[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4228-4237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2194. A bill to amend part D of title IV of the Social Security 
Act to improve the collection of child support, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is 
very close to my heart--the Child Support Improvement Act of 2004. I 
want to express my appreciation for the leadership of the Senator from 
Connecticut on these issues, and his willingness to co-sponsor this 
bill.
  In my career, I have had the opportunity to see the significant 
problems facing our child support system from several different 
perspectives.
  As a district judge in Texas, I ruled in divorce and custody cases. I 
saw the powerful emotions involved in these cases, where the best 
interests of children are fought over even as the relationships that 
brought them into this world fall apart.
  And I had to make judgments in a large number of child support cases 
before Texas implemented the system for expediting these cases by 
establishing the masters program.
  As a Supreme Court justice, I had the opportunity to write opinions 
that had a real and positive affect on child support.
  As Attorney General, I saw the positive effects of enforced 
guidelines for child support, visitation, and income withholding. I 
worked to implement Federal mandates. And I saw that we had a deep hole 
to climb out of, a child support system that was in terrible shape.
  My first priority was to improve customer service. I saw that more 
than $16 million in child support payments were collected but 
undistributed due to computer errors, leaving those most in need of 
assistance without their child support payments merely because of 
computer or administrative problems.
  And the vast majority of the people calling the child support offices 
for assistance were automatically disconnected or received a busy 
signal. Only one in every seven phone calls was actually answered--one 
in seven.
  We got to work fast. We focused on both the dead beat and the dead 
broke parents. We fixed the customer service system, establishing eight 
regional call centers and an interactive web site to provide case-
specific information on a secure site for parents to access. We worked 
with community organizations to establish a dozen fatherhood programs. 
We got payments out the door more quickly, and we reduced undistributed 
collections. And I announced a top ten list of ``Texas' Most Wanted 
Child Support Evaders,'' those dead beat parents who willfully evaded 
arrest.
  In the end, we collected more than $3 billion in child support. Some 
folks called it a miracle. I call it a good start.
  I believe that this body has the responsibility to do more to help 
our child support system be more efficient, more responsive, and do 
more to improve the lives of children and families.
  The proposal that I am introducing today, along with the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut--who has a deep understanding of 
the issue and, like me, served his State as attorney general--features 
several long-needed reforms of our child support provisions.

[[Page 4229]]

  It includes new distribution options for states to get more child 
support to families on TANF, and to pay more child support to families 
who were previously on TANF.
  This bill also has several provisions based on my experience as 
Attorney General: 1. It encourages States to do more medical support 
enforcement, by giving states a funding incentive that will ultimately 
reduce our Federal Medicaid and S-CHIP costs. 2. It promotes early 
monitoring of child support orders, cutting red tape so that states 
have greater freedom to innovate and large arrearages never occur. 3. 
It focuses on reducing undistributed collections by directing more 
Federal resources toward finding solutions to this widespread problem. 
4. It gets payments to custodial parents quickly, by urging States to 
use electronic payment methods. 5. And it allows States the option to 
send all non-IV-D child support payments to the State Disbursement 
Unit, reducing expenses, paperwork and confusion for employers and 
accelerating payments to families.
  I believe that all of these reforms are necessary and important 
steps. They will lower costs, increase efficiency, and get children 
more of the help they need.
  Even as we strive to improve our child support system, we cannot 
underestimate the social importance of the family as a component of our 
mission. As author Maggie Gallagher once wrote: ``When men and women 
fail to form stable marriages, the first result is a vast expansion of 
government attempts to cope with the terrible social needs that result. 
There is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on 
social programs that is not driven in large part by family 
fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school 
failure, and mental and physical health problems.''
  I strongly believe that the family is the fundamental institution of 
our civilization. If fosters successful communities, happier homes, and 
healthier lives.
  The family provides the foundation for raising each new generation of 
Americans. And when families are weakened, children suffer the most. 
Even the best child support system in the world cannot give the caring 
love and nurturing of family--which is why I believe we need to have a 
child support system that genuinely encourages parents to be an active 
part of their child's life.
  We need a child support system that focuses on the dead beat and dead 
broke parents, that brings the worst evaders in, and that puts the 
family first. Let us in this body strive to do everything we can, as we 
hope for a brighter future for this nation and future generations of 
American children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL ( for himself, Ms. Collins, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 2196. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify 
that per diem payments by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the 
care of Veterans in State homes shall not be used to offset payments 
that are made under the medicaid program for the purpose of assisting 
veterans; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues Senators Collins and Snowe to introduce legislation which 
will rectify a very serious problem affecting veterans in my State and 
around the Nation. The bill I am introducing will clarify the treatment 
of the per diem payments made by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
VA, to support State Veterans Homes across the country.
  For several decades, Federal law has required that the VA pay a per 
diem amount to States to support quality care provided to eligible 
veterans at qualified State Veterans Homes. This VA per diem, currently 
about $56 per day for nursing home care and $27 per day for domiciliary 
care, is intended to assist States in providing the best possible care 
to those who served in our armed forces.
  In Colorado and a number of other States, the availability of the VA 
per diem is threatened by interpretations of Medicaid rules by the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. CMS would treat the VA 
per diem payments as third-party payments, requiring that the entire 
amount be offset against Medicaid payments. This interpretation would 
deny residents of State Veterans Homes who receive Medicaid in these 
states any benefit whatsoever of the VA per diem payments.
  I believe this runs contrary to the intent of Congress in 
establishing the VA per diem payment system. State Veterans Homes are 
required to meet stringent and costly VA standards for care as a 
condition for receiving these per diem payments. These standards of 
care exceed those required by Medicaid, and the VA per diem makes it 
possible for State Veterans Homes to meet the higher VA standards. Most 
importantly, this per diem allows our veterans to receive high quality 
nursing care.
  An insistence by CMS on its interpretation would jeopardize the 
funding balance for many Medicaid-certified State Veterans Homes across 
the country. The result of the CMS interpretation would be to force 
State Veterans Homes that do not currently offset the VA per diem 
payments against Medicaid funding to reduce their standard of care, 
defer construction of needed new facilities, and possibly close certain 
State Veterans Homes.
  The legislation we are introducing today would simply clarify that 
the VA per diem payments cannot not be considered to be a third-party 
liability under Medicaid. It would build on other precedents where 
Congress wanted to make sure that benefits were received by their 
intentional recipients, not transferred to the Medicaid program. For 
example, federal law already includes exceptions for similar payments, 
such as those made under the Indian Health program.
  Our legislation recognizes that the States fund their State Veterans 
Homes in a variety of different manners. It preserves their flexibility 
to do so in a way that best serves their veterans, and ensures that no 
state is forced to lose the benefit of the VA per diem.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and move forward 
with a plan that will enable our State Veterans Nursing Homes to 
provide the high quality care that our veterans deserve.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2196

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

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT UNDER MEDICAID PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS PER DIEM PAYMENTS TO STATE 
                   HOMES FOR VETERANS.

