[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3050-3060]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 477. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include 
Indian tribes among the entities consulted with respect to activities 
carried out by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal 
Government Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Senator 
Inouye joins me in sponsoring this measure.
  It is well known that tribal governments serve as the primary 
instruments of law enforcement and emergency response for the more than 
fifty million acres of land that comprise Indian country.
  More than twenty-five Indian tribes have jurisdiction over lands that 
are either adjacent to international borders or are directly accessible 
to an international border by boat. These lands consist of over 260 
miles of the 7,400 miles of the international borders the United States 
shares with Canada and Mexico.
  But it is not only tribes located on or near international borders or 
waters that have a role to play in protecting the Nation's strategic 
assets. Energy resources located on tribal lands make up a significant 
snare of the United States' energy resources. Tribal governments hold 
title to 30 percent of the coal resources west of the Mississippi 
River, 37 percent of potential uranium resources, and three percent of 
known oil and gas resources in the United States.
  There is also extensive infrastructure located on or near tribal 
lands that is critical to our Nation's security--including dams, 
hydroelectric facilities, nuclear power generating plants, oil and gas 
pipelines, transportation corridors of railroads and highway systems, 
and communications towers.
  Like other governments, tribal governments need the necessary 
resources to develop their capacities to respond to threats of 
terrorism including access to information and information warning 
systems, law enforcement data bases, and health alert systems related 
to the possible use of chemical and biological warfare.
  The Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides the authority for the 
establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the various 
duties and responsibilities of the Department and its employees. Many 
provisions of the Act reference State and local governments, but 
unfortunately, Indian tribal governments were erroneously included in 
the definition of ``local government'' in the Act as if tribal 
governments were political subdivisions of each State.
  The Federal government has long recognized that Indian tribes are 
separate, I distinct sovereigns, with which the United States has a 
government-to-government relationship. The U.S. Supreme Court has 
consistently sustained this status and the United States' relationship 
with the tribal governments. The United States' policy of tribal self-
governance and self-determination has proven to be the most successful 
for Indian tribes.
  The measure that I introduce today would treat Indian tribes as the 
separate political entities that they are, consistent with the Federal 
policy of tribal self-governance and self-determination. The bill 
amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by removing Indian tribes from 
the definition of ``local government'' and instead including the terms 
``Indian tribe'' and ``tribal government'' in the appropriate places 
where the terms ``State'' and ``local governments'' are used.
  This bill would also explicitly vest the Secretary of the Department 
of Homeland Security with the discretionary authority to provide direct 
funding to Indian tribal governments.

[[Page 3051]]

Because Indian tribes are already eligible for funding by virtue of 
their inclusion in the definition of ``local government,'' this bill 
will not require additional funding nor will it divert any resources 
away from States or local governments.
  It is clear that Indian tribal governments have a vital role to play 
in the protection of our Nation's security, and I would urge my 
colleagues to give their favorable consideration to this measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 477

       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 ``Tribal Government Amendments 
     to the Homeland Security Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) there is a government-to-government relationship 
     between the United States and each Indian tribal government;
       (2) through statutes and treaties, Congress has recognized 
     the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribal governments and the 
     rights of Native people to self-determination and self-
     governance;
       (3) each Indian tribal government possesses the inherent 
     sovereign authority--
       (A)(i) to establish its own form of government;
       (ii) to adopt a constitution or other organic governing 
     documents; and
       (iii) to establish a tribal judicial system; and
       (B) to provide for the health and safety of those who 
     reside on tribal lands, including the provision of law 
     enforcement services on lands under the jurisdiction of the 
     tribal government;
       (4) tribal emergency response providers, such as tribal 
     emergency public safety officers, law enforcement officers, 
     emergency response personnel, emergency medical personnel and 
     facilities (including tribal and Indian Health Service 
     emergency facilities), and related personnel, agencies, and 
     authorities--
       (A) play a crucial role in providing for the health and 
     safety of those who reside on tribal lands; and
       (B) are necessary components of a comprehensive system to 
     secure the homeland of the United States;
       (5) there are more than 25 Indian tribes that have primary 
     jurisdiction over--
       (A) lands within the United States that is adjacent to the 
     Canadian or Mexican border; or
       (B) waters of the United States that provide direct access 
     by boat to lands within the United States;
       (6) the border lands under the jurisdiction of Indian 
     tribal governments comprises more than 260 miles of the 
     approximately 7,400 miles of international border of the 
     United States;
       (7) numerous Indian tribal governments exercise criminal, 
     civil, and regulatory jurisdiction over lands on which dams, 
     oil and gas deposits, nuclear or electrical power plants, 
     water and sanitation systems, or timber or other natural 
     resources are located; and
       (8) the involvement of tribal governments in the protection 
     of the homeland of the United States is essential to the 
     comprehensive maintenance of the homeland security of the 
     United States.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to ensure 
     that--
       (1) the Department of Homeland Security consults with, 
     involves, coordinates with, and includes Indian tribal 
     governments in carrying out the mission of the Department 
     under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296); 
     and
       (2) Indian tribal governments participate fully in the 
     protection of the homeland of the United States.

     SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS; DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 116 Stat. 
     2135) is amended by striking the item relating to section 801 
     and inserting the following:

``Sec. 801. Office of State, Tribal, and Local Government 
              Coordination.''.

       (b) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 101) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (9), (10), (11), (12), 
     (13), (14), (15), and (16) as paragraphs (10), (11), (12), 
     (13), (14), (15), (16), and (19), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any 
     Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 
     community located in the continental United States (excluding 
     the State of Alaska) that is recognized as being eligible for 
     the special programs and services provided by the United 
     States to Indians because of their status as Indians.''; and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (16) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2)) the following:
       ``(17) Tribal college or university.--The term `tribal 
     college or university' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 316(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1059c(b)).
       ``(18) Tribal government.--The term `tribal government' 
     means the governing body of an Indian tribe that is 
     recognized by the Secretary of the Interior.''.

     SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

       (a) Secretary; Functions.--Section 102 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112) (as amended by section 
     7402 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
     of 2004 (Public Law 108-458)) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Office of State and Local Coordination'' and inserting 
     ``Office of State, Tribal, and Local Government Coordination 
     and Preparedness''; and
       (B) in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), by inserting ``, 
     tribal,'' after ``State'' each place it appears; and
       (2) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (10), by striking ``Office of State and 
     Local Government Coordination and Preparedness'' and 
     inserting ``Office of State, Tribal, and Local Government 
     Coordination and Preparedness''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7405 of the Intelligence 
     Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 112 
     note; Public Law 108-458) is amended by striking ``Office of 
     State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness'' 
     and inserting ``Office of State, Tribal, and Local Government 
     Coordination and Preparedness''.

     SEC. 5. INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION.

       (a) Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure 
     Protection.--Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 121(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1), (3), (6), (7)(B), (8), (9), (11), 
     (13), and (16), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``State'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (2) in paragraph (17), by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,''.
       (b) Access to Information.--Section 202(d)(2) of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 122(d)(2)) is amended 
     by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``State''.
       (c) Protection of Voluntarily Shared Critical 
     Infrastructure Information.--Section 214 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 133) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (D)(ii)(II), by striking ``General 
     Accounting Office.'' and inserting ``Government 
     Accountability Office;''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after 
     ``State'' each place it appears;
       (2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)(2)(D), by inserting ``, tribal,'' 
     after ``State''.
       (d) Enhancement of Non-Federal Cybersecurity.--Section 
     223(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 143(1)) 
     is amended by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``State''.
       (e) Mission of Office; Duties.--Section 232 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 162) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraphs (2) and (3), by inserting ``tribal,'' 
     after ``State,'' each place it appears;
       (B) in paragraph (6)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``tribal,'' after ``State,''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (H), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after 
     ``State''; and
       (C) in paragraphs (9), (11), and (14), by inserting ``, 
     tribal,'' after ``State'' each place it appears; and
       (3) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,''.
       (f) National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology 
     Centers.--Section 235(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (6 U.S.C. 165(d)) is amended by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,''.

