purchases. If our goal 
is to help health centers provide high-quality care to as many 
uninsured and medically-underserved people as possible, we need to get 
rid of barriers to doing that, including capital barriers.
  Beyond just the possibility of grant funding, the bill goes further 
and permits the Federal Government to guarantee loans made by a bank or 
another private lender to a health center to construct, replace, 
modernize, or expand a health center facility. This loan guarantee is 
an additional tool that will help allay the fears of banks and other 
private lenders by limiting their exposure if a health center defaults 
on a loan. An additional advantage of loan guarantees is that you can 
stretch funds farther. When guaranteeing a $1 million loan, the Federal 
Government need only set aside a much smaller amount of appropriated 
money--perhaps only a twelfth to a tenth of the loan total--to insure 
against that loan's possible default. This multiplier factor means that 
for every dollar appropriated for this purpose, many dollars worth of 
loans can be guaranteed.
  There is actually tremendous potential for these two new options--the 
facility grants and the facility loan guarantees--to work together. 
Sharing in up-front costs through grant funding, and helping further by 
guaranteeing a loan that covers the remainder of a project's cost may 
well be the best approach. This will balance the need to make sure 
specific projects get enough grant funding to make them realistic and 
the need to spread capital assistance among as many projects as 
possible.
  Let me try to respond in advance to a few potential criticism of this 
legislation. First, to those who simply think on principle that the 
government should stay out of private-sector bricks and mortar 
projects, I would say we're already at least halfway pregnant. In just 
about every appropriations bill, we have dozens if not hundreds of 
specific projects earmarked for major building or renovation projects.
  Some might worry that the potential large costs of construction 
projects could get out of hand and squeeze out funding actually used 
for patient care. But let me point out that we limit capital assistance 
to five percent of all health center funding. Based on this year's 
funding level, this would mean up to $75 million for facility grants 
and loan guarantees. Because the loan guarantee program would allow 
some of this money to be stretched, this level of support could easily 
mean help for more than $200 million in health center capital projects. 
But the main point is that capital projects are absolutely limited to 
five-percent of health center funding, which prevents any possible 
runaway spending.
  Finally, we should ask ourselves whether or not Federal assistance is 
going to give a free pass to communities, which really should be 
expected to help out with public-minded projects like the construction 
or renovation of a health center. In my bill, local communities are 
expected to help. No more than 90 percent of the total costs of a major 
project can come from Federal sources--and this is the absolute upper 
limit. Much more likely are evenly-shared costs or situations in which 
federal support represents a minority of the capital investment. This 
bill does not give local areas a free ride.
  The quick rationale for this bill is simple. Many health centers are 
hampered in their efforts to provide health care to the medically-
underserved by inadequate facilities. It doesn't make sense to help 
these vital community clinics only with day-to-day expenses if their 
building is literally crumbling around them.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and on the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to aggressively help 
our nation's health centers meet their dire capital needs by making 
this bill law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
        Edwards, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Dodd, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 674. A bill to amend the National Maritime Heritage Act of 1994 to 
reaffirm and revise the designation of America's National Maritime 
Museum, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing America's 
National Maritime Museum Designation Act of 2003. This legislation 
would designate an additional 19 maritime museums as ``America's 
National Maritime Museums'' nationwide. Maritime Museums are dedicated 
to advancing maritime and nautical science by fostering the exchange of 
maritime information and experience and by promoting advances in 
nautical education.
  The America's National Maritime Museum designation would include a 
commitment on the part of each institution toward accomplishing a 
coordinated education initiative, resources management program, 
awareness campaign, and heritage grants program. Maritime museums in 
America are dedicated to illuminating humankind's experience with the 
sea and the events that shaped the course and progress of civilization.
  Museum collections are composed of hundreds of thousands of maritime 
items, including ship models, scrimshaw, maritime paintings, decorative 
arts, intricately carved figureheads, working steam engines, and much 
more. Maritime museums offer a variety of learning experiences for 
children and adults through hands-on workshops and programs that focus 
on maritime history.
  Maritime lecture series offer an opportunity to learn about the 
history and lore of the sea from some of the Nation's leading maritime 
experts. Visitors learn the broad concept of sea power--the historic 
and modern importance of the sea in matters commercial, military, 
economic, political, artistic, and social.
  The legislation that I am proposing would help museums better 
interpret maritime and social history to the public using their 
extensive collections of artifacts, exhibits and expertise. These 
programs and facilities are used by schools, civic organizations, 
genealogists, maritime scholars, and the visiting public, thus, serving 
students of all ages.
  I urge all members of the Senate to join me in support of The 
America's National Maritime Museum Designation Act of 2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. 
        Kyl):
  S. 675. A bill to require the Congressional Budget Office and the 
Joint Committee on Taxation to use dynamic economic modeling in 
addition to static economic modeling in the preparation of budgetary 
estimates of proposed changes in Federal revenue law; to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Budget, jointly, 
pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one 
Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be 
discharged.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
instruct the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget 
Office to employ dynamic scoring models, alongside static scoring when 
estimating the fiscal effect of tax policy changes.
  For too long, Congress has debated tax changes without considering 
how those changes might affect the economy.
  The current method, static scoring, assumes tax cuts or tax hikes 
have no effect on how taxpayers work, save and invest their money. Not 
surprisingly, experience shows this assumption is completely off-base. 
The idea that tax relief and investment incentives strengthen our 
economy is not new to the 21st Century.

[[Page 7136]]

  On April 15, 1986, President Reagan talked about the positive effect 
of tax relief on economic growth. He stated:

       Whatever you want to call it, supply side economics or 
     incentive economics . . . it's launching the American economy 
     into a new era of growth and opportunity. . . . Our basic 
     ingredients for a tax package have not changed: tax rate 
     reductions, thresholds high enough so hard-working Americans 
     aren't pushed relentlessly into higher brackets, some long-
     overdue tax relief for America's families, and investment 
     incentives for business. . . .

  What President Reagan stated so eloquently in 1986 holds true today. 
Economic growth is more easily achieved in an atmosphere where more 
Americans are able to save and invest their money. Tax relief provides 
economic growth, and when we draft legislation, we should understand 
not just the cost of tax relief to the Federal budget, but also the 
benefits that tax relief provides to the economy and the long-term 
increase in revenues to the federal government that tax relief can 
provide.
  The current static estimates that we use imply that tax policy 
changes have no effect on our economy, never produce higher or lower 
revenues and never cause resources to shift within our federal budget. 
This is simply incorrect. Tax policy changes can have a huge impact on 
our economy.
  The belief that tax policy changes directly impact our economy is not 
just a Republican ideal.
  In 1962, President John F. Kennedy remarked:

       It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in 
     power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an 
     economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce 
     enough jobs or enough profits.