       Section 1741 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Payments to States pursuant to this section shall not 
     be considered a liability of a third party for any purpose 
     under section 1902(a)(25) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396a(25)).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2197. A bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act to clarify the status of certain communities in the 
western Alaska community development quota program; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as residents of sparsely populated 
State with great natural resources but severe poverty in many of its 
rural areas, Alaskans have engaged in a variety of social and economic 
exercises intended to improve the living standard and expand economic 
opportunities for our most challenged communities.
  I rise today to introduce a bill to ensure that one of the most 
successful of those exercises is allowed to continue. I am pleased to 
say the measure is also cosponsored by Alaska's senior senator.
  The CDQ Community Preservation Act is intended to maintain the 
participation of all currently eligible communities along the shore of 
the Bering Sea in Alaska's Community Development Quota program. It is 
necessary

[[Page 4230]]

because inconsistencies in statutory and regulatory provisions may 
require a reassessment of eligibility and the exclusion of some 
communities from the program. This was not the intent of the original 
program, nor of any subsequent changes to it. In order to clarify that 
fact, a legislative remedy is needed.
  The Community Development Quota Program began in 1992, at the 
recommendation of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, one of 
the regional councils formed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act. Congress gave the program permanent 
status in the 1996 reauthorization of the Act.
  The program presently includes 65 communities within a 50 nautical-
mile radius of the Bering Sea, which have formed six regional non-
profit associations to participate in the program. The regional 
associations range in size from one to 20 communities. Under the 
program, a portion of the regulated annual harvests of pollock, 
halibut, sablefish, Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and crab is assigned to 
each association, which operate under combined Federal and State agency 
oversight. Almost all of an association's earnings must be invested in 
fishing-related projects in order to encourage a sustainable economic 
base for the region.
  Typically, each association sells its share of the annual harvest 
quotas to established fishing companies in return for cash and 
agreements to provide job training and employment opportunities for 
residents of the region. The program has been remarkably successful.
  Since 1992, approximately 9,000 jobs have been created for western 
Alaska residents with wages totaling more than $60 million. The CDQ 
program has also contributed to fisheries infrastructure development in 
western Alaska, as well as providing vessel loan programs; education, 
training and other CDQ-related benefits.
  The CDQ program has its roots in the amazing success story of how our 
offshore fishery resources were Americanized after the passage of the 
original Magnuson Act in 1976. At the time, vast foreign fishing fleets 
were almost the only ones operating in the U.S. 200-mile Exclusive 
Economic Zone. American fishermen simply did not have either the 
vessels or the expertise to participate.
  The Magnuson Act changed all that. It led to the adoption of what we 
called a ``fish and chips'' policy that provided for an exchange of 
fish allocations for technological and practical expertise. Within the 
next few years, harvesting fell almost exclusively to American vessels. 
Within a few years after that, processing almost became Americanized. 
Today, there are no foreign fishing or processing vessels operating in 
the 200-mile zone off Alaska, and the industry is worth billions of 
dollars each year.
  The CDQ program helps bring some of the benefits of that great 
industry to local residents in one of the most impoverished areas of 
the entire country. It is a vital element in the effort to create and 
maintain a lasting economic base for the region's many poor 
communities, and truly deserves the support of this body.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2197

       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 ``CDQ Community Preservation 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. WESTERN ALASKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA PROGRAM.

       (a) Eligible Communities.--Section 305(i)(1) of the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1855(i)) is amended adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) A community shall be eligible to participate in the 
     western Alaska community development quota program under 
     subparagraph (A) if the community was--
       ``(i) listed in table 7 to part 679 of title 50, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2004; or
       ``(ii) approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service on 
     April 19, 1999.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Such section is further amended, 
     in paragraph (B), by striking ``To'' and inserting, ``Except 
     as provided in subparagraph (E), to''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2198. A bill to provide for refinancing of consolidated student 
loans; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the 
Consolidated Student Loan Reduction Act of 2004.
  A college education is becoming more and more crucial as American 
workers seek to compete in the global marketplace. Yet, the cost of a 
college education is rising each year, making it less accessible to low 
and moderate income individuals. While grants and scholarships are 
available, students have come to increasingly rely on student loans. 
Between 1992 and 2002, Federal student loans increased by 165 percent, 
and in 2003, $65 billion--or 70 percent of total Federal student aid--
was in the form of loans. The average debt for a college graduate is 
$17,000, and it can exceed $100,000 for a graduate student.
  Under Federal law, and in order to receive longer repayment terms, 
individuals may consolidate their student loans into one loan. The 
interest rate on the consolidated loan is fixed. So while current law 
gives individuals a longer time to repay their student debt, it does 
not allow them to take advantage of the low interest rates that prevail 
in the marketplace today. Graduates may refinance their houses at lower 
rates but cannot do the same with student loans.
  My bill would change that and would permit individuals to refinance 
their consolidated Federal loans at the same interest rate as Federal 
Stafford loans, which fluctuate with the market and are generally below 
the prevailing market rate. Individuals could refinance anytime their 
consolidated loan rate exceeded 1 percent of the Stafford loan rate. 
And under my bill the borrower is not required to pay any fee or costs 
when they refinance.
  There are many in Congress who have introduced legislation to make a 
college education more accessible and affordable to American students. 
I support many of those efforts. My modest bill is a step in this 
direction, and I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Feingold, and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 2199. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to make grants to 
improve the ability of State and local governments to prevent the 
abduction of children by family members, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator 
Hutchison, Senator Snowe, Senator Feingold and Senator Lincoln to 
introduce the ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2004,'' a bill to 
help the thousands of children who are abducted by a family member each 
year.
  Family abductions are the most common form of abduction yet they 
receive little attention and law enforcement often doesn't treat them 
as the serious crimes that they are.
  The Family Abduction prevention Act of 2004 would provide grants to 
states for costs associated with family abduction prevention. 
Specifically, it would assist States with: costs associated with the 
extradition of individuals suspected of committing the crime of family 
abduction; costs borne by State and local law enforcement agencies to 
investigate cases of missing children; training for local and State law 
enforcement agencies in responding to family abductions; outreach and 
media campaigns to educate parents on the dangers of family abductions; 
and assistance to public schools to help with costs associated with 
flagging school records.
  Each year, over 200,000 children--78 percent of all abductions in the 
United States--are kidnapped by a family member, usually a non-
custodial parent.
  More than half of abducting parents have a history of domestic 
violence, substance abuse, or a criminal record.