     SEC. 6. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) Responsibilities and Authorities of the Undersecretary 
     for Science and Technology.--Section 302(6) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 182(6)) is amended by 
     inserting ``tribal,'' after ``State,''.
       (b) Conduct of Certain Public Health-related Activities.--
     Section 304(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     184(a)) is amended by inserting ``and the Indian Health 
     Service'' after ``Public Health Service''.
       (c) Conduct of Research, Development, Demonstration, 
     Testing, and Evaluation.--Section 308(b) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 188(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``colleges, 
     universities,'' and inserting ``colleges

[[Page 3052]]

     and universities (including tribal colleges and 
     universities),''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``(including tribal 
     colleges or universities)'' after ``universities''.
       (d) Utilization of Department of Energy National 
     Laboratories and Sites in Support of Homeland Security 
     Activities.--Section 309(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 189(d)) is amended by inserting ``, tribal,'' 
     after ``State''.
       (e) Homeland Security Institute.--Section 312(d) of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 192(d)) is amended by 
     inserting ``tribal colleges and universities,'' after 
     ``education,''.
       (f) Technology Clearinghouse to Encourage and Support 
     Innovative Solutions to Enhance Homeland Security.--Section 
     313 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 193) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (b), by 
     inserting ``tribal,'' after ``State,'' each place it appears; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after 
     ``State''.

     SEC. 7. DIRECTORATE OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.

       (a) Office for Domestic Preparedness.--Section 430(c)(5) of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 238(c)(5)) is 
     amended by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``State''.
       (b) Report on Improving Enforcement Functions.--Section 
     445(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 255(b)) 
     is amended by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``heads of 
     State''.

     SEC. 8. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE.

       (a) Responsibilities.--Section 502(5) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 312(5)) is amended by 
     inserting ``tribal,'' after ``State,''.
       (b) Conduct of Certain Public Health-related Activities.--
     Section 505(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     315(a)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``tribal,'' after ``State,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``and the Indian Health Service'' after 
     ``Public Health Service''.

     SEC. 9. TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE TRUSTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE 
                   ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER 
                   GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 601(c)(9)(B) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (6 U.S.C. 331(c)(9)(B)) is amended by inserting ``tribal,'' 
     after ``State,''.

     SEC. 10. COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR 
                   GENERAL; UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST 
                   GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Office for State and Local Government Coordination.--
     Section 801 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     361) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``, TRIBAL,'' 
     after ``STATE'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``, Tribal,'' after ``Office for State''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``relationships with 
     State''; and
       (3) in subsection (b), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after 
     ``State'' each place it appears.
       (b) Definitions for Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering 
     Effective Technologies Act.--Section 865(6) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 444(6)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``State''.
       (c) Regulatory Authority and Preemption.--Section 877(b) of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 457(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``, Tribal,'' 
     after ``State''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``State'' each place 
     it appears.
       (d) Information Sharing.--Section 891 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 481) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraphs (2), (4), (5), (7), (8), and (9), by 
     inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``State'' each place it 
     appears;
       (B) in paragraph (6)--
       (i) by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``certain State''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``tribal,'' after ``State,''; and
       (C) in paragraphs (10) and (11), by inserting ``tribal,'' 
     after ``State,'' each place it appears; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,''.
       (e) Facilitating Homeland Security Information Sharing 
     Procedures.--Section 892 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (6 U.S.C. 482) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by inserting ``, tribal,'' 
     after ``State'';
       (2) in paragraphs (1), (2)(D), and (6) of subsection (b), 
     by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``State'' each place it 
     appears;
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``, tribal,'' 
     after ``State''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``State'' each place 
     it appears;
       (4) in subsection (e), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after 
     ``State'' each place it appears;
       (5) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``, tribal,'' after ``State'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``tribally or'' 
     after ``other'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after 
     ``State''; and
       (iv) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,''; and
       (6) in subsection (g), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after 
     ``State''.
       (f) Report.--Section 893(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 483(a)) is amended in the second sentence by 
     inserting ``tribal,'' after ``State,''.

     SEC. 11. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONS.

       Section 1114(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 532(b)) is amended by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,''.

     SEC. 12. AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002.--
       (1) Emergency disclosure exception.--Section 2702(b)(8) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     ``tribal,'' after ``State,''.
       (2) Protecting privacy.--Section 2701(b)(1) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or Indian 
     tribe'' after ``or any State''.
       (b) National Institute of Justice.--Section 202(c)(11) of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3722(c)(11)) is amended by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,''.
       (c) Homeland Security Funding Analysis in President's 
     Budget.--Section 1105(a)(33)(A)(iii) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``, tribal,'' after 
     ``State''.
       (d) Authority to Share Electronic, Wire, and Oral 
     Interception Information.--Section 2517(8) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,'' each place it appears.
       (e) Foreign Intelligence Information.--Section 203(d)(1) of 
     the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 
     Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct 
     Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (50 U.S.C. 403-5d) is 
     amended by inserting ``tribal,'' after ``State,'' each place 
     it appears.
       (f) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance.--
       (1) Information acquired from an electronic surveillance.--
     Section 106(k)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1806(k)(1)) is amended by inserting 
     ``or Indian tribe'' after ``subdivision)''.
       (2) Information acquired from a physical search.--Section 
     305(k)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
     1978 (50 U.S.C. 1825(k)(1)) is amended by inserting ``or 
     Indian tribe'' after ``subdivision)''.
       (g) Transfer of Certain Security and Law Enforcement 
     Functions and Authorities.--Section 1315 of title 40, United 
     States Code (as amended by section 1706(b)(1) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 116 Stat. 2316)), 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(3), by inserting ``tribal,'' after 
     ``State,''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after 
     ``State'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION FOR DIRECT FUNDING.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security may provide any funds 
     made available under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-296) directly to any Indian tribe, band, 
     nation, or other organized group or community located in the 
     continental United States (excluding the State of Alaska) 
     that is recognized as being eligible for the special programs 
     and services provided by the United States to Indians because 
     of their status as Indians.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 478. A bill to designate the annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman 
Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 333 
Constitution Avenue Northwest in the District of Columbia as the 
``William B. Bryant Annex''; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to call attention to the 
extraordinary public service of Judge William B. Bryant. Last July, I 
introduced S. 2619, a bill that would have designated the new annex to 
the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C., 
the ``William B. Bryant Annex.'' It was the Senate companion bill to 
legislation introduced by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton of the 
District of Columbia.
  While the House bill passed by voice vote, the Senate bill was 
stalled by objection. There was concern that a courthouse annex be 
named for a judge still serving. This objection was adhered to despite 
the numerous exceptions to such a rule, including another exception 
enacted last year.
  It would have been worthy of celebration this last month, during 
Black History Month, if we could have held such a naming ceremony 
involving Judge Bryant. Others prevented that from taking place. I 
believe it important that we continue every month to recognize the 
extraordinary contributions

