[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7493-7502]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Fitzgerald):
  S. 708. A bill to redesignate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 7401 West 100th Place in Bridgeview, 
Illinois, as the ``Michael J. Healy Post Office Building''; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to name 
the U.S. Post Office at 7401 W. 100th Place in Bridgeview, IL after 
Postal Police Officer Michael Healy.
  On June 21, 1981, while guarding the Chicago Main Post Office at 
Harrison Avenue and Canal Street, Officer Healy's life was senselessly 
cut short by a random act of violence. Officer Healy was murdered by 
three assailants in a foiled robbery attempt. Sadly, Michael Healy 
became the first officer of the Postal Inspection Service to be killed 
while on duty.
  Shortly after his murder, the Postal Inspection Service retired 
Michael's badge, number 3972. Subsequently, Michael's name was added to 
the Federal Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington, DC as well as the 
Law Enforcement Memorial in Springfield, IL.
  In 2001, the Northern Illinois Division of the United States 
Inspection Service honored the 20th anniversary of Michael's death. The 
Fraternal Order of Police, FOP, has tried for two years to rename the 
local post office after Officer Healy.
  In protecting others, Officer Healy made the ultimate sacrifice. I 
believe it is fitting to pay tribute to him by designating the postal 
facility in honor of Michael J. Healy. I think that it is the most 
appropriate way to recognize and remember a man who gave so much to his 
family, his friends, the Postal Inspection Service, and his community 
of Hometown, IL.
           By Mrs. DOLE (for herself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Allen, 
             Mr. Bunning, Mr. Carper, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Collins, 
             Mr. Cornyn, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. 
             Levin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lugar, Mr. McCain, Mr. Nickles, 
             Mr. Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Warner):
       S. 709. A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Prime 
     Minister Tony Blair; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
award the Congressional Gold Medal to The Right Honorable Tony Charles 
Lynton Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain, First Lord of the 
Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service.
  For more than two centuries, Congress has expressed public gratitude 
on behalf of the Nation for the notable contributions of individuals 
and of groups through the Congressional Gold Medal. Congress created 
this honor as its highest expression of national appreciation for 
distinguished achievement and contributions.
  Originally bestowed upon military leaders, the first Congressional 
Gold Medal was awarded to George Washington by the Continental Congress 
on March 25, 1776, for his heroic service in the Revolutionary War. In 
the two centuries since the medal was first awarded, Congressional Gold 
Medal recipients have transcended nationality, country and politics. In 
addition to modern military leaders including General Douglas MacArthur 
and General Colin Powell, this award has recognized the extraordinary 
character and efforts of such world leaders as Mother Teresa, Pope John 
Paul II, and Prime Minister

[[Page 7494]]

Winston Churchill, another British wartime leader.
  In the year and a half since September 11, 2001, and particularly 
over the course of recent weeks, Prime Minister Blair has exhibited 
extraordinary courage in the war against terror. With steadfast and 
unwavering resolve, he has held firm to his principles without regard 
to, indeed in spite of, the shifting political winds. Again and again, 
he has been called on to demonstrate his recognition that tyrannical 
dictators cannot be allowed to terrorize their citizens and neighbors, 
or the world community.
  In the process, Prime Minister Blair has proven to be one of the 
strongest and most distinguished allies of the United States in our 
efforts to rid the world of terrorists, and to bring to justice the 
corrupt regimes that support them. Great Britain has long been a 
trusted ally of our Nation; however, Prime Minister Blair has gone 
beyond friendship to demonstrate true leadership for his nation and for 
Europe.
  In the 18th century, English philosopher Edmund Burke once said, 
``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to 
do nothing.'' How poignant and how true that remains today.
  It is clear that Prime Minister Blair understands the truth in these 
words, and that true leaders often hold lonely positions when they 
forgo the political expedient to stand for what is right.
  Last week, a British newspaper editorialized about Prime Minister 
Blair's lonely struggle. ``Mr. Blair has not shrunk from debate,'' said 
The Independent, a newspaper that has frequently and loudly criticized 
the Prime Minister in the past. ``He has taken the argument to all 
quarters of his restive party. He has allowed the Commons its say. And 
despite all the doubts about this war, Mr. Blair has shown himself in 
the past few days to be at once the most formidable politician in the 
country and the right national leader for these deeply uncertain 
times.''
  These are uncertain, but defining, times. America suffers with Great 
Britain during the struggles in Iraq. And we mourn together the loss of 
the brave individuals who dedicate their lives to defending freedom. 
The courage of the coalition forces in the theater, their skill and 
bravery on the front lines, the dedication and patriotism of their 
families at home, all extends back to their leaders.
  Prime Minister Blair has had the vision to see that Saddam Hussein is 
a dangerous man who continues to pose a threat to the region's 
stability, to his own people, and to the world through his sponsorship 
of terror.
  The liberation of Iraq will be the beginning, not the end, of our 
commitment to the people of Iraq. We will work together to supply 
humanitarian relief and strive for the long-term recovery of Iraq's 
economy.
  In this effort to bring freedom to a nation of people who have 
thirsted for relief from terror, Prime Minister Blair has taken a 
courageous and principled stand before the world. The simple lesson 
learned, the lesson Prime Minister Blair personifies, is that evil must 
be checked.
  History will be a kind judge of Tony Blair, for great leaders are 
remembered well when they stand by their convictions, especially when 
those stands are tested in the face of adversity, during times of 
conflict and strife. In such times of testing, we take the measure of 
our leaders, our institutions, and ourselves.
  Prime Minister Blair's character has proven strong and he deserves 
nothing less than our highest accolades.
  That is why I am proud and honored today to introduce legislation to 
award the Congressional Gold Medal to Prime Minister Blair, and to 
thank him, on the floor on this Chamber, for his steadfast stand 
against evil.
  I encourage my colleagues to recognize Prime Minister Blair for the 
courage of his convictions by joining in support of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 709

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

     SECTION 1. FINDING.

       Congress finds that Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United 
     Kingdom has clearly demonstrated, during a very trying and 
     historic time for our 2 countries, that he is a staunch and 
     steadfast ally of the United States of America.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

       (a) Presentation Authorized.--The Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate 
     shall make appropriate arrangements for the presentation, on 
     behalf of Congress, of a gold medal of appropriate design, to 
     Prime Minister Tony Blair, in recognition of his outstanding 
     and enduring contributions to maintaining the security of all 
     freedom-loving nations.
       (b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall strike a 
     gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions 
     to be determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

       The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of 
     the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such 
     regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, at a price 
     sufficient to cover the cost thereof, including labor, 
     materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and 
     the cost of the gold medal.