[[Page 4231]]

  Most State and local law enforcement agencies do not treat these 
abductions as serious crimes. Approximately 70 percent of law 
enforcement agencies do not have written guidelines on responding to 
family abduction and many are not informed about the Federal laws 
available to help in the search and recovery.
  Many people believe that a child is not in grave danger if the 
abductor is a family member. Unfortunately, this is not true, and the 
assumptions can endanger a child's life. Research shows that the most 
common motive in family abduction cases is revenge against the other 
parent--not out of love for the child.
  The effects of family abduction on children are very traumatic. 
Abducted children suffer from severe separation anxiety. To break 
emotional ties with the left-behind parent, some family abductors will 
coach a child into falsely ``disclosing'' abuse by the other parent to 
perpetuate their control during or after abduction. The child is often 
told that the other parent is dead or did not really love them.
  As the child adapts to a fugitive's lifestyle, deception becomes a 
part of life. The child is taught to fear those that one would normally 
trust, such as police, doctors, teachers and counselors. Even after 
recovery, the child often has a difficult time into adulthood.
  On Takeroot.org, a website devoted to victims of family abductions, 
Rebekah told the story of when her mother kidnapped her.
  Her mother was diagnosed as manic and was verbally abusive to her 
children and husband. Rebekah's father was awarded full custody of her 
and her brothers. However, one weekend, when Rebekah was 4-years-old, 
her mother took her to Texas.
  Her mother had all her moles and distinguishing marks removed from 
her body and she had fake birth certificates made for Rebekah and 
herself. As Rebekah grew up, she was told that her father didn't love 
her and that her siblings didn't want to see her. When the FBI finally 
found Rebekah, she didn't remember her father and felt very alone.
  In addition, in many family abduction cases, children are given new 
identities at an age when they are still developing a sense of who they 
are. In extreme cases, the child's sexual identity is covered up to 
avoid detection.
  Abducting parents often deprive their children of education and much-
needed medical attention to avoid the risk of being tracked via school 
or medical records.
  In extreme cases, the abducting parent leaves the child with 
strangers at an underground ``safe house'' where health, safety, and 
other basic needs are extremely compromised.
  For example, in Lafayette, CA, two girls were abducted by their 
mother and moved from house to house under the control of a convicted 
child molester. Kelli Nunez absconded with her daughters, 6-year-old 
Anna and 4-year-old Emily in violation of court custody orders. Nunez 
drove her daughters cross-country, and then returned by plane to San 
Francisco, where she handed the children to someone holding a coded 
sign at the airport.
  The person holding the sign belonged to an underground vigilante 
group called the California Family Law Center led by Florencio Maning, 
a convicted child molester. For six months, Maning orchestrated the 
concealment of the Nunez girls with help from other people. Luckily, 
police were able to track down the girls and they were successfully 
reunited with their father.
  California has been the Nation's leader in fighting family abduction. 
In my State, we have a system that places the responsibility for the 
investigation and resolution of family abduction cases with the County 
District Attorney's Office. Each California County District Attorney's 
Office has an investigative unit that is focused on family abduction 
cases. Therefore, investigators only handle family abduction cases and 
become experts in the process.
  However, most States lack the training and resources to effectively 
recover children who are kidnapped by a family member. According to a 
study conducted by Plass, Finkelhor and Hotaling, 62 percent of parents 
surveyed said they were ``somewhat'' or ``very'' dissatisfied with 
police handling of their family abduction cases.
  The ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2004'' would be an important 
first step in addressing this serious issue.
  I urge my colleagues to quickly act on this important 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. 2199

       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 ``Family Abduction Prevention 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress findings that--
       (1) each year more than 203,000 children in the United 
     States (approximately 78 percent of all abducted children) 
     are abducted by a family member, usually a parent;
       (2) more than half of the parents who abduct their children 
     have a history of alcohol or substance abuse, a criminal 
     record, or a history of violence;
       (3) the most common motive for family abduction is revenge 
     against the other parent, not protecting the child's safety;
       (4) children who are abducted by family members suffer 
     emotional, psychological, and often physical abuse at the 
     hands of their abductors;
       (5) children who are victims of family abductions are 
     forced to leave behind family, friends, their homes, their 
     neighborhoods, their schools, and all that is familiar to 
     them;
       (6) children who are victims of family abductions are often 
     told that the parent who did not abduct the child has died, 
     does not love them, or will harm them;
       (7) children who are abducted by their parents or other 
     family members are sometimes forced to live in fear of 
     discovery and may be compelled to conceal their true 
     identity, including their real names, family histories, and 
     even their gender;
       (8) children who are victims of family abductions are often 
     denied the opportunity to attend school or to receive health 
     and dental care;
       (9) child psychologists and law enforcement authorities now 
     classify family abduction as a form of child abuse;
       (10) approximately 70 percent of local law enforcement 
     agencies do not have written guidelines for what to do in the 
     event of a family abduction or how to facilitate the recovery 
     of an abducted child;
       (11) the first few hours of a family abduction are crucial 
     to recovering an abducted child, and valuable hours are lost 
     when law enforcement is not prepared to employ the most 
     effective techniques to locate and recover abducted children;
       (12) when parents who may be inclined to abduct their own 
     children receive counseling and education on the harm 
     suffered by children under these circumstances, the incidence 
     of family abductions is greatly reduced; and
       (13) where practiced, the flagging of school records has 
     proven to be an effective tool in assisting law enforcement 
     authorities find abducted children.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