  Tax relief provides jobs and profits, no matter who is in the White 
House and no matter who holds the majority in Congress. It is time that 
Congress looks at the real world implications of our tax policy before 
we decide the overall cost and how much relief we can afford to give to 
American families.
  The debate on dynamic versus static scoring may sound like an inside-
the-Beltway squabble, but as I have said today, the decision on how to 
estimate revenues does have important real world implications.
  For example, better revenue estimating methods would make it easier 
to implement tax rate reductions. This would put more money into the 
pockets of taxpayers, which would have a very real positive effect on 
our economy.
  Another example, shifting to a more simple, fair tax code would be 
less difficult if revenue estimators were allowed to consider the 
positive impact of tax reform on economic performance. Clearly a 
simplified tax code would affect each and every tax paying American.
  American families face the challenge of paying their tax burden; 
providing food, clothing and shelter for their children; and must work 
even harder to have money leftover so they can afford to pay their 
medical bills, enjoy a family vacation, save for education costs, or 
put money away for retirement.
  We know that when government takes money away from working families, 
it stifles growth. We also know that when the government gives money 
back to the working families that earned it, we encourage growth.
  I should clarify that this legislation does not negate the Congress' 
use of the currently used static scoring model. This bill simply 
directs OMB and the Joint Tax Committee to use both static and dynamic 
scoring.
  This will create a system that will allow Congress a slide-by-slide 
analysis of both scoring methods. In a Washington Post editorial on 
January 31, it was suggested that dynamic scoring could be useful as a 
way to present tax or spending policies as an additional alternative 
scenario. The editorial states that it would do no harm to the 
traditional way that CBO goes about its job to set up a dual scoring 
method. This is not, as some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have suggested, ``fantasyland scoring.''
  By using both static and dynamic scoring methods, Mr. President, 
through time we will all understand which approach is more realistic, 
and only then, I believe, can we then confidently do away with the 
antiquated, unrealistic static model we use today.
  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. 675

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

     SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that it is necessary to ensure 
     that Congress is presented with reliable information from the 
     Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation as to the dynamic macroeconomic feedback effects to 
     changes in Federal law and the probable behavioral responses 
     of taxpayers, businesses, and other parties to such changes. 
     Specifically, the Congress intends that, while not excluding 
     any other estimating method, dynamic estimating techniques 
     shall also be used in estimating the fiscal impact of 
     proposals to change Federal laws, to the extent that data are 
     available to permit estimates to be made in such a manner.

     SEC. 2. ESTIMATES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION.

       In addition to any other estimates it may prepare of any 
     proposed change in Federal revenue law, a fiscal estimate 
     shall be prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation of each 
     such proposed change on the basis of assumptions that 
     estimate the probable behavioral responses of personal and 
     business taxpayers and other relevant entities to that 
     proposed change and the dynamic macroeconomic feedback 
     effects of that proposed change. The preceding sentence shall 
     apply only to a proposed change that the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation determines, pursuant to a static fiscal estimate, 
     has a fiscal impact in excess of $250,000,000 in any fiscal 
     year.

     SEC. 3. ESTIMATES OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.

       In addition to any other estimates it may prepare of any 
     proposed change in Federal revenue law, a fiscal estimate 
     shall be prepared by the Congressional Budget Office of each 
     such proposed change on the basis of assumptions that 
     estimate the probable behavioral responses of personal and 
     business taxpayers and other relevant entities to that 
     proposed change and the dynamic macroeconomic feedback 
     effects of that proposed change. The preceding sentence shall 
     apply only to a proposed change that the Congressional Budget 
     Office determines, pursuant to a static fiscal estimate, has 
     a fiscal impact in excess of $250,000,000 in any fiscal year.

     SEC. 4. DISCLOSURE OF ASSUMPTIONS.

       Any report to Congress or the public made by the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation or the Congressional Budget Office that 
     contains an estimate made under this Act of the effect that 
     any legislation will have on revenues shall be accompanied 
     by--
       (1) a written statement fully disclosing the economic, 
     technical, and behavioral assumptions that were made in 
     producing that estimate, and
       (2) the static fiscal estimate made with respect to the 
     same legislation and a written statement of the economic, 
     technical, and behavioral assumptions that were made in 
     producing that estimate.

     SEC. 5. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.

       In performing the tasks specified in this Act, the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office 
     may, subject to the availability of appropriations, enter 
     into contracts with universities or other private or public 
     organizations to perform such estimations or to develop 
     protocols and models for making such estimates.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. 
        Rockefeller):
  S. 676. A bill to establish a WTO Dispute Settlement Review 
Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer, along with Senator 
Craig, much needed trade legislation. I also want to thank Senators 
Bayh and Rockefeller for their support for this legislation.
  The bill that we are introducing would create a Commission to review 
decisions of the World Trade Organization.
  Why is this legislation necessary? Simply put--we must ensure that 
the United States is getting the benefit of the agreements we 
negotiated.
  WTO panels have handed down several decisions recently that go well 
beyond the scope of their authority. These decisions have had a wide-
ranging impact, undermining our ability to use antidumping and 
safeguard laws and calling major portions of the U.S. tax code into 
question.

[[Page 7137]]