     SEC. 4. STATUS OF MEDALS.

       (a) National Medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this 
     Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 
     31, United States Code.
       (b) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of 
     title 31, United States Code, all medals struck under this 
     Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.

       (a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to 
     be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise 
     Fund such amounts as may be necessary to pay for the costs of 
     the medals struck pursuant to this Act.
       (b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of 
     duplicate bronze medals authorized under section 3 shall be 
     deposited into the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. 
        Levin):
  S. 710. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide that aliens who commit acts of torture, extrajudicial killings, 
or other specified atrocities abroad are inadmissible and removable and 
to establish within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice 
an Office of Special Investigations having responsibilities under that 
Act with respect to all alien participants in war crimes, genocide, and 
the commission of acts of torture and extrajudicial killings abroad; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased today to introduce the Anti-Atrocity Alien 
Deportation Act of 2003, a bill intended to close loopholes in our 
immigration laws that have allowed war criminals and human rights 
abusers to enter and remain in this country. Senator Hatch has joined 
me in offering this bill, along with Senators Lieberman and Levin. In 
the other body, Representatives Mark Foley and Gary Ackerman today 
introduce identical legislation.
  Our bill would update the charter of the Justice Department's Office 
of Special Investigations, OSI, which for years has investigated and 
has sought justice in the cases of Nazi war criminals who have sought 
refuge on our shores. It is time to renew the OSI charter to take into 
account the new generations of war criminals who try to escape justice 
by living among us.
  This bill closely mirrors legislation I had offered that was reported 
unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and which 
passed the Senate during the 106th Congress. I hope and expect that, 
with the help of Senator Hatch and others, this bill will become law 
during this Congress.
  As we introduce this bill, our armed forces are fighting to replace 
an Iraqi regime that has been marked by its utter disregard for the 
human rights of its people. We must not fight this war on the one hand, 
and let human rights abusers from around the world enter our Nation 
with impunity on the other.
  When they learn it is so, the American people are appalled to learn 
that our country has become a safe haven

[[Page 7495]]

for those who exercised power in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, 
murder and torture innocent civilians. A report issued last year by 
Amnesty International claims that nearly 150 alleged human rights 
abusers have been identified living here and warns that this number may 
be as high as 1,000. Meanwhile, an article in the New York Review of 
Books stated that ``hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign nationals 
who have been plausibly accused of the most heinous human rights 
crimes, including torture and assassination, either have lived or still 
live freely in the U.S.'' [William Schulz, ``The Torturers Among Us,'' 
New York Review, p. 22, April 25, 2002.]
  I introduced a similar version of this bill on May 10, 2001, and the 
Judiciary Committee reported the bill with a Leahy-Hatch managers' 
amendment on April 18, 2002. Unfortunately, the bill was subject to an 
anonymous hold on the Senate floor.
  I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress and was 
pleased when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House 
and the Senate. The legislation passed the Senate on November 5, 1999, 
as part of S. 1754, the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe Havens to 
International and War Criminals Act,'' but unfortunately it was not 
acted on by the House before the end of the 106th Congress. 
Nevertheless, Representatives Foley and Ackerman have provided 
consistent leadership in moving this legislation in the House, by 
introducing the measure in the l06th Congress as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 
3058, in the 107th Congress, as H.R. 1449, and again today.
  The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in 
this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal 
and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation.
  For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court 
that Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in the 
military dictatorship that ruled Ethiopia in the 1970s, engaged in 
numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses against them when they 
lived in that country. Negewo oversaw and participated in the torture 
of opposition political figures in Ethiopia, and then moved to the 
United States only to work at the same Atlanta hotel as one of his own 
victims. The court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and 
included whipping a naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening 
her with death in the presence of several men. The court's award of 
compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1.5 million to the 
plaintiffs was subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. [See Abebe-
Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996).] Yet during the pendency 
of his appeal of the civil verdict, the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service granted Negewo citizenship.
  This situation is an affront both to the foreign victims of torture 
who fled here to escape their persecutors, and to the American victims 
of such torture and their families. As Professor William Aceves of 
California Western School of Law has noted, this case reveals ``a 
glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and 
practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed 
gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United 
States and been granted immigration relief.'' [20 Mich. J. Int'l L. at 
657.]
  Indeed, another case actually involves American victims. In 1980, 
four American churchwomen were raped and murdered by the Salvadoran 
National Guard. Two former Salvadoran government officials who 
allegedly covered up the murders currently reside in Florida.
  Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against 
innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and 
Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the 
same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock 
that door to human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the United 
States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we should 
promptly show them the door out.
  We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed 
for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too 
long after World War II to focus prosecutorial resources and attention 
on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false pretenses, or 
worse, with the collusion of American intelligence agencies. Thousands 
of declassified CIA documents were made public last year, as a result 
of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was proud to help enact in 
1998. These documents made clear the extent to which the United States 
relied upon and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the 
head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, 
noted at the time, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of 
the Cold War were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake 
for other aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to 
the United States. We need to focus the attention of our law 
enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport those who have 
committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United 
States.
  When I first introduced this bill, the Rutland Daily Herald in 
Vermont editorialized that:

       For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything, 
     U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough 
     to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and 
     then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip 
     across the border to find a home in America. (October 31, 
     1999)

  The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws. 
One Clinton Administration witness testified in February 2000 that:

       The Department of Justice supports efforts to enhance our 
     ability to remove individuals who have committed acts of 
     torture abroad. The department also recognizes, however, that 
     our current immigration laws do not provide strong enough 
     bars for human rights abusers. . . . Right now, only three 
     types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from 
     entering or remaining in the United States. The types of 
     prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly 
     severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi 
     persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly 
     defined. [Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien 
     Deportation Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and 
     Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d 
     Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. Costello, 
     Associate Deputy Attorney General).]

  The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would provide a stronger bar 
to human rights abusers and close loopholes in our current laws. The 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) currently provides that (i) 
participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 
1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii) 
aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious 
freedom, are both inadmissable to the United States and removable. [See 
8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D).] This bill 
would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to: (1) 
add new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United 
States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing,'' and (2) remove 
limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly 
severe violations of religious freedom.''
  The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial 
killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which 
implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other 
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These 
definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill 
incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal 
criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits:

     an act committed by a person acting under the color of law 
     specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental 
     pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to 
     lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or 
     physical control.'' [18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1).]