     In this Act:
       (1) Family abduction.--The term ``family abduction'' means 
     the taking, keeping, or concealing of a child or children by 
     a parent, other family member, or person acting on behalf of 
     the parent or family member, that prevents another individual 
     from exercising lawful custody or visitation rights.
       (2) Flagging.--The term ``flagging'' means the process of 
     notifying law enforcement authorities of the name and address 
     of any person requesting the school records of an abducted 
     child.
       (3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any 
     Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 
     community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or 
     village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to 
     the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.), which is recognized as eligible for the special 
     programs and services provided by the United States to 
     Indians because of their status as Indians.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
     American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, any territory or 
     possession of the United States, and any Indian tribe.

     SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATES.

       (a) Matching Grants.--The Attorney General shall make 
     grants to States for projects involving--
       (1) the extradition of individuals suspected of committing 
     a family abduction back to the State from which the child was 
     taken;

[[Page 4232]]

       (2) the investigation by State and local law enforcement 
     agencies of family abduction cases;
       (3) the training of State and local law enforcement 
     agencies in responding to family abductions and recovering 
     abducted children, including the development of written 
     guidelines and technical assistance;
       (4) outreach and media campaigns to educate parents on the 
     dangers of family abductions; and
       (5) the flagging of school records.
       (b) Matching Requirement.--Not less than 50 percent of the 
     cost of a project for which a grant is made under this 
     section shall be provided by non-Federal sources.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       For the purpose of carrying out this Act, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General 
     $500,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 2200. A bill to extend nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 
relations treatment) to the products of Laos; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. 2200

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TO LAOS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Lao People's Democratic Republic is pursuing a 
     broad policy of adopting market-based reforms to enhance its 
     economic competitiveness and achieve an attractive climate 
     for investment;
       (2) extension of normal trade relations treatment would 
     assist the Lao People's Democratic Republic in developing its 
     economy based on free market principles and becoming 
     competitive in the global marketplace;
       (3) establishing normal commercial relations on a 
     reciprocal basis with the Lao People's Democratic Republic 
     will promote United States exports to the rapidly growing 
     southeast Asian region and expand opportunities for United 
     States business and investment in the Lao People's Democratic 
     Republic economy;
       (4) United States and Laotian commercial interests would 
     benefit from the bilateral trade agreement between the United 
     States and the Lao People's Democratic Republic, signed in 
     2003, providing for market access and the protection of 
     intellectual property rights;
       (5) the Lao People's Democratic Republic has taken 
     cooperative steps with the United States in the global war on 
     terrorism, combating the trafficking of narcotics, and the 
     accounting for American servicemen and civilians still 
     missing from the Vietnam war; and
       (6) expanding bilateral trade relations that include a 
     commercial agreement may promote further progress by the Lao 
     People's Democratic Republic on human rights, religious 
     tolerance, democratic rule, and transparency, and assist that 
     country in adopting regional and world trading rules and 
     principles.
       (b) Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment to the 
     Products of the Lao People's Democratic Republic.--
       (1) Harmonized tariff schedule amendment.--General note 
     3(b) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
     is amended by striking ``Laos''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the effective date of 
     a notice published in the Federal Register by the United 
     States Trade Representative that a trade agreement obligating 
     reciprocal most-favored-nation treatment between the Lao 
     People's Democratic Republic and the United States has 
     entered into force.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2201. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide for 
secondary containment to prevent methyl tertiary butyl ether and 
petroleum contamination; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
prevent chemicals that leak from underground storage tanks from causing 
environmental and public health damage. My colleague in the House of 
Representatives, Mr. Dingell, is introducing companion legislation.
  Underground storage tanks can hold extremely toxic chemicals that can 
move rapidly through soil, contaminating the ground, aquifers, streams 
and other bodies of water. Underground storage tanks are located in 
urban and rural areas. When they leak, they present substantial risks 
to groundwater quality, human health, environmental quality, and 
economic growth.
  There are approximately 700,000 underground storage tanks in the 
United States, and more than 430,000 confirmed releases from these 
tanks as of mid-2003. By and large, MTBE contamination has come from 
leaking underground storage tanks. MTBE has contaminated water supplies 
in 43 States. Twenty-nine States have drinking water contamination. 
Estimates indicate that it will cost at least $29 billion to clean up 
MTBE contamination nationwide. Currently, the leaking underground 
storage tanks program and other laws ensure that responsible parties 
pay to clean up the damage caused by these leaking spills.
  However, the best solution to leaking underground storage tanks is to 
prevent them from leaking in the first place with the use of secondary 
containment, such as double walls. There is already widespread support 
for this throughout the country. Twenty-one States already require 
secondary containment, either for all new or replaced tanks--such as in 
California, or for all new or replaced tanks in sensitive areas. In 
addition, two States are awaiting final passage or approval of such 
requirements, and one State requires tertiary, such as triple walls, 
containment. According to figures from the Petroleum Equipment 
Institute, 57 percent of all tanks installed from 2000 through 2003 
were double walled.
  But this is not fast enough in the face of the threats to our 
drinking and groundwater. Approximately 50 percent of the population 
relies on groundwater for their drinking water. In 2000, 42 States had 
MTBE detected in soil or groundwater at gasoline-contaminated leaking 
underground storage tank sites. The time to prevent contamination is 
now.
  We must ensure the environmental health and safety of our water. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Feingold, and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 2202. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to give 
district courts of the United States jurisdiction over competing State 
custody determinations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Feingold and 
Senator Lincoln to introduce the ``Bring Our Children Home Act,'' a 
bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by family 
members and taken to a foreign country each year.
  Despite an increasingly high level of Congressional and public 
concern regarding international parental abduction and the wrongful 
retention of American children abroad, the situation facing American 
children and their left-behind parents in these cases has not improved 
and continues to be a serious problem.
  The Bring Our Children Home Act would help prevent both domestic and 
international family abductions. Specifically, the bill would:
  Establish a right of action in Federal court for resolution of child 
custody disputes;
  Give law enforcement the authority to detain any child who has been 
entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center's database 
under any category of the Missing Person File for 24 hours or until a 
disposition can be made;
  Amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require information on 
each country's efforts to prohibit international child abduction;
  Require federally-funded supervised visitation centers to provide 
services in child custody cases wherein a State court finds that there 
is a risk of abduction and orders supervised visitation as a preventive 
measure; and
  Most importantly, it would provide a national registry of custody 
orders which would allow law enforcement the confidence to intervene in 
situations and aid a custodial parent to be reunited with their child, 
or to stop an abduction in progress. The National