[[Page 3053]]

of African Americans. Congresswoman Norton has been willing to seek to 
accommodate those Senators who objected by revising this bill to delay 
the effective date of the naming until after Judge Bryant steps down 
from the Court. It is sadly ironic that Judge Bryant's continuing 
historic service is held against honoring him. He continues to perform 
duties as a senior Federal judge at the age of 93. I commend 
Congresswoman Norton for her efforts and determination. I hope that 
this change will remove the final impediment and allow the District of 
Columbia and the Nation to honor Judge Bryant before his 94th birthday 
this September.
  The value of Judge Bryant's service has been recognized by his 
colleagues. Judge Bryant and his lifelong service to the law was 
celebrated in a September 16, 2004 Washington Post article. The article 
details a life spent dedicated to public service.
  Judge Bryant began his legal career with the belief that lawyers 
could make a difference in eliminating the widespread racial 
segregation in the United States. He became a criminal defense lawyer 
in 1948, taking on many pro bono cases and was soon recognized by the 
U.S. Attorney's office for his skills as a defense attorney. The U.S. 
Attorney's office hired him in 1951 and he became the first African 
American to practice in Federal court here in the District.
  Judge Bryant was nominated by President Johnson to the Federal bench 
in 1965 and became the first African American Chief Judge for the 
United States District Court in D.C. Forty years later, Judge Bryant 
still works at the courthouse four days a week and the Washington Post 
reports that he handled more criminal trials than any other senior 
judge on the court last year. Judge Bryant said in an interview with 
the Post: ``I feel like I'm part of the woodwork. I have to think hard 
to think of a time when I wasn't in this courthouse.''
  The Washington Post article mentions that E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., 
the son of the judge for whom the Federal courthouse is named, praised 
the recommendation that the annex be named after Judge Bryant. He said 
that his father ``admired Judge Bryant tremendously'' and would have 
wanted the annex to be named after him.
  Before my introduction of this bill last year, Chief Judge Thomas F. 
Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 
requested for himself and all the other judges on the court that the 
newly constructed annex be named after Judge Bryant. They appreciate 
the historic significance of Judge Bryant's service.
  I urge the Senate this year to move ahead with this important 
commendation of Judge Bryant's lifetime of service and dedication to 
the principles of the Constitution and the law.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article and the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 16, 2004]

  A Lifetime of Faith in the Law; at 93, Senior Judge William Bryant 
             Still Wins Plaudits for Dedication to Justice

                           (By Carol Leonnig)

       A few days after the new U.S. District Courthouse opened on 
     Constitution Avenue in the fall of 1952, Bill Bryant walked 
     in to start work as a recently hired federal prosecutor.
       More than a half-century has passed, and Bryant's life 
     remains centered on that stately granite building in the 
     shadow of the U.S. Capitol. It's in those halls that he 
     became a groundbreaking criminal defense attorney, a federal 
     judge, and then the court's chief judge--the first African 
     American in that position.
       Today, at the age of 93, U.S. District Court Senior Judge 
     William Bryant still drives himself to work at the courthouse 
     four days a week and pushes his walker to his courtroom.
       At a recent birthday party for Bryant hosted by Vernon 
     Jordan, fellow Senior U.S. District Court Judge Louis 
     Oberdorfer remarked that there were ``only two people in the 
     world who really understood the Constitution'' and how it 
     touched the lives of real people.
       ``That's Hugo Black and Bill Bryant,'' said Oberdorfer. He 
     had clerked for Justice Hugo L. Black, who retired as an 
     associate justice in 1971 after serving on the Supreme Court 
     for 34 years.
       To honor Bryant's life's work, his fellow judges this past 
     spring unanimously recommended that a nearly completed 
     courthouse annex be named for him. The $110 million, 351,000-
     square-foot addition will add nine state-of-the-art 
     courtrooms and judges' offices to the courthouse and is 
     designed to meet the court's expansion needs for the next 30 
     years. It is slated to open next spring.
       In urging that the building be named for Bryant, his 
     supporters cite his devotion to the Constitution and his 
     belief that the law will produce a just result.
       During a rare interview in his sixth-floor office in the 
     federal courthouse, Bryant reached out for a pocket version 
     of the Constitution covered in torn green plastic lying on 
     the top of his desk. Holding it aloft in his right hand, he 
     told stories of his struggling former clients and made legal 
     phrases--``due process'' and ``equal protection''--seem like 
     life-saving staples.
       Though he needs his law clerk's arm to get up the steps to 
     the bench, he is a fairly busy senior jurist. He handled more 
     criminal trials than any other senior judge last year and 
     still surprises new lawyers with his sharp retorts.
       ``I feel like I'm part of the woodwork,'' Bryant said. ``I 
     have to think hard to think of a time when I wasn't in this 
     courthouse.''
       He started down his career path inspired by a Howard 
     University law professor who believed that lawyers could make 
     a difference in that time of racial segregation and 
     discrimination. Bryant said he remains convinced today that 
     lawyers can stop injustice whenever it arises.
       ``Without lawyers, this is just a piece of paper,'' Judge 
     Bryant said, gesturing with the well-worn Constitution. ``If 
     it weren't for lawyers, I'd still be three-fifths of a man. 
     If it weren't for lawyers, we'd still have signs directing 
     people this way and that, based on the color of their skin. 
     If it weren't for lawyers, you still wouldn't be able to 
     vote.
       ``The most important professions are lawyer and teacher, in 
     my opinion,'' he said.
       Some lawyers complain that Bryant is so rooted in his 
     criminal defense training that he shows some distrust of the 
     prosecution. And his practice of presiding over trials, but 
     asking other judges to sentence the people convicted, has 
     spurred some curiosity. He won't elaborate on the reason, but 
     his friends say he found the new federal sentencing 
     guidelines inflexible and harsh.
       A 1993 study found Bryant was reversed 17 percent of the 
     time by appellate judges--the average reversal rate for the 
     trial court.
       Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan presented the proposal to name 
     the annex after Bryant to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Sen. 
     Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) earlier this year, and they are now 
     trying to get Congress to approve the naming this fall. One 
     member, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), has tried to block 
     it, with his staff pointing to a D.C. policy that buildings 
     not be named after living people.
       Norton said numerous courts around the country have been 
     named in honor of living judges, and she said she looks 
     forward to meeting with Inhofe in person to convince him of 
     the wisdom of naming this building, designed by renowned 
     architect Michael Graves, after a barrier-breaking judge.
       ``This is no ordinary naming,'' she said. ``This is a truly 
     great African American judge whose accomplishments are 
     singular. First African American assistant U.S. attorney. 
     First African American chief judge.''
       E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., the son of the jurist for whom 
     the federal courthouse in Washington is named, also applauds 
     the proposed annex naming. He said his father ``admired Judge 
     Bryant tremendously'' and would have endorsed it, too.
       ``Whenever it's discussed, people brighten right up and 
     think it's a great idea,'' said Prettyman, himself a former 
     president of the D.C. Bar Association. ``I'm sorry it's hit 
     this snag. . . . If you were going to have an exception, my 
     personal opinion is you could not have a better exception 
     than for Judge Bryant.''
       William Benson Bryant is hailed as a true product of 
     Washington. Though he was born in a rural town in Alabama, he 
     moved to the city soon after turning 1. His grandfather, 
     fleeing a white lynch mob, relocated the extended family 
     here, including Bryant's father, a railroad porter, and his 
     mother, a housewife. They all made their first home on 
     Benning Road, which was then a dirt path hugging the eastern 
     shore of the Anacostia River.
       Bryant attended D.C. public schools when the city's black 
     children were taught in separate and grossly substandard 
     facilities. Still he flourished, studying politics at the 
     city's premier black high school, Dunbar, then going on to 
     Howard University. While working at night as an elevator 
     operator, he studied law and met his future wife, Astaire. 
     They were married for 60 years, until her death in 1997.
       He and his law classmates--the future civil rights 
     movement's intellectual warriors--worked at their dreams in 
     the basement office of their law professor, Charles Houston. 
     Houston promised the group, which included the future Supreme 
     Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and appellate judge 
     Spottswood Robinson, that lawyers armed with quick