  Most recently, the WTO ruled that the so-called ``Byrd Amendment'' 
violates WTO rules. In fact, the Byrd Amendment simply takes duties 
collected on unfairly traded products out of the U.S. Treasury and 
redistributes them to companies and workers hurt by that unfair trade.
  The Byrd Amendment adds no burden whatsoever on imports. But despite 
this, a WTO panel has inexplicably ruled that this law imposes an 
impermissible penalty for dumping.
  I would note here that the Administration has proposed repealing the 
Byrd Amendment. I strongly oppose that. And so does an overwhelming 
majority of the Senate.
  In fact, last month 70 Senators sent a letter to the President in 
support of this important law.
  Another area that I have great concerns about involves the softwood 
lumber dispute. The WTO currently found that Canada subsidizes its 
lumber industry, and I applaud that decision.
  But then the WTO undercut the benefits of that decision. They ruled 
that when determining a market price, Commerce must use the subsidy-
distorted Canadian timber prices rather than the market-based U.S. 
prices. This practice is wholly inconsistent with previous WTO 
practice.
  We need to start seriously examining why it is that we are losing 
these and other cases.
  In my view, it is because WTO panels have ceased intepreting our 
trade agreements and have begun legislating. Instead of following the 
rules, they are flouting the rules. And they are substituting their own 
judgment in place of carefully negotiated principles.
  In the process, they are eroding U.S. trade laws, taking away rights 
the U.S. bargained for, and imposing new obligations we never agreed to 
accept.
  Just as troubling, they are doing so mostly under the radar of 
Congress and the American public.
  The purpose of the legislation Senator Craig and I are proposing is 
to open the performance of WTO panels to public debate.
  Under the legislation, the President, in consultation with Congress, 
would create a Commission by appointing 5 retired federal appellate 
judges to serve 5-year terms.
  The Commission would review WTO decisions adverse to the United 
States to examine whether the panelists have exceeded their authority. 
The Commissioners would then report their findings to Congress.
  Increasing the transparency of the WTO in this manner is entirely 
consistent with the Administration's stated objectives. It would also 
allow us to discuss openly and fairly whether the WTO is working as it 
should.
  The legislation offers something for everyone. If the Commission 
finds that the WTO is applying the rules properly it will silence 
critics--and perhaps earn converts.
  But if the WTO is in fact straying beyond the carefully negotiated 
boundaries of our trade agreements, Congress needs to have the 
oversight in place so that we can remedy the situation.
  I understand and support the need for a global trading system. But we 
need to ensure that the WTO is respecting the limits of its authority 
and honestly applying the rules under which it operates.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in helping to pass this 
important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 676

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``World 
     Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Review Commission 
     Act''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States joined the World Trade Organization 
     (in this Act referred to as the ``WTO'') as an original 
     member with the goal of creating an improved global trading 
     system and providing expanded economic opportunities for 
     United States firms and workers, while preserving United 
     States sovereignty.
       (2) The American people must receive assurances that United 
     States sovereignty will be protected, and United States 
     interests will be advanced, within the global trading system 
     which the WTO will oversee.
       (3) The WTO's dispute settlement rules are meant to enhance 
     the likelihood that governments will observe their WTO 
     obligations. These dispute settlement rules will help ensure 
     that the United States will reap the full benefits of its 
     participation in the WTO.
       (4) United States support for the WTO depends on obtaining 
     mutual trade benefits through the openness of foreign markets 
     and the maintenance of effective United States and WTO 
     remedies against unfair and otherwise harmful trade 
     practices.
       (5) Congress passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act based 
     on its understanding that effective trade remedies would not 
     be eroded. These remedies are essential to continue the 
     process of opening foreign markets to imports of goods and 
     services and to prevent harm to American industry and 
     agriculture.
       (6) In particular, WTO dispute panels and the Appellate 
     Body should--
       (A) operate with fairness and in an impartial manner;
       (B) not add to the obligations, or diminish the rights, of 
     WTO members under the Uruguay Round Agreements; and
       (C) observe the terms of reference and any applicable WTO 
     standard of review.
       (c) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to provide for 
     the establishment of the WTO Dispute Settlement Review 
     Commission to achieve the objectives described in subsection 
     (b)(6).

      SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Adverse finding.--The term ``adverse finding'' means--
       (A) in a panel or Appellate Body proceeding initiated 
     against the United States, a finding by the panel or the 
     Appellate Body that, any law or regulation of, or application 
     thereof by, the United States, or any State, is inconsistent 
     with the obligations of the United States under a Uruguay 
     Round Agreement (or nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to 
     a WTO member under such an Agreement); or
       (B) in a panel or Appellate Body proceeding in which the 
     United States is a complaining party, any finding by the 
     panel or the Appellate Body that a measure of the party 
     complained against is not inconsistent with that party's 
     obligations under a Uruguay Round Agreement (or does not 
     nullify or impair benefits accruing to the United States 
     under such an Agreement).
       (2) Affirmative report.--The term ``affirmative report'' 
     means a report described in section 234(b)(2) which contains 
     affirmative determinations made by the Commission under 
     paragraph (3) of section 4(a).
       (3) Appellate body.--The term ``Appellate Body'' means the 
     Appellate Body established by the Dispute Settlement Body 
     pursuant to Article 17.1 of the Dispute Settlement 
     Understanding.
       (4) Dispute settlement body.--The term ``Dispute Settlement 
     Body'' means the Dispute Settlement Body established pursuant 
     to the Dispute Settlement Understanding.
       (5) Dispute settlement panel; panel.--The terms ``dispute 
     settlement panel'' and ``panel'' mean a panel established 
     pursuant to Article 6 of the Dispute Settlement 
     Understanding.
       (6) Dispute settlement understanding.--The term ``Dispute 
     Settlement Understanding'' means the Understanding on Rules 
     and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes referred 
     to in section 101(d)(16) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
       (7) Terms of reference.--The term ``terms of reference'' 
     has the meaning given such term in the Dispute Settlement 
     Understanding.
       (8) Trade representative.--The term ``Trade 
     Representative'' means the United States Trade 
     Representative.
       (9) Uruguay round agreement.--The term ``Uruguay Round 
     Agreement'' means any of the Agreements described in section 
     101(d) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
       (10) World trade organization; wto.--The terms ``World 
     Trade Organization'' and ``WTO'' mean the organization 
     established pursuant to the WTO Agreement.
       (11) WTO agreement.--The term ``WTO Agreement'' means the 
     Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization entered 
     into on April 15, 1994.

      SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement 
     Review Commission (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 5 
     members, all of whom shall be retired judges of the Federal 
     judicial circuits, and who shall be appointed by the 
     President, after consultation with the Majority Leader and 
     Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the Majority 
     Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate, the chairman and 
     ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives, and the chairman and ranking member 
     of the Committee on Finance of the Senate.

[[Page 7138]]

       (2) Date of appointment.--The appointments of the members 
     of the Commission shall be made not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--
       (1) In general.--Members of the Commission first appointed 
     shall each be appointed for a term of 5 years.
       (2) Subsequent terms.--After the initial 5-year term, 3 
     members of the Commission shall be appointed for terms of 3 
     years and the remaining 2 members shall be appointed for 
     terms of 2 years.
       (3) Vacancies.--
       (A) In general.--Any vacancy on the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as 
     the original appointment and shall be subject to the same 
     conditions as the original appointment.
       (B) Unexpired term.--An individual chosen to fill a vacancy 
     shall be appointed for the unexpired term of the member 
     replaced.
       (d) Meetings.--
       (1) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (2) Subsequent meetings.--The Commission shall meet 
     subsequently at the call of the chairperson.
       (e) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (f) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall 
     select a chairperson and vice chairperson from among its 
     members.
       (g) Affirmative Determinations.--An affirmative vote by a 
     majority of the members of the Commission shall be required 
     for any affirmative determination by the Commission under 
     section 4.

      SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Review of World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement 
     Reports.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall review--
       (A) all reports of dispute settlement panels or the 
     Apellate Body of the WTO in proceedings initiated by other 
     parties to the WTO that are adverse to the United States and 
     that are adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body; and
       (B) upon request of the Trade Representative, the chairman 
     or ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives, or the chairman or ranking member 
     of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, any other report 
     of a dispute settlement panel, or the Appellate Body that is 
     adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body.
       (2) Scope of review.--In the case of a report described in 
     paragraph (1), the Commission shall conduct a complete review 
     and determine whether the panel or Appellate Body, as the 
     case may be--
       (A) exceeded its authority or its terms of reference;
       (B) added to the obligations, or diminished the rights of 
     the United States under the Uruguay Round Agreement that is 
     the subject of the report;
       (C) acted arbitrarily or capriciously, engaged in 
     misconduct, or demonstrably departed from the procedures 
     specified for panels and Appellate Bodies in the applicable 
     Uruguay Round Agreement; and
       (D) deviated from the applicable standard of review, 
     including in antidumping, countervailing duty, and other 
     unfair trade remedy cases, the standard of review set forth 
     in Article 17.6 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article 
     VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994.
       (3) Affirmative determination.--If the Commission makes an 
     affirmative determination with respect to the action of a 
     panel or an Appellate Body under subparagraph (A), (B), (C), 
     or (D) of paragraph (2), the Commission shall determine 
     whether the action of the panel or Appellate Body materially 
     affected the outcome of the report of the panel or Appellate 
     Body.
       (b) Determination; Report.--
       (1) Determination.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     that a report of a panel or Appellate Body described in 
     subsection (a) is adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body, the 
     Commission shall make a written determination with respect to 
     matters described in subsection (a) (2) and (3).
       (2) Reports.--The Commission shall report the determination 
     described in paragraph (1) to the Committee on Ways and Means 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance 
     of the Senate.

      SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold any hearings, sit 
     and act at any time and place, take any testimony, and 
     receive any evidence as the Commission considers advisable to 
     carry out the purposes of this Act. The Commission shall 
     provide reasonable notice of a hearing held pursuant to this 
     subsection.
       (b) Information From Interested Parties and Federal 
     Agencies.--
       (1) Notice of panel or appellate body report.--The Trade 
     Representative shall advise the Commission not later than 5 
     days after the date the Dispute Settlement Body adopts the 
     report of a panel or Appellate Body that is adverse to the 
     United States and shall immediately publish notice of that 
     advice in the Federal Register, along with notice of an 
     opportunity for interested parties to submit comments to the 
     Commission.
       (2) Submissions and requests for information.--Any 
     interested party may submit comments to the Commission 
     regarding the panel or Appellate Body report. The Commission 
     may also secure directly from any Federal department or 
     agency any information the Commission considers necessary to 
     carry out the provisions of this Act. Upon request of the 
     chairperson of the Commission, the head of that department or 
     agency shall furnish the requested information to the 
     Commission.
       (3) Access to panel and appellate body documents.--
       (A) In general.--The Trade Representative shall make 
     available to the Commission all submissions and relevant 
     documents relating to the panel or Appellate Body report, 
     including any information contained in submissions identified 
     by the provider of the information as proprietary information 
     or information treated as confidential by a foreign 
     government.
       (B) Public access.--Any document which the Trade 
     Representative submits to the Commission shall be available 
     to the public, except information which is identified as 
     proprietary or confidential.
       (4) Assistance from federal agencies; confidentiality.--
       (A) Administrative assistance.--Any agency or department of 
     the United States that is designated by the President shall 
     provide administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, or 
     other support services to the Commission to assist the 
     Commission with the performance of the Commission's 
     functions.
       (B) Confidentiality.--The Commission shall protect from 
     disclosure any document or information submitted to it by a 
     department or agency of the United States which the agency or 
     department requests be kept confidential. The Commission 
     shall not be considered to be an agency for purposes of 
     section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Allard):
  S. 677. A bill to revise the boundary of the Black Canyon of the 
Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area in 
the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Black Canyon of 
the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation 
Area Boundary Revision Act of 2003.'' I introduced a similar bill in 
the 107th Congress. I am confident that the 108th Congress will quickly 
pass this bill on to the President for his signature so that we can 
continue to celebrate this special place.
  My bill improves upon my earlier efforts designating the park.
  The Black Canyon of the Gunnison Gorge is a national treasure to be 
enjoyed by all. The park's combination of geological wonders and 
diverse wildlife make it one of the most unique natural areas in North 
America.
  The first person to survey the canyon, Abraham Lincoln Fellows, noted 
in 1901, ``our surroundings were of the wildest possible description. 
The roar of the water . . . was constantly in our ears, and the walls 
of the canyon, towering half mile in height above us, were seemingly 
vertical.'' Similarly, today, visitors can enjoy hiking the deep gorge 
to the Gunnison River raging below, or look overhead to marvel at 
eagles and peregrine falcons soaring in the sky.
  This bill modifies the legislative boundary of the Gunnison Gorge 
National Conservation Area allowing even greater access to the park's 
many recreational opportunities including boating, fishing, and hiking.
  This important legislation would expand the National Park by 2,725 
acres, for a total of 33,025 acres. The Conservation area will be 
increased by 5,700 acres, for a total of 63,425 acres. In total this 
bill adds approximately 8,400 acres to provide habitat for several 
listed, threatened, endangered and BLM sensitive species including, the 
Bald Eagle, the River Otter, Delta Lomation, and Clay-Loving Buckwheat.
  Furthermore, I have added specific language to ensure that the Bureau 
of Reclamation retains its traditional jurisdiction over water and 
water delivery systems.
  This legislation helps preserve a unique national resource and a 
source of national pride.
  I urge quick passage of this important bill. I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

[[Page 7139]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 677

       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 ``Black Canyon of the Gunnison 
     National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area 
     Boundary Revision Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY 
                   REVISION.