[[Page 4233]]

Center for Missing and Exploited Children is aware of cases in which 
law enforcement felt unable to intervene because parents represented 
conflicting orders. Such conflict has lead to international abductions 
that could have been prevented.
  As of May 31, 2003, the U.S. Department of State's Office of 
Children's Issues was aware of 1060 international abduction cases, 904 
open abduction cases and 156 access cases, initiated by U.S.-based 
parents seeking a child's return or access to a child currently in a 
foreign country. The actual number of children being kept abroad is 
higher than this, as these are open cases, not numbers of children. And 
new cases are reported every week.
  As international marriages have increased in recent decades, so have 
accusations of international child abduction according to Karolina 
Walkin, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman.
  In a 2001 Contra Costa Times article, parents complained that the 
Justice Department has little interest in their international abduction 
cases and the State Department was unwilling to disrupt diplomatic 
relations over abducted children. Written policy directs consular 
officers to remain neutral, no matter the circumstances.
  A 2000 General Accounting Office report noted that the FBI has made 
limited use of the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. 
Despite at least 1,000 international parental abductions from the 
United States annually, the Bureau has prosecuted only 62 cases in 7 
years.
  The Bring Our Children Home Act requires the Department of Justice 
and Department of State to report to Congress on International Parental 
Kidnapping Crime Act warrants and extradition. We must make sure that 
we are utilizing the tools that we have available to recover abducted 
children.
  The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child 
Abduction is an international agreement among 54 nations, including the 
United States, that established civil procedures to follow when 
locating, accessing, or returning abducted children.
  This legislation would provide additional support for left-behind 
parents and it would ease their ability to bring resolution to their 
case and their children home.
  For countries that are not party to the Hague Convention, it is a 
case- and country-specific matter. For example, in Saudi Arabia, a wife 
or child of a Saudi man may not leave the country without his prior 
written permission. There have been many cases in which adult female 
American citizens have been unable to leave Saudi Arabia because they 
have not been able to obtain the written permission of their male 
guardian, regardless of their constitutionally guaranteed rights as a 
U.S. citizen.
  This legislation would require that the Department of State report to 
Congress on their progress in negotiating with countries who are not 
part of the Hague Convention, such as Saudi Arabia.
  The ``Bring Our Children Home Act'' would be an important step in 
helping these families reunite. It gives law enforcement the tools they 
need to identify children illegally abducted by family members and 
return them home.
  I urge my colleagues to support 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. 2202

       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 ``Bring Our Children Home 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. JURISDICTION OVER COMPETING STATE CUSTODY ORDERS.

       Section 1738A of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) If a court of 1 State makes a child custody 
     determination in accordance with subsection (c) and if that 
     determination is in conflict with a determination made by 
     another State in accordance with subsection (c), a contestant 
     for whom such a determination was made may bring an action in 
     the district court of the United States the district of which 
     includes the resident of such contestant to determine, on the 
     basis of the best interests of the child involved, which 
     determination shall prevail.''.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CUSTODY ORDERS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a 
     national child custody and visitation registry in which shall 
     be entered--
       (1) certified copies of custody and visitation 
     determinations made by courts throughout the United States 
     (and foreign custody orders concerning children temporarily 
     or permanently resident in the United States);
       (2) information identifying pending proceedings in courts 
     throughout the United States for initial, modification, or 
     enforcement orders; and
       (3) information identifying proceedings filed in any court 
     in the United States pursuant to the Hague Convention on the 
     Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the 
     International Child Abduction Remedies Act, and resulting 
     orders.
       (b) Cooperation.--The Attorney General shall seek the 
     cooperation of Federal and State courts in each State, and 
     the District of Columbia, in providing relevant information 
     to the registry on an ongoing basis. The Attorney General 
     shall provide such financial and technical assistance as 
     necessary.
       (c) Access.--The registry shall be accessible to courts, 
     law enforcement officials, custody contestants, and their 
     legal representatives.

     SEC. 4. DETENTION OF CHILDREN LISTED AS MISSING.

        Law enforcement officers of any State or local government 
     may hold, for not more than 24 hours or until a disposition 
     can be made, any child listed under any category of the 
     Missing Person File by the National Crime Information Center 
     for the proper disposition of the child in accordance with 
     the latest valid custody determination applicable to the 
     child.

     SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION REMEDIES.