  ``Severe mental pain or suffering'' is further defined to mean:

     prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (A) the 
     intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe 
     physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or 
     application, or threatened administration or application, of 
     mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to 
     disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the 
     threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another 
     person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical 
     pain or suffering, or the administration or application

[[Page 7496]]

     of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to 
     disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. [18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2340(2).]

  The Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for 
``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, this law establishes civil 
liability for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or 
apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . . 
subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which is defined to 
mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment 
pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial 
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. 
This term, however, does not include any such killing that, under 
international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a 
foreign nation.''
  The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and 
deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the 
current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that 
term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on 
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(3)(E)(ii).] For clarity and consistency, the bill would 
substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. obligations 
under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden the reach of 
the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in genocide,'' 
as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has ordered, 
incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This broader 
scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more 
appropriate range of levels of complicity.
  Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly 
severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the 
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), limits its 
application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct 
within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the 
individual's spouse and children, if any. This bill would delete the 
reference to prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period 
since this limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the 
United States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As 
Professor Aceves has written:

       This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month 
     time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A 
     perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to 
     seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the 
     commission of these acts. [William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich. 
     J. Int'l L., at 683.]

  In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for 
the spouse or children of a violator of religious freedom. This is a 
serious sanction that should not apply to individuals because of 
familial relationships that are beyond their control. The purpose of 
these amendments is to make those who have participated in atrocities 
accountable for their actions. That purpose is not served by holding 
the family members of such individuals accountable for the offensive 
conduct over which they had no control.
  Under current law, most aliens who are inadmissible may receive a 
waiver under section 212(d)(3) of the INA to enter the nation as a 
nonimmigrant, where the Secretary of State recommends it and the 
Attorney General approves. Participants in Nazi persecutions or 
genocide, however, are not eligible for such a waiver. Our bill retains 
that provision. It does not, however, ban waivers for those who commit 
acts of torture or extrajudicial killings. I would hope that such 
waivers are used sparingly and only under the most compelling of 
circumstances.
  Of course, changing the law to address the problem of human rights 
abusers seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part 
of the solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert 
noted:

     [s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to 
     implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does 
     not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice 
     with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and 
     prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights 
     atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency 
     for this function can be seen in the experiences of the 
     Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at 
     689.

  Our country has long provided the template and moral leadership for 
dealing with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized 
unit, OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute and remove Nazi 
war criminals who had slipped into the United States among their 
victims under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective 
enforcement. Since OSI was created in 1979, more than 60 Nazi 
persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, almost 50 such 
individuals have been removed from the United States, and more than 150 
have been denied entry.
  OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it 
remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when 
Attorney General Civiletti, by a 1979 Attorney General order, 
established OSI within the Criminal Division of the Department of 
Justice, that office was directed to conduct all ``investigative and 
litigation activities involving individuals, who prior to and during 
World War II, under the supervision of or in association with the Nazi 
government of Germany, its allies, and other affiliated governments, 
are alleged to have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise 
participated in the persecution of any person because of race, 
religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order 
No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney 
General Order.
  I believe it is time to reward the tremendous work that OSI has done 
by expanding its mission to ensure effective enforcement against war 
criminals of all stripes.
  Little is being done about the new generation of international human 
rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are 
costly. As any prosecutor knows instinctively, such delays make 
documentary and testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale 
cases are the hardest to make. We should not repeat the mistake of 
waiting decades before tracking down war criminals and human rights 
abusers who have settled in this country. War criminals should find no 
sanctuary in loopholes in our current immigration policies and 
enforcement, and should never come to believe that they will find safe 
harbor in the United States.
  The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the INA, 8 U.S.C. 
Sec.  1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of 
Special Investigations (OSI) within the Department of Justice with 
authorization to denaturalize any alien who has participated in Nazi 
persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. Not 
only would the bill provide statutory authorization for OSI, it would 
also expand its jurisdiction to deal with any alien who participated in 
torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide abroad not just Nazis.
  The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the 
effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. 
The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular 
regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary 
for effective prosecutions of these cases and would best be 
accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather 
than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have 
more diverse missions.
  These are the sound policy and practical reasons that experts in this 
area recommend that the United States ``establish an office in the 
Justice Department similar to the one that has tracked Nazi war 
criminals, with an exclusive mandate to carry out the task of 
investigation [of suspected human rights abusers].'' [William Schulz, 
supra, at p. 24.]
  I appreciate that this part of the legislation has in the past proven 
controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have 
concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of 
the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in this 
bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has 
concluded that the OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war

[[Page 7497]]

criminals can be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of 
human rights violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably 
declines, the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against 
perpetrators of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 
20 Mich. J. Int'l. 657.
  Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice 
remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from 
the OSI's current mission instead, additional resources are authorized 
in the bill to cover the costs of the Office's expanded duties.
  Significantly, the bill further directs the Attorney General, in 
determining what action to take against a human rights abuser seeking 
entry into or found within the United States, to consider whether a 
prosecution should be brought under U.S. law or whether the alien 
should be deported to a country willing to undertake such a 
prosecution. Despite ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1994 
and adopting a new law making torture anywhere in the world a crime, 
federal law enforcement has not used this authority. In fact, one 
recent observer noted that ``the U.S. has never prosecuted a suspected 
torturer; nor has it ever extradited one under the Convention Against 
Torture, although it has surrendered one person to the International 
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 23-24.]
  As one human rights expert has noted:

       ``The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is 
     discovered that serious human rights abusers have found their 
     way into the United States may lead well-meaning people to 
     call for their immediate expulsion. Such individuals 
     certainly should not be enjoying the good life America has to 
     offer. But when we ask the question `where should they be?' 
     the answer is clear: they should be in the dock. That is the 
     essence of accountability, and it should be the central goal 
     of any scheme to penalize human rights abusers.'' [Hearing on 
     H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability 
     Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the 
     House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept. 
     28, 2000 (Statement of Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington 
     Office, Lawyers Committee For Human Rights).]

  Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the 
Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House on implementation of the 
new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of 
matters to the OSI, any revisions made to immigration forms to reflect 
amendments made by the bill, and the procedures developed, with 
adequate due process protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and 
determine whether an alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate again to give their approval to 
this bill, and for the House to help us finally make it law. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 710

       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 ``Anti-Atrocity Alien 
     Deportation Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS WHO HAVE 
                   COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE OR EXTRAJUDICIAL 
                   KILLINGS ABROAD.

       (a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``has engaged in conduct 
     that is defined as genocide for purposes of the International 
     Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide is 
     inadmissible'' and inserting ``ordered, incited, assisted, or 
     otherwise participated in conduct outside the United States 
     that would, if committed in the United States or by a United 
     States national, be genocide, as defined in section 1091(a) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) Commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial 
     killings.--Any alien who, outside the United States, has 
     committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise 
     participated in the commission of--

       ``(I) any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of 
     title 18, United States Code; or
       ``(II) under color of law of any foreign nation, any 
     extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of the 
     Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note);

     is inadmissible.''; and
       (3) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Participants 
     in nazi persecution or genocide'' and inserting 
     ``Participants in nazi persecution, genocide, or the 
     commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
       (b) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(4)(D) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(D)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``clause (i) or (ii)'' and inserting 
     ``clause (i), (ii), or (iii)''; and
       (2) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Assisted in 
     nazi persecution or engaged in genocide'' and inserting 
     ``Participated in nazi persecution, genocide, or the 
     commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to offenses committed before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF FOREIGN 
                   GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED 
                   PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS 
                   FREEDOM.

       (a) Ground of Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2)(G) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(G) Foreign government officials who have committed 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom.--Any 
     alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, 
     was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as 
     defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom 
     Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402), is inadmissible.''.
       (b) Ground of Deportability.--Section 237(a)(4) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Participated in the commission of severe violations 
     of religious freedom.--Any alien described in section 
     212(a)(2)(G) is deportable.''.

     SEC. 4. WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY.

       Section 212(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and 3(E)'' and 
     inserting ``and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E)''; 
     and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and 3(E)'' and 
     inserting ``and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E)''.

     SEC. 5. BAR TO GOOD MORAL CHARACTER FOR ALIENS WHO HAVE 
                   COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE, EXTRAJUDICIAL 
                   KILLINGS, OR SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS 
                   FREEDOM.

       Section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) one who at any time has engaged in conduct described 
     in section 212(a)(3)(E) (relating to assistance in Nazi 
     persecution, participation in genocide, or commission of acts 
     of torture or extrajudicial killings) or 212(a)(2)(G) 
     (relating to severe violations of religious freedom).''.

     SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL 
                   INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
     Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1103) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) The Attorney General shall establish within the 
     Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of 
     Special Investigations with the authority to detect and 
     investigate, and, where appropriate, to take legal action to 
     denaturalize any alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
       ``(2) The Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary 
     of the Department of Homeland Security in making 
     determinations concerning the criminal prosecution or 
     extradition of aliens described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
       ``(3) In determining the appropriate legal action to take 
     against an alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E), 
     consideration shall be given to--
       ``(A) the availability of criminal prosecution under the 
     laws of the United States for any conduct that may form the 
     basis for removal and denaturalization; or
       ``(B) the availability of extradition of the alien to a 
     foreign jurisdiction that is prepared to undertake a 
     prosecution for such conduct.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Department of Justice such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out the additional duties established under section 
     103(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by 
     this Act) in order to ensure that the Office of Special 
     Investigations fulfills its continuing obligations regarding 
     Nazi war criminals.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 7. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security, shall submit to the Committees on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate and the

[[Page 7498]]

     House of Representatives a report on implementation of this 
     Act that includes a description of--
       (1) the procedures used to refer matters to the Office of 
     Special Investigations and other components within the 
     Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security 
     in a manner consistent with the amendments made by this Act;
       (2) the revisions, if any, made to immigration forms to 
     reflect changes in the Immigration and Nationality Act made 
     by the amendments contained in this Act; and
       (3) the procedures developed, with adequate due process 
     protection, to obtain sufficient evidence to determine 
     whether an alien may be inadmissible under the terms of the 
     amendments made by this Act.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. 
        Chambliss, and Mr. Allen):
  S. 711. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to alleviate 
delay in the payment of the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus to 
members of Selected Reserve who are mobilized; read the first time.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. 
        Chambliss, and Mr. Allen):
  S. 712. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide 
Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for surviving spouses of Reserves not 
eligible for retirement who die from a cause incurred or aggravated 
while on inactive-duty training; read the first time.
                                 ______
                                 

                                 S. 711

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

     SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF SELECTED RESERVE REENLISTMENT BONUS TO 
                   MEMBERS OF SELECTED RESERVE WHO ARE MOBILIZED.

       Section 308b of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) Payment to Mobilized Members.--In the case of a 
     member entitled to a bonus under this section who is called 
     or ordered to active duty, any amount of such bonus that is 
     payable to the member during the period of active duty of the 
     member shall be paid the member during that period of active 
     duty, notwithstanding the service of the member on active 
     duty pursuant to such call or order to active duty.''.
                                 ______
                                 

                                 S. 712

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

     SECTION 1. SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN ANNUITIES FOR SURVIVING 
                   SPOUSES OF RESERVES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RETIREMENT 
                   WHO DIE FROM A CAUSE INCURRED OR AGGRAVATED 
                   WHILE ON INACTIVE-DUTY TRAINING.