       (a) Establishment.--Section 4(a) of the Black Canyon of the 
     Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National 
     Conservation Area Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-2(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``There is hereby established'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--There is established''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Boundary revision.--The boundary of the Park is 
     revised to include the addition of not more than 2,725 acres, 
     as depicted on the map entitled `Black Canyon of the Gunnison 
     National Park and Gunnison Gorge NCA Boundary Modifications' 
     and dated January 21, 2003.''.
       (b) Administration.--Section 4(b) of the Black Canyon of 
     the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National 
     Conservation Area Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-2(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Upon'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Land transfer.--
       ``(A) In general.--On''; and
       (2) by striking ``The Secretary shall'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Additional land.--On the date of enactment of the 
     Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge 
     National Conservation Area Boundary Revision Act of 2003, the 
     Secretary shall transfer the land under the jurisdiction of 
     the Bureau of Land Management identified as `Tract C' on the 
     map described in subsection (a)(2) to the administrative 
     jurisdiction of the National Park Service for inclusion in 
     the Park.
       ``(2) Authority.--The Secretary shall''.

      SEC. 3. GRAZING PRIVILEGES AT BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON 
                   NATIONAL PARK.

       Section 4(e) of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
     Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 
     1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-2(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Transfer.--If land authorized for grazing under 
     subparagraph (A) is exchanged for private land under this 
     Act, the Secretary shall transfer any grazing privileges to 
     the private land acquired in the exchange in accordance with 
     this section.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (D);
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) with respect to the permit or lease issued to 
     LeValley Ranch Ltd., a partnership, for the lifetime of the 2 
     limited partners as of October 21, 1999;
       ``(C) with respect to the permit or lease issued to Sanburg 
     Herefords, L.L.P., a partnership, for the lifetime of the 2 
     general partners as of October 21, 1999; and''; and
       (D) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (B))--
       (i) by striking ``partnership, corporation, or'' in each 
     place it appears and inserting ``corporation or''; and
       (ii) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C)''.

     SEC. 4. ACQUISITION OF LAND.

       (a) Authority To Acquire Land.--Section 5(a)(1) of the 
     Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge 
     National Conservation Area Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-
     3(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``or the map described in 
     section 4(a)(2)'' after ``the Map''.
       (b) Method of Acquisition.--
       (1) In general.--Land or interest in land acquired under 
     the amendments made by this Act shall be made in accordance 
     with section 5(a)(2)(A) of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 
     National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area 
     Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-3(a)(2)(A)).
       (2) Consent.--No land or interest in land may be acquired 
     without the consent of the landowner.

     SEC. 5. GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA BOUNDARY 
                   REVISION.

       Section 7(a) of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
     Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 
     1999 (16 U.S.C. 410fff-5(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) In General.--There is established'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Boundary revision.--The boundary of the Conservation 
     Area is revised to include the addition of not more than 
     7,100 acres, as depicted on the map entitled `Black Canyon of 
     the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge NCA Boundary 
     Modifications' and dated January 21, 2003.''.

     SEC. 6. ACCESS TO WATER DELIVERY FACILITIES.

       The Commissioner of Reclamation shall retain administrative 
     jurisdiction over, and access to, land, facilities, and roads 
     of the Bureau of Reclamation in the East Portal area and the 
     Crystal Dam area, as depicted on the map identified in 
     section 4(a)(2) of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
     Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 
     1999 (as added by section 2(a)(2)) for the maintenance, 
     repair, construction, replacement, and operation of any 
     facilities relating to the delivery of water under the 
     jurisdiction of the Bureau to users of the water (as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Sarbanes):
  S. 678. A bill to amend chapter 10 of title 39, United States Code, 
to include postmasters and postmasters organizations in the process for 
the development and planning of certain policies, schedules, and 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Postmasters 
Equity Act of 2003, and I am pleased to have Senators Collins, Daschle, 
Jeffords, Inouye, Mikulski, and Sarbanes join me as original 
cosponsors. Our bill modifies legislation I offered in the 107th 
Congress. That bill, S. 177, the Postmasters Fairness Act, enjoyed the 
bipartisan support of 49 members of the U.S. Senate. Its House 
companion bill, H.R. 250, had 291 cosponsors.
  The measure I introduce today differs from its predecessor in that it 
provides postmasters the option of fact finding rather than binding 
arbitration if the postmasters management associations and the Postal 
Service are unable to reach agreement on specific issues. Fact finding 
would allow for an unbiased review of the issues in dispute and the 
issuance of non-binding recommendations. The measure would also define 
the term postmaster for the first time.
  Extending the option of fact finding to postmasters will enable them 
to take a more active and constructive role in managing their 
individual post offices and discussing compensation issues with the 
Postal Service. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 created a 
consultative process for postmasters and other non-union postal 
employees to negotiate pay and benefits. However, under the current 
system, postmasters have seen an erosion of their role in improving the 
quality of mail services to postal patrons and managing their local 
post offices. This has been particularly true for postmasters 
responsible for small and medium sized post offices where they serve as 
front line managers. These circumstances are among factors contributing 
to the decline in the number of postmasters since the reorganization of 
the Postal Service over three decades ago.
  At the present time, postmasters lack recourse when consultation 
fails, and my bill extends to our Nation's postmasters what is 
currently enjoyed by postal supervisors. While postal supervisors have 
the same consultation process as postmasters, the supervisors also have 
fact finding, which provides them with greater ability to negotiate 
with USPS management.
  The Postal Service estimates that each day seven million customers 
transact business at post offices. We expect timely delivery of the 
mail, six days a week, and the Postal Service does not disappoint us. 
Given the regularity of mail delivery and the number of Americans 
visiting post offices daily, it is no wonder that we have come to view 
our neighborhood post offices as cornerstones of our communities. In 
fact, many of our towns and cities have developed around a post office 
where the postmaster served as the town's only link to the federal 
government.
  Our Nation's postmasters are on the front line to ensure that the 
mail gets delivered in a timely manner, and they help fuel the 
infrastructure that continues to boost the performance ratings of the 
Postal Service. Postmasters

[[Page 7140]]

have enabled us to communicate with one another since the dawn of this 
great republic. I urge my colleagues to join me in showing their 
support for our Nation's postmasters by cosponsoring this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 678

       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 ``Postmaster Equity Act of 
     2003''.