       (a) Legal Assistance for Victims of Parental Kidnapping.--
     Section 7 of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 11606) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Legal Assistance for Victims of Parental Kidnapping 
     Grants.--
       ``(1) Funding to legal services providers.--The Central 
     Authority shall establish a program to provide funding to 
     legal services providers, including private attorneys, public 
     officials acting pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody 
     Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, legal aid programs, and law 
     school clinical programs, to provide direct legal or advocacy 
     services on behalf of persons seeking remedies under the 
     Convention, or other civil or criminal remedies in interstate 
     or international parental kidnapping cases.
       ``(2) Training and technical assistance.--The Central 
     Authority, directly or through grants, shall provide training 
     and technical assistance to recipients of funds under 
     paragraph (1) to improve their capacity to offer legal 
     assistance described in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Legal Services Corporation.--The Legal Services 
     Corporation may use funds made available to the Corporation 
     for programs to represent aliens in proceedings brought in 
     the United States under the Convention--
       (1) if the individuals to whom the representation is 
     provided otherwise meet the criteria of the Corporation for 
     eligible clients under the Legal Services Corporation Act; 
     and
       (2) whether or not such individuals are resident in the 
     United States.
       (c) Exemption From Court Costs.--Section 8(b) of the 
     International Child Abduction Remedies Act (42 U.S.C. 
     11607(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively;
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: 
     ``(1) No court costs may be assessed on a petitioner in 
     connection with a petition seeking the return of, or rights 
     of access to, a child located in the United States, pursuant 
     to this Act.
       ``(2) Petitioners may be required to bear the costs of 
     legal counsel or advisors, court costs incurred in connection 
     with their petitions (other than petitions described in 
     paragraph (1)) and travel costs for the return of the child 
     involved and any accompanying persons, except as provided in 
     paragraphs (3) and (4).''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (4)''; and
       (B) by inserting ``(other than in connection with a 
     petition described in paragraph (1))'' after ``or court 
     costs''.
       (d) Responsibilities of United States Central Authority.--
     Section 7 of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 11606) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Technical Assistance.--The United States Central 
     Authority shall encourage the Chief Justice of every State 
     and the District of Columbia to designate a single court, or 
     a limited number of courts, in which cases brought under the 
     Convention may be heard.

[[Page 4234]]

     The Central Authority may provide technical assistance 
     (including computers and Internet access) as necessary to 
     foster consolidation of jurisdiction and implementation of 
     the Convention, consistent with the purposes of the 
     Convention.
       ``(g) Training.--The United States Central Authority shall 
     provide or promote training of State court judges, lawyers, 
     and law students on the civil and criminal laws pertaining to 
     interstate and international parental kidnapping. To carry 
     out this subsection, the United States Central Authority may 
     make available funds under subsection (e) to State judicial 
     educators, national, State, and local bar associations, and 
     law schools. The United States Central Authority shall 
     require recipients of such funds to report on the training 
     programs they present, including the number of 
     participants.''.
       (e) Federal Judicial Center.--Section 620 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Continuing Education and Training Programs.--The 
     Center shall include in its continuing education and training 
     programs, including the training programs for newly appointed 
     judges, information on the Hague Convention on the Civil 
     Aspects of International Child Abduction, the International 
     Child Abduction Remedies Act, the International Parental 
     Kidnapping Crime Act, and other Federal statutes pertaining 
     to parental kidnapping within the jurisdiction of the Federal 
     courts, and shall prepare materials necessary to carry out 
     this subsection.''.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION.

       (a) Report on Progress in Negotiating Bilateral Treaties 
     With Non-Hague Convention Countries.--The Secretary of State 
     shall prepare and submit to the Congress an annual report on 
     progress made by the United States in negotiating and 
     entering into bilateral treaties (or other international 
     agreements) relating to international child abduction with 
     countries that are not contracting parties to the Hague 
     Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child 
     Abduction.
       (b) Report on Human Rights Practices.--(1) Section 116(d) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) the status of efforts in each country to prohibit 
     international child abduction, including--
       ``(A) efforts to expedite the return of children to the 
     country of their habitual residence; and
       ``(B) the extent to which the country respects the rights 
     of custody and of access under the laws of other 
     countries.''.
       (2) Section 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2304(b)) is amended by inserting after the sixth 
     sentence the following: ``Each report under this section 
     shall include information on the status of efforts in each 
     country to prohibit international child abduction, including 
     efforts to expedite the return of children to the country of 
     their habitual residence and the extent to which the country 
     respects the rights of custody and of access under the laws 
     of other countries.''.
       (c) Report on Enforcement of Section 1204 of Title 18, 
     United States Code.--The Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, shall prepare and submit to the 
     Congress an annual report that contains a description of the 
     status of each case involving a request during the preceding 
     year for extradition to the United States of an individual 
     alleged to have violated section 1204 of title 18, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 7. SUPPORT FOR UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACT.

        From amounts made available to carry out this section, the 
     Attorney General shall support, directly or through grants 
     and contracts, the adoption and implementation by the States 
     of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement 
     Act, as adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners 
     on Uniform State Laws (in this section referred to as the 
     ``UCCJEA''). The support provided under this section shall 
     include the following activities:
       (1) Activities to promote the adoption of the UCCJEA by 
     States that have not yet adopted it.
       (2) Activities to provide training to lawyers and to judges 
     and other appropriate public officials to ensure that the 
     UCCJEA is implemented effectively and uniformly throughout 
     the United States.
       (3) Activities to provide guidance and funding to States to 
     facilitate and expedite the enforcement by those States of 
     the custody and visitation provisions of the UCCJEA.

     SEC. 8. FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER EDUCATION PROGRAMS ON 
                   PARENTAL KIDNAPPING.

       The Federal Judicial Center, in fulfilling its function to 
     stimulate, create, develop, and conduct programs of 
     continuing education and training for personnel of the 
     judicial branch of the Government and other persons (as 
     specified in section 620(b)(3) of title 28, United States 
     Code), shall ensure that those programs include education, 
     training, and materials on the Hague Convention on the Civil 
     Aspects of International Child Abduction, the International 
     Child Abduction Remedies Act, the International Parental 
     Kidnapping Crime Act, and such other international and 
     Federal laws relating to parental kidnapping as are within 
     the jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

     SEC. 9. USE OF SUPERVISED VISITATION CENTERS UNDER THE SAFE 
                   HAVENS FOR CHILDREN PILOT PROGRAM IN SITUATIONS 
                   INVOLVING THE RISK OF PARENTAL KIDNAPPING.