[[Page 3054]]

     minds and the Constitution could end segregated schools and 
     unjust convictions of innocent black men.
       ``I kind of got fascinated by that,'' he said. ``We all 
     did.''
       But when Bryant graduated first in his class from Howard's 
     law school, there were no jobs for a black lawyer. He became 
     a chief research assistant to Ralph Bunche, an African 
     American diplomat who later was awarded the Nobel Peace 
     Prize, on a landmark study of American race relations; he 
     then fought in World War II and was discharged from the Army 
     as a lieutenant colonel in 1947.
       His first step was to take the bar exam, then hang out a 
     shingle as a criminal defense lawyer in 1948. His skills soon 
     drew the attention of prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's 
     Office, who liked him even though they kept losing cases to 
     him, and they recommended that their boss hire him. During a 
     job interview, Bryant made a request of George Fay, then the 
     U.S. attorney: ``Mr. Fay, if I cut the mustard in municipal 
     court, can I go over to the big court like the other guys?''
       No black prosecutor had ever practiced in the federal 
     court--or ``big court,'' as it was called--but Fay agreed. 
     Bryant signed on in 1951 and was handling grand jury 
     indictments in the new federal courthouse the next year.
       Bryant vividly recalls a case from that time involving an 
     apartment building caretaker who was on trial on charges of 
     raping the babysitter of one tenant's family.
       ``I went for him as hard as I could,'' Bryant said, 
     squaring his shoulders. ``I didn't like him, and I didn't 
     like what he did to that girl.''
       So the young prosecutor sought the death penalty, an option 
     then for first-degree murder and rape. He left the courtroom 
     after closing arguments ``feeling pretty good about my case'' 
     and awaited the jury's verdict in his third-floor court 
     office. But when a marshal later called out, ``Bryant, jury's 
     back,'' the judge said, ``I broke out in a sweat.''
       He peeked anxiously into the court, saw the jury foreman 
     mouth only the word ``guilty.'' Bryant learned seconds later 
     that the jurors had spared the man's life.
       ``I was so relieved,'' he said. ``When you're young, you 
     don't know anything. . . . Now I think, murder is murder, no 
     matter who is doing it.''
       He left the prosecutor's office in 1954 and returned to 
     criminal defense with fellow classmate William Gardner in an 
     F Street law office later bulldozed for the MCI Center. They 
     were partners in Houston, Bryant and Gardner, a legendarily 
     powerful African American firm. Ten judges would eventually 
     come from its ranks.
       In those days, Bryant chuckled, he didn't feel so powerful. 
     Judges who remembered his prosecution work kept appointing 
     him to represent defendants who had no money. That was before 
     the 1963 Supreme Court's Gideon decision requiring that 
     indigent defendants be represented by a lawyer--at public 
     expense, if necessary.
       ``The judge would say, `Mr. So and So, you say you don't 
     have any money to hire an attorney?' '' Bryant recalled. `` 
     `Well, then, the court appoints Mr. Bryant to represent you.' 
     ''
       Some paid $25 or $50. Some paid nothing.
       ``There were weeks we paid the help and split the little 
     bit left over for our groceries,'' he said.
       Bill Schultz, Bryant's former law clerk, said Bryant took 
     the cases ``out of this sense of obligation to the court and 
     legal system. He was very aware of discrimination, and he 
     always fought for the criminal defendants.''
       At the time, blacks were barred from the D.C. Bar 
     Association and its law library. Bryant went in anyway, and 
     the black librarian let him.
       One of his pro bono clients was Andrew Roosevelt Mallory, a 
     19-year-old who confessed to a rape after an eight-hour 
     interrogation in a police station. Mallory was convicted and 
     sent to death row. Defending Mallory's rights, a case Bryant 
     took all the way to the Supreme Court in 1957, made him both 
     nervous and famous.
       He said he fretted constantly about his client facing the 
     electric chair during the two years the case dragged on. 
     ``You talk about worried,'' he said. ``It's something I can't 
     forget.''
       But the Supreme Court agreed with Bryant that a man accused 
     of a crime is entitled to be taken promptly before a 
     magistrate to hear the charges against him. The court 
     overturned Mallory's conviction and handed down a landmark 
     decision on defendants' rights.
       U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, a longtime fan of 
     Bryant's, said Bryant's legal talents are on display every 
     day in his courtroom, but lawyers are still taken aback by 
     his factual resolve and clear logic when hearing an audiotape 
     recording of his Supreme Court argument in the Mallory case.
       ``He's clearly a terrific lawyer, but he's mostly a 
     terrific human being,'' Friedman said. ``He sees the best in 
     people, and he really cares about what happens to people.''
       Bryant remembers that when President Lyndon B. Johnson 
     nominated him to be a judge, he felt elated, confident he had 
     earned his opportunity. But Bryant said a different feeling 
     came over him the day he donned the robes.
       ``I was sworn in in the morning that day, and Oliver Gasch 
     was sworn in that afternoon,'' Bryant recalled. ``I told 
     Oliver, `You know, I've been a lawyer for many years, but 
     putting on this robe, I don't feel so sure. This is a serious 
     responsibility. ' ''
       Gasch smiled: ``Bill, I don't think it's going to be that 
     hard for you. You know right from wrong.''
       Bryant oversaw some famous cases, and he freely shared his 
     thoughts when he thought something was wrong.
       After presiding over the 1981 trial of Richard Kelly, a 
     Republican congressman caught on videotape taking money from 
     federal agents in a sting operation, Bryant complained that 
     the FBI had set an ``outrageous'' trap for the Florida 
     representative by stuffing cash in his pocket after he'd 
     refused the bribe several times. He set aside Kelly's 
     conviction.
       ``The investigation . . . has an odor to it that is 
     absolutely repulsive,'' Bryant said then. ``It stinks.''
       In handling the longest-running case in the court's 
     history, a 25-year-old case about inhumane and filthy 
     conditions in the D.C. jail, the judge chastised city leaders 
     in 1995. He said he had been listening to their broken 
     promises to fix the problems ``since the Big Dipper was a 
     thimble.''
       In weighing the case of a group of black farmers with 
     similar discrimination complaints against the U.S. Department 
     of Agriculture in 2000, Bryant warned a government lawyer 
     that his argument against a class-action discrimination suit 
     wasn't working: ``Either you're dense or I'm dense,'' he 
     said.
       Schultz said the judge simply trusted the combination of 
     facts and the law.
       ``He always said, `Don't fight the facts,' '' Schultz said. 
     ``He thought most of the time the law would end up in the 
     right place.''
       Bryant acknowledges it's hard sometimes to see lawyers 
     struggle to make their arguments when they have the law and 
     the facts on their side.
       ``A judge has a stationary gun, and he's looking through 
     the sights,'' he said. ``Unless the lawyer brings the case 
     into the bull's-eye, the judge can't pull the trigger. Good 
     lawyers bring the case into the sights.''
       Bryant said he was preceded by many great lawyers, which is 
     why the new plan to put his name on a piece of the courthouse 
     gives him conflicting feelings.
       ``I was flattered, but I thought they shouldn't have done 
     it,'' Bryant said. ``There are so many people who were really 
     giants. I stand on their shoulders.''
                                  ____


                                 S. 478

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

       The annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Building and 
     United States Courthouse located at Constitution Avenue 
     Northwest in the District of Columbia shall be known and 
     designated as the ``William B. Bryant Annex''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the annex referred to 
     in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     ``William B. Bryant Annex''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act takes effect on the date on which William B. 
     Bryant, a senior judge for the United States District Court 
     for the District of Columbia, relinquishes or otherwise 
     ceases to hold a position as a judge under article III of the 
     Constitution.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL:
  S. 479. A bill to amend title 4 of the United States Code to prohibit 
a State from imposing a discriminatory tax on income earned within such 
State by nonresidents of such State; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
correct a tax injustice affecting my home State of Washington, and all 
States that do not have a State income tax. My bill, the Nonresident 
Income Tax Freedom Act, would prohibit States from imposing income 
taxes on individuals that are not residents of that State. I hear about 
this issue in the areas of my State that border Oregon and Idaho, both 
States that have income taxes. In fact, wherever I go in Vancouver and 
throughout Clark County, I hear time and again from constituents about 
the unfairness of living in Washington State--a State that does not 
have an income tax--and working in Oregon--a State that does have an 
income tax and being taxed on their income earned in Oregon.
  According to the Oregon Department of Revenue, in 2002, there were 
51,991 Clark County residents working in Oregon. Taxed on their income, 
these nearly 52,000 individuals remitted $104 million to Oregon that 
year.