     SEC. 2. POSTMASTERS AND POSTMASTERS ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1004 of title 39, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, postmaster,'' after 
     ``supervisory'' both places it appears;
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, postmaster,'' 
     after ``supervisory''; and
       (B) in the second sentence--
       (i) by striking ``or that a managerial organization (other 
     than an organization representing supervisors)'' and insert 
     ``that a postmaster organization represents a substantial 
     percentage of postmasters (as defined under subsection 
     (j)(3)), or that a managerial organization (other than an 
     organization representing supervisors or postmasters)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``relating to supervisory'' and inserting 
     ``relating to supervisory, postmasters,'';
       (3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, and the Postal 
     Service and the postmasters organization (or 
     organizations),'' after ``supervisors' organization'';
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``and the postmasters organization (or organizations)'' after 
     ``the supervisors' organization'' both places it appears;
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``organization'' and 
     inserting ``organizations''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``organization'' and 
     inserting ``organizations'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and the postmasters 
     organization (or organizations)'' after ``supervisors' 
     organization''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``organization'' and 
     inserting ``organizations'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and the postmasters 
     organization (or organizations)'' after ``supervisors' 
     organization''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``organization'' and 
     inserting ``organizations''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, and the Postal 
     Service and the postmasters organization (or 
     organizations),'';
       (5) in subsections (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and the postmasters 
     organization (or organizations)'' after ``supervisors' 
     organization'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, the postmasters 
     organization (or organizations),'' after ``The Postal 
     Service''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and the postmasters 
     organization (or organizations)'' after ``supervisors' 
     organizations'';
       (6) in subsection (h)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) `postmasters organization' means, with respect to a 
     calendar year, any organization whose membership on June 30th 
     of the preceding year included not less than 20 percent of 
     all individuals employed as postmasters on that date; and
       ``(4) `postmaster' means an individual who is the manager-
     in-charge, with or without the assistance of subordinate 
     managers or supervisors, the operations of a post office.''; 
     and
       (7) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (j), and 
     inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h)(1) If, notwithstanding the mutual efforts required by 
     subsection (e) of this section, the postmasters organization 
     (or organizations), believes that the decision of the Postal 
     Service is not in accordance with the provisions of this 
     title, the organization may, within 10 days following its 
     receipt of such decision, request the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service to convene a factfinding panel (in this 
     subsection referred to as the `panel') concerning such 
     matter.
       ``(2) Within 15 days after receiving a request under 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service shall provide a list of 7 individuals 
     recognized as experts in supervisory and managerial pay 
     policies. The postmasters organization (or organizations) and 
     the Postal Service shall each designate 1 individual from the 
     list to serve on the panel. If, within 10 days after the list 
     is provided, either of the parties has not designated an 
     individual from the list, the Director of the Federal 
     Mediation and Conciliation Service shall make the 
     designation. The first 2 individuals designated from the list 
     shall meet within 5 days and shall designate a third 
     individual from the list. The third individual shall chair 
     the panel. If the 2 individuals designated from the list are 
     unable to designate a third individual within 5 days after 
     their first meeting, the Director shall designate the third 
     individual.
       ``(3)(A) The panel shall recommend standards for pay 
     policies and schedules and fringe benefit programs affecting 
     the members of the postmasters organization (or 
     organizations) for the period covered by the collective 
     bargaining agreement specified in subsection (e)(1) of this 
     section. The standards shall be consistent with the policies 
     of this title, including sections 1003(a) and 1004(a) of this 
     title.
       ``(B) The panel shall, consistent with such standards, make 
     appropriate recommendations concerning the differences 
     between the parties on such policies, schedules, and 
     programs.
       ``(4) The panel shall make its recommendation no more than 
     30 days after its appointment, unless the Postal Service and 
     the postmasters organization (or organizations) agree to a 
     longer period. The panel shall hear from the Postal Service 
     and the postmasters organization (or organizations) in such a 
     manner as it shall direct. The cost of the panel shall be 
     borne equally by the Postal Service and the postmasters 
     organization (or organizations), with the Service to be 
     responsible for one-half the costs and the postmasters 
     organization (or organizations) to be responsible for the 
     remainder.
       ``(5) Not more than 15 days after the panel has made its 
     recommendation, the Postal Service shall provide the 
     postmasters organization (or organizations) its final 
     decision on the matters covered by factfinding under this 
     subsection. The Postal Service shall give full and fair 
     consideration to the panel's recommendation and shall explain 
     in writing any differences between its final decision and the 
     panel's recommendation.
       ``(i) Not earlier than 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection, and from time to time 
     thereafter, the Postal Service or the postmasters 
     organization (or organizations) may request, by written 
     notice to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and 
     to the other party, the creation of a panel to review the 
     effectiveness of the procedures and the other provisions of 
     this section and the provisions of section 1003 of this 
     title. The panel shall be designated in accordance with the 
     procedure established in subsection (h)(2) of this section. 
     The panel shall make recommendations to Congress for changes 
     in this title as it finds appropriate.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--
       (1) Section heading.--The section heading for section 1004 
     of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 1004. Supervisory, postmaster, and other managerial 
       organizations''.

       (2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     10 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 1004 and inserting the 
     following:

``1004. Supervisory, postmaster, and other managerial organizations.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Conrad, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Carper, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Reed, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Specter, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Lincoln, and 
        Mr. Reid):
  S. 679. A bill to provide reliable officers, technology, education, 
community prosecutors, and training in our neighborhoods; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
reauthorize the COPS program through 2009.
  Since September 11, our local police have been asked to do more for 
their communities than ever before. Walk the beat. Be on guard against 
terrorists. Secure critical infrastructures.

[[Page 7141]]