       (a) Surviving Spouse Annuity.--Paragraph (1) of section 
     1448(f) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(1) Surviving spouse annuity.--The Secretary concerned 
     shall pay an annuity under this subchapter to the surviving 
     spouse of--
       ``(A) a person who is eligible to provide a reserve-
     component annuity and who dies--
       ``(i) before being notified under section 12731(d) of this 
     title that he has completed the years of service required for 
     eligibility for reserve-component retired pay; or
       ``(ii) during the 90-day period beginning on the date he 
     receives notification under section 12731(d) of this title 
     that he has completed the years of service required for 
     eligibility for reserve-component retired pay if he had not 
     made an election under subsection (a)(2)(B) to participate in 
     the Plan; or
       ``(B) a member of a reserve component not described in 
     subparagraph (A) who dies from an injury or illness incurred 
     or aggravated in line of duty during inactive-duty 
     training.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for subsection (f) 
     of section 1448 of such title is amended by inserting ``or 
     Before'' after ``Dying When''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as of September 10, 2001, and shall apply 
     with respect to performance of inactive-duty training (as 
     defined in section 101(d) of title 10, United States Code) on 
     or after that date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith):
  S. 714. A bill to provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of 
Bureau of Land Management land in Douglas County, Oregon, to the county 
to improve management of and recreational access to the Oregon Dunes 
National Recreation Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my friend and colleague 
Senator Smith of Oregon, to introduce legislation to improve the 
management of and recreational access to the Oregon Dunes National 
Recreation Area in Douglas County, OR.
  For the small, rural, coastal community of Winchester Bay in Douglas 
County, OR, this piece of legislation is critical. Hit first in the 
early 90's with a steep downturn in the timber economy, closely 
followed by a near shut-down of the fishing industry, this community 
found itself on the brink of economic ruin. The final blow came in 
March of 2000 when the major employer, International Paper, closed its 
paper mill, putting 300 residents out of work and sending an economic 
shockwave through the community that impacted the city, the school 
district, the hospital district, and literally every resident in the 
area.
  Yet, since that time, Winchester Bay, OR has adopted a ``never give 
up'' attitude, changed its long term outlook, and focused its efforts 
on developing a thriving tourist industry. The bill I introduce today 
directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 68.5 
acres from the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, in Douglas County, OR, 
to Douglas County to be managed for open space and for recreational 
purposes. The acreage is located just west of tourist and recreational 
area developments already owned and run by Douglas County. The County 
will use the land to provide a staging area for off-highway vehicles, 
thereby improving management of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation 
Area. The land transfer also facilitates the policing of unlawful 
camping and parking along Salmon Harbor Drive and adjacent areas. This 
land transfer will improve tourism on Oregon's economically challenged 
South Coast, as well as improve public safety and reduce traffic 
congestion along Salmon Harbor Drive.
  This legislation is supported by the entire Oregon delegation. It is 
also supported by the BLM, Douglas County Commissioners, and the 
community of Winchester Bay. An identical bill was introduced in the 
last Congress by Representative DeFazio, though the 107th Congress 
ended before both houses could pass it. Representative DeFazio 
reintroduced this land transfer legislation in the 108th Congress, H.R. 
514, in the House of Representatives.
  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.

                                 S. 714

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

     SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAND IN 
                   DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Conveyance.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     convey, without consideration, to Douglas County, Oregon 
     (referred to in this section as the ``County''), all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to the parcel 
     described in paragraph (2) for use by the County for 
     recreational purposes.
       (2) Parcel.--The parcel referred to in paragraph (1) is the 
     parcel of real property consisting of approximately 68.8 
     acres under the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management in the County, as depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Umpqua River Lighthouse and Coast Guard Museum 
     Master Plan Study'', dated April 17, 2002.
       (b) Purposes of Conveyance.--The purposes of the conveyance 
     under subsection (a) are to improve management of and 
     recreational access to the Oregon Dunes National Recreation 
     Area by--
       (1) improving public safety and reducing traffic congestion 
     along Salmon Harbor Drive (County Road No. 251) in the 
     County;
       (2) providing a staging area for off-highway vehicles; and
       (3) facilitating policing of unlawful camping and parking 
     along Salmon Harbor Drive and adjacent areas.
       (c) Reversionary Interest.--
       (1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     parcel conveyed under subsection (a) is not being used by the 
     County for a recreational purpose--
       (A) all right, title, and interest in and to the parcel, 
     including any improvements on the parcel, shall revert to the 
     United States; and
       (B) the United States shall have the right of immediate 
     entry onto the parcel.
       (2) Determination on the record.--Any determination of the 
     Secretary under this

[[Page 7499]]

     subsection shall be made on the record after an opportunity 
     for an agency hearing.
       (d) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the 
     parcel to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be 
     determined by a survey--
       (1) that is satisfactory to the Secretary; and
       (2) the cost of which shall be paid by the County.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. 
        Chambliss):
  S. 715. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the 
calendar year limitations on the use of commissary stores by certain 
reserves and others; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 715

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CALENDAR YEAR LIMITATIONS ON USE OF 
                   COMMISSARY STORES BY CERTAIN RESERVES AND 
                   OTHERS.