[[Page 3055]]

  Representing all of Washington State in Congress, it is not lost on 
me that an additional 30,181 Washington State residents outside of 
Clark County were also employed in Oregon in 2002, and these 30,000 
paid the State of Oregon $49.8 million.
  Furthermore, there are Washington State residents working in Idaho. 
In 2002, 19,467 of them owed the State of Idaho $18.9 million in income 
taxes.
  While I would like to hope that most Washingtonians could find 
employment in Washington State, and I am grateful for the job 
opportunities presented to Washingtonians in Oregon, I find it 
antithetical to notions of lifting up the economy of Washington State 
to have the incomes of Washington State residents taxed in Oregon.
  We have historical roots in this country related to the notion of no 
taxation without representation. Washington residents being taxed in 
Oregon is contrary to this whole premise--a premise upon which American 
independence rested over 200 years ago.
  Good tax policy rests on the notion that individual's contribution to 
the government through taxes brings benefits to those individuals--good 
schools, navigable roads, safe communities, clean water, and other 
services.
  With incomes taxed in Oregon, Washington residents receive very 
little benefit for the contributions made to the State of Oregon. 
Granted, Oregon maintains the infrastructure used by Washingtonians to 
get to work; but there are a number of benefits that Washington 
residents never realize from the taxes they pay. For example, 
Washington State residents employed in Oregon and paying Oregon income 
taxes do not receive in-State tuition rates for college.
  In addition, Washington State residents employed in Oregon and paying 
Oregon income taxes do not receive the benefit of paying less for 
fishing licenses. Examples of what this can mean: for 2005, an angling 
license for Oregonians is $24.75 for the year; for a Washingtonian who 
pays income taxes in Oregon, his/her angling license is $61.50--a 248-
percent increase. The discrepancy in Idaho is even greater. For 2005, a 
combined hunting/fishing license for an Idaho resident is $30.50 and 
for a Washingtonian who is paying Idaho income taxes would be charged 
$181.50 for the same license--a 595-percent increase.
  And first and foremost, Washington residents employed in Oregon and 
paying income taxes are not afforded voting rights in Oregon, thereby 
being taxed without representation.
  The power for Congress to enact legislation to prohibit one State 
from assessing taxes on nonresidents working within that State exists 
in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 
Clause 3. And Congress has exercised this authority in the past.
  The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 prohibits States 
from taxing the compensation of nonresident military personnel who are 
stationed in that State.
  In July of 1977, Congress passed, and President Carter signed, 
legislation prohibiting the States of Virginia and Maryland, or the 
District of Columbia, from imposing an income tax against Members of 
Congress who maintain homes in those jurisdictions.
  Additionally, with the Amtrak Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 
1990, Congress granted tax immunity to employees of interstate railway, 
aviation, and motor carriers from paying State income taxes to any 
State other than an employee's State of residence.
  It is time for Congress, once again, to utilize its authority under 
the Commerce Clause to prohibit the imposition of income taxes by 
States on nonresidents. It is my view that interstate trade in labor is 
important commerce that deserves to be treated fairly.
  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. 479

       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 ``Nonresident Income Tax 
     Freedom Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF INCOME TAXES BY STATES 
                   ON NONRESIDENTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 127. Prohibition on imposition of income taxes by 
       states on nonresidents

       ``Except to the extent otherwise provided in any voluntary 
     compact between or among States, a State or political 
     subdivision thereof may not impose a tax on income earned 
     within such State or political subdivision by nonresidents of 
     such State.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new item:

``127. Prohibition on imposition of income taxes by States on 
              nonresidents.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 482. A bill to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
interests in the State of North Dakota; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Water Infrastructure 
Revitalization Act, which authorizes $60 million through the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to assist communities in North Dakota with water 
supply and treatment projects.
  Imagine if you went to turn on your kitchen faucet one day and no 
water came out. This scenario became true for thousands in the 
communities of Fort Yates, Cannonball, and Porcupine just days before 
Thanksgiving in 2003. The loss of drinking water forced the closure of 
schools, the hospital and tribal offices for days. About 170 miles 
upstream, the community of Parshall faces similar water supply 
challenges as the water level on Lake Sakakawea continues to drop, 
leaving its intake high and dry. These and other communities in the 
State have faced significant expenditures in extending their intakes to 
ensure a continued supply of water. In addition, the city of Mandan 
faces the prospect of constructing a new horizontal well intake because 
changes in sediment load and flow as a result of the backwater effects 
of the Oahe Reservoir have caused significant siltation problems that 
restrict flow into the intake. These examples barely scratch the 
surface of the problems faced by many North Dakota communities in 
maintaining a safe, reliable water supply.
  Since 1999, the Corps of Engineers has been authorized to design and 
construct water-related infrastructure projects in several different 
States including Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Montana. The State of North 
Dakota confronts water infrastructure challenges that are just as 
difficult as those in these other States. In fact, many of these 
challenges are caused directly by the Corps of Engineers' operations of 
the Missouri River dams. As a result, it is only appropriate that the 
Corps be part of the solution to North Dakota's water needs.
  The Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act would provide important 
supplemental funding to assist North Dakota communities with water-
related infrastructure repairs. Under the Act, communities could use 
the funding for wastewater treatment, water supply facilities, 
environmental restoration and surface water resource protection. 
Projects would be cost shared, with 75 percent Federal funding and 25 
percent non-federal in most instances. However, the bill reduces the 
financial burden on local communities if necessary to ensure that water 
rates do not exceed the national affordability criteria developed by 
the Environmental Protection Agency.
  This bill is not intended to compete with or take away funds for the 
construction of rural water projects under the Dakota Water Resources 
Act. Instead, it is meant to provide important supplemental funding for 
communities that are not able to receive funding from the Dakota Water 
Resources Act. I am pleased that the North Dakota Rural Water Systems 
Association has recognized the need for additional

[[Page 3056]]