       Section 1301(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 
     (42 U.S.C. 10420(a)) is amended by striking ``or stalking'' 
     and inserting ``stalking, or the risk of parental 
     kidnapping''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE:
  S. 2203. A bill to provide assistance to combat HIV/AIDS in India, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
make India eligible for assistance under the Emergency Plan for AIDS 
Relief.
  India is facing a critical moment. An estimated 4.58 million people 
are infected with the HIV virus in India and HIV/AIDS has been reported 
in almost all the states and union territories of the country. The 
epidemic is spreading rapidly from urban to rural areas and from high-
risk groups to the general population. Given India's size and the 
mobility of its population, there is a serious threat of catastrophe.
  India's political leaders, public health officials, non-governmental 
organizations, and medical and scientific communities have taken 
important steps to combat HIV/AIDS. India, the world's largest 
democracy, has skilled governmental and civil society actors who are 
committed to a new awareness of the AIDS crisis and strategic 
approaches to combating the disease. But significant gaps remain in the 
Indian health care system's ability to address the full scope of the 
crisis. These gaps require immediate and sustained U.S. engagement and 
contribution of resources.
  We must continue to expand the list of eligible countries in 
recognition of the global nature of this pandemic. We must also 
accelerate assistance to African and Caribbean countries already 
included as focus countries. Finally, we must increase overall funding 
to combat HIV/AIDS. India is but one example of the enormity of the 
HIV/AIDS epidemic. But it is also an example of the opportunities for 
America to reach out and find partners in combating this scourge. It is 
not true that programs to fight AIDS cannot absorb more resources. 
There is critical and urgent work to be done and committed 
professionals ready to do it. They just need our help.
  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. 2203

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Government of India has estimated that 4,580,000 
     people in India are infected with the human immunodeficiency 
     virus (``HIV'') and cases of individuals with the acquired 
     immune deficiency syndrome (``AIDS'') have been reported in 
     almost all the states and union territories of India.
       (2) The effort to combat the HIV and AIDS epidemic in India 
     has reached a critical point, as the epidemic is spreading 
     rapidly from urban to rural areas and from high-risk groups 
     to the general population.
       (3) Political leaders, public health officials, non-
     governmental organizations, and medical and scientific 
     communities in India have taken important steps to combat HIV 
     and AIDS in that country, but assistance from the United 
     States is urgently needed to enhance such efforts.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the addition of India as a country for which the 
     Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat 
     HIV/AIDS Globally has responsibilities under section 
     1(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII) of the State Department Basic Authorities 
     Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII)) should not 
     decrease the amount of funding the Coordinator makes 
     available for assistance to any other such country;

[[Page 4235]]

       (2) the United States should continue to increase the 
     number of countries eligible to receive assistance from the 
     United States to combat HIV and AIDS; and
       (3) the United States should increase the total amount of 
     assistance available to combat HIV and AIDS.

     SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS IN INDIA.

       Section 1(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII) of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII)) 
     is further amended by inserting ``India,'' after ``Haiti,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cornyn, and Mrs. 
        Feinstein):
  S. 2204. A bill to provide criminal penalties for false information 
and hoaxes relating to terrorism; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since the September 11th attacks against 
our Nation, each of us is more conscious of our individual safety and 
security. No example hit closer to home than when anthrax-infected 
letters made their way into Senators' offices. Senators, 
Representatives and staffers were forced to vacate offices, advised to 
take strong antibiotics, and faced with the uncertainty of whether they 
contracted a life-threatening disease.
  In response to this vulnerability that is now inherent in our 
everyday lives, Congress has beefed up law enforcement and intelligence 
tools to combat terrorism better. The key to fighting terrorism is to 
target those planning terrorist acts and capture them before they can 
realize their horrific goals. Our law enforcement communities have 
utilized the new tools we have provided them to respond in a dedicated 
and professional way to these new challenges.
  Unfortunately, we are beginning to see a number of instances where 
cruel and depraved individuals have engaged in terrorist hoaxes. For 
example, people have sent letters containing powder or sugar and a note 
stating that the recipient has now been infected by anthrax. These 
hoaxes are more than a bad joke. They require a substantial and costly 
response--evacuation of buildings, emergency medical tests or 
treatment, and laboratory action. Hoaxes like these, which mimic 
terrorist acts, undermine public confidence by spreading panic and 
fear, and drain valuable resources from Federal, State, and local 
government agencies which must respond to the hoax.
  Under current Federal law, it is a felony to perpetrate certain 
hoaxes, such as saying there is a bomb on an airplane. It is also 
illegal to communicate a threat using the facilities of interstate 
commerce that could cause personal injury to someone. However, because 
hoaxes related to anthrax or other Federal crimes do not always contain 
specific threats, they may not be covered by current federal law. The 
Congressional Research Service has noted that this is a gap within the 
current Federal code.
  Clearly, there is a need for tough legislation to reflect the 
seriousness of this type of crime. This is why Senators Schumer, 
Cornyn, Feinstein and I are introducing the Stop Terrorist and Military 
Hoaxes Act of 2004. The legislation criminalizes conduct that conveys 
false or misleading information under circumstances where such 
information may reasonably be believed. The bill covers hoaxes related 
to biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons and other federal crimes 
that do not contain specific or express threats.
  In addition, this bill criminalizes intentionally false statements 
concerning the death, injury, capture or disappearance of a member of 
the United States Armed Forces. During the recent liberation of Iraq, 
there were several cruel hoaxes played on family members of those who 
were risking their very lives in the service of our country. Family 
members sacrifice alongside service men and women who place their lives 
in danger in the service of our country. Those family members deserve 
to be treated with respect and should be free from these cruel 
deceptions. This bill makes sure that these malicious pranks can be 
punished appropriately.
  America is engaged in a war on terrorisms. In addition to protecting 
our citizens from terrorist acts, we also need to take measures to 
ensure that our law enforcement resources are not needlessly wasted by 
responding to these offensive and expensive terrorist hoaxes. I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 2205. A bill to authorize the extension of unconditional and 
permanent nondiscriminatory treatment (permanent normal trade relations 
treatment) to the products of Ukraine, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to grant normal 
trade treatment to the products of Ukraine. My brother, Congressman 
Sander Levin, has introduced an identical bill in the House. We 
introduced similar bills in the 107th Congress. It is our hope that 
enactment of this legislation, which builds upon and improves our 
previous legislative efforts, will help build stronger ties between the 
United States and Ukraine.
  Roughly three decades ago, the Jackson-Vanik amendment was included 
in the Trade Act of 1974. While relatively small in number of words, 
this provision helped open up an entire society by exposing the 
repressive tactics of the Soviet Union. By focusing attention on the 
emigration restrictions that the Soviet Union placed on its Jewish 
citizens, the Jackson-Vanik amendment reiterated American concern about 
the wide-scale human rights abuses occurring in the Soviet Union. In 
the process, the Jackson-Vanik amendment played a vital role in 
changing Soviet society.
  The values that for nearly thirty years governed our relations with 
the Soviet Union, democracy, freedom and the rule of law, remain 
fundamental values to our nation. This bill seeks to address those 
concerns while recognizing the anachronistic nature of applying 
Jackson-Vanik to Ukraine. In addition, this bill provides Congress with 
a meaningful and effective tool to ensure that U.S. interests are fully 
addressed in World Trade Organization negotiations for Ukraine.
  Ukraine does allow its citizens the right and opportunity to 
emigrate. Ukraine has been certified as meeting the Jackson-Vanik 
requirements on an annual basis since 1992 when a bilateral trade 
agreement went into effect. It is now time for the United States 
recognize this reality by eliminating the Jackson-Vanik restrictions 
and granting Ukraine normal trading status on a permanent basis. Our 
bill does this while addressing traditional Jackson-Vanik issues such 
as emigration, religious freedom, restoration of property, and human 
rights. These are the issues that led to the creation of the Jackson-
Vanik amendment, and we should not ignore them at this time.
  Ukraine has taken some steps toward the creation of democratic 
institutions and a free-market economy, but much more remains to be 
done. The way in which Ukraine's October 2004 presidential elections 
are conducted will go a long way toward determining the future path 
this important strategic partner and ally will take.
  The world is closely watching the process and conduct of this year's 
presidential elections in Ukraine. Free and fair elections, regardless 
of their final outcome, will be an important step toward Ukraine's 
rapproachment with the community of nations. This election will be 
vital for the process by which it is conducted. Thus far, there remains 
reason for concern.
  In Ukraine, there are many working to promote free and fair 
elections; however, the staff of many civic and non-governmental 
organizations are being harassed, intimidated and even physically 
harmed. In addition, members of the media are facing similarly hostile 
and life threatening situations. Just this month, Ukrainian affiliates 
of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have been taken off the air, 
arrested and had their stations raided. Such actions are inexcusable 
and not in keeping with the fundamental values of freedom, openness and 
the rule of law. It is my hope that the October 2004 elections will aid 
Ukraine's transformation from a nation where fear undermines public 
discourse into a nation