       (a) Members of the Ready Reserve.--Section 1063(a) of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by striking the period at 
     the end of the first sentence and all that follows and 
     inserting ``in that calendar year.''.
       (b) Certain Other Persons.--Section 1064 of such title is 
     amended by striking ``for 24 days each calendar year''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 716. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to improve the 
electricity transmission system of the United States; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Federal Power 
Act Amendment of 2003.'' This bill is intended to ensure for the future 
the two things that matter most to all electricity customers: 
affordable electricity and reliable electricity.
  Electricity users, my constituents and your constituents, wake up in 
the morning, flip a switch and expect their lights to turn on. They 
also expect that each month when their electricity bill arrives in the 
mail that they'll pay a reasonable price for that service. Customers 
don't care where the electrons come from or what new scheme the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission has in mind for the electricity industry 
or really much of anything else. And frankly, as a representative of 
nearly four and a half million people in my home State of Louisiana, 
affordable and reliable electricity are my primary concerns when it 
comes to electricity policy, and that is the purpose for which I offer 
legislation today.
  Electricity prices in Louisiana, and throughout the Southeast for 
that matter, are some of the lowest in the nation. According to the 
North American Electric Reliability Council's most recent reliability 
assessment report, the Southeast region is expected to enjoy, at least 
for the near term, ``adequate delivery capacity to support forecast 
demand and energy requirements under normal and contingency 
conditions.'' In other words, electricity customers in the Southeast 
should expect to continue to enjoy reliable electric service over the 
short run. My concern, however, is about the future of retail 
electricity service in my State.
  There are several specific areas of concern that I have and that I 
attempt to address in the legislation being offered today.
  First, the current balance between State and Federal jurisdiction, 
which has worked exceedingly well in my home State to provide low-cost 
and reliable electric service, is in jeopardy. Retail transactions, 
regulated by State public utility commissions, have historically 
comprised 90 percent of most utilities' transactions and continue to do 
so in a majority of States that have not restructured their electricity 
markets. In fact, there is not a single State in the Southeast with the 
exception of Virginia that has authorized retail competition. Yet, 
customers in our region of the country enjoy some of the lowest priced 
electricity service.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC, however, has issued 
a proposed rule that would strip States of much of their current 
jurisdiction over retail electric service, including the transmission 
component of bundled retail sales. In so doing, FERC would dramatically 
impair the ability of States to use retail ratemaking to attain local 
policy goals and to continue to ensure low costs for retail customers. 
It would also prohibit States from ensuring that retail customers are 
given a priority for electricity service. As a result, in the event 
that supplies are tight, retail customers could lose the right to 
priority service.
  FERC's proposed plan is a one-size-fits-all scheme on the entire 
country based on a model that closely resembles the one in place in New 
Jersey, much of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This model may work well in 
the Northeast, but it has never been tested or proven viable in any 
other part of the country. In fact, in a study performed by the 
consulting firm, Charles River Associates, it was concluded that there 
is ``considerable uncertainty as to whether [the FERC's proposed plan] 
would provide greater benefits to the southeast than the implementation 
costs.'' In Louisiana, and I'm sure in many other States throughout the 
Southeast and across the country, customers are happy with their 
electric service. So I ask, what's wrong with the current 
jurisdictional division between the State and Federal government? If a 
State or region wants to adopt a new approach, they should be free to 
do so. But we should not allow a Federal agency to make fundamental 
policy decisions that are best left to State officials who are 
accountable to local interests. We know what happened out West when 
California regulators attempted to institute a sweeping, new plan for 
its electricity markets. I hope to avoid importing those problems into 
Louisiana.
  To address this jurisdictional concern, Section 2 of my bill would 
clarify the Federal-State arrangement under the Federal Power Act by 
explicitly stating that States shall have jurisdiction over the retail 
sale of electric energy, including all component parts of a bundled 
retail sale. In addition, Section 7 would enable States to continue to 
allow utilities to reserve transmission capacity for retail customers. 
This is current law and the current practice in a large number of 
States, including States with some of the lowest average retail rates 
and the best history of reliability. As contemplated by Congress when 
the Federal Power Act was enacted, FERC will retain jurisdiction over 
the wholesale sales of electric energy and States will retain 
jurisdiction over retail.
  My second concern for retail customers is the potential for increased 
rates caused by the costs of accommodating the ``merchant generation'' 
that, over the past several years, have been seeking to connect to the 
electric grid in the Southeast. Though new generation is important to 
wholesale competition, it is a strain on the transmission system. To 
accommodate the new generation, new transmission facilities and 
upgrades to existing facilities are needed. However, customers in 
Louisiana would be forced to pay for the facilities needed to 
accommodate the merchant generators, even though most of their 
customers are out-of-region customers. State regulatory commissioners, 
understandably, are reluctant to pass transmission construction and 
upgrade costs off to local customers who are not benefitting from the 
electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of the country are 
denied cheap and reliable electricity.
  A reason they choose to site in Louisiana is because we are blessed 
with abundant reserves of natural gas--the currently favored fuel 
source for electric generation. Merchant generators are siting their 
facilities to gain access to these resources as cheaply as possible, 
and then are delivering electricity to regions where they can sell 
electricity at a higher cost. If enough transmission is built to export 
just a portion of the new generation that is

[[Page 7500]]

planned to come on-line in Louisiana--10,000 megawatts--the estimated 
cost would impose a retail rate increase of 5 to 11 percent.
  Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while 
simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to 
expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for 
transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily 
being developed for out-of-region use. In Sections 3 and 4 of this 
bill, I have attempted to provide a more equitable system. Section 3 
would allow for ``voluntary participant-funding'' in which a regional 
transmission organization may choose to establish a system in which 
market participants pay for expansions to the transmission network in 
return for the transmission rights created by the expansion investment. 
This approach gives proper economic incentives for new generator 
location and transmission expansion decisions.
  Similarly, Section 4 of my bill would require the FERC to initiate a 
proceeding to establish rules for interconnecting new generation to 
transmission facilities. As in Section 3, any costs made necessary by 
the interconnecting generator would be funded by the generator, or 
cost-causer, in return for a right to use such facilities funded by the 
investment.
  The third problem that I see is the lack of new investment in 
transmission facilities. FERC noted in its Electric Transmission 
Constraint study that transmission congestion costs retail customers 
across the country millions of dollars every year. Over the past 10 
years, demand for electricity has increased by 17 percent while 
transmission investment during the same period has continuously 
declined about 45 percent.
  What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is 
projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a 
modest increase in transmission capacity. In the short term, this lack 
of transmission investment and the corresponding lack of transmission 
capacity, adversely affects the ability of retail customers to realize 
the benefits of wholesale competition. Over the long term, and if this 
trend continues, the reliability of the bulk power system could be 
compromised. In the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited 
the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during 
a period of peak demand, causing higher costs for customers. In the 
summer of 2001 during the California electricity crisis, transmission 
constraints along the Path 15 transmission route were a significant 
cause of the blackouts experienced by customers in the northern parts 
of that State.
  To help spur this needed investment in the transmission sector, 
Section 5 of the legislation would provide further guidance to FERC in 
establishing transmission rates in two ways. First, Section 5 would 
amend Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to clarify that the cost 
causer is responsible for paying the costs of new transmission 
investment and that all users of the transmission facilities are 
required to pay an equitable share of the costs such facilities. These 
provisions will help ensure that users of the transmission system have 
proper economic price signals and encourage investment where it is 
needed most. Second, Section 5 would add a new section to the Federal 
Power Act, Section 215, that would require the FERC to initiate a 
rulemaking to establish transmission pricing policies and standards to 
promote investment in transmission facilities. Although the Commission 
may have sufficient authority under current law to initiate such 
policies, our Nation's transmission system has been neglected too long 
and I believe that the FERC could benefit from more specific guidance 
from Congress.
  Finally, customers are not realizing all of the potential benefits of 
wholesale electricity markets because of its balkanization. The likely 
result is higher electricity prices. In different parts of the country, 
electric utilities are in various stages of joining together to form 
large regional markets, or in the terms used by FERC--regional 
transmission organizations. In addition, public power entities, 
including municipal utilities, cooperatives, and federal and State 
power marketing associations have been willing or resisting, to varying 
degrees, to contribute to the efforts to establish regional markets. 
Exacerbating this problem is the underlying fact that FERC does not 
have the same jurisdiction over public power utilities as it does over 
electric utilities.
  Properly functioning regional markets for electricity can bring about 
significant benefits to customers in all parts of the country. More 
competitive wholesale generation, for example, will allow retail 
sellers greater opportunities to purchase generation from independent 
power producers. Improperly functioning markets, or one-size-fits all 
proposals that do not take into consideration regional differences, can 
be devastating. Current law and policy at FERC has been insufficient in 
achieving the proper balance between the need for robust regional 
markets, the reality of regional differences and the legitimate efforts 
of utilities.
  Therefore, in Section 6 of the bill, the FERC would be required to 
convene regional discussions with State regulatory commissions to 
consider the development and progress of regional transmission 
organizations. It would further provide for specific topics of 
discussion between FERC and the States including the need for regional 
organizations, the planning process for facilities, the protection of 
retail customers, and the establishment of proper price signals to 
ensure the efficient expansion of the transmission grid. Section 6 
would also help reduce the balkanization of the electric grid by 
authorizing the federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley 
Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration to join regional 
transmission organizations. Also, in an attempt to help expand 
wholesale markets, Section 8 would provide for FERC to require that 
public power entities provide a limited form of access to their 
transmission facilities. This provision would give wholesale generators 
increased access to markets and ensure that competitors pay only the 
fair and reasonable price to use the transmission grid owned by public 
power.
  In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and 
consider its affect on retail electricity customers in their States. 
Affordable and reliable electricity should be our objective for all 
customers, in all parts of the country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 717. A bill to require increased safety testing of 15-passenger 
vans, ensure the compliance of 15-passenger vans used as schoolbuses 
with motor vehicle safety standards applicable to schoolbuses, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
designed to enhance the safety of large passenger vans, which are 
highly susceptible to rollovers and have been associated with more than 
500 fatalities since 1990.
  It was under the most tragic circumstances that this issue came to my 
State's attention last year. On September 12th, 2002, 14 migrant 
forestry workers were killed when their 15-passenger van rolled off a 
bridge over the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in northern Maine. The 
sole survivor of this catastrophe escaped when he kicked out the rear 
window of the sinking van in what was the single worst motor vehicle 
accident in Maine's history.
  I quickly learned that this was the latest in a long line of deadly 
crashes involving the popular vans, which were initially designed to 
carry cargo rather than passengers and are highly prone to rollovers, 
especially when fully loaded. There are more than 500,000 of these vans 
on the road today, and they are frequently used for a wide variety of 
purposes, from van pools and church outings, to transportation to and 
from airports, to transporting college athletics teams or workers.
  In response to the spate of fatal accidents involving the vans in the 
past few years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
NHTSA,