And gather intelligence on future terrorist acts when possible. 
Washington has a role in securing the homeland, but the burdens fall 
heaviest on our local communities.
  There are more than 700,000 police officers and sheriffs in the 
country, compared with nearly 11,000 FBI agents. It is our local police 
chiefs and sheriffs who are called upon more and more to protect us 
against the new threats from abroad. We had a sobering reminder this 
week. As President Bush braced the Nation for war in Iraq, Homeland 
Security Director Tom Ridge ratcheted our alert level back up to orange 
and called all 50 governors to request that they provide an increased 
police presence at airports.
  Our mayors and police chiefs are hurting. Local budgets are 
incredibly tight--some communities have been forced to lay officers 
off, or to consider freeing criminals before their sentences are up, to 
cut costs. Even before 9/11, it was clear that the crime drop of the 
nineties was coming to a close. Last winter, the FBI reported that 
crime jumped for the second straight year. The FBI has had to 
necessarily refocus its resources. Recently, the Washington Post 
reported that the FBI has plans to ``mobilize as many as 5,000 agents 
to guard against terrorist attacks'' during hostilities with Iraq. The 
FBI's criminal surveillance operations ``would be temporarily 
suspended.'' Local police will be called upon to pick up the slack once 
the FBI is forced to pull almost half of its agents out of traditional 
crime-fighting work.
  The fight to secure our streets does not end with preventing 
terrorism. Crime is up again. The newest figures tell us the historic 
crime drop the nation experienced during the 1990s is over. Property 
crimes--offenses that tend to jump in a week economy--are rising 
particularly fast. The FBI recently reported a 4 percent hike in 
burglaries and motor vehicle thefts last year alone. Where fighting 
violent crime and bank robberies used to be among the FBI's highest 
priorities, the FBI is now focused on counter-
terrorism efforts. Increasingly, local police departments, statewide 
crimefighting task forces and drug-fighting projects are being told by 
the Bush administration that they are on their own when it comes to 
fighting crime.
  What's worse, all of this is happening during a time of unprecedented 
economic hardship in our cities and States. States are facing dramatic 
budgetary shortfalls. A new report finds that budget gaps for State 
governments soared by nearly 50 percent in the past three months and 
state legislatures face a minimum $68.5 billion budget shortfall for 
the coming fiscal year. Mayors nationwide report that cities spent $2.6 
billion through the end of last year on new security costs.
  The response of the administration to these concerns has been 
disappointing. This year, for the second budget cycle in a row, the 
President proposes to eliminate the COPS hiring program. COPS is the 
only initiative in the entire Federal Government that targets its 
resources directly towards police. There is no middleman. There is very 
little red tape. Police chiefs report they have never worked with such 
a responsive, effective Federal program. And yet the administration 
wants to shut it down.
  Since we created COPS as part of the 1994 Crime Bill, the program has 
awarded grants to hire and redeploy 117,000 police officers to the 
streets. 87,300 are on the beat. In the most recent year of hiring 
grants, 2002, 4,400 officers were hired or redeployed.
  The President's budget gives several justifications for shutting down 
COPS. First, the administration claims the program doesn't work, that 
it hasn't cut crime. That is a curious assertion. Crime dropped for 
seven straight years after COPS resources began to be put to use in 
cities and towns. There was a 28 percent drop in crime from 1994 to 
2000.
  Two studies support the assertion that COPS grants help cut crime. 
One, released just this past November by the American Society of 
Criminology, found that COPS hiring grants have ``resulted in 
significant reductions in local crime rates.'' In 2000, the Urban 
Institute concluded that COPS has had a ``broad national impact'' on 
the levels and styles of policing, and that it provided ``significant 
support for the adoption of community policing around the country.''
  It's not just criminologists and think tanks who agree with me that 
COPS works. Leading law enforcement officials share the view. Last 
year, our friend and former colleague Attorney General Ashcroft called 
COPS a ``miraculous sort of success.'' He said, ``it's one of those 
things that Congress hopes will happen when it sets up a program.'' At 
a conference last July, the Attorney General endorsed the theory that 
COPS cuts crime. ``Since law enforcement agencies began partnering with 
citizens through community policing, we've seen significant drops in 
crime rates,'' he noted.
  The administration offers a second reason for wanting to eliminate 
COPS: The disparity between ``officers hired'' and ``officers funded''. 
Because COPS has funded 117,000 cops, but only 87,000 are on the 
street, the President argues, the program is not accountable. That 
assertion overlooks the operations of the Office of Community Policing 
Services. Few Federal programs operate with as much oversight and 
internal review as does COPS. The disparity that seems to so concern 
the Administration is simple to explain: It takes time to hire a new 
cop. Once COPS awards a hiring grant, it can take anywhere from six to 
eighteen months to find, hire, train and deploy the new officer. There 
is no accounting problem. It is good public policy for police 
departments to take the appropriate amount of time to find suitable 
candidates for new community policing positions, and this discrepancy 
between officers funded and officers hired is the result.
  Post 9/11, COPS is about much more than fighting crime. It's about 
homeland security. The Attorney General again said it best last July 
when he noted that ``COPS provides resources that reflect our national 
priority of terrorism prevention.'' The new assistant director at the 
FBI in charge of coordinating with local law enforcement agreed: ``The 
FBI fully understands that our success in the fight against terrorism 
is directly related to the strength of our relationship with our State 
and local partners.'' These aren't my words. They're the words of the 
top cops.
  COPS does not just hire new officers. It requires these officers to 
practice community policing. Community policing is a philosophy that 
gives more power to line officers. They get assigned to fixed 
geographic areas. This decision-making power and neighborhood 
familiarity can be invaluable in a crisis, when relationships with 
community residents and the ability to make quick decisions is 
critical. Community relationships that come from COPS can also help 
unearth intelligence about potential terrorist actions.
  By taking cops out of their cars and having them walk the streets, 
police officers get to know the residents of the neighborhood where 
they're assigned. This has proven extremely effective at building trust 
and partnership between local police and the residents they protect. 
Community residents consistently sing the praises of community 
policing. It pays dividends by creating a climate in which neighborhood 
residents partner with police, not only providing police with valuable 
information about criminal activity in their neighborhood, but 
restoring overall confidence in the criminal justice system.
  We need to continue the COPS program. The Justice Department reports 
that for the past several grant-making cycles, demand for new police 
hiring grants has outstripped available funds by a factor of almost 
three to one. To meet this need, the legislation I introduce today 
authorizes $600 million per year over the next 6 years, enough to hire 
up to 50,000 more officers. We have made this portion of the program 
more flexible: up to half of these hiring dollars can be used to help 
police departments retain those community police officers currently on 
payroll. In another change from current law, a portion of these funds 
can be used for officer training and education.

[[Page 7142]]