water project funding and endorsed this bill. It is my hope that this 
authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources 
Development Act that will be considered this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN:
  S. 483. A bill to strengthen religious liberty and combat government 
hostility to expressions of faith, by extending the research of The 
Equal Access Act to elementary schools; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to expand 
the scope of the Equal Access Act, which Congress enacted in 1984 to 
guarantee equal access for religious and other organizations to the 
facilities of public secondary schools that receive Federal funding.
  Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear 
oral argument in two cases involving the right of State and local 
governments to erect a public display of the Ten Commandments. One of 
those cases, Van Orden v. Perry, involves the public display at the 
State capitol grounds of my home State, the great State of Texas. The 
other case, McCreary County v. ACLU, arises out of the State of 
Kentucky.
  These two cases are reminiscent of the Supreme Court's consideration 
last year of the Pledge of Allegiance--which contains the words ``under 
god''--in the matter of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. 
The Court rejected the challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance in that 
case, but strictly on procedural grounds. So the Pledge of Allegiance, 
like the Ten Commandments, remains under attack and under danger of 
forced removal from our public square by judicial fiat.
  We examined these issues at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights I 
chaired on June 8, 2004. The hearing was entitled ``Beyond the Pledge 
of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public 
Square.''
  That hearing was important, because it reminded us of an even 
broader, more systemic problem caused by the Supreme Court's previous 
rulings, than just these disturbing attacks on the Pledge of Allegiance 
and the Ten Commandments--an unjustifiable hostility to religious 
expression in public squares across America.
  Just as there is bipartisan agreement on the constitutionality of the 
Pledge of Allegiance, so should there be bipartisan agreement that 
government should never be hostile to expressions of faith. As 
President Ronald Reagan stated in 1983: ``When our founding Fathers 
passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from 
government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of 
hostility between government and the concept of religious belief 
itself.'' And as President Clinton noted in 1995: ``Americans feel that 
instead of celebrating their love for God in public, they're being 
forced to hide their faith behind closed doors. That's wrong. Americans 
should never have to hide their faith. but some Americans have been 
denied the right to express their religion and that has to stop. That 
has happened and it has to stop.''
  At the hearing, we heard from citizen witnesses and legal experts 
alike, who recounted example after example after example of government 
discrimination against religious expression generally--including both 
discrimination against religious versus non-religious expression in 
government speech, as well as discrimination against purely private 
expressions of faith. Just consider this sample of incidents throughout 
the Nation--incidents of hostility to religious expression in the 
public square:
  A 12-year-old elementary school student was reprimanded by a public 
school in St. Louis, MO for quietly saying a prayer before lunch in the 
school cafeteria, according to a federal lawsuit. The case was settled 
after the St. Louis School Board announced a new policy protecting the 
religious expression rights of students. St. Louis Post-dispatch, July 
11, 1996.
  A second grade school girl in Wisconsin was forbidden from 
distributing valentines during a Valentine's Day Exchange because her 
valentines happened to contain religious themes. After a Federal 
lawsuit was filed, the school district settled the suit by publishing 
an apology to the student in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and issuing 
a new policy protecting the religious freedoms of its students. Capital 
Times, Madison, August 29, 2001.
  A kindergartener in Dayton, OH was forbidden by her public school 
teacher from distributing bags of jellybeans with an attached prayer to 
her classmates, according to a Federal lawsuit. Associated Press, 
February 8, 2004.
  Public high school students in Massachusetts started a Bible club and 
tried to hand out candy canes with a Biblical passage attached. The 
school suspended the students for distributing the candy canes. A 
federal district court issued a temporary injunction against the 
school. Westfield High Sch. L.I.F.E. Club v. City of Westfield, 249 F. 
Supp. 2d 98 D. Mass. 2003.
  A public school sixth grader in Boulder, CO tried to complete her 
book report assignment by presenting the Bible, but was forbidden from 
doing so by her teacher. She was also forbidden from bringing the Bible 
to school. Only after a lawsuit was threatened did the school 
eventually back down. Denver Post, December 13, 2002.
  According to a Federal lawsuit, a public school teacher at Lynn Lucas 
Middle School in Houston, TX, punished two sisters for carrying Bibles, 
confiscated and threw the Bibles into the trash, and threatened to call 
Child Protective Services, while another teacher forbade a third 
student from reading the Bible during free reading time and forced him 
to remove a Ten Commandments book cover from another book. The suit was 
ultimately resolved out of court. Houston Chronicle, May 24, 2000.
  As explained in her Senate testimony, Nashala Hearn, a 12-year-old 
girl in Muskogee, OK, was suspended for three days by her public middle 
school for wearing a hijab, a headscarf required by her Islamic faith. 
The school eventually backed down after intervention by the Justice 
Department. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 
Rights and Property Rights, June 8, 2004.
  A Texas school district refused to hire a public school teacher for 
the position of assistant principal, because her children attended a 
private Christian school, in violation of the district's policy that 
the children of all principals and administrators attend public school. 
The district's policy was upheld by the Federal district court but 
subsequently rejected on appeal. Barrow v. Greenville Ind. Sch. Dist., 
332 F.3d 844 5th Cir. 2003.
  A Vietnam veteran and member of an honor guard at a New Jersey 
veterans' cemetery was fired for saying ``God bless you and this 
family'' to the family of a deceased veteran, even though the family 
had consented to the blessing beforehand. Winston-Salem Journal, April 
26, 2003.
  A public library employee in Logan County, KY, was fired for refusing 
to remove her cross-pendant necklace while at work. A Federal district 
court subsequently ruled that the library violated her constitutional 
rights. American Libraries, October 1, 2003.
  According to another federal lawsuit, an employee of the Minnesota 
State Department of Revenue is barred from parking his car in the 
employee parking lot, because his car displays religious messages such 
as ``God is a loving and caring God.'' Other employees are allowed to 
display nonreligious messages on their cars. The employee is similarly 
barred from displaying religious messages in his office cubicle, even 
though other employees are allowed to display nonreligious messages in 
their cubicles. Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), July 2, 2004.
  As he explained in his Senate testimony, Barney Clark and other 
members of the Balch Springs Senior Center in Balch Springs, Texas, 
were forbidden from singing religious songs and appointing someone to 
bless their food at the city-owned senior center. The city eventually 
backed down, but only after a federal lawsuit and intervention by the 
Justice Department. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution,

[[Page 3057]]

Civil Rights and Property Rights, June 8, 2004.
  I'm grateful to the Liberty Legal Institute, which has been an active 
champion of religious liberty, and which followed up on their testimony 
at the hearing last year by filing a 51-page report with the 
subcommittee last October. The Institute's report documented additional 
cases of hostility to religion in the public square, and noted the 
existence of a nationwide campaign to remove religious expressions from 
the public square--namely, liberal organizations in Washington that 
actively litigate against equal access for religious organizations in 
public schools, against school choice programs that give needy students 
equal access to parochial and nonsectarian schools alike, and against 
voluntary, student-led religious expression.
  Thankfully, and despite the efforts of these organizations, we are 
starting to win the battle for religious liberty and against hostility 
to religious expression. The Court has upheld equal access for 
religious organizations on a number of recent occasions--albeit 
frequently by narrow, 5-4 majorities--including cases like Rosenberger, 
Good News Club, Zelman, and Mitchell. And thankfully, the Equal Access 
Act of 1984 has been affirmed, upheld, and enforced.
  But the Equal Access Act applies only to postsecondary schools. It is 
time that equal access be extended to elementary schools as well, and 
that is why I introduce this legislation today. I know that Senators 
will be following closely the Supreme Court's consideration of the Ten 
Commandments cases and the people's right to display our nation's most 
revered documents in public squares across America. Regardless of the 
outcome of those cases. I hope that Senators will also support this 
effort to extend equal access to all of our nation's public schools.
  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. 483

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

     SECTION 1. EQUAL ACCESS FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

       The Equal Access Act (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 802--
       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``elementary school 
     or'' after ``public''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``elementary school 
     or'' after ``public''; and
       (2) in section 803, by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) The term `elementary school' means a public school 
     that provides elementary education as determined by State 
     law.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 484. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
Federal civilian and military retirees to pay health insurance premiums 
on a pretax basis and to allow a deduction for TRICARE supplemental 
premiums; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
provide some relief for our nation's retired Federal employees from the 
severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) 
premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to Federal and 
military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums 
with pre-tax dollars.
  The increasing cost of health care is a critical issue, especially to 
retirees living on a fixed income. In 2005 premiums are expected to 
rise an average of 7.9 percent for the 8 million Federal employees, 
retirees and their families that are covered under the FEHBP. This 
legislation will help to ensure that more Federal and military retirees 
are able to continue their healthcare coverage with the FEHBP and 
supplemental TRICARE health insurance plans as premiums continue to 
rise.
  In the fall of 2000 premium conversion became available to current 
Federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program. It is a benefit already available to many private 
sector employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the 
amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the increase by 
reducing an individual's Federal tax liability.
  Extending this benefit to Federal retirees requires a change in the 
tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This 
legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code.
  Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our 
Nation's military retirees as well to assist with increasing health 
care costs.
  A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees 
are strongly behind this initiative, including the National Association 
of Retired Federal Employees, the Military Coalition, the Fleet Reserve 
Association, and the Association of the U.S. Army.
  My support for this legislation spans three Congresses. In the 108th 
Congress, my premium conversion bill received considerable bipartisan 
support with 57 cosponsors. It is my sincere hope that this legislation 
will be passed by Congress this session. I encourage my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this critical legislation and show their support 
for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military retirees. 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. 484