[[Page 7501]]

conducted a study in 2001 to analyze the vans' propensity to rollover. 
In May 2001, after concluding the study, NHTSA issued a national 
warning to users of such vehicles that they have an increased risk of 
rollovers under certain conditions. They issued a similar warning in 
April 2002. The results of the NHTSA study are dramatic, finding that 
rollover risks rise sharply as the number of van occupants increases. 
With 10 or more occupants, the rollover rate is nearly three times the 
rate of vans that are lightly loaded. And with more than 15 occupants, 
the risk of a rollover is almost six times greater than if the van only 
has five occupants.
  Following up on NHTSA's work, and as the deadly march of van 
accidents continued, last year both the National Transportation Safety 
Board, NTSB, and the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen issued a 
number of safety recommendations on the issue. Given the increasing use 
of 15-passenger vans in transporting larger groups, I believe it is 
time to move beyond warnings and for Congress to take action to address 
the safety of these vans.
  The bill I am introducing today would require NHTSA to include 15-
passenger vans in their dynamic rollover testing program. While NHTSA 
is currently developing this program, as mandated by The Transportation 
Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation, TREAD, Act of 
2000, it does not include 15-passenger vans. Given the demonstrated 
propensity of these vans to roll, and the deadly effects of a rollover 
in fully loaded passenger vans, it is vital that we subject them to the 
same safety standards that NHTSA plans to apply to passenger cars and 
sport utility vehicles, SUVs.
  My bill would also require NHTSA to include 15-passenger vans in 
their New Car Assessment Program, NCAP, rollover resistance ratings, 
and to test them at various load conditions. The NCAP, which provides 
consumers with a measure of the relative safety potential of vehicles 
in frontal crashes, was expanded recently to include the rollover risk 
of passenger cars and light trucks. However, the expansion does not 
extend to vehicles that carry more than 10 passengers. I believe that 
before churches or colleges or employers purchase one of these vans, 
they should have access to NCAP information about their rollover 
propensity relative to other vehicles.
  In addition, the bill requires NHTSA to work with van manufacturers 
to evaluate and test the potential of technological systems to help 
drivers in maintaining control of the vans. Specifically, NHTSA would 
look at electronic stability control, ESC, systems that some high-end 
SUVs are already equipped with and rear-view mirror-based rollover 
warning systems. ESC systems are computer-controlled systems that 
attempt to stabilize the vehicle by monitoring a vehicle's movement and 
the direction the driver is steering. I am also aware of rollover 
warning systems under development, attachable to the rear-view mirror, 
that will warn a driver if his speed or driving maneuvers risk a 
rollover. In short, technology can help us to greatly reduce the 
tendency of these vans to roll, and in the process save lives.
  These vans are also in widespread use for commercial purposes like 
airport shuttles and vanpools. Therefore, my legislation would require 
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, to finish their 
rulemaking on the application of federal motor carrier safety 
regulations to 15 passenger vans used for commercial purposes. Both the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, and the Motor 
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 directed FMCSA to promulgate 
regulations on the commercial use of the vans. While they initiated 
rulemaking in 1999, to date, FMCSA applies no operating regulations 
whatsoever to these vans.
  Finally, this bill addresses the use of 15-passenger vans to 
transport schoolchildren. Under current law, schools are prohibited 
from purchasing these vans new to transport schoolchildren because they 
do not meet the same safety standards as schoolbuses do. However, 
counter-intuitively, Federal law is silent about the purchase of used 
vans, or the use of rental vans.
  My bill addresses this loophole by incorporating language introduced 
during the 107th Congress by Representative Mark Udall of Colorado to 
extend the ban from the sale of vans to leasing, renting and buying of 
vans. This is intended to make the buyers accountable as well as the 
seller. At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing, I asked NHTSA 
Administrator Jeffrey Runge about this disparity in current law, and he 
agreed that when we're talking about transporting schoolchildren, 
what's good for new vans should be good for used and rented vans.
  Also, to make it worth NHTSA's while to pursue violators, my bill 
would raise the maximum penalty for violations of the prohibition on 
the sale or rental of these vans to schools from $5,000 to $25,000.
  I truly believe that this legislation will cut down on the number of 
fatal accidents involving 15-passenger vans by subjecting them to 
federal rollover standards, providing consumers with adequate safety 
information and making sure that our schoolchildren are driven to 
school in safe vehicles. I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong 
show of support for this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Graham of South 
        Carolina, and Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 718. A bill to provide a monthly allotment of free telephone 
calling time to members of the United States armed forces stationed 
outside the United States who are directly supporting military 
operations in Iraq or Afghanistan; read the first time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 718