  We make a key change to the current COPS program in the bill I 
introduce today. In response to the needs of first responders across 
the country, the bill authorizes a new, permanent COPS Overtime 
Program. This initiative, funded at up to $150 million per year for 6 
years, will help ease the homeland security burdens faced by police 
departments across the country by reimbursing local police departments 
for the homeland security overtime expenses they incur. I was pleased 
that the Appropriations Committee included a 1-year, $60 million 
version of this program in the recently-passed omnibus appropriations 
bill. The permanent COPS Overtime Program in this bill builds on that 
appropriations provision.
  The legislation also provides funding for new technologies, so law 
enforcement can have access to the latest high-tech crime fighting 
equipment to keep pace with today's sophisticated criminals. Also 
included are funds to help local district attorneys hire more community 
prosecutors. These prosecutors will expand the community justice 
concept and engage the entire community in preventing and fighting 
crime. The statistics we have on community prosecutions are quite 
promising, and we should increase the funds available to local 
prosecutors, a piece of our criminal justice puzzle that has too often 
gone overlooked.
  I would like to thank the men and women of law enforcement for their 
service and heroism during these difficult times. They are up to the 
challenge, but we should support them any way we can. The bill I 
introduced today gives local police the support they deserve. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to continue the COPS program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 680. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to enhance 
book donations and literacy; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
designed to clarify and enhance the charitable contribution tax 
deduction for donations of excess book inventory for educational 
purposes. This proposal would simplify a complex area of the current 
law and eliminate significant roadblocks that now stand in the way of 
businesses with excess book inventory to donating those books to 
schools, libraries, and literacy programs, where they are much needed.
  Unfortunately, our current tax law contains a major flaw when it 
comes to the donation of books that are excess inventory for publishers 
or booksellers. The tax benefits for donating such books to schools or 
libraries are often no greater than those of sending the books to the 
landfill. And, since it is generally cheaper and faster for a company 
to simply send the books to the dump, rather than go through the 
trouble and cost of finding donees, and of packing, storing, and 
shipping the books, it often ends up being more cost effective and 
easier for companies to truck the books to a landfill or recycling 
center.
  While there are provisions in the current law where a larger 
deduction is available for the donation of excess books, many companies 
have found that the complexity and uncertainty of dealing with the 
requirements, regulations, and possible Internal Revenue Service 
challenges of the higher deduction serve as a real disincentive to 
making a contribution.
  This is a sad situation, when one considers that many, if not most, 
of these books would be warmly welcomed by schools, libraries, and 
literacy programs.
  The heart of the problem is that under the current law, the higher 
deduction requires that the donated books be used only for the care of 
the needy, the sick, or infants. This requirement makes it difficult 
for schools to qualify as donees and also frequently prohibits 
libraries and adult literacy programs from receiving such deductions. 
This is because these schools, libraries, and literacy programs often 
serve those who are not needy or are over the age of 18. Further 
complicating the issue, the valuation of donated book inventory has 
been the subject of ongoing disputes between taxpayers and the IRS. The 
tax code should not contain obstacles that provide disincentives to 
charitable donations of books that can enhance learning.
  The bill I am introducing today addresses the obstacles of donating 
excess book inventory by providing a simple and clear rule whereby any 
donation of book inventory to a qualified school, library, or literacy 
program is eligible for the enhanced deduction. This means that 
booksellers and publishers would receive a higher tax benefit for 
donating the books rather than throwing them away and would thus be 
encouraged to go to the extra trouble and expense of seeking out 
qualified donees and making the contributions.
  My home State of Utah, like the rest of the Nation, has a problem 
with illiteracy. According to the National Institute for Literacy, 
between 21 and 23 percent of the adult population of the United States, 
about 44 million people, are only at Level 1 literacy, meaning they can 
read a little but not well enough to fill out an application, read a 
food label, or read a simple story to a child. Another 25 to 28 percent 
of the adult population, or between 45 and 50 million people, are 
estimated to be at Level 2 literacy, meaning they can usually can 
perform more complex tasks such as comparing, contrasting, or 
integrating pieces of information but usually not higher level reading 
and problem-solving skills. Literacy experts tell us that adults with 
skills at Levels 1 and 2 lack a sufficient foundation of basic skills 
to function successfully in our society.
  While this bill is not a cure-all for the tragedy of illiteracy, it 
will increase access to books, both for adults and for children. Our 
tax code should not encourage the destruction of perfectly good books 
while schools, libraries, and literacy programs go begging for them.
  The Senate is already on record in unanimous support of this bill. 
During the floor debate on the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001, I offered this proposal as an amendment, 
which was accepted without opposition. Unfortunately, the provision was 
dropped in the conference with the House. Moreover, the Finance 
Committee has also approved this provision, having included it in S. 
476, the CARE Act, which is currently pending on the Senate calendar.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this provision would 
decrease revenues to the Treasury by $283 million over a ten-year 
period. This estimate helps demonstrate the extent of the value of the 
books that are currently being discarded that could be utilized to help 
America's adults and children.
  I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill. It is 
wrong for our tax code to encourage book publishers to send books to 
the landfill instead of to the library. Let's correct this problem.
  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. 680

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

     SECTION 1. CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF BOOK 
                   INVENTORIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to certain contributions of ordinary 
     income and capital gain property) is amended by redesignating 
     subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D) and by inserting after 
     subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Special rule for contributions of book inventory for 
     educational purposes.--
       ``(i) Contributions of book inventory.--In determining 
     whether a qualified book contribution is a qualified 
     contribution, subparagraph (A) shall be applied without 
     regard to whether--

       ``(I) the donee is an organization described in the matter 
     preceding clause (i) of subparagraph (A), and
       ``(II) the property is to be used by the donee solely for 
     the care of the ill, the needy, or infants.

       ``(ii) Amount of reduction.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (B), the amount of

[[Page 7143]]

     the reduction determined under paragraph (1)(A) shall not 
     exceed the amount by which the fair market value of the 
     contributed property (as determined by the taxpayer using a 
     bona fide published market price for such book) exceeds twice 
     the basis of such property.
       ``(iii) Qualified book contribution.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `qualified book contribution' means a 
     charitable contribution of books, but only if the 
     requirements of clauses (iv) and (v) are met.
       ``(iv) Identity of donee.--The requirement of this clause 
     is met if the contribution is to an organization--

       ``(I) described in subclause (I) or (III) of paragraph 
     (6)(B)(i), or
       ``(II) described in section 501(c)(3) and exempt from tax 
     under section 501(a) (other than a private foundation, as 
     defined in section 509(a), which is not an operating 
     foundation, as defined in section 4942(j)(3)), which is 
     organized primarily to make books available to the general 
     public at no cost or to operate a literacy program.

       ``(v) Certification by donee.--The requirement of this 
     clause is met if, in addition to the certifications required 
     by subparagraph (A) (as modified by this subparagraph), the 
     donee certifies in writing that--

       ``(I) the books are suitable, in terms of currency, 
     content, and quantity, for use in the donee's educational 
     programs, and
       ``(II) the donee will use the books in its educational 
     programs.

       ``(vi) Bona fide published market price.--For purposes of 
     this subparagraph, the term `bona fide published market 
     price' means, with respect to any book, a price--

       ``(I) determined using the same printing and edition,
       ``(II) determined in the usual market in which such a book 
     has been customarily sold by the taxpayer, and
       ``(III) for which the taxpayer can demonstrate to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that the taxpayer customarily 
     sold such books in arm's length transactions within 7 years 
     preceding the contribution of such a book.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________