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

     SECTION 1. PRETAX PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS BY 
                   FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY RETIREES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 125 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to cafeteria plans) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Health insurance premiums of federal civilian and 
     military retirees.--
       ``(A) FEHBP premiums.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an 
     annuitant, as defined in paragraph (3) of section 8901, title 
     5, United States Code, with respect to a choice between the 
     annuity or compensation referred to in such paragraph and 
     benefits under the health benefits program established by 
     chapter 89 of such title 5.
       ``(B) TRICARE premiums.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an 
     individual receiving retired or retainer pay by reason of 
     being a member or former member of the uniformed services of 
     the United States with respect to a choice between such pay 
     and benefits under the health benefits programs established 
     by chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS.

       (a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional 
     itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by 
     redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by inserting 
     after section 223 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 224. TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS OR ENROLLMENT FEES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of an 
     individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction the amounts 
     paid during the taxable year by the taxpayer for insurance 
     purchased as supplemental coverage to the health benefits 
     programs established by chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and 
     dependents.
       ``(b) Coordination With Medical Deduction.--Any amount 
     allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) shall not be 
     taken into account in computing the amount allowable to the 
     taxpayer as a deduction under section 213(a).''.
       (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Individual Itemizes 
     Other Deductions.--Subsection (a) of section 62 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted gross 
     income) is amended by redesignating paragraph (19) (as added 
     by section 703(a) of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004) 
     as paragraph (20) and by inserting after paragraph (20) (as 
     so redesignated) the following new paragraph:
       ``(21) TRICARE supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.--
     The deduction allowed by section 224.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 224. TRICARE supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.
``Sec. 225. Cross reference.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable

[[Page 3058]]

     years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) FEHBP Premium Conversion Option for Federal Civilian 
     Retirees.--The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall take such actions as the Director considers necessary 
     so that the option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(A) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be offered beginning 
     with the first open enrollment period, afforded under section 
     8905(g)(1) of title 5, United States Code, which begins not 
     less than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) TRICARE Premium Conversion Option for Military 
     Retirees.--The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with 
     the other administering Secretaries (as specified in section 
     1073 of title 10, United States Code), shall take such 
     actions as the Secretary considers necessary so that the 
     option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(B) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 shall be offered beginning with the 
     first open enrollment period afforded under health benefits 
     programs established under chapter 55 of such title, which 
     begins not less than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 486. A bill to require the Secretary of the Navy to procure 
helicopters under the VH-3D presidential helicopter fleet replacement 
program that are wholly manufactured in the United States; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
with my colleague Senator Dodd that requires that the helicopter fleet 
built for the President of the United States be made entirely in the 
United States by American workers using American parts.
  This is how it has always been. And this is the way it should stay.
  Since President Eisenhower first flew in 1957, American Presidents 
have logged more than a quarter of a million hours in American 
helicopters designated Marine One with an unblemished record of safety 
and performance.
  But recently, the Navy chose a new helicopter to replace the current 
Presidential fleet that was designed overseas and will have substantial 
portions built overseas.
  This model was chosen over another model that would have been wholly 
built in the United States. This decision is a blow to the pride of the 
American aviation industry and blows a hole in the wallet of American 
workers and taxpayers.
  Let me make clear that with this bill we are not asking the Navy to 
pick a helicopter solely because it is American. The Presidential fleet 
must be made up of helicopters that offer superb performance and safety 
standards.
  But when an American model meets those standards, as was the case 
with the bids for Marine One, common sense dictates that we ``Buy 
American.''
  With this contract we are putting the American aviation industry at a 
long-term competitive disadvantage. The Marine One contract comes with 
millions of dollars in research money to develop new helicopter 
technologies. With the Navy's selection of a foreign competitor, these 
research dollars will now go overseas.
  By subsidizing foreign aviation research--mostly in Europe, which 
already heavily subsidizes its aviation industry--we will be using 
American taxpayer dollars to make it harder for U.S. companies to stay 
competitive and compete in domestic and world markets.
  With these kinds of disadvantages, we run the risk that we will 
become increasingly reliant on overseas suppliers of important military 
equipment, jeopardizing our national security.
  Insisting that the American President fly in an American-made 
helicopter is not a unique or unusual consideration for a national 
leader.
  The Prime Minister of Great Britain doesn't fly in an American 
helicopter, nor does the Prime Minister of Italy. They both fly in 
European helicopters. That's fine. They are supporting their workers, 
helping to sustain their industrial base, and sending a clear signal of 
national pride to their people.
  We should do no less.
  Let me stress, I am not seeking to exclude overseas companies from 
competing in U.S. markets or to exclude them from all military 
contracts. The United States has a long history of open markets and 
free and fair competition, and we should not back away from that.
  But this is a unique case. We are talking about the most famous 
helicopter in the world. What message do we send when we outsource such 
a visible symbol of national pride to others? We send a message that 
``Built in America'' is second-best.
  This is just wrong.
  American workers have been building and maintaining Presidential 
helicopters for over half a century. Their performance has been 
outstanding. We should not punish this service and dedication by using 
taxpayer dollars to send their jobs to someone else.
  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. 486

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

     SECTION 1. VH-3D PRESIDENTIAL HELICOPTER FLEET REPLACEMENT 
                   PROGRAM PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Navy may not enter 
     into a contract for the procurement of a helicopter under the 
     VH-3D presidential helicopter fleet replacement program 
     unless the contract requires the helicopter to be wholly 
     manufactured in the United States from parts wholly 
     manufactured in the United States.
       (b) Existing Contracts.--If a contract entered into after 
     December 31, 2004, and before the date of the enactment of 
     this section does not meet the requirements described in 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of the Navy shall terminate 
     such contract.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 488. A bill to establish a commercial truck highway safety 
demonstration program in the State of Maine, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague 
Senator Collins, to introduce legislation, the Commercial Truck Highway 
Safety Demonstration Program Act, to create a safety pilot program for 
commercial trucks.
  This bill would authorize a safety demonstration program in my home 
State of Maine that could be a model for other States. I have been 
working closely with the Maine Department of Transportation, 
communities in my State, and others to address statewide concerns about 
the existing Federal interstate truck weight limit of 80,000 pounds.
  I believe that safety must be the No. 1 priority on our roads and 
highways, and I am very concerned that the existing interstate weight 
limit has the unintended impact of forcing commercial trucks onto State 
and local secondary roads that were never designed to safely handle 
such heavy commercial trucks. We are talking about narrow roads, lanes, 
and rotaries, with frequent pedestrian crossings and school zones.
  I have been working to address this concern for many years. During 
the 105th Congress, for example, I authored a provision providing a 
waiver from Federal weight limits on the Maine Turnpike, the 100-mile 
section of Maine's interstate in the southern portion of the State, and 
it was signed into law as part of TEA-21. I have also shared my 
concerns with the Department of Transportation and the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee to urge them to work with me in 
an effort to address my concern with the safety of my constituents.
  In addition, the Maine Department of Transportation has nearly 
concluded a study of the truck weight limit waiver on the Maine 
Turnpike, and I have been working closely with the State in the hopes 
of expanding this study, in order to secure the data necessary to 
ensure that commercial trucks operate in the safest possible manner.
  Federal law attempts to provide uniform truck weight limits, 80,000 
pounds, on the Interstate System, but the fact is there are a myriad of 
exemptions and grandfathering provisions. Furthermore, interstate 
highways have safety features specifically designed for heavy truck 
traffic, whereas the narrow, winding State and local roads