       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 ``Troops Phone Home Free Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act to support the morale of the 
     brave men and women of the United States armed services 
     stationed outside the United States who are directly 
     supporting military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan (as 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense) by giving them the 
     ability to place calls to their loved ones without expense to 
     them.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The armed services of the United States are the finest 
     in the world.
       (2) The members of the armed services are bravely placing 
     their lives in danger to protect the security of the people 
     of the United States and to advance the cause of freedom in 
     Iraq.
       (3) Their families and loved ones are making sacrifices at 
     home in support of the members of the armed services abroad.
       (4) Telephone contact with family and friends provides 
     significant emotional and psychological support to them and 
     helps to sustain and improve morale.

     SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TELECOMMUNICATIONS BENEFIT.

       (a) In General.--As soon as possible after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall provide 
     prepaid phone cards, or an equivalent telecommunications 
     benefit which includes access to telephone service, to 
     members of the armed forces stationed outside the United 
     States who are directly supporting military operations in 
     Iraq or Afghanistan (as determined by the Secretary) to 
     enable them to make telephone calls to family and friends in 
     the United States without cost to the members.
       (b) Monthly Amount.--The value of the benefit provided by 
     subsection (a) shall not exceed $40 per month per person.
       (c) End of Program.--The program established by subsection 
     (a) shall terminate on the date that is 60 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary determines that Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom has ended.
       (d) Funding.
       (1) Use of existing resources.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary shall maximize the use of existing 
     Department of Defense telecommunications programs and 
     capabilities, private support organizations, and programs to 
     enhance morale and welfare.
       (2) Use of appropriated funds.--In addition to resources 
     described in paragraph (1) and notwithstanding any limitation 
     on the expenditure or obligation of appropriated amounts, the 
     Secretary may use available funds appropriated to or for the 
     use of the Department of Defense that are not otherwise 
     obligated or expended to carry out this section.

[[Page 7502]]



     SEC. 5. DEPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT.

       The Secretary of Defense shall work with telecommunications 
     providers to facilitate the deployment of additional 
     telephones for use in calling the United States under this 
     Act as quickly as practicable, consistent with the 
     availability of resources and without compromising the 
     Department's military objectives and mission.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. 
        Graham of South Carolina):
  S. 721. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the combat zone income tax exclusion to include income for the period 
of transit to the combat zone and to remove the limitation on such 
exclusion for commissioned officers, and for other purposes; read the 
first time.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 721

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

     SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF INCOME TAX EXCLUSION FOR COMBAT ZONE 
                   SERVICE.

       (a) Combat Zone Service To Include Transit to Zone.--
     Section 112(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to definitions) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``Such service shall include any 
     period of direct transit to the combat zone.''.
       (b) Removal of Limitation on Exclusion for Commissioned 
     Officers.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 112 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain combat 
     zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces) is 
     repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 112(a) of such Code is amended--
       (i) by striking ``below the grade of commissioned 
     officer'', and
       (ii) by striking ``Enlisted Personnel'' in the heading and 
     inserting ``In General''.
       (B) Section 112(c) of such Code is amended by striking 
     paragraphs (1) and (5) and by redesignating paragraphs (2), 
     (3), and (4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF 
                   THE ARMED FORCES PERFORMING SERVICES AT 
                   GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION, CUBA, AND IN THE 
                   HORN OF AFRICA.

       (a) General Rule.--In the case of a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States who is entitled to special pay 
     under section 310 of title 37, United States Code (relating 
     to special pay: duty subject to hostile fire or imminent 
     danger), for services performed at Guantanamo Bay Naval 
     Station, Cuba, or in any country located in the region known 
     as the Horn of Africa as part of Operation Enduring Freedom 
     (or any successor operation), such member shall be treated in 
     the same manner as if such services were in a combat zone (as 
     determined under section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986) for purposes of the following provisions of such Code:
       (1) Section 2(a)(3) (relating to special rule where 
     deceased spouse was in missing status).
       (2) Section 112 (relating to the exclusion of certain 
     combat pay of members of the Armed Forces).
       (3) Section 692 (relating to income taxes of members of 
     Armed Forces on death).
       (4) Section 2201 (relating to members of the Armed Forces 
     dying in combat zone or by reason of combat-zone-incurred 
     wounds, etc.).
       (5) Section 3401(a)(1) (defining wages relating to combat 
     pay for members of the Armed Forces).
       (6) Section 4253(d) (relating to the taxation of phone 
     service originating from a combat zone from members of the 
     Armed Forces).
       (7) Section 6013(f)(1) (relating to joint return where 
     individual is in missing status).
       (8) Section 7508 (relating to time for performing certain 
     acts postponed by reason of service in combat zone).
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this 
     section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Withholding.--Subsection (a)(5) shall apply to 
     remuneration paid on or after such date of enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 723. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to provide refunds for 
unjust and unreasonable charges on electric energy in the State of 
California; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, FERC, released documents substantiating evidence of market 
manipulation during the California electricity crisis.
  At the same time, I am stunned that FERC took no action today on 
ordering the companies that cheated California to pay refunds. Nor did 
FERC order renegotiation of the long-term electricity contracts that 
were entered into when prices were artificially inflated. The documents 
released provide absolute and irrefutable evidence of market 
manipulation by power generators and wholesale traders during 
California's electricity crisis. I believe it is long past due to end 
the discussions and deliberations and time to start sending the refund 
checks.
  FERC should use its authority to order full refunds and order them 
immediately. To make sure that happens, I am introducing legislation to 
guarantee that the people of California get back the money they are 
owed.
  When the crisis first began in 2000, I introduced my first bill to 
order refunds. The bill that I am introducing today would require 
energy companies to pay full refunds in the minimum amount of $8.9 
billion. In addition, my bill requires the FERC to order the 
renegotiation of long-term contracts.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. We must not let 
these companies get away with thievery.

                          ____________________