[[Page 4236]]

where all facets of society can freely engage in the market-place of 
ideas without fear of recrimination. The Ukrainian people deserve no 
less.
  Jackson-Vanik no longer applies to Ukraine and should be waived. But 
we need to utilize other ways to address the many problems facing 
Ukraine. I also hope that this legislation will remind Ukraine of the 
benefits it can and will accrue when it rightfully assumes its place 
among those nations that are guided by democracy, transparency and the 
rule of law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S.J. Res. 29. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States which requires (except during time of 
war and subject to suspension by the Congress) that the total amount of 
money expended by the United States during any fiscal year not exceed 
the amount of certain revenue received by the United States during such 
fiscal year and not exceed 20 per centum of the gross national product 
of the United States during the previous calendar year; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal 
Government's fiscal year 2005 budget, I can think of no better time to 
discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. 
It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to introduce a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  This is the same amendment that I have introduced in every Congress 
since the 97th Congress. Throughout my entire tenure in Congress, 
during the good economic times and the bad, I have devoted much time 
and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most 
important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of 
all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget.
  Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding 
the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary 
constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``. . . there is a 
general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of 
man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas 
Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the 
burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question 
whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it 
imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the 
fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves 
unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to 
pay them ourselves.''
  I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that 
Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future 
generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the 
past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal 
Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's 
assessment of the significance of this is also correct: 
intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong.
  Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and 
``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the 
promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, 
the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, 
it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are 
allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for 
current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this 
same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and 
the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. 
But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a 
ballooning Federal debt.
  A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain 
mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the 
Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren 
with the current generation's debts.
  A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the 
everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would 
dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with 
a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any 
other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by 
balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into 
the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the government demand 
for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private 
sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth 
and create thousands of new jobs.
  More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the 
economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget 
amendment.
  On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the 
Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary 
interest payments. In fiscal year 2003, the Federal Government spent 
more than $318 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. 
That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and 
crime programs combined.
  We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring 
them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on 
improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a 
cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in 
the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is 
being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government 
continue to block all efforts to balance the budget.
  A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution 
to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a 
path to paying off our national debt, which is currently more than $7 
trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no 
longer be wasted on interest payments.
  Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is 
something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget 
would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that 
would require the Federal Government to do what every American already 
has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs 
to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this 
extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to 
the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned 
tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and 
future generations of Americans that much.
  We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from 
Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force 
Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this 
year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal 
budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important 
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.J. Res. 29

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, to be valid only if ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within 7 years of the 
     date of final passage of this joint resolution:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. The total amount of money expended by the 
     United States in any fiscal year shall not exceed the total 
     amount of revenue received by the United States during such 
     fiscal year, except revenue received from the issuance of 
     bonds, notes, or other obligations of the United States.
       ``Section 2. The total amount of money expended by the 
     United States in any fiscal year shall not exceed the amount 
     equal to 20

[[Page 4237]]

     per centum of the gross national product of the United States 
     during the last calendar year ending before the beginning of 
     such fiscal year.
       ``Section 3. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article shall not 
     apply during any fiscal year during any part of which the 
     United States is at war as declared by the Congress under 
     section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.
       ``Section 4. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article may be 
     suspended by a concurrent resolution approved by a three-
     fifths vote of the Members of each House of the Congress. Any 
     suspension of sections 1 and 2 of this Article under this 
     section shall be effective only during the fiscal year during 
     which such suspension is approved.
       ``Section 5. This Article shall take effect on the first 
     day of the first fiscal year beginning after the date of the 
     adoption of this Article.
       ``Section 6. The Congress shall have power to enforce this 
     Article by appropriate legislation.''.

                          ____________________