[[Page 3059]]

don't. In fact, lower weight limits only encourage more trucks to 
operate on these very roads, only heightening the wear and tear as well 
as increasing the potential danger to both drivers and pedestrians.
  The legislation I am submitting today would simply direct the 
Secretary of Transportation to establish a 3-year pilot program to 
improve commercial motor vehicle safety in the State of Maine. 
Specifically, the measure would direct the Secretary, during this 
period, to waive Federal vehicle weight limitations on certain 
commercial vehicles weighing over 80,000 pounds using the Interstate 
System within Maine, permitting the State to set the weight limit. In 
addition, it would provide for the waiver to become permanent unless 
the Secretary determines it has resulted in an adverse impact on 
highway safety.
  I believe this is a measured, responsible approach to a very serious 
public safety issue. I hope to work with all of those with a stake in 
this issue, safety advocates, truckers, States, and communities, to 
address this matter in the most effective possible way, and I hope that 
my colleagues will join me in this effort.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join with my senior colleague 
from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Highway Safety 
Demonstration Program Act, an important bill that addresses a 
significant safety problem in our State.
  Under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to 
travel on Interstate 95 from Maine's border with New Hampshire to 
Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, trucks are forced off Interstate 
95, which proceeds north to Houlton. Heavy trucks are forced onto 
smaller, secondary roads that pass through cities, towns and villages.
  Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate 
highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York as well as the 
Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit 
disparity on various segments of Maine's interstate highway system 
forces trucks traveling to and from destinations in these States and 
provinces to use Maine's State and local roads, nearly all of which 
have two lanes, rather than four. Consequently, many Maine communities 
along the interstate see substantially more truck traffic than would 
otherwise be the case if the weight limit were 100,000 pounds for all 
of Maine's interstate highways.
  The problem Maine faces due to the disparity in truck weight limits 
affects many communities and is clearly evident in the eastern Maine 
cities of Bangor and Brewer. In this region, a 2-mile stretch of 
Interstate 395 connects two major State highways that carry significant 
truck traffic across Maine. I-395 affords direct and safe access 
between these major corridors, but because of the existing Federal 
truck weight limit, many heavy trucks are prohibited from using this 
multi-lane, limited access highway.
  Instead, these trucks, which sometimes carry hazardous materials, are 
required to maneuver through the downtown portions of Bangor and Brewer 
on two-lane roadways. Truckers are faced with two options; the first is 
a 3.5-mile diversion through downtown Bangor that requires several very 
difficult and dangerous turns. The second route is a 7.5-mile diversion 
that includes 20 traffic lights and requires travel through portions of 
downtown Bangor, as well. Congestion is a significant issue and safety 
is seriously compromised as a result of these required diversions.
  A recent study, conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, 
found that the accident rate between 2000 and 2003--per 100 million 
vehicle miles traveled--was more than four times higher on two-lane 
roads than on the Maine Turnpike, which had four lanes at the time of 
the study. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's 
interstate highways would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel 
times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in 
safety, economic, and environmental benefits.
  Moreover, Maine's extensive network and local roads would be better 
preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic. Most 
important, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on 
the interstate where they belong, rather than on roads and highways 
that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods.
  The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses 
the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck 
weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation 
to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under 
the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that 
are part of the Interstate Highway System would be set at 100,000 
pounds for 3 years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study 
the impact of the pilot program on safety and would receive the input 
of a panel on which State officials, and representatives from safety 
organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry 
would serve. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined 
that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit 
on Maine's interstate highway system.
  Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too 
many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and onto local roads. 
The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is a commonsense 
approach to a significant safety problem in my State. I hope my 
colleagues will support passage of this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 489. A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, 
to limit the duration of Federal consent decrees to which State and 
local governments are a party, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. 489

       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 ``Federal Consent Decree 
     Fairness Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that:
       (1) Consent decrees are for remedying violations of rights, 
     and they should not be used to advance any policy extraneous 
     to the protection of those rights.
       (2) Consent decrees are also for protecting the party who 
     faces injury and should not be expanded to apply to parties 
     not involved in the litigation.
       (3) In structuring consent decrees, courts should take into 
     account the interests of State and local governments in 
     managing their own affairs.
       (4) Consent decrees should be structured to give due 
     deference to the policy judgments of State and local 
     officials as to how to obey the law.
       (5) Whenever possible, courts should not impose consent 
     decrees that require technically complex and evolving policy 
     choices, especially in the absence of judicially discoverable 
     and manageable standards.
       (6) Consent decrees should not be unlimited, but should 
     contain an explicit and realistic strategy for ending court 
     supervision.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON CONSENT DECREES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 111 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec.  1660. Consent decrees

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `consent decree'--
       ``(A) means any final order imposing injunctive relief 
     against a State or local government or a State or local 
     official sued in their official capacity entered by a court 
     of the United States that is based in whole or part upon the 
     consent or acquiescence of the parties;
       ``(B) does not include private settlements; and
       ``(C) does not include any final order entered by a court 
     of the United States to implement a plan to end segregation 
     of students or faculty on the basis of race, color, or 
     national origin in elementary schools, secondary schools, or 
     institutions of higher education.
       ``(2) The term `special master' means any person, 
     regardless of title or description given by the court, who is 
     appointed by a court of the United States under rule 53 of 
     the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 48 of the Federal 
     Rules of Appellate Procedure, or similar Federal law.

[[Page 3060]]

       ``(b) Limitation on Duration.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State or local government or a State 
     or local official, or their successor, sued in their official 
     capacity may file a motion under this section with the court 
     that entered a consent decree to modify or vacate the consent 
     decree upon the earlier of--
       ``(A) 4 years after a consent decree is originally entered 
     by a court of the United States, regardless if the consent 
     decree has been modified or reentered during that period; or
       ``(B) in the case of a civil action in which--
       ``(i) a State is a party (including an action in which a 
     local government is also a party), the expiration of the term 
     of office of the highest elected State official who 
     authorized the consent of the State in the consent decree; or
       ``(ii) a local government is a party and the State 
     encompassing the local government is not a party, the 
     expiration of the term of office of the highest elected local 
     government official who authorized the consent of the local 
     government to the consent decree.
       ``(2) Burden of proof.--With respect to any motion filed 
     under paragraph (1), the burden of proof shall be on the 
     party who originally filed the civil action to demonstrate 
     that the continued enforcement of a consent decree is 
     necessary to uphold a Federal right.
       ``(3) Ruling on motion.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     filing of a motion under this subsection, the court shall 
     rule on the motion.
       ``(4) Effect pending ruling.--If the court has not ruled on 
     the motion to modify or vacate the consent decree during the 
     90-day period described under paragraph (3), the consent 
     decree shall have no force or effect for the period beginning 
     on the date following that 90-day period through the date on 
     which the court enters a ruling on the motion.
       ``(c) Special Masters.--
       ``(1) Compensation.--The compensation to be allowed to a 
     special master overseeing any consent decree under this 
     section shall be based on an hourly rate not greater than the 
     hourly rate established under section 3006A of title 18, for 
     payment of court-appointed counsel, plus costs reasonably 
     incurred by the special master.
       ``(2) Termination.--In no event shall the appointment of a 
     special master extend beyond the termination of the relief 
     granted in the consent decree.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec.  1660. Consent decrees.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act and apply to all consent 
     decrees regardless of--
       (1) the date on which the final order of a consent decree 
     is entered; or
       (2) whether any relief has been obtained under a consent 
     decree before the date of